Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[Bern80]

''You ignore the law of unintended consequences and you deny them when they stare you in the face.''

Classic. What does ''unintended'' mean?

Do you really believe that conservatives can predict the future? That is extremely cultish.

Unintended consequences are me giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. He told us the cost of insurance would go down, yet he passed measures that make the cost of insurance go up. So either he and you are too stupid to understand what increasing demand does to price or you knew and you lied. Pick one.

He said that ACA was the first government measure since Medicare that addressed the 2X the cost, and half of the effectiveness, of our old non-system compared to our global competition.

You believe yourself capable of predicting the future.

It's your uneducated opinion vs years of analysis by experts.

I'm going with those who know vs those driven by politics.

No it's what a learned in Economics class in high school that apparently you didn't. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime. When quantity demanded goes up, which is essentially the goal of Obamacare, price goes up.

 

[Bern80]

This country was founded as a plutocracy. It took we, the people, a couple of centuries of blood, sweat and tears to bring about democracy, the true freedom of being citizen decision makers.

Companies don't choose to be small and neither should governments. Both should be the size that they need to be to produce their products and satisfy their customers. And when democratic governments do a better job of satisfying their customers they get to keep their jobs.

We have always followed our Constitution in exactly the way that it prescribes. In other words, government has always stayed within the Constitutional by-laws.

Conservatives think that we are no better than they in falling for the propaganda that cult leaders know best what the founders were thinking. It just doesn't matter. We follow what they agreed to and wrote down in the Constitution.

No it most certainaly hasn't. Just a couple off the top of my head. There's no provision in the constitution that allows for the department of education or really any of the social programs we have today. Everyone knew the Nw Deal was unconstitional and the only way FDR got it passed was by threatening to pack the supreme court with justices that would uphold it.

And no, our constitution does not say 'do whatever you gotta do to make society work'. Government, according to the authors of the constitution, was not meant to produce anything. The federal government's singular purpose was to defend the liberties of the people. That's really about it. They understood the folly of government being a business and why it doesn't work. Maybe one day you libs will figure out too.

The Constitution is very clear about interpretation. Your name wasn't mentioned.

Which is a non response just like all of your responses when you're wrong. There's nothing in the constitution and perhaps it's single folly was assuming elected officials would have the integrity to stand by it. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents congress or the president from passing unconstitutional laws. And people like you who claim the constitution is open to interpretation are simply trying to rationalize policy you already know is unconstitional falling back on excuses like 'well the supreme court (which I picked to reflect my views, not the constitution) said it was okay'.

 

[PMZ]

Unintended consequences are me giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. He told us the cost of insurance would go down, yet he passed measures that make the cost of insurance go up. So either he and you are too stupid to understand what increasing demand does to price or you knew and you lied. Pick one.

He said that ACA was the first government measure since Medicare that addressed the 2X the cost, and half of the effectiveness, of our old non-system compared to our global competition.

You believe yourself capable of predicting the future.

It's your uneducated opinion vs years of analysis by experts.

I'm going with those who know vs those driven by politics.

No it's what a learned in Economics class in high school that apparently you didn't. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime. When quantity demanded goes up, which is essentially the goal of Obamacare, price goes up.

ACA was designed by much better qualified people than you and I.

Including many in the health care delivery and insurance business.

Here's some advice. Discount the Republican propaganda from Fox. It is pure politics and zero economics. They are trying to recover from the biggest bullet hole, among very many, in their foot. Trying to unseat the people's choice.

 

[PMZ]

No it most certainaly hasn't. Just a couple off the top of my head. There's no provision in the constitution that allows for the department of education or really any of the social programs we have today. Everyone knew the Nw Deal was unconstitional and the only way FDR got it passed was by threatening to pack the supreme court with justices that would uphold it.

And no, our constitution does not say 'do whatever you gotta do to make society work'. Government, according to the authors of the constitution, was not meant to produce anything. The federal government's singular purpose was to defend the liberties of the people. That's really about it. They understood the folly of government being a business and why it doesn't work. Maybe one day you libs will figure out too.

The Constitution is very clear about interpretation. Your name wasn't mentioned.

Which is a non response just like all of your responses when you're wrong. There's nothing in the constitution and perhaps it's single folly was assuming elected officials would have the integrity to stand by it. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents congress or the president from passing unconstitutional laws. And people like you who claim the constitution is open to interpretation are simply trying to rationalize policy you already know is unconstitional falling back on excuses like 'well the supreme court (which I picked to reflect my views, not the constitution) said it was okay'.

I'm talking about the US Constitution and the power it gives the Federal Court System in insuring that the Federal Government stays compliant with its Constitutional by-laws.

It's about as specific as the Constitution gets about anything.

And the reason? So politicians could not base their actions on what they thought that some founder had in mind rather than what all of the founders negotiated, wrote down, and ratified.

 

[PMZ]

No it most certainaly hasn't. Just a couple off the top of my head. There's no provision in the constitution that allows for the department of education or really any of the social programs we have today. Everyone knew the Nw Deal was unconstitional and the only way FDR got it passed was by threatening to pack the supreme court with justices that would uphold it.

And no, our constitution does not say 'do whatever you gotta do to make society work'. Government, according to the authors of the constitution, was not meant to produce anything. The federal government's singular purpose was to defend the liberties of the people. That's really about it. They understood the folly of government being a business and why it doesn't work. Maybe one day you libs will figure out too.

The Constitution is very clear about interpretation. Your name wasn't mentioned.

Which is a non response just like all of your responses when you're wrong. There's nothing in the constitution and perhaps it's single folly was assuming elected officials would have the integrity to stand by it. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents congress or the president from passing unconstitutional laws. And people like you who claim the constitution is open to interpretation are simply trying to rationalize policy you already know is unconstitional falling back on excuses like 'well the supreme court (which I picked to reflect my views, not the constitution) said it was okay'.

''There is nothing in the constitution that prevents congress or the president from passing unconstitutional laws.''

The President doesn't pass laws. The Federal Court System can't evaluate a law until there is a law. Their adjudication typically comes when any law's enforcement is challenged.

None of this is new or rocket science. It's all stuff that every American is taught and should know.

And it's all stuff that the Republican Party has tried to obscure with Fox News propaganda.

 

[itfitzme]

Unintended consequences are me giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. He told us the cost of insurance would go down, yet he passed measures that make the cost of insurance go up. So either he and you are too stupid to understand what increasing demand does to price or you knew and you lied. Pick one.

He said that ACA was the first government measure since Medicare that addressed the 2X the cost, and half of the effectiveness, of our old non-system compared to our global competition.

You believe yourself capable of predicting the future.

It's your uneducated opinion vs years of analysis by experts.

I'm going with those who know vs those driven by politics.

No it's what a learned in Economics class in high school that apparently you didn't. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime. When quantity demanded goes up, which is essentially the goal of Obamacare, price goes up.

"Decrease in Price causes an increase in quantity demand."[1]

Apparently you didn't learn your material very will.

It says that;

when the quantity demanded increases, then the demand price goes DOWN.

Here is the supply and demand curves for you to look at

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity, then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases. Then, all other things being equal, the supply price increases.

And, I see that you haven't read the ACA bill, either.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

The supply and demand curves for a market do not say that when demanded quantity goes up that price is guaranteed to go up. It just says that, ceterus paribus, all other things being equal, then it will. And, it is on a particular market structure.

What can and does usually happen is that both the supply and demand curves shift at the same time. This is why following the market equilibrium prices doesn't tell us anything about the supply and demand functions. (unfortunately).

The reason for this is that there are four degrees of freedom for the supply and demand curves. There is the demand shift, the quantity demanded, the supply shift and the quantity supplied. Because of this, without some further constraints, there is not telling what will occur when only one is specified as changing.



[1] http://windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/briggs-p/introduction and syllabus/supplydemandworksheet.pdf

 

[Bern80]

He said that ACA was the first government measure since Medicare that addressed the 2X the cost, and half of the effectiveness, of our old non-system compared to our global competition.

You believe yourself capable of predicting the future.

It's your uneducated opinion vs years of analysis by experts.

I'm going with those who know vs those driven by politics.

No it's what a learned in Economics class in high school that apparently you didn't. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime. When quantity demanded goes up, which is essentially the goal of Obamacare, price goes up.

ACA was designed by much better qualified people than you and I.

Including many in the health care delivery and insurance business.

Here's some advice. Discount the Republican propaganda from Fox. It is pure politics and zero economics. They are trying to recover from the biggest bullet hole, among very many, in their foot. Trying to unseat the people's choice.

Again not much of a rebuttal nor any actual evidence for the above statement. The evidence is mostly to the contrary when compared to what the stated goal was.

And for about the fourth time, diagreeing with Obamacare does not require that I be a Republican or only get my info from Fox News. Being a self ascribed libertarian, believe me, I have plenty of problems with the Republican party too.

 

[Bern80]

He said that ACA was the first government measure since Medicare that addressed the 2X the cost, and half of the effectiveness, of our old non-system compared to our global competition.

You believe yourself capable of predicting the future.

It's your uneducated opinion vs years of analysis by experts.

I'm going with those who know vs those driven by politics.

No it's what a learned in Economics class in high school that apparently you didn't. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime. When quantity demanded goes up, which is essentially the goal of Obamacare, price goes up.

"Decrease in Price causes an increase in quantity demand."[1]

Apparently you didn't learn your material very will.

It says that;

when the quantity demanded increases, then the demand price goes DOWN.

Here is the supply and demand curves for you to look at

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity, then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases. Then, all other things being equal, the supply price increases.

And, I see that you haven't read the ACA bill, either.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

The supply and demand curves for a market do not say that when demanded quantity goes up that price is guaranteed to go up. It just says that, ceterus paribus, all other things being equal, then it will. And, it is on a particular market structure.

What can and does usually happen is that both the supply and demand curves shift at the same time. This is why following the market equilibrium prices doesn't tell us anything about the supply and demand functions. (unfortunately).

The reason for this is that there are four degrees of freedom for the supply and demand curves. There is the demand shift, the quantity demanded, the supply shift and the quantity supplied. Because of this, without some further constraints, there is not telling what will occur when only one is specified as changing.



[1] http://windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/briggs-p/introduction and syllabus/supplydemandworksheet.pdf

Your bolded statment does not reflect the graph you posted or reality. Look at it. It shows changes in supply. I am talking about a change in demand. Instead of an S2 curve, there would be a D2 curve to the right of D1 which you can see indeed would mean price goes up. Your bold statement basically says the more people want something the less they're willing to pay for it. Does that really sound right to you? If you had a graph with a D1 and D2 and just an S1 the statement would be as demand increases, supply price increases.

 

[PMZ]

I

No it's what a learned in Economics class in high school that apparently you didn't. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime. When quantity demanded goes up, which is essentially the goal of Obamacare, price goes up.

ACA was designed by much better qualified people than you and I.

Including many in the health care delivery and insurance business.

Here's some advice. Discount the Republican propaganda from Fox. It is pure politics and zero economics. They are trying to recover from the biggest bullet hole, among very many, in their foot. Trying to unseat the people's choice.

Again not much of a rebuttal nor any actual evidence for the above statement. The evidence is mostly to the contrary when compared to what the stated goal was.

And for about the fourth time, diagreeing with Obamacare does not require that I be a Republican or only get my info from Fox News. Being a self ascribed libertarian, believe me, I have plenty of problems with the Republican party too.

As a Libertarian your foundational beliefs are severely flawed.

The freedom in a democracy is the right to vote, not impose. We have built from that freedom what we, together want. You don't have to want it, but, unless you relocate, you have to accept it.

There are many, many marginal positions among Americans. Their common flaw? They are based on a small picture rather than the big picture. They assume a narrow view is the big picture, rather than only part of it.

Freedom from government is a mythological state that assumes only responsible people.

A nice place to visit until the real world creeps in.

 

[itfitzme]

No it's what a learned in Economics class in high school that apparently you didn't. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime. When quantity demanded goes up, which is essentially the goal of Obamacare, price goes up.

"Decrease in Price causes an increase in quantity demand."[1]

Apparently you didn't learn your material very will.

It says that;

when the quantity demanded increases, then the demand price goes DOWN.

Here is the supply and demand curves for you to look at

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity, then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases. Then, all other things being equal, the supply price increases.

And, I see that you haven't read the ACA bill, either.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

The supply and demand curves for a market do not say that when demanded quantity goes up that price is guaranteed to go up. It just says that, ceterus paribus, all other things being equal, then it will. And, it is on a particular market structure.

What can and does usually happen is that both the supply and demand curves shift at the same time. This is why following the market equilibrium prices doesn't tell us anything about the supply and demand functions. (unfortunately).

The reason for this is that there are four degrees of freedom for the supply and demand curves. There is the demand shift, the quantity demanded, the supply shift and the quantity supplied. Because of this, without some further constraints, there is not telling what will occur when only one is specified as changing.



[1] http://windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/briggs-p/introduction and syllabus/supplydemandworksheet.pdf

Your bolded statment does not reflect the graph you posted or reality. Look at it. It shows changes in supply. I am talking about a change in demand. Instead of an S2 curve, there would be a D2 curve to the right of D1 which you can see indeed would mean price goes up. Your bold statement basically says the more people want something the less they're willing to pay for it. Does that really sound right to you? If you had a graph with a D1 and D2 and just an S1 the statement would be as demand increases, supply price increases.

Really? In the graph I present, quantity is shown going up and price goes down.

And, it is exactly the condition that we are talking about in the health care markets with ACA. The supply curve shifts to the right as the quantity demanded increases.

Yes, that is a change in the supply. And it is a change in the quantity demanded. "quantity demanded", your term. As I learned it, the standard, is to apply the word "quantity" to a change along the curve and to refer to a movement of the curve as being an increase or decrease in supply or demand.

And, I am quite sure you will find this if you search on the terms.

Quantity Supplied and Demanded

"Demand refers to the overall demand for a good or service and "shifts" only when there is a change in income, taste, or in the demand for substitutes and/or complements. Quantity demanded refers to a specific quantity of a good or service consumers are willing to purchase at a given price."

"Changes in demand, therefore, are represented by "shifts" to the left or right of the original demand curve whereas change in quantity demanded are represented by "movement" along the demand curve."

That is what you said, "When quantity demanded goes up" and I showed, a movement along the demand curve.

------

I hate to get all definitional, but on this one I have to because it is the thing about these terms that is highlighted in micro econ.

And, in review, I see you try to change the term you use from "quantity demanded goes up" to "a change in demand".

Not the same thing, and you are incorrect about the markets.

 

[Bern80]

I

ACA was designed by much better qualified people than you and I.

Including many in the health care delivery and insurance business.

Here's some advice. Discount the Republican propaganda from Fox. It is pure politics and zero economics. They are trying to recover from the biggest bullet hole, among very many, in their foot. Trying to unseat the people's choice.

Again not much of a rebuttal nor any actual evidence for the above statement. The evidence is mostly to the contrary when compared to what the stated goal was.

And for about the fourth time, diagreeing with Obamacare does not require that I be a Republican or only get my info from Fox News. Being a self ascribed libertarian, believe me, I have plenty of problems with the Republican party too.

As a Libertarian your foundational beliefs are severely flawed.

The freedom in a democracy is the right to vote, not impose. We have built from that freedom what we, together want. You don't have to want it, but, unless you relocate, you have to accept it.

There are many, many marginal positions among Americans. Their common flaw? They are based on a small picture rather than the big picture. They assume a narrow view is the big picture, rather than only part of it.

Freedom from government is a mythological state that assumes only responsible people.

A nice place to visit until the real world creeps in.

And yet you subscribe to a policy that allows the government to 'impose' that people purchase heath insurance. To impose what kind of health insurance they must buy. Our freedom is based on the constitution. Not decided as we go along. Just because not everyone is responsible does not mean you don't strive for a society that expects. You don't run a society on the notion that people need to be baby sat and structure your government accordingly as you are suggesting.

 

[Bern80]

"Decrease in Price causes an increase in quantity demand."[1]

Apparently you didn't learn your material very will.

It says that;

when the quantity demanded increases, then the demand price goes DOWN.

Here is the supply and demand curves for you to look at

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity, then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases. Then, all other things being equal, the supply price increases.

And, I see that you haven't read the ACA bill, either.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

The supply and demand curves for a market do not say that when demanded quantity goes up that price is guaranteed to go up. It just says that, ceterus paribus, all other things being equal, then it will. And, it is on a particular market structure.

What can and does usually happen is that both the supply and demand curves shift at the same time. This is why following the market equilibrium prices doesn't tell us anything about the supply and demand functions. (unfortunately).

The reason for this is that there are four degrees of freedom for the supply and demand curves. There is the demand shift, the quantity demanded, the supply shift and the quantity supplied. Because of this, without some further constraints, there is not telling what will occur when only one is specified as changing.



[1] http://windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/briggs-p/introduction and syllabus/supplydemandworksheet.pdf

Your bolded statment does not reflect the graph you posted or reality. Look at it. It shows changes in supply. I am talking about a change in demand. Instead of an S2 curve, there would be a D2 curve to the right of D1 which you can see indeed would mean price goes up. Your bold statement basically says the more people want something the less they're willing to pay for it. Does that really sound right to you? If you had a graph with a D1 and D2 and just an S1 the statement would be as demand increases, supply price increases.

Really? In the graph I present, quantity is shown going up and price goes down.

And, it is exactly the condition that we are talking about in the health care markets with ACA. The supply curve shifts to the right as the quantity demanded increases.

Yes, that is a change in the supply. And it is a change in the quantity demanded. "quantity demanded", your term. As I learned it, the standard, is to apply the word "quantity" to a change along the curve and to refer to a movement of the curve as being an increase or decrease in supply or demand.

And, I am quite sure you will find this if you search on the terms.

Quantity Supplied and Demanded

"Demand refers to the overall demand for a good or service and "shifts" only when there is a change in income, taste, or in the demand for substitutes and/or complements. Quantity demanded refers to a specific quantity of a good or service consumers are willing to purchase at a given price."

"Changes in demand, therefore, are represented by "shifts" to the left or right of the original demand curve whereas change in quantity demanded are represented by "movement" along the demand curve."

That is what you said, "When quantity demanded goes up" and I showed, a movement along the demand curve.

------

I hate to get all definitional, but on this one I have to because it is the thing about these terms that is highlighted in micro econ.

And, in review, I see you try to change the term you use from "quantity demanded goes up" to "a change in demand".

Not the same thing, and you are incorrect about the markets.

Your graph shows SUPPLY going up. I said DEMAND going up. How is this difficult for you to grasp? You take the S2 line out of your graph and replace it with a D2 line and price will indeed go up. I admit my error in stating quantity demanded increased rather than simply demand increase, but you did the same thing. You said your graph shows a shift in supply demanded. It doesn't. It shows an increase in supply. Again ask yourself from a purely logical perspective; does it make sense to say that the more people want something the less they're willing to pay for it? Because that's what your original bolded statement really says. I made an error in terminology. Yours is fundamental understanding.

 

[itfitzme]

Your bolded statment does not reflect the graph you posted or reality. Look at it. It shows changes in supply. I am talking about a change in demand. Instead of an S2 curve, there would be a D2 curve to the right of D1 which you can see indeed would mean price goes up. Your bold statement basically says the more people want something the less they're willing to pay for it. Does that really sound right to you? If you had a graph with a D1 and D2 and just an S1 the statement would be as demand increases, supply price increases.

Really? In the graph I present, quantity is shown going up and price goes down.

And, it is exactly the condition that we are talking about in the health care markets with ACA. The supply curve shifts to the right as the quantity demanded increases.

Yes, that is a change in the supply. And it is a change in the quantity demanded. "quantity demanded", your term. As I learned it, the standard, is to apply the word "quantity" to a change along the curve and to refer to a movement of the curve as being an increase or decrease in supply or demand.

And, I am quite sure you will find this if you search on the terms.

Quantity Supplied and Demanded

"Demand refers to the overall demand for a good or service and "shifts" only when there is a change in income, taste, or in the demand for substitutes and/or complements. Quantity demanded refers to a specific quantity of a good or service consumers are willing to purchase at a given price."

"Changes in demand, therefore, are represented by "shifts" to the left or right of the original demand curve whereas change in quantity demanded are represented by "movement" along the demand curve."

That is what you said, "When quantity demanded goes up" and I showed, a movement along the demand curve.

------

I hate to get all definitional, but on this one I have to because it is the thing about these terms that is highlighted in micro econ.

And, in review, I see you try to change the term you use from "quantity demanded goes up" to "a change in demand".

Not the same thing, and you are incorrect about the markets.

Your graph shows SUPPLY going up. I said DEMAND going up. How is this difficult for you to grasp? You take the S2 line out of your graph and replace it with a D2 line and price will indeed go up.

You said, "quantity demanded goes up"

The graph shows quantity demanded going up.

Don't try to bs your way out of it. It is in print.

Is that why you are so continuously wrong, because you are in denial about having made the error in the first place?

Really, how difficult is it for you to grasp? You do understand that "quantity demanded goes up" means that the quantity gets larger, right? You do see that the quantity is on the horizontal axis and price is on the vertical axis, right?

It is right in front of you. I cannot begin to comprehend what it is you are missing.

 

[Flopper]

That's quite thoe load of crap. Our country? your the one who doesn't seem to get this country was founded on the concepts of individual freedom and limited government. And why there certainly problems that need solving, health care being one of them. Liberals show time and again they are horrible problem solvers. Simply because your solution to everything is usuall more government. You ignore the law of unintended consequences and you deny them when they stare you in the face.

This country was founded as a plutocracy. It took we, the people, a couple of centuries of blood, sweat and tears to bring about democracy, the true freedom of being citizen decision makers.

Companies don't choose to be small and neither should governments. Both should be the size that they need to be to produce their products and satisfy their customers. And when democratic governments do a better job of satisfying their customers they get to keep their jobs.

We have always followed our Constitution in exactly the way that it prescribes. In other words, government has always stayed within the Constitutional by-laws.

Conservatives think that we are no better than they in falling for the propaganda that cult leaders know best what the founders were thinking. It just doesn't matter. We follow what they agreed to and wrote down in the Constitution.

No it most certainaly hasn't. Just a couple off the top of my head. There's no provision in the constitution that allows for the department of education or really any of the social programs we have today. Everyone knew the Nw Deal was unconstitional and the only way FDR got it passed was by threatening to pack the supreme court with justices that would uphold it.

And no, our constitution does not say 'do whatever you gotta do to make society work'. Government, according to the authors of the constitution, was not meant to produce anything. The federal government's singular purpose was to defend the liberties of the people. That's really about it. They understood the folly of government being a business and why it doesn't work. Maybe one day you libs will figure out too.

There's was no provision in the constitution for Social Security, Medicare, Environmental Regulations, Welfare, Food Stamps, Aid to Education, regulation of intrastate commerce, space exploration, food and drug safety, and thousand other government services because no one saw a need for them in 1776. Times have change.

 

[Flopper]

He said that ACA was the first government measure since Medicare that addressed the 2X the cost, and half of the effectiveness, of our old non-system compared to our global competition.

You believe yourself capable of predicting the future.

It's your uneducated opinion vs years of analysis by experts.

I'm going with those who know vs those driven by politics.

No it's what a learned in Economics class in high school that apparently you didn't. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime. When quantity demanded goes up, which is essentially the goal of Obamacare, price goes up.

"Decrease in Price causes an increase in quantity demand."[1]

Apparently you didn't learn your material very will.

It says that;

when the quantity demanded increases, then the demand price goes DOWN.

Here is the supply and demand curves for you to look at

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity, then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases. Then, all other things being equal, the supply price increases.

And, I see that you haven't read the ACA bill, either.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

The supply and demand curves for a market do not say that when demanded quantity goes up that price is guaranteed to go up. It just says that, ceterus paribus, all other things being equal, then it will. And, it is on a particular market structure.

What can and does usually happen is that both the supply and demand curves shift at the same time. This is why following the market equilibrium prices doesn't tell us anything about the supply and demand functions. (unfortunately).

The reason for this is that there are four degrees of freedom for the supply and demand curves. There is the demand shift, the quantity demanded, the supply shift and the quantity supplied. Because of this, without some further constraints, there is not telling what will occur when only one is specified as changing.



[1] http://windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/briggs-p/introduction and syllabus/supplydemandworksheet.pdf

Healthcare is far from being a free market ruled by market forces. Both government and insurance distort the free market as they should. Although some people see the free market as a solution to the healthcare situation, I seriously doubt the majority would agree.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He said that ACA was the first government measure since Medicare that addressed the 2X the cost, and half of the effectiveness, of our old non-system compared to our global competition.

You believe yourself capable of predicting the future.

It's your uneducated opinion vs years of analysis by experts.

I'm going with those who know vs those driven by politics.

No it's what a learned in Economics class in high school that apparently you didn't. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime. When quantity demanded goes up, which is essentially the goal of Obamacare, price goes up.

"Decrease in Price causes an increase in quantity demand."[1]

Apparently you didn't learn your material very will.

It says that;

when the quantity demanded increases, then the demand price goes DOWN.

Here is the supply and demand curves for you to look at

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity, then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases. Then, all other things being equal, the supply price increases.

And, I see that you haven't read the ACA bill, either.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

The supply and demand curves for a market do not say that when demanded quantity goes up that price is guaranteed to go up. It just says that, ceterus paribus, all other things being equal, then it will. And, it is on a particular market structure.

What can and does usually happen is that both the supply and demand curves shift at the same time. This is why following the market equilibrium prices doesn't tell us anything about the supply and demand functions. (unfortunately).

The reason for this is that there are four degrees of freedom for the supply and demand curves. There is the demand shift, the quantity demanded, the supply shift and the quantity supplied. Because of this, without some further constraints, there is not telling what will occur when only one is specified as changing.



[1] http://windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/briggs-p/introduction and syllabus/supplydemandworksheet.pdf

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

Holy crap, are you bad at econ.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

You got 1 right.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity

When demand shifts to the left, that's a lower quantity.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

Man, the irony is thick in here.

Tell me some more about this claim.....

Costs spread out across every product, spread out across every individual, are no costs at all because they are nothing relative to everything.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-skeptics-are-winning-40.html#post8003823

Cause that's some funny stuff right there.

 

[PMZ]

No it's what a learned in Economics class in high school that apparently you didn't. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime. When quantity demanded goes up, which is essentially the goal of Obamacare, price goes up.

"Decrease in Price causes an increase in quantity demand."[1]

Apparently you didn't learn your material very will.

It says that;

when the quantity demanded increases, then the demand price goes DOWN.

Here is the supply and demand curves for you to look at

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity, then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases. Then, all other things being equal, the supply price increases.

And, I see that you haven't read the ACA bill, either.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

The supply and demand curves for a market do not say that when demanded quantity goes up that price is guaranteed to go up. It just says that, ceterus paribus, all other things being equal, then it will. And, it is on a particular market structure.

What can and does usually happen is that both the supply and demand curves shift at the same time. This is why following the market equilibrium prices doesn't tell us anything about the supply and demand functions. (unfortunately).

The reason for this is that there are four degrees of freedom for the supply and demand curves. There is the demand shift, the quantity demanded, the supply shift and the quantity supplied. Because of this, without some further constraints, there is not telling what will occur when only one is specified as changing.



[1] http://windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/briggs-p/introduction and syllabus/supplydemandworksheet.pdf

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

Holy crap, are you bad at econ.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

You got 1 right.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity

When demand shifts to the left, that's a lower quantity.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

Man, the irony is thick in here.

Tell me some more about this claim.....

Costs spread out across every product, spread out across every individual, are no costs at all because they are nothing relative to everything.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-skeptics-are-winning-40.html#post8003823

Cause that's some funny stuff right there.

You do realize that you are no longer talking about Obamacare, right?

Obamacare is not a product for sale.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Decrease in Price causes an increase in quantity demand."[1]

Apparently you didn't learn your material very will.

It says that;

when the quantity demanded increases, then the demand price goes DOWN.

Here is the supply and demand curves for you to look at

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity, then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases. Then, all other things being equal, the supply price increases.

And, I see that you haven't read the ACA bill, either.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

The supply and demand curves for a market do not say that when demanded quantity goes up that price is guaranteed to go up. It just says that, ceterus paribus, all other things being equal, then it will. And, it is on a particular market structure.

What can and does usually happen is that both the supply and demand curves shift at the same time. This is why following the market equilibrium prices doesn't tell us anything about the supply and demand functions. (unfortunately).

The reason for this is that there are four degrees of freedom for the supply and demand curves. There is the demand shift, the quantity demanded, the supply shift and the quantity supplied. Because of this, without some further constraints, there is not telling what will occur when only one is specified as changing.



[1] http://windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/briggs-p/introduction and syllabus/supplydemandworksheet.pdf

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

Holy crap, are you bad at econ.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

You got 1 right.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity

When demand shifts to the left, that's a lower quantity.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

Man, the irony is thick in here.

Tell me some more about this claim.....

Costs spread out across every product, spread out across every individual, are no costs at all because they are nothing relative to everything.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-skeptics-are-winning-40.html#post8003823

Cause that's some funny stuff right there.

You do realize that you are no longer talking about Obamacare, right?

Obamacare is not a product for sale.

Obamacare won't increase demand for healthcare? Really?

 

[PMZ]

No it's what a learned in Economics class in high school that apparently you didn't. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime. When quantity demanded goes up, which is essentially the goal of Obamacare, price goes up.

"Decrease in Price causes an increase in quantity demand."[1]

Apparently you didn't learn your material very will.

It says that;

when the quantity demanded increases, then the demand price goes DOWN.

Here is the supply and demand curves for you to look at

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity, then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases. Then, all other things being equal, the supply price increases.

And, I see that you haven't read the ACA bill, either.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

The supply and demand curves for a market do not say that when demanded quantity goes up that price is guaranteed to go up. It just says that, ceterus paribus, all other things being equal, then it will. And, it is on a particular market structure.

What can and does usually happen is that both the supply and demand curves shift at the same time. This is why following the market equilibrium prices doesn't tell us anything about the supply and demand functions. (unfortunately).

The reason for this is that there are four degrees of freedom for the supply and demand curves. There is the demand shift, the quantity demanded, the supply shift and the quantity supplied. Because of this, without some further constraints, there is not telling what will occur when only one is specified as changing.



[1] http://windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/briggs-p/introduction and syllabus/supplydemandworksheet.pdf

Healthcare is far from being a free market ruled by market forces. Both government and insurance distort the free market as they should. Although some people see the free market as a solution to the healthcare situation, I seriously doubt the majority would agree.

Health care has never been a free market commodity. Free market requires that every consumer is perfectly aware of all feature and quality issues so that purchase decisions can be based solely on price.

About the only consumer product that's like that is gasoline, and oil companies still advertise that their product is ''special''. WTF?????

 

[dblack]

"Decrease in Price causes an increase in quantity demand."[1]

Apparently you didn't learn your material very will.

It says that;

when the quantity demanded increases, then the demand price goes DOWN.

Here is the supply and demand curves for you to look at

Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity, then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases. Then, all other things being equal, the supply price increases.

And, I see that you haven't read the ACA bill, either.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

The supply and demand curves for a market do not say that when demanded quantity goes up that price is guaranteed to go up. It just says that, ceterus paribus, all other things being equal, then it will. And, it is on a particular market structure.

What can and does usually happen is that both the supply and demand curves shift at the same time. This is why following the market equilibrium prices doesn't tell us anything about the supply and demand functions. (unfortunately).

The reason for this is that there are four degrees of freedom for the supply and demand curves. There is the demand shift, the quantity demanded, the supply shift and the quantity supplied. Because of this, without some further constraints, there is not telling what will occur when only one is specified as changing.



[1] http://windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/briggs-p/introduction and syllabus/supplydemandworksheet.pdf

Healthcare is far from being a free market ruled by market forces. Both government and insurance distort the free market as they should. Although some people see the free market as a solution to the healthcare situation, I seriously doubt the majority would agree.

Health care has never been a free market commodity. Free market requires that every consumer is perfectly aware of all feature and quality issues so that purchase decisions can be based solely on price. ...

No, a free market 'requires' no such thing. It only requires freedom.