skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Theoretically, it could produce competition between the insurance companies. Sure, you have to buy insurance from someone, but do you want to buy it from the company which has more doctors close to where you live, or the one which pays for PSA blood tests? Maybe one company only pays for you to visit your GP when you're sick, while another decides that they can save money by encouraging you to get regular checkups and catch problems before they become more serious.

I don't know if this sort of story actually plays out -- I live in a country where the only way to get better health care is to move to a different province -- but it doesn't seem completely implausible.
> Capitalism is only possible where knowledge is shared unequally.

Not true! If everyone had access to a magical worldwide pool of all the economically relevant information that exists in the mind of any member of the human race (along with a search engine or something to let us index and query the data for effective use), there would probably be more trade, not less -- it would be easier to identify opportunities and connect buyers and sellers. The Internet did this, to a first approximation -- there are all kinds of niche products you can buy on the Internet.

> For example, if many people knew how to obtain the proper license or whatever and where to go to buy wholesale, then they would bypass retailers entirely.

Sam's Club, eBay, Newegg, overstock.com -- there are lots of ways for ordinary people to avoid paying retail. Many people do frequent these websites; retail is dying.

> Similarly, if many people had knowledge about how to start a business and knew several friendly venture capitalists or bank officers, many of them would start their own businesses and there would be few people to do the actual work.

For the first 100+ years of America's existence as an independent country, most Americans were small businesspeople -- farmers, mostly. The notion that working for someone else is the norm, and having your own business is the exception, only happened with the Industrial Revolution, when new technology shifted the economy toward businesses that required lots of workers and capital.

Since the Internet/software world is one of the major growth areas of the economy, and doesn't require any capital investment beyond a computer, an Internet connection, and (rather optional) formal training in the field, we're seeing that many people are choosing to start small businesses as individuals or small teams with minimal capital.
> Not true, in the slightest

Your opinion differs from the field of economics where they actually study this sort of thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#General

> Inflation benefits those with income producing assets, like rental property

Huh? The value of an asset is determined by what it produces in the future, both actual income and utility. Inflation adds risks to that - for example for the income to remain constant, the rental prices charged have to go up by the rate of inflation each year which people hate. Inflation introduces volatility in the face value of money which makes things riskier (eg loans to buy/build the rental property have to take that into account).

> Inflation is a trick to make the rich richer. All the evidence points that way.

Inflation devalues savings which is what the rich have and the poor don't have. If you could produce any of this evidence (let alone "all the evidence") you'd completely revolutionize economics. (Or you could be wrong.)

> You pay 40%+ in income taxes right now

No. You pay it once at the point you earn it. With your scheme you keep paying the taxes over time. The longer you save it the more goes away in taxes.
What is your legal status in Denmark, and how did you achieve it? Are you a "resident alien" or an immigrant or what? What restrictions/hoops did you have to jump to get permanent residence status? What did it cost?
Matches and Recommendations
The BC government doesn't pay for my insulin.

As a type 1 diabetic... yeah, I'd say it is medically required.
I realized what I want more is getting the favor granted, not (just) making it easier to ask for the favor.

There are issues related to expertise and power I don't have clear thoughts on yet.

The idea of searching for people that can grant a favor is helpful to think about, thanks. It can work when one does not necessarily need an expert.
Pushover support. Notifo is basically the same thing, but Pushover supports all platforms while Notifo has been "in development" with their other platforms for the last several months.

https://pushover.net/
If he's still in the hospital and thinks the bill is $23K he's got a surprise coming. The bills will keep coming for months. Many items may be billed multiple times. Writer is going to have to invest several man-weeks in dealing with this, minimum.

I talked to a friend of mine who received some treatment recently. He made sure the hospital was "in network", but apparently someone who came in to give a shot was "out of network" - personally, for herself only - so he received a huge out of network bill for the services of one nurse in giving one shot. He asked the insurer if he was supposed to quiz each medical person in the hospital about whether they were in a particular insurance network before allowing them to provide treatment. The insurer's answer was "yes", with no irony.
Some kind of organization is going to perform the task of paying money for medical bills: figuring out which medical bills to pay and trying to get lower prices. It can be part of the state or it can a separate corporation; both kinds have historically shown the capacity to waste money.

"Middle man" isn't a dirty word. The health care deals you get in the US are much better with the middle man than without the middle man. Since the insurance companies have so much power, they can (and do) negotiate better rates with health care providers. The cost of paying for your own health care is shockingly high by comparison to the rates the insurance companies would pay on your behalf.
The reason is simple. Many folks, myself included, hold the view that it is government intervention that has led to the insane system currently in place. Eliminating the perverse healthcare system forced on us by current policy IS the way to control the cost issue.
Why don't I go around breaking all the windows in my town every night? All the extra money spent and being recycled through the system would fuel the economy - it must be a good thing?

This is known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy
You know what's a huge barrier to entrepreneurship? Needing the insurance that comes with a BigCo job, so you're not ruined financially when your kid gets bit by a bug. I know many people who have this explicit rationale for not founding or joining a startup.
Note: We are also seeking a world-class systems engineer to join that team.
> I am vehemently against Apple in their IP crusade - which I wholeheartedly believe is to stifle competition

Who has Apple sued that aren't blatantly copying the iOS UI? Are they suing Microsoft over Windows Phone? Are they suing HP over webOS? Are they suing Nokia over Symbian? Are they suing BlackBerry?

I don't see how permitting blatant copying of a company's UI is supposed to encourage innovation. If we want to encourage innovation, then we must encourage companies to innovate -- not copy.
I agree. Normally when this happens, I just comment on the user's blog and then go from there. If they wish to engage in a debate then fine.

Unfortunately, you can't comment on his blog, which makes it even worse. Now people feel like they need to post their political views on HN. Not good IMHO.
I'm a bit of a functional programming guy, but your posting is pretty vague. What's your location and project? What kind of hours are you looking for? Can you pay?

My profile contains ways to contact me.
Are domain names overrated?

If I understand the reasoning correctly, someone who really wanted to access whatever is at "dajaz1.com" would not be willing to type 108.162.192.76. It is a non-starter.

For example, if an announcement was posted on the web that some great music was at 108.162.192.76, giving users a link that is an IP address would not be sufficient to allow people to access the site? While, on the contrary, if it was posted on the web that some great music was at "dajaz1.com" then that would be different. How? Why? Facts, not speculation.

I know there are theories about how people evaluate domain names in search results. But how about IP addresses? And what if the context is not a SERP?

"dajaz1" as a string really tells me nothing. I could make some assumptions based on the string if it was somehow descriptive, but then anyone could be controlling that domain name. It might be a copyright infringer, it might be DHS, it could be anyone. Even if the string was "music.com". Again, facts not just assumptions.

And if I'm diligent and look up the whois record and it's privacy protected, then what?

The truth is, I could probably get a better idea of who is running the site just by the IP address and using rDNS and IP registry lookups.

The point I want to make is that "domain names", for sites that have decent content, might be overrated. The key word is "content".

If the content is good enough for people to _keep coming back_ to the site (i.e. the site is not just looking to fool people once with the lure of false content based on a descriptive domain name), then users will do what they have to do to access the content. Whether it's clicking on a link that is an IP address, bookmarking it, or even writing it down. Writing down a 4-12 digit number!? Who would do such a crazy labour-intensive thing? A user who wants decent content, that's who.

If this use of IP's becomes infeasible because the site wants to play constant musical chairs with IP addresses without giving its users advance notice (this is relatively rare in my experiments but not unheard of), then it's probably a good thing. Because users will be alerted that the site is jumping from IP to IP. There may be legitmate reasons for it but it's also what copyright infringers and other criminals typically do.
That's exactly what it creates. The obvious strategy here is, "baby steps". The insurance lobby is ferociously powerful. They only accepted the PPACA (with many provisions which hurt their profits) because of the quid-pro-quo with the mandate.

The provision of the law which stipulates companies must spend 80-85% of premium revenues on healthcare expenses are an obvious giveaway: "you're allowed to make only this much money".

The next steps, after this is settled law (i.e., Republicans stop trying to repeal it), are to narrow those margins, then introduce a national healthcare system for everyone which these insurers must compete with.

It makes even more sense than a single-payer system (which eschews the benefits of competition), but you can bet there will be continuing political drama over healthcare for the foreseeable future...
If big data and web applications are your thing,

Then this entire page of postings is for you!
With CORS in place, is it a good idea to uploading images (or for that matter HTML) directly to S3 instead of the file system, say if you are building a CMS?
It seems trivial, but last year there were related findings with very real consequences:

"Judges are more lenient after taking a break, study finds. Prisoners are more likely to be granted parole early in the day or after a break such as lunch, according to researchers" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/apr/11/judges-lenient-bre...)

Here is the actual paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889
It's not fair, and not right, but it is a fact that for the most part, most of us here don't have to worry about that.

If you're a software engineer or systems administrator or similar type of professional earning a fair living it's not at all uncommon to have completely free health insurance for yourself, and affordable options to cover your family. I haven't worked for a place with an individual premium in 5 years.

Again, not saying the system isn't broken, but rather that there's a reason all Americans aren't vocally supporting the ACA and the president: this is mostly a lower-middle-class-and-below problem
How generalizable is this outside food? There was the cheating example, but that felt a bit more abstract than the other examples. I wonder if a taxed mind simply makes us craze glucose to keep it powered.

Either way, I think most people could associate with this - if I'm stressed I'll figure I deserve whatever treat. I think part of the problem is the effort and reward aren't linked at all.

If I need to push on something - I try to build the reward in - e.g. Big week of work and I'll buy an LP, or go out, whatever. Then I feel less inclined to grab something unhealthy "cos I deserve it".
Todah rabah!

Though I'm pretty disappointed at how few listings there are for Haifa where I'm moving.
You linked to a provincial health service for B.C. residents. That's not Canadian coverage and I don't see where it says that medication is covered.

Most citizens in Canada don't have free (or reduced cost) medication unless they are below the poverty line.

I came out of the hospital with an $800/month medication bill after a diagnosis of colitis, after missing 2 months of work being bed-ridden, while self-employed with no personal health insurance.

In the USA (don't have stats for Canada) there were 4 billion medication prescriptions written by doctors in the USA... in 2011 alone. That equals 13.3 per person (w/ 300 million population) and around $4 billion dollars. Most of those medication bills go to people will serious chronic illnesses and can easily cost >$1000/month.

The effect of paying for medication on a persons financial stability can't be discredited in this discussion.
I'd be more for using informed consent laws to argue that you would not have proceeded with treatment had you known how much it cost, or the costs related to failure of procedure.

Our medical system is the worst of capitalism, and the worst of socialism. Tell me again: Where are the prices?
Then they are grossly misunderstanding relative risks and shouldn't be launching their own startup.

And its terrible reasoning. Existing law already provides for cobra, giving them an 18 month window of coverage in which they can retain your employer's insurance (by paying the full premiums). That's more than enough time to validate an idea and secure insurance in the new company, or fail and spend 6 months finding a new job. Or if you are an engineer, 1 month finding a new job.
I could be wrong, but doesn't the author make no money from these "deals" and have no say in whether they happen? I'm not sure that's something I'd like to do to an author I like.
> Even Canada, which has national healthcare for residents, will bill nonresidents who visit an ER.

Even Canada? Canada by its location would be at acute risk for medical tourism from the US, if it didn't bill for ER treatment. That problem isn't as big for Europe, Australia, etc.
Medicines, in BC, are covered under a separate plan.. Pharmacare. As far as this goes, insulin is covered:

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/pharmacare/generalinfo/generalin...
Lets take a regular person in a 150k GBP house. They need to pay 6000 GBP every year in tax on that "wealth". They lose their job. Where does the money come from to pay wealth taxes? While unemployed they are "hoarding" their house (and car, and TV set, and laptop etc) and not participating in the economy.
I'm a Canadian who owes tens of thousands because I had an emergency operation in a different province (BC) from where I have my health card (Ontario).
The bill would be much higher if he paid with cash than if he paid with insurance. I'm curious to know how much. I expect would be at least 3x the amount the insurance company must pay.
"Unfortunately GooTube's dominant, almost monopoly incumbent position in short videos makes it hard for others to offer such a service with a competitive video selection."

Complete bullshit. Google does not exclusively own the video on Youtube. There is either a market for an ad-free, kid-friendly for-pay video subscription service, or there isn't. Google's incumbent position doesn't come into it at all.
> If you are sitting on your assets, then this encourages you to participate in the economy.

Ah yes. Old people living off their savings in a house that they own need to get out and participate in the economy.

Speaking of that house, suppose its value goes up $100k one year, goes down $100k the next, and then goes up $50k the third. How much tax have they paid cumulative at the end of that third year?

Also, companies don't pay taxes. They collect them.

As to inequality, it isn't the evil that you assume. Rich people buy things from poor people. They employ poor people, and so on. Pretty much everything started out as a luxury that only rich people could afford.

I note that you didn't consider the possibility that the tax revenues that you're trying to maintain are too high.
> if you buy shares on the stock market, you aren't an investor).

So what? Folks who buy in the market are what makes investing profitable. They're the means by which investors get their profits. And, if investors can't get profits, they don't invest.

But I quibble. It doesn't matter that you don't understand people's behavior, incentives, and so on.

You had three numbers and a goal and came up with a table, so, so surely it's a worthy idea. You, or rather, "the engineers", will just have to work out a few details.
In particular this means that this is anything but open source (at least if you go by the OSI definition, which I do).

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I know some pedants argue that OSI don't have a registered trademark on "Open Source" and that they "don't get to decide what is or isn't open source." But in practice, many (most?) of us do acknowledge the OSI definition as being the de-facto definition of "Open Source."
Ontario has a similar plan but you must only make around <$30k to get assistance.
Correct.. my links are relevant to BC residents, but they are just about the same for every other province.. each with their own quirks.

Medicines, in BC, are covered under a different service, called Pharmacare.

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/pharmacare/generalinfo/generalin...
Unfortunately it's not the most friendly country for immigration, partly as a result of the right-wing coalition that tightened rules over the past few years (Sweden is better, as far as the Scandinavian countries go). But there are some exceptions: it's easy for EU citizens (due to being in the EU), and it's easy if you have a professional-level job offer (no US-style H1B quotas).

I'm a researcher hired by a Danish university, which made for a fairly easy fast-track visa under the "researchers scheme" [1]. In fact the entire process was by mail and took one round-trip: I mailed my passport, offer letter, photos, and application to the NYC consultate, and they mailed back my passport with a visa pasted into it. Most professionals with an offer will also be able to get a visa; it's not nearly as restricted as getting U.S. visas is. If you have an offer that pays more than 375,000 DKK ($63,500), you qualify under the "pay limit scheme" for similarly preferential treatment [2]. Getting permanent residency depends on if you're an EU citizen. If yes, it's just a matter of remaining in the country as a legal resident for at least 5 uninterrupted years. If you're from outside the EU, there are more requirements [3], including that you must be employed for 3 of the 5, and must pass a language exam establishing basic competence in the language (which is unfortunately quite difficult to speak, though the grammar and vocabulary are not particularly difficult).

I must also give them kudos for giving all of this information in not only English, but straightforward, non-legalese English. Dealing with the Danish state is generally not a horrible experience so far, even for someone who speaks no Danish.

[1] http://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/coming_to_dk/work/researchers...

[2] http://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/coming_to_dk/work/pay-limit-s...

[3] http://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/coming_to_dk/permanent-reside...
Another take on this: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2012/04/17/ego-depletion/
The question no one ever asks is "why is the bill $23,000?". The only question that ever gets asked is "who should pay this $23,000 bill?". I charge $200/hr for my time at a minimum. Did this child really receive an equivalent of 2.8 weeks of my time in services? Or did an unecessary middle man negotiate ridiculous prices with the provider, leaving the consumer out of the equation but responsible for the bill? And yet people seem to think that more unnecessary middlemen will make the situation better.
Exactly why is this an inappropriate article for HN? The number of upvotes shows the community disagrees with you.
But the offer is there:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Effective-Programming-More-Writing-e...
I believe the theory goes that the administration expenses incurred by the operation of managing healthcare would be incurred either way, i.e. if the insurance companies were not managing distribution of healthcare the government would have to. Given that, allowing the private sector to compete allows capitalist dynamics to drive down the cost.

While both government and private companies are both theoretically incented to drive down costs, practically there is a lot more scope for government to operate the plans in an inefficient way without consequence; on the other hand private companies are primarily incentivised by profit, which does not always correlate with the most efficient way of delivering healthcare.

This is where the nuance kicks in (i.e. big government or small government); a well run government plan would better but leaning on the private sector is a hedge against poor management.
Naïve European who'd pay nothing for this here (ok, taxes, but supposedly we still pay fewer % of our GDP overall) with a question:

I’ll have to have to pay less than 6% of that, because I’m lucky enough to still have insurance.

Why? If you have insurance, shouldn't that cover the whole expense? Or is it a bit like an excess on a car insurance policy? Can you get insurance that covers everything?
Should be noted that there is not a direct correlation between tax paid for health care and cost of health care. It's heavily subsidised by the government, from taxes taken elsewhere.

In Norway it's like this:
Senior citizen: 4,7%
Employed: 7,8%
Self-employed: 11%

Last time I checked we spent around 9% of GDP on healthcare.
Understanding ego depletion and willpower are incredibly important skills for any knowledge worker. A book like http://www.amazon.com/The-Willpower-Instinct-Self-Control-Ma... will help a programmer perform better work than a book on compilers.
sure, if you are using the "build a prototype, get investment, move from there" model... that's fine.

Personally, I think bootstrapping, taking no outside investment at all is also a completely reasonable model (and often ends up with a more sustainable business, and can be executed by people that lack the sales skills to get investment)

If you are bootstrapping? 18 months is not a reasonable period of time to get something to the point where you can get group coverage. (In most states, to get group coverage, you need at least two employees on that insurance.)

also, I think it's quite valid to support yourself doing contract work. same problem; if you don't want a body shop to take half your pay, well, you need two employees before you can get group coverage.
An extract beer, not whole grain.
Think about baseball