Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[Bern80]

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.

Then why exactly did you quote just the first sentence of what I said? You know, instead of the part afterward where I admitted my mistake. This is a very simply yes or no question; If you take out your S2 line which reflects an increase in supply of some good, which we are not talking about at all and replace it with a D2 line to the right of D1 which reflects an overall increase in demand, which is what I am talking about, does the price of that good go up?

I have been big enough to admit my mistake. You are now the one denying that which you yourself posted plus put right in front of your face by others.

 

[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.

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.

No there isn't. And relative to these programs, no, times haven't changed. There were poor people back then too. And it's easy to say there is a need for those things, but the more nuanced question is who's duty is it solve the problems associated with the above. You could argue the states have that right. The federal government does not. Again, in this aspect, the authors of the constitution understood that the road to tyranny would be paved with the best intentions. They understood you have to look past policy that makes us feel good about helping people and look at what it really means for individual liberty.

 

[itfitzme]

Then why exactly did you quote just the first sentence of what I said? You know, instead of the part afterward where I admitted my mistake. This is a very simply yes or no question; If you take out your S2 line which reflects an increase in supply of some good, which we are not talking about at all and replace it with a D2 line to the right of D1 which reflects an overall increase in demand, which is what I am talking about, does the price of that good go up?

I have been big enough to admit my mistake. You are now the one denying that which you yourself posted plus put right in front of your face by others.

This whole conversation is three days and five pages old.
It began with

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.

To which I replied,

"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.

To which you replied

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.

I said, "left" when I meant "right" in "the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity," which is clear from the context as I followed it with "then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases"

Then we get three days and five forum pages of you and Todd busy going on and on about every manner of what not. Three days and five pages later, I really don't care.

 

[Bern80]

Then why exactly did you quote just the first sentence of what I said? You know, instead of the part afterward where I admitted my mistake. This is a very simply yes or no question; If you take out your S2 line which reflects an increase in supply of some good, which we are not talking about at all and replace it with a D2 line to the right of D1 which reflects an overall increase in demand, which is what I am talking about, does the price of that good go up?

I have been big enough to admit my mistake. You are now the one denying that which you yourself posted plus put right in front of your face by others.

This whole conversation is three days and five pages old.
It began with

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.

To which I replied,

"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.

To which you replied

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.

I said, "left" when I meant "right" in "the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity," which is clear from the context as I followed it with "then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases"

Then we get three days and five forum pages of you and Todd busy going on and on about every manner of what not. Three days and five pages later, I really don't care.

Then you're just saying exactly what I was trying to say in just using the wrong term, demand, instead of quantity demanded. So we agree then on the statement that when demand increases, price increases. The only question remaining than with regard to Obamacare would be is supply of the product (insurance) going to increase along with demand?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The idiocy is entirely on your part. You have to get out of the fantasy land of your own head. Like Don Quixote, you have created some imaginary argument that simply doesn't exist.

The only comment I was referring to and the only point I made was that the quantity demanded is inversely proportional to the demand price. That is it.

Your living in a fantasy land, Todd.

Dude, your an idiot that doesn't know micro econ because that is exactly what micro economics says, than an increase in quantity demanded is accompanied by decreased prices.

Wow! I can't think of a better example of your ignorance, though I'm sure you'll try to post one.

So your sticking with the belief that the demand curve has a positive slope?

You go with that. Either that or you don't know the difference betweem the quantity demamded and demand.

You having a problem reading the charts I posted?
That makes you zero for four.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then why exactly did you quote just the first sentence of what I said? You know, instead of the part afterward where I admitted my mistake. This is a very simply yes or no question; If you take out your S2 line which reflects an increase in supply of some good, which we are not talking about at all and replace it with a D2 line to the right of D1 which reflects an overall increase in demand, which is what I am talking about, does the price of that good go up?

I have been big enough to admit my mistake. You are now the one denying that which you yourself posted plus put right in front of your face by others.

This whole conversation is three days and five pages old.
It began with

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.

To which I replied,

"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.

To which you replied

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.

I said, "left" when I meant "right" in "the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity," which is clear from the context as I followed it with "then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases"

Then we get three days and five forum pages of you and Todd busy going on and on about every manner of what not. Three days and five pages later, I really don't care.

I said, "left" when I meant "right" in "the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity,"

Yes, the demand curve shifts to the right.
You posted the supply curve shifting to the right, idjit.

 

[Politico]

Still only a five minute job.

 

[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.

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.

No there isn't. And relative to these programs, no, times haven't changed. There were poor people back then too. And it's easy to say there is a need for those things, but the more nuanced question is who's duty is it solve the problems associated with the above. You could argue the states have that right. The federal government does not. Again, in this aspect, the authors of the constitution understood that the road to tyranny would be paved with the best intentions. They understood you have to look past policy that makes us feel good about helping people and look at what it really means for individual liberty.

The Constitution is perfectly clear about its interpretation and enforcement. It in no way authorizes you or any other citizens opinion to decide what it says or doesn't say. That is completely the responsibility of the Federal Courts. Using a process that has always been followed.

You can express any opinion on any topic that you want but in this case your opinion has nothing to do with reality.

What's not Constitutional is what the Supreme Court has said is. Everything else, until adjudicated otherwise by them, is Constitutional.

 

[Bern80]

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.

No there isn't. And relative to these programs, no, times haven't changed. There were poor people back then too. And it's easy to say there is a need for those things, but the more nuanced question is who's duty is it solve the problems associated with the above. You could argue the states have that right. The federal government does not. Again, in this aspect, the authors of the constitution understood that the road to tyranny would be paved with the best intentions. They understood you have to look past policy that makes us feel good about helping people and look at what it really means for individual liberty.

The Constitution is perfectly clear about its interpretation and enforcement. It in no way authorizes you or any other citizens opinion to decide what it says or doesn't say. That is completely the responsibility of the Federal Courts. Using a process that has always been followed.

You can express any opinion on any topic that you want but in this case your opinion has nothing to do with reality.

What's not Constitutional is what the Supreme Court has said is. Everything else, until adjudicated otherwise by them, is Constitutional.

Okay. Cite it. Where in the constitution does it say that all laws passed by congress are therefore inherently constitutional. It really is amusing watching you libs fall back on this. Basically you just said even though the constitution says the government can not engage in something like illegal search and seizure, if congress passed a law allowing it, that would be constitutional.

 

[PMZ]

No there isn't. And relative to these programs, no, times haven't changed. There were poor people back then too. And it's easy to say there is a need for those things, but the more nuanced question is who's duty is it solve the problems associated with the above. You could argue the states have that right. The federal government does not. Again, in this aspect, the authors of the constitution understood that the road to tyranny would be paved with the best intentions. They understood you have to look past policy that makes us feel good about helping people and look at what it really means for individual liberty.

The Constitution is perfectly clear about its interpretation and enforcement. It in no way authorizes you or any other citizens opinion to decide what it says or doesn't say. That is completely the responsibility of the Federal Courts. Using a process that has always been followed.

You can express any opinion on any topic that you want but in this case your opinion has nothing to do with reality.

What's not Constitutional is what the Supreme Court has said is. Everything else, until adjudicated otherwise by them, is Constitutional.

Okay. Cite it. Where in the constitution does it say that all laws passed by congress are therefore inherently constitutional. It really is amusing watching you libs fall back on this. Basically you just said even though the constitution says the government can not engage in something like illegal search and seizure, if congress passed a law allowing it, that would be constitutional.

''Where in the constitution does it say that all laws passed by congress are therefore inherently constitutional. ''

It doesn't.

If Congress passes a law, and someone questions it's Constitutionality, the process of adjudication goes through the Federal Court System reaching the Supreme Court through appeals.

Read all about it.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

 

[KissMy]

Obama outsourced the building of Healthcare.gov to the Canadian firm, CGI Group. Didn't he say he was the insourcing president? What about jobs in the USA?

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

No there isn't. And relative to these programs, no, times haven't changed. There were poor people back then too. And it's easy to say there is a need for those things, but the more nuanced question is who's duty is it solve the problems associated with the above. You could argue the states have that right. The federal government does not. Again, in this aspect, the authors of the constitution understood that the road to tyranny would be paved with the best intentions. They understood you have to look past policy that makes us feel good about helping people and look at what it really means for individual liberty.

The Constitution is perfectly clear about its interpretation and enforcement. It in no way authorizes you or any other citizens opinion to decide what it says or doesn't say. That is completely the responsibility of the Federal Courts. Using a process that has always been followed.

You can express any opinion on any topic that you want but in this case your opinion has nothing to do with reality.

What's not Constitutional is what the Supreme Court has said is. Everything else, until adjudicated otherwise by them, is Constitutional.

So you would have simply excepted the Dred Scot decision and moved on I guess?

It is ironic that those that are liberal today or leaning that way are the most by the letter interpreters of the Constitution and US Code. Guess that comes from people sharing your world view taking over all the institutions that educate our jurists and legal professionals.

 

[Bern80]

The Constitution is perfectly clear about its interpretation and enforcement. It in no way authorizes you or any other citizens opinion to decide what it says or doesn't say. That is completely the responsibility of the Federal Courts. Using a process that has always been followed.

You can express any opinion on any topic that you want but in this case your opinion has nothing to do with reality.

What's not Constitutional is what the Supreme Court has said is. Everything else, until adjudicated otherwise by them, is Constitutional.

Okay. Cite it. Where in the constitution does it say that all laws passed by congress are therefore inherently constitutional. It really is amusing watching you libs fall back on this. Basically you just said even though the constitution says the government can not engage in something like illegal search and seizure, if congress passed a law allowing it, that would be constitutional.

''Where in the constitution does it say that all laws passed by congress are therefore inherently constitutional. ''

It doesn't.

If Congress passes a law, and someone questions it's Constitutionality, the process of adjudication goes through the Federal Court System reaching the Supreme Court through appeals.

Read all about it.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

You said it does;

Everything else, until adjudicated otherwise by them, is Constitutional.

So which is it? Is, is not, congress capable of passing laws that are unconstitutional?

 

[PMZ]

No there isn't. And relative to these programs, no, times haven't changed. There were poor people back then too. And it's easy to say there is a need for those things, but the more nuanced question is who's duty is it solve the problems associated with the above. You could argue the states have that right. The federal government does not. Again, in this aspect, the authors of the constitution understood that the road to tyranny would be paved with the best intentions. They understood you have to look past policy that makes us feel good about helping people and look at what it really means for individual liberty.

The Constitution is perfectly clear about its interpretation and enforcement. It in no way authorizes you or any other citizens opinion to decide what it says or doesn't say. That is completely the responsibility of the Federal Courts. Using a process that has always been followed.

You can express any opinion on any topic that you want but in this case your opinion has nothing to do with reality.

What's not Constitutional is what the Supreme Court has said is. Everything else, until adjudicated otherwise by them, is Constitutional.

So you would have simply excepted the Dred Scot decision and moved on I guess?

It is ironic that those that are liberal today or leaning that way are the most by the letter interpreters of the Constitution and US Code. Guess that comes from people sharing your world view taking over all the institutions that educate our jurists and legal professionals.

No human process is without flaw. That should never be the expectation. But the process set forth in the Constitution for its interpretation, just like for a jury trial, is considered the most reliable possible.

 

[PMZ]

Okay. Cite it. Where in the constitution does it say that all laws passed by congress are therefore inherently constitutional. It really is amusing watching you libs fall back on this. Basically you just said even though the constitution says the government can not engage in something like illegal search and seizure, if congress passed a law allowing it, that would be constitutional.

''Where in the constitution does it say that all laws passed by congress are therefore inherently constitutional. ''

It doesn't.

If Congress passes a law, and someone questions it's Constitutionality, the process of adjudication goes through the Federal Court System reaching the Supreme Court through appeals.

Read all about it.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

You said it does;

Everything else, until adjudicated otherwise by them, is Constitutional.

So which is it? Is, is not, congress capable of passing laws that are unconstitutional?

Congress is certainly capable of passing unconstitutional laws and has. Congress, like you or I, is not the Constitutional authority. The Federal Courts will, however, overturn any law, that's challenged, that they judge to be prohibited by the Constitution.

Didn't you learn any of this in school?

 

[itfitzme]

Then why exactly did you quote just the first sentence of what I said? You know, instead of the part afterward where I admitted my mistake. This is a very simply yes or no question; If you take out your S2 line which reflects an increase in supply of some good, which we are not talking about at all and replace it with a D2 line to the right of D1 which reflects an overall increase in demand, which is what I am talking about, does the price of that good go up?

I have been big enough to admit my mistake. You are now the one denying that which you yourself posted plus put right in front of your face by others.

This whole conversation is three days and five pages old.
It began with


To which I replied,

To which you replied

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.

I said, "left" when I meant "right" in "the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity," which is clear from the context as I followed it with "then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases"

Then we get three days and five forum pages of you and Todd busy going on and on about every manner of what not. Three days and five pages later, I really don't care.

I said, "left" when I meant "right" in "the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity,"

Yes, the demand curve shifts to the right.
You posted the supply curve shifting to the right, idjit.

Todd, I am not going to write a book for you. If you Re intent on chamging the context of statement so that you can fool youself into feeling like you aren't simply ignorant, you are quote welcome.

The facts remain that the S-D model is an ideal that is used to compare the real imperfect markets. It requires numerous constraints such as the assumption of ceterus paribus and perfect competition. The equilibrium point shifts on four changes; demand and supply shifts as well as a chamge in the quantities supplied and demanded. Picking one as "proof" is simple ignorance because it ignores the other three and the reality of the market imperfections an inefficiencies.

Now, go read Dr. Suess, "One Fish Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish" as that seems more your speed that micro and macro econ.

 

[Bern80]

''Where in the constitution does it say that all laws passed by congress are therefore inherently constitutional. ''

It doesn't.

If Congress passes a law, and someone questions it's Constitutionality, the process of adjudication goes through the Federal Court System reaching the Supreme Court through appeals.

Read all about it.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

You said it does;

Everything else, until adjudicated otherwise by them, is Constitutional.

So which is it? Is, is not, congress capable of passing laws that are unconstitutional?

Congress is certainly capable of passing unconstitutional laws and has. Congress, like you or I, is not the Constitutional authority. The Federal Courts will, however, overturn any law, that's challenged, that they judge to be prohibited by the Constitution.

Didn't you learn any of this in school?

Nope. Just confused because you said they could then you said they couldn't.

 

[Bern80]

This whole conversation is three days and five pages old.
It began with


To which I replied,

To which you replied



I said, "left" when I meant "right" in "the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity," which is clear from the context as I followed it with "then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases"

Then we get three days and five forum pages of you and Todd busy going on and on about every manner of what not. Three days and five pages later, I really don't care.

I said, "left" when I meant "right" in "the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity,"

Yes, the demand curve shifts to the right.
You posted the supply curve shifting to the right, idjit.

Todd, I am not going to write a book for you. If you Re intent on chamging the context of statement so that you can fool youself into feeling like you aren't simply ignorant, you are quote welcome.

The facts remain that the S-D model is an ideal that is used to compare the real imperfect markets. It requires numerous constraints such as the assumption of ceterus paribus and perfect competition. The equilibrium point shifts on four changes; demand and supply shifts as well as a chamge in the quantities supplied and demanded. Picking one as "proof" is simple ignorance because it ignores the other three and the reality of the market imperfections an inefficiencies.

Now, go read Dr. Suess, "One Fish Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish" as that seems more your speed that micro and macro econ.

Except now you're backpedaling. Because in your incorrect initial response to me, you tried to use those same curves to prove you were right. Now you're saying, well they don't really apply to the conversation.

I would maintain that they can indeed be used to see what will happen to insurance prices. You simply look at the effect the various policies contained in the bill would have on supply and demand of health insurance policies.

 

[itfitzme]

I said, "left" when I meant "right" in "the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity,"

Yes, the demand curve shifts to the right.
You posted the supply curve shifting to the right, idjit.

Todd, I am not going to write a book for you. If you Re intent on chamging the context of statement so that you can fool youself into feeling like you aren't simply ignorant, you are quote welcome.

The facts remain that the S-D model is an ideal that is used to compare the real imperfect markets. It requires numerous constraints such as the assumption of ceterus paribus and perfect competition. The equilibrium point shifts on four changes; demand and supply shifts as well as a chamge in the quantities supplied and demanded. Picking one as "proof" is simple ignorance because it ignores the other three and the reality of the market imperfections an inefficiencies.

Now, go read Dr. Suess, "One Fish Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish" as that seems more your speed that micro and macro econ.

Except now you're backpedaling. Because in your incorrect initial response to me, you tried to use those same curves to prove you were right. Now you're saying, well they don't really apply to the conversation.

I would maintain that they can indeed be used to see what will happen to insurance prices. You simply look at the effect the various policies contained in the bill would have on supply and demand of health insurance policies.

I haven't backpedaled on anything. I presented on graph which applied to your statement because you said to look at that one. There are two basic examples, I didn't present both. Like I said, I'm not going to write a book. You may believe that I made some incorrect response, but you not understanding the material hardly qualifies you to make that determination.

Here are numerous curves

https://www.google.com/search?q=sup...KqsiALx7IG4AQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=988&bih=659

I suggested that you might want to review because you were mistaken in your presentation. Somewhere, I also presented the definitions for a change in quantity vs a shift. I get it, it's easy to misunderstand the difference unless it has been specifically highlighted as a common error.

The supply and demand model is an ideal model and can't be applied directly to the healthcare markets without actually looking at the details of the health care markets. And, unless the ACA has been examined in detail, the simply ideal model can't be applied either.

Yes, you look at the details of the bill.

On the other hand, I do note that when presented with the actual effect of change to the demand quantity, you went immediately to "well, if you change D to S and S1 to D1 and S2 to D2 then it works", then completely ignore the shifting supply, which is equivalent to saying, "I know what the answer, now I just need to make up the facts that fit it."

Mean while, Todd is over in the corner, drooling on himself and making up every manner of crap, creating some delusional argument that doesn't even exists.

And it is all so stupid, going on for three-four days along with five forum pages without once actually finding and reading the bill. You can't simply imagine what the bill says then apply an ideal micro economic model.

Here is the bill;

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

The table of contents covers pages and is a good start.

 

[Sarah G]

It's already being fixed. Mika made a call to buy insurance this morning on the Morning Joe show and got through to a real person in 20 seconds. I'd like to see them do it everyday for the next two weeks to show that wasn't a fluke.