Economics... (1 Viewer)

[Seven]

Which model do I believe in that is outdated and which model do you believe in?

Capitalism the way you present it here is outdated.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Ocelot]

You've got an answer then?

Yes If only the pharmaceutical industry wasn't held back by those damned state regulations in the 14th century, I'm sure they'd have cured the plague otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Which country? I work in finance.

I'll try to move this debate forward, you make it sound as if all or most of the patients don't get paid and that's wildly inaccurate. The question is what percentage of the claims are unjustly refused (in the US).

The issue of patients not being paid is in any case secondary to the fact that no private healthcare scheme can credible claim to be able to cover the entirety of the population in any society that exists in reality.

 

[Juliano13]

Capitalism the way you present it here is outdated.

Which way is that? And which model do you believe in?

 

[Ocelot]

Capitalism the way you present it here is outdated.

Not outdated as much as it's always been very flawed.

 

[Juliano13]

Capitalism the way you present it here is outdated.

Which way is that? And which model do you believe in?

 

[Maddy]

I don't like these labels because I believe in different things from different schools but lets just say I don't adhere to any heterodox school, including the Austrian. I like the Chicago School, but I like some parts of the New Keynesian school, too. And New institutional economics has some good ideas.

New Keynesian? But doesn't that school argue that the market is full of failures, especially due to imperfect competition? And to my knowledge New Keynesianism are critical of the effect of the free market (and the [very] invisible hand) due to externalities.

So what is it you like from New Keynesianism besides rational expectations?

- - - Updated - - -

The issue of patients not being paid is in any case secondary to the fact that no private healthcare scheme can credible claim to be able to cover the entirety of the population in any society that exists in reality.

Nor is private healthcare in any way more efficient than public.

 

[Juliano13]

The issue of patients not being paid is in any case secondary to the fact that no private healthcare scheme can credible claim to be able to cover the entirety of the population in any society that exists in reality.

I never said it can. I am saying it doesn't have to.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes If only the pharmaceutical industry wasn't held back by those damned state regulations in the 14th century, I'm sure they'd have cured the plague otherwise.

Very funny retardation. Please, explain. I'm sure it's a great joke but I didn't get it.

 

[Ocelot]

I never said it can. I am saying it doesn't have to.

- - - Updated - - -



Very funny retardation. Please, explain. I'm sure it's a great joke but I didn't get it.

So you're saying it doesn't matter if sizeable portions of the population aren't insured (like with the US)? But how is it not as a society & economy desireable to have as many people as possible insured if said society is clearly affluent enough to provide for it?

Well, you were presenting the unprecedent level of medical knowledge & technology as a result of the private pharmaceutical industry, while the main factors at play are very very different ones. I was just pointing out how ridiculous that is.

- - - Updated - - -

Nor is private healthcare in any way more efficient than public.

Exactly.

 

[Juliano13]

So you're saying it doesn't matter if sizeable portions of the population aren't insured (like with the US)? But how is it not as a society & economy desireable to have as many people as possible insured if said society is clearly affluent enough to provide for it?

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 solution to this problem.

 

[Ocelot]

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 solution to this problem.

How so when it's been proven to work in dozens of other countries, even significantly poorer ones than the US?

 

[Juliano13]

Well, you were presenting the unprecedent level of medical knowledge & technology as a result of the private pharmaceutical industry, while the main factors at play are very very different ones. I was just pointing out how ridiculous that is.

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 - - -

How so when it's been proven to work in dozens of other countries, even significantly poorer ones than the US?

There are various degrees of working. A Bentley works but so can a Lada.

 

[Seven]

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.

Dude. American healthcare is piss poor compared to Belgian healthcare. And one of them is free.

 

[swag]

I feel as if I'm trying to explain multiplication to somebody who can't take sums. You really need to read some econ 101 book or wikipedia or sth, otherwise this is hopeless.

I hope you agree at least on one point: today we can cure a lot more diseases than 50 years ago and even more so than 100 years ago. How come?

Here's the problem: you've got your head so stuck up in the theory that you are either blind or unable to look around at the reality. Because these are the facts: there's no market for cheaper, more cost effective medical equipment manufacturing. The best you get are fads like fast CT scans, which are really about greater turnover at the service delivery end and hence more billing. But ultimately they are not cheaper and more effective on the market.

And nobody in private industry is researching cures. They aren't investing in cures. They aren't funding cures. They are funding turning ailments into chronic conditions.

Econ 101 has nothing to do with it. I suggest you stop blinding yourself with theory for a while and recognize the reality of life in our current medical system. A theory is only as good as the observational realities supporting it.

 

[Ocelot]

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.

Yeah, I didn't imply that. Just pointing out that there are a lot more important factors contributing to the fact that our medical expertise is the best it's ever been than a private pharmacuetical industry.

And you haven't answered my question.

 

[Bjerknes]

@Juliano13: Good stuff here, you're saving me a lot of time. Keep it going. Reminder -- you're dealing with folks who are either socialist, pseudo-Keynesians, or don't know their ass from their face.

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.

 

[Seven]

@Juliano13: Good stuff here, you're saving me a lot of time. Keep it going. Reminder -- you're dealing with folks who are either socialist, pseudo-Keynesians, or don't know their ass from their face.

No, he's dealing with people who know that if they have to go to the hospital they won't be ruined financially and can't comprehend why you would actively choose your moronic unfair system.

 

[Maddy]

Yeah, I didn't imply that. Just pointing out that there are a lot more important factors contributing to the fact that our medical expertise is the best it's ever been than a private pharmacuetical industry.

And wouldn't you know. Guess who financed most of the important scientific breakthroughs? Wasn't the free (private) market. Nope, the market in itself actually produce too little funding, which is another externality that juliano13 have overlooked.

- - - Updated - - -

Econ 101 has nothing to do with it. I suggest you stop blinding yourself with theory for a while and recognize the reality of life in our current medical system. A theory is only as good as the observational realities supporting it.

In Econ 101 you learn something about positive and normative economics. Juliano13 would have benefitted from following that class before his condescending behaviour.

 

[Juliano13]

New Keynesian? But doesn't that school argue that the market is full of failures, especially due to imperfect competition? And to my knowledge New Keynesianism are critical of the effect of the free market (and the [very] invisible hand) due to externalities.

So what is it you like from New Keynesianism besides rational expectations?

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 in terms of both methodology and policy implications this model is a lot closer to the Chicago School then to the Old Keynesian. What did Milton Friedman say - the government should increase the money supply by a constant percentage every year, but not too much, and i shouldn't do any counter-cyclical fiscal policy. Well, the optimal government policy in the New Keynesian model is an interest rate rule (Taylor rule) that keeps the inflation rate constant and no fiscal intervention.
There are many problems with this model, but what I like is that money is non-neutral in the short run.

 

[Hængebøffer]

Economists knows everything. They even tell others how to do their job.

 

[Juliano13]

Here's the problem: you've got your head so stuck up in the theory that you are either blind or unable to look around at the reality. Because these are the facts: there's no market for cheaper, more cost effective medical equipment manufacturing. The best you get are fads like fast CT scans, which are really about greater turnover at the service delivery end and hence more billing. But ultimately they are not cheaper and more effective on the market.

And nobody in private industry is researching cures. They aren't investing in cures. They aren't funding cures. They are funding turning ailments into chronic conditions.

Econ 101 has nothing to do with it. I suggest you stop blinding yourself with theory for a while and recognize the reality of life in our current medical system. A theory is only as good as the observational realities supporting it.

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 - - -

@Juliano13: Good stuff here, you're saving me a lot of time. Keep it going. Reminder -- you're dealing with folks who are either socialist, pseudo-Keynesians, or don't know their ass from their face.

Hey, it's been fun.

- - - Updated - - -

Dude. American healthcare is piss poor compared to Belgian healthcare. And one of them is free.

None of them are free. And as long as we are comparing the two, which country has patented more drugs in the last 50 years?