3 ms·

Saying "voting against their own interests" is really insulting. Do we dismiss Bill Gates as being too dumb to care for his own interests when he says his tax

Saying "voting against their own interests" is really insulting. Do we dismiss Bill Gates as being too dumb to care for his own interests when he says his tax rate should go up? Sometimes people feel differently than you. Even if it would be in their personal selfish interest to agree with you. This doesn't make them stupid. If anything, like when Gates or Buffett talk about how they should be made personally worse off, it shows the courage of their own convictions.

zem 14y ago
yes, but bill gates and warren buffet have good, sound reasons that might go against their selfish interests, but leave society as a whole better off. the anti-health-care people have no such reasons, and if they think they do they're badly misinformed, stupid, spiteful (because free healthcare would mean "undeserving" people get a "free ride"), or some mixture of the above.
- Dove 14y ago
  anti-health-care people have no such reasons If you think it's that one-sided, you need to spend more time listening to the opposition. Here are some good reasons to oppose public health care: - It will be more expensive due to government inefficiency - There will be no incentive to innovate - Health care run by government bureaucrats will be uncompassionate, due to distance from the community, and may not appropriately value human life and suffering - A government that owns your health care can deny it to you - Public health care options compete unfairly with private ones You may not think these are good reasons, but a person doesn't have to be badly misinformed, stupid, or spiteful to find them persuasive.
  - beagle3 14y ago
    > You may not think these are good reasons, but a person doesn't have to be badly misinformed, stupid, or spiteful to find them persuasive. Actually, a person has to be willingly uninformed to find them persuasive. Because there are actually case studies to be made, rather than evaluate ideas in vacuum: - more expensive: It costs much less in every other country that has a single payer system, despite government inefficiency (including the Swiss and German system, where everything is private even though it's single payer, and the UK, France and Israel where it is public or private, and in Canada where it is completely public). And yet, those countries enjoy better health in every possible measurement. - innovation: Those places all comparable innovation to the US (especially if normalized to "average entrepreneurship level" of the country - e.g. there's much less of that in Germany and France in general, but actually much more in Israel) - uncompassionate: That is demonstrably not true in the above countries. Furthermore, the private system in the US is already demonstrably not compassionate in any way. - government can deny health care: Government can do anything it pleases, like jail you, or confiscate all money not on your person at a press of a button (and if you're going through texas, all money on your person as well. Oops, can't pay for healthcare! private healthcare denied for you!) - that's a strawman. If you look at Switzerland, Japan, UK, France, Canada, ..., people who get on the wrong side of the government get better healthcare than people on the right side of the government in the US. No one is denied healthcare! The Israelis even treat the Gazans they bombarded the day before. - Unfair competition: That's your only statement that is not demonstrably false using a counterexample. In fact, it's true. That's because it makes healthcare into a utility, much like schooling and water supply. So, one reason that is not based on demonstrably false assumptions. That one is debatable; some people think healthcare should be available like schools, others do not. That should be what is being discussed, not the other reasons. I actually listened to the other side, and heard one other good reason to avoid public health care: - There is no reason people who care about their health should subsidize people who don't take care of their health (w.r.t exercise, nutrition, alcohol and drug consumption, regular medical attention, etc) as the latter consume much more healthcare services. Which is again debatable: The same is true for basically every other shared cost facility (including utilities, fire services, police forces, road use, ...) If the debate was around that, I would be happy. But somehow, in American politics, it has always been improper to bring up facts and case studies. And recently, it is becoming bad form to use logic.
    - pliny 14y ago
      >The Israelis even treat the Gazans they bombarded the day before. They also treat the Gazans who bombed Israelis a day before: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/08/world/in-israeli-bed-failed-bomber-tells-of-love-of-martyrdom.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/08/world/in-israeli-bed-faile...
    - refurb 14y ago
      I'll only nit-pick on your comment "And yet, those countries enjoy better health in every possible measurement." Yes, they enjoy better health if you measure using blunt tools like "life expectancy". Of course, life expectancy is impacted by many more factors other than health care. If you measure by things like "access to the latest technology/drugs" and "overall survival from first diagnosis of cancer" the US comes out on top in many, many areas despite the lack of uniform coverage. Again, using blunt tools like life expectancy, one would argue that the UK has a better healthcare system. Of course, if you're a cystic fibrosis patient and can't afford the $300K/yr for the drug Kalydeco because the NHS doesn't cover it (although nearly every insurance company in the US covers), it doesn't quite seem that great.
      - Mz 14y ago
        I am curious to know if you or some relative actually has CF or if you are merely talking out your ass? I have CF and so does my oldest son. There are countries in Europe with better life expectancy, quality of life, etc for CF than the US has. And that is just the tip of the iceberg for the criticisms I have for your ridiculous statement. So just wondering here if you are merely pulling out inflamatory bs just cuz or if you or some relative happen to be in the 5% of CF patients who have the right alleles to potentially benefit from this specific drug.
        refurb 14y ago
        I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from. Although Kalydeco has been approved, it is unavailable in the UK to most of the patients who qualify for it as it is undergoing a "pricing assessment". My argument is two fold: 1) Measure such as "life expectancy" are a poor indicator of the quality of health care one receives. 2) Although the US healthcare system has many problems, it covers many, many drugs, often used to treat serious illnesses such as CF and cancer that aren't covered by countries that have single payer systems. So I take it you disagree?
beagle3 14y ago
> Saying "voting against their own interests" is really insulting. I'm sorry to be blunt, but people who find such a statement insulting should get off the internet. That said: > Do we dismiss Bill Gates as being too dumb to care for his own interests when he says his tax rate should go up? No, he is caring for his OWN interests in saying that. As does Warren Buffett. Sure, his narrow next year interests are to pay less taxes. But his long term interest is that he will not have to hire a private army to protect his every move because of social unrest. Nor that he will have to finance his own private hospital for his kids, because disease control in communal (non-profit and for-profit) hospitals is breaking down. Nor that he will have to fly in everyone he wants to meet because the road infrastructure is breaking down. What Bill Gates and Warren Buffett understand is that the US is falling behind, and they don't want that to happen. That IS in their interest. > Sometimes people feel differently than you. Even if it would be in their personal selfish interest to agree with you. Yes, and I respect their right to do that, even if there is no logical way, selfish or communal, short term or long term, in which it serves any measurable interest of theirs. But I also reserve the right to call them stupid for it (for being unable to demonstrate to a mythical "objective observer" that their votes support their interests, that is. I won't call them stupid if they can soundly reason about it, even if I disagree with their reasoning) And I repeat again: Gates and Buffett are talking their interest. Joe the Plumber is stupid (reminder: he complained that although he is making $40,000 year NOW, he's going to buy his employer's business in the future, and make $200,000/year, and at that point Obama's tax plan to increase tax over $250,000/year would hurt him. His statements were logically incoherent, statistically improbable. And yet, he was sure that he had a solid case against the Obama tax plan of 2008. And so did hundreds of thousnads (perhaps millions) of others. These people are beyond help or hope. (To be clear: there are reasonable considerations against Obama's plan. JtP could not, however, elaborate any that were against his interests)
- dbaupp 14y ago
  >> Do we dismiss Bill Gates as being too dumb to care for his own interests when he says his tax rate should go up? > No, he is caring for his OWN interests in saying that. As does Warren Buffett. Sure, his narrow next year interests are to pay less taxes. But his long term interest is that he will not have to hire a private army to protect his every move because of social unrest. Nor that he will have to finance his own private hospital for his kids, because disease control in communal (non-profit and for-profit) hospitals is breaking down. Nor that he will have to fly in everyone he wants to meet because the road infrastructure is breaking down. > What Bill Gates and Warren Buffett understand is that the US is falling behind, and they don't want that to happen. That IS in their interest. Why do these discussions always reduce to "X's own interest" = maximising their bank account? Gates might (and most likely does) care about generally making the world a better place, and so it is in his interest to suggest measures that ease the burden on low-income people. (Note that this explanation avoids proposing that he is explicitly staving off worldwide societal collapse so that he and his family can live in peace without paying for private this and private that. It might have this as a side effect, but I find it extremely unlikely that this monetary calculation is what he is thinking.)
drivebyacct2 14y ago
Fine, but I think it's obvious that we're talking about the ignorant subset that have no idea of the disparity between themselves and the top people that they delude themselves into thinking they're just an inch away from... meanwhile voting against the policies that would give them a fighting chance of ACTUAL social mobility.
- danielweber 14y ago
  Oh, why didn't you just say you were insulting poor people? Now I totally understand.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    That's not what I said, I'm not sure how you took that. There are plenty of people who don't mean over 100K that are neither poor, nor have any stake in the wealthy getting tax cuts. I don't understand what you're fighting here, this is a well documented phenomena of delusion.

zem 14y ago

yes, but bill gates and warren buffet have good, sound reasons that might go against their selfish interests, but leave society as a whole better off. the anti-health-care people have no such reasons, and if they think they do they're badly misinformed, stupid, spiteful (because free healthcare would mean "undeserving" people get a "free ride"), or some mixture of the above.

Dove 14y ago
anti-health-care people have no such reasons If you think it's that one-sided, you need to spend more time listening to the opposition. Here are some good reasons to oppose public health care: - It will be more expensive due to government inefficiency - There will be no incentive to innovate - Health care run by government bureaucrats will be uncompassionate, due to distance from the community, and may not appropriately value human life and suffering - A government that owns your health care can deny it to you - Public health care options compete unfairly with private ones You may not think these are good reasons, but a person doesn't have to be badly misinformed, stupid, or spiteful to find them persuasive.
- beagle3 14y ago
  > You may not think these are good reasons, but a person doesn't have to be badly misinformed, stupid, or spiteful to find them persuasive. Actually, a person has to be willingly uninformed to find them persuasive. Because there are actually case studies to be made, rather than evaluate ideas in vacuum: - more expensive: It costs much less in every other country that has a single payer system, despite government inefficiency (including the Swiss and German system, where everything is private even though it's single payer, and the UK, France and Israel where it is public or private, and in Canada where it is completely public). And yet, those countries enjoy better health in every possible measurement. - innovation: Those places all comparable innovation to the US (especially if normalized to "average entrepreneurship level" of the country - e.g. there's much less of that in Germany and France in general, but actually much more in Israel) - uncompassionate: That is demonstrably not true in the above countries. Furthermore, the private system in the US is already demonstrably not compassionate in any way. - government can deny health care: Government can do anything it pleases, like jail you, or confiscate all money not on your person at a press of a button (and if you're going through texas, all money on your person as well. Oops, can't pay for healthcare! private healthcare denied for you!) - that's a strawman. If you look at Switzerland, Japan, UK, France, Canada, ..., people who get on the wrong side of the government get better healthcare than people on the right side of the government in the US. No one is denied healthcare! The Israelis even treat the Gazans they bombarded the day before. - Unfair competition: That's your only statement that is not demonstrably false using a counterexample. In fact, it's true. That's because it makes healthcare into a utility, much like schooling and water supply. So, one reason that is not based on demonstrably false assumptions. That one is debatable; some people think healthcare should be available like schools, others do not. That should be what is being discussed, not the other reasons. I actually listened to the other side, and heard one other good reason to avoid public health care: - There is no reason people who care about their health should subsidize people who don't take care of their health (w.r.t exercise, nutrition, alcohol and drug consumption, regular medical attention, etc) as the latter consume much more healthcare services. Which is again debatable: The same is true for basically every other shared cost facility (including utilities, fire services, police forces, road use, ...) If the debate was around that, I would be happy. But somehow, in American politics, it has always been improper to bring up facts and case studies. And recently, it is becoming bad form to use logic.
  - pliny 14y ago
    >The Israelis even treat the Gazans they bombarded the day before. They also treat the Gazans who bombed Israelis a day before: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/08/world/in-israeli-bed-failed-bomber-tells-of-love-of-martyrdom.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/08/world/in-israeli-bed-faile...
  - refurb 14y ago
    I'll only nit-pick on your comment "And yet, those countries enjoy better health in every possible measurement." Yes, they enjoy better health if you measure using blunt tools like "life expectancy". Of course, life expectancy is impacted by many more factors other than health care. If you measure by things like "access to the latest technology/drugs" and "overall survival from first diagnosis of cancer" the US comes out on top in many, many areas despite the lack of uniform coverage. Again, using blunt tools like life expectancy, one would argue that the UK has a better healthcare system. Of course, if you're a cystic fibrosis patient and can't afford the $300K/yr for the drug Kalydeco because the NHS doesn't cover it (although nearly every insurance company in the US covers), it doesn't quite seem that great.
    - Mz 14y ago
      I am curious to know if you or some relative actually has CF or if you are merely talking out your ass? I have CF and so does my oldest son. There are countries in Europe with better life expectancy, quality of life, etc for CF than the US has. And that is just the tip of the iceberg for the criticisms I have for your ridiculous statement. So just wondering here if you are merely pulling out inflamatory bs just cuz or if you or some relative happen to be in the 5% of CF patients who have the right alleles to potentially benefit from this specific drug.
      - refurb 14y ago
        I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from. Although Kalydeco has been approved, it is unavailable in the UK to most of the patients who qualify for it as it is undergoing a "pricing assessment". My argument is two fold: 1) Measure such as "life expectancy" are a poor indicator of the quality of health care one receives. 2) Although the US healthcare system has many problems, it covers many, many drugs, often used to treat serious illnesses such as CF and cancer that aren't covered by countries that have single payer systems. So I take it you disagree?

beagle3 14y ago

> Saying "voting against their own interests" is really insulting. I'm sorry to be blunt, but people who find such a statement insulting should get off the internet. That said: > Do we dismiss Bill Gates as being too dumb to care for his own interests when he says his tax rate should go up? No, he is caring for his OWN interests in saying that. As does Warren Buffett. Sure, his narrow next year interests are to pay less taxes. But his long term interest is that he will not have to hire a private army to protect his every move because of social unrest. Nor that he will have to finance his own private hospital for his kids, because disease control in communal (non-profit and for-profit) hospitals is breaking down. Nor that he will have to fly in everyone he wants to meet because the road infrastructure is breaking down. What Bill Gates and Warren Buffett understand is that the US is falling behind, and they don't want that to happen. That IS in their interest. > Sometimes people feel differently than you. Even if it would be in their personal selfish interest to agree with you. Yes, and I respect their right to do that, even if there is no logical way, selfish or communal, short term or long term, in which it serves any measurable interest of theirs. But I also reserve the right to call them stupid for it (for being unable to demonstrate to a mythical "objective observer" that their votes support their interests, that is. I won't call them stupid if they can soundly reason about it, even if I disagree with their reasoning) And I repeat again: Gates and Buffett are talking their interest. Joe the Plumber is stupid (reminder: he complained that although he is making $40,000 year NOW, he's going to buy his employer's business in the future, and make $200,000/year, and at that point Obama's tax plan to increase tax over $250,000/year would hurt him. His statements were logically incoherent, statistically improbable. And yet, he was sure that he had a solid case against the Obama tax plan of 2008. And so did hundreds of thousnads (perhaps millions) of others. These people are beyond help or hope. (To be clear: there are reasonable considerations against Obama's plan. JtP could not, however, elaborate any that were against his interests)

dbaupp 14y ago
>> Do we dismiss Bill Gates as being too dumb to care for his own interests when he says his tax rate should go up? > No, he is caring for his OWN interests in saying that. As does Warren Buffett. Sure, his narrow next year interests are to pay less taxes. But his long term interest is that he will not have to hire a private army to protect his every move because of social unrest. Nor that he will have to finance his own private hospital for his kids, because disease control in communal (non-profit and for-profit) hospitals is breaking down. Nor that he will have to fly in everyone he wants to meet because the road infrastructure is breaking down. > What Bill Gates and Warren Buffett understand is that the US is falling behind, and they don't want that to happen. That IS in their interest. Why do these discussions always reduce to "X's own interest" = maximising their bank account? Gates might (and most likely does) care about generally making the world a better place, and so it is in his interest to suggest measures that ease the burden on low-income people. (Note that this explanation avoids proposing that he is explicitly staving off worldwide societal collapse so that he and his family can live in peace without paying for private this and private that. It might have this as a side effect, but I find it extremely unlikely that this monetary calculation is what he is thinking.)

drivebyacct2 14y ago

Fine, but I think it's obvious that we're talking about the ignorant subset that have no idea of the disparity between themselves and the top people that they delude themselves into thinking they're just an inch away from... meanwhile voting against the policies that would give them a fighting chance of ACTUAL social mobility.

danielweber 14y ago
Oh, why didn't you just say you were insulting poor people? Now I totally understand.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  That's not what I said, I'm not sure how you took that. There are plenty of people who don't mean over 100K that are neither poor, nor have any stake in the wealthy getting tax cuts. I don't understand what you're fighting here, this is a well documented phenomena of delusion.