http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/28/health-care-tax-break-deficit_n_788852.html
The Republican party, along with the help of Democrats are proposing actual Health Care reform!
Reform means change right? Well they want to eliminate the tax break businesses get to provide health insurance to their workers!
Imagine, about 100 million more people without insurance on top of the 45 million that don't have insurance already.
Quote"The idea isn't to just raise revenue, economists say, but finally to turn Americans into frugal health care consumers by having them face the full costs of their medical decisions."
Do you hear that? You aren't being frugal enough, so now your health insurance will double (on your side) and your employer will drop your policy (where they drive down the price by buying insurance in bulk).
Stay classy republicans.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on November 28, 2010, 08:23:23 PM
Stay classy republicans.
OKI DOKE!
\
(http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/10/06/image5367992.jpg)
"Frugal health care consumers".
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
"Turn Americans into frugal health care consumers"?
"Face the full cost of their medical decisions"?
WHAT THE FUCK
I did not decide to get appendicitis.
how in the name of anything do the justify cutting tax breaks? I thought tax breaks were their most favoritest thing evar?
i am so miserably confused
Remember, kids, childhood cancer is a medical decision! :lulz:
As are all those water-soluble pharmaceuticals that get into the groundwater. You decided to breathe the air and drink the water. Not their fault you got asthma and shitty immunities.
I still cant get over this.
Its like theyre trying to lose the next election.
Yet they won't.
Political forecasting is best done by imagining the most awful thing possible.
:facepalm:
I'm so fucked if this goes through.
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 28, 2010, 09:07:05 PM
:facepalm:
I'm so fucked if this goes through.
Were ALL fucked if this goes through.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on November 28, 2010, 09:15:15 PM
Were ALL fucked if this goes through.
Don't think it's going to. Corporations like their tax breaks.
Also, from the article, the laugh of the week:
QuoteMany economists believe employers would boost pay if they didn't provide health care.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
AH HAAA HAH HA HAA-no.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 28, 2010, 10:20:25 PM
AH HAAA HAH HA HAA-no.
Well, let's see...They get a tax break NOW for health care, and they'd have to pay MORE taxes if they paid you more instead, so...
No.
I should become an economist. I'm great at making unreasonable assumptions, might as well get paid for it.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 28, 2010, 10:32:40 PM
I should become an economist. I'm great at making unreasonable assumptions, might as well get paid for it.
Me, too. I could put all these years of going off half-cocked on PD to use.
This is normally the part where I'd be copping the smug (yet polite) Canadian attitude, but chances are Harper is going to try some shit like this in the next couple years. Stupid bastard's trying to emulate the States.
Quote from: Remington on November 28, 2010, 11:28:23 PM
This is normally the part where I'd be copping the smug (yet polite) Canadian attitude, but chances are Harper is going to try some shit like this in the next couple years. Stupid bastard's trying to emulate the States.
Canada always does that.
I can give you some examples, if you like.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2010, 11:34:43 PM
Canada always does that.
I can give you some examples, if you like.
Nah, I'm good.
Japanese Internment of WW2 and American/Canadian Idol should keep me wrathing for a good while yet.
Quote from: Remington on November 28, 2010, 11:36:15 PM
Nah, I'm good.
Japanese Internment of WW2 and American/Canadian Idol should keep me wrathing for a good while yet.
You're sure? It gets better.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2010, 11:38:12 PM
You're sure? It gets better.
Doesn't it always.
Harper's got his work cut out for him on this front, though. The public healthcare system is extremely well-liked.
Quote from: Remington on November 28, 2010, 11:41:50 PM
Doesn't it always.
Harper's got his work cut out for him on this front, though. The public healthcare system is extremely well-liked.
Nu-uh. Rush Limbaugh says you all hate it, but you can't do anything about it because you're stuck in a socialist dictatorship.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2010, 11:54:04 PM
Nu-uh. Rush Limbaugh says you all hate it, but you can't do anything about it because you're stuck in a socialist dictatorship.
:lulz:
THEY FORCE US TO RECEIVE PROMPT AND EFFICIENT MEDICAL CARE, EVEN AGAINST OUR WILL! TELL THE OTHmmmmppff
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2010, 10:17:22 PM
Also, from the article, the laugh of the week:
QuoteMany economists believe employers would boost pay if they didn't provide health care.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I believe many economists need to lay off the wacky tabacky.
Many economists are, uh, paid liars. Like lawyers, only, if lawyers keep losing cases, they eventually wont get hired. Economists can keep getting it wrong and stay in gainful employment until they drop dead.
See, I could do that. I would even wear a fat suit and get old age stipple to make me seem authoritative.
:argh!:
What kind of idiotic stupidity is that?!?!?!
The kind that gets you MAD BANK.
Quoth Trollblog (http://trollblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/1443/):
QuoteI've devised three mental-experiment tests for whether something is a science or not. First, the veil of ignorance test. Suppose that you were knowledgeable about economics and all you knew about someone was that they were a new summa cum laude PhD from an unnamed top-twenty school. How much confidence would you have in the guy? Are there some schools whose graduates you would be doubtful about?
Second, is it possible to write a test which would accurately select competent economists, with few false positives or false negatives, except by simply arbitrarily declaring the answers of one school or another to be right? You don't have schools of physics or chemistry; these scientists disagree on the frontiers of their sciences and often are fairly ignorant of fields distant from their own, but you don't have never-ending controversies about fundamental issues.
Third, the professionalism test. Is it possible for an economist to be disbarred or defrocked? Is there some level of misconduct, ignorance, or public dishonesty which would require that an economist be drummed out of the profession? Is there any internal discipline within the profession? Are there even any possible ways of knowing that an economist is wrong? Or is the PhD a license to say whatever you want to say about economics, no matter how ridiculous, and still be called an expert?
My guess is that economics passes none of these tests, though it is probably closer to doing so than psychology. I would guess that physics and chemistry pass the first two without being much concerned for the third. As for the third, medicine and law have rather low standards of ethics, but economics seems to have none. (Like law and medicine, but unlike physics, on the whole, economics is an applied science, which is why the ethics question is necessary).
My claim is that economics, like most social sciences, is too ill-formed, inconsistent, incomplete, and unempirical to be a real science in the sense that economists themselves use the word, and that it is for this reason that you have warring schools of economics, and it is for this reasons that economist political hacks are able to get away with saying pretty much anything. (Brad DeLong claimed that Mankiw's professional reputation was destroyed during his tenure with George W. Bush. Is there any real evidence that this actually happened?)
Due to the complexity of the material studied, it strikes me as impossible that any social science will ever attain the level of scientificity and success that they hope for (and, whenever they think they can get away with it, brag about.) This isn't really a failure; it's just the way things are. I would actually be willing to renorm the definition of science enough to allow economics in, but that would defeat the economists' purpose, since their goal is to become a magical science like physics, a science which can solve all the world's problems, a science that will make them heroes, the only real social science and not just one of several. And the renormed definition ("a science that has a lot of interesting things to say and provides valuable rules of thumb") isn't what they want.
Probably, soon enough, the profession will dig up someone who got The Great Moderation right, thus proving once again that economics is too (in Lazear's words) "a real science". The problem is that , while economics may have all the right answers there on the shelf somewhere, they're still mixed in indistinguishably with all the wrong answers. They say that Popper's falsificationism has been refuted, but it's my understanding that physics, for example, (unlike economics) has two different shelves, and has definite procedures and practices making it possible to move things from the right-answer shelf to the wrong-answer shelf, procedures that do not entail ruining everything for everyone.
Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2010, 09:41:51 PM
Quoth Trollblog:
Quote
I've devised three mental-experiment tests for whether something is a science or not. First, the veil of ignorance test. Suppose that you were knowledgeable about economics and all you knew about someone was that they were a new summa cum laude PhD from an unnamed top-twenty school. How much confidence would you have in the guy? Are there some schools whose graduates you would be doubtful about?
Second, is it possible to write a test which would accurately select competent economists, with few false positives or false negatives, except by simply arbitrarily declaring the answers of one school or another to be right? You don't have schools of physics or chemistry; these scientists disagree on the frontiers of their sciences and often are fairly ignorant of fields distant from their own, but you don't have never-ending controversies about fundamental issues.
Third, the professionalism test. Is it possible for an economist to be disbarred or defrocked? Is there some level of misconduct, ignorance, or public dishonesty which would require that an economist be drummed out of the profession? Is there any internal discipline within the profession? Are there even any possible ways of knowing that an economist is wrong? Or is the PhD a license to say whatever you want to say about economics, no matter how ridiculous, and still be called an expert?
My guess is that economics passes none of these tests, though it is probably closer to doing so than psychology. I would guess that physics and chemistry pass the first two without being much concerned for the third. As for the third, medicine and law have rather low standards of ethics, but economics seems to have none. (Like law and medicine, but unlike physics, on the whole, economics is an applied science, which is why the ethics question is necessary).
My claim is that economics, like most social sciences, is too ill-formed, inconsistent, incomplete, and unempirical to be a real science in the sense that economists themselves use the word, and that it is for this reason that you have warring schools of economics, and it is for this reasons that economist political hacks are able to get away with saying pretty much anything. (Brad DeLong claimed that Mankiw's professional reputation was destroyed during his tenure with George W. Bush. Is there any real evidence that this actually happened?)
Due to the complexity of the material studied, it strikes me as impossible that any social science will ever attain the level of scientificity and success that they hope for (and, whenever they think they can get away with it, brag about.) This isn't really a failure; it's just the way things are. I would actually be willing to renorm the definition of science enough to allow economics in, but that would defeat the economists' purpose, since their goal is to become a magical science like physics, a science which can solve all the world's problems, a science that will make them heroes, the only real social science and not just one of several. And the renormed definition ("a science that has a lot of interesting things to say and provides valuable rules of thumb") isn't what they want.
Probably, soon enough, the profession will dig up someone who got The Great Moderation right, thus proving once again that economics is too (in Lazear's words) "a real science". The problem is that , while economics may have all the right answers there on the shelf somewhere, they're still mixed in indistinguishably with all the wrong answers. They say that Popper's falsificationism has been refuted, but it's my understanding that physics, for example, (unlike economics) has two different shelves, and has definite procedures and practices making it possible to move things from the right-answer shelf to the wrong-answer shelf, procedures that do not entail ruining everything for everyone.
:argh!:
Yeah... at the very least you can get ostracized in psychology, if you're a Freudian, or get caught faking data.
Thinking about this more, the first test seems very strange. None of my professors ever mentioned where they got their doctorate from, the only one I know what school she went to was only because she was still using her alumni email address. Nor have I ever seen it mentioned in anybodies byline on a paper, its the school or research institute they're associated with now that people care about.
The second is strange too, what's the test for a physicist, test the things everybody agrees on? Anybody who graduates with a degree in physics should know those, with limits on the degree of specialization, that doesn't tell you if they're competent to do more than schoolwork. The peer review process? Doesn't seem to be helping economists.
The third is the only one that people everybody agrees are scientists would pass, damn near any field would get you drummed out if you got caught faking data, even economics.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 30, 2010, 02:59:51 AM
Thinking about this more, the first test seems very strange. None of my professors ever mentioned where they got their doctorate from, the only one I know what school she went to was only because she was still using her alumni email address. Nor have I ever seen it mentioned in anybodies byline on a paper, its the school or research institute they're associated with now that people care about.
The second is strange too, what's the test for a physicist, test the things everybody agrees on? Anybody who graduates with a degree in physics should know those, with limits on the degree of specialization, that doesn't tell you if they're competent to do more than schoolwork. The peer review process? Doesn't seem to be helping economists.
The third is the only one that people everybody agrees are scientists would pass, damn near any field would get you drummed out if you got caught faking data, even economics.
The first test is silly. Although, (in theory :lulz:) someone with a PhD from a reputable university should be able to do independent research in physics, and likely already have (their thesis), and there is usually a certain quality of research coming out of an institution, this test has no place in determining what is 'real science'.
The test for "What is physics?" is "Does it empirically predict real results or explain a physical phenomenon?", and it's similar for most true sciences, even when you're talking about probabilistic things: it's a matter of it working and having real, reproducible results in legitimate experiments*. Good physicists are those whose teachings and conclusions meet this test, bad physicists are those whose teachings and conclusions do not.
By that test, psychology... might barely make the cut. Economics is right out. As it is, it seems like most social 'sciences' are just poorly done philosophy in disguise anyways.
*With a control and a single variation and no bias for sampling and etc. etc. etc. Basically, for probablistic things, it should still be reasonably statistically valid.
Actually a few "psychologies" are pretty empirical. Social & behavioral psychology and neuropsychology, for example, apply strong scientific principles.
But surely no psychologist can be taken to trial on malpractice!
It would be like taking an astrologer to court!
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on November 30, 2010, 12:47:33 AM
:argh!:
That was my first thought too. Then I realized that even with no formal training, not even a high school class, I know more about psychology, psychoanalysis, and psychopathy than all of the counselors, two of the psychologists, and the only psychiatrist I've had to see from simple observation. On the other hand, I know nothing about economics, but I could make up a theory real quick. Which field does that make me an expert in?
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on November 30, 2010, 05:24:05 AM
But surely no psychologist can be taken to trial on malpractice!
It would be like taking an astrologer to court!
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2007/11/19/85123.htm
Unless you're being sarcastic, in which case nevermind.
You can make up a few scenarios that may help:
Imagine two people: A Physicist with a PhD from a mid-level state school, and an Economist with a PhD from Princeton.
Each of them relates a theory from their field of whcih you are not familiar, but you have a gut-level feeling of "wrongness" about each theory.
Which one are you more likely to believe simply because of their doctorate?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 30, 2010, 02:59:55 PM
You can make up a few scenarios that may help:
Imagine two people: A Physicist with a PhD from a mid-level state school, and an Economist with a PhD from Princeton.
Each of them relates a theory from their field of whcih you are not familiar, but you have a gut-level feeling of "wrongness" about each theory.
Which one are you more likely to believe simply because of their doctorate?
Whichever one matches up most closely with my pre-conceived ideas, of course.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 30, 2010, 02:59:55 PM
You can make up a few scenarios that may help:
Imagine two people: A Physicist with a PhD from a mid-level state school, and an Economist with a PhD from Princeton.
Each of them relates a theory from their field of whcih you are not familiar, but you have a gut-level feeling of "wrongness" about each theory.
Which one are you more likely to believe simply because of their doctorate?
Already thought of that one, fuckbag.
I should point out the first test likely derives from the authors experience, or, if you prefer, jihad, against analytic philosophy, which propagates through various University departments, where success is dependent more on ideological agreement and training than research. Ideological groupings in economics, in certain Universities (Chicago comes to mind, with Friedman and the Chicago Boyz) are also rather common.
By contrast, most science departments are not run on ideological grounds.
It seems to me that eventually humans need to realize that SCIENCE! is useful in many things, but not in ALL EVERYTHING. If we can't observe something repeatedly, if we can't control the variables, if we have no ability to have a 'control group', etc... then the results of any scientific observation is limited.
Economics and God... both ineffable; both start wars :lulz:
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 30, 2010, 07:18:00 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on November 30, 2010, 05:24:05 AM
But surely no psychologist can be taken to trial on malpractice!
It would be like taking an astrologer to court!
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2007/11/19/85123.htm
Unless you're being sarcastic, in which case nevermind.
Sarcastic, dude.
That article is a bit weird, they call Reynolds in different moments a psychiatrist, psychotherapist and then psychologist... which boils down to the latter two because he couldnt prescribe medication.
This thread is ALSO now about psychology.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2010, 08:23:55 PM
This thread is ALSO now about psychology.
lots of good comments here on economics and I'd love to add to it even though I'll probably get shit for being a libertard.
I'm not offering refutations or endorsements of anything previously posted, but I recommend this book for anyone interested in economics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Action
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 29, 2010, 12:33:28 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2010, 10:17:22 PM
Also, from the article, the laugh of the week:
QuoteMany economists believe employers would boost pay if they didn't provide health care.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I believe many economists need to lay off the wacky tabacky.
Well yeah but you say that about nearly everybody ;-)
Back to the original topic of those wacky republicans and their shenanigans.
The GOP are effectively "on strike" by refusing to do the job they were elected to do?
The only issue they will vote on is the upper class tax cuts. They have officially declared that NOTHING else in America matters, and they will use their power to block all senate activity on other issues.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/01/gop.senate.demands/index.html?hpt=T1
I reiterate, stay classy republicans.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2010, 08:23:55 PM
This thread is ALSO now about psychology.
Well
pardon moi for not sticking strictly to the threads one and only purpose with no acceptable deviation.