**** Elections thread *****

[Jack Sawyer]

A cool thing about allowing purchase across state lines and private pooling (health insurance) is that it achieves the same risk-diluting benefit that single-payer does without the negatives of single-payer. The new executive order is supposed to help do that, but we'll see.

Examples in other places say you are wrong, but let's hope you are right.

What we need is something that incentivizes bypassing insurance altogether. Then we'd get prices up front and costs would plummet.

I don't follow. What do you mean?

[wufwugy]

Examples in other places say you are wrong, but let's hope you are right.

What do you mean?

I don't follow. What do you mean?

Insurance is efficient for catastrophe. In all the different markets you can think of that have insurance, it is almost entirely purchased for catastophe. All the other elements of those markets are handled in person with up front costs. An example of this is automobiles. People get insurance for catastrophe, and there isn't much for routine care or for consumption of new cars. This is a relatively efficient market. Healthcare doesn't function like this, not because it is different fundamentally (it's not), but because the government has incentivized the market to gravitate towards using insurance for every aspect of the market. The problem with this is that insurance is inefficient for most things. People naturally opt for it despite its inefficiency due to very high costs of low risk catastrophe that people just naturally aren't comfortable with. But people don't opt for insurance for things that are more normal and routine because of how inefficient that would be. In healthcare, it is no different except that government policies have made it so that things organize around insurance for everything despite inefficiencies.

Changing policy properly would make it so that healthcare can be produced and consumed like every other normal thing (like food, clothes, shelter). That would turn healthcare into a market with little insurance (essentially for only catastrophe) and people would shop for desired healthcare upfront. People would pay out of pocket and prices would be upfront. Because of this, efficiency would return to normal and would rival other markets with little government intervention, like food, clothing, and shelter. Costs would be a fraction of what they currently are, employment in the sector would be significantly higher, and the amount of care consumed would also be higher. Quality too would be higher. The way it is now, the price of care doesn't matter that much since the person using is not the person buying. Also the quality of care doesn't matter a whole lot since there is little competition.

[Jack Sawyer]

Insurance is efficient for catastrophe. In all the different markets you can think of that have insurance, it is almost entirely purchased for catastophe. All the other elements of those markets are handled in person with up front costs. An example of this is automobiles. People get insurance for catastrophe, and there isn't much for routine care or for consumption of new cars. This is a relatively efficient market. Healthcare doesn't function like this, not because it is different fundamentally (it's not),

It is different. When your car fucks up, or more appropriately, suffers a catastrophy, you CAN theoretically just scrap it and get a new one. You don't HAVE to repair your car if you get my drift. It's not a life or death situation. It is a different story with your body as, you only have one.

but because the government has incentivized the market to gravitate towards using insurance for every aspect of the market.

Thank the lobbyists. They just recently had another victory which prohibited your markets to compete for prices. Aided by these clowns

But by Thursday, the story about Booker had flipped. The New Jersey senator and 12 other Senate Democrats had joined the bulk of the Republican caucus to kill a proposal aimed at lowering prescription drug prices. What made Booker’s vote all the more anguishing for the left is that the proposal won the backing of 13 Republican senators, and had a real chance of passing.

What do you mean?

Show me examples of your version of health insurance being applied successfully en masse in another country.

[wufwugy]

It is different. When your car fucks up, or more appropriately, suffers a catastrophy, you CAN theoretically just scrap it and get a new one. You don't HAVE to repair your car if you get my drift. It's not a life or death situation. It is a different story with your body as, you only have one.

You're talking about different ways catastrophe manifests. Insurance for catastrophe is productive.

Thank the lobbyists. They just recently had another victory which prohibited your markets to compete for prices. Aided by these clowns

Who are they lobbying?

Show me examples of your version of health insurance being applied successfully en masse in another country.

You ask a question I can't answer, and even if I could answer, it would not be that relevant. Empiricism in economics is absurdly hard. It's so absurdly hard that most empirical research in economics demonstrates things that aren't quite true. The point I made was derivation from concepts that economists use because they are the best concepts at describing human economic behavior that we have.

[Jack Sawyer]

Who are they lobbying?.

Your easily bought government. And no, getting rid of government is not the right solution. As I always tell you, look around.

You ask a question I can't answer, and even if I could answer, it would not be that relevant. Empiricism in economics is absurdly hard. It's so absurdly hard that most empirical research in economics demonstrates things that aren't quite true. The point I made was derivation from concepts that economists use because they are the best concepts at describing human economic behavior that we have.

I know this wuf. And yes, it is relevant; you argue it is the best way to tackle this problem, so it should have already been tackled in this particular way elsewhere if that is true. Instead, elsewhere have vastly different ways of dealing with this problem which have already been proven to be effective, much more effective than what you currently have.

And yet you keep arguing your way is better. Or better said, SHOULD be better. But you offer no prior example showing your method in practice in this particular field; only general theories which should work. And yet you can very easily find examples in place in the real world proven to be better than what you currently have by country miles. Shouldn't you at the very least start there?

[wufwugy]

Your easily bought government. And no, getting rid of government is not the right solution. As I always tell you, look around.

I have proposed reducing the power of government to create laws for special interests. This prohibition on government is the source of rights and it is the best known way (perhaps only way) to keep government from screwing people over for the highest bidder or the most energized group.

I know this wuf. And yes, it is relevant; you argue it is the best way to tackle this problem, so it should have already been tackled in this particular way elsewhere if that is true.

That is not correct. Just because well established theory says one thing doesn't mean that the theory would have been put in practice empirically. Economics has never been a field strong with empiricism. Even though many economists try very hard to rectify that, the best scholarship in the field is essentially philosophical and logical argumentation regarding some concepts and constraints of human behavior and resource allocation.

Instead, elsewhere have vastly different ways of dealing with this problem which have already been proven to be effective, much more effective than what you currently have.

They have not been proven to be effective. There are very significant problems in these systems that emerge from the government intervention. There is also significant benefits these systems get from existing in an open economy with the less restrictive American system.

And yet you keep arguing your way is better. Or better said, SHOULD be better. But you offer no prior example showing your method in practice in this particular field; only general theories which should work.

I give you economic theory, which tells us a lot. Empirical results in economics don't tell us much at all. Even the most standard implications from the most logically sound and wide in consensus theories have not been demonstrated empirically sufficiently enough to make conclusions. There are just way too many confounding variables and too few constants.



A person knowing next to nothing about economics yet acting like he knows enough to discard any bit of economics that is explained to him is very common. I'm not going to continue this with you unless you drop your hubris and open up to the idea that I have been generously trying to help you learn stuff that you know nothing about.

[wufwugy]

That is not correct. Just because well established theory says one thing doesn't mean that the theory would have been put in practice empirically. Economics has never been a field strong with empiricism. Even though many economists try very hard to rectify that, the best scholarship in the field is essentially philosophical and logical argumentation regarding some concepts and constraints of human behavior and resource allocation.

I want to clarify this point because I think it is misleading.

Empirical research is very important in economics. The issue is that it is really hard to get empirical evidence to "tell the truth" while it is pretty easy to get empirical evidence to tell one what he wants to hear. The phrase "If you torture the data long enough, it will confess" is quite apropos in the field.

Because of some serious constraints regarding empiricism in economics, what economists try to do (for the most part) is use well-established models or innovate on them in creative ways that seem theoretically sound. Then they inform those models with data and see what happens. Sometimes some empirical trends arise when this is done many times in a variety of relevant situations.

Regarding the European healthcare systems that are claimed to have proven to be effective, the criticisms from economic models upon those systems are not about whether or not they are effective, and the data don't comment on "effectiveness" that much either. The data do, however, reveal what the economic criticisms have to say. The criticisms are that the European systems, regardless of "effectiveness", suffer from some specific problems predicted by economic theory. The basic form of those problems are quantity, quality, and innovation are lower than they could be and costs are higher than they could be. The data suggest this and fit the theory. Some examples of this are the significant amount of rationing in those systems, how patients that have the opportunity receive better care outside of the systems, and how taxes to pay for the systems are high and increasing. These systems are not that old (have not shown much antifragility) and they have significant problems that economic theory predicts that the data strongly suggest they have.