|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 27, 2020 23:25:25 GMT
"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. "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" Yes, you are right, people are stupid because they get their opinions from right wing pundits, conservative think tanks, and for profit insurance companies about socialized healthcare. Thanks for agreeing with me! "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." If you're refering to Obama Care, I don't consider some mandate to buy from private insurance companies (originally proposed by the conservative think Heritage Foundation btw) to be "socialized healthcare". It's certainly not universal healthcare. "The health care market is already so vast that mass production techniques cannot possibly lower prices by that principle any more." Yeah, again a mandate originally proposed by a conservative think tank to buy from private insurance companies isn't "socialized healthcare" "Rather the increased demand caused by their stupidity and delusions of inelasticity actaully raise prices even further." What do you actually mean by that? Give specific examples. "Another option is listening to my actual arguments just made here" I've addressed all your shitty arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Sept 27, 2020 23:44:16 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. I suppose when my mum, dad, brother, etc were cremated it was as a punishment for not following health and safety regulations when alive.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 28, 2020 0:05:49 GMT
There is, of course, the infinitesimal detail of whether one is alive or dead. I suppose when my mum, dad, brother, etc were cremated it was as a punishment for not following health and safety regulations when alive. Who knows with that uber stupid poster!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 28, 2020 0:53:46 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] < clip >
Yes, you are right, people are stupid because they get their opinions from right wing pundits, conservative think tanks, and for profit insurance companies about socialized healthcare. The ACA was passed 10 years ago and despite much rhetoric about repealing it the Republicans have left it intact. That includes two years of having the House, Senate, and White House in their hands. The reason is the same they haven't tried to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover, they are not really religious, they are people who do what they are told without understanding anything. That includes doing whatever doctors tell them, especially the doctors at VA hospitals. They don't want to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover because they think that would interfere with them telling other people what to do. Tell us now, how have all these years of ACA lowered prices? You know, while the right wing let you have your way?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 28, 2020 1:01:08 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] < clip >
Yes, you are right, people are stupid because they get their opinions from right wing pundits, conservative think tanks, and for profit insurance companies about socialized healthcare. The ACA was passed 10 years ago and despite much rhetoric about repealing it the Republicans have left it intact. That includes two years of having the House, Senate, and White House in their hands. The reason is the same they haven't tried to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover, they are not really religious, they are people who do what they are told without understanding anything. That includes doing whatever doctors tell them, especially the doctors at VA hospitals. They don't want to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover because they think that would interfere with them telling other people what to do. Tell us now, how have all these years of ACA lowered prices? You know, while the right wing let you have your way? WTF does Kitzmiller v. Dover, have to do with either the price of fish nor health care in the USA?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 28, 2020 1:01:42 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] < clip >
Yes, you are right, people are stupid because they get their opinions from right wing pundits, conservative think tanks, and for profit insurance companies about socialized healthcare. The ACA was passed 10 years ago and despite much rhetoric about repealing it the Republicans have left it intact. That includes two years of having the House, Senate, and White House in their hands. The reason is the same they haven't tried to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover, they are not really religious, they are people who do what they are told without understanding anything. That includes doing whatever doctors tell them, especially the doctors at VA hospitals. They don't want to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover because they think that would interfere with them telling other people what to do. Tell us now, how all these years of ACA have lowered prices? You know, while the right wing let you have your way? "The ACA was passed 10 years ago and despite much rhetoric about repealing it the Republicans have left it intact." That's not really true, they got rid of the insurance mandate, which is the main crux of the ACA, everything else was just rather secondary. It would be like not using peanuts to make peanut butter but still using the other ingredients, you can't really call it "peanut butter" anymore. In any case it doesn't matter since again it's not really socialized healthcare. "The reason is the same they haven't tried to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover, they are not really religious, they are people who do what they are told without understanding anything." This just looks like another one of your weird tangents that have nothing to do with what I said. "Tell us now, how all these years of ACA have lowered prices?" What part of the ACA not being socialized healthcare did you not understand? A mandate to buy insurance from private companies is hardly socialized healthcare. Again the Heritage Foundation had already proposed a similar plan decades before Obama did. Do you think the Heritage Foundation is secretly full of socialists now? You what what, knowing you, you probably are delusional enough to think that.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 28, 2020 11:38:23 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] The ACA was passed 10 years ago and despite much rhetoric about repealing it the Republicans have left it intact. That includes two years of having the House, Senate, and White House in their hands. The reason is the same they haven't tried to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover, they are not really religious, they are people who do what they are told without understanding anything. That includes doing whatever doctors tell them, especially the doctors at VA hospitals. They don't want to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover because they think that would interfere with them telling other people what to do. Tell us now, how all these years of ACA have lowered prices? You know, while the right wing let you have your way? "The ACA was passed 10 years ago and despite much rhetoric about repealing it the Republicans have left it intact." That's not really true, they got rid of the insurance mandate, which is the main crux of the ACA, everything else was just rather secondary. It would be like not using peanuts to make peanut butter but still using the other ingredients, you can't really call it "peanut butter" anymore. In any case it doesn't matter since again it's not really socialized healthcare. "The reason is the same they haven't tried to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover, they are not really religious, they are people who do what they are told without understanding anything." This just looks like another one of your weird tangents that have nothing to do with what I said. "Tell us now, how all these years of ACA have lowered prices?" What part of the ACA not being socialized healthcare did you not understand? A mandate to buy insurance from private companies is hardly socialized healthcare. Again the Heritage Foundation had already proposed a similar plan decades before Obama did. Do you think the Heritage Foundation is secretly full of socialists now? You what what, knowing you, you probably are delusional enough to think that. You did not show any price lowering at any time in any way for any sort of medical treatment. Just saying. Try again? Eliminating the penalty for not obtaining a certain amount of insurance simply means that some people probably (data?) bought less insurance at that point. How do you imagine that raises prices? Do you believe mass production techniques are not being used to their full potential? Why else would people not buying insurance raise its price? Are you an expert in mass production? Do you believe increasing the market always lowers prices? Or do you recognize that at some level of production the price cannot go lower by means of increasing the market size? Please answer this essential question directly. I have explained that mass production techniques are already maximized in the vast market of health care. I have explained that prices are so high because too many people in the United States demand too much health care. I have explained how "elasticity" (either more or less) does not exist in some "scientific" amount. Atheists typically imagine that their opinions are somehow "scientific" facts. I gave you the example of water as something that ought to be "inelastic." The demand for water might well be less responsive to prices changes, but everything eventually responds. How much they respond and how soon varies from one group to another. That you believe the price of new medicines is "inelastic" proves my point that your demand for them is higher. Something you have perhaps not fully considered is that many proponents of ACA do not really care whether the price lowers. They want people to buy more health care anyway no matter what it costs (QED). You do seem to have particular problem.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 28, 2020 11:45:37 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] The ACA was passed 10 years ago and despite much rhetoric about repealing it the Republicans have left it intact. That includes two years of having the House, Senate, and White House in their hands. The reason is the same they haven't tried to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover, they are not really religious, they are people who do what they are told without understanding anything. That includes doing whatever doctors tell them, especially the doctors at VA hospitals. They don't want to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover because they think that would interfere with them telling other people what to do. Tell us now, how have all these years of ACA lowered prices? You know, while the right wing let you have your way? WTF does Kitzmiller v. Dover, have to do with either the price of fish nor health care in the USA? Perhaps the highlighting will help.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 28, 2020 14:44:53 GMT
"The ACA was passed 10 years ago and despite much rhetoric about repealing it the Republicans have left it intact." That's not really true, they got rid of the insurance mandate, which is the main crux of the ACA, everything else was just rather secondary. It would be like not using peanuts to make peanut butter but still using the other ingredients, you can't really call it "peanut butter" anymore. In any case it doesn't matter since again it's not really socialized healthcare. "The reason is the same they haven't tried to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover, they are not really religious, they are people who do what they are told without understanding anything." This just looks like another one of your weird tangents that have nothing to do with what I said. "Tell us now, how all these years of ACA have lowered prices?" What part of the ACA not being socialized healthcare did you not understand? A mandate to buy insurance from private companies is hardly socialized healthcare. Again the Heritage Foundation had already proposed a similar plan decades before Obama did. Do you think the Heritage Foundation is secretly full of socialists now? You what what, knowing you, you probably are delusional enough to think that. You did not show any price lowering at any time in any way for any sort of medical treatment. Just saying. Try again? Eliminating the penalty for not obtaining a certain amount of insurance simply means that some people probably (data?) bought less insurance at that point. How do you imagine that raises prices? Do you believe mass production techniques are not being used to their full potential? Why else would people not buying insurance raise its price? Are you an expert in mass production? Do you believe increasing the market always lowers prices? Or do you recognize that at some level of production the price cannot go lower by means of increasing the market size? Please answer this essential question directly. I have explained that mass production techniques are already maximized in the vast market of health care. I have explained that prices are so high because too many people in the United States demand too much health care. I have explained how "elasticity" (either more or less) does not exist in some "scientific" amount. Atheists typically imagine that their opinions are somehow "scientific" facts. I gave you the example of water as something that ought to be "inelastic." The demand for water might well be less responsive to prices changes, but everything eventually responds. How much they respond and how soon varies from one group to another. That you believe the price of new medicines is "inelastic" proves my point that your demand for them is higher. Something you have perhaps not fully considered is that many proponents of ACA do not really care whether the price lowers. They want people to buy more health care anyway no matter what it costs (QED). You do seem to have particular problem. "You did not show any price lowering at any time in any way for any sort of medical treatment" I've already explained how getting rid of for profit insurance companies would lower the costs, you get rid of the for profit incenitve and thus can spend more money on the actual costs rather than a bunch of CEOs lining their pockets. Other countries have already done it successfully. "Eliminating the penalty for not obtaining a certain amount of insurance simply means that some people probably (data?) bought less insurance at that point. How do you imagine that raises prices? Do you believe mass production techniques are not being used to their full potential? Why else would people not buying insurance raise its price? Are you an expert in mass production? Do you believe increasing the market always lowers prices? Or do you recognize that at some level of production the price cannot go lower by means of increasing the market size? Please answer this essential question directly." Again, because healthcare has an "inelastic demand", simply lowering the demand is not gonna lower the price. The whole point of the mandate was an agreement between the insurance companies and the government, by making it mandatory to own insurance they would increase coverage for people with preexsiting conditions, that would they would still be making plenty of money. Getting rid of the mandate means less customers, so they have to raise prices/decrease coverage to make up for it (which they can get away with because of it's inelastic demand). Simple as that. Again I dunno why you keep brining up the ACA, it's not socialized healthcare. " I have explained that prices are so high because too many people in the United States demand too much health care." Uh no, you've given nothing but baseless conjecture that I've addressed. Notice how you haven't linked an actual valid article or study to back up your arguments? "I gave you the example of water as something that ought to be "inelastic." That's only because water is heavily regulated and often run by the government to keep prices from increasing: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization_in_the_United_States"Atheists typically imagine that their opinions are somehow "scientific" facts" Another one of you weird tangents that has nothing to do with anything. " I have explained how "elasticity" (either more or less) does not exist in some "scientific" amount." That's not true: tutorstips.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Price-elasticity-of-Demand-1.png"Something you have perhaps not fully considered is that many proponents of ACA do not really care whether the price lowers. They want people to buy more health care anyway no matter what it costs (QED). You do seem to have particular problem." For the last goddman time, the ACA is not "socialized healthcare" this has already been explained to you several times. I'm hardly a fan (it should be replaced with medicare for all). I dunno why you think this is some sort of gotcha.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 28, 2020 21:10:33 GMT
WTF does Kitzmiller v. Dover, have to do with either the price of fish nor health care in the USA? Perhaps the highlighting will help. No, it doesn't. I repeat what does this have to do with teaching nonsense to school children?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 29, 2020 1:06:44 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] < clips >
- getting rid of for profit insurance companies would lower the costs, you get rid of the for profit incentive
- Getting rid of the mandate means less customers, so they have to raise prices/decrease coverage to make up for it.
- The correct way to control profiteering is to remove "barriers to entry" (search it), which you would know if you ever studied economics. So you obviously have not. The only way for them to get exorbitant profit is to create "barriers to entry" into the business by people willing to do the same job for less profit. It is ridiculous to remove the "profit incentive" entirely since you need someone to do the job. The question is how do you get the people willing to do the job for the least profit? That is the beauty of market economics. It finds that "prefect" (more or less) price. You ensure that more people willing to do the job may enter. You remove any "barriers to entry" the profiteers hope to create. The plan is that the education system removes most if not all of those barriers.
- If you get "less customers," the demand wasn't really "inelastic" then, was it? So it is only "inelastic" in your diseased brain and because children like you run the world for now. Less customers mean a smaller market. That doesn't have to reduce profits, although it probably means some people will need to go into a different business. That is another beauty of market economics. It is the best way to assign people to various businesses. You seem to want to guarantee the health care market size without having a good reason for it and without any idea what it should be. Study economics or maybe quit voting.
Children running the news was not caused by the internet, television news had already started that. The problem was very much exacerbated by the internet though. Thank you for proving that is the indeed problem. Are you really a child yourself? You have a cartoon for an avatar.
How old are you?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 29, 2020 1:36:52 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] < clips >
- getting rid of for profit insurance companies would lower the costs, you get rid of the for profit incentive
- Getting rid of the mandate means less customers, so they have to raise prices/decrease coverage to make up for it.
- The correct way to control profiteering is to remove "barriers to entry" (search it), which you would know if you ever studied economics. So you obviously have not. The only way for them to get exorbitant profit is to create "barriers to entry" into the business by people willing to do the same job for less profit. It is ridiculous to remove the "profit incentive" entirely since you need someone to do the job. The question is how do you get the people willing to do the job for the least profit? That is the beauty of market economics. It finds that "prefect" (more or less) price. You ensure that more people willing to do the job may enter. You remove any "barriers to entry" the profiteers hope to create. The plan is that the education system removes most if not all of those barriers.
- If you get "less customers," the demand wasn't really "inelastic" then, was it? So it is only "inelastic" in your diseased brain and because children like you run the world for now. Less customers mean a smaller market. That doesn't have to reduce profits, although it probably means some people will need to go into a different business. That is another beauty of market economics. It is the best way to assign people to various businesses. You seem to want to guarantee the health care market size without having a good reason for it and without any idea what it should be. Study economics or maybe quit voting.
Children running the news was not caused by the internet, television news had already started that. The problem was very much exacerbated by the internet though. Thank you for proving that is the indeed problem. Are you really a child yourself? You have a cartoon for an avatar.
How old are you?
"The correct way to control profiteering is to remove "barriers to entry" (search it), which you would know if you ever studied economics. So you obviously have not. The only way for them to get exorbitant profit is to create "barriers to entry" into the business by people willing to do the same job for less profit." Find me one example of this actually lowering health care costs (if that's what' you're trying to argue) "It is ridiculous to remove the "profit incentive" entirely since you need someone to do the job." You do realize literally every industrialized country with universal healthcare has done this succesfully right? What you're saying doesn't even make any sense, a McDonalds cashier isn't making "profit" but you can still find plenty of people willing to do it. "The question is how do you get the people willing to do the job for the least profit?" That's not at at all what I said, you're Strawmanning me. People working in the public healthcare system would make a viable living, they just wouldn't make the obscene amounts of money a insurance CEO would (CEO profits have been increasing for decades). You seem to be under this delusion that people who try to make to the most profit provide the best service, that's necessarily true, left uncheck they'll often exploit the system through certain unchecked market forces and government collusion (look up "rent seeking behavior") "It finds that "prefect" (more or less) price.:" No, that's not necessarily true. I've already explained inelastic demand. You ever notice how the "demand" for gas doesn't go down for much even when gas prices rise? You do realize inelastic demand is a very real thing right that's been demonstrated several times right? And you actually accuse me of being economically illiterate. "If you get "less customers," the demand wasn't really "inelastic" then, was it?" That's not what "inelastic demand" means, forcing people to buy insurance doesn't really counts as a "demand". What you're saying would be like saying there's a "market demand" for paying court ordered law suit claims, that's absurd beyond belief. Are you really this stupid or just a liar? Any more garbage arguments for me to address? Or have you ran out and now are just gonna devolve to petty insults?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 29, 2020 1:57:25 GMT
Perhaps the highlighting will help. No, it doesn't. I repeat what does this have to do with teaching nonsense to school children? It's a very long story. That's why I have a website. Rendering the truth in as few words as possible can be expedient in some circumstances. In other circumstances you will just have to study my several writings further. One exercise one day in reducing the number of words was "Never and forever belong to God." I'm sure you can see how that isn't getting very far with practical truths. That was a long time ago and does not address your problem. It can be interesting in "first cause" discussions though. What does address your immediate problem in the fewest words is "Atheism and fundamentalism are two sides of the same bad coin." I'm sure you require further explanation. I'm sorry that is a much longer story. Large and hopefully decreasing numbers of people in both political parties in the United States do not read above a rudimentary level and thus misunderstand both religion and science. In their incompetence they have pitted the two disciplines against each other. One party appears more inclined to religion and the other party appears more inclined to science, yet they all remain ignorant of both. They each do whatever they are told by what they mistakenly consider to be "authorities" in either religion or science without questioning or understanding any authority. Each party wants the other to accept the same things they have accepted blindly without understanding, without question. Neither party can make any argument other than "because we have the most guns." Neither party likes debate, the proper antithesis of guns. Admitting the existence of a power in this world over which they have no control draws their power to dictate into question. That would require them to actually show something, some "reason" other than "because authority says so" or because we will kill you if you disagree. Therefore - Neither party wants to admit the truth of an intelligent designer.
- Neither party wants to tell doctors no. Notice even "Republicans" still largely consider doctors authorities. That makes demand for health care high and that makes the price high.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 29, 2020 2:17:11 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] - The correct way to control profiteering is to remove "barriers to entry" (search it), which you would know if you ever studied economics. So you obviously have not. The only way for them to get exorbitant profit is to create "barriers to entry" into the business by people willing to do the same job for less profit. It is ridiculous to remove the "profit incentive" entirely since you need someone to do the job. The question is how do you get the people willing to do the job for the least profit? That is the beauty of market economics. It finds that "prefect" (more or less) price. You ensure that more people willing to do the job may enter. You remove any "barriers to entry" the profiteers hope to create. The plan is that the education system removes most if not all of those barriers.
- If you get "less customers," the demand wasn't really "inelastic" then, was it? So it is only "inelastic" in your diseased brain and because children like you run the world for now. Less customers mean a smaller market. That doesn't have to reduce profits, although it probably means some people will need to go into a different business. That is another beauty of market economics. It is the best way to assign people to various businesses. You seem to want to guarantee the health care market size without having a good reason for it and without any idea what it should be. Study economics or maybe quit voting.
Children running the news was not caused by the internet, television news had already started that. The problem was very much exacerbated by the internet though. Thank you for proving that is the indeed problem. Are you really a child yourself? You have a cartoon for an avatar.
How old are you?
"The correct way to control profiteering is to remove "barriers to entry" (search it), which you would know if you ever studied economics. So you obviously have not. The only way for them to get exorbitant profit is to create "barriers to entry" into the business by people willing to do the same job for less profit." Find me one example of this actually lowering health care costs (if that's what' you're trying to argue) "It is ridiculous to remove the "profit incentive" entirely since you need someone to do the job." You do realize literally every industrialized country with universal healthcare has done this succesfully right? What you're saying doesn't even make any sense, a McDonalds cashier isn't making "profit" but you can still find plenty of people willing to do it. "The question is how do you get the people willing to do the job for the least profit?" That's not at at all what I said, you're Strawmanning me. People working in the public healthcare system would make a viable living, they just wouldn't make the obscene amounts of money a insurance CEO would (CEO profits have been increasing for decades). You seem to be under this delusion that people who try to make to the most profit provide the best service, that's necessarily true, left uncheck they'll often exploit the system through certain unchecked market forces and government collusion (look up "rent seeking behavior") "It finds that "prefect" (more or less) price.:" No, that's not necessarily true. I've already explained inelastic demand. You ever notice how the "demand" for gas doesn't go down for much even when gas prices rise? You do realize inelastic demand is a very real thing right that's been demonstrated several times right? And you actually accuse me of being economically illiterate. "If you get "less customers," the demand wasn't really "inelastic" then, was it?" That's not what "inelastic demand" means, forcing people to buy insurance doesn't really counts as a "demand". What you're saying would be like saying there's a "market demand" for paying court ordered law suit claims, that's absurd beyond belief. Are you really this stupid or just a liar? Any more garbage arguments for me to address? Or have you ran out and now are just gonna devolve to petty insults? I see no hope of you ever understanding economic principles. Was that insulting? If you didn't go around pretending to know economics the issue would not disturb you. Please note that typical of atheists you - think your opinions are "science"
- have a crippling dependency on government
I fully understand that as long as you outnumber people with any sense, there isn't much we can do but wait for you to crash. Unlike some people who would try to totally ignore you, I realize we cannot set any policy by ignoring vast numbers. We need to show you why what you are doing is crashing so you don't try it again.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 29, 2020 2:21:06 GMT
"The correct way to control profiteering is to remove "barriers to entry" (search it), which you would know if you ever studied economics. So you obviously have not. The only way for them to get exorbitant profit is to create "barriers to entry" into the business by people willing to do the same job for less profit." Find me one example of this actually lowering health care costs (if that's what' you're trying to argue) "It is ridiculous to remove the "profit incentive" entirely since you need someone to do the job." You do realize literally every industrialized country with universal healthcare has done this succesfully right? What you're saying doesn't even make any sense, a McDonalds cashier isn't making "profit" but you can still find plenty of people willing to do it. "The question is how do you get the people willing to do the job for the least profit?" That's not at at all what I said, you're Strawmanning me. People working in the public healthcare system would make a viable living, they just wouldn't make the obscene amounts of money a insurance CEO would (CEO profits have been increasing for decades). You seem to be under this delusion that people who try to make to the most profit provide the best service, that's necessarily true, left uncheck they'll often exploit the system through certain unchecked market forces and government collusion (look up "rent seeking behavior") "It finds that "prefect" (more or less) price.:" No, that's not necessarily true. I've already explained inelastic demand. You ever notice how the "demand" for gas doesn't go down for much even when gas prices rise? You do realize inelastic demand is a very real thing right that's been demonstrated several times right? And you actually accuse me of being economically illiterate. "If you get "less customers," the demand wasn't really "inelastic" then, was it?" That's not what "inelastic demand" means, forcing people to buy insurance doesn't really counts as a "demand". What you're saying would be like saying there's a "market demand" for paying court ordered law suit claims, that's absurd beyond belief. Are you really this stupid or just a liar? Any more garbage arguments for me to address? Or have you ran out and now are just gonna devolve to petty insults? I see no hope of you ever understanding economic principles. Was that insulting? If you didn't go around pretending to know economics the issue would not disturb you. Please note that typical of atheists you - think your opinions are "science"
- have a crippling dependency on government
I fully understand that as long as you outnumber people with any sense, there isn't much we can do but wait for you to crash. Unlike some people who would try to totally ignore you, I realize we cannot set any policy by ignoring vast numbers. We need to show you why what you are doing is crashing so you don't try it again.
So as I predicted no actual arguments and just petty insults, I'll just take this as your tacit admission of "You wrecked all my dog shit arguments, so I'll just resort to childish insults to lick my wounds"
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 29, 2020 2:31:16 GMT
I see no hope of you ever understanding economic principles. Was that insulting? If you didn't go around pretending to know economics the issue would not disturb you. Please note that typical of atheists you - think your opinions are "science"
- have a crippling dependency on government
I fully understand that as long as you outnumber people with any sense, there isn't much we can do but wait for you to crash. Unlike some people who would try to totally ignore you, I realize we cannot set any policy by ignoring vast numbers. We need to show you why what you are doing is crashing so you don't try it again.
So as I predicted no actual arguments and just petty insults, I'll just take this as your tacit admission of "You wrecked all my dog shit arguments, so I'll just resort to childish insults to lick my wounds" That attitude would certainly lead to the reelection of Trump if many people still had it. I hope they don't. When Biden wins, if he even can, it won't be an endorsement of science. Those are politicians, not scientists.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 29, 2020 8:01:44 GMT
No, it doesn't. I repeat what does this have to do with teaching nonsense to school children? It's a very long story. That's why I have a website. Rendering the truth in as few words as possible can be expedient in some circumstances. In other circumstances you will just have to study my several writings further. One exercise one day in reducing the number of words was "Never and forever belong to God." I'm sure you can see how that isn't getting very far with practical truths. That was a long time ago and does not address your problem. It can be interesting in "first cause" discussions though. What does address your immediate problem in the fewest words is "Atheism and fundamentalism are two sides of the same bad coin." I'm sure you require further explanation. I'm sorry that is a much longer story. Large and hopefully decreasing numbers of people in both political parties in the United States do not read above a rudimentary level and thus misunderstand both religion and science. In their incompetence they have pitted the two disciplines against each other. One party appears more inclined to religion and the other party appears more inclined to science, yet they all remain ignorant of both. They each do whatever they are told by what they mistakenly consider to be "authorities" in either religion or science without questioning or understanding any authority. Each party wants the other to accept the same things they have accepted blindly without understanding, without question. Neither party can make any argument other than "because we have the most guns." Neither party likes debate, the proper antithesis of guns. Admitting the existence of a power in this world over which they have no control draws their power to dictate into question. That would require them to actually show something, some "reason" other than "because authority says so" or because we will kill you if you disagree. Therefore - Neither party wants to admit the truth of an intelligent designer.
- Neither party wants to tell doctors no. Notice even "Republicans" still largely consider doctors authorities. That makes demand for health care high and that makes the price high.
You website does not contain any truths whatsoever. Non sequitur nonsensical word salad. WTF is a first cause argument? That is a false equivalence...which you already know. No longer explanation either possible nor necessary. Your usual meaningless word salad...what is your point here? More word salad confusing who 'they' are, who is in power, and re-affirming that an infinitesimal proportion of ANY group of people ANYWHERRE in the world think that there is an intelligent designer. Talking about doctors and 'science' are only there to muddle your argument in a really really stupid non-sequitur. You are insane.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 29, 2020 8:32:29 GMT
It's a very long story. That's why I have a website. Rendering the truth in as few words as possible can be expedient in some circumstances. In other circumstances you will just have to study my several writings further. One exercise one day in reducing the number of words was "Never and forever belong to God." I'm sure you can see how that isn't getting very far with practical truths. That was a long time ago and does not address your problem. It can be interesting in "first cause" discussions though. What does address your immediate problem in the fewest words is "Atheism and fundamentalism are two sides of the same bad coin." I'm sure you require further explanation. I'm sorry that is a much longer story. Large and hopefully decreasing numbers of people in both political parties in the United States do not read above a rudimentary level and thus misunderstand both religion and science. In their incompetence they have pitted the two disciplines against each other. One party appears more inclined to religion and the other party appears more inclined to science, yet they all remain ignorant of both. They each do whatever they are told by what they mistakenly consider to be "authorities" in either religion or science without questioning or understanding any authority. Each party wants the other to accept the same things they have accepted blindly without understanding, without question. Neither party can make any argument other than "because we have the most guns." Neither party likes debate, the proper antithesis of guns. Admitting the existence of a power in this world over which they have no control draws their power to dictate into question. That would require them to actually show something, some "reason" other than "because authority says so" or because we will kill you if you disagree. Therefore - Neither party wants to admit the truth of an intelligent designer.
- Neither party wants to tell doctors no. Notice even "Republicans" still largely consider doctors authorities. That makes demand for health care high and that makes the price high.
You website does not contain any truths whatsoever. Non sequitur nonsensical word salad. WTF is a first cause argument? That is a false equivalence...which you already know. No longer explanation either possible nor necessary. Your usual meaningless word salad...what is your point here? More word salad confusing who 'they' are, who is in power, and re-affirming that an infinitesimal proportion of ANY group of people ANYWHERRE in the world think that there is an intelligent designer. Talking about doctors and 'science' are only there to muddle your argument in a really really stupid non-sequitur. You are insane. If a person is as reasonable as possible and you think he's insane, what does that make you? I think I explained why people refuse to admit an intelligent designer. That is entirely different from being honestly convinced there isn't one. The stupid rules they use to "prove" they are justified are so pathetic it's very sad. I never quite got on what you might be an "authority." Anthropology? So the national debt is too high because flint knife culture?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 29, 2020 8:49:57 GMT
You website does not contain any truths whatsoever. Non sequitur nonsensical word salad. WTF is a first cause argument? That is a false equivalence...which you already know. No longer explanation either possible nor necessary. Your usual meaningless word salad...what is your point here? More word salad confusing who 'they' are, who is in power, and re-affirming that an infinitesimal proportion of ANY group of people ANYWHERRE in the world think that there is an intelligent designer. Talking about doctors and 'science' are only there to muddle your argument in a really really stupid non-sequitur. You are insane. If a person is as reasonable as possible and you think he's insane, what does that make you? I think I explained why people refuse to admit an intelligent designer. That is entirely different from being honestly convinced there isn't one. The stupid rules they use to "prove" they are justified are so pathetic it's very sad. I never quite got on what you might be an "authority." Anthropology? So the national debt is too high because flint knife culture? You are neither reasonable not logical. An intelligent designer is not a logical solution. I don't know who 'they' are however logic is immutable in the refutation of an intelligent designer. It is a circular argument without any foundation. I have never claimed to be an authority on anything however I have the ability to consult those who ARE authorities in their various fields of study and expertise. You are insane if you argue with non-sequiturs such as this last pathetic effort that means absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 29, 2020 8:54:41 GMT
If a person is as reasonable as possible and you think he's insane, what does that make you? I think I explained why people refuse to admit an intelligent designer. That is entirely different from being honestly convinced there isn't one. The stupid rules they use to "prove" they are justified are so pathetic it's very sad. I never quite got on what you might be an "authority." Anthropology? So the national debt is too high because flint knife culture? You are neither reasonable not logical. An intelligent designer is not a logical solution. I don't know who 'they' are however logic is immutable in the refutation of an intelligent designer. It is a circular argument without any foundation. I have never claimed to be an authority on anything however I have the ability to consult those who ARE authorities in their various fields of study and expertise.You are insane if you argue with non-sequiturs such as this last pathetic effort that means absolutely nothing. Good luck with that, you're going to need lots and lots.
|
|