"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-01-2014, 04:06 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 03:36 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Correct. There ARE people who choose the lower cost Lasik. There are also Lasik procedures for $499 an eye.. This prices hardly represent quality lasik procedures. Less experienced, less qualified doctors will command cheaper prices. Hands down.

I'm not saying there aren't people who will buy it....there certainly are. But most people do not make these decision based on price alone. Their confidence in the doctor is greater than or equal to the price of that doctor in terms of decision making criterion.

...other than commodities, few purchases are decided on price alone. If they were, there would only be one brand of milk - the cheapest. But there are dozens of brands of milk, because even with something like milk, price is not the only factor taken into consideration.

Quote:Measure it in how people make their decisions. Narrow it down to Lasik if you want. There are message board after message board about LASIK. Here is just one I found. The OP is asking "where is the cheapest lasik" and the commenters are saying, "do you really want the cheapest, these are your eyes you are talking bout!"
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...453AA0mpC0

...yet, plenty of people are looking for inexpensive lasik. That's exactly what a market does. It interjects price as a factor in decision making. It's not the only factor, but it is a factor, and because of that, it pushes providers to find ways to lower prices.

Quote:And I'm not just talking about of my butt. I pay for my own private medical insurance, which means my deductibles and whatnot are through the roof. I got mauled by a dog, which tore all the ligaments in my hand, and I paid $35,000 out of my pocket by the time the surgery, hand therapy, and all my deductibles were made. My surgeon was out of my network...but this is my dominant HAND...and my livelihood. It wasn't a life/death decision. Price was not a factor...the best care was my deciding factor.

Surely you understand, that just because this is the decision you made, that doesn't make it the only decision anyone would ever make. You already stated that cost would not be a factor to you in lasik, yet we see that for many people it is.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 04:26 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2014 05:35 PM by Chas.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 12:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Lastly, there's one big question I keep asking, and you keep avoiding. I'm in favor of decision-making being as local as possible. There's no arbitrary line in the sand, I'd rather take it all the way to the individual level. You, however, argue that bigger is better, and there are gains to be had from concentrating and centralizing power. So, why stop at the federal level? Why not go further, and have one world government, or at least one for the Americas? And why split legislative between a house and a senate? Let's merge them. And we don't need so many Congressman, have just a few. Heck, go all the way and have one person who is given all the executive, judicial and legislative power for the whole world! If, as you say, concentrating and centralizing power is a better system, leads to more checks and balances, less abuse, and there's no downside, why draw an arbitrary line in the sand and stop at the current federal level? If you really believed that, you'd take it all the way. I think, deep down, you realize concentrating and centralizing power is bad, and that's why you're not advocating we do any more of it. But, you favor preserving the status quo and don't want to make radical changes, so it's purely arbitrary that you think that where the lines are currently drawn is actually the best place to draw them. Which is actually a characteristic of conservatism.

This is why I really dislike conversing with you. You constantly mischaracterize what I and others say.

We're done. You are a disingenuous, unrealistic ideologue and seem incapable of carrying on a constructive discussion.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 04:40 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 04:06 PM)toadaly Wrote:  ...other than commodities, few purchases are decided on price alone. If they were, there would only be one brand of milk - the cheapest. But there are dozens of brands of milk, because even with something like milk, price is not the only factor taken into consideration.


I can't tell if you are just inexperienced with applied economics or inexperienced with how the prices of things actually fluctuate (relating to commodities). In the first sentence, you state that deciding to buy a commodity is determined on price alone. Then you go on to state that they are not based on price alone. Which is it?


The price of commodities usually has nothing to do with their equilibrium price based on supply vs demand. It is determined though commodities trading. For example, remember when the price of oil sky rocketed in 2008? Oil is a commodity wherein commodity futures are traded on the market. The supply and demand of the oil had remained unchanged. What changed was the perception of the market and what the price would do. Those were market driven increases.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 04:54 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 04:40 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I can't tell if you are just inexperienced with applied economics or inexperienced with how the prices of things actually fluctuate (relating to commodities). In the first sentence, you state that deciding to buy a commodity is determined on price alone. Then you go on to state that they are not based on price alone. Which is it?

Light sweet crude oil is a commodity. Milk, is not, even though it's close to it.

We seem to be having an inordinate amount of difficulty communicating. It's not productive.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 05:29 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2014 08:58 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 04:54 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 04:40 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I can't tell if you are just inexperienced with applied economics or inexperienced with how the prices of things actually fluctuate (relating to commodities). In the first sentence, you state that deciding to buy a commodity is determined on price alone. Then you go on to state that they are not based on price alone. Which is it?

Light sweet crude oil is a commodity. Milk, is not, even though it's close to it.

We seem to be having an inordinate amount of difficulty communicating. It's not productive.

You are right. We can't seem to communicate. I don't understand how else to interpret your statement, "milk, is not [a commodity], even though it's close to it." No

Milk is most certainly a commodity traded on the commodities market, just like oil. Agriculture, is included on the commodities markets. Like coffee, and orange juice. and a whole slew of other products. Milk is specifically a commodity. What else could you have possibly meant here if I'm misunderstanding you?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45804876


The price of gasoline, which is refined from Oil, is determined by price of oil futures in commodities trading.Consider what don't you understand here? Sometimes, actual commodity prices for things like gas, has nothing to do with the actual supply of oil to the US, or the demand for Oil in the US, but is driven by the future markets.


The price of these things is not based on the supply and demand of the actual product itself, at least not on its surface but rather the supply and demand of the commodity futures, traded on the commodity market. If a trader thinks the price of oil will go up, he will trade commodity futures, driving the actual price of the oil up. What don't you get?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 06:24 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 03:27 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 03:21 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  no, I am making a claim that the emotion involving your healthcare decisions is equal to or greater than the price when making those decisions.

I don't know how you could measure such a thing to support a claim like that. I've already given a real word non-hypothetical example of the market place working in lasik. One example is all that's needed to demonstrate that markets can work in health care, at least when we're not talking about emergency life and death situations.

Utility can most certainly be measured. When you say things like this, you make me think that you are simply inexperienced with applied economics.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 10:29 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 05:29 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You are right. We can't seem to communicate. I don't understand how else to interpret your statement, "milk, is not [a commodity], even though it's close to it." No

So we're done then. It's pointless to continue when we both agree that it is.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 08:06 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
The problem is one of you has absolutely no idea what you're taking about. And, I'm pretty sure that person is not cathym. If you're going to try to make an argument based on commodities prices, you really need a clue about the commodities exchange and how prices are set. Hint: it is not supply and demand of those items. Oh, and utility most certainly can be measured. You learn that in any introductory economics class.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 09:50 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(28-01-2014 08:06 AM)BnW Wrote:  The problem is one of you has absolutely no idea what you're taking about. And, I'm pretty sure that person is not cathym. If you're going to try to make an argument based on commodities prices, you really need a clue about the commodities exchange and how prices are set. Hint: it is not supply and demand of those items. Oh, and utility most certainly can be measured. You learn that in any introductory economics class.

No-one was making an argument about commodity prices.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 04:01 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 04:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  This is why I really dislike conversing with you. You constantly mischaracterize what I and others say.

We're done. You are a disingenuous, unrealistic ideologue and seem incapable of carrying on a constructive discussion.

Chas, we are debating if laws on minimum health care should be done at the state level, my preference, or the federal level, your preference. States are smaller than the federal government. Federal jurisdiction is bigger. So I did NOT mis-characterize you when saying that your position is a bigger jurisdiction is better. That IS what we're debating. All I did was ask a question to challenge your assumptions, namely that if you feel the State level is not big enough, and you feel we should go bigger, why stop at the Federal level, and why not have a law for all North American countries? Why not the whole continent? Or the world?

Whenever someone draws an arbitrary line in the sand, as you and I have both done with our state vs. federal issue, the obvious, constructive question is "Why did you draw the line there? What not go further one way or the other?"

I've already said why I felt the arbitrary line should be drawn at the state level, which I will restate: I want the line to be as small as possible, at the individual level, but I know that you'll never agree to that, and you'll always want a bigger jurisdiction. Therefore, as a compromise, I'm willing to go as big as possible provided: a) that we respect free will and let people decide which jurisdiction to live under, and b) I feel competition is good, so I want competing jurisdictions.

If we go any bigger than the state level, we lose those things. The law then applies to Americans everywhere they are legally allowed to live, and we have one big monopolistic system that doesn't compete. So I've explained why my arbitrary line in the sand is as big as I am comfortable going, and why I don't want the jurisdiction to be any bigger.

Now, all I did was ask you obvious questions. Why do you draw the arbitrary line at the federal level? If you think that the state level is too small, and bigger is better, why stop at the federal level, why not go even bigger? And, if you were told you could NOT draw the line at the federal level and had to go either bigger or smaller, would you prefer to go smaller (state level) or bigger (continental)?

When I ask such basic questions to challenge your assumptions, and you throw your hands up and say 'how dare you, I'm done', that makes it seem that you didn't really think through your answer, and that you don't really have a good reason for drawing the line at the national level other than that it's the status quo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: