Goldman Sachs Concludes Obamacare Added 500k Jobs

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-22-2017, 07:29 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Your explanation was fine. I'm not t too behind you. I stopped after a masters course in cost-benefit analysis; the kind that uses the NPV to determine whether or not we should do a public project.

I don't disagree that there are other things at play driving up health care costs. I'm not surprised that it's hard to observe, isolate, and quantify theses variables in a regression set.

But that isn't grounds to dismiss the idea that the rise in demand is a contributing factor to rising costs.

I can dismiss an assumed rise in demand until you show data which indicates your assumption is anything more than a guess.

[THE Bigzoman]

(04-22-2017, 08:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I can dismiss an assumed rise in demand until you show data which indicates your assumption is anything more than a guess.

So it's not the case that more people have health insurance/access to health care because of the ACA?

Really?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-22-2017, 08:01 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Probably because of the mountains of work showing this relationship to be true for other goods.

Again, most economists already hold it to be true barring abnormal phenomena.  So yes, the onus would be on economists to show that this isn't the case and explain why; what makes healthcare goods/services different?

If there isn't an increase in demand then it is impossible for a nonexistent increase in demand to affect the costs of anything.

So your theory may apply if there is an increased demand, but you haven't shown there is one.

You're applying your "theory" to a guess. Then claiming it is true. And expect other people to prove your guess wrong.

How would someone prove your assumption wrong? By first establishing if there was or wasn't an increase in demand. Which is what I've asked you to show, but you keep evading.

This is so obvious it should stick out like a sore thumb.

[THE Bigzoman]

(04-22-2017, 08:15 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If there isn't an increase in demand then it is impossible for a nonexistent increase in demand to affect the costs of anything.

So your theory may apply if there is an increased demand, but you haven't shown there is one.

You're applying your "theory" to a guess. Then claiming it is true. And expect other people to prove your guess wrong.

How would someone prove your assumption wrong?  By first establishing if there was or wasn't an increase in demand. Which is what I've asked you to show, but you keep evading.

This is so obvious it should stick out like a sore thumb.

I thought you were just refuting the up demand=up price part of my little chain. I didn't even know you were refuting that there was an increase in demand at all.

That's kind of dumb, honestly.

I mean, you could just read the OP's article. There are more jobs in the healthcare sector as a result of Obamacare; so much so that getting rid of it it would destroy said jobs.

But I'm sure health care providers are hiring extra bodies for giggles; nothing do with the extra patients going through their doors. /rolleyes

Or something. Because reasons.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-22-2017, 08:04 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: So it's not the case that more people have health insurance/access to health care because of the ACA?

Really?

Much of the criticism of Obamacare is partisan bullshit combined with a lack of understanding of how health insurance works. One of the valid criticisms is a lack of access to healthcare despite Obamacare. If you had any experience, which from reading your posts I know you don't, you would know many to most providers don't accept Obamacare policies. Having a health insurance policy hardly anyone accepts doesn't increase access to health care or demand.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-22-2017, 08:19 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: I thought you were just refuting the up demand=up price part of my little chain. I didn't even know you were refuting that there was an increase in demand at all.

That's kind of dumb, honestly.

I mean, you could just read the OP's article. There are more jobs in the healthcare sector as a result of Obamacare; so much so that getting rid of it it would destroy said jobs.

But I'm sure health care providers are hiring extra bodies just because; it has **** all to do with the extra patients going through their doors. /rolleyes

Or something. Because reasons.

Another criticism of Obamacare was young, healthy people who didn't need to go to the doctor were being forced to buy insurance they didn't need and wouldn't use to subsidize the old and sick.

I work in healthcare and haven't seen an increased demand because of Obamacare. I needed to refer one of the few patients I've seen with an Obamacare policy to a gastroenterologist. There were only four in the state who accepted his policy and the nearest one was approximately 90 miles away.

You can call it dumb if you like, but the young, inexperienced, and still wet behind the ears are prone to think they know everything because they took a class in college without any real world experience to temper what they know "in theory."

Can you show an increase in patient visits or not? Anything other than the data is the equivalent of, "No.". I'm not falling for the baffle 'em with BS act.

[THE Bigzoman]

(04-22-2017, 08:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Another criticism of Obamacare was young, healthy people who didn't need to go to the doctor were being forced to buy insurance they didn't need and wouldn't use to subsidize the old and sick.

I work in healthcare and haven't seen an increased demand because of Obamacare. I needed to refer one of the few patients I've seen with an Obamacare policy to a gastroenterologist. There were only four in the state who accepted his policy and the nearest one was approximately 90 miles away.

You can call it dumb if you like, but the young, inexperienced, and still wet behind the ears are prone to think they know everything because they took a class in college without any real world experience to temper what they know "in theory."

Can you show an increase in patient visits or not?  Anything other than the data is the equivalent of, "No.". I'm not falling for the baffle 'em with BS act.

And dumb people tend to think their own personal anecdotes are a good measure for what's going in their industry.


Again, your industry is experiencing job growth because of the ACA per the OP; so much so that getting rid of the ACA would result a big portion of those jobs being lost.

Why is that?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-22-2017, 08:19 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: I thought you were just refuting the up demand=up price part of my little chain. I didn't even know you were refuting that there was an increase in demand at all.

That's kind of dumb, honestly.

I mean, you could just read the OP's article. There are more jobs in the healthcare sector as a result of Obamacare; so much so that getting rid of it it would destroy said jobs.

But I'm sure health care providers  are hiring extra bodies for giggles; nothing do with the extra patients going through their doors. /rolleyes

Or something. Because reasons.

(04-22-2017, 05:42 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: When do they give the lecture about evidenced based conclusions versus "intuitive" assumptions?  Do they squeeze it in betwee Palm Reading for Beginners and Tarot Cards 101? You got any data to support your assumption?  I'm not even joking 

Republicans like Trump complain Obamacare is a disaster because the premiums are out of control. So, based upon your Econ 101 lecture, the premiums are going up because of an increased demand for Obamacare which raises the price of the insurance. Well, if there is such a demand for Obamacare wouldn't that make it a success?

(04-22-2017, 06:09 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Of course, my mockery has **** all to do with what you said. Applying your Econ 101 theory that increased demand equals increased prices that means the cost of Obamacare is increased because of increased demand if your Econ theory holds true.  That's the first thing you were taught in your first Econ lecture, right?  Also, the evidence should support the theory so you should be able to show an increase demand in healthcare resulting in increased healthcare prices driving up the cost of health insurance.  Do you have that evidence?

(04-22-2017, 06:39 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: This is your claim . . . 


Do you have evidence to support your claim?

(04-22-2017, 07:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: FFS

The "relationship" hasn't even been established by any data, yet. You just made an unsubstantiated claim without any data and now claim the onus is on others to prove your assumption is wrong. 

You haven't even shown an increase in demand that would affect the prices, yet.

(04-22-2017, 08:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I can dismiss an assumed rise in demand until you show data which indicates your assumption is anything more than a guess.

If that's what you thought I was refuting then, "That's kinda dumb, honestly."

I'll try to make it less wordy for you the next time.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-22-2017, 08:49 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote:
And dumb people tend to think their own personal anecdotes are a good measure for what's going in their industry.


Again, your industry is experiencing job growth because of the ACA per the OP; so much so that getting rid of the ACA would result a big portion of those jobs being lost.

Why is that?

That's why I asked you for data to support your assuption (which you still haven't provided.) 

As you mature, you'll learn personal experience is better than no experience.  But, it's always better to have data to make evidenced based conclusions.  Right now you don't have personal anecdotes based upon experience or data.  Instead you have theories applied to guesses you pulled out of thin air.

[THE Bigzoman]

(04-22-2017, 09:01 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That's why I asked you for data to support your assuption (which you still haven't provided.) 

As you mature, you'll learn personal experience is better than no experience.  But, it's always better to have data to make evidenced based conclusions.  Right now you don't have personal anecdotes based upon experience or data.  Instead you have theories applied to guesses you pulled out of thin air.

Why is your industry hiring more people?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-22-2017, 09:02 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Why is your industry hiring more people?

Because it is the healthcare industry?  Because the healthcare industry is always hiring?  Because the population continues to rise and people continue to get sick and injured? Look at a healthcare career outlook, I'd be surprised if you found one trending down.  My career was projected to expand over the next decade over a decade ago.  It is still projected to expand over the next decade. My industry has been hiring more people since I've been in the industry.

Quote:But you've used anecdotes in the past about your wife and kids. People in my age group for sure as hell aren't forming families; therefore, you're in a different generation and are therefore older

Refuting an anecdote with an anecdote?  

Figure 2. Birth rates, by age of mother: United States, 2007, 2014, and 2015




https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db258.htm

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/06/new-census-data-show-more-americans-are-tying-the-knot-but-mostly-its-the-college-educated/

That's what happens when assumptions meet data.