Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[Flopper]

Actually, no.

What do you mean? What gives you the idea that a free market requires perfectly informed consumers?

Microeconomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The theory of supply and demand usually assumes that markets are perfectly competitive.

Perfect competition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"perfect competition (sometimes called pure competition) describes markets such that no participants are large enough to have the market power to set the price of a homogeneous product. Because the conditions for perfect competition are strict, there are few if any perfectly competitive markets."

"Perfect information - All consumers and producers are assumed to have perfect knowledge of price, utility, quality and production methods of products."

On a scale of 1 to 10, one being the most competitive, healthcare services would rank about 9 with or without Obamacare.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Decrease in Price causes an increase in quantity demand."[1]

Apparently you didn't learn your material very will.

It says that;

when the quantity demanded increases, then the demand price goes DOWN.

Here is the supply and demand curves for you to look at

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity, then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases. Then, all other things being equal, the supply price increases.

And, I see that you haven't read the ACA bill, either.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

The supply and demand curves for a market do not say that when demanded quantity goes up that price is guaranteed to go up. It just says that, ceterus paribus, all other things being equal, then it will. And, it is on a particular market structure.

What can and does usually happen is that both the supply and demand curves shift at the same time. This is why following the market equilibrium prices doesn't tell us anything about the supply and demand functions. (unfortunately).

The reason for this is that there are four degrees of freedom for the supply and demand curves. There is the demand shift, the quantity demanded, the supply shift and the quantity supplied. Because of this, without some further constraints, there is not telling what will occur when only one is specified as changing.



[1] http://windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/briggs-p/introduction and syllabus/supplydemandworksheet.pdf

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

Holy crap, are you bad at econ.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

You got 1 right.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity

When demand shifts to the left, that's a lower quantity.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

Man, the irony is thick in here.

Tell me some more about this claim.....

Costs spread out across every product, spread out across every individual, are no costs at all because they are nothing relative to everything.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-skeptics-are-winning-40.html#post8003823

Cause that's some funny stuff right there.

Your inability to read a graph and do math doesn't change reality. I'm amazed at the level of denial. With a graph showing quantity increasimng and price falling, you are simply unable to grasp the obvious.

What is wrong with you? Do you know?

Obamacare is going to shift the supply curve to the right? OMG! Hilarious.

If Obama could actually do something to increase supply (doctors are retiring, to escape Obamacare), prices could fall.

Instead, shift the demand curve up and let me know what will happen to price.

Maybe Obamacare can treat your confusion?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

how hard is it for them to read this graph?

lol!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How hard is it for them to read this graph?

Math and science have become table stakes for life. That leaves a lot of people not at the table.

That leaves you under the table.

 

[PMZ]

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

Holy crap, are you bad at econ.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

You got 1 right.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity

When demand shifts to the left, that's a lower quantity.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

Man, the irony is thick in here.

Tell me some more about this claim.....

Costs spread out across every product, spread out across every individual, are no costs at all because they are nothing relative to everything.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-skeptics-are-winning-40.html#post8003823

Cause that's some funny stuff right there.

Your inability to read a graph and do math doesn't change reality. I'm amazed at the level of denial. With a graph showing quantity increasimng and price falling, you are simply unable to grasp the obvious.

What is wrong with you? Do you know?

Obamacare is going to shift the supply curve to the right? OMG! Hilarious.

If Obama could actually do something to increase supply (doctors are retiring, to escape Obamacare), prices could fall.

Instead, shift the demand curve up and let me know what will happen to price.

Maybe Obamacare can treat your confusion?

The real question of course is, what would doing nothing change. The obvious answer is........ Nothing.

The strategy of conservatism. Do nothing and hope for the best!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your inability to read a graph and do math doesn't change reality. I'm amazed at the level of denial. With a graph showing quantity increasimng and price falling, you are simply unable to grasp the obvious.

What is wrong with you? Do you know?

Obamacare is going to shift the supply curve to the right? OMG! Hilarious.

If Obama could actually do something to increase supply (doctors are retiring, to escape Obamacare), prices could fall.

Instead, shift the demand curve up and let me know what will happen to price.

Maybe Obamacare can treat your confusion?

The real question of course is, what would doing nothing change. The obvious answer is........ Nothing.

The strategy of conservatism. Do nothing and hope for the best!

The real question of course is, what would spending trillions to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount really change? The obvious answer is........ Nothing.
Except for reducing our standard of living and making fossil fuels cheaper for China and India to burn, offsetting our tiny reduction.

 

[PMZ]

Obamacare is going to shift the supply curve to the right? OMG! Hilarious.

If Obama could actually do something to increase supply (doctors are retiring, to escape Obamacare), prices could fall.

Instead, shift the demand curve up and let me know what will happen to price.

Maybe Obamacare can treat your confusion?

The real question of course is, what would doing nothing change. The obvious answer is........ Nothing.

The strategy of conservatism. Do nothing and hope for the best!

The real question of course is, what would spending trillions to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount really change? The obvious answer is........ Nothing.
Except for reducing our standard of living and making fossil fuels cheaper for China and India to burn, offsetting our tiny reduction.

''The real question of course is, what would spending trillions to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount really change? The obvious answer is........ Nothing. ''

That answer is not obvious to science, and science is the only approach with a basis other than hope.

The question is how much of the carbon currently sequestered in the ground could be kept there with more rapid progress towards our necessary goal of sustainable energy. Why? Because carbon released to the atmosphere will be increasingly expensive. The more released, the more the climate that we adapted civilization to will change, requiring a different adaptation.

What's that going to cost? Because we don't know exactly what the weather will be 1, 10, 100 years from now, science can't predict with certainty,

So we have to play the odds.

The odds are that weather will be more extreme, sea level will rise precipitously, and rainfall patterns will change significantly.

The IPCC has the global responsibility to determine those odds. And determine the least cost path. And advise political policy makers of those probabilities.

The enemies of progress don't want informed action. They want to ignore the odds and hope for the best. If they get what they want, others will be stuck with whatever costs emerge. Of course those costs may be substantially higher than necessary but the fact that others will be stuck with them is a savings to today's denialists.

Science vs hope.

 

[HenryBHough]

Sequestering carbon dioxide in the ground is simply creating a new target for terrorists.

 

[freedombecki]

OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.

What would you want to be changed?

Democrats will not negotiate, and have sought to solidify ties between government branches, which are supposed to operate separately. It's called the Separation of Powers.

By their failure to operate America within the parameters of American tradition, I cannot support any part of Obamacare.

Can Obamacare be fixed? The answer is an emphatic NO.

We can't get rid of the criminal element that engineered the fiasco due to shady voting practices by precinct chairmen, who advocate voting frequently and Democrat.

America is just screwed. There's no fix.

Zero evidence presented for 100 percent of your post. It is absolutely, therefore, nothing more than what you wish was true.

Obama said "I will not negotiate." It's on 30 videos at Youtube, and you're saying there's no evidence?

I wish it weren't true. I wish Obama had not called Congressmen and women who oppose him as "deadbeats."

A deadbeat is a person who creates spending in excess of his means, then tries to get out of paying it back.

The president in 5 years has added 6 trillion more, now wants the debt ceiling terminally open to more sky's the limit crap he has absolutely no intention of worrying about and is going to shift it on to the next person who holds his miserable job.

Democrats foisted this incompetent-in-business person on the nation in order to do dirty stuff to poison this nation into the communistic realm of socialism that is unspeakably unjust to people who work hard by taking half their income and giving it to people who do not work, have no incentive to do work, and have time on their hands to plan how they will get more than their fair share to live on by welshing more and more from the government in devious ways. I just viewed 3 videos of someone who was telling women to "f---" have babies, and get into the bucks." And she adds another statement that she now has the power to get taxpayers money for herself for free. I think the young woman and her greedy disciples will have a bad end if she thinks doing crude things will bring her wealth beyond her wildest dreams.

 

[PMZ]

Sequestering carbon dioxide in the ground is simply creating a new target for terrorists.

What would they do? Release it as we would have done if we didn't sequestered it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The real question of course is, what would doing nothing change. The obvious answer is........ Nothing.

The strategy of conservatism. Do nothing and hope for the best!

The real question of course is, what would spending trillions to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount really change? The obvious answer is........ Nothing.
Except for reducing our standard of living and making fossil fuels cheaper for China and India to burn, offsetting our tiny reduction.

''The real question of course is, what would spending trillions to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount really change? The obvious answer is........ Nothing. ''

That answer is not obvious to science, and science is the only approach with a basis other than hope.

The question is how much of the carbon currently sequestered in the ground could be kept there with more rapid progress towards our necessary goal of sustainable energy. Why? Because carbon released to the atmosphere will be increasingly expensive. The more released, the more the climate that we adapted civilization to will change, requiring a different adaptation.

What's that going to cost? Because we don't know exactly what the weather will be 1, 10, 100 years from now, science can't predict with certainty,

So we have to play the odds.

The odds are that weather will be more extreme, sea level will rise precipitously, and rainfall patterns will change significantly.

The IPCC has the global responsibility to determine those odds. And determine the least cost path. And advise political policy makers of those probabilities.

The enemies of progress don't want informed action. They want to ignore the odds and hope for the best. If they get what they want, others will be stuck with whatever costs emerge. Of course those costs may be substantially higher than necessary but the fact that others will be stuck with them is a savings to today's denialists.

Science vs hope.

The question is how much of the carbon currently sequestered in the ground could be kept there with more rapid progress towards our necessary goal of sustainable energy.

The question is, how much money must we waste if we follow your suggestions?
How much lower will CO2 be if we follow your suggestions?
Will it be 500 ppm, instead of 510 ppm?
Will we delay 510 ppm, by a few years, at the cost of $60 trillion? $70 trillion?

 

[percysunshine]

How the heck did carbon sequestration get inserted into the Obamacare bill?

I guess Nancy Pelosi was right....

 

[PMZ]

Democrats will not negotiate, and have sought to solidify ties between government branches, which are supposed to operate separately. It's called the Separation of Powers.

By their failure to operate America within the parameters of American tradition, I cannot support any part of Obamacare.

Can Obamacare be fixed? The answer is an emphatic NO.

We can't get rid of the criminal element that engineered the fiasco due to shady voting practices by precinct chairmen, who advocate voting frequently and Democrat.

America is just screwed. There's no fix.

Zero evidence presented for 100 percent of your post. It is absolutely, therefore, nothing more than what you wish was true.

Obama said "I will not negotiate." It's on 30 videos at Youtube, and you're saying there's no evidence?

I wish it weren't true. I wish Obama had not called Congressmen and women who oppose him as "deadbeats."

A deadbeat is a person who creates spending in excess of his means, then tries to get out of paying it back.

The president in 5 years has added 6 trillion more, now wants the debt ceiling terminally open to more sky's the limit crap he has absolutely no intention of worrying about and is going to shift it on to the next person who holds his miserable job.

Democrats foisted this incompetent-in-business person on the nation in order to do dirty stuff to poison this nation into the communistic realm of socialism that is unspeakably unjust to people who work hard by taking half their income and giving it to people who do not work, have no incentive to do work, and have time on their hands to plan how they will get more than their fair share to live on by welshing more and more from the government in devious ways. I just viewed 3 videos of someone who was telling women to "f---" have babies, and get into the bucks." And she adds another statement that she now has the power to get taxpayers money for herself for free. I think the young woman and her greedy disciples will have a bad end if she thinks doing crude things will bring her wealth beyond her wildest dreams.

As big a load of crap as I've seen.

The writer is selling Fox News propaganda that is based on one premise. The only way that the GOP can recover from Bush's incompetence is to drag Obama down to Bush's level. I agree with the premise. It's all that they have left. It just ignores one point. Obama led a complete recovery from the catastrophic damage of Bush.

So Republicans, desperate for redemption, have a story to sell.

It's based on the premise that on the date of Obama's first inauguration, Bush's policies ceased affecting the country, and we're immediately replaced by Obama's. So Bush's unaffordable holy wars became Obama's. The Great Recession that started on Bush's dime, became Obama's. Bush's massive unemployment became Obama's. The recovery begun under Bush to the Great Recession created by Bush, was caused by Obama.

Such illogical propaganda has created millions of wrong information voters unable to defend themselves from the herd mentality of Fox addicts.

It will stand in history as a low point in American politics. Modern Republicans have redefined political dirty tricks and it has claimed millions of victim cultists.

 

[freedombecki]

Zero evidence presented for 100 percent of your post. It is absolutely, therefore, nothing more than what you wish was true.

Obama said "I will not negotiate." It's on 30 videos at Youtube, and you're saying there's no evidence?

I wish it weren't true. I wish Obama had not called Congressmen and women who oppose him as "deadbeats."

A deadbeat is a person who creates spending in excess of his means, then tries to get out of paying it back.

The president in 5 years has added 6 trillion more, now wants the debt ceiling terminally open to more sky's the limit crap he has absolutely no intention of worrying about and is going to shift it on to the next person who holds his miserable job.

Democrats foisted this incompetent-in-business person on the nation in order to do dirty stuff to poison this nation into the communistic realm of socialism that is unspeakably unjust to people who work hard by taking half their income and giving it to people who do not work, have no incentive to do work, and have time on their hands to plan how they will get more than their fair share to live on by welshing more and more from the government in devious ways. I just viewed 3 videos of someone who was telling women to "f---" have babies, and get into the bucks." And she adds another statement that she now has the power to get taxpayers money for herself for free. I think the young woman and her greedy disciples will have a bad end if she thinks doing crude things will bring her wealth beyond her wildest dreams.

As big a load of crap as I've seen.

The writer is selling Fox News propaganda that is based on one premise. The only way that the GOP can recover from Bush's incompetence is to drag Obama down to Bush's level. I agree with the premise. It's all that they have left. It just ignores one point. Obama led a complete recovery from the catastrophic damage of Bush.

So Republicans, desperate for redemption, have a story to sell.

It's based on the premise that on the date of Obama's first inauguration, Bush's policies ceased affecting the country, and we're immediately replaced by Obama's. So Bush's unaffordable holy wars became Obama's. The Great Recession that started on Bush's dime, became Obama's. Bush's massive unemployment became Obama's. The recovery begun under Bush to the Great Recession created by Bush, was caused by Obama.

Such illogical propaganda has created millions of wrong information voters unable to defend themselves from the herd mentality of Fox addicts.

It will stand in history as a low point in American politics. Modern Republicans have redefined political dirty tricks and it has claimed millions of victim cultists.

No need to hurl feces, the many youtubes recording Obama's speeches are across the board more liberal than conservative. It came to my attention by posting Obama's words I read here at USMB into a search engine and tapping "videos." His negativism is worldwide, I can assure you, and Fox News is only one of the many sources that had Obama's speech down. The words are the very same on all of them. Obama is coddled along by one of his favorite liberal commentators, George Stephanopoulos, and of course no hard questions are posed to him. When you get to the end of his contrived-to-accuse-conservatives for his obstinancy, you hear just a little of what is cut off almost before he finishes saying "I will not negotiate the debt ceiling."

Convenient commercial break? I don't know. But the words are there. The evidence you accused me of not having is ubiquitous.

You don't let the truth affect you. That's why you are a bona-fide apparatchik of whatever Obama says, complete with your built-in filter for bad things he says that pertain to 60% of the population, who are liking him less and less with each paranoid spew he makes about "deadbeat" congressmen, creating an "enemies" portrayal of Republicans to chicano gatherings to get as many votes as he can ahead of time with these cheap, cheap, brassy shots. When he has no facts, he portrays others so egregiously, it's a lie known as calumny--gaining votes through falsehood and trickery.

With no other role model, you do the same thing Obama does. You already have your mind made up before you get here, and I'm not worried about you pretending to know nothing that's out there so commonly it's household knowledge to the rest of America.

 

[PMZ]

I like posts like yours as they demonstrate the tactics that Fox propaganda is based on.

Lots of words and zero content.

As the addicts snooze in their Lazy Boys they forget to check for facts and ride the wave of innuendo to their favorite place. Where their hero Dixiecrat Bushwacker captured their votes with his down home golly gees but before he had demonstrated how dysfunctional conservative, we're entitled to the center of the universe, is in practice.

Now the country knows. And every time Fox pulls the trigger their foot suffers.

The autopsy coming up will show suicide by natural causes. Naturally the American electorate insists on truth, whole and nothing but. Naturally the American electorate insists on results. Naturally the American electorate insists on fiscal responsibility. Naturally the American electorate insists on country before party.

 

[itfitzme]

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

Holy crap, are you bad at econ.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

You got 1 right.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity

When demand shifts to the left, that's a lower quantity.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

Man, the irony is thick in here.

Tell me some more about this claim.....

Costs spread out across every product, spread out across every individual, are no costs at all because they are nothing relative to everything.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-skeptics-are-winning-40.html#post8003823

Cause that's some funny stuff right there.

Your inability to read a graph and do math doesn't change reality. I'm amazed at the level of denial. With a graph showing quantity increasimng and price falling, you are simply unable to grasp the obvious.

What is wrong with you? Do you know?

Obamacare is going to shift the supply curve to the right? OMG! Hilarious.

If Obama could actually do something to increase supply (doctors are retiring, to escape Obamacare), prices could fall.

Instead, shift the demand curve up and let me know what will happen to price.

Maybe Obamacare can treat your confusion?

So now you have actually read the graph and see it says that quantity demanded is increasing and price falling.

And now you want to change the subject to distract from the fact that you couldn't read a graph.

That's typical of you Todd, can't admit you made a mistake.

This is what you disagreed with

"Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down."

You reply, "Holy crap, are you bad at econ."

I did mispeak with; "Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity" I shpuld have said lower quantity or right.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your inability to read a graph and do math doesn't change reality. I'm amazed at the level of denial. With a graph showing quantity increasimng and price falling, you are simply unable to grasp the obvious.

What is wrong with you? Do you know?

Obamacare is going to shift the supply curve to the right? OMG! Hilarious.

If Obama could actually do something to increase supply (doctors are retiring, to escape Obamacare), prices could fall.

Instead, shift the demand curve up and let me know what will happen to price.

Maybe Obamacare can treat your confusion?

So now you have actually read the graph and see it says that quantity demanded is increasing and price falling.

And now you want to change the subject to distract from the fact that you couldn't read a graph.

That's typical of you Todd, can't admit you made a mistake.

This is what you disagreed with

"Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down."

You reply, "Holy crap, are you bad at econ."

I did mispeak with; "Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity" I shpuld have said lower quantity or right.

So now you have actually read the graph and see it says that quantity demanded is increasing and price falling.

Wrong, you silly twit, it shows supply increasing, leading to lower price and higher demand.

You see (you don't, smart people do) that the supply curve shifted.
Do you see it now? After I told you multiple times?
See, supply curve S1 and now a new supply curve S2?
Which leads to Price P1 dropping to a lower Price P2
which gives us quantity demanded Q1 rising to a new, higher quantity demanded Q2.
That's typical of you, can't admit you made a mistake.

 

[PMZ]

Obamacare is going to shift the supply curve to the right? OMG! Hilarious.

If Obama could actually do something to increase supply (doctors are retiring, to escape Obamacare), prices could fall.

Instead, shift the demand curve up and let me know what will happen to price.

Maybe Obamacare can treat your confusion?

So now you have actually read the graph and see it says that quantity demanded is increasing and price falling.

And now you want to change the subject to distract from the fact that you couldn't read a graph.

That's typical of you Todd, can't admit you made a mistake.

This is what you disagreed with

"Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down."

You reply, "Holy crap, are you bad at econ."

I did mispeak with; "Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity" I shpuld have said lower quantity or right.

So now you have actually read the graph and see it says that quantity demanded is increasing and price falling.

Wrong, you silly twit, it shows supply increasing, leading to lower price and higher demand.

You see (you don't, smart people do) that the supply curve shifted.
Do you see it now? After I told you multiple times?
See, supply curve S1 and now a new supply curve S2?
Which leads to Price P1 dropping to a lower Price P2
which gives us quantity demanded Q1 rising to a new, higher quantity demanded Q2.
That's typical of you, can't admit you made a mistake.

The application of this to Obamacare is?

Obamacare is not a product. Healthcare delivery is one of the most closed markets ever.

A graph that depicts what happens in a theoretical perfect market has zero application here.

 

[PMZ]

Obamacare is going to shift the supply curve to the right? OMG! Hilarious.

If Obama could actually do something to increase supply (doctors are retiring, to escape Obamacare), prices could fall.

Instead, shift the demand curve up and let me know what will happen to price.

Maybe Obamacare can treat your confusion?

So now you have actually read the graph and see it says that quantity demanded is increasing and price falling.

And now you want to change the subject to distract from the fact that you couldn't read a graph.

That's typical of you Todd, can't admit you made a mistake.

This is what you disagreed with

"Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down."

You reply, "Holy crap, are you bad at econ."

I did mispeak with; "Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity" I shpuld have said lower quantity or right.

So now you have actually read the graph and see it says that quantity demanded is increasing and price falling.

Wrong, you silly twit, it shows supply increasing, leading to lower price and higher demand.

You see (you don't, smart people do) that the supply curve shifted.
Do you see it now? After I told you multiple times?
See, supply curve S1 and now a new supply curve S2?
Which leads to Price P1 dropping to a lower Price P2
which gives us quantity demanded Q1 rising to a new, higher quantity demanded Q2.
That's typical of you, can't admit you made a mistake.

You pleading smart is worth the price of admission here.

 

[itfitzme]

Obamacare is going to shift the supply curve to the right? OMG! Hilarious.

If Obama could actually do something to increase supply (doctors are retiring, to escape Obamacare), prices could fall.

Instead, shift the demand curve up and let me know what will happen to price.

Maybe Obamacare can treat your confusion?

So now you have actually read the graph and see it says that quantity demanded is increasing and price falling.

And now you want to change the subject to distract from the fact that you couldn't read a graph.

That's typical of you Todd, can't admit you made a mistake.

This is what you disagreed with

"Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down."

You reply, "Holy crap, are you bad at econ."

I did mispeak with; "Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity" I shpuld have said lower quantity or right.

So now you have actually read the graph and see it says that quantity demanded is increasing and price falling.

Wrong, you silly twit, it shows supply increasing, leading to lower price and higher demand.

You see (you don't, smart people do) that the supply curve shifted.
Do you see it now? After I told you multiple times?
See, supply curve S1 and now a new supply curve S2?
Which leads to Price P1 dropping to a lower Price P2
which gives us quantity demanded Q1 rising to a new, higher quantity demanded Q2.
That's typical of you, can't admit you made a mistake.

Todd, you are so full of shit. You have the attention span of a poodle and the memory of a mouse. All you manage to do is keep up the bullshit so long that the original quote drops of and you can imagine whatever you want.
Here is the original conversation.

"Decrease in Price causes an increase in quantity demand."[1]

Apparently you didn't learn your material very will.

It says that;

when the quantity demanded increases, then the demand price goes DOWN.

Here is the supply and demand curves for you to look at

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

Now you are finally getting it. There is no change to the demand curve. The change is an increase in demand quantity.

Typically, what happens in markets, is the both the supply and demand curve shift simultaneously. We seldom, if not every, actually see the equilibrium point following one of the two curves.

Still, what evidence do you have to support that the demand curve alone is going to shift?

Oh, in your imagination. That's right, you don't actually have evidence of anything, you believe if you ask stupid question, somehow reality magically changes.