|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 26, 2020 6:06:28 GMT
rizdek said: [ full text here] - Your own perspective is limited.
- Citing the mistakes of the "scientific community" of the past is not recommending their predictions of the future.
- I hope it sings the choral to Beethoven's Ninth while performing miracles. Style matters.
- What I can sell? Little, old me? Doesn't matter. Neither does IMDb, at least as far as these issues go.
And there we have it....citing the mistakes of the scientific community is not recommending their predictions for the future....including that life could not arise naturally. I guess that means that even if someone could cite some scientist or group of scientists who categorically declare that life could not arise naturally it might just be a mistaken prediction. I'm ok with that. But the issue is how does one know if God or a god can even produce life? Clearly just the existence of life doesn't necessarily require a creator...because that would mean that a living creator must of necessity have been created and that leads to an infinite regress. Besides, the properties and characteristics a god must possess to be able to do such a feat...if it is far to complex to have occurred naturally make it far more unlikely that such a thing exists.
And, since history shows and and we both agree that the scientific community may be wrong...not only in what they predict but perhaps in how they proceed to do science, we may rest assured that the problem may very well be that to date, they have not combined the right material under the right conditions for the appropriate duration to produce rudimentary life. I find the prospect of discovering how life could be brought forth through natural means to be thrilling. My only regret is that it is unlikely to happen in my lifetime. There is no group who "categorically declares" gravity won't cease tomorrow. That's not a job. It's taken for granted that gravity won't cease tomorrow. What humans tend to do is speculate how it might. That's not exactly a "job" either unless you count entertainers. The great lesson of the New Horizon space probe is that we need to get up close to celestial objects to know the truth about them. That means we do not know much about anything beyond Pluto. What telescopes can see beyond Pluto are galaxies, not any objects in them. I believe the universe is infinite in space. There is no science to confirm that. I believe it is fair to say that it is impossible for science to confirm that ever. I suspect you don't like the thought that anything could be impossible. What is very possible is that we have reached our limits of understanding science. You obviously don't like that thought either, however sensible it obviously is. The New Horizon space probe is a metaphor, if only a metaphor, of that obvious fact. While the galaxies are indeed beyond our reach, the assumption that the periodic chart of the elements is identical in them does seem fair. So it's only more of the same out there. What happens after your lifetime might well be just more of the same as far as science goes. There is another means however to travel to other galaxies at least in theory. "Spiritual" or "astral" travel has been the subject of ancient philosophical scriptures. I think that is your hope and only hope however unlikely. I think it is silly of you to continue to try to cram that into "natural science." The word games serve no purpose.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Sept 26, 2020 7:29:42 GMT
Yes, but like Anselm, Descartes is drawing upon his Catholic faith, so this Perfect Being is influenced by the God of the Bible he was culturally raised to believe in. No doubt but there were other influences too. Descartes was reacting to, but was also influenced by, the Scholastic tradition which probably owes more to Aristotle than the Bible. At any rate, just because he was influenced by the Bible doesn't mean his philosophy needed to account for all its contents.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 26, 2020 11:32:43 GMT
And there we have it....citing the mistakes of the scientific community is not recommending their predictions for the future....including that life could not arise naturally. I guess that means that even if someone could cite some scientist or group of scientists who categorically declare that life could not arise naturally it might just be a mistaken prediction. I'm ok with that. But the issue is how does one know if God or a god can even produce life? Clearly just the existence of life doesn't necessarily require a creator...because that would mean that a living creator must of necessity have been created and that leads to an infinite regress. Besides, the properties and characteristics a god must possess to be able to do such a feat...if it is far to complex to have occurred naturally make it far more unlikely that such a thing exists.
And, since history shows and and we both agree that the scientific community may be wrong...not only in what they predict but perhaps in how they proceed to do science, we may rest assured that the problem may very well be that to date, they have not combined the right material under the right conditions for the appropriate duration to produce rudimentary life. I find the prospect of discovering how life could be brought forth through natural means to be thrilling. My only regret is that it is unlikely to happen in my lifetime. There is no group who "categorically declares" gravity won't cease tomorrow. That's not a job. It's taken for granted that gravity won't cease tomorrow. What humans tend to do is speculate how it might. That's not exactly a "job" either unless you count entertainers. The great lesson of the New Horizon space probe is that we need to get up close to celestial objects to know the truth about them. That means we do not know much about anything beyond Pluto. What telescopes can see beyond Pluto are galaxies, not any objects in them. I believe the universe is infinite in space. There is no science to confirm that. I believe it is fair to say that it is impossible for science to confirm that ever. I suspect you don't like the thought that anything could be impossible. What is very possible is that we have reached our limits of understanding science. You obviously don't like that thought either, however sensible it obviously is. The New Horizon space probe is a metaphor, if only a metaphor, of that obvious fact. While the galaxies are indeed beyond our reach, the assumption that the periodic chart of the elements is identical in them does seem fair. So it's only more of the same out there. What happens after your lifetime might well be just more of the same as far as science goes. There is another means however to travel to other galaxies at least in theory. "Spiritual" or "astral" travel has been the subject of ancient philosophical scriptures. I think that is your hope and only hope however unlikely. I think it is silly of you to continue to try to cram that into "natural science." The word games serve no purpose. Are scientists crazy for continuing the research into how life began?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 26, 2020 16:20:41 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [full text here] < clips > - if the "demand" is higher then why are all the industrialized nations with universal healthcare ranked ahead of the US by the WHO and they still pay less
- Why is the demand for healthcare about the same despite increasing prices over the years?
- Do you see how what you're saying makes no sense?
- buying healthcare is not the same thing as buying candy
- doesn't work with inelastic goods
- Ranked ahead in what exactly? It's important.
- Most likely inflation, but the matter requires further investigation. The point is not what they pay anyway, it's what they pay in relation to what the United States pays.
- To you, yes.
- To you perhaps.
- How "inelastic" goods are or not depends on whom you ask. You seem to think it does not. If you want to make the case that prices are higher in the United States because Americans consider more health treatments "inelastic," that is just another way of saying what I did. QED. You have a very blind faith in health care, it shows, and it proves my point about the United States.
1. The rankings are based on an index of five factors:[2] Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy Overall or average : 25% Distribution or equality : 25% Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities Overall or average : 12.5% Distribution or equality : 12.5% Fair financial contribution : 25% 2. Even adjusting for inflation and increasing wages, healtcare costs is still going up: "Relative to the size of the economy, healthcare costs have increased over the past few decades, from 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1960 to 18 percent in 2018. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) project that by 2028, such costs will climb to $6.2 trillion, or about $18,000 per person, and will represent about 20 percent of GDP" "The point is not what they pay anyway, it's what they pay in relation to what the United States pays." They pay less than the US, in fact we pay more than any other country for healthcare despite subpar rankings. 3. Uh good one. 4. Wait, so are you literally admitting buying candy is the same as buying health care? 5. "How "inelastic" goods are or not depends on whom you ask." Uh you're being slippery, I'm not talking on a person per person case, I'm talking about on average. "If you want to make the case that prices are higher in the United States because Americans consider more health treatments "inelastic," that is just another way of saying what I did. UH no I didn't, I said literally the exact opposite. You seem to think the "higher the demand, the higher price" model works with healthcare, I'm saying it doesn't specifcally because it's an inelastic demand. I don't think you know what "inelastic demand" means.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 26, 2020 16:46:23 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [full text here] - Ranked ahead in what exactly? It's important.
- Most likely inflation, but the matter requires further investigation. The point is not what they pay anyway, it's what they pay in relation to what the United States pays.
- To you, yes.
- To you perhaps.
- How "inelastic" goods are or not depends on whom you ask. You seem to think it does not. If you want to make the case that prices are higher in the United States because Americans consider more health treatments "inelastic," that is just another way of saying what I did. QED. You have a very blind faith in health care, it shows, and it proves my point about the United States.
1. The rankings are based on an index of five factors:[2] Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy Overall or average : 25% Distribution or equality : 25% Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities Overall or average : 12.5% Distribution or equality : 12.5% Fair financial contribution : 25% 2. Even adjusting for inflation and increasing wages, healtcare costs is still going up: "Relative to the size of the economy, healthcare costs have increased over the past few decades, from 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1960 to 18 percent in 2018. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) project that by 2028, such costs will climb to $6.2 trillion, or about $18,000 per person, and will represent about 20 percent of GDP" "The point is not what they pay anyway, it's what they pay in relation to what the United States pays." They pay less than the US, in fact we pay more than any other country for healthcare despite subpar rankings. 3. Uh good one. 4. Wait, so are you literally admitting buying candy is the same as buying health care? 5. "How "inelastic" goods are or not depends on whom you ask." Uh you're being slippery, I'm not talking on a person per person case, I'm talking about on average."If you want to make the case that prices are higher in the United States because Americans consider more health treatments "inelastic," that is just another way of saying what I did. UH no I didn't, I said literally the exact opposite. You seem to think the "higher the demand, the higher price" model works with healthcare, I'm saying it doesn't specifcally because it's an inelastic demand. I don't think you know what "inelastic demand" means. The average of what? Americans? French? Italians? You're doing something atheists typically do. You assume your opinions have any basis is established "science" where science doesn't really go. The average in the U.S. might be different than in other countries. That would mean Americans consider health care cost more "inelastic" (as you do) than Europeans or in other words their demand is higher than that of Europeans. I said that in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 26, 2020 16:56:30 GMT
1. The rankings are based on an index of five factors:[2] Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy Overall or average : 25% Distribution or equality : 25% Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities Overall or average : 12.5% Distribution or equality : 12.5% Fair financial contribution : 25% 2. Even adjusting for inflation and increasing wages, healtcare costs is still going up: "Relative to the size of the economy, healthcare costs have increased over the past few decades, from 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1960 to 18 percent in 2018. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) project that by 2028, such costs will climb to $6.2 trillion, or about $18,000 per person, and will represent about 20 percent of GDP" "The point is not what they pay anyway, it's what they pay in relation to what the United States pays." They pay less than the US, in fact we pay more than any other country for healthcare despite subpar rankings. 3. Uh good one. 4. Wait, so are you literally admitting buying candy is the same as buying health care? 5. "How "inelastic" goods are or not depends on whom you ask." Uh you're being slippery, I'm not talking on a person per person case, I'm talking about on average."If you want to make the case that prices are higher in the United States because Americans consider more health treatments "inelastic," that is just another way of saying what I did. UH no I didn't, I said literally the exact opposite. You seem to think the "higher the demand, the higher price" model works with healthcare, I'm saying it doesn't specifcally because it's an inelastic demand. I don't think you know what "inelastic demand" means. The average of what? Americans? French? Italians? You're doing something atheists typically do. You assume your opinions have any basis is established "science" where science doesn't really go. The average in the U.S. might be different than in other countries. That would mean Americans consider health care cost more "inelastic" (as you do) than Europeans or in other words their demand is higher than that of Europeans. I said that in the first place. "The average of what? Americans? French? Italians?" Uh American's obviously since were talking about the American healthcare system which is a privatized system. There's no "inelastic demand" in countries with universal healthcare where the government covers healthcare costs. "You're doing something atheists typically do. You assume your opinions have any basis is established "science" where science doesn't really go." This has nothing to do with "science",, the broken healthcare system is because of corporate greed and corruption of the for profit insurance companies. "The average in the U.S. might be different than in other countries." Yes, because they don't have private insurance companies and free markets for health insurance, so obviously countries with universal healthcare aren't gonna have "inelastic demand" since again it's covered by the government. It would be like saying there isn't an "inelastic demand" for government paved roads, well obviously since there is none because there's no free market for them. "That would mean Americans consider health care cost more "inelastic" (as you do) than Europeans" UH yeah, because other countries don't have to worry about being extorted by greedy, for profit health care insurance companies. I dunno what point you think you're making. "or in other words their demand is higher than that of Europeans." Uh no, nice try. Again there's no "inelastic demand" over there because the government covers the costs.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 27, 2020 19:31:01 GMT
The average of what? Americans? French? Italians? You're doing something atheists typically do. You assume your opinions have any basis is established "science" where science doesn't really go. The average in the U.S. might be different than in other countries. That would mean Americans consider health care cost more "inelastic" (as you do) than Europeans or in other words their demand is higher than that of Europeans. I said that in the first place. "The average of what? Americans? French? Italians?" Uh American's obviously since were talking about the American healthcare system which is a privatized system. There's no "inelastic demand" in countries with universal healthcare where the government covers healthcare costs.
"You're doing something atheists typically do. You assume your opinions have any basis is established "science" where science doesn't really go." This has nothing to do with "science",, the broken healthcare system is because of corporate greed and corruption of the for profit insurance companies. "The average in the U.S. might be different than in other countries." Yes, because they don't have private insurance companies and free markets for health insurance, so obviously countries with universal healthcare aren't gonna have "inelastic demand" since again it's covered by the government. It would be like saying there isn't an "inelastic demand" for government paved roads, well obviously since there is none because there's no free market for them. "That would mean Americans consider health care cost more "inelastic" (as you do) than Europeans" UH yeah, because other countries don't have to worry about being extorted by greedy, for profit health care insurance companies. I dunno what point you think you're making. "or in other words their demand is higher than that of Europeans." Uh no, nice try. Again there's no "inelastic demand" over there because the government covers the costs. In such countries there is demand by proxy. It is also as elastic or not as that particular group feels. Data that suggests healthcare is better in other countries does nothing to explain why prices are higher where it is not. Did you want to develop that idea?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 27, 2020 19:44:37 GMT
"The average of what? Americans? French? Italians?" Uh American's obviously since were talking about the American healthcare system which is a privatized system. There's no "inelastic demand" in countries with universal healthcare where the government covers healthcare costs.
"You're doing something atheists typically do. You assume your opinions have any basis is established "science" where science doesn't really go." This has nothing to do with "science",, the broken healthcare system is because of corporate greed and corruption of the for profit insurance companies. "The average in the U.S. might be different than in other countries." Yes, because they don't have private insurance companies and free markets for health insurance, so obviously countries with universal healthcare aren't gonna have "inelastic demand" since again it's covered by the government. It would be like saying there isn't an "inelastic demand" for government paved roads, well obviously since there is none because there's no free market for them. "That would mean Americans consider health care cost more "inelastic" (as you do) than Europeans" UH yeah, because other countries don't have to worry about being extorted by greedy, for profit health care insurance companies. I dunno what point you think you're making. "or in other words their demand is higher than that of Europeans." Uh no, nice try. Again there's no "inelastic demand" over there because the government covers the costs. In such countries there is demand by proxy. It is also as elastic or not as that particular group feels. Data that suggests healthcare is better in other countries does nothing to explain why prices are higher where it is not. Did you want to develop that idea? "In such countries there is demand by proxy. It is also as elastic or not as that particular group feels." Uh no, nice try, again there is generally no "inelastic demand" for government paved roads either because there's no free market for them. Elasticity of demand depends on a free market, otherwise if people themselves aren't actually paying directly for something then obviously the price-demand model isn't gonna apply, now is it? "Data that suggests healthcare is better in other countries does nothing to explain why prices are higher where it is not." I've already explained this to you several times, healthcare has an "inelastic demand" when you allow free market forces to take over, and because people don't wanna die insurance companies can charge nearly whatever they want, that's what "ineslastic demand" means. Countries with universal healthcare recognize this, so they get rid of the free market for healthcare (and by proxy the profit incetivization of private insurance and pharmaceutical companies) which severely reduces the costs for adequate healthcare.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 27, 2020 20:49:29 GMT
I was not speaking to you. Perhaps lowtacks86 would like to respond. This isn't Facebook, and these are public issues, not the rachelcarson1953 show. It's too late, you already confirmed my suspicion how atheists have a dependence on government as their only means of promotion. Ooooohhh, I'm so scared, and it's TOO LATE... but not too late to put you on block! Bye-bye, Moron!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 27, 2020 20:54:50 GMT
In such countries there is demand by proxy. It is also as elastic or not as that particular group feels. Data that suggests healthcare is better in other countries does nothing to explain why prices are higher where it is not. Did you want to develop that idea? "In such countries there is demand by proxy. It is also as elastic or not as that particular group feels." Uh no, nice try, again there is generally no "inelastic demand" for government paved roads either because there's no free market for them. Elasticity of demand depends on a free market, otherwise if people themselves aren't actually paying directly for something then obviously the price-demand model isn't gonna apply, now is it? "Data that suggests healthcare is better in other countries does nothing to explain why prices are higher where it is not." I've already explained this to you several times, healthcare has an "inelastic demand" when you allow free market forces to take over, and because people don't wanna die insurance companies can charge nearly whatever they want, that's what "ineslastic demand" means. Countries with universal healthcare recognize this, so they get rid of the free market for healthcare (and by proxy the profit incetivization of private insurance and pharmaceutical companies) which severely reduces the costs for adequate healthcare. Not a nice try, just pathetic. Although government can set restrictions on the "free" market it still operates on free market principles. The more the demand the higher the price rule holds however slightly adjusted. Your "greedy corporate" explanation depends on them having some special control of anything which does not happen with people who are not stupid. No particular player controls the market. No particular player ever can. That was the whole point of Adam Smith. There is no such thing as an "inelastic" demand independent of how various people feel about it. There is no "science" to it. You imagine there is an "inelastic" demand in some cosmic location because you cannot conceive anything other than writing blank checks for health care workers. It is embarrassing to think most U.S. citizens could be as oblivious as you are, but that is the explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 27, 2020 20:56:11 GMT
This isn't Facebook, and these are public issues, not the rachelcarson1953 show. It's too late, you already confirmed my suspicion how atheists have a dependence on government as their only means of promotion. Ooooohhh, I'm so scared, and it's TOO LATE... but not too late to put you on block! Bye-bye, Moron! Who?
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Sept 27, 2020 21:00:01 GMT
Well we don’t usually burn people at the stake for not following health and safety regulations so there is that. Yes, you do. Burning people at the stake violates health a safety regulations.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 27, 2020 21:06:26 GMT
Burning people at the stake violates health a safety regulations. Cremation.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 27, 2020 21:14:43 GMT
"In such countries there is demand by proxy. It is also as elastic or not as that particular group feels." Uh no, nice try, again there is generally no "inelastic demand" for government paved roads either because there's no free market for them. Elasticity of demand depends on a free market, otherwise if people themselves aren't actually paying directly for something then obviously the price-demand model isn't gonna apply, now is it? "Data that suggests healthcare is better in other countries does nothing to explain why prices are higher where it is not." I've already explained this to you several times, healthcare has an "inelastic demand" when you allow free market forces to take over, and because people don't wanna die insurance companies can charge nearly whatever they want, that's what "ineslastic demand" means. Countries with universal healthcare recognize this, so they get rid of the free market for healthcare (and by proxy the profit incetivization of private insurance and pharmaceutical companies) which severely reduces the costs for adequate healthcare. Not a nice try, just pathetic. Although government can set restrictions on the "free" market it still operates on free market principles. The more the demand the higher the price rule holds however slightly adjusted. Your "greedy corporate" explanation depends on them having some special control of anything which does not happen with people who are not stupid. No particular player controls the market. No particular player ever can. That was the whole point of Adam Smith. There is no such thing as an "inelastic" demand independent of how various people feel about it. There is no "science" to it. You imagine there is an "inelastic" demand in some cosmic location because you cannot conceive anything other than writing blank checks for health care workers. It is embarrassing to think most U.S. citizens could be as oblivious as you are, but that is the explanation. Is there no end to the things that you don't understand? Let us now add economics to 'science' and add in a dose of most other country's in the world's universal health care services which manages to offer comparable services to their populations for less than half the cost of what is paid by Americans.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 27, 2020 21:25:38 GMT
"In such countries there is demand by proxy. It is also as elastic or not as that particular group feels." Uh no, nice try, again there is generally no "inelastic demand" for government paved roads either because there's no free market for them. Elasticity of demand depends on a free market, otherwise if people themselves aren't actually paying directly for something then obviously the price-demand model isn't gonna apply, now is it? "Data that suggests healthcare is better in other countries does nothing to explain why prices are higher where it is not." I've already explained this to you several times, healthcare has an "inelastic demand" when you allow free market forces to take over, and because people don't wanna die insurance companies can charge nearly whatever they want, that's what "ineslastic demand" means. Countries with universal healthcare recognize this, so they get rid of the free market for healthcare (and by proxy the profit incetivization of private insurance and pharmaceutical companies) which severely reduces the costs for adequate healthcare. Not a nice try, just pathetic. Although government can set restrictions on the "free" market it still operates on free market principles. The more the demand the higher the price rule holds however slightly adjusted. Your "greedy corporate" explanation depends on them having some special control of anything which does not happen with people who are not stupid. No particular player controls the market. No particular player ever can. That was the whole point of Adam Smith. There is no such thing as an "inelastic" demand independent of how various people feel about it. There is no "science" to it. You imagine there is an "inelastic" demand in some cosmic location because you cannot conceive anything other than writing blank checks for health care workers. It is embarrassing to think most U.S. citizens could be as oblivious as you are, but that is the explanation. "Although government can set restrictions on the "free" market it still operates on free market principles." Except of course for services completely taken off the free market (paved roads, police, firefighters,etc). "The more the demand the higher the price rule holds however slightly adjusted." There is no "price-demand model" for services publicly provided. How would "price-demand model" apply to private roads if there is no actual free market pricing for them? This is beyond absurd. "Your "greedy corporate" explanation depends on them having some special control of anything which does not happen with people who are not stupid" Uh except they have "special control", why do you think insurance companies and pharmacy corporation spends billions in lobbying and political contributions? As for people being "stupid", well yeah they actually quite are stupid and misinformed, typically because insurance companies and right wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation spend millions in spreading misinformation and lies about socialized healthcare. "No particular player controls the market." justcareusa.org/pharmas-monopolies-are-the-reason-for-high-drug-prices/#:~:text=This%20monopoly%20power%20results%20from%20the%20patents%20we,charge%20whatever%20they%20would%20like%20for%20their%20drugs. "That was the whole point of Adam Smith." Except Adam Smith also noticed many of the problems I just pointed out: "Again and again, Smith warned of the collusive nature of business interests, which may form cabals or monopolies, fixing the highest price "which can be squeezed out of the buyers".[91] Smith also warned that a business-dominated political system would allow a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation. Smith states that the interest of manufacturers and merchants "in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention." "There is no such thing as an "inelastic" demand independent of how various people feel about it. There is no "science" to it. Actually economics is a science of sorts (albeit a "soft science"). That's weird you would say that BTW, are you saying you don't actually care about empirically based arguments? Because that would explain a lot. "You imagine there is an "inelastic" demand in some cosmic location because you cannot conceive anything other than writing blank checks for health care workers. " Except the inelastic demand for healthcare is pretty well documented: www.healthcare-economist.com/2009/07/22/is-health-care-demand-elastic/#:~:text=Most%20experts%20believe%20that%20health%20care%20demand%20is,fairly%20insensitive%20to%20changes%20in%20health%20care%20prices. "It is embarrassing to think most U.S. citizens could be as oblivious as you are, but that is the explanation." Petty insults aren't an argument. I notice you didn't give any actual specific facts or data to back up your arguments and just used vague, economic memes ("The higher the price, the higher the demand!") and just baseless conjecture.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Sept 27, 2020 21:57:03 GMT
Burning people at the stake violates health a safety regulations. Cremation. Well that’s one way of looking at it I guess.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 27, 2020 22:11:35 GMT
Well that’s one way of looking at it I guess. There is, of course, the infinitesimal detail of whether one is alive or dead.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 27, 2020 22:19:59 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] < clips >
- completely taken off the free market (paved roads, police, firefighters,etc)
- There is no "price-demand model" for services publicly provided.
- well yeah they actually quite are stupid and misinformed,
- Pharma’s monopolies are the reason for high drug prices
- Actually economics is a science of sorts
- Again and again, Smith warned
- Petty insults aren't an argument.
- are you saying you don't actually care about empirically based arguments?
- Public bidding. I will grant that there is more delay between paying too much and getting demoted in government than in private life, but the free market principles do eventually rule.
- There is no reason anyone should take your advice on economics.
- Especially if they get advice from you
- Monopolies can indeed be a nuisance to a clean market, but drug patents are temporary for drugs people do not really need as much as you imagine. There are simply more and better options than you are able to appreciate. Leaving those prices momentarily high reduces the risk to innocent, cautious people the drug is not what it is supposed to be. Permanent monopolies are the serious problem.
- That you do not understand
- And an informed public took control of monopolies.
- That is not an argument, for sure.
- I am appalled that children control the news, especially through the internet. I do not regard their specious arguments. I do care very much about empirical evidence.
Yes there are "greedy corporate" forces in the game. Suppose they get "control" of water. You can't live without water right? Some bold people however do shower or bathe less when prices are too high. That cuts into revenues and creates other public problems. Water prices might lower because of covid-19. There is no "new wonder" drug anyone needs as much as water.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 27, 2020 22:35:46 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] < clips >
- completely taken off the free market (paved roads, police, firefighters,etc)
- There is no "price-demand model" for services publicly provided.
- well yeah they actually quite are stupid and misinformed,
- Pharma’s monopolies are the reason for high drug prices
- Actually economics is a science of sorts
- Again and again, Smith warned
- Petty insults aren't an argument.
- are you saying you don't actually care about empirically based arguments?
- Public bidding. I will grant that there is more delay between paying too much and getting demoted in government than in private life, but the free market principles do eventually rule.
- There is no reason anyone should take your advice on economics.
- Especially if they get advice from you
- Monopolies can indeed be a nuisance to a clean market, but drug patents are temporary for drugs people do not really need as much as you imagine. There are simply more and better options than you are able to appreciate. Leaving those prices momentarily high reduces the risk to innocent, cautious people the drug is not what it is supposed to be. Permanent monopolies are the serious problem.
- That you do not understand
- And an informed public took control of monopolies.
- That is not an argument, for sure.
- I am appalled that children control the news, especially through the internet. I do not regard their specious arguments. I do care very much about empirical evidence.
Yes there are "greedy corporate" forces in the game. Suppose they get "control" of water. You can't live without water right? Some bold people however do shower or bathe less when prices are too high. That cuts into revenues and creates other public problems. Water prices might lower because of covid-19. There is no "new wonder" drug anyone needs as much as water.
"Public bidding. I will grant that there is more delay between paying too much and getting demoted in government than in private life, but the free market principles do eventually rule. " Nice misconflation, I'm referring to actual consumer demand (taxpayers), not how voted officials decide how to spend public funds, there is no consumer price-demand correlation between government provided roads and the actual consumers (people who drive on them) is the point I'm making. You take away the for profit incentive of the insurance companies (by making healthcare socialized) you ultimately take away to inelastic consumer demand and it lowers the price of healthcare wihtout affecting the quality. This has been demonstrated in literally every industrialized with universal healthcare. "There is no reason anyone should take your advice on economics. " Petty insults don't actually count as an argument, I noticed you didn't actually address what I said. "Especially if they get advice from you" Petty insults don't actually count as an argument, I noticed you didn't actually address what I said. "Monopolies can indeed be a nuisance to a clean market, but drug patents are temporary for drugs people do not really need as much as you imagine." Then why do drug prices keep going up? There are simply more and better options than you are able to appreciate. You haven't made a cogent argument for one. "Leaving those prices momentarily high reduces the risk to innocent, cautious people the drug is not what it is supposed to be. " Link me a verifiable source that confirms this "Permanent monopolies are the serious problem." If left unregulated, they become permanent, things like anti-monopoly laws and government control of certain industries can eliminate them, but you don't want that. "That you do not understand " Petty insults don't actually count as an argument, I noticed you didn't actually address what I said. "And an informed public took control of monopolies. " Then why do they still exist? "I am appalled that children control the news, especially through the internet. I do not regard their specious arguments. I do care very much about empirical evidence." You've provided none. No data, no studies, no links, just useless baseless conjecture ("Uh the free market can solve healthcare costs, I know because I feel that way!")
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 27, 2020 23:16:56 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] - Public bidding. I will grant that there is more delay between paying too much and getting demoted in government than in private life, but the free market principles do eventually rule.
- There is no reason anyone should take your advice on economics.
- Especially if they get advice from you
- Monopolies can indeed be a nuisance to a clean market, but drug patents are temporary for drugs people do not really need as much as you imagine. There are simply more and better options than you are able to appreciate. Leaving those prices momentarily high reduces the risk to innocent, cautious people the drug is not what it is supposed to be. Permanent monopolies are the serious problem.
- That you do not understand
- And an informed public took control of monopolies.
- That is not an argument, for sure.
- I am appalled that children control the news, especially through the internet. I do not regard their specious arguments. I do care very much about empirical evidence.
Yes there are "greedy corporate" forces in the game. Suppose they get "control" of water. You can't live without water right? Some bold people however do shower or bathe less when prices are too high. That cuts into revenues and creates other public problems. Water prices might lower because of covid-19. There is no "new wonder" drug anyone needs as much as water.
"Public bidding. I will grant that there is more delay between paying too much and getting demoted in government than in private life, but the free market principles do eventually rule. " Nice misconflation, I'm referring to actual consumer demand (taxpayers), not how voted officials decide how to spend public funds, there is no consumer price-demand correlation between government provided roads and the actual consumers (people who drive on them) is the point I'm making. You take away the for profit incentive of the insurance companies (by making healthcare socialized) you ultimately take away to inelastic consumer demand and it lowers the price of healthcare wihtout affecting the quality. This has been demonstrated in literally every industrialized with universal healthcare. "There is no reason anyone should take your advice on economics. " Petty insults don't actually count as an argument, I noticed you didn't actually address what I said. "Especially if they get advice from you" Petty insults don't actually count as an argument, I noticed you didn't actually address what I said. "Monopolies can indeed be a nuisance to a clean market, but drug patents are temporary for drugs people do not really need as much as you imagine." Then why do drug prices keep going up? There are simply more and better options than you are able to appreciate. You haven't made a cogent argument for one. "Leaving those prices momentarily high reduces the risk to innocent, cautious people the drug is not what it is supposed to be. " Link me a verifiable source that confirms this "Permanent monopolies are the serious problem." If left unregulated, they become permanent, things like anti-monopoly laws and government control of certain industries can eliminate them, but you don't want that. "That you do not understand " Petty insults don't actually count as an argument, I noticed you didn't actually address what I said. "And an informed public took control of monopolies. " Then why do they still exist? "I am appalled that children control the news, especially through the internet. I do not regard their specious arguments. I do care very much about empirical evidence." You've provided none. No data, no studies, no links, just useless baseless conjecture ("Uh the free market can solve healthcare costs, I know because I feel that way!") The correct answer to why health care costs in the United States are so high is that too many people are either stupid or depending on other stupid people for their opinions. There is no other "argument" than that. It is the solution to the problem. Tell them they should shut up because they are stupid. They expect to lower health care costs by forcing people to buy more of it because they think mass production techniques will then lower prices. That is because they are stupid. The health care market is already so vast that mass production techniques cannot possibly lower prices by that principle any more. Rather the increased demand caused by their stupidity and delusions of inelasticity actaully raise prices even further. Another option is listening to my actual arguments just made here. That is assuming there is a cure for stupidity. Apparently you cannot learn.
|
|