By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Coming Obamacare Shock for 170 Million Americans

Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

that's because Microeconomic models only ever function under ideal macro conditions. You can't talk about a supply-demand gap when the supply-demand gap in employment is huge for much larger reasons than minimum wage.

This is why they should teach Macro first. Teaching micro first makes people think that micro models are how the economy "should" work.

Unfortunately macro-economics is too far behind to do that. It is arguable whether or not micro economics is scientific, and the amount of conflicting hypotheses and data found in macro is so much greater, at least micro-economics has a deductive basis to make up for the insuffiecient inductive basis, macro seems more like a bunch of competing philosophies: neo-keynesian, new-keynesian, (blanket label) keynesian, neo-classical, monetarism, austrian, etc, etc. There was a time when keynesians encompassed all of macro-economic thought as being correct for instrumental reasons, it worked (at least seemingly), but then it started to not work during the many crises of the 70's and ever since.  Ultimately, it seems better to just use deductive logic until something empirical can be resolved (if it can be resolved, maybe the austrians are right with the economic calculation problem.) 

Heh, austrian school is just the manifestation of the cancer of post-positivism in the body of economics (just as the post-positivist cancer struck in most other social sciences at the end of the 20th century).

Macro works because it deals in pure aggregates, whereas individuals are by no means bound to follow the dictates of microeconomics as some seem to believe. Aggregates do work through the noise and arrive at the mean actions of a population.

(edit: not trying to make it sound like i'm disparaging all other economic schools of thought, which i might disagree with but at least Chicago School and Monetarist branches have something to bring to the table. I have a very dim view of Austrian in particular and feel its very presence distracts from serious discourse in the field)


Eh, while a lot of people would question the specific Austrian bent....

the fact that Macro works on pure aggregates is the exact problem with Macro.


People forget this because there are so many numbers in economics... but economics is a social science.

 

The Austrian way of analysis is actually the best as far as social sciences goes.  The only issue is that so few Austrian's seem to bother to do research.  Instead just sticking to past truisms.  When the real truth is....

 

All economic theories are more or less bullshit because people change.


To look at the buying patterns and decision making patterns of people from the USA, Russia and China and assume everyone will  act the same is asnine.

So is expecting the "Greatest" Generation" "Generation X" and Millenials and assume they're going to be the same is crazy.

 

Studies on economics should be like studies in Psychology or sociology.  Made as narrow as possible for the best accuracy.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:

Heh, austrian school is just the manifestation of the cancer of post-positivism in the body of economics (just as the post-positivist cancer struck in most other social sciences at the end of the 20th century).

Macro works because it deals in pure aggregates, whereas individuals are by no means bound to follow the dictates of microeconomics as some seem to believe. Aggregates do work through the noise and arrive at the mean actions of a population.

(edit: not trying to make it sound like i'm disparaging all other economic schools of thought, which i might disagree with but at least Chicago School and Monetarist branches have something to bring to the table. I have a very dim view of Austrian in particular and feel its very presence distracts from serious discourse in the field)


Eh, while a lot of people would question the specific Austrian bent....

the fact that Macro works on pure aggregates is the exact problem with Macro.


People forget this because there are so many numbers in economics... but economics is a social science.

 

The Austrian way of analysis is actually the best as far as social sciences goes.  The only issue is that so few Austrian's seem to bother to do research.  Instead just sticking to past truisms.  When the real truth is....

 

All economic theories are more or less bullshit because people change.


To look at the buying patterns and decision making patterns of people from the USA, Russia and China and assume everyone will  act the same is asnine.

So is expecting the "Greatest" Generation" "Generation X" and Millenials and assume they're going to be the same is crazy.

 

Studies on economics should be like studies in Psychology or sociology.  Made as narrow as possible for the best accuracy.

I'd say that such unpredictability is only true of the private sector, however. Macro is ultimately about the interaction of the private sector, government controls through fiscal policy, and the central bank through monetary policy, the latter of which are quite easily controllable. You're not going to get precise results, but you can nudge the system in the general direction you want it to go.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

 

 


I'd say that such unpredictability is only true of the private sector, however. Macro is ultimately about the interaction of the private sector, government controls through fiscal policy, and the central bank through monetary policy, the latter of which are quite easily controllable. You're not going to get precise results, but you can nudge the system in the general direction you want it to go.

I'm not sure what about the current situation makes you believe that.

Pretty much nothing has turned out the way as intended in the governments maco economic plans.   I think it'd be generous to say that they nudged things in the direction they intended.

If anythings been shown recently it's that macroeconomic concepts designed decades ago just don't work on today's smarter, stubburn and more cynical consumer base and CEOs.



Now come tax season I'll have to pay a bunch of money because it's still cheaper than signing up for healthcare. I'm going to be fined for not partaking in a third-party service that affects literally no one's physical well-being but my own.

Thanks so much to everyone who voted for this guy. I really appreciate it.



Currently playing:

Bloodbath Paddy Wagon Ultra 9

DerpSandwich said:
Now come tax season I'll have to pay a bunch of money because it's still cheaper than signing up for healthcare. I'm going to be fined for not partaking in a third-party service that affects literally no one's physical well-being but my own.

Thanks so much to everyone who voted for this guy. I really appreciate it.


The irony is, from various studies the USA has the worst health care and the highest cost out of all of the worlds highly developed countries, it's probably cheaper to jump on a plane and go overseas than deal with the USA's healthcare system at times, you get a free holiday to boot! :P

Hopefully you guys catch up with the rest of the world and go with Universal healthcare, or... A dual healthcare system where if you are under an income tax threshhold you are on public, over that, you either pay additional tax or go private. (I.E. You have still have a choice.)



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
DerpSandwich said:
Now come tax season I'll have to pay a bunch of money because it's still cheaper than signing up for healthcare. I'm going to be fined for not partaking in a third-party service that affects literally no one's physical well-being but my own.

Thanks so much to everyone who voted for this guy. I really appreciate it.


The irony is, from various studies the USA has the worst health care and the highest cost out of all of the worlds highly developed countries, it's probably cheaper to jump on a plane and go overseas than deal with the USA's healthcare system at times, you get a free holiday to boot!
:P

Hopefully you guys catch up with the rest of the world and go with Universal healthcare, or... A dual healthcare system where if you are under an income tax threshhold you are on public, over that, you either pay additional tax or go private. (I.E. You have still have a choice.)

Not actually... no.  

More expensive... yes.  Worse... no.

 

Because said studies, don't actually look at the results of heatlhcare and instead use things like life expectancy  while not accounting for things like teen pregnancy, fatal inujuries, crime, poverty.  They just basically take a few nationmaster like stats and run a regression.   It's lazy lazy work.

 

Just to give an example of when you factor in just one of those factors...  (By replacing everyones fatal injuries with an average rate.)


When you've got way more young people in the US getting murdered at 20, it's pretty obvious our life expectancy will be lower.

Yet that doesn't really reflect on our healthcare system.  Not that 2 years here or there is exactly a huge statiscal point anyway.

 

Hell, you've got more indepth research that suggests that our government healthcare system is worse then not having insurance. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/03/02/why-medicaid-is-a-humanitarian-catastrophe/

The article is a bit senationalist, but it runs off some of the studies in it.

 

A switch to universal healthcare, very likely could drag us down to the actual middle of that list.



Kasz216 said:

Not actually... no.  

More expensive... yes.  Worse... no.

 

Because said studies, don't actually look at the results of heatlhcare and instead use things like life expectancy  while not accounting for things like teen pregnancy, fatal inujuries, crime, poverty.  They just basically take a few nationmaster like stats and run a regression.   It's lazy lazy work.

 

Just to give an example of when you factor in just one of those factors...  (By replacing everyones fatal injuries with an average rate.)


When you've got way more young people in the US getting murdered at 20, it's pretty obvious our life expectancy will be lower.

Yet that doesn't really reflect on our healthcare system.  Not that 2 years here or there is exactly a huge statiscal point anyway.

 

Hell, you've got more indepth research that suggests that our government healthcare system is worse then not having insurance. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/03/02/why-medicaid-is-a-humanitarian-catastrophe/

The article is a bit senationalist, but it runs off some of the studies in it.

 

A switch to universal healthcare, very likely could drag us down to the actual middle of that list.


There are lots of factors.
But the fact of the matter is, the USA is ranked near the bottom out of the worlds developed nations in regards to life expectancy, infant mortality rates, efficiency, cost and overall care, not to mention higher rates of death from drug addiction, car accidents and guns which a more responsive health system can help mitigate. (Better education helps too.)
Then you have 40 million+ people who don't have cover at all, where-as everyone in my nation is covered. - That's the big difference.
I've had to take clients to hospital at stupid hours in the morning for various reasons (Like Morphine, Cortisone etc'), no cost or waiting and in most cases no paperwork, they got what they needed and I took the client home.


http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13497&page=1
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/CPOP/DBASSE_080393#respiratory-diseases
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/CPOP/DBASSE_080393#deaths-from-all-causes
http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/health/u-s-health-care-is-the-best-and-the-worst-20140313



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
DerpSandwich said:
Now come tax season I'll have to pay a bunch of money because it's still cheaper than signing up for healthcare. I'm going to be fined for not partaking in a third-party service that affects literally no one's physical well-being but my own.

Thanks so much to everyone who voted for this guy. I really appreciate it.

A dual healthcare system where if you are under an income tax threshhold you are on public, over that, you either pay additional tax or go private. (I.E. You have still have a choice.)


This already exists. 

http://www.medicaid.gov/



Pemalite said:


There are lots of factors.
But the fact of the matter is, the USA is ranked near the bottom out of the worlds developed nations in regards to life expectancy, infant mortality rates, efficiency, cost and overall care, not to mention higher rates of death from drug addiction, car accidents and guns which a more responsive health system can help mitigate. (Better education helps too.)
Then you have 40 million+ people who don't have cover at all, where-as everyone in my nation is covered. - That's the big difference.
I've had to take clients to hospital at stupid hours in the morning for various reasons (Like Morphine, Cortisone etc'), no cost or waiting and in most cases no paperwork, they got what they needed and I took the client home.


http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13497&page=1
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/CPOP/DBASSE_080393#respiratory-diseases
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/CPOP/DBASSE_080393#deaths-from-all-causes
http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/health/u-s-health-care-is-the-best-and-the-worst-20140313


Did you actually read what I posted... i'm curious, because I totally explained... most of those.

 

For example, the United States has a much higher infant mortality rate...   Do you know what is the biggest cause of Infant Mortality in the developed world?

Teen Pregnancies.   

 

(Which also by the way, happens to be a big cause of non-communicable diseases).

 

and no better responsive health care can't really help accidents or anything like that... first responseders to a point... but first responders don't check health insurance.

 

 

Also generally you want to include incidence rates along with deaths per a disease, as it can often make things look different.

For example.  When it comes to prostate cancer.

 

The first is  rates contracted.

While the second is deaths caused by it.

 Would you say the US is worst at treating it?

 

Spain Italy and the USA have the worst HIV/AIds deaths.   Also, the most cases of it.  Etc.

 

USA has very few Stomache cancer deaths.   Also low prevelence of Stomache cancer coincidentally.

 

Noone ever seems to bother to combine incidence rates, deaths and age adjustments.  

 

Let alone other factors.  Hell the UK has universal healthcare, and yet healthcare rates seem VERY dependent on where you live for a variety of other factors.

and that's not even getting into a WHOLE other set of factors.

Genetic makeup, poverty, just underlying culture, family structure... there are so many unaccounted for things


One interesting note from the study you mentioned?  Once you hit 75.  If your in the US, you are more likely to live longer then anywhere else.  



From a personal experience, I consider the healthcare system in the US a fucking joke. In 2006 I twisted my knee while playing soccer and tore my ACL. The next day I went to the ER ( I had no insurance). Instead of o getting an MRI to check the ligaments from my knee the stupid docter got an XRAY which showed nothing but my bones in perfect condition, then the docter told me to go to an orthopedic center to get an MRI. So, the stupid XRAY that did nothing for me costed me 900 dollers .

Then, I decided to start paying for health insunrance, not in the US, but in my home country (Brasil). Back then the health plan costed me about 50 dollers a month (right now I pay about 80). It covered everything: MRI, Surgery, Medication and food during the 2 nights I spent at the hospital, presurgical test, and so on.

It is a fucking joke that a currupt third world country like Brasil has a better "private" health care system (public health care is usually pretty bad) for its citizens than the US. It is laughable actually.

Oh yeah, the brazilian docter did a great job on my knee. It has been about 7 years since I had my surgery and my knee is strong as ever, I play soccer without any pain or anything.