GAME THEORY : HEALTHCARE

Swampland A blog about politics. Swampland Feed   Daily E-mail Updates   « Previous 1,000 Words: Michelle's Fancy Footwork Edition

Re: Health Care: Beyond Prisoner's Dilemma

At the risk of wading in above my head here, I'm going to try to play out this thing a bit more. Thinking of the health care vote in game-theoretical terms is an interesting thought exercise, and while the lighthouse story is a good way of conceptualizing the predicament in the House in the simplest way possible, I would note some further wrinkles that make the situation a lot more complicated:

A quick note on how to classify the game: I don't think it's a Volunteer's Dilemma because there's a "sucker's payoff" -- cooperating when others defect is worse than everyone defecting. I'd say it is essentially a n-player Prisoner's Dilemma (see also: Diner's Dilemma), but with a few tweaks.

How do we rank the payoffs? As Karen said, the best payoff for many fence-straddling House Dems is to vote "no" and have the bill pass. For those same lawmakers, the sucker's payoff would surely be a "yes" vote while the measure fails. In a classic Prisoner's Dilemma, mutual cooperation is better than mutual defection, but I'm not sure that translates uniformly to this situation. Each congressman is different, and some may ultimately prefer voting against a bill that goes down to supporting legislation that makes it through.

Commenter mfbattle noted the lighthouse never got built in his experience, and defection is always the rational choice in a single game of Prisoner's Dilemma. But this scenario is not an isolated one; serving in Congress is a series of "iterated" dilemmas. Past experience or future expectations may well affect the outcome.

To oversimplify a bit, two of the most successful strategies in an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma are "tit-for-tat" and "win-stay, lose-switch" (also known as Pavlov.) Tit-for-tat takes cooperation as a baseline position and only defects in retaliation. If we consider last year's vote on the House bill to be the last iteration, players using tit-for-tat would cooperate (vote "yes") this time around. With Pavlov, a player simply uses what worked last time or switches if their strategy failed. In this case, the players in question using Pavlov would defect (vote "no") because it worked out fine for them on the last vote.

Regardless, the n-player Prisoner's Dilemma frequently results in something known as the Tragedy of the Commons. Individuals use up a commonly desirable resource (in this case, "no" votes) to the detriment of everybody involved (the bill doesn't get passed.) But rather than being an inevitability, this is where political pressure and gamesmanship comes into play.

There is not "perfect information," by which I mean the players don't necessarily know what strategy others are pursuing or who has promised to do what. Players must depend on the word of other players or the leadership to determine if their cooperation is absolutely needed. All parties have an incentive to say they will defect (vote "no") -- it puts pressure on others to cooperate, increasing their own chances of getting the best payoff (voting "no" and having the bill pass.) At very least, players will not want to give away their position too soon (as evidenced by Reps. Adler, Altmire and Baird on the Sunday shows today.)

In reality, there are an incalculable number of lurking variables at play -- promises from the president or Speaker Pelosi, new polling from their districts that changes perceptions of re-election prospects, the appeal of legacy votes for retiring Dems, etc. And that says nothing of the power of a moral argument; anti-abortion Democrats who believe the Senate language is insufficient or representatives that see the bill in terms of saving human life on a grand scale may not act in their own political self-interest.

Bottom line: There are (currently) 37 Democrats who voted "no" on the House bill, a handful of liberals unhappy with certain elements of the Senate bill, as well as Stupak's anti-abortion bloc all trying to win concessions while contemplating the future of the Democratic Party and their own political needs in November.

If our little detour into game theory geekishness tells us anything, it's that Pelosi and company have an immensely complex equation to solve and little time to do it. They're just hoping one of these scenarios will add up to 216.

• Print
var clickURL = "http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/07/re-health-care-beyond-prisoners-dilemma/"; var clickRIURL = document.URL; var clickTitle = "Re: Health Care: Beyond Prisoner'sDilemma"; var artId= "22963"; var chn = "us"; var contType = "blog_swampland";
• E-mail
• Comment

• 
• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Buzz Up!
• Facebook
• MORE

• 1

  If our little detour into game theory geekishness tells us anything, it's that Pelosi and company have an immensely complex equation to solve and little time to do it.

  Fortunately (or unfortunately) humans are equipped with emotional apparatus that serves to perform the necessary calculations without concsious intervention. Conceps such as 'honor' and 'betrayal' are all tied in to our efforts to conceal the actual logic behind our actions.

  The tragedy of Commons however represents a real danger. The actions that seem the most advantageous to individual players are actually detrimental to all when considered as a unit. This of course helps explain why Stupak has found it necessary to wade into utter dishonesty in order to defend an otherwise incomprehensible position.

  Paul Dirks March 7, 2010 at 3:27 pm Log in to Reply
• 2

  KT,
  I can see why John Forbes Nash had serious mental problems after figuring out so many game theory problems.

  As for the diner's dilemma, I'll have the Lobster, a large salad, the baked potato- I forgot the appetizer and the wine...

  So, this might be, if there were such a thing, a iterated diner's dilemma.

  The best two scenarios are:
  Vote Yes and the bill passes and vote no and the bill fails. Voting no and the bill passing is inferior to voting yes and the bill passing. Voting yes but the bill failing is the worst possible outcome.

  So far you have not included that not all constituents are informed and, therefore, the ones who know who voted for or against it will only vote for the Democrat if it both passes and if that particular Democrat voted for it if the voter is on the fence.

  I am not familiar enough with game theory to know if anything matches this, but, a Democrat will get more mileage out of it passing with their vote than they would it passing with their voting no.

  Hence... I have no idea.

  My hopes are that, both to get more mileage out of it passing and for the fact that it is an incredibly sound concept as well as a reasonably good bill, it will pass.

  patricksartor March 7, 2010 at 3:30 pm Log in to Reply
  • 2.1

    Correction "So far you have not included that not all constituents are informed"

    Change to So far you have not included that not all constituents are UNinformed..."

    An informed voter would not give the candidate for reelection credit for a bill passed by the party if the candidate had not backed it.

    An uninformed voter would.

    patricksartor March 7, 2010 at 3:36 pm
  • 2.2

    An informed constituency supportive of the congressperson makes it real easy for a no vote in every case. The bill is flawed from both standpoints. Left leaning constituencies will understand that the bill is not reform at all. Right leaning ones will accept the need not allow Obama a win, even though it would be in their interests more than his. I am left leaning in a right win district. My rep can't lose. I support his no vote, not that it would matter, even though I don't support his rationale for it.

    formerlyjames March 7, 2010 at 4:54 pm
  • 2.3

    What's your objection?
    Also, do you foresee if this fails if there will be a fresh start even if the Democrats maintain the majority or that we will have to wait another eighteen years or longer before ANY proposals make it before congress?

    I believe it will be AT LEAST 2028 before we have ANY health care reform proposals if this one does not pass.

    patricksartor March 7, 2010 at 5:02 pm
• 3

  No I don't think it will be 18 years to bring up reform of the insurance industry again because they continue to foul their nest each progressive year. This bill subsidizes abuse. Let it fail, let the middle class get a little more miserable with the system, reform will occur.

  formerlyjames March 7, 2010 at 5:06 pm Log in to Reply
  • 3.1

    I recognize the minor improvement the bill provides as far as some regulation. But single payer is the only way to really heal the sick system.

    formerlyjames March 7, 2010 at 5:08 pm
  • 3.2

    Completely agree. The bill sucks. The public (which is not nearly as stupid as D.C. insiders believe) are fully supportive of legitimate reform.

    If those who truly want real reform had the courage to sink this bill, we'd see something far superior passed within 4 years.

    square1 March 7, 2010 at 6:44 pm
  • 3.3

    Square, agreed that this bill sucks but "something far superior passed within 4 years"? How can you envision that coming about? It's not like the dems are going to grow their party this Nov.

    jcapan March 7, 2010 at 7:51 pm
• 4

  I can't believe you're all so wrapped up in this discussion. Anyone who votes against the bill while hoping it passes anyway is fundamentally dishonest and needs to be called out on that. Anyone who hopes the bill will fail but votes for it anyway is also fundamentally dishonest.

  The job of our press is to keep politicians honest and while explicating the scenarios that would explain why a representative would make a dishonest vote is useful it's not the main mission here. The citizens represented by these people have the right to know what their reps believe. Let's have a list of health care reform supporters who plan to vote against it and vice versa.

  Also, in the future when you're covering people who voted dishonestly you need to make note of it. Nobody should be able to get the "cover" of only voting against something because it passes anyway.

  destor23 March 7, 2010 at 6:49 pm Log in to Reply

Add Your Comment: