TCS Daily


Another Supply-Side Revolution Is Needed

By Josh Hendrickson - May 1, 2007 12:00 AM

With health expenditures rising relative to GDP, most pundits and health economists believe that the U.S. health care system needs to be reformed. Those who favor reform can be separated into two groups. The first group believes that due to the insulation from premiums and the medical expenses themselves, individuals consume more health care than they would if they paid for these services out-of-pocket. Economists refer to this phenomenon as moral hazard. The second group believes that without more government intervention, those who are poor and/or sick will not be able to afford insurance. While the former is certainly important, there is little evidence to support the latter. Additionally, effective reform must also address the supply-side.

There is certainly reason to believe that moral hazard exists. While individuals may not go to the doctor simply because they have insurance, they will likely consume excess care on the margin. For example, suppose an individual goes to the emergency room for severe stomach pain. The doctor suspects that the patient may have appendicitis and administers a series of tests. After inconclusive results, the doctor tells the patient that it is unlikely that they have appendicitis, but that a CAT scan could completely rule it out. If the patient is insulated from the cost, they will surely agree to the scan regardless of the fact that it is not likely to change their diagnosis.

The problem with spending on the margin is that it often involves spending on expensive procedures that offer the patient little benefit. Arnold Kling refers to this as premium medicine.

The second group believes that the biggest problem facing the U.S. health care system is that the sick and the poor cannot afford insurance. These individuals argue that more government intervention (and possibly a single-payer system) is necessary to provide the poor and the sick insurance. However, this is simply not true. Lisa Dubay, John Holahan, and Allison Cook found that 25% of the uninsured were eligible for public coverage, but were not enrolled. They also found that an additional 20% of the uninsured live in households that could afford insurance. Similarly, Kate Bundorf and Mark Pauly estimated that, depending on the definition of affordability, 25% to 75% of the uninsured could afford insurance.

While these findings are certainly important when designing effective reform, what is missing from the debate is a discussion of supply-side reforms. In The American Economic Review in 1963, Noble Prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow tackled the idea of uncertainty and medical care. Included in the paper was a section on the unique aspect of the market for medical services. Especially prescient were Arrow's thoughts on the supply-side.

The supply-side is riddled with inefficiencies. For example, the supply of doctors is restricted by licensing and medical school enrollments. Physicians also often act to exclude substitutes such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners. What's more, doctors effectively act as a collective monopoly because of the lack of price competition within their ranks. These restrictions on supply lead to higher prices for patients and higher incomes for doctors. This is especially inefficient considering that patients often lack price information until they receive their statement of benefits in the mail. Although the insurance system was quite different in 1963, many of the inefficiencies of the market are consistent with what is seen today.

Arrow's article also studied insurance and, using a mathematical model, stated that the ideal form was full coverage above some deductible. He also stated that if insurers were risk averse, which undoubtedly they are, they would also require a co-payment above the deductible.

While some may condemn Arrow's theory as outdated, they would be erroneous to do so. Requiring consumers to pay a deductible would give individuals the incentive to obtain pricing information and would thus cause doctors to be more forthright with their billing methods. Additionally, a market with consumers who no longer lack price information will begin switching to physicians that they perceive as offering better quality service and thus may induce some level of price competition among doctors. This type of policy is consistent with that advocated by demand-side reformers.

Unfortunately, the battle for price competition will also require additional reform. On the supply-side, economist Robin Hanson suggests "replacing doctors with cheaper alternatives." This is quite possibly the best way to induce price competition without reducing the patients' quality of treatment. Hanson justifies this by highlighting a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association that finds that there is no difference in health status among patients receiving care from a nurse practitioner and a physician. Along the same lines, it may also be prudent to re-examine the licensing restrictions on physicians and the medical school admissions policies.

So as policymakers take a step back and design some type of reform, they should keep in mind the lessons learned from Arnold Kling, Kenneth Arrow, and Robin Hanson. The United States health care system does not need a major overhaul. The system merely needs to reduce inefficiencies and realign incentives on the demand-side and the supply-side.

Josh Hendrickson teaches economics at Wayne State University. He also maintains the blog entitled, "The Everyday Economist".


Categories:

40 Comments

Health Care
I worked in the private sector for years and made the transition into a not for profit hospital. The waste, fraud, and inefficiencies were shocking. It is no wonder that heath care has double digit inflation. Health care management is geared toward pleasing doctors and not patients. Doctors are the cash cows for hospitals so the major focus is on Doctor retention regardless of cost.
This factor was omitted from the article. I agree for the most part with this article.

Boring.
Ok. I have to say it. TCS is getting Boring. Even the articles on CHO where a ho hum.

Stir the pot guys.

Government, as usual,...
politicized medicine, intervened in and meddled with markets and, as it always does, ruined everything. The solution is not reform; rather it requires casting government--politicians and bureuacrats--out. Until then, as we will all witness, nothing will change--except perhaps a worsening.

You mean business as usual
No problem in furnishing health care to people with lots of money. But for people with less money and particular unhealthy people with less money, you do have problems. Is this really hard to understand? Or is the solution just if they can't pay, let 'em die?

And talk about getting it 180 degrees wrong
This is incredible.
The author writies:

>These individuals argue that more government intervention (and possibly a single-payer system) is necessary to provide the poor and the sick insurance. However, this is simply not true. Lisa Dubay, John Holahan, and Allison Cook found that 25% of the uninsured were eligible for public coverage, but were not enrolled. They also found that an additional 20% of the uninsured live in households that could afford insurance.

"Simply not true???" Here's the concluion of the Dubay, Holahan Cook study cited by the author, quoted verbatim:

" A central conclusion is that a large percentage of uninsured adults need help purchasing health insurance."

The author's point
that there are inefficiencies on the supply side is a reasonable one. Making wider use of "physician assistants and nurse practitioners" is not unreasonable in certain circumstances but too limited (and probably not practical in a tort-based malpractice compensation system). The author ignored the fact that medical institutions, like many professional colleges, serve to limit the number of practitioners.

That said, to claim that all the problems can be resolved by removing supply side inefficiency is simply absurd. What most countries have discovered is that universal health care is only possible with some mix of taxpayer funded universal health care supplemented by some level of user fee. It is unclear to me as to why a private insurance company bureaucratic nightmare is necessarily advantageous over a government bureaucratic nightmare.

Erroneous and outdated assumptions
Physicians in most states have very little freedom to set prices. Medicare, the elephant in the room of health care, has been cutting reimbursement for years and Congress is contemplating another 10% cut. Physician extenders such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners are paid nearly as much as primary care physicians now. I know of PAs being paid $240,000 per year in orthopedic surgery practices. Most new primary care physicians are in the $60,000 per year range with $250,000 in medical school debt. A niece of mine declined medical school and chose nursing school to avoid the debt. She had two degrees from major universities and she made the right decision. I teach medical students and wonder how long they will continue to choose the bad bargain that medicine is these days. Your statements apply to conditions when I was practicing 30 years ago. The economic factors are considered in my history of medicine but your statements are outdated. Look at the last chapter of this book

Yes...
I also don't see this article adding much to the conversation.

Of course, there are not enough physicians. To suggest that people should simply accept Nurse Practitioners instead, here in America, is specious. We artificially limit the number of physicians and medical school seats for bright young students. The author does nothing more than to lightly point this out in passing. "For example, the supply of doctors is restricted by licensing and medical school enrollments." That's it?

No mention of FDA or the pharmaceutical industry at all... Great. Aren't they part of the supply side paradigm?

"...individuals consume more health care than they would if they paid for these services out-of-pocket..." This does not define a "moral hazard". This describes "too expensive".

"...those who are poor and/or sick will not be able to afford insurance...there is little evidence to support [this]..." Joke, right?

doctor shortage
Medical school enrollment was doubled in the late 1960s on the theory that costs would be lowered if an excess of doctors existed. It didn't happen. The number of students now is about at a maximum. Medical school is too expensive and the debt levels are just too high. If the government wanted to make some grand bargain and waive costs in return for service in underserved areas, or something, they would get lots of takers. While every medical school has ten times the number of applicants for each place in the freshman class, most serious applicants get in. The pool is not that big.The so-called restrictions of licensing are bogus. Thousands of foreign grads are licensed every year.

Canada actually cut medical school enrollment to cut costs a few years ago but have reversed that policy and is now building hospitals again. There are more myths than facts in medical economics. My last post had a link that was not posted. The book is at ISBN09749466-4-8 on Amazon. The last chapter is on economics.

adminstrator oversupply
In the US, a full one-third of the money spent on health care goes to administration, a far higher percentage than anywhere else in the world. We may have restricions on physician supply but surely cutting back on administrative costs would be much lower-hanging fruit to trim.

Your numbers, Mike...
"While every medical school has ten times the number of applicants for each place in the freshman class, most serious applicants get in."

If I follow your argument then most of the 90% who do not get into Medical School are "not serious" (and would, therefore, be less capable physicians if they did...). I find that statement astounding.

I, myself, was a pre-med student in the late 1960's. I think I might have heard if the Medicals Schools all over America were doubling the number of seats available. I do not remember hearing any such thing. Don't you think such news would have been common knowledge? Maybe I was out that day.

I decided to go to Business School instead but I did take a Masters in Biology while I thought about the PhD. Many of my grad school colleagues went on to Med School in Europe or Mexico. Because there were just not enough seats here. They made fine doctors. One of them is a highly regarded surgeon and she still practices in Germany.

I know for certain that this was our normal experience.

Although you claim to be a physician yourself, I am not exactly sure that you know what you are talking about.

needing help
Here's a radical idea that's a change from me last one that was rejected. I suggested that if poor people need help, then liberals could create a fund to subsidize them. This was rejected because it would be seen as a kind of welfare, charity, and hurt the self esteem of the poor. So here's my alternative, the liberals contribute to a fund but instead of paying for health insurance, they simply just buy all the plasma TVs, SUVs, booze, drugs, cigarettes, video games; and since those things are the priorities of the so-called poor, they could use the saved money for health insurance. In this manner liberals could feel all sanctimonious, and holier than thou, and I guarantee the phoney poor will accept this fund without their self-esteem being hurt. And as a benefit it's voluntary too, so libertarians like me wouldn't complain that the predatory state is stealing my money for purposes I don't agree to; everybody wins.

No...
I really mean government f__cks up everything it touches. And yes, I know that corporate statism (aka:Fascism)is a very real problem. But...the very essence of the problem of corporations having unwarranted control over people is that without government and its moronic mandates coupled with its penchant for threat and violence, they could force nothing on anyone. get government out of the equation and ALL corporations and businesses are then completely at the mercy of the market, which is a harsh taskmaster. Those who do not serve their customers well fail without exception (unless of course government forces us to them---as I said above.)
What we see in America today is not pure capitalism---it is state coporatism and there is a vast difference between the two.

true believer head under rock denial
Sure, gummint de big debbil.

>I really mean government f__cks up everything it touches.
So what was the market solution to child labor? To workplace injuries? to elder poverty? to air pollution? to river pollution? to emergency medical services for poor people? to creating the Internet? To landing on the moon?

> Those who do not serve their customers well fail without exception

Except if they have a monopoly.

>get government out of the equation and ALL corporations and businesses are then completely at the mercy of the market,

With government out of the equation you're talking about warlords and private armies. But liberatarian gummint-hating-loons think this just works for the best.

Longtime government parasite criticizes "the phoney poor"
Why not document your hallucinations about the "phoney poor." As someone who'se spent his whole career working as a 'consultant' to government agencies trading off your experience as a Hitler ally, someone's whose taken paychecks from governmetn agencies all your life, who are you to criticize "the poor?" You found a way to get government to keep you out of poverty. Even assuming your cartoon views of poor people are true, who are you to criticize them?

do I know what I'm talking about.
"I, myself, was a pre-med student in the late 1960's. I think I might have heard if the Medicals Schools all over America were doubling the number of seats available. I do not remember hearing any such thing. Don't you think such news would have been common knowledge? Maybe I was out that day."

Why not try this: content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/4/2/47.pdf

Try page six at the bottom.

No wonder you didn't get in. Yes, you were out that day; and many others.

The applicants apply to as many as 25 medical schools; thus there is a huge execess of applications to each school but the total number of applicants is only about twice the number of places and applicants like you, who are incapable of understanding statistics, get weeded out. The better prepared applicants mostly get accepted, although not necessarily to the desired first choice.

phoney argument
If you say that a guy can't make a comment on any certain subject, because you don't like him, or his training has been in another field, then you're committing the false logic of an 'ad hominum' arugument. Then if you say that only a person with a bunch or degrees or some such credentials can comment, then you're commiting the false logice of 'argument to authority'. Many people here recognize that of you. Does anyone here say you can't comment on a certain subject, even though you show that you are clueless about them? No, they just let you continue to make a fool of yourself. In fact, what is your expertese in the medical field, or economics? BTW, aren't you the same guy that said that all those hundred or so german rocket scientist the Americans hired after the war, should have commited suicide? Yes, I believe it was you.

OK, Pal...let's play...
You specificly said that the number of seats doubled in the late 1960's. The dramatic increase was actually from 1960 until 1985. In fact your article complains that in spite of increased building and staffing during the entire 1960's the increased rate of students graduated during that entire time was only 34%.

Clearly, there was no doubling of seats in the late 1960's, as you said. The greatest gains were made during the 1970's. Your numbers were wrong. What else was wrong?

As I said, Doctor, I decided against Medicine for myself during my sophmore year as I became more interested in pure biology. After the MS in Biology I did the MBA and joined Abbott Laboratories as a researcher.

If you want to come forward with an agenda, fine. If you want to play, however, then you should be careful when you toss number around loosely to make your point. Even people like me who are incapable of understanding statistics can see that you are more emotional than orderly.

It is probably a good thing you stopped practicing medicine and now you teach. You can beat up on students and they must take it. When you indulge yourself beating up on patients, however, they take you license away.

So government checks are wrong for 'the phoney poor" but right for Dietmar
this isn't about your training; this is about your ethics. You despise the "phoney poor" because you say they're just triying to get government money, but government money is what you've lived on all your career - you brag about it.

>BTW, aren't you the same guy that said that all those hundred or so german rocket scientist the Americans hired after the war, should have commited suicide? Yes, I believe it was you.

No, I said nothing of the kind, nor do I believe it. I do have a problem with someone who killed his countrymen during WWII as a German Quisling partisan soldier, someone who can't go back to his home country because of it, lecturing other people about ethics.

ad hominem
"You specificly said that the number of seats doubled in the late 1960's. The dramatic increase was actually from 1960 until 1985. In fact your article complains that in spite of increased building and staffing during the entire 1960's the increased rate of students graduated during that entire time was only 34%.

Clearly, there was no doubling of seats in the late 1960's, as you said. The greatest gains were made during the 1970's. Your numbers were wrong. What else was wrong?

As I said, Doctor, I decided against Medicine for myself during my sophmore year as I became more interested in pure biology. After the MS in Biology I did the MBA and joined Abbott Laboratories as a researcher."

You are obviously the expert here so I will end my interest in this thread. One of the weak points of the internet is the ability of shouters to drown out facts. Goodbye.

By the way, I suspect you "decided against Medicine" when you didn't get accepted to medical school. I've encountered your type my entire career.

Too right...
While I find myself with a mild headache, agreeing with Lemuel, he is absolutely correct here.

One of the major costs of administration is insurance forms. Every insurance company has different forms that need to be filled out for billing. Different fields mean substantially different things for different insurance companies. Hospitals regularly have to maintain massive billing staffs so that they can have people familiar with all of the different forms. The Budget Director here at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics estimated that the cost of filing insurance claims amounted to almost 10% of the overall administrative cost of the hospital. By simply having one standard insurance form, we could cut those costs substantially.

Moreover, there is the cost of handling paper patient records. These things can weigh twenty pounds for people who are in the hospital for a long period of time. Computerized medical records saved the VA a ton of cash, and they could save other hospitals a lot of money as well. It also reduces errors and makes records transferrable.

Then there is liability. Liability jacks up the costs of doing business by forcing extra paperwork on the hospitals in the form of consent forms and releases, as well as liability coverage for office workers.

Hospitals are either going to have to cooperate to get these systems working, or they are going to face the government sticking its nose in to all of these areas eventually.

You really are an elitist SOB, aren't you?...
You seem to think, because you went to Medical School, that you are better than all the rest of us who did not. And you are. We admire your power over life and death. Priests only talk about heaven and hell. Who could be better than you?

I did not apply to any Medical School, Doctor. (And I did not take the Med CATs.) However, if I did want to go then I would not have needed to apply to 25 schools to get accepted at one. As you imply that you and the other statistically alert pre-meds did. You seem so proud that you got into school (even today after all these years) that there must have been some serious doubt. Like making the Olympic Team? An impossible dream come true.

I scored 800 on my Biology SAT Achievement test twice. (I took them twice because I did not finish one section the first time out.) I was fundamentally a biology student. Pre-med was the only reasonable major on the way into college. Although my GPA was high (and I aced Organic Chemistry) I decided that the pre-med tools and the self-important professors I was surrounded by would thereby become my colleagues for life.

Self-serving, self-involved and self-indulgent douche bags like you seem to be. I didn't really care enough about sick people, or the money either, to tolerate people like you. I like healthy people. I want to do more for their lives than to just keep them from dying. At least, this was how I felt at the time.

With my GRE scores (760 math) I got into every grad school I applied to. Every single one.

Or maybe this is all a lie, Mike. My type of loser does that all the time. As you have doubtless encountered your entire career. Must be tough to be you. Surrounded by all these inferior types.

Is it so incredible to you that everyone does not want your life? Your ego is entirely out of control...but I think they have medicine for that now, don't they?

Hint: You are not a physician. You only practice medicine. You are not a god. You are a man. What we do is not who we are. It is only what we do. Moron.

Re: So government checks
The man-bags are out! Tell us more, please.....

Thank you
I'm sure you won't mind that I posted this exchange at another site to illustrate why real health care reform is so difficult.

"I want to do more for their lives than to just keep them from dying. "

This is hilarious. If you don't keep them from dying, how exactly do you improve their lives ? I wasn't going to respond but it is such a good example. Thank you.

getting checks
Did you know that some 'consultants' are hired by private companies too? Oh yeah, you weren't the guy who said Werner v.Braun was a quisling, working for *****, but all those rockets were just basic research. But I think you were the guy who was condeming the Danish people for not resisting the nazzi occupation, but just letting them in with no fight at all. I forgot what you called them. But tell us all about your opinion of v.Braun. In the meantime, try to find some old guys in your town from the old country and ask them what would have happened to v.B if he had refused to work. And I don't mean asking the guys with the tattoes on their arms, but real germans, or dutch, or danes, or french, or hungarians, or anybody.

Any excuse will do
Were you an expert on rockets?? You sucked up on your abiltiy to kill people you said were communists, after a h istory that left you u nable to go back to yoiur home country. Now you want to say you're the one to say what's ethical. No.

where are the answers? eom
.

Another Supply Side Needed?
However, all the blabber back and forth, the fact remains that if the Founding Fthers where to rise they would be absolutely scandalized over the fact that their America is now fully in love with all that is Socialism/Communism indeed.
Public Education = Socialism/Communism!
Social Security= Socialism/Communism!
Medicare etc., etc., etc., = Socialism/Communism!
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae = Socialism/Communism!
Farm Subsidies = Socialism/Communism!
International Monetary Fund = Socialism/Communism!
World Bank = Socialism/Communism!
To add insult to injury America now also the Empire more vicious than all past Empires put together. Yes, this Empires now has a war machinery so inhumane and horrendous now circling the globe, as no other before. Yes, Conservatives seemed happy over this Empire while the Founding Fathers sacrificed their all to burry Imperialism forever. Historically, it has always been the Conservatives in love with Imperialism, which is no different now in America. Yes, I am a Staunch Conservative Christian Republican, but firmly believe I am speaking for the Founding Fathers.

save it for the gauleiter, D
but why not tell us again that you're the only real freedom lover and all the rest of us are stalinist zombies.

Welcome...
Let's do this again sometime.

Probably, you don't understand...
"I want to do more for their lives than to just keep them from dying. "

Everyone is born and everyone dies. Life is sacred and Medicine is a fine profession. But physicians are crisis managers. Your work is fundamentally trying to get people back up to a condition of zero disease. Failing that: zero symptoms. Failing that: zero pain.

In business administration, great crisis managers are heroic. Of course, they operate in their own areas of responsibility. Therefore, it was their own part of the business that suddenly got into trouble. Nevertheless, risk is exciting and we all enjoy the drama.

However, crises are disruptive. We all "feel better" when the pain goes away. But we have not really made progress, here. We have only stopped the bleeding. We are only back where we were before the trauma. No further ahead. Perhaps behind where we might have been.

Hard work to prevent a crisis altogether is a lot more boring. While the great crisis manager runs from one tragic accident to another, he is not attending to his routine tasks to avoid a future crisis. He simply lets matters take their own course until an emergency tells him what to work on next. He does not manage everything within his area of responsibility. He manages by exception.

A lot of people in the world are needlessly made sick by the lack of food, sanitation, education and preventative medicine. This is directly the result of poverty. In spite of the fact that financial capitalism is clearly able to pull populations out of such poverty, we have not yet worked the global paradigm out so that economies function adequately, in this regard, everywhere.

I am not saying that your work is not important, Doctor Mike K. I respect your profession and I respect you. Nevertheless, I know that my work as an industrialist in the developing world is important to take some of your work away. To eliminate some of your tasks in the world to simply bring people back up to zero.

"I want to do more for their lives than to just keep them from dying."

I don't find this hilarious. I just don't think you understand.


Now...Here's a man you knows what he believes...
Fearnot,

Good. You have integrity.

my plan
But you never commented on my ethical plan from above. It will give poor people like you help for med insurance, provided voluntarily by other liberals who are happy to subsidize you. Then you can continue to buy the latest plasma for your house(BTW, how many TVs already in your house? I'll bet it's more than one, right? And don't tell me the others belong to your wife).

Let's talk TVs, Stürmer
A TV costs $100. One month's medical insurance for a family costs about $400, assuming you can find an insurance company who will write the insurance. That makes TV costs for one year $100, Insurance cossts for one year $4800, but owning a TV if you don't have health insurance is proof of evil selfishness. And it's "liberals" who should be paying the $4800 (or more) because you want to just let the evil poor people die. How about this: the government comissions you to kill poor people and salvage their organs for transplant into deserving rich people. You'd love it. That doesn't make it ethical - though it's about as ethical as what you did during the war.

TVs
Ok, you've admitted to more than one TV, I thought so. Next how many SUVs, or total vehicles do you have? Then when you've admitted to having more than one(even tho the others belong to your wife), I say that in your three or four bedroom house, why don't you take in borders, in this manner you wouldn't have to beg others to subsidise you. Your wife and kids could take in laundry, while you find a second job since yours doesn't pay you very much. All that about the government killing people is nonsense since no body mentioned that. And liberals would never let people like even you die. What they might also do, in addition to my brillant plan, would be to form things like, 'mutual aid societies', church groups helping their flocks, Salvation Army, Community Chest; all the things that people did before the government decided that getting into the welfare business was a good way to encourage dependance, and control people.

"Take in laundry"
>Uour wife and kids could take in laundry,

Nobody's made money on this since the invention of laundramats, Stürmer. And I have no idea where you come up with your information about my life, which is even more inaccurte than your views about science.

laundry
But I thought you said you were too poor to afford health insurance? And what about the idea of taking in roomers, finsihing your basement and make more bedrooms. Let your kids walk, or take a bike to school instead of driving; many ideas. My ideas about science are exactly the scientific method. But if you deny that some scientists have to tow the line because they're fearful, then it's you who are denying reality.

Learn to read, Stürmer
I never said I was too poor to afford health insurance. I really don't need your financial advice. The fact that you can even bring up the idea of "taking in laundry' as a way to make money marks you as a living in a makebelieve dream world.

>My ideas about science are exactly the scientific method.
Your ideas about science are political bilge.

>But if you deny that some scientists have to tow the line because they're fearful, then it's you who are denying reality.

Do you personally know any? A large number of scientists working for various U.S. federal agencies have complained because political appointees have edited their reports to change the scientific findings. Is that what you're talking about?

reading
Then if you're not really poor at all but wealthy enough, then why aren't you following my sensible idea of contributing to a fund? You don't believe in the scientific method if you believe in science by consensus. It only takes one guy to be right, or wrong, to falsify the whole thing. We read all the time about scientists who are afraid to go agains the reigning paradigm because they might, not get hired, lose furthrue funding, not get tenure, not get promoted, not get published, etc. But I guess you hear of it on moveon, and dailkos, etc. Even some guys on that ipcc panel or whatever, said it might be likely, or probable and so that gw is caused by humans. And that's their self selected of biased guys. There are stories all over about how it's crap, so it's good to be sceptical instead of following the reds-turned-greens.

Complete incohrence
Here's the way I work: if I'm not an expert in something, I listen to the experts. Skeptically, carefully trying to reach my own understanding, but knowing they know more than I do. You seem to think that just because the experts think something, it must not be true. I just hope you don't plan your investments using this strategy.

>There are stories all over about how it's crap, so it's good to be sceptical instead of following the reds-turned-greens.

There are stories all over about all kinds of things. And you're the one who's slopping up the rumors and repeating the lies. Carry on.

TCS Daily Archives