The greatest health care system in the world

[Diuretic]

And we're interested in how our health system looks to people on the other side of the world who've never had any contact with it because why?

I don't care if you don't care - but someone reading this might get the point and they might tell someone else

The point that Australians have their heads up their asses and listen to too much propaganda? I think we got that, thanks.

 

[Diuretic]

I do love it when people start throwing around the words "should" and "shouldn't" and thinking those words convey a sense of self-evidence and therefore relieve them of ever backing up their assertions with proof.

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.

You think you can read my mind C?

I chose my words carefully. "Should" is an indicator of a normative approach.

I don't have to read your mind. I'm just reading your posts. And big-word-smokescreens only work on people who don't know what they mean. Saying, "should indicates that I'm assuming a unversally accepted standard that I don't have to prove" doesn't actually negate what I said about you using should to indicate that you think everyone just accepts your premise and you therefore don't have to prove it.



EVERYTHING is subject to the laws of supply and demand, because everything is a commodity. Supply and demand is a statement about how human nature functions, and it functions that way for ANYTHING that people want. You can't simply arbitrarily choose what those things are going to be or not.

Health care is exactly one of those things that can be treated as a commodity or not. I contend - hence my use of the word "should" - that health care shouldn't be a commodity and therefore shouldn't be subjected to the laws of supply and demand.

It's amazing how you simply saying, "You can choose whether or not to treat health care as a commodity" in no way convinces me of that fact. Maybe you should make a note somewhere that you saying so does not constitute proof. It didn't when I said so to your last post, and it doesn't now. Your word for it will NEVER prove anything to me except that you don't know what you're talking about, so why are you wasting time writing a post saying, "No, really, I'm right, you just didn't understand how brilliant I was the first time"?

In some market economies, such as France, health care is not a commodity, hence it's not subjected to the laws of supply and demand. It is a public service, a public good, not a commodity. That's evident that it can work to benefit society without being subject to the mechanism of the market.

Wrong. Health care is most certainly a commodity in EVERY economy. Just because you change the market forces applied to it doesn't change what it is. If you're really dumb enough to think that calling something a "public service" makes it any less subject to universal laws of supply and demand, you're even dumber economically than I thought you were the first time you started making blanket statements about "should" and "shouldn't".

Do me a favor and include some actual substantiation in your next post, okay? If your next one is more of, "No, you don't understand, it's THIS way, no really, it's THIS way", I'm just going to assume you know you're full of shit and don't want to admit it.

Come on C, denying a point isn't rebuttal. You know that health care isn't a commodity in many market economies, such as France, where it's provided to all either at no cost or with some sort of low co-payment.

 

[editec]

Quote:

Originally Posted by editec
Those of you who imagine that supply demand works in exactly the same way it works in most cases where we're buying peanut butter are pretty obviously not thinking too deeply about this issue.

Cecile attempts to teach her grandfather to suck eggs by retorting:

Supply and demand applies to EVERYTHING that exists in limited amounts. If air wasn't readily available in any amount you want, IT would be subject to supply and demand, too.

When was the last time you went into a store and the clerk decided what groceries you needed?

Never?

Okay, now try this on for size..

When was the last time you went to the doctor and told him what your diagnosis was and what your treatment and medication would be?

See the difference in patterns of how and supply and demand works there?

That's why market forces are not the same for HC compared to most other things we buy.

Normally the consumer defines demand.

In HC purchases the SUPPLIER is also the person who determines the demand.

Get it?

Try really hard to wrap you head around how very different those two events really are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You think you can read my mind C?

I chose my words carefully. "Should" is an indicator of a normative approach.

I don't have to read your mind. I'm just reading your posts. And big-word-smokescreens only work on people who don't know what they mean. Saying, "should indicates that I'm assuming a unversally accepted standard that I don't have to prove" doesn't actually negate what I said about you using should to indicate that you think everyone just accepts your premise and you therefore don't have to prove it.



EVERYTHING is subject to the laws of supply and demand, because everything is a commodity. Supply and demand is a statement about how human nature functions, and it functions that way for ANYTHING that people want. You can't simply arbitrarily choose what those things are going to be or not.



It's amazing how you simply saying, "You can choose whether or not to treat health care as a commodity" in no way convinces me of that fact. Maybe you should make a note somewhere that you saying so does not constitute proof. It didn't when I said so to your last post, and it doesn't now. Your word for it will NEVER prove anything to me except that you don't know what you're talking about, so why are you wasting time writing a post saying, "No, really, I'm right, you just didn't understand how brilliant I was the first time"?

In some market economies, such as France, health care is not a commodity, hence it's not subjected to the laws of supply and demand. It is a public service, a public good, not a commodity. That's evident that it can work to benefit society without being subject to the mechanism of the market.

Wrong. Health care is most certainly a commodity in EVERY economy. Just because you change the market forces applied to it doesn't change what it is. If you're really dumb enough to think that calling something a "public service" makes it any less subject to universal laws of supply and demand, you're even dumber economically than I thought you were the first time you started making blanket statements about "should" and "shouldn't".

Do me a favor and include some actual substantiation in your next post, okay? If your next one is more of, "No, you don't understand, it's THIS way, no really, it's THIS way", I'm just going to assume you know you're full of shit and don't want to admit it.

Come on C, denying a point isn't rebuttal. You know that health care isn't a commodity in many market economies, such as France, where it's provided to all either at no cost or with some sort of low co-payment.

Sorry, Charlie, but it IS a rebuttal when your point isn't really a point and hasn't been substantiated. If you can get away with using "Because I say so" as an argument, then I'm not required to provide anything more than "Well, you're wrong" as a response. You didn't show one shred of evidence that health care isn't just as subject to market forces, so where do you get off demanding evidence from me that it is? You show me yours, and I'll show you mine.

I don't "know" anything of the sort. What I KNOW is that you don't know your ass from your elbow when it comes to basic economics, and seem to believe that if the government sets itself up as the primary consumer, that somehow takes things out of the realm of economics. It doesn't, and it's juvenile to suggest it.

I'm still waiting for a REAL argument instead of "I'm right because I say I'm right, and I'm sure you know I'm right because you must know it, because I'm right".

 

[Diuretic]

...

Sorry, Charlie, but it IS a rebuttal when your point isn't really a point and hasn't been substantiated. If you can get away with using "Because I say so" as an argument, then I'm not required to provide anything more than "Well, you're wrong" as a response. You didn't show one shred of evidence that health care isn't just as subject to market forces, so where do you get off demanding evidence from me that it is? You show me yours, and I'll show you mine.

I don't "know" anything of the sort. What I KNOW is that you don't know your ass from your elbow when it comes to basic economics, and seem to believe that if the government sets itself up as the primary consumer, that somehow takes things out of the realm of economics. It doesn't, and it's juvenile to suggest it.

I'm still waiting for a REAL argument instead of "I'm right because I say I'm right, and I'm sure you know I'm right because you must know it, because I'm right".

My name's not Charlie but it wasn't a bad guess

Nowhere did I suggest that economic forces have no place in a health care system. So that's a straight out misrepresentation and it's juvenile to do it.

I made the point that health care shouldn't <--- normative statement which requires no evidence as it is a normative claim - be treated as a commodity subject to the laws of supply and demand.

Why do I make that claim? Good question but no-one seems to want to ask.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Quote:

Originally Posted by editec
Those of you who imagine that supply demand works in exactly the same way it works in most cases where we're buying peanut butter are pretty obviously not thinking too deeply about this issue.

Cecile attempts to teach her grandfather to suck eggs by retorting:

Supply and demand applies to EVERYTHING that exists in limited amounts. If air wasn't readily available in any amount you want, IT would be subject to supply and demand, too.

I don't have to teach my grandfather anything, because HE wasn't an economic ignoramus. You, on the other hand . . . Well, just look at this crap following.

When was the last time you went into a store and the clerk decided what groceries you needed?

Never?

And where is it written that that is part of supply and demand? Yes, I know where you're going with this, so let me just say right now that the problem is still as I stated: YOU just haven't identified the real consumer here.

Okay, now try this on for size.

Oh, goody. More retarded examples to demonstrate how much you don't understand the topic. My night is now complete.

When was the last time you went to the doctor and told him what your diagnosis was and what your treatment and medication would be?

Since the diagnosis and prescription are the product for which I'm paying him, why the **** would I provide it myself? That's akin to me going to the store for groceries and paying to milk the cow myself.

See the difference in patterns of how and supply and demand works there?

No, dumbfuck. What I see is that you don't know what you're talking about. And guess what? I saw that before.

In your first example, the clerk isn't the correct analogy. The correct analogy to health care as it stands now would be if my mother took me shopping and was paying for everything, and told me what she was and was not willing to pay for. Which would be completely valid and sensible economically, because SHE - not me - would be the primary consumer in that case. Likewise, if you're health insurance or Medicare or Medicaid are telling you what they will pay for, it's because THEY are the primary consumer, not you.

So no, there's no difference. Health care, like any commodity, is available in smaller amounts than people necessarily want, and it affects price. If you're not getting the freedom and opportunity that you think you should as the consumer, you need to ask yourself if YOU are really the primary consumer.

That's why market forces are not the same for HC compared to most other things we buy.

Normally the consumer defines demand.

He still is. The difference is that if YOU aren't the one the bill comes to and YOU aren't the one writing the check, then YOU aren't the consumer.

Take a good look at health care that's strictly optional and not available through health insurance, like cosmetic surgery. It operates rather differently than essential health care. Why? Because in that case, the patient is also the primary consumer.

In HC purchases the SUPPLIER is also the person who determines the demand.

Get it?

No, because you're wrong. The doctor does NOT determine whether or not you want to go to the doctor. You do. I assume where you're going wrong is thinking of the health insurance company as the supplier. They aren't. THEY are the primary consumer in that case. You are merely the beneficiary, like me going to WalMart and buying toys for my kids. They may be getting the toy, but I'M the one with the credit card.

Try really hard to wrap you head around how very different those two events really are.

Try really hard to wrap your head around what's REALLY happening, and maybe you won't make such a fool out of yourself next time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

...

Sorry, Charlie, but it IS a rebuttal when your point isn't really a point and hasn't been substantiated. If you can get away with using "Because I say so" as an argument, then I'm not required to provide anything more than "Well, you're wrong" as a response. You didn't show one shred of evidence that health care isn't just as subject to market forces, so where do you get off demanding evidence from me that it is? You show me yours, and I'll show you mine.

I don't "know" anything of the sort. What I KNOW is that you don't know your ass from your elbow when it comes to basic economics, and seem to believe that if the government sets itself up as the primary consumer, that somehow takes things out of the realm of economics. It doesn't, and it's juvenile to suggest it.

I'm still waiting for a REAL argument instead of "I'm right because I say I'm right, and I'm sure you know I'm right because you must know it, because I'm right".

My name's not Charlie but it wasn't a bad guess

Nowhere did I suggest that economic forces have no place in a health care system. So that's a straight out misrepresentation and it's juvenile to do it.

I made the point that health care shouldn't <--- normative statement which requires no evidence as it is a normative claim - be treated as a commodity subject to the laws of supply and demand.

Why do I make that claim? Good question but no-one seems to want to ask.

And once again, we're back to "I just love it when people start throwing around 'should' and 'shouldn't' as though they replace any need to provide proof". That doesn't work with me. "Shouldn't" isn't self-evident to me. WHY shouldn't it be? And please show your work.

No one seems to want to ask? I've been trying for several posts now to get you to actually back up your statements instead of just repeating them as though they prove themselves.

 

[editec]

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.

 

[Diuretic]

...

Sorry, Charlie, but it IS a rebuttal when your point isn't really a point and hasn't been substantiated. If you can get away with using "Because I say so" as an argument, then I'm not required to provide anything more than "Well, you're wrong" as a response. You didn't show one shred of evidence that health care isn't just as subject to market forces, so where do you get off demanding evidence from me that it is? You show me yours, and I'll show you mine.

I don't "know" anything of the sort. What I KNOW is that you don't know your ass from your elbow when it comes to basic economics, and seem to believe that if the government sets itself up as the primary consumer, that somehow takes things out of the realm of economics. It doesn't, and it's juvenile to suggest it.

I'm still waiting for a REAL argument instead of "I'm right because I say I'm right, and I'm sure you know I'm right because you must know it, because I'm right".

My name's not Charlie but it wasn't a bad guess

Nowhere did I suggest that economic forces have no place in a health care system. So that's a straight out misrepresentation and it's juvenile to do it.

I made the point that health care shouldn't <--- normative statement which requires no evidence as it is a normative claim - be treated as a commodity subject to the laws of supply and demand.

Why do I make that claim? Good question but no-one seems to want to ask.

And once again, we're back to "I just love it when people start throwing around 'should' and 'shouldn't' as though they replace any need to provide proof". That doesn't work with me. "Shouldn't" isn't self-evident to me. WHY shouldn't it be? And please show your work.

No one seems to want to ask? I've been trying for several posts now to get you to actually back up your statements instead of just repeating them as though they prove themselves.

Oh I didn't notice.

What exactly is it you want?

Do I explain what I mean when I use the words "normative claim"?

Or do you want me to explain why I think that health care shouldn't be a commodity?

Or both?

 

[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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My name's not Charlie but it wasn't a bad guess

Nowhere did I suggest that economic forces have no place in a health care system. So that's a straight out misrepresentation and it's juvenile to do it.

I made the point that health care shouldn't <--- normative statement which requires no evidence as it is a normative claim - be treated as a commodity subject to the laws of supply and demand.

Why do I make that claim? Good question but no-one seems to want to ask.

And once again, we're back to "I just love it when people start throwing around 'should' and 'shouldn't' as though they replace any need to provide proof". That doesn't work with me. "Shouldn't" isn't self-evident to me. WHY shouldn't it be? And please show your work.

No one seems to want to ask? I've been trying for several posts now to get you to actually back up your statements instead of just repeating them as though they prove themselves.

Oh I didn't notice.

What exactly is it you want?

Do I explain what I mean when I use the words "normative claim"?

Or do you want me to explain why I think that health care shouldn't be a commodity?

Or both?

I don't want anything now. This post, like Ed's attempt at belittlement, just shows that you've known all along you didn't have an argument. The time for you to answer the question was three posts ago, while you were still pretending that "Should" and "Shouldn't" were stand-alone, self-evident arguments needing no explanation or proof. That you didn't, and are now trying this disingenuous, "Oh, did you ask me for proof?" tact, shows that you never had a leg to stand on.

You blew it. Too little, too late, thanks for playing.

 

[Diuretic]

And once again, we're back to "I just love it when people start throwing around 'should' and 'shouldn't' as though they replace any need to provide proof". That doesn't work with me. "Shouldn't" isn't self-evident to me. WHY shouldn't it be? And please show your work.

No one seems to want to ask? I've been trying for several posts now to get you to actually back up your statements instead of just repeating them as though they prove themselves.

Oh I didn't notice.

What exactly is it you want?

Do I explain what I mean when I use the words "normative claim"?

Or do you want me to explain why I think that health care shouldn't be a commodity?

Or both?

I don't want anything now. This post, like Ed's attempt at belittlement, just shows that you've known all along you didn't have an argument. The time for you to answer the question was three posts ago, while you were still pretending that "Should" and "Shouldn't" were stand-alone, self-evident arguments needing no explanation or proof. That you didn't, and are now trying this disingenuous, "Oh, did you ask me for proof?" tact, shows that you never had a leg to stand on.

You blew it. Too little, too late, thanks for playing.

Oh okay then...have it your way

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh I didn't notice.

What exactly is it you want?

Do I explain what I mean when I use the words "normative claim"?

Or do you want me to explain why I think that health care shouldn't be a commodity?

Or both?

I don't want anything now. This post, like Ed's attempt at belittlement, just shows that you've known all along you didn't have an argument. The time for you to answer the question was three posts ago, while you were still pretending that "Should" and "Shouldn't" were stand-alone, self-evident arguments needing no explanation or proof. That you didn't, and are now trying this disingenuous, "Oh, did you ask me for proof?" tact, shows that you never had a leg to stand on.

You blew it. Too little, too late, thanks for playing.

Oh okay then...have it your way

I just did, for multiple posts.

 

[Diuretic]

I don't want anything now. This post, like Ed's attempt at belittlement, just shows that you've known all along you didn't have an argument. The time for you to answer the question was three posts ago, while you were still pretending that "Should" and "Shouldn't" were stand-alone, self-evident arguments needing no explanation or proof. That you didn't, and are now trying this disingenuous, "Oh, did you ask me for proof?" tact, shows that you never had a leg to stand on.

You blew it. Too little, too late, thanks for playing.

Oh okay then...have it your way

I just did, for multiple posts.

Yep, you did a wonderful job

 

[Sky Dancer]

What we need is a well funded, well managed, public healthcare system with an emphasis on health promotion for starters.

 

[editec]

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.

 

[catzmeow]

Whatever, sweetie.

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

She only posts when she's PMSing, anyway.

 

[shock]

April 9, 2009
Ann Coulter

(lifted out of context)

"***The following headlines have appeared in newspapers within the last 24 hours. This is not an inclusive list.

• Third of Illinoisans went without health insurance in last 2 years: Sun-Times
• Report: 2.5M in Michigan lacked health insurance: Chicago Tribune
• Study: 29% of Ohioans have gone without health insurance: BizJournals
• Report: More NJ residents lacking health insurance: Forbes
• Study: Many Kansans are uninsured: BizJournals
• Report tallies uninsured in Hawaii: KPUA AM 670
• Study: 1 in 3 Alabamians have no insurance: BizJournals
• 1 out of 4 NH residents lacked health insurance within last two years: WBZ
• 1 out of 3 Coloradans lacked insurance in past two years: Denver Post
• Nearly 1 in 3 Idahoans lack health insurance, study says: Idaho Statesman
• One in four nonelderly Minnesotans has been without health insurance, study shows: Twin Cities
• 1 in 3 are uninsured in Georgia, study says: Augusta Chronicle
• 1.3 million Louisiana residents uninsured: Independent
• Millions in N.C. lack health plan: Winston-Salem Journal
• Uninsured are mostly working: Sun-Herald
• Nearly one-third of Wyoming residents went without health insurance in past two years: Wyoming Tribune
• Report finds health insurance lacking in W.Va.: Charleston Gazette
• Nearly 1/3 Of Kentuckians Uninsured Says Report: WFPL Radio
• REPORT: 254K Rhode Islanders Uninsured at Some Point from 2007-2008: ABC 6
***"

======================================
shock

Health statistics show America rated right at the bottom among all the western indstrialized nations of the world---

 

[Agnapostate]

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.

 

[Maple]

It is your own Canadians who have personally told me that their socialised health care system sucks and to never go down that road.

Health care can be fixed, everyone is going to have to pay, if they are poor they can pay on a sliding scale. Insurance has to develop a group plan for small business, they employ 87% of Americans and there is no group that they can join. Our premiums are skyrocketing because those of us who have insurance are paying for those that do not. In many cases people can afford to buy their own policy but chose not to, they end up in the emergency room and the rest of us get to pay. Hillary was right, all of us will have to pay for health care in order to keep all of our premiums down. Here in the state of Colorado we all have to have car insurance, it is the law, it helps keep our premiums down and affordable, the same thing has to happen with health care or no-one will be able to afford it.