heres a surprise

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html

 

[Monkeyleg]

Where's the surprise? Anyone who thinks that you can give more people better health care for less money doesn't understand the economics of a lemonade stand.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

need a sarcasm smiley

[makattak]

need a sarcasm smiley

Try this one:

 

(Best we got)

[tyme]

It says the (self-reported) "very conservative" and "libertarian" respondents averaged 1.30 and 1.38 wrong answers.  I would be interested to know the top few questions each of those groups got "wrong", and whether they were "wrong" based on actual factual error or whether their error could be plausibly attributed to a misinterpretation of a few of the questions, or a dispute over the meaning of socioeconomic data on the issues.

edit... looking at the pdf, the top "wrong" answer for both conservatives and libertarians were:
1. "third-world workers working for american companies are being exploited"  (libertarian: 29% "wrong", very conservative: 26% "wrong").
2. 21% of libertarians said standard of living has dropped over 30 years (vs 13% of VCs).  19% of VCs said that professional licensing didn't increase costs (vs 13% of libertarians).
3. 20% of libertarians said free trade leads to unemployment (vs 16% of VCs). 18% of VCs said that restrictions on housing development don't lead to increased housing costs (vs 16% of libertarians).

I think it's clear why the 1st question is so often answered incorrectly.  It rests heavily on the definition of "exploited", which is a highly emotional term.  I think most of the rest of the "errors" are based on legitimate disputes about what existing data actually mean.

Where's the surprise? Anyone who thinks that you can give more people better health care for less money doesn't understand the economics of a lemonade stand.

Cheaper health care that provides more accurate diagnoses, better surgical outcomes, better drugs, etc. (the traditional components of "healthcare")... basically, status quo medical advice and procedures, but with better accuracy and outcomes?  I'd agree; that's probably not possible (given current technology) without increased expense.  Better average health for cheaper, however?  I think that is quite possible, if a lot of people and institutions -- from insurance companies to medical care providers to government to average citizens -- would shift from primarily thinking about medicine as treating problems to thinking about medicine as trying to prevent problems from occurring.  There is some movement in that direction, but not nearly enough imo.

[makattak]

Cheaper health care that provides more accurate diagnoses, better surgical outcomes, better drugs, etc. (the traditional components of "healthcare")... basically, status quo medical advice and procedures, but with better accuracy and outcomes?  I'd agree; that's probably not possible (given current technology) without increased expense.  Better average health for cheaper, however?  I think that is quite possible, if a lot of people and institutions -- from insurance companies to medical care providers to government to average citizens -- would shift from primarily thinking about medicine as treating problems to thinking about medicine as trying to prevent problems from occurring.  There is some movement in that direction, but not nearly enough imo.

BS.

You don't get "better average health" by "shifting thinking about medicine". The only way you get better average health is by forcing people into healthier lifestyles. Force them to eat less. Force them to excercise.

Maybe we could require everyone to meet their "block commander" each morning for daily calisthenics. I bet people like Tom Friedman would LOVE that idea! Just like China!

Funnily, though, I don't find the costs of that coercion to be worth the slightly "better average health" you get from it.

[tyme]

Exercise and food is primarily what I meant.  It doesn't have to be through compulsory changes for the consumer.

[makattak]

Exercise and food is primarily what I meant.  It doesn't have to be through compulsory changes for the consumer.

Umm... how? Unless you're a libertarian paternalist.

Then I guess it's mearly compulsion, not coercion. (Or as the "libertarian paternalists" like to call it, a "Nudge")

I still prefer freedom to daddy government, though.

[S. Williamson]

I'd just like to point out that, having lived as a poor student these past six months, the difference between healthy food and junk food is about thirty minutes of prep time.  And healthy food is less expensive if you don't eat fast food. 

If you need something fast, there's always fresh fruit and vegetables, quick oatmeal, and cans of nuts (though they normally seem to go for $5-6, I've bought them on sale for $2).  This is coming from a statistically large individual, too. 

[Marnoot]

I'm always reading stuff from libs saying healthy food is too expensive for the poor, which is why X, Y, & Z fast food companies are predatory with their unhealthy food, etc. But it just doesn't mesh with what I see in the stores. Fruit/veggies at Walmart are pretty cheap (certainly not the best produce in the flavor department, but cheap and nutritionally good). Basic, healthy staples like beans, rice, other grains, flour, etc. are also darn cheap.

Yes, you do have to spend more time cooking to have cheap healthy food, but it's really not a financial issue like they try to make out. It seems like they're trying to take prices from stores like Whole Foods as representative of "healthy food options."

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

you know how many real grocery stores are in the hood? in dc there was a big noise made when they talked on into opening.  you need to travel a ways and some folks don't have wheels

[Marnoot]

If no stores is the problem, how is that the fault of the eeevil purveyors of fast food (on whom the "progressives" place a large amount of the blame), and how do government mandated changes help that? There must be a reason the free market has not found it wise to open grocery stores in urban environments, the cause of that needs to be examined and a solution that doesn't involve restrictions on successful businesses or subsidies found.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

in some cases when the big stores got looted and burned they never came back to a marginal market

[Tallpine]

in some cases when the big stores got looted and burned they never came back to a marginal market

That sounds a lot like the effects of socialism 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

That sounds a lot like the effects of socialism 

kinda like capitalism meets socialism

[RoadKingLarry]

North Tulsa has been whining for years about a lack of a large grocery store to serve the minority leaning population.
A hopeful entrepreneur opened a pretty decent store in the area looking to fill a need.

last I heard he had been robbed 3 times in the first 6 month after opening.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the shop lifting is probably a greater loss. its scary  even with an armed security guard

[taurusowner]

tyme, do you believe a person should have the freedom to make bad decisions, even if those decisions end up destroying them?

[tyme]

Yes, as long as those bad decisions are within epsilon of only affecting that one person.

[S. Williamson]

Can't argue with that.   

Rarely the case, though.  One particular example is a botched suicide that leaves a person severely handicapped, and reliant upon others to care for them.  Original action does not affect outsiders (directly, not including emotional, financial, or spiritual effects), but aftermath impacts heavily.

[roo_ster]

...shift from primarily thinking about medicine as treating problems to thinking about medicine as trying to prevent problems from occurring.  There is some movement in that direction, but not nearly enough imo.

On the medical side, "preventive medicine" has proved to be more costly than reactive medical care in study after study.  I know your point is diet/exercise related, but most who use such language refer to medical screening/treatment are full of beans when they claim preventive medicine will reduce costs.

[roo_ster]

Umm... how? Unless you're a libertarian paternalist.

Then I guess it's mearly compulsion, not coercion. (Or as the "libertarian paternalists" like to call it, a "Nudge")

If Cass Sunstein is a libertarian, I am an anarchist pansexual Xenu-sodomizing pastafarian.

Other terms as useful & honest as "libertarian paternalist":
Totalitarian libertine
Agnostic dogmatist
Atheist shaman