D'Ohbama!: If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan...

Isn't it liberals who always call conservatives anti-science?

You could be right, but since you didn't list any examples of what you are referring to we will never know. What factors are you referring to?

 

Macroeconomics isn't a science.

 

yes it is . It is a branch of economics which is a science.

 

No, at best it is called a "social science" just like political science is a "science".
How can one do a controlled experiment with macroeconomics?

 

at best? you mean 'your right, it's a social science'

a) the definition of a science is not ' a subject you can do a controlled experiment in'. Observational sciences like economics or climatology are sciences.

b) you can do a controlled experiment in macroeconomics about as easily as you can do a controlled experiment in climatology, which is the subject matter in which liberals constantly define their opponents as 'anti-science'

 

Economics being a science? Then this is because the definition of science has become so watered down. Science is about understanding through experimentation and observation. There is a very specific process, called the scientific method, that defines what a science is.

What is the fundamental understanding of the universe that economics is delivering?

 

I'm not sure what this debate is even about, but I think most people understand the basic distinction between hard sciences (mathematics, chemistry, biology, physics, etc) and soft sciences (psychology, economics). There's a reason that the latter tend to be degrees you get in a Liberal Arts Department as opposed to a Natural Sciences department. When liberals call conservatives anti-science, it is basically always in the context of something relating to a hard science.

 

Please feel free to share this opinion to anyone. You will be laughed at.

Science means knowledge. Economics is a science, period.

There are numerous types of sciences. Observational, historical, social, etc.

 

There is a distinction between natural sciences and social sciences and when tallnavor commented on how liberals complain about how conservatives ignore or disregard science he intended to mean natural sciences. Climatology and evolution are part of natural sciences not social science.

Anyways Tallnavor made that comment in order to not respond to my statement directly about how neoclassical economics doesn't always apply to real life.

 

Yes and upper level economics discusses how the healthcare industry is an outlier from the traditional economic model.

 

So....

There's this nice lady who lives in Federal Way, Washington named Jessica Sanford who wrote the President about her success with Obamacare. The President ever ready to jump on any positive news surrounding his new health care law used her letter in his Rose Garden speech of October 21, 2013 stating the following:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/21/remarks-president-affordable-care-act

http://www.redstate.com/2013/11/18/jay-inslee-obamacare-exchanges-washington-jessica-sanford/

 

Yes, and there is also Bob Marley science which is the study of how Bob Marley makes up whatever reality he chooses to live in and then patronizes anyone who doesn't subscribe to it.

It's an observational science.

 

Economics is not real science it is pseudo science.

 

Lionel Robbins, biography, from the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics

Robbins' most famous book was An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, one of the best-written prose pieces in economics. That book contains three main thoughts. First is Robbins' famous all-encompassing definition of economics that is still used to define the subject today: "Economics is the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between given ends and scarce means which have alternative uses."...

http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/College/iseconomicsascience.html

And

A Little History: Primary Sources and References

Economics is sometimes called catallarchy or catallactics, meaning the science of exchanges. Where did this term first come from? Lecture I, Introductory Lectures on Political Economy, by Richard Whately.

It is with a view to put you on your guard against prejudices thus created, (and you will meet probably with many instances of persons influenced by them,) that I have stated my objections to the name of Political-Economy. It is now, I conceive, too late to think of changing it. A. Smith, indeed, has designated his work a treatise on the "Wealth of Nations;" but this supplies a name only for the subject-matter, not for the science itself. The name I should have preferred as the most descriptive, and on the whole least objectionable, is that of CATALLACTICS, or the "Science of Exchanges."...

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/robert-j--shilleron-whether-he-is-a-scientist

The link above is a great article written by the winner of the Nobel Prize for Economic Science called,

Is Economics a Science?

 

Economics is not science.

 

All your hard work in finding that article was unnecessary. Economics is not a NATURAL science which is what conservatives love to ignore here and there.

 

I agree that Economics is a science but that is a side issue to the discussion of how health care works with economics. Classic economics doesn't apply to health care because of the nature of health care. For example if you are having a heart attack you can't just shop around hospitals for the best price of cardiac care. At the same time deregulating drugs might reduce the cost of drugs but it also ignores the dangers of having a lot of unregulated drugs on the market might do overall health care costs. For example if people are taking unregulated cancer drugs since the efficacy of those drugs hasn't been regulated a lot of people taking those drugs will end up having their cancer worsen. It is much more difficult and expensive to treat cancer in the later stages so the end result is that while the costs of drugs is lower the overall costs of providing health care increases.

 

Yup, the invisible hand theory doesn't apply well in health care.

 

Just heard on the radio that Minnesota is not going to allow those whose insurance plans were cancelled to keep them another year. According to Gov. Mark Dayton, who has been a very big supporter of the ACA, doing so is unworkable in in MN and would cause too much chaos.

 

It's because Obama didn't foresee the backlash that would happen when he lied. He never went to the insurance companies before he offered his fix and now it is nearly impossible for insurance companies to make things available before the Mid December deadline to sign up or be fined.