.

[Spendulus]

...

You are misunderstanding me lobbying is present tense and current, they've succeeded yes but they still need to keep lobbying in order to maintain the monopoly on car insurance

My point is there are groups in our country as well as yours who keep flowing money into government to make sure that they control certain sectors of the economy and all that varies is which ones have successfully come under the control of special interests. They will use all kinds of bullshit arguments to try and scare everyone into thinking they need all of this.

...There's a heavy, and fairly successful lobbying and propaganda campaign in the US to convince people that ordering prescription drugs from outside the US is "scary and risky".

Maybe just one in ten people do it.  Maybe fewer than that.

[Lethn]

You seem to get my point though much of the so called 'mainstream' ideologies and beliefs our societies have are motivated by a few people wanting a monopoly to make easy money, you dig through many mainstream groups you'll find it out easily, they don't even really try to hide it.

[BitDreams]

Just imagine what it would be like if Obamacare & the Insurance & Medical Industry were ruled by Bitcoin?

Why the hospital would be running their diesel backups 24/7 mining... but seriously.

What could bitcoin do to solve the insurance exchange fiasco? What would have been different if 1 billion dollars were given for development to the bitcoin programmers, miners, investors?

Couldn't bitcoin own and transfer my medical records? Lose them? No problem, I know right where they are.

Wouldn't bitcoin regulated insurance industry eliminate ALL of the bezzle while rewarding true agents maintaining the system?

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=225320

Some of the information comes in the comments as I responded to people's questions, but most of it is directly in the essay.

Total costs of uncompensated care in 2011: $41 billion. Making everyone insured would only have a $41 billion impact, versus about a $2,700 billion total. "Oh, we're only charging you more to cover someone who couldn't pay" is a lame excuse for the racketeering they're pulling off. (Doctors are completely ignorant about it -- they don't usually know how much they're charging).

Upper bound on health care litigation: ~$20 billion at its peak, and it has been trending down for years. Cost of defensive medicine, ~$200 billion. Some say that tort reform will save us all the defensive medicine, but they forget that doctors and hospitals are profiting off the defensive medicine and it's not going to stop just because they won't get sued anymore. So tort reform will only realistically save a few billion, at the cost of losing whatever small degree of accountability the system has.

Total costs of pharmaceuticals: ~$250 billion. Price differential between here and the rest of the world: ~2:1. The problem isn't to be found exclusively there.

Difference between maximum and minimum charges for an identical common procedure (in this case, appendectomy): ~$180,000.
Difference between maximum and median charge: ~$140,000
Difference between median and minimum charge: ~$35,000.
Minimum charge: ~$3,000.
(numbers extracted from graph).

Common hospital markups for various drugs: ~%4,000.

Conclusion: racketeering.

Bitcoin efficiency, structure enhancements, regulation potential unlimited. "There's a bitcoin for that."

[Kluge]

...

You are misunderstanding me lobbying is present tense and current, they've succeeded yes but they still need to keep lobbying in order to maintain the monopoly on car insurance

My point is there are groups in our country as well as yours who keep flowing money into government to make sure that they control certain sectors of the economy and all that varies is which ones have successfully come under the control of special interests. They will use all kinds of bullshit arguments to try and scare everyone into thinking they need all of this.

...There's a heavy, and fairly successful lobbying and propaganda campaign in the US to convince people that ordering prescription drugs from outside the US is "scary and risky".

Maybe just one in ten people do it.  Maybe fewer than that.

Canada? I just go to the pet store.

[Spendulus]

....There's a heavy, and fairly successful lobbying and propaganda campaign in the US to convince people that ordering prescription drugs from outside the US is "scary and risky".

Maybe just one in ten people do it.  Maybe fewer than that.

Canada? I just go to the pet store.

Now that would be some Viagra.

[Spendulus]

Just imagine what it would be like if Obamacare & the Insurance & Medical Industry were ruled by Bitcoin?

Why the hospital would be running their diesel backups 24/7 mining... but seriously.

What could bitcoin do to solve the insurance exchange fiasco? What would have been different if 1 billion dollars were given for development to the bitcoin programmers, miners, investors?

Couldn't bitcoin own and transfer my medical records? Lose them? No problem, I know right where they are.

Wouldn't bitcoin regulated insurance industry eliminate ALL of the bezzle while rewarding true agents maintaining the system?

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=225320

Some of the information comes in the comments as I responded to people's questions, but most of it is directly in the essay.

Total costs of uncompensated care in 2011: $41 billion. Making everyone insured would only have a $41 billion impact, versus about a $2,700 billion total. "Oh, we're only charging you more to cover someone who couldn't pay" is a lame excuse for the racketeering they're pulling off. (Doctors are completely ignorant about it -- they don't usually know how much they're charging).

Upper bound on health care litigation: ~$20 billion at its peak, and it has been trending down for years. Cost of defensive medicine, ~$200 billion. Some say that tort reform will save us all the defensive medicine, but they forget that doctors and hospitals are profiting off the defensive medicine and it's not going to stop just because they won't get sued anymore. So tort reform will only realistically save a few billion, at the cost of losing whatever small degree of accountability the system has.

Total costs of pharmaceuticals: ~$250 billion. Price differential between here and the rest of the world: ~2:1. The problem isn't to be found exclusively there.

Difference between maximum and minimum charges for an identical common procedure (in this case, appendectomy): ~$180,000.
Difference between maximum and median charge: ~$140,000
Difference between median and minimum charge: ~$35,000.
Minimum charge: ~$3,000.
(numbers extracted from graph).

Common hospital markups for various drugs: ~%4,000.

Conclusion: racketeering.

Bitcoin efficiency, structure enhancements, regulation potential unlimited. "There's a bitcoin for that."

Bitcoin doesn't imply or cause free or open markets.  A couple of things said in your quote are wrong:


Total costs of uncompensated care in 2011: $41 billion. Making everyone insured would only have a $41 billion impact, versus about a $2,700 billion total.

False, because the Mexican nationals going to the emergency rooms for free care would then go for the whole set of procedures which would be available.

Upper bound on health care litigation: ~$20 billion at its peak, and it has been trending down for years. Cost of defensive medicine, ~$200 billion. Some say that tort reform will save us all the defensive medicine, but they forget that doctors and hospitals are profiting off the defensive medicine and it's not going to stop just because they won't get sued anymore. So tort reform will only realistically save a few billion, at the cost of losing whatever small degree of accountability the system has.

Given the number of doctors I've heard express total outrage at having to order a battery of tests instead of the one they would prefer to, due to fear of litigation, this statement is simply false.  You're arguing that they have no integrity, that they would order the battery of tests just for the profit in it.  But in fact, they'd see three more patients instead of analyzing the results of that stupid battery of tests.

And this statement:

Couldn't bitcoin own and transfer my medical records? Lose them? No problem, I know right where they are.

...could better be stated as a public semi-anonymous database SIMILAR TO BITCOIN could be of great use for medical records storage, trumping all of the insurance, state and federal records.

[Spendulus]

You seem to get my point though much of the so called 'mainstream' ideologies and beliefs our societies have are motivated by a few people wanting a monopoly to make easy money, you dig through many mainstream groups you'll find it out easily, they don't even really try to hide it.

Yeah....so when we confront the economic reality behind my comment...

...There's a heavy, and fairly successful lobbying and propaganda campaign in the US to convince people that ordering prescription drugs from outside the US is "scary and risky".  Maybe just one in ten people do it.  Maybe fewer than that.

It's clear that a great savings in US health care cost could be achieved by educating people on ways to do their health care cheaper and better.

But nobody has been seriously performing that function.

[Wilikon]

... And Linux and Google Chrome Combined!

http://www.alexmarchant.com/blog/2013/10/22/healthcare-dot-gov-lines-of-code-comparison.html

[murraypaul]

This is a problem that is to do with humanity, not ideologies or anything else, we have a very similar problem within the UK where there are a few out there lobbying constantly against the government to force everyone to buy car insurance at ridiculous prices and they all do the usual arguments of how it would mean everyone would go around uninsured and no one would be able to afford repairs etc. it's all lies.

I must be misunderstanding you.
It is already a requirement in the UK to have car insurance if driving on public roads.

You are misunderstanding me lobbying is present tense and current, they've succeeded yes but they still need to keep lobbying in order to maintain the monopoly on car insurance

There are a large number of different insurance providers, so how can there be a monopoly?
And yes, you need to have third party insurance to drive on public roads, and a good thing too.

[MoonShadow]

http://benswann.com/mr-president-im-leaving-the-medical-field-hanging-up-the-white-coat-a-letter-to-president-obama/

This guy literally grew up in the maternatiy ward that delivered him, and he interned at that same hospital.  He just 'went Galt'.

[MoonShadow]

This is a problem that is to do with humanity, not ideologies or anything else, we have a very similar problem within the UK where there are a few out there lobbying constantly against the government to force everyone to buy car insurance at ridiculous prices and they all do the usual arguments of how it would mean everyone would go around uninsured and no one would be able to afford repairs etc. it's all lies.

I must be misunderstanding you.
It is already a requirement in the UK to have car insurance if driving on public roads.

You are misunderstanding me lobbying is present tense and current, they've succeeded yes but they still need to keep lobbying in order to maintain the monopoly on car insurance

, as they were in favor of
There are a large number of different insurance providers, so how can there be a monopoly?

While not technically a monopoly, it's definately government led collusion by regulatory capture.  The end result remains the same, no different than the Robber Barons of the US railroad industry colluding to inflate shipping prices.  The cabal benefits so long as no players undercut the cabal, which can't really happen when government is part of the cabal.

And yes, you need to have third party insurance to drive on public roads, and a good thing too.

Sure.  I need private insurance if I desire to drive on the public roads.  But driving is an earned privalige, not a right.  I have a right to life, and shouldn't have government telling me that I have to buy a particular product to continue to exercise that right to life.  The major insurance companies have long been for Obamacare as they were in favor of Hillarycare before it.  It's only the small & otherwise innovative insurance companies that were opposed.  Stop and ask yourself why this is.

[murraypaul]

This is a problem that is to do with humanity, not ideologies or anything else, we have a very similar problem within the UK where there are a few out there lobbying constantly against the government to force everyone to buy car insurance at ridiculous prices and they all do the usual arguments of how it would mean everyone would go around uninsured and no one would be able to afford repairs etc. it's all lies.

I must be misunderstanding you.
It is already a requirement in the UK to have car insurance if driving on public roads.

You are misunderstanding me lobbying is present tense and current, they've succeeded yes but they still need to keep lobbying in order to maintain the monopoly on car insurance

There are a large number of different insurance providers, so how can there be a monopoly?

While not technically a monopoly, it's definately government led collusion by regulatory capture.  The end result remains the same, no different than the Robber Barons of the US railroad industry colluding to inflate shipping prices.  The cabal benefits so long as no players undercut the cabal, which can't really happen when government is part of the cabal.

What does any of that have to do with the provision of driving insurance in the UK?

And yes, you need to have third party insurance to drive on public roads, and a good thing too.

Sure.  I need private insurance if I desire to drive on the public roads.  But driving is an earned privalige, not a right.  I have a right to life, and shouldn't have government telling me that I have to buy a particular product to continue to exercise that right to life.  The major insurance companies have long been for Obamacare as they were in favor of Hillarycare before it.  It's only the small & otherwise innovative insurance companies that were opposed.  Stop and ask yourself why this is.

This sub-thread is about needing insurance to drive on public roads, see the bolded bits of the message I responded to. Since you agree with that, what exactly are you arguing about?
It has nothing to do with US healthcare.

[MoonShadow]

This is a problem that is to do with humanity, not ideologies or anything else, we have a very similar problem within the UK where there are a few out there lobbying constantly against the government to force everyone to buy car insurance at ridiculous prices and they all do the usual arguments of how it would mean everyone would go around uninsured and no one would be able to afford repairs etc. it's all lies.

I must be misunderstanding you.
It is already a requirement in the UK to have car insurance if driving on public roads.

You are misunderstanding me lobbying is present tense and current, they've succeeded yes but they still need to keep lobbying in order to maintain the monopoly on car insurance

There are a large number of different insurance providers, so how can there be a monopoly?

While not technically a monopoly, it's definately government led collusion by regulatory capture.  The end result remains the same, no different than the Robber Barons of the US railroad industry colluding to inflate shipping prices.  The cabal benefits so long as no players undercut the cabal, which can't really happen when government is part of the cabal.

What does any of that have to do with the provision of driving insurance in the UK?

And yes, you need to have third party insurance to drive on public roads, and a good thing too.

Sure.  I need private insurance if I desire to drive on the public roads.  But driving is an earned privalige, not a right.  I have a right to life, and shouldn't have government telling me that I have to buy a particular product to continue to exercise that right to life.  The major insurance companies have long been for Obamacare as they were in favor of Hillarycare before it.  It's only the small & otherwise innovative insurance companies that were opposed.  Stop and ask yourself why this is.

This sub-thread is about needing insurance to drive on public roads, see the bolded bits of the message I responded to. Since you agree with that, what exactly are you arguing about?
It has nothing to do with US healthcare.

Oh, but it does.  You just don't see where it's going yet, apparently.  No matter; carry on and you'll get there with the rest of the short bus.

[Spendulus]

........
This sub-thread is about needing insurance to drive on public roads, see the bolded bits of the message I responded to. Since you agree with that, what exactly are you arguing about?
It has nothing to do with US healthcare.

Oh, but it does.  You just don't see where it's going yet, apparently.  No matter; carry on and you'll get there with the rest of the short bus.

Why, down here in the US where I live - close to our fine Southern border -about 30% of the cars on the road don't have insurance.

Neither have they are are they going to pay into healthcare.

[Wilikon]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/dummy-data-file-on-healthcare.gov-offers-star-wars-transformers-characters/article/2537798


The file includes the names "Han Solo," "Chewbacca Wookie," and "Leia Organa" as well as "Optimus Smith" and "Prime Smith."
The file also features coding to upload a "Permanent Resident Card" PDF file for Marvel comic book character Wanda Maximoff a.k.a. Scarlet Witch) and data for Steve Rogers (a.k.a. Captain America.)

Another part of the code features "Maleficent Insurance" featuring a plan name of "Really Bad."

An address within the code points to a "Laserwash" car wash in Harker Heights, Texas.

It appears that there is nothing malicious with the code, just the product of a bored developer with an imagination.

The file was pointed out by a Reddit user who marveled at the size of the 186k element that was released on the site.

A close examination of the code revealed the fictional characters names within the file.

[Spendulus]

....

I'd almost prefer a single payer system myself, over this BS, and that is probably the point of it all.

......some HUGE taking of cash is involved in this....


"Before I had a plan that I had a $1,500 deductible," she said. "I paid $199 dollars a month. The most similar plan that I would have available to me would be $278 a month. My deductible would be $6,500 dollars, and all of my care after that point would only be covered 70 percent."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57609224/arrival-of-obamacare-forcing-insurers-to-drop-customers-with-low-coverage/

[Wilikon]

http://www.irs.gov/irb/2010-29_IRB/ar08.html#d0e479

[...]
Reliable data are scant, but a variety of studies indicate that between 40 percent and 67 percent of policies are in effect for less than one year. Although data on changes in benefit packages comparable to that for the group market is not readily available, the high turnover rates described here would dominate benefit changes as the chief source of changes in grandfather status.

[Spendulus]

http://www.irs.gov/irb/2010-29_IRB/ar08.html#d0e479

[...]
Reliable data are scant, but a variety of studies indicate that between 40 percent and 67 percent of policies are in effect for less than one year. Although data on changes in benefit packages comparable to that for the group market is not readily available, the high turnover rates described here would dominate benefit changes as the chief source of changes in grandfather status.

Abundant data exists that....

Obama lied, and the health plans died.

[Wilikon]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/sebelius-blame-contractors-for-obamacare-site-20131029

week after the contractors who built HealthCare.gov blamed the Obama administration for the site’s failures, the administration is shifting the blame right back.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will tell a House committee tomorrow the site’s botched rollout was the result of contractors failing to live up to expectations – not bad management at HHS, as the contractors suggested.

“CMS has a track record of successfully overseeing the many contractors our programs depend on to function. Unfortunately, a subset of those contracts for HealthCare.gov have not met expectations,” Sebelius said in prepared testimony for tomorrow’s hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee.

The site’s contractors have blamed HealthCare.gov’s problems on CMS – the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which handled the Obamacare implementation effort within HHS. Testifying before the same committee last week, contractors faulted CMS for design changes that made the site harder to use.

[Wilikon]

http://youtu.be/QHWEUPOFO8M