The greatest health care system in the world

[Diuretic]

I wonder if Canadians look south and think, "hey that's a great system, let's copy it!"

I wonder.

Maybe Canada could ease up on the restrictions on private medical care, whether it be purchased direct or via insurance. A two-tier system may upset the strongly ideological but it's actually not a bad idea.

 

[Skeptik]

I wonder if Canadians look south and think, "hey that's a great system, let's copy it!"

I wonder.

Maybe Canada could ease up on the restrictions on private medical care, whether it be purchased direct or via insurance. A two-tier system may upset the strongly ideological but it's actually not a bad idea.

They aren't saying that now, of course, but maybe once we reform our health care system, they will.

 

[Diuretic]

I wonder if Canadians look south and think, "hey that's a great system, let's copy it!"

I wonder.

Maybe Canada could ease up on the restrictions on private medical care, whether it be purchased direct or via insurance. A two-tier system may upset the strongly ideological but it's actually not a bad idea.

They aren't saying that now, of course, but maybe once we reform our health care system, they will.

Maybe they will, but they need to get a bit more with it. I wonder why the system in Canada is province-based and not national, there are probably very good reasons for that but anyway that would end up in thread drift so best I leave it alone.

 

[Tor Hershman]

It’s not a Health Care System, in the USA, it is a business and the supply of product (Doctors) is controlled by the AMA and the smaller the supply or product the greater the price/demand, that is all – just more of the terrorism that Capitalism IS!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecile, honey, I'm sorry if this is just a little too complex for you.

I tried to make it as simply as I could for you to understand.

But what we normally think of as how the laws of supply/demand work in HC are very unlike how those laws work in most other areas of our lives.

This observation isn't something any economist would disagree with.

Well, when we get around to condescending misogyny, that's when I know you know you've lost. "I'm sorry you just don't understand how brilliant I am, but I"m right, and you just don't realize it" is the same as "Damn, I can't argue my point."

So thank you. I accept your surrender.

Whatever, sweetie.

You're fighting way above your weight class when it come to debating me about this issue.

Oh, yeah. This post demonstrates real heavyweight debating. In fact, I'm trembling in my booties about your scary ability to say, "Well, I just can't even discuss your points any more, I've really got to just go to telling you how outclassed you are, because I'm too tough for you."

Spare me, Ed. You're done, we both know you're done, all that's left is you trying to save face. Badly. Move along, and come back when you grow a REAL pair.

 

[Cecilie1200]

EVERYTHING is subject to the laws of supply and demand, no matter how hard to you try to circumvent them. All you accomplish is to change their application.

That is not an accurate assessment, though it is a telling indication of the bankruptcy of neoclassical economics. For a clear counterexample to your erroneous statement, we could consider the effects of monopsony power on wages and the role of efficiency wages in illustrating the manner in which factors additional to those of mere "market law" crucially impact.

Is this supposed to be an actual response, or an attempt to silence debate by big-word intimidation? Because if it's an actual response, it's greatly lacking in substance. If it's intended to make me go, "Oooh, big, scary words with lots of syllables. I don't know what he's talking about, so he MUST be much smarter than I am, and I can't challenge that", you have the wrong girl.

I will await you posting something real.

 

[Agnapostate]

Is this supposed to be an actual response, or an attempt to silence debate by big-word intimidation? Because if it's an actual response, it's greatly lacking in substance. If it's intended to make me go, "Oooh, big, scary words with lots of syllables. I don't know what he's talking about, so he MUST be much smarter than I am, and I can't challenge that", you have the wrong girl.

I will await you posting something real.

When one makes a claim so fallacious as "EVERYTHING is subject to the laws of supply and demand," the rational analyst would expect such an individual to possess some degree of informed awareness of the possible applications of that statement.

Now, I referred to the efficiency wage hypothesis to illustrate the manner in which the "laws of supply and demand" alone do not preside over all forms of market exchange and contracting. If you're unfamiliar with the hypothesis, it's related to the incentive for an employer to provide a worker or workers with a wage in excess of a market-clearing amount specifically for the purpose of mitigating agency costs and problems, such as shirking (a moral hazard problem), or related adverse selection problems, all due to the presence of information asymmetries in the labor market.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is this supposed to be an actual response, or an attempt to silence debate by big-word intimidation? Because if it's an actual response, it's greatly lacking in substance. If it's intended to make me go, "Oooh, big, scary words with lots of syllables. I don't know what he's talking about, so he MUST be much smarter than I am, and I can't challenge that", you have the wrong girl.

I will await you posting something real.

When one makes a claim so fallacious as "EVERYTHING is subject to the laws of supply and demand," the rational analyst would expect such an individual to possess some degree of informed awareness of the possible applications of that statement.

In other words, "That just sounds wrong, so I'm declaring it wrong, and why would you need proof?" Sorry, Sparky. No go. You want to declare it fallacious, then you prove that it is.

Now, I referred to the efficiency wage hypothesis to illustrate the manner in which the "laws of supply and demand" alone do not preside over all forms of market exchange and contracting. If you're unfamiliar with the hypothesis, it's related to the incentive for an employer to provide a worker or workers with a wage in excess of a market-clearing amount specifically for the purpose of mitigating agency costs and problems, such as shirking (a moral hazard problem), or related adverse selection problems, all due to the presence of information asymmetries in the labor market.

::yawn:: This is the last post in wihch I'm going to tolerate this smokescreen. You have proof that what I say is wrong, then you provide it. You don't toss up a paragraph full of gobbledygook about "I referred to this theory, which refers to this principle, which if you knew about it would prove that you're wrong." All this accomplishes is to make me think you really don't know anything, but figure if you use enough five-dollar words, everyone will think you do.

I'm still waiting for you to post something real.

 

[Agnapostate]

In other words, "That just sounds wrong, so I'm declaring it wrong, and why would you need proof?" Sorry, Sparky. No go. You want to declare it fallacious, then you prove that it is.

You possess an absurdly crude and rather utopian understanding of the labor market, in that you apparently assume that wages can solely be determined by the "market laws" of supply and demand. Unfortunately, there are vast differences between exchange and consumption of basic goods, For instance, we can refer to the existence of underpayment in the labor market due to the prevalence of asymmetric information. A random drawing from the literature would yield Hofler and Murphy's Underpaid and Overworked: Measuring the Effect of Imperfect Information on Wages. Consider the abstract:

This paper investigates the degree of shortfall between the wages workers earn and what they could earn assuming perfect or costless information in the labor market. The authors use the stochastic frontier regression technique to estimate the degree of shortfall found in wages on an individual basis. The paper tests, in addition, a number of hypotheses supplied by search theory in this context. The results generally confirm the propositions from search theory and indicate that, on the average, worker wages fall short of worker potential wages by approximately 10 percent.

So your own analysis is effectively a vast oversimplification. Because of numerous additional factors present in the elements of a labor market, it would be hopelessly naive to simply assert that wages are determined by supply and demand alone.

::yawn:: This is the last post in wihch I'm going to tolerate this smokescreen. You have proof that what I say is wrong, then you provide it. You don't toss up a paragraph full of gobbledygook about "I referred to this theory, which refers to this principle, which if you knew about it would prove that you're wrong." All this accomplishes is to make me think you really don't know anything, but figure if you use enough five-dollar words, everyone will think you do.

I'm still waiting for you to post something real.

Economics in an economics discussion? My God! The obscenity! The audacity!

I explained to you what the efficiency wage hypothesis is, even oversimplifying to an excessive degree to compensate for your economic ignorance. Regardless, I'm not here to educate you. The fact that you are ignorant of economic theories and concepts whilst making extremely assertive claims about market functions serves to your discredit, not mine. It's ludicrous that you should attempt to claim that your lack of knowledge is somehow a demerit of mine. If I have any advice for you, it's that you refer to the Almighty Wikipedia.

Information asymmetry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adverse selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moral hazard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Principal-agent problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Efficiency wages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as an immediate remedy to your ignorance: Labour economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cecilie1200]

In other words, "That just sounds wrong, so I'm declaring it wrong, and why would you need proof?" Sorry, Sparky. No go. You want to declare it fallacious, then you prove that it is.

You possess an absurdly crude and rather utopian understanding of the labor market, in that you apparently assume that wages can solely be determined by the "market laws" of supply and demand. Unfortunately, there are vast differences between exchange and consumption of basic goods, For instance, we can refer to the existence of underpayment in the labor market due to the prevalence of asymmetric information. A random drawing from the literature would yield Hofler and Murphy's Underpaid and Overworked: Measuring the Effect of Imperfect Information on Wages. Consider the abstract:

This paper investigates the degree of shortfall between the wages workers earn and what they could earn assuming perfect or costless information in the labor market. The authors use the stochastic frontier regression technique to estimate the degree of shortfall found in wages on an individual basis. The paper tests, in addition, a number of hypotheses supplied by search theory in this context. The results generally confirm the propositions from search theory and indicate that, on the average, worker wages fall short of worker potential wages by approximately 10 percent.

Oh, goody. More "we can refer to this theory" bullshit. Look, Jack, if you can't just state your debate point, then say so.

So your own analysis is effectively a vast oversimplification. Because of numerous additional factors present in the elements of a labor market, it would be hopelessly naive to simply assert that wages are determined by supply and demand alone.

Yeah, that works. "See this big ol' quote full of economic jargon? So there. You're wrong." Now let's see you explain it, because I really doubt you have a frigging clue what you just quoted. You're just hoping I don't, either.

::yawn:: This is the last post in wihch I'm going to tolerate this smokescreen. You have proof that what I say is wrong, then you provide it. You don't toss up a paragraph full of gobbledygook about "I referred to this theory, which refers to this principle, which if you knew about it would prove that you're wrong." All this accomplishes is to make me think you really don't know anything, but figure if you use enough five-dollar words, everyone will think you do.

I'm still waiting for you to post something real.

Economics in an economics discussion? My God! The obscenity! The audacity!

The problem isn't the economics. The problem is the attempt to avoid having to discuss economics by way of spouting technical jargon at me. The truth is, if you really knew what you were talking about and could prove me wrong, you'd have done so by now. You just keep hoping I'll be so impressed and intimidated by your cut-and-pastes that I'll drop it.

I explained to you what the efficiency wage hypothesis is, even oversimplifying to an excessive degree to compensate for your economic ignorance. Regardless, I'm not here to educate you. The fact that you are ignorant of economic theories and concepts whilst making extremely assertive claims about market functions serves to your discredit, not mine. It's ludicrous that you should attempt to claim that your lack of knowledge is somehow a demerit of mine. If I have any advice for you, it's that you refer to the Almighty Wikipedia.

No, dumbass, you didn't "explain" anything. What you did was copy some text out of an economic textbook at me, hoping I would believe you knew what you were talking about, and/or be too intimidated by the big words to demand that YOU demonstrate that YOU know what it means. It doesn't work.

Information asymmetry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adverse selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moral hazard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Principal-agent problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Efficiency wages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as an immediate remedy to your ignorance: Labour economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia? It's bad enough that you've made it clear that you don't personally possess any understanding of what you're trying to talk about. But now you're not only trying to replace debate with quotes, you're trying to replace it with quotes from WIKIPEDIA?

Well, I'll admit, it saves time when fools like you announce what a waste of space you are right off the bat. Stick a fork in yourself. You're done.

 

[Agnapostate]

Oh, goody. More "we can refer to this theory" bullshit. Look, Jack, if you can't just state your debate point, then say so.

The reference is to asymmetric information in the labor market. Hopefully, you're not lost yet. As with externalities, information asymmetries are defects in a market. They result in agency problems not predicted in an utopian ideological conception of perfect or optimal exchange and contracting, but that exist in the real world. My reference was specifically to the efficiency wage hypothesis (efficiency wages are wages paid in excess of the market-clearing amount in an attempt to ensure...well...efficiency, as shocking! as that is), to illustrate the manner in which the laws of supply and demand do not rule over all market exchange.

Yeah, that works. "See this big ol' quote full of economic jargon? So there. You're wrong." Now let's see you explain it, because I really doubt you have a frigging clue what you just quoted. You're just hoping I don't, either.

This has been explained to you several times; you're simply too ignorant of labor economics to appreciate the nature of the aforementioned problems.

The problem isn't the economics. The problem is the attempt to avoid having to discuss economics by way of spouting technical jargon at me. The truth is, if you really knew what you were talking about and could prove me wrong, you'd have done so by now. You just keep hoping I'll be so impressed and intimidated by your cut-and-pastes that I'll drop it.

There have been no "cut-and pastes," unless you refer to my quotation of a study abstract. (Which is a fairly standard academic technique.) As was mentioned earlier, the fact that you are ignorant of economic theory is no fault of mine.

No, dumbass, you didn't "explain" anything. What you did was copy some text out of an economic textbook at me, hoping I would believe you knew what you were talking about, and/or be too intimidated by the big words to demand that YOU demonstrate that YOU know what it means. It doesn't work.

I understand that it might perturb you that not all are as economically ignorant as you, but your little foot-stamping, though an amusing and comical spectacle, obviously isn't conducive to informed analysis. Let's try this again: Efficiency wages are those paid in excess of the market-clearing amount due to asymmetric (imperfect) information in the labor market. Are you lost yet?

Wikipedia? It's bad enough that you've made it clear that you don't personally possess any understanding of what you're trying to talk about. But now you're not only trying to replace debate with quotes, you're trying to replace it with quotes from WIKIPEDIA?

Well, I'll admit, it saves time when fools like you announce what a waste of space you are right off the bat. Stick a fork in yourself. You're done.

You clearly possess a massive ignorance of labor economics, so you needed a quick and simple explanation, and even a rather shallow website would add significantly to your current utter lack of knowledge.

 

[editec]

Reading this exchange between Nemesis and Cecilee reminds me all why they don't allow VW rabbits to race against NASCAR muscle cars.

Nemesis you might as well pen your responses to her in GREEK.

 

[Agnapostate]

Reading this exchange between Nemesis and Cecilee reminds me all why they don't allow VW rabbits to race against NASCAR muscle cars.

Nemesis you might as well pen your responses to her in GREEK.

I've tried to offer an explanation that's oversimplified, at that. None of these concepts are especially complex if approached with an intent to learn; she just wishes to believe otherwise because an informed approach conflicts with her preconceived ideological conclusions. A shame, really.

 

[Diuretic]

Reading this exchange between Nemesis and Cecilee reminds me all why they don't allow VW rabbits to race against NASCAR muscle cars.

Nemesis you might as well pen your responses to her in GREEK.

Endaksi

 

[editec]

Reading this exchange between Nemesis and Cecilee reminds me all why they don't allow VW rabbits to race against NASCAR muscle cars.

Nemesis you might as well pen your responses to her in GREEK.

I've tried to offer an explanation that's oversimplified, at that. None of these concepts are especially complex if approached with an intent to learn; she just wishes to believe otherwise because an informed approach conflicts with her preconceived ideological conclusions. A shame, really.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, amigo.

Well, except maybe for the terminally stupid.

But they can't help themselves, so they get a pass... as long as they're reasonable polite about it.

I tried in the simplest way I know how to explain to this nasty little know-nothing why HC economics aren't exactly like that 8th grade version of economics she's so enamoured with.

Now a reasonably intelligent 8th grade could get it.

Did she thank me for helping her to understand something important about this issue?

No, this idiot attempts to engage me in a No it isn't! Yes it is kind of bitchfest.

Why waste your time with trolls?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Reading this exchange between Nemesis and Cecilee reminds me all why they don't allow VW rabbits to race against NASCAR muscle cars.

Nemesis you might as well pen your responses to her in GREEK.

You're right, since his only purpose in posting is to obfuscate and silence any real discussion. And now your purpose is to disigenuously pretend that that wasn't the case and the two of you were just on a higher and loftier intellectual plane than everyone else.

I sneer at his pretense, and now I sneer at yours. If you have a point to make, make it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Reading this exchange between Nemesis and Cecilee reminds me all why they don't allow VW rabbits to race against NASCAR muscle cars.

Nemesis you might as well pen your responses to her in GREEK.

I've tried to offer an explanation that's oversimplified, at that. None of these concepts are especially complex if approached with an intent to learn; she just wishes to believe otherwise because an informed approach conflicts with her preconceived ideological conclusions. A shame, really.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, amigo.

Well, except maybe for the terminally stupid.

But they can't help themselves, so they get a pass... as long as they're reasonable polite about it.

I tried in the simplest way I know how to explain to this nasty little know-nothing why HC economics aren't exactly like that 8th grade version of economics she's so enamoured with.

Now a reasonably intelligent 8th grade could get it.

Did she thank me for helping her to understand something important about this issue?

No, this idiot attempts to engage me in a No it isn't! Yes it is kind of bitchfest.

Why waste your time with trolls?

I love it. "They just don't get your revealed wisdom, because they aren't as smart and educated as you and me."

Fine. You want everyone to believe that his posts weren't so much bullshit to you, and that the problem is that you're just too smart for us lowly peons? Explain what he said in English. If you can't - and we both know you can't, because it made no sense as any sort of real debate point - you go on ignore as a bullshitting poseur right alongside him.

Put up or shut up, Ed. You want everyone to believe you're an economic genius? Now's your chance to prove it.

 

[Agnapostate]

There is no "[obfuscation]" contained in my rebuttal, merely your own ignorance. Your crude analysis of the labor market was characterized through an inaccurate assumption that market laws that applied to exchange and consumption of basic goods could somehow fully address all the nuances of the labor market. I noted the prevalence of asymmetric (uneven) information in the labor market (through reference to Hofler and Murphy), and the related agency costs and problems (adverse selection, moral hazard), that resulted from this.

Hardly an especially complex or obscure analysis. Very simply, what seems to work in an ideological utopia isn't so perfect in practice.

 

[Gurdari]

The Canadian Healthcare System has been demonized for over a decade by the US Healthcare industry. They are sooo afraid that we are going to adopt a similar solution.

I have only 2 problems with Universal Healthcare.

1. The government sucks at running things
2. The cost

Haha, what's wrong with a cheaper system that serves more people?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Canadian Healthcare System has been demonized for over a decade by the US Healthcare industry. They are sooo afraid that we are going to adopt a similar solution.

I have only 2 problems with Universal Healthcare.

1. The government sucks at running things
2. The cost

Haha, what's wrong with a cheaper system that serves more people?

Nothing, but we aren't talking about a system that does either.