What exactly is your solution to Corrupt and Incompetent Government.

Not some Theory. But a real and practical solution.

Told you, a super computer. Otherwise, there isn't a solution. Its just a choice between a corrupt and incompetent government, but which is accountable to the people, or a corrupt and incompetent private business, but which is only accountable to the board and shareholders and who has an incentive to screw customers over as much as possible.

<smirk>
Heh... a super-computer...

Ever read 'Colossus'(1966), 'The Fall of Colossus'(1974), and 'Colossus and The Crab'(1977), by D.F. Jones?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_%28novel%29

Putting super-computers in charge of things can be... hazardous.
</smirk>

A super-computer does not build itself. Who builds it? On what budget? Is it up for lowest-bidder contract? If not, under what criteria is it assigned?

A super-computer is not sentient. It must be programmed. Who decides how? Who actually gets to do it?

A super-computer is subject to hardware failure. How many will die before the failure is corrected?

Programs are full of bugs. How many will die before a bug is found and fixed? Who gets to fix it? On what time-table?

Well, for it to be a real & practical solution, you are going to need a LOT more details.

And about all of these provisions to control costs will either damage the economy ('where did our jobs go?'), or limit care to entire classes of people ('I thought this was supposed to be a UNIVERSAL system, what do you mean that it won't pay for this? I have paid my taxes for YEARS, and this is the way you treat me?')...

1st big step would be tort reform. As Shakespere said and I have repeated several times "1st we kill ALL the lawyers...."

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Tax them and let that money go to healtcare:)

I wonder why the US let those companies cashing in.
On the other hand US people doesn't seem to care.
Only 235,248 voted in the last election.

Which election would that be? The last 'national' general election in the USA was the 2014 'midterm'.

Sorry MajorKong:) I'm getting old.
It was 235,248 thousand that voted in 2012 with a turnout of 54.9%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

Umm... no. Per that Wikipedia article that was a voting age population (VAP) of 235,248,000. There were 129,235,000 people voting in that election, for a turnout of 54.9% (as you said).

Per the data source I quoted, found here on another page on that site:

http://www.electproject.org/2012g

The Voting-Age Population (VAP) was 240,257,993.
The Voting-Eligable Population (VEP) was 222,381,268. (not everyone of voting age in the USA can vote. Non-citizens, and convicted felons can not.
130,292,355 total ballots were counted, making the VEP turnout 58.6%.

Still, over half the people voted, no matter whose data-set you look at or which counting method used.

That is hardly a LOW turnout.

Tax them and let that money go to healtcare:)

I wonder why the US let those companies cashing in.
On the other hand US people doesn't seem to care.
Only 235,248 voted in the last election.

Which election would that be? The last 'national' general election in the USA was the 2014 'midterm'.

Sorry MajorKong:) I'm getting old.
It was 235,248 thousand that voted in 2012 with a turnout of 54.9%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

Umm... no. Per that Wikipedia article that was a voting age population (VAP) of 235,248,000. There were 129,235,000 people voting in that election, for a turnout of 54.9% (as you said).

Per the data source I quoted, found here on another page on that site:

http://www.electproject.org/2012g

The Voting-Age Population (VAP) was 240,257,993.
The Voting-Eligable Population (VEP) was 222,381,268. (not everyone of voting age in the USA can vote. Non-citizens, and convicted felons can not.
130,292,355 total ballots were counted, making the VEP turnout 58.6%.

Still, over half the people voted, no matter whose data-set you look at or which counting method used.

That is hardly a LOW turnout.

235,248 thousand

(Emphasis added.)

And about all of these provisions to control costs will either damage the economy ('where did our jobs go?'), or limit care to entire classes of people ('I thought this was supposed to be a UNIVERSAL system, what do you mean that it won't pay for this? I have paid my taxes for YEARS, and this is the way you treat me?')...

1st big step would be tort reform. As Shakespere said and I have repeated several times "1st we kill ALL the lawyers...."

Amen to that.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

And about all of these provisions to control costs will either damage the economy ('where did our jobs go?'), or limit care to entire classes of people ('I thought this was supposed to be a UNIVERSAL system, what do you mean that it won't pay for this? I have paid my taxes for YEARS, and this is the way you treat me?')...

1st big step would be tort reform. As Shakespere said and I have repeated several times "1st we kill ALL the lawyers...."

LOLOL...

Your statement is tantamount to revolution, since the great majority of elected government officials ARE lawyers.

While it might make for entertaining fantasy, it is a bit... harsh... to be considered in reality... unless, of course, things get an AWFUL LOT WORSE.

I agree that tort reform is needed (badly). But let us keep trying for it at the ballot box, shall we?

Hansen: Recall the lessons of Adam Smith, the father of modern economics. "In competition …"
Everybody: "… individual ambition serves the common good."
John: [after thinking] Adam Smith needs revision.
Hansen: What are you talking about?
John: Adam Smith said the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself. Right? That's what he said, right?
Hansen: Right.
John: Incomplete. Incomplete, okay? Because the best result will come from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself … and the group.
Hansen: Nash, if this is some way for you to get the blonde on your own, you can go to hell.
John: Governing dynamics, gentlemen. Governing dynamics. Adam Smith...he was wrong.

How close was what Nash said in the movie to what he really did and proved?
Does this apply to the current topic?

I can read, Sarge. I saw his word 'thousand'. But, as I said, that figure is the VAP, not the number of voters in the election. That is what I was responding to.

I can read, Sarge. I saw his word 'thousand'. But, as I said, that figure is the VAP, not the number of voters in the election. That is what I was responding to.

I know you can read.
We can all overlook something, though.

(Emphasis added.)

And, as usual, irrelevant to the conversation.

LOLOL...

Your statement is tantamount to revolution, since the great majority of elected government officials ARE lawyers.

While it might make for entertaining fantasy, it is a bit... harsh... to be considered in reality... unless, of course, things get an AWFUL LOT WORSE.

I agree that tort reform is needed (badly). But let us keep trying for it at the ballot box, shall we?

I'm willing to settle for neutering. Seriously they do need to be made a non-entity in healthcare. Junk lawsuits are a major cause of increasing costs.

Step 1 Cap all 'pain and suffering' awards at $1 million with attorney fees limited by law to 5% of the award. They would desert the ship like drowning rats.

Step 2 would be to re-instate the ban on television advertising by attorneys.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Hansen: Recall the lessons of Adam Smith, the father of modern economics. "In competition …"
Everybody: "… individual ambition serves the common good."
John: [after thinking] Adam Smith needs revision.
Hansen: What are you talking about?
John: Adam Smith said the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself. Right? That's what he said, right?
Hansen: Right.
John: Incomplete. Incomplete, okay? Because the best result will come from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself … and the group.
Hansen: Nash, if this is some way for you to get the blonde on your own, you can go to hell.
John: Governing dynamics, gentlemen. Governing dynamics. Adam Smith...he was wrong.

How close was what Nash said in the movie to what he really did and proved?
Does this apply to the current topic?

Yes. In a way.

In regards to that $750/pill story, as an example...

In competition, individual ambition serves the common group. Absolutely.

The individual ambition: make some money.
The drug: pyrimethamine.

It has been noted that the cost for making it was about $1/pill.
It sold for $13.50/pill BEFORE the hedge-funder bought the rights to the name brand medication and raised the selling price to $750/pill.

Someone wants to make some more money? Buy or build a drug factory. Start cranking out pyrimethamine (and a number of other generics in similar situations). Sell them for, oh, I dunno... 3x or 4x cost.

So, 3 or 4 dollars a pill. Much LESS than the price for the pill BEFORE the hedge-funder bought into it. Still a nice profit.

Individual ambition DOES serve the common good.

<smirk>
Heh... a super-computer...

Ever read 'Colossus'(1966), 'The Fall of Colossus'(1974), and 'Colossus and The Crab'(1977), by D.F. Jones?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_%28novel%29

Putting super-computers in charge of things can be... hazardous.
</smirk>

And seen the Matrix and watched the Terminator movies (first few anyways). Yes, robots and computers make for excellent villains in fiction.

A super-computer does not build itself. Who builds it? On what budget? Is it up for lowest-bidder contract? If not, under what criteria is it assigned?

A super-computer is not sentient. It must be programmed. Who decides how? Who actually gets to do it?

A super-computer is subject to hardware failure. How many will die before the failure is corrected?

Programs are full of bugs. How many will die before a bug is found and fixed? Who gets to fix it? On what time-table?

Well, for it to be a real & practical solution, you are going to need a LOT more details.

The same problems apply when you let humans do the work instead of the computer (well, except the question of who builds the computer). But consider this, people must follow rules on who they give medical care and who they don't. Who decides those rules? And who decides on who decides who get to make those rules? And what kind of people will be put in charge of interpreting those rules?

Humans are also prone to failure. Either they misread, misplace, misfile something, and how long will it take before the grinding gears of a bureaucracy notice its mistakes, and when it does will it endeavor to correct them, or will it display the all to human reaction of doubling down and pretending no mistakes were made?

As pointed out, the current work is done by humans, and humans are flawed, which is why the organizations tasked with doing this job display some degree of corruption, inefficiency and incompetence. No matter what organization gets to do this job and no matter under what system, this will ALWAYS be the case. The question was how to avoid this, and in my opinion, the only way to solve this problem is to stop letting humans do the work.

Still, over half the people voted, no matter whose data-set you look at or which counting method used.
That is hardly a LOW turnout.

Comparing Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries with US voters.
At the last election chose six of seven Swedish voters (84.6 percent) to use their vote!

P.S. In the North Korea its 99.99%:)

(Emphasis added.)

And, as usual, irrelevant to the conversation.

LOLOL...

Get your act together.
If Kong had missed something, or the person he responded to had, it is relevant.
And Kong has made a long response to a relevant question I asked.

Hansen: Recall the lessons of Adam Smith, the father of modern economics. "In competition …"
Everybody: "… individual ambition serves the common good."
John: [after thinking] Adam Smith needs revision.
Hansen: What are you talking about?
John: Adam Smith said the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself. Right? That's what he said, right?
Hansen: Right.
John: Incomplete. Incomplete, okay? Because the best result will come from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself … and the group.
Hansen: Nash, if this is some way for you to get the blonde on your own, you can go to hell.
John: Governing dynamics, gentlemen. Governing dynamics. Adam Smith...he was wrong.

How close was what Nash said in the movie to what he really did and proved?
Does this apply to the current topic?

Yes. In a way.

In regards to that $750/pill story, as an example...

In competition, individual ambition serves the common group. Absolutely.

The individual ambition: make some money.
The drug: pyrimethamine.

It has been noted that the cost for making it was about $1/pill.
It sold for $13.50/pill BEFORE the hedge-funder bought the rights to the name brand medication and raised the selling price to $750/pill.

Someone wants to make some more money? Buy or build a drug factory. Start cranking out pyrimethamine (and a number of other generics in similar situations). Sell them for, oh, I dunno... 3x or 4x cost.

So, 3 or 4 dollars a pill. Much LESS than the price for the pill BEFORE the hedge-funder bought into it. Still a nice profit.

Individual ambition DOES serve the common good.

Not a denial or a confirmation, but a follow up. Is not the hedge funder also flexing his or her individual ambition?

Or, are you saying, those that sold it for only 3 to 4 times the cost were an example of those following Nash's idea?

More on the differences drugs cost in various countries.

UK NHS cancer patients denied drugs due to inflated prices – experts

Told you, a super computer. Otherwise, there isn't a solution. Its just a choice between a corrupt and incompetent government, but which is accountable to the people, or a corrupt and incompetent private business, but which is only accountable to the board and shareholders and who has an incentive to screw customers over as much as possible.

A Computer?

Who decides what Programs are installed? Who decides what Operating System to use? Who decides what this Computer allows or disallows? Who oversees this Computer's Decisions? Who can overrule this Computer's Decisions? Who Programs this Computer regarding which Medicines? Etc., etc., etc.

The Corrupt (Paid-off my Big Medicine and Pharm), Incompetent Politicians?

If Expert Doctors and Programmers are to make these decisions. In either Programming or Overruling this Super Computer: Who decides which Doctors and Programmers?

The Corrupt Government Politicians?

Who else has the Power and Authority to make these decisions, and which personnel are to be involved?

Мишель...

This is your solution?

Again, you run into similar problems when letting people make the rules. Your argument was that people can't be trusted, because they either work for a corrupt government which is inefficient and incompetent, or they work for an even more corrupt private insurance company which is equally inefficient and incompetent as the government. If the problem is people, then logically the solution is to remove people from the process as much as possible. And thats where computers come in.

Is it so weird? Think about it, a lot of things insurance companies used to do by using people have already been taken over by computers, the same goes for the government, computers have taken over a lot of the jobs that used to be done by people. Its called automatization and its possibly the longest ongoing process in human history. Letting a computer take over the entire process is just the next step in this process.

With a computer you can just make it so it follows the existing rules to the letter, the rules itself are made up by whoever makes up the rules today or who would make up the rules under whatever system. Nobody overrules the computer because overruling the computer would mean breaking your own rules, which is exactly the problem you were trying to fix (corruption, incompetence and inefficiency). Who programs the computer? Well I would hope that job goes to some software engineering company.

Does it completely remove the human problem out of the process? No, but it does lessen their influence to a minimal degree and thats probably the best you are going to get until the singularity hits. After that, you can let an AI develop the computer that does this, but I have a feeling that by that time we no longer need health insurance.

What exactly is your solution to Corrupt and Incompetent Government.

Not some Theory. But a real and practical solution.

Told you, a super computer. Otherwise, there isn't a solution. Its just a choice between a corrupt and incompetent government, but which is accountable to the people, or a corrupt and incompetent private business, but which is only accountable to the board and shareholders and who has an incentive to screw customers over as much as possible.

u mean something like this:
http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ibmwatson/health/
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Again, you run into similar problems when letting people make the rules. Your argument was that people can't be trusted, because they either work for a corrupt government which is inefficient and incompetent, or they work for an even more corrupt private insurance company which is equally inefficient and incompetent as the government. If the problem is people, then logically the solution is to remove people from the process as much as possible. And thats where computers come in.

There is a nice book out there called Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs. Perhaps you need to understand the book title before you begin to say that computers are some panacea. Or perhaps have a little conversation with one. I suspect several here would find such a chat more stimulating that the people who inhabit Seti Politics!

---