Search results

@Seven @Fr3sh and anyone else who was interested in the discussion. Finally, this took almost 3 hours to write while browsing efukt. I will compare here the US vs EU health system and show that it’s not as simple as “the US spends more on healthcare and has a lower life expectancy...

:lol: It's late, I'll respond to all that drivel tomorrow.

:yawn:

It probably is a basic need. It's not a basic right.

who was it that mentioned dunning kruger?

An insurance is simply a bet. When you insure your house against fire for 1 million and the premium is 1000 per year, this means that you are betting 1000 dollars that your house will burn this year and the coefficient is 1000 and the insurance company is your bookie. Take your cancer survivor...

And this is why I said "in a completely unregulated market". When you reply without reading thoroughly and making sure you've understood, you run the risk of looking foolish. - - - Updated - - - It doesn't.

For a high enough price, they would.

The question still stands and the answer is obviously USA. We can avatar bet if you want. My point is that overall the American system is more free market than the European and one of the main benefits is that it stimulated innovation in medicine. Still, the American system is very far from...

In a completely unregulated market they would, but the premium would be very high (and rightly so). - - - Updated - - - Whats more to the point is do you know?

OK "In 1961 Janssen Pharmaceutica was purchased by the American corporation Johnson & Johnson, and is now part of Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development (J&J PRD)" Also, most European pharmaceutical companies are private, too, you know.

@Ocelot I'm starting to think that I was wrong to assume that.

You didn't read or understand the discussion. I didn't prove that pharmaceutical companies invest in cures, which they do. It should be obvious to anyone who hasn't lived in a cave, but to prove it you need empirical evidence. What I did prove is that pharmaceutical companies have incentive to...

If you think my proof is wrong, and therefore the entire mainstream Economics, since its based on the same line of logic, prove it. - - - Updated - - - Notice the contradiction: people say Economics is not a real science because it's not an exact science, meaning not mathematical enough. But...

Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true.

Of course there are many factors. It's just that private enterprise is the most important one. Which question? - - - Updated - - - If you think Economics is not a science, that's just your opinion and I don't really care.

What do you want me to say, man? I gave you two scientific proofs why you are wrong, yet you keep coming at me with the same drivel. - - - Updated - - - Hey, it's been fun. - - - Updated - - - None of them are free. And as long as we are comparing the two, which country has patented more...

The basic New Keynesian model is the following: They take the Real Business cycle model, replace perfect competition with monopolistic competition and put Calvo Pricing (which means firms sometimes cannot change prices even if they want to). The Keynesian bit in the name is unfortunate because...

You may have tried, but you didn't. What is ridiculous is to imply that 14th century Europe was a Capitalist society. In fact, that was the dumbest statement on the last few pages and that's quite a feat. - - - Updated - - - There are various degrees of working. A Bentley works but so can a Lada.

I am saying people have a right to choose not to be insured and if a "sizable portion of the population" chooses not to be insured, than it's not a problem. And to answer your next question "What about those who can't afford an insurance?", nationalising the health industry is a very bad...