Where is the US economy headed?

dyslexia wrote:

okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I believe that what you have written here is 100% false.

Can you provide proof that part of the reason that costs of health care are out of control being 'too much regulation?'

Cycloptichorn

I did not say it was due to too much regulation. I said it was due to not being sufficiently subject to the free market.

wowzer.

Right?

That's the same thing, Okie. Honestly.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I did not say it was due to too much regulation. I said it was due to not being sufficiently subject to the free market.

Whichever nomenclature you prefer, how do you explain that Canada, with its single payer, universal healthcare, spends less money per citizen on health care, yet enjoys better health care by every objective measure -- life expectancy, infant mortality, you name it?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's no use trying to discuss a topic with anyone who refuses to understand what he/she is talking about.

okie wrote: I did not say it was due to too much regulation. I said it was due to not being sufficiently subject to the free market.

Show us why it's not "sufficiently subject to the free market?"

I would hope you guys could understand the difference between regulation and other factors that are also included in the set of circumstances that limit the workings of a free market.

Simply put, the people that pay for health care are generally not those that receive the health care. That is a biggee, but not everything involved.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Whichever nomenclature you prefer, how do you explain that Canada, with its single payer, universal healthcare, spends less money per citizen on health care, yet enjoys better health care by every objective measure -- life expectancy, infant mortality, you name it?

It looks like this thread is becoming a health care thread now. I didn't start it.

Thomas, you have a totally different population, including lifestyles and other factors, so that greatly diminishes how meaningful the debate about that can be, but I will research this more. Your assertion flies in the face of everything we know about the efficiency of free markets vs government operations, but if proven wrong, I will admit it. You will need to provide much more proof than a sentence or two.

0 Replies

Quote:

Your assertion flies in the face of everything we know about the efficiency of free markets vs government operations, but if proven wrong, I will admit it.

Maybe in the face of everything you believe, Okie.

Surely a person of intelligence such as yourself realizes that sometimes free markets will be more efficient, and sometimes they won't.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:
would hope you guys could understand the difference between regulation and other factors that are also included in the set of circumstances that limit the workings of a free market.

Having studied economics in college including macro and micro, and reading business mags and newspapers, most of us are aware of "the workings of a free market." You still haven't answered my question about your statement "show us why "it's not sufficiently subject to the free market?"

Simply put, the people that pay for health care are generally not those that receive the health care. That is a biggee, but not everything involved.

Prove this statement; use any resource you please?

0 Replies

Are you guys deaf and dumb? Sorry about the sarcasm, ciclerone, but get serious. If this was a math class, if you studied it in school, as you have claimed you did economics, why do you ask me to prove that 2 + 2 = 4?

0 Replies

okie, Learn to respond to the q; not attack the messenger, because you fail to answer questions.

You still haven't answered my question about your statement show us why "it's not sufficiently subject to the free market?"

You made the statement, now prove it.

0 Replies

Some things should be obvious to the most casual observer. This is one of those things.

0 Replies

CLUE: The question is not what is the answer to 2+2?

0 Replies

Your "causal" answer is no answer. Please answer the question posed.

It's obvious to you, because it's still in your head. Share that with us!

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Your assertion flies in the face of everything we know about the efficiency of free markets vs government operations, but if proven wrong, I will admit it. You will need to provide much more proof than a sentence or two.

Well, I once recommended to Cycloptichorn that he read an economics textbook; it only seems fair that I recommend the same to you. It will show you that while markets usually get things right, there are a few specific exceptions to this rule. Since this is obviously a difficult idea for you to accept, I recommend that you read a conservative economist's textbook: Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Economics. (Mankiw served as Bush's chief economic adviser before he returned to Harvard.)

0 Replies

An economic tip - make sure you get one of these copies; there's no need to plunk down 120+ shipping on a brand new one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I was going to say Okie need a recent edition in this case. The explanation of the market failure in healthcare involves asymmetric information, and Mankiw didn't include this concept until Akerlof, Stiglitz, and Spence won a Nobel Prize for their work in the field.

But Amazon's "Search inside" feature that while Mankiw does discuss asymmetric information, he doesn't discuss it in the context of healthcare. I'll keep looking for material.

0 Replies

Cicerone, how do people generally pay for health care in this country, as compared to buying a car, or groceries, or something from the hardware store? This is not a hard question. Try it.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cicerone, how do people generally pay for health care in this country, as compared to buying a car, or groceries, or something from the hardware store? This is not a hard question. Try it.

Most get it through their business. Back in the day a benefits package was actually something that made businesses MORE competitive.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I was going to say Okie need a recent edition in this case. The explanation of the market failure in healthcare involves asymmetric information, and Mankiw didn't include this concept until Akerlof, Stiglitz, and Spence won a Nobel Prize for their work in the field.

But Amazon's "Search inside" feature that while Mankiw does discuss asymmetric information, he doesn't discuss it in the context of healthcare. I'll keep looking for material.

Fine, explain it in a paragraph. That should be sufficient, and much faster. We already know the market is failing the health care system.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Cicerone, how do people generally pay for health care in this country, as compared to buying a car, or groceries, or something from the hardware store? This is not a hard question. Try it.

Most get it through their business. Back in the day a benefits package was actually something that made businesses MORE competitive.

Cycloptichorn

There is a clue to one problem, which Bush recognizes already, by the way.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Cicerone, how do people generally pay for health care in this country, as compared to buying a car, or groceries, or something from the hardware store? This is not a hard question. Try it.

Most get it through their business. Back in the day a benefits package was actually something that made businesses MORE competitive.

Cycloptichorn

There is a clue to one problem, which Bush recognizes already, by the way.

Bush? He's irrelevant to this discussion. Any changes will have nothing to do with him at all.

Quote:

We already know the market is failing the health care system.

You have it 100% backwards. It's the system which is failing the market.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

This might be pertinent, even though Bush is nearly a lame duck.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/healthcare/

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know