04 Sep 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraTo add to what you are saying, you can also design econometric models to control for the different "factors" in other economies to get some sense of what matters for reform. Also structural economic models, as much as some like to knock them, allow you to run counterfactual scenarios so you could experiment with different reforms. The believability of the results from these structural models would depend in part on how well they coincided with the "factor" models in terms of capturing the relatively important features of the world. That could be a tall order given the current state of computer technology.
You can look at a very large number of countries and see what more successful systems have in common. If you do this, you will see that there are completely universal health care systems, single payer health care systems, countries with universal health care which allow private parties to offer health care and semi-privatized systems with mandatory insu ...[text shortened]... ke any system. But at least every Canadian gets fairly good health care at a much lower price.
04 Sep 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI want better than "fairly good" health care. What empircal evidence do you have to show that universal health care will work in the U.S., and that it can be effectivly (and fairly) paid for. I mean do you think it's right for the democrats to take half a trilion dollars from medicaid so they can provide health care to younger, and healthier, people that just happen to not have health coverage at this moment in time?
You can look at a very large number of countries and see what more successful systems have in common. If you do this, you will see that there are completely universal health care systems, single payer health care systems, countries with universal health care which allow private parties to offer health care and semi-privatized systems with mandatory insu ...[text shortened]... ke any system. But at least every Canadian gets fairly good health care at a much lower price.
04 Sep 09
Originally posted by spruce112358Krugman's description of the state of macro is cartoonish and innacurate. He focus on a few "characters" (some known for their quirky personalities) and extrapolates for the whole profession.
Krugman published an interesting piece called "How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?" recently:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html
04 Sep 09
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenI have no reason to believe human nature of Americans is radically different from that of all other people on the world.
I want better than "fairly good" health care. What empircal evidence do you have to show that universal health care will work in the U.S., and that it can be effectivly (and fairly) paid for. I mean do you think it's right for the democrats to take half a trilion dollars from medicaid so they can provide health care to younger, and healthier, people that just happen to not have health coverage at this moment in time?
Every single universal health care scheme in the world is cheaper than US health care, so if it's effectively implemented in the US it would mean people would have to pay less for it than they do now.
04 Sep 09
it would be great if right now we were objectively examining healthcare plans currently being used in a wide variety of other countries, and assessing their various strengths and weaknesses. There's a great deal we could learn from this.
The problem is that instead of objectively examining another country's plan, we usually just look for the worst possible aspect and focus only on that one thing. So we end up totally dismissing what might be a great plan because it has a drawback like making people wait a bit longer in the doctor's office. Or even worse, we pick through the millions of people under that plan until we find a Scary Case and use that one Scary Case to dismiss the whole plan.
It's like we could cite a particular instances in which there was a horrible plane crash and then argue that we shouldn't have air travel.
04 Sep 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesUnfortunately, that's basically how people perceive politics.
it would be great if right now we were objectively examining healthcare plans currently being used in a wide variety of other countries, and assessing their various strengths and weaknesses. There's a great deal we could learn from this.
The problem is that instead of objectively examining another country's plan, we usually just look for the worst poss ...[text shortened]... in which there was a horrible plane crash and then argue that we shouldn't have air travel.
04 Sep 09
Originally posted by PalynkaI mean that depending upon how many important agents decision problems must be solved, the number aggregate conditons that must be satisfied, and "well-behavedness" of the system. For instance any reasonable model of healthcate has to have heterogeneity among ageyns in at least one dimension (possibly more). So the number of agents could be large. Are things basically linear? If not, is second-order approximation sufficient? If not, how parsimoniously can we approximate the decision rules? Having worked quite a bit with heterogeneous agent models in incomplete markets environments, I've come to appreciate the limitations imposed by the curse of dimensionality and nonlinear decision problems.
Mmm... What do you mean?
04 Sep 09
Originally posted by PalynkaIndeed. I was just looking at his piece this morning.
Krugman's description of the state of macro is cartoonish and innacurate. He focus on a few "characters" (some known for their quirky personalities) and extrapolates for the whole profession.
Stick to international econ, Krugman. That's what you got the Prize for after all.
04 Sep 09
Originally posted by telerionSure, but in cases like this, I always wonder how many dimensions a supercomputer like Roadrunner (capable of 1.7 Petaflops!) could tackle.
I mean that depending upon how many important agents decision problems must be solved, the number aggregate conditons that must be satisfied, and "well-behavedness" of the system. For instance any reasonable model of healthcate has to have heterogeneity among ageyns in at least one dimension (possibly more). So the number of agents could be large. Are th ...[text shortened]... ciate the limitations imposed by the curse of dimensionality and nonlinear decision problems.
For example, I was yesterday looking at an incomplete markets heterogeneous agents model from Iacoviello and Pavan and they already have three main dimensions of ex-ante heterogeneity (age, realized productivity and discount rate) and two additional dimensions in ex-post heterogeneity (housing and non-housing wealth). I don't know in which machine they ran it, but still, it must be a far cry away from the Roadrunner.
If only we had access to it... 🙂
04 Sep 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't think it is the nature of Americans that is different I believe it is the system we live in. Perhaps medicals cost are more expensive because of diet or torts or we quality of care or amount of things covered or the method we use to decide what is covered or the number of ailments or the amount and timing of when we visit doctors. Only some of these things would be fixed in any tort reform. So even if you decided that you wanted someone elses system, you won't get the same result because you aren't the same group.
I have no reason to believe human nature of Americans is radically different from that of all other people on the world.
Every single universal health care scheme in the world is cheaper than US health care, so if it's effectively implemented in the US it would mean people would have to pay less for it than they do now.
04 Sep 09
Originally posted by quackquackTort law and diet obviously do play a role, but that alone will not explain why Americans pay double compared to most other industrialized nations.
I don't think it is the nature of Americans that is different I believe it is the system we live in. Perhaps medicals cost are more expensive because of diet or torts or we quality of care or amount of things covered or the method we use to decide what is covered or the number of ailments or the amount and timing of when we visit doctors. Only some of ...[text shortened]... wanted someone elses system, you won't get the same result because you aren't the same group.
04 Sep 09
Originally posted by Palynka"For example, I was yesterday looking at an incomplete markets heterogeneous agents model from Iacoviello and Pavan and they already have three main dimensions of ex-ante heterogeneity (age, realized productivity and discount rate) and two additional dimensions in ex-post heterogeneity (housing and non-housing wealth). I don't know in which machine they ran it, but still, it must be a far cry away from the Roadrunner.
Sure, but in cases like this, I always wonder how many dimensions a supercomputer like Roadrunner (capable of 1.7 Petaflops!) could tackle.
For example, I was yesterday looking at an incomplete markets heterogeneous agents model from Iacoviello and Pavan and they already have three main dimensions of ex-ante heterogeneity (age, realized productivity and d ...[text shortened]... but still, it must be a far cry away from the Roadrunner.
If only we had access to it... 🙂
Yesterday i had a large Dairy Queen soft ice cream cone....chocolate.
GRANNY.
04 Sep 09
Originally posted by smw6869Was it any good?
"For example, I was yesterday looking at an incomplete markets heterogeneous agents model from Iacoviello and Pavan and they already have three main dimensions of ex-ante heterogeneity (age, realized productivity and discount rate) and two additional dimensions in ex-post heterogeneity (housing and non-housing wealth). I don't know in which machine they ran ...[text shortened]... adrunner.
Yesterday i had a large Dairy Queen soft ice cream cone....chocolate.
GRANNY.
04 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI'd have to look at their specific model, but dimension itself doesn't have to be the limiting problem if the policy function can be well-approximated by only a few grid points in any dimension. After all if everything is linear even 2^20 is peanuts on a computer.
Sure, but in cases like this, I always wonder how many dimensions a supercomputer like Roadrunner (capable of 1.7 Petaflops!) could tackle.
For example, I was yesterday looking at an incomplete markets heterogeneous agents model from Iacoviello and Pavan and they already have three main dimensions of ex-ante heterogeneity (age, realized productivity and d but still, it must be a far cry away from the Roadrunner.
If only we had access to it... 🙂
My job market paper had quite a few dimensions in the value function and policy rules: type, wealth, aggregate wealth, today's tax parameter, government revenue, and tomorrow's tax parameter. Despite having no uncertainty in the model, I solved it in Krusell-Smith sort of manner. While it was a big computational problem for my desktop, the only very costly dimension was personal wealth because their a lot of curvature in the value function near the borrowing limit (since consumption gets really low for some agents). The other dimensions only needed between 4 and 6 points to approximate well (where as personal wealth needed something like 500 smartly chosen gridpoints).