ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Whelp, I just got screwed again by the lack of price transparency in the American Healthcare System. feelsbad.man.jpg
Thankfully, it's not a huge dollar figure, but it's the sheer stupidity of clinging to price opacity, which inevitably finds some way to reach into my pocket and pull out more money, that annoys me.
It was not a situation where the provider didn't have the necessary information to understand why the price ended up being what it was. When I called them to ask WTH, it took all of three minutes for them to just go through the steps of verifying the process and then explaining it to me. But that's three minutes that they should have spent going through the steps in order to give me a price before they performed the service, rather than blindsiding me with a bill after the fact.
Yes, yes, I know, they don't want to spend three minutes per patient; that adds up! And of course they don't want to; it's not only their time being spent; it's not in any way in their favor to spend those three minutes. It's my pocket that it comes out of, after all.
Moreover, it was a situation where, had they spent the three minutes and we could have then had a conversation about the price, in hindsight, I am extremely confident about how I would have made a different choice as to the way that I arranged the services that I would have liked to acquire. I literally, actually, could have personally made a different choice if I had had price information, and it's a choice that I would have preferred in terms of my personal cost/benefit analysis.
Of course, it must be remarked on that had I had this information and had I made the choice that I would have preferred, the provider would have made slightly less money. I don't think they were doing this on purpose; it's just convenient for them to not spend three minutes and also probably make more money. They just have near zero incentive to even consider doing things in a way that may be in my own interest. The only danger that they run is that if folks like me eventually get pissed off enough at these shenanigans, we'll either search desperately for a different provider who will bother spending three minutes or simply get so fed up with the constant nonsense that we just eschew that sort of service altogether. Man, it's tempting to do that, because it's just... so... constant a problem. I'm already pretty cynical for how they're going to find a way to screw me over, and apparently even that was not enough cynicism.
The snafu did, in a minor way, relate to the way the insurance policy is written. I mention this only because I would like to hold open at least some amount of plausible blame for them (it's really kind of hard to in this particular situation, but I'll mention it anyway), but the provider legitimately had 100% of the information necessary to provide me an actual price and discuss tradeoffs/courses of action prior to services being rendered. They just didn't bother.
This feeling really makes me sympathize with all the people who are so outraged. I'm sure there are tons and tons of stories where the insurance company is more to blame, too, so I sympathize with those folks feeling gut anger at them, too. It's just monumentally infuriating to have them over and over again find endless ways to screw you over and see that it's not even malevolence. It's pure apathy toward your interests as a patient combined with an addiction to doing everything possible to remain price opaque.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Again, "I don't like your explanation" is not the same thing as "You didn't give me an explanation."
Good news! I've said neither of these. Do I need to block quote again? You brought the links.
you'd rather point at where I said you were being obnoxious throughout that thread, and claiming that because I refused your demand to litigate each and every one of those posts
Also something I have not said. Never asked for each and every one. Asked for one. One specific thing. As opposed to, again, the topic of this thread, which is vague, nonspecific accusations.
What you're saying is false and you know it's false. You're just embarrassing yourself, but go on, champ.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Thank you for providing the links, so people can again just read for themselves. Note the comment that I had actually linked to.
You wrote:
No one post is terrible, but most of them are obnoxious and unnecessarily antagonistic.
Point me to one. Make it something specific. Something real. Something actionable. Something that can actually be put into practice to improve future posting. Without something, the most likely conclusion is, "Atheism is the sacred at The Motte."
Notice that last time, your complaint was that I didn't make it obvious enough that I was riffing off something. [EDIT for appropriate bold:] This time, that is exceedingly obvious. Last time, you complained about me responding to follow-on questions. This time, I have said nothing else up to this point. Give me something real. Something actual. Something actionable.
It's right after the one you linked. We can see from the receipts that you've persistently avoided giving anything specific. Precisely the pattern highlighted here. If I were you, I'd boldly claim that you're just lying. Your own explanation is contradicted by the very links you've provided.
Especially given that you are one of our most irritating serial reporters who reports every post you don't like
ROFL. I can't remember the last time I reported a comment. You're off your rocker. (EDIT: I don't think you can claim with a straight face that there hasn't been even one comment in say, even the last two weeks, that I "didn't like".)
It's clear from your response that you still can't point to anything specific. You have literally nothing. You just have another vague accusation. Pure deflection to an unrelated issue, too. Which is exactly the pattern described by the comment I responded to. You keep a bullshit secret list that you vaguely refer to, conveniently preventing the target from being able to show that any particular item on that list is bullshit.
I am not "seething"; I'm simply responding with a specific example of a particular pattern that was described. That's better than you can do.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
I wish I knew. Crony capitalism is a genuinely hard problem any time the government is allowed to exert such strong power over market actors. Funniest idea I've had that just might work is threatening to abolish the Air Force. This route would be playing the very long game, and is more likely to not work than work anyway, but I'm not sure there is an idea that has a >50% chance of working.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
It seemed to be 'You know what you did, no we aren't going to tell you' as a cover for 'we just don't like you, but don't have any specific rule we can point to'.
Yup, which makes it all the more depressing when this place occasionally pulls that same bullshit.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
The government outsources quality control
I think this is the thing that is being challenged. That they're basically not even doing quality control. It's license control, not quality control.
I'd note from my previous comments regarding the book, they had examples from other industries, too. One that stood out was doctor malpractice that the boards would just kick the can on. "Better to have a bad doctor than no doctor." (But definitely not a foreign doctor!) IIRC, they talked about a case where the board just kept kicking the can and stringing it along, and nothing happened to "control this guy's quality" until he was arrested on criminal charges by the county prosecutor for the utterly obscene stuff he was doing (completely separately from the board's proceedings).
Different industries probably need different changes, because sure, there should be some sort of standards/quality control, and what that looks like can vary. But as it is, it seems to be pretty clear that they're not really doing that.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
So, I wanted to give you an opportunity to suggest your own name and conceptual meaning for the number that Alice puts into the computer in Variant 2 before I gave my own take on it. I think at this point, you've had an opportunity and have not taken it, so here goes.
I cannot think of anything that is appropriate to call this number (the number that Alice puts into the computer in Variant 2) other than some form of "the probability that Bob observes an outcome". Alice has to be reasoning about Bob's observation function when she computes this number. It's pretty obvious, because if we keep everything else the same, but fiddle with Bob's observation function, then we see a corresponding change in Alice's computation and the resulting value of this number (and no other change in Alice's reasoning or behavior, as evidenced by her own bets).
As such, if I can put it in a pointed way, why would one think that Alice is smart enough and capable of distinguishing between "the probability that Bob observes an outcome" and "the probability of the coin flip, itself"... but is too stupid to distinguish between "the probability that I, Alice, observe an outcome" and "the probability of the coin flip, itself"?
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
A while back, I talked about some secondary press on "The Licensing Racket". In that book, the author talked about just showing up to board meetings for various licensing boards and just watching what they do. Her takeaway was that when it came to disciplining bad behavior of their members, it was supreme leniency, but when it came to any sniff of an unlicensed person doing anything, it was knives out. High crimes. Treason.
At that point, I was mostly just taking her account as an account. It certainly seemed plausible, but of course, she may have been motivated to exaggerate things for an agenda or just to sell more books or something.
But someone on the HVAC subreddit just linked to this. It's from North Carolina's board for plumbing, heating, and fire sprinklers. Looks like they publish one of these newsletters every couple months. Front page is the most important bit - PAY YOUR MONEY TO RENEW YOUR LICENSE! Then some information about the board and forms. Finally, the bulk of the newsletter is reporting their disciplinary stuff.
It's all right there. In black and white. From their own pen. You can just read through it and see. The majority of items (~60%) were them going after unlicensed folks. Near as I can tell, in almost all of the examples of discipline against their own, licensed folks, the result was "probation" and maybe taking a class (almost certainly paying the board to take said class). I think the only examples of anything more significant than that were cases where a licensee did something, how shall I phrase it, 'against the integrity of the licensing scheme'? Like, they let someone else use their license number, for example. That's a real crime that will get your license revoked.
Whereas they seem to have quite the scheme for going after unlicensed folks. They may get someone to sign a "consent agreement", promising not to do any unlicensed work. Or they might take it to a court, potentially getting real, big boy penalties. Did you know that they can get you put in jail for 30 days and slap you with a $5,000 fine? I learned that.
They publish this! You don't have to go to their meetings to find out! You don't have to believe what some random author said about them! They just tell you!
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Oh man, I don't know if this is a promise or a threat, but if we got even basic LaTeX support, I can imagine writing so many more math posts here. Hopefully more Friday Fun than Culture War.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
You're being shifty with your language, though. First, you have an underspecified "probability conditional on it being Monday". I'm being a bit picky with this one, but please fully state "probability of ______" even if you think it's "...conditional on it being Monday". Second, you have that she is supposed to bet her "true probability", but what do you mean by "true" probability? This phrase is not defined. "True probability" of what?
Notice further that there are three variants. She doesn't always put the same number in the computer in each variant. How does that work? What name would you call the number that Alice puts into the computer in Variant 2, for example?
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Right, so you've just picked one of the two to call by that name. What name do we give to p_tails? It's "Alice's credence that _______"?
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Are you taking Alice's money or Bob's money? From what I can see, they've got a nice system set up that's not letting you take their money, but it's not the case that the only number involved in their system is 1/3.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Alice's bets are neutral EV at odds of 2:1, corresponding to p=1/3 for a fair coin, yes.
What do you mean p=1/3? See, you're back to not specifying what you mean anymore. We already had a value for p. It was 1/2. You had called it p_tails, which was clear. We used it to compute a different value ((1-p)/(p+1) = 1/3), which was being used to make Alice's bets. You had called this latter thing P(H|wake), and I slightly quibbled that I thought it was P(O_A(H|wake)), but in either event, it was clear that it was a different thing from p_tails or "p". It seems like you're using the same mathematical symbol to mean two different things.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Verily, in the Monty Hall problem. There, you actually do have a very very clear moment where information is gained and there is no ambiguity about which question you are being asked. But in this problem, if Alice tells Bob what you seem to want to have her tell him, we would say that she is wrong. We'd even say that she's extra wrong if she said she "updated".
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Which number in the above examples do you think that is? The one Alice bets, or the one she tells Bob, for him to use to make his bet? Or maybe the one she tells Bob to bet in Variant 2? Which bet? Which version of "came up heads"? The one that you observe some variable number of times? Or, like, "the one true one"?
EDIT: Or even just in your comment. You gave two possibilities. Which one do you think that is?
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Can't tell if really good joke because that's what we actually see the culture warriors roll with... or if actually missed the point.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
I think if Alice was specifically directed to input her "credence that the coin flip came up heads" then it's not really ambiguous if everyone is on the same page, as it were.
This is actually kind of the core of the problem! The original problem statement, long ago, used this phrase like "credence that the coin flip came up heads". But what does that mean? Obviously, if they all get on the same page and say, "It specifically means this and not that," then there's no ambiguity. But the "ambiguous question" position is saying, "Actually, maybe you need to specify, because maybe there are just multiple different things?"
You're perfectly correct. I semi-strategically left this possibility open for Variant 1. That you are able to realize that either can be done means that you adeptly realize that all of these probabilities can be 'things' at the same time. The only thing that matters is that Alice and Bob both know whether Alice is going to put p_tails or P(O_A(H|wake)) (probability of Alice's observation function) into the computer.
...I waited until Variant 3 to add the constraint that Bob doesn't really have a clue what's going on with Alice's observation function, just so that by that point, it became really really clear that we can do whatever it takes to force Alice to give a 'true' (or whatever you want to call it) estimate of p_tails apart from her estimate of what she's going to observe.
EDIT: This is extra important for actually driving home the Wiki description of it being an "ambiguous question". In Variant 1, it's ambiguous which one they're gonna communicate, right!? They have to specify in order to be able to communicate properly!
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
I definitely agree that Groisman did it. I think that Groisman's very slight issue with the pre-filling of the box has apparently left a lot of people unconvinced. They're still publishing papers about it!
So, what I think is useful about my framing is that 1) It doesn't have this issue. Everything is very cleanly just in line with the original Sleeping Beauty setup. Alice is still even making her same bets! 2) I think more important than assigning them to Alice and Bob, my setup with the computer communication is demonstrating that Alice is, herself, retaining knowledge of the different probability spaces. You know this, because you can get her to tell you this (through the computer and her own bets). Even if you just had Alice and Bob doing independent experiments, one could very plausibly still go off the deep end of weird anthropics. By forcing all the conceptual distinctions to be contained within one hypothetical brain, I think you're pretty forced to realize that one brain can, indeed, hold different probabilities for different purposes, rather than "updating" your worldview because they sound similar at first glance or whatever weird timeline causality argument you want to twist your brain into.
That Damn Sleeping Beauty Problem
This is apparently Culture War, so whatever, I'll put it in the Culture War Thread. We discussed it a couple weeks ago. In the between time, I seriously considered writing up something to actually submit for publication, but I've decided against it after determining that it would be the absolute worst literature review I've ever had to do. There's just so much incoherence out there; I can't even bring myself to try to write brief sentences describing what it is these various papers are trying to say with their silly jargon.
So buckle up, you're about to get a clarifying contribution that, frankly IMHO, puts it to bed. I mean, I said in the linked comment that I thought Groisman's paper put it to bed (it's mentioned in the "Ambiguous-question position" section of the Wiki article), but I did acknowledge that I could see some people complaining. I referred to it in terms of moving sums around, but that was kind of opaque. So while I think that Lewis has come around to a more Groisman-like position (shrouded in jargon), folks like Piva are unconvinced, citing the N=1 funniness of the problem.1
I make a modification to the Sleeping Beauty problem. Suppose there are two people who are subject to this experimentation, in parallel. Alice goes through the canonical version, woken up either once or twice, with only one extremely minor relaxation to enable the rest of the thought experiment - the coin is possibly weighted, coming up tails with probability p. Alice is told what p is at all times; it can be, like, written on the wall in her room or something, or the magic memory drugs can just magically not erase that part of her memory.2 Bob is in a separate room, but his experiment is controlled by the same coin used for Alice. Bob goes through one of the following variants:
Variant 1) Bob is woken up with the opposite pattern. That is, if it's heads, Bob is woken up on both Monday and Tuesday, but if it's tails, Bob is only woken up on Monday. But Bob is never informed about what p is. Bob is scheduled to be woken up strictly later than Alice on any given day (i.e., Alice is woken up and put back to sleep between noon and 1pm and Bob is woken up and put back to sleep between 1-2pm). Alice has a computer terminal in her room, and the only thing she can do with this computer terminal3 is input into it a single number, her "credence that the coin flip came up heads". Alice knows that Bob will get to see that number when he is woken4. Of course, because of the set-up, she cannot put different numbers into this computer on different awakenings, for she has no way of distinguishing which awakening she is in. Alice knows that Bob will be computing how to make his bet based on the number she puts into the computer. Alice and Bob do not know each other, will never meet again, there is no way for them to come to some agreement to arbitrage their bets or anything, but in deciding what number to put into the computer, Alice is altruistic and wants Bob to be able to maximize his own payout.
Variant 2) Bob doesn't even know what his pattern of awakenings will be, but Alice does. This time, they both know that Alice is not putting in a probability "for the coin flip", but is putting in a probability that reflects how Bob should bet. Bob is still, in actuality, awoken according to this "opposite" pattern.
Variant 3) Bob is going to be awoken some number of days n, if the coin is flipped heads, but only once if the coin is flipped tails.5 Bob knows n, but not p. Alice knows p, but not Bob's n. For its and giggles, we could even say that Bob doesn't know Alice's pattern of awakenings (it shouldn't matter).
For all of these variants, assume that once a number is input into Alice's computer, it will forevermore be displayed in Bob's room. Alice's own computer will reset, so she can't tell that she put a number in it before, and again, since she can't know which awakening she is in, she'll always put the same number in. Even if Alice is only woken on Monday, if she puts a number in the computer, Bob will still see it on Tuesday (and possibly Wednesday, Thursday, etc.).
I contend that it is obvious that in Variant 1, Alice should still tell Bob that the probability of the coin flip is p, even though she is going to personally bet on heads with probability (1-p)/(p+1). That is, if p=1/2, Alice should bet heads with probability 1/3, but tell Bob that the probability of the coin flip is 1/2. She knows that Bob will be taking this number and doing math with it. In fact, she knows that Bob will see p=1/2 and choose to bet on tails with probability 1/3! Opposite of her own bet! Alice absolutely knows that there is a difference between the probability of the coin flip, itself, and the probability that one observes a particular result, given their relative experimental setups.
Variant 2 shows us that Alice is fully aware of this difference. She should make exactly the same computation that Bob would have done, had he known his own experimental setup. And so, she should, herself, bet on heads with probability 1/3... but tell Bob (by putting it in the computer) that he should bet on tails with probability 1/3. They're just different probabilities!
Finally, Variant 3 really drives home that there should be no doubt that Alice is still capable of simultaneously holding the knowledge that "the coin flip" has a different probability than her observation of the coin flip. This time, she can't compute Bob's best betting strategy. He knows his n; she doesn't. Bob just needs to know "the probability of the coin flip", so that he can compute his betting strategy.6 Alice does not "update" her estimate of "the coin flip"; she doesn't tell Bob that she actually thinks that the probability of the coin flip was 1/3 likely to be heads. She happily tells Bob that the probability of the coin flip was 1/2 (what other number would she put in?! what other number could she possibly compute that could be useful to Bob?), lets him compute his own optimal betting strategy appropriately, and proceeds to, herself, bet that she's 1/3 likely to observe heads.
If Alice tells Bob anything different in any of these variants, than Bob will lose money in his wagers. Since Alice is altruistic towards Bob's wagering, Alice would be wrong to "update" rather that simply remain cognizant that there is a difference between the probability of the coin flip and the probability that a particular person, in a particular experimental setup, will observe an outcome.
This should put to bed the idea that Alice "gains information" upon awakening that actually "updates" her estimation of the probability of the coin flip, itself. She had all the information she needed, from the beginning, to make all of the above bets and put all of the above numbers into the computer. Every single time, she's fully aware that there is just a difference between "the coin flip", itself, and the observation function defined by the various experimental setups. I think Lewis has mostly come around to this with his "centered/uncentered" language, but I think these variants make it as clear as can possibly be.
1 - This sort of thing is what ultimately led me to talk about it in vague terms of "moving sums around", because so many of the betting-based arguments still inherently rely on some sort of, "Assume you run this Sleeping Beauty experiment a bunch of times; in the long run, if you bet poorly, you lose money..." and so, really, the question is whether the pre-filled sums are essentially equivalent to the post-filled sums. I'm pretty sure my main argument kills this concern dead.
2 - This is consistent with the original version, as there is no sense in the original that SB does not always know the 'original' properties of the coin flip.
3 - Nothing about this computer business can affect Alice's own payout. Alice still wants to maximize her own payout. AFAICT, it doesn't matter whether you have her bet first, then use the computer or vice-versa. It shouldn't matter if it's structured such that she's woken up twice on each day, once to bet and another time to put a number into the computer, with no memory of the other awakening.
4 - Alice will always have put a number in before Bob is woken up, since Alice is always woken up on Monday.
5 - This is still the "opposite" sort; Bob is awoken more often on heads, whereas Alice is awoken more often on tails, just generalized to a larger possible n.
6 - np/((n-1)p+1) or (1-p)/((n-1)p+1) for heads/tails, as computed in the linked comment.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
they want to maximize the number of requested marriages implemented
I don't know that I agree. This is sort of a weird and arbitrary thing to try to maximize. I think plenty of effort has gone into messaging that marriage is a big, serious thing, shouldn't be entered into lightly, and really annoying for the State to unwind if it goes poorly. Plenty of States have processes that take some time and effort, in part so that they're not just maximally implementing all marriage requests, when they could be really rash and hastily/carelessly requested.
both because that's what the citizens want
I don't buy this one, because I don't think many citizens want to care about some cousins getting married. It's a tiny portion of the population. I think plenty of citizens are perfectly fine just not letting them get married. That's a perfectly fine default. Most citizens think they probably shouldn't even be having sex in the first place! There's basically no point in even thinking about them getting married. There's almost certainly not a ton of folks clamoring to create some special process for this for apparently no reason other than some vague quantity maximization. In fact, I think most citizens don't even know that this sort of case exists! On first impression, I imagine plenty would be perfectly happy with just reverting to the default of 'you're cousins, so you don't get married'.
and because it will make administration easier later down the line
I don't see how that's the case, either. It doesn't make administration much easier to have such a tiny percentage of people having sex marginally getting married, especially not for some weird special case that most people disapprove of anyway. This would be a tiny tiny change in the numbers and almost certainly not worth the effort.
Therefore any one couple failing to get legal recognition of their union is lost value
Yeah, I just don't see how there's "value" in them just getting married. Even if there was, then there seems to be little reason for the rigmarole of proving infertility. The biggest issue with your account is that there's just no reason for the rigmarole if they're just maximizing requested marriages implemented.
Instead, what I think is far more parsimonious is that the State is using marriage as an incentive. They know that there will be some cousins out there who want to be having sex and such. They can't just ban this. But they certainly don't want irresponsible, inbred procreation. So hey, Bob and Alice; you'd like to get married, right? Ya know what, Bob, if you just cut off your balls (or take some less drastic measure to ensure infertility), we'll let you get married. I think this is much more parsimonious than some vague quantity maximization, especially if they're going to go to the trouble to set up a whole process for this, with what are likely to be some necessarily complex rules (how exactly do you verify infertility, what is sufficient verification, etc.).
Would you disagree?
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Why would the State care if Bob got his balls cut off years ago? Why would they make some special process to 'allow' this? It's extra work; it seems to serve little purpose on your account. They have a perfectly good default to revert to - you're cousins, so you don't get married. Why would they do this other mess?
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
"By default any man/woman pair who ask for it can be legally married, but we will deny it to couples that could produce inbred children with defects in the hope that that'll make them give upon fucking one another at all"
What about the bit about letting them marry if they show that they're infertile?
I don't really have a dog in this adversarial fight; it's a total cluster. I did see an interesting one recently, though. Some folks discovered a "hack" if you have a patient with BCBS who travels across state lines before getting care. They've found it financially viable to contract with third-party vendors to maximize their payout. Sounds like eventually BCBS will shut it down, but yeah, the extent to which this adversarial game is played is wild. They've let the whole thing get so complex that it pays to play the game hard... and there's certainly not anyone out there trying to play these games on behalf of patients' pocketbooks. They just fight each other, and some number of patients randomly get screwed in the process.
More options
Context Copy link