OT: Ray, how's your Bitcoin investment going?

[Louis]

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2013/04/11/361201.jpg

[Andrewlcox]

http://gizmodo.com/5994229/this-video-explains-everything-you-need-to-know-about-bitcoin-in-three-minutes

[jlwdm]

I wish I had some from the first of the year when it was $13.50.

Jeff

[slidey]

I watched this interview (http://youtu.be/o21YMfDmoDI) a few days back about Bitcoin in the hope of trying to understand it better. Unfortunately it cast a poor impression on the product, thanks to the very vocal rep they sent across. :confused:

[Ahneida Ride]

But no-one under vis et armis compelled you to use em.
Not the case with Feudal Preserve green stanps.

I'm in Feudal Preserve notes. The other Fiat currency.

I loose 6% a year.

The guy who started the Liberty Dollar is being accused of
Terrorist activities.

[Llewellyn]

But no-one under vis et armis compelled you to use em.
Not the case with Feudal Preserve green stanps.

I'm in Feudal Preserve notes. The other Fiat currency.

I loose 6% a year.

The guy who started the Liberty Dollar is being accused of
Terrorist activities.


:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[samsays]

I watched this interview (http://youtu.be/o21YMfDmoDI) a few days back about Bitcoin in the hope of trying to understand it better. Unfortunately it cast a poor impression on the product, thanks to the very vocal rep they sent across. :confused:

Mohawk man speaks the truth. A true visionary for personal freedom from centralized systems and inherent corruption. Power to the people! :banana:

[MattTuck]

Bitcoin was the new gold, but it's so played out now.

Palladium is the new bitcoin. you heard it here first ;)

[MattTuck]

Also hilarious...

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/as-big-investors-emerge-bitcoin-gets-ready-for-its-close-up/?hp

Winklevoss twins own 1% of all bitcoins.

[samsays]

Also hilarious...

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/as-big-investors-emerge-bitcoin-gets-ready-for-its-close-up/?hp

Winklevoss twins own 1% of all bitcoins.

You mean The Winklevii...

[rounder]

I was going to suggest Paceline Bits as a new currency for bike parts, etc. It would require a leap of faith that would probably never happpen. There is no substitute for cash.

[Louis]

Winklevoss twins own 1% of all bitcoins.

And they took a bit of a hit today...

[Ahneida Ride]

Actually frns = bitcons..

almost all frns are not paper (cash) ....
they are just data entries in a computer spreadsheet.

We are not FORCED to accept bitcons ...
We are COMPELLED to accept frns. :( :help: :no: :butt: :mad:


frn = non federal non reserve non note

The fed is a private central bank, you will not find it in the phone book
under government agencies. No more federal the fed ex.

It has no reserves ...

It's notes do not specify the terms of redemption, hence are NOT notes.

[goonster]

No more federal the fed ex.
The Fed was created by an act of Congress, and its board is appointed by the President.

So, yes, it is more federal than FedEx.

[ClutchCargo]

Actually frns = bitcons..

almost all frns are not paper (cash) ....
they are just data entries in a computer spreadsheet.

We are not FORCED to accept bitcons ...
We are COMPELLED to accept frns. :( :help: :no: :butt: :mad:


frn = non federal non reserve non note

The fed is a private central bank, you will not find it in the phone book
under government agencies. No more federal the fed ex.

It has no reserves ...

It's notes do not specify the terms of redemption, hence are NOT notes.

Really?
So what?

[jlwdm]

It is interesting to go back and read the the two bitcoin threads from April and May. The first thing to note is do not take financial advice from a bike forum.

Bitcoins are volatile and who knows where they will go from here, but they have gone up 10 times since April.

The Winklevoss twins are up $100m since this thread if they are still holding.

Virgin Galactic will accept bitcoins for space travel and someone just bought a Tesla S with bitcoins. No real risk as the sellers immediately lock in a price for the bitcoins.

Jeff

[Louis]

Buy low, sell high. ;)

[jpw]

but who is satoshi nakamoto? 'he' mined straight the first several hundred thousand bitcoins, and holds a position to move the market, up or down.

the bitcoin hash was created by the NSA.

China is not stupid.

[Germany_chris]

I was going to chime in and say they hit $1000 but looks like that's been done

[Fishbike]

Rather invest in silver Campy. . .

[Ahneida Ride]

Congress has relinquished is fiduciary responsibility to a private corporation.
It return, it gets all the funding it needs via a back door method.
The private corporation gets to create $ outa thin air and charge interest
on nothing. The subsidiaries of the private corporation (commercial banks)
can then the practice the Ponzi Scheme of "fractional reserve" knowing that
the private corporation is there is bail em out.

We the people looses about 6% per year of our purchasing power.
This fed reserve dilution tax is the most pernicious tax of all.
We now rent out homes, cars and educations from banks.

Since this private bank controls our nations money supply, It
controls the politicians.

-----------------

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." — James A. Garfield, President of the United States

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance.
The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." — Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance." — James Madison

"People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project (Muscle Shoals Dam) nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the People who supply all the material and do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest ...But here is the point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People. If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold. Interest is the invention of Satan." — THOMAS A. EDISON

and finally ....

The last President to circumvent the fed, issuing United States Notes ,was the Honorable John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

[oldpotatoe]

Actually frns = bitcons..

almost all frns are not paper (cash) ....
they are just data entries in a computer spreadsheet.

We are not FORCED to accept bitcons ...
We are COMPELLED to accept frns. :( :help: :no: :butt: :mad:


frn = non federal non reserve non note

The fed is a private central bank, you will not find it in the phone book
under government agencies. No more federal the fed ex.

It has no reserves ...

It's notes do not specify the terms of redemption, hence are NOT notes.

Big sigh, again. I'm sure there are places you could go where you are not so compelled to live under the mighty thumb of the US Government or the Federal Reserve bank.

Barter, like Alaska, I'm sure you could sell your tape for a trapped critter of some sort...

Everytime I see one of your posts I think of..

Closet anarchist or a star of 'Doomsday Preppers'.

[Fishbike]

Big sigh, again. I'm sure there are places you could go where you are not so compelled to live under the mighty thumb of the US Government or the Federal Reserve bank.

Barter, like Alaska, I'm sure you could sell your tape for a trapped critter of some sort...

And then make more tape out of said critter. . . .

[T.J.]

And then make more tape out of said critter. . . .

Beaver Pelt Bar Tape :banana:

[akelman]

Ray, I know that Louis baited you with this thread, and I'm sorry he did that. Everyone here, including me, appreciates all that you do for this place. As I've said before, thank you. That said, the Rothschilds? The money changers?

[Wilkinson4]

The gods of money… Anybody see this news story from a few days ago

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57614038-76/uk-man-tries-to-retrieve-$7.5-million-in-bitcoins-from-dump/

mIKE

[cfox]

Ray, I know that Louis baited you with this thread, and I'm sorry he did that. Everyone here, including me, appreciates all that you do for this place. As I've said before, thank you. That said, the Rothschilds? The money changers?

this surprises you? ill-informed internet rants about the Fed/banking are almost always peppered with either subtle or overt anti-semtism.

[ckamp]

Everytime I see one of your posts I think of..
Closet anarchist or a star of 'Doomsday Preppers'.

+1 or even:

"I'm Finding BitCOINS"

[54ny77]

those stupid currency rants are tiresome on this place, a BIKE forum, and the guy hypes and sells his handlebar tape in exchange for the much maligned "frn."

how do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?

does being an admin allow one to do this kind of crap, on so many threads? if a regular user did this, they'd probably be asked to take a time out.

the worst example was this thread. so inappropriate: http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=139187

unfortunately the forum software does not allow putting an admin on "ignore" so as to hide their posts from viewing. sure would be a nice fix.

[#campyuserftw]

Bitcoin is the latest funny money:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-the-bitcoin-crash-20131207,0,7011276.story#axzz2mplLLFNo

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/12/world-powers-react-bitcoin-boom-2013127115950323990.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-07/baidu-stops-accepting-bitcoins-after-china-ban.html

I think our Federal Reserve is a joke. I believe Cubits will take over, once again:

Battlestar Galactica - Cubits
South Park - Parshon (space of cash)
The Flintstones - Clam
My Little Pony - Jangles
Bladerunner - Chin-Yen
Legend of Zelda - Rupee
Star Wars - Galactic Credit Standard
Star Trek - Federation Credit

[avalonracing]

I think our Federal Reserve is a joke. I believe Cubits will take over, once again:

Battlestar Galactica - Cubits
South Park - Parshon (space of cash)
The Flintstones - Clam
My Little Pony - Jangles
Bladerunner - Chin-Yen
Legend of Zelda - Rupee
Star Wars - Galactic Credit Standard
Star Trek - Federation Credit

Paceline Forum- Rapha

[akelman]

this surprises you?

No, of course not. As you say, antisemitism is one nasty element of goldbuggery. But by all accounts, Ray's a very good guy. My hope, then, was that if I confronted him, gently, with the offensive implications of the quotes he included in his post, he might think twice before passing along that kind of stuff in the future.

[Louis]

Given the numerous complaints over the years, if he hasn't changed by now it seems unlikely that he'll bother to change in the future.

I don't think anyone can be so unaware of how his continued postings on the FRM subject appear to others (like a cracked record, the same thing over and over again), and Ray's a pretty smart guy, so I can only conclude that he doesn't really believe that stuff, and he's doing it for fun. Otherwise, the alternative (that he really does believe it, and thinks that his postings sound rational) is pretty silly. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I agree, subtle, or not so subtle antisemitism is not acceptable, whether written by a poster or in a quote.

[#campyuserftw]

Given the numerous complaints over the years, if he hasn't changed by now it seems unlikely that he'll bother to change in the future.

I don't think anyone can be so unaware of how his continued postings on the FRM subject appear to others (like a cracked record, the same thing over and over again), and Ray's a pretty smart guy, so I can only conclude that he doesn't really believe that stuff, and he's doing it for fun. Otherwise, the alternative (that he really does believe it, and thinks that his postings sound rational) is pretty silly. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I agree, subtle, or not so subtle antisemitism is not acceptable, whether written by a poster or in a quote.

You started a thread where you called out "Ray" in the initial post title, looking for a reaction, to incite him. I think what you did, subtle or not, was mostly wrong, somewhat unfair, and perhaps an apology to Ray is in order.

Peace and cheers people: it's the Holidays, and that's not subtle.

:beer: :eggnog: :beer:

[Louis]

You started a thread where you called out "Ray" in the initial post title, looking for a reaction, to incite him. I think what you did, subtle or not, was mostly wrong, somewhat unfair, and perhaps an apology to Ray is in order.

Dude, you need to go back and see when this thread was first started.

This isn't a new thread, and dates back to when there was a flurry of interest in Bitcoins; before you were even a member of this forum (or at least in your current incarnation). That's why what I initially posted was the price of Mt Gox, and if you look at the tone of the discussion it's about bitcoins, not Ray. It has since turned into a "Ray and FRNs thread" which is a separate issue.

Before you appoint yourself judge of all that is right on the forum and run around asking for apologies for other folks, I suggest you figure out what's really going on.

Louis

[#campyuserftw]

Ray, I know that Louis baited you with this thread, and I'm sorry he did that.

+1, agreed.

Cheers and Happy Holidays, may Hanukkah and Christmas bring peace and prosperity, coins or no coins, to all.

[Shortsocks]

I still believe that Standard is better then compact. And that all compact people are idiots. :banana:

[Louis]

+1, agreed.

Cheers and Happy Holidays to all, may Hanukkah and Christmas bring peace and prosperity, coins or no coins, to all.

Ari's a long-time member, a good guy, and I consider him a friend, so I decided to let that go. I have no clue who you are, but you decided to pile on, asking that I apologize. Sorry, but both you and Ari are wrong on this. All you have to do is go back and see what was posted in the thread when it first went up. Even when JLWDM brought the thread back to life, it was about bitcoins, not about Ray.

[akelman]

+1, agreed.

Cheers and Happy Holidays, may Hanukkah and Christmas bring peace and prosperity, coins or no coins, to all.

I'd rather not end up in the middle of you and Louis. As I understand it, Louis and Ray have been giving each other grief for years about this stuff. Moreover, I missed that the OP was from months ago. That was my mistake.

[Louis]

I still believe that Standard is better then compact. And that all compact people are idiots. :banana:

Triple is best of all. :p

http://legalbeer.com/images/westmalle%20tripel.jpg

[akelman]

Sorry, Louis. I didn't see your comment when I posted mine. Regardless, it was the title of the thread that made me think you were baiting Ray. Still, that was a long time ago, and I missed the date stamp on the OP. Again, my bad.

[Louis]

Sorry, Louis. I didn't see your comment when I posted mine. Regardless, it was the title of the thread that made me think you were baiting Ray. Still, that was a long time ago, and I missed the date stamp on the OP. Again, my bad.

No problem. :)

Take care.

[#campyuserftw]

I'd rather not end up in the middle of you and Louis. As I understand it, Louis and Ray have been giving each other grief for years about this stuff. Moreover, I missed that the OP was from months ago. That was my mistake.

Sorry, I did not know. Campy is better than Shimano, no matter what the funding! :)

Egg nog, wine or beer around. I'm into egg nog these days lol.

[akelman]

Sorry, I did not know.

No worries on my end. Like I said above, I just wanted to make sure I didn't get drafted as proxy in a squabble on a bike forum. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Righteous Kwanzaa, or whatever suits your holiday tradition!

[Louis]

I'm glad this has been resolved so amicably.

Now, regarding the Affordable Care Act...

[SPOKE]

I'm glad this has been resolved so amicably.

Now, regarding the Affordable Care Act...

That's a hook without any bait!!!!!

[fuzzalow]

I have no issues with what Ahneida Ride posts re: Fed Reserve. I have attempted to engage a more substantive discussion on this to largely no avail - not done as baiting or to dismiss but as genuine, intelligent discourse.

I give Ahneida Ride the benefit of the doubt on this topic - I don't know the old history of the Serotta forum so maybe AR has done something extraordinary for this forum that earns special privilege. Kinda like the Stones could put out drek for decades but the run of Beggers/Bleed/Sticky/Exile earns them a pass for life.

In contrast to some, AR does not use this forum to advance his brand or tie-in to commercial interests, he just dislikes the Fed.

In contrast to some, AR's rants and rails are directed not at an individual but at an institution called the Federal Reseve Bank.

I interpret the overtone in accusations of antisemitism in what AR has chosen as quotations from noted bankers as a reach. These bankers did not what they do for reasons of religious acculturation but because they are bankers doing what bankers do.

I would agree that the tirades might be better used to further the discussion rather than broadcast disdain, but if that's the worst to tolerate from a fellow member here, I am OK with that.

I don't have to put anyone on the Ignore List, here. I read fast.

[paulh]

In contrast to some, AR does not use this forum to advance his brand or tie-in to commercial interests,


No skin in this game, but what are the banner logos at the top for then?

[fuzzalow]

No skin in this game, but what are the banner logos at the top for then?

I meant within the content and editorial bent of his postings to the General Discussion area of this forum. Sorry that I was not more clear about that.

[oldpotatoe]

those stupid currency rants are tiresome on this place, a BIKE forum, and the guy hypes and sells his handlebar tape in exchange for the much maligned "frn."

how do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?


does being an admin allow one to do this kind of crap, on so many threads? if a regular user did this, they'd probably be asked to take a time out.

the worst example was this thread. so inappropriate: http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=139187

unfortunately the forum software does not allow putting an admin on "ignore" so as to hide their posts from viewing. sure would be a nice fix.

Gotta agree. With being a 'moderator' comes a certain responsibility to not take advantage of that position. Get really tired of the 'FRN' stuff, love it leave it comes to mind. But just whinning about it on a BIKE forum seems misplaced.

Any .fedreserve/gov forums? Go there, write a blog that's selective, meaning I don't have to read(I wouldn't).

BUT, like I won't go to Wholefoods cuz the CEO is a fascist ......Ray isn't a fascist, but....being in business means being 'political' will reduce your customer base.

IMHO

[ColonelJLloyd]

with being a 'moderator' comes a certain responsibility to not take advantage of that position. Get really tired of the 'frn' stuff, love it leave it comes to mind. But just whinning about it on a bike forum seems misplaced.

Any .fedreserve/gov forums? Go there, write a blog that's selective, meaning i don't have to read(i wouldn't).

+1,000

[akelman]

I interpret the overtone in accusations of antisemitism in what AR has chosen as quotations from noted bankers as a reach. These bankers did not what they do for reasons of religious acculturation but because they are bankers doing what bankers do.

Invoking the greed of the money changers has been one of cornerstones of antisemitism since there was a Temple to cleanse. And references to conspiracies led by the Rothschilds* have been used to whip up hatred of Jews for more than two centuries. Even still, I want to be clear that I wasn't accusing Ray of antisemitism. I was suggesting that his hatred of the Fed seemed to be blinding him to the implications of the lousy rhetorical company he was keeping.

In the end, I don't care that much. If people want to traffic in subtle (not very subtle, actually) antisemitism, it's just not the end of the world. Still, I thought Ray might want to be aware that that's how he's being read.

* In fairness, some members of the family were involved in a variety of shady deals.

[fuzzalow]

Even still, I want to be clear that I wasn't accusing Ray of antisemitism. I was suggesting that his hatred of the Fed seemed to be blinding him to the implications of the lousy rhetorical company he was keeping.

Yes, I know you were not accusing AR of antisemitism. No worries.

It just seemed that with some of mini pile-on going on against AR's anti-FRNs rhetoric, there was a desperate attempt to strengthen the case against AR by besmirching his argument in suggesting an overtone of antisemitism. And in fairness, AR's use of certain quotations just might leave the door ajar to opportune an accusation of antisemitism.

To get back on point to the Fed Reserve topic:

I read the catechism for anti-Fed Reserve dogma in the book "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" by G. Edward Griffin. The key movers and shakers in the creation of the Fed were J.P. Morgan and Senator Nelson Aldrich. I do not know of Aldrich's religious affiliation but J.P. Morgan was a prominent Episcopalian. So the ire might be better directed not at the ethnicity of the Rothschild's but attributed to "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" as studied and rationalized by Max Weber.

[slidey]

Even still, I want to be clear that I wasn't accusing Ray of antisemitism.

I wasn't entirely sure but glad to see that you weren't bringing in something as flimsy as religion into a pragmatic discussion.

[slidey]

So the ire might be better directed not at the ethnicity of the Rothschild's but attributed to "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" as studied and rationalized by Max Weber.

The Church of England has been on the case for a while now, and more recently the Pope man has taken it up as well.

And if we're not restricting ourselves to the nether regions of mankind i.e. religion, then the opposing idea has been an equally unfortunate radical opposite i.e. communism. The unwillingness of the serpents in power (the politicians) to tread the middle path is more of a statement about the power of these extremists in each of our societies to sway political action, or inaction as the case may be, in their direction. However, from my minimal understanding I get the feeling that Venezuela under Chavismo economics has done reasonably well. Any thoughts on this?

[Louis]

However, from my minimal understanding I get the feeling that Venezuela under Chavismo economics has done reasonably well. Any thoughts on this?

Having a massive amount of a super-valuable commodity like oil allows them to get away with quite a few questionable policies. On the other hand, all the folks that are beneficiaries of Venezuelan government charity (oil at cut-rate prices internationally, and staples at reduced prices for the less well of locally) do appreciate it.

Regarding Venezuela as a whole, the story's not yet complete. Time will tell, much as it will in Cuba.

[malcolm]

Having a massive amount of a super-valuable commodity like oil allows them to get away with quite a few questionable policies. On the other hand, all the folks that are beneficiaries of Venezuelan government charity (oil at cut-rate prices internationally, and staples at reduced prices for the less well of locally) do appreciate it.

Regarding Venezuela as a whole, the story's not yet complete. Time will tell, much as it will in Cuba.

How much time? I've not seen much of a standard of living in either country.

[Louis]

How much time? I've not seen much of a standard of living in either country.

Might not be much: Venezuela has an election coming up soon - we'll see how Maduro and Co. do.

[verticaldoug]

Having a massive amount of a super-valuable commodity like oil allows them to get away with quite a few questionable policies. On the other hand, all the folks that are beneficiaries of Venezuelan government charity (oil at cut-rate prices internationally, and staples at reduced prices for the less well of locally) do appreciate it.

Regarding Venezuela as a whole, the story's not yet complete. Time will tell, much as it will in Cuba.

Currency Controls to prevent capital flight
Periodic devaluations vs the USD
27% inflation
declining currency reserves
toilet paper shortages (you know it's bad then)
should I continue?

All this in historically the 5th largest producer in OPEC. With under reinvestment into the oil infrastructure, production is probably set to cliff.
Care to buy some PDVSA bonds?

It doesn't really seem to matter who runs a country, the result is typically replacing the yoke of one taskmaster for the yoke of another.

[fuzzalow]

The Church of England has been on the case for a while now, and more recently the Pope man has taken it up as well.

I don't know what you are referring to as "on the case". If you mean a general denouncement of antisemitism, that's all well and good but a mistaken inference to what I posted.

What I was referring to with respect to the origins of the Federal Reserve was that the progenitors of the Fed were goyem. Antisemitism was never an appropriate slur to bring into the discussion in erroneously suggesting a Semitic underpinning on the true intent in creating the Fed.

And if we're not restricting ourselves to the nether regions of mankind i.e. religion, then the opposing idea has been an equally unfortunate radical opposite i.e. communism. The unwillingness of the serpents in power (the politicians) to tread the middle path is more of a statement about the power of these extremists in each of our societies to sway political action, or inaction as the case may be, in their direction. However, from my minimal understanding I get the feeling that Venezuela under Chavismo economics has done reasonably well. Any thoughts on this?

Whoa, there is no intent in my mentioning Weber's book to get into an "efficacies of capitalism" debate. BTW Weber was a sociologist, not an economist.

Having a massive amount of a super-valuable commodity like oil allows them to get away with quite a few questionable policies. On the other hand, all the folks that are beneficiaries of Venezuelan government charity (oil at cut-rate prices internationally, and staples at reduced prices for the less well of locally) do appreciate it.


Oil is subject to world-wide demand and price fluctuations. There was no permanent order for the world economy to be reestablished at $110 per barrel crude oil. Crude is currently priced in the mid-$90 range. Brazil, Venezuela and Russia have all suffered contractions to their domestic growth rates as crude oil prices have lowered in world markets.

A nations oil wealth is not a panacea for national stability. I don't follow the political current events in Venezuela or Brazil but temporary buyouts from the government dole will not eliminate unrest if there is societal & political repression sanctioned by their governments. One need not look any further than the situation in Saudi Arabia to evidence stagnation, unrest & internal pressures in maintaining a repressive society subsisted by oil wealth. The only acknowledged, normally functioning segment in modern Saudi society is within the confines of Aramco, the state run oil conglomerate. For everyone else there is a life in the shadow of the state security police, the religious police and the denial of personal initiative.

[cfox]

Currency Controls to prevent capital flight
Periodic devaluations vs the USD
27% inflation
declining currency reserves
toilet paper shortages (you know it's bad then)
should I continue?

All this in historically the 5th largest producer in OPEC. With under reinvestment into the oil infrastructure, production is probably set to cliff.
Care to buy some PDVSA bonds?

It doesn't really seem to matter who runs a country, the result is typically replacing the yoke of one taskmaster for the yoke of another.
Well said. Venezuela without oil is a big version of Haiti. And Cuba? What exactly will time tell? That a country whose citizens try to "escape" on plywood rafts is a great place? Both Cuba and Venezuela are/were run by thugs who appointed themselves rulers for life. There is nothing, nothing redeeming about that.

[zap]

However, from my minimal understanding I get the feeling that Venezuela under Chavismo economics has done reasonably well. Any thoughts on this?

The economy is terrible……..high inflation, price controls by beatings, confiscation of private property………….

The election…one guess.

[slidey]

Na, not at all. By 'on the case' I was referring to speaking out against capitalism.

I don't know what you are referring to as "on the case". If you mean a general denouncement of antisemitism, that's all well and good but a mistaken inference to what I posted.

[fuzzalow]

Na, not at all. By 'on the case' I was referring to speaking out against capitalism.

OK, now understand your reference. But you are misquoting what the Pontiff spoke out against. Pope Francis was speaking against unfettered capitalism and its supportive structure in fostering economic inequality. That is quite a difference from speaking out against capitalism.

I agree with what was said by the Pontiff. Nothing greater to unleash the human endeavor than capitalism, however rapacious if left unchecked.

[#campyuserftw]

OK, now understand your reference. But you are misquoting what the Pontiff spoke out against. Pope Francis was speaking against unfettered capitalism and its supportive structure in fostering economic inequality. That is quite a difference from speaking out against capitalism.

I agree with what was said by the Pontiff. Nothing greater to unleash the human endeavor than capitalism, however rapacious if left unchecked.

The yang to Pope Francis:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/12/04/papal-bull-why-pope-francis-should-be-grateful-for-capitalism/

[fuzzalow]

The yang to Pope Francis:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/12/04/papal-bull-why-pope-francis-should-be-grateful-for-capitalism/

Yeah, I read that too. There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

I agree with the Pontiff but short of his governance over the sovereign Vatican, I won't feel threatened that this could come to fruition at a local government near you. I would never deny the Roman Catholic Church its stature as a political power along with all the contradictions that entail with it also being a moral authority.

[slidey]

I agree that Venezuela has had its own share of issues - but for all its faults there are two things that are a certainty:

1. The Venezuelan election system is widely regarded as incorrigible, even by its detractors.

2. Chavez brought oil under govt control, and with the revenues he actually did social good - set up schools, govt run hospitals, housing for the poor, etc.

A major criticism of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela has been #2 above, that he generated huge revenues from oil and put very little back into it. Although if you refer to the cornerstones of Bolivarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarianism) there is more similarities in there with pragamatic capitalism, than differences with the only exception being South American economic and political sovereignty, since the means to achieve this was cutting out access to oil to oil co's of foreign nations.

Why then in the US is there such a poor view of Chavez despite him being democratically elected thrice? Is it due to the sour taste left in the mouth of american legislators by the indirect US-aided coup attempt in 2002 (See Q5 (http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/13682.pdf)), during which the people protested to bring Chavez back to power hence giving unprecedented legitimacy to Chavez's policies even outside of the ballot box? Is it due to the fact that Venezuela's natural resources are nationalised, hence making it impossible for foreign oil co's to exploit? Or is it due to the proximity of Chavez to Castro? Is it due to the fact that for a long time Bolivarian economics was actually performing well, hence posing a threat to the overtly capitalistic intentions of Wall St and their lobbied puppets? All these are valid questions, and being unbiased by virtue of not belonging to any of the contested nationalities/interests herein I've found it rather easy to at least partially laud the Bolivarian economics.

At the present, yes there definitely is a crisis in terms of inflation in the country. Let's see where Maduro can lead the country.

By the way, this video (http://youtu.be/S1UbflMW5Dg) is quite an unbiased, in my view, discussion of the Venezuelan economics.

[slidey]

True, true. Couldn't agree more...unfettered capitalism is the extremist view of capitalism I was referring to my initial post in this recent thread as well. As a rule, one of the few I have, I believe that anything extreme can only be bad.

We're on the same page then.

OK, now understand your reference. But you are misquoting what the Pontiff spoke out against. Pope Francis was speaking against unfettered capitalism and its supportive structure in fostering economic inequality. That is quite a difference from speaking out against capitalism.

I agree with what was said by the Pontiff. Nothing greater to unleash the human endeavor than capitalism, however rapacious if left unchecked.

[wildboar]

This is pretty fun to watch during normal weekday cash hours:

http://bitcoin.clarkmoody.com/

[azrider]

http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/27/technology/security/bitcoin-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[ultraman6970]

Money laundry is the main reason all the drug cartels and stuff are using bitcoin, no surprises in this news.

What could be really bad news for everybody that has money invested in bitcoin is if globally the currency is by law taken down and that could be a nasty hit to the drug people because from one day to another they could lost zillions together with the honest investors.

The coin is in place and doubt governments just because of personal interests in play, bitcoin will disappear from one day to another.

[sg8357]

Money laundry is the main reason all the drug cartels and stuff are using bitcoin, no surprises in this news.

[tinfoil hat mode on]
Why would any drug cartel trust it's funds to a US government operated
payment system ?

https://wallet.bitcoin.nsa.gov anyone ?
[tinfoil hat mode off]

[GuyGadois]

I, for one, am exstatic about using FRN, bucks, greenback, dollars. It is so much easier to trade than pelts and more convenient than carrying gold bullion. Remember the days of the shootouts in the center of town, having to get your gold weighed and transported by a wagon? Oh the saddle sores. I am not sure what the interest rate was on beaver pelts but I am fairly sure it wasn't as much more than today's rate on the so called FRNs.

GG

Actually frns = bitcons..

almost all frns are not paper (cash) ....
they are just data entries in a computer spreadsheet.

We are not FORCED to accept bitcons ...
We are COMPELLED to accept frns. :( :help: :no: :butt: :mad:


frn = non federal non reserve non note

The fed is a private central bank, you will not find it in the phone book
under government agencies. No more federal the fed ex.

It has no reserves ...

It's notes do not specify the terms of redemption, hence are NOT notes.

[Ken Robb]

I, for one, am exstatic about using FRN, bucks, greenback, dollars. It is so much easier to trade than pelts and more convenient than carrying gold bullion. Remember the days of the shootouts in the center of town, having to get your gold weighed and transported by a wagon? Oh the saddle sores. I am not sure what the interest rate was on beaver pelts but I am fairly sure it wasn't as much more than today's rate on the so called FRNs.

GG

This cracks me up. :banana::):beer:

[Wilkinson4]

I, for one, am exstatic about using FRN, bucks, greenback, dollars. It is so much easier to trade than pelts and more convenient than carrying gold bullion. Remember the days of the shootouts in the center of town, having to get your gold weighed and transported by a wagon? Oh the saddle sores. I am not sure what the interest rate was on beaver pelts but I am fairly sure it wasn't as much more than today's rate on the so called FRNs.

GG

Rapha beaver pelts were very pricey!

mIKE

[ultraman6970]

Sincerely dont see why they couldnt, and will tell you why... open a check account here in the US is as easy as getting a driver license. Try to open an bank account in some european country or in chile for example, they wont let you even to ask for a check account even if you were obama's son and you had bush himself going to the bank you to ask. In many countries to avoid the money laundry a person has to have like 3 years of work in one place, if you are foreign you have to be resident for over 3 or 5 years, then have a good job and who knows what else, real pita.

Here even if you are in vacations you can open a bank account with a couple of hundreds, they will take the money, in other places you just can't because their laws are more strict than here. Based on that big difference, do you think they wont be able to use the system as anybody else?

So now, you have a bank account, you move money here and there, you get bitcoins, you buy goods with those bitcoins and then you sell the goods you bought, the result? clean money at the other end.

Personally I don't even want to think what will happen the day the bad guys take all their money off the banking system...

[Louis]

So now, you have a bank account, you move money here and there, you get bitcoins, you buy goods with those bitcoins and then you sell the goods you bought, the result? clean money at the other end.

A bit cumbersome if you have to launder the high volumes of $ the drug barons have to deal with. However, I have heard of them buying "legitimate" business to try and do this. A while back at least one of the Mexican cartels owned quite a few horse-racing related properties in the US.

[verticaldoug]

Money laundry is the main reason all the drug cartels and stuff are using bitcoin, no surprises in this news.


The coin is in place and doubt governments just because of personal interests in play, bitcoin will disappear from one day to another.

Big money uses the art market for this. Bitcoins is for pikers.

[dekindy]

Not well. Someone as smart as Peter Lynch never invested in anything he did not understand.

http://www.businessinsider.com/report-ceo-of-major-bitcoin-exchange-arrested-2014-1

[54ny77]

i can't fathom how people are taking bitcoins seriously. i mean, come on, putting your "real" money in play by investing in it? consider worst case, the u.s. gov't could at least sell yellowstone nat'l park and bolster the asset side of things.

bitcoins have exactly what behind it--this?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_639wVHSnBxk/SwjHpupM8wI/AAAAAAAAACE/aPMDXDbndrs/s1600/NBA_guy.jpg

[PQJ]

Bitcoins (or something like it) are the future. That future may or may not include "Bitcoins" but I think it's a little shortsighted to dismiss them outright. I remember when Facebook first came on the scene. I didn't like it then and don't like it now, but I was foolish to dismiss it like I did. Not gonna make the same mistake now. There's a lot of 'there' there as regards virtual currency. Things are just getting going.

PS: I don't own any bitcoin nor have I ever, but my personal renaissance is just getting going.

[R2D2]

Bitcoins (or something like it) are the future. That future may or may not include "Bitcoins" but I think it's a little shortsighted to dismiss them outright. I remember when Facebook first came on the scene. I didn't like it then and don't like it now, but I was foolish to dismiss it like I did. Not gonna make the same mistake now. There's a lot of 'there' there as regards virtual currency. Things are just getting going.

PS: I don't own any bitcoin nor have I ever, but my personal renaissance is just getting going.

Really?
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/27/technology/security/bitcoin-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Unregulated exchange.
Why not put you money where you mouth is and invest you life savings.

[54ny77]

In one stroke of a pen by various nations, Bitcoins (or other currency outside the control of law & gov't.) can be made illegal. Period.

That's pretty much all one needs to know with respect to anything outside of "real" currency.


Bitcoins (or something like it) are the future. That future may or may not include "Bitcoins" but I think it's a little shortsighted to dismiss them outright. I remember when Facebook first came on the scene. I didn't like it then and don't like it now, but I was foolish to dismiss it like I did. Not gonna make the same mistake now. There's a lot of 'there' there as regards virtual currency. Things are just getting going.

PS: I don't own any bitcoin nor have I ever, but my personal renaissance is just getting going.

[Rada]

Not surpised by this at all. More than likely this is just the beginning as other government agencies throw their weight into this is well.

[PQJ]

In one stroke of a pen by various nations, Bitcoins (or other currency outside the control of law & gov't.) can be made illegal. Period.

That's pretty much all one needs to know with respect to anything outside of "real" currency.

Really?
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/27/technology/security/bitcoin-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Unregulated exchange.
Why not put you money where you mouth is and invest you life savings.

As a speculative investment, no thanks. As a future alternative to transacting business with cash, credit cards, checks, wire transfers or by bartering, most definitely.

[Pete Mckeon]

Some i do not agree with Ray and some I do agree but it is a healty conversation over beer or RED wine

I think we are losing at least 6% annually---- for the CPi does not include energy(oil and by products, food, nor cost of medical. In fact there is movement trying to further change Cpi which is tied to Social Security and other compensations. Changing CPI will hide the real costs. AS MOST PEOPLE HAVE FOUND WITH SALARY increases vs cost of living. Many things are changing but that is life


Bitcoin is talked about alot but it will not work across muliple countries.

I will bet $$ s on it. With all the bashing, the US$ is the foundation worlwide. ....for at least the next 20 years

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yep, will bet Red wine and a ride in NAPA:)
[/B]QUOTE=Ahneida Ride;1463758]Congress has relinquished is fiduciary responsibility to a private corporation.
It return, it gets all the funding it needs via a back door method.
The private corporation gets to create $ outa thin air and charge interest
on nothing. The subsidiaries of the private corporation (commercial banks)
can then the practice the Ponzi Scheme of "fractional reserve" knowing that
the private corporation is there is bail em out.

We the people looses about 6% per year of our purchasing power.
This fed reserve dilution tax is the most pernicious tax of all.
We now rent out homes, cars and educations from banks.

Since this private bank controls our nations money supply, It
controls the politicians.

-----------------

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." — James A. Garfield, President of the United States

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance.
The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." — Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance." — James Madison

"People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project (Muscle Shoals Dam) nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the People who supply all the material and do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest ...But here is the point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People. If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold. Interest is the invention of Satan." — THOMAS A. EDISON

and finally ....

The last President to circumvent the fed, issuing United States Notes ,was the Honorable John Fitzgerald Kennedy.[/QUOTE]

[Pete Mckeon]

:eek::eek:

[verticaldoug]

Some i do not agree with Ray and some I do agree but it is a healty conversation over beer or RED wine

I think we are losing at least 6% annually---- for the CPi does not include energy(oil and by products, food, nor cost of medical. In fact there is movement trying to further change Cpi which is tied to Social Security and other compensations. Changing CPI will hide the real costs. AS MOST PEOPLE HAVE FOUND WITH SALARY increases vs cost of living. Many things are changing but that is life


Pete, CPI includes energy, food etc:

FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses).


The inflation you feel is primary driven by high frequency purchases. So if gas at the pump, food prices are increasing (which they are), inflation feels high. However, less frequent purchases, (appliances, housing etc) may be increasing at a much slower rate. Hence the CPI looks low. For most people, rent equivalent, and energy are the two largest parts of the budget. For most of the U.S., housing has depressed the rent equivalent calculations helping to keep CPI low.

Chain CPI which is what you are referring to for SS Colas etc is a much nastier animal. Essentially the gov decides people can substitute down, so as prices go up, you will change your spending habits and buy cheaper stuff. Literally they count on your going from Banana Republic to the Gap to Old Navy eventually to goodwill. This is a nasty cycle. See Japan for details.

For as much as Paul Krugman gets bashed lately, you need to see his comments on 'Rent Seekers' to really understand what the elites are doing to the economy.

There is a turkish saying: If you hold the honey pot, you get to lick your fingers.

[54ny77]

IMO, a system (or financial product) outside of the regulated currency-based systems are, and likely always will be, a destabilizing force that a government (or governments) will do their best to shut down. Or at the very least they will make it very difficult to be widely used by everyday citizens for everyday needs.

A decade or so ago i had a very interesting education on hawala by an EM money mgr., and the impact on a sovereign's money supply (and concurrent ability to issue & service its own debt).

The numbers then were staggering, and I cannot fathom how large the underground network is today.

Looks like Sweden or a Swedish bank is the first to really push to squash it. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-27/bitcoin-crime-risk-sparks-warning-at-biggest-nordic-forex-trader.html

As a speculative investment, no thanks. As a future alternative to transacting business with cash, credit cards, checks, wire transfers or by bartering, most definitely.

[cfox]

As per Marc Andreesen: take all the bitcoin diatribes, go back a few years, substitute the word "internet" for "bitcoin" and you wind up with the same paragraph.

The amount of angst and hand wringing over bitcoin is fascinating. Very few trading assets with a market cap of 10b get so much attention. The thick smelly irony of it all is the douchelords like Dimon sitting on high with "concerns" about fraud. Please. He was one of many complicit in the most destructive bubble/fraud of our lifetime; credit tiering junk mortgages into "AAA" bonds. That little game destroyed the financial lives of millions. Some dude buying pot with bitcoin isn't quite the same thing.

Crypto-currencies are fun. I built a mining rig for scrypt based currencies. It's been a fun project. You guys are probably right; big Govs will likely find a way to shut it down or at least make it more inconvenient to use than it's worth. If it all goes poof, I couldn't care less. But it has been a cool learning experience. I like the idea of it, and the idea behind what makes it actually work, is brilliant.

[Pete Mckeon]

I appreciate your explanation/education but I can tell you from what I see that starting with 100k in expenes the total expeditures has increased more than 2 % per annum. I am in same houseshold so that is a constant except for taxes, electricity and upkeep. Medical for my first year of medicare, and having the new retirement from IBM HAS risen in double digit because we were lucky to have the taxable income.
That is not even counting extra funds spent because of 3500 you pay first for specific hospital I spent over $25k last year due to cancer deductibles. I can go into a lot more detail but all expenses for the year were more than a 2% increase. I am fortunate and did ok and also got retirement and maxed 401k. 'Out of pocket' costs per annum, I hope only increase to what they are and it has been more than 5% for me.
.

I really feel bad for people in their 40s or 50s without a pension or did not MAX their 401k or savings. I do not know all the problems or answers for them BUT the middle class is being attacked and income is not growing as liked, except for a few small segments. This is just my irish opinion

Seen too many of them because i have triend unsucessfuuly to teach and convince them of how to plan for a retirement years down the road.

I have/had a mba in finance and bba in accounting::eek:




Pete, CPI includes energy, food etc:

FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses).


The inflation you feel is primary driven by high frequency purchases. So if gas at the pump, food prices are increasing (which they are), inflation feels high. However, less frequent purchases, (appliances, housing etc) may be increasing at a much slower rate. Hence the CPI looks low. For most people, rent equivalent, and energy are the two largest parts of the budget. For most of the U.S., housing has depressed the rent equivalent calculations helping to keep CPI low.

Chain CPI which is what you are referring to for SS Colas etc is a much nastier animal. Essentially the gov decides people can substitute down, so as prices go up, you will change your spending habits and buy cheaper stuff. Literally they count on your going from Banana Republic to the Gap to Old Navy eventually to goodwill. This is a nasty cycle. See Japan for details.

For as much as Paul Krugman gets bashed lately, you need to see his comments on 'Rent Seekers' to really understand what the elites are doing to the economy.

There is a turkish saying: If you hold the honey pot, you get to lick your fingers.

[verticaldoug]

I do not know all the problems or answers for them BUT the middle class is being attacked and income is not growing as liked, except for a few small segments. This is just my irish opinion



Pete

I am not disagreeing with you. I believe CPI calculations as whole are not that bad. Your basket of goods and services differs significantly from the standard CPI baskets. Up until this year, my basket was also different in that I am fortunate to have a healthy family, heated my home with natural gas and don't drive that much, so my CPI was lower than the national average. Now this year, with a daughter's tuition costs, the spike in natgas, and my CPI is probably higher. So if the government decides to unfairly weight the CPI basket, the results are skewed. We can agree to that.

The more important point, though, is the insidious nature of chained CPI. If because of price increases, I substitute from a Mercedes to Ford to Hyundai, J Crew to Gap to Uniqlo, I may still have a car and clothing on my back , but I am definitely poorer even if my substitution allows the Gov to monkey with chain cpi and tell me inflation is not as high as I imagine.

And I don't disagree with you on middle class being under attack. It's just under attack from both parties. A friend and I were discussing the nuttiness of Tom Perkin's OpEds today, and he sent me this link to an old rant on FOX News from the 2012 election. Normally, I don't watch Fox, but Napolitano basically rants on the both parties. Probably the truest piece ever to air on Fox and he was fired for it.

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/01/judge-napolitano-get-fired-fox-5-mins.html

Video halfway down the page.

[fuzzalow]

I really feel bad for people in their 40s or 50s without a pension or did not MAX their 401k or savings. I do not know all the problems or answers for them BUT the middle class is being attacked and income is not growing as liked, except for a few small segments.

Very true. The words "defined benefit" does not enter into the lexicon of an entire cross section of virtually anyone that started a career about the time John Travolta filmed "Saturday Night Fever". I dunno about any of the union worker base if this is also true or not.

Middle class is under attack in the desperate attempt in maintaining living standard expectations amid an overall declining standard of living for the USA. Scary stuff.

Growing segment of income is misleading as it mainly applies to the health care professions. This is one contributor to a very dangerous death spiral in light of the overall US economy - it a fundamental perversion to have health care driven and incentivized by the profit motive. It is as rapacious as unfettered capitalism.

[1centaur]

"it a fundamental perversion to have health care driven and incentivized by the profit motive"

How about food?

Realize that the amount of health care the population gets can be made suboptimal not only by profit leakage but by bureaucratic indifference and inefficiencies (and even official priorities) that reflect the lack of profit motive. I am not advocating one or the other, just pointing out that what is obvious to some about profit is obvious to others about non-profit beyond a certain size. There are goods and bads about both visions, period.

[Louis]

How about food?

People are somewhat better qualified to make buying decisions about what food to consume than they are about what to do for health care, so in general the free market works better for food.

[Vientomas]

Plus I can grow my own food. I can't operate on myself.

[Louis]

Med School for the 99%:

http://jeremybernsdorff.com/blog/uploaded/Images/operation_game1.jpg

[1centaur]

People are somewhat better qualified to make buying decisions about what food to consume than they are about what to do for health care, so in general the free market works better for food.

Not quite sure how ignorance interacts with how something is paid for. We don't know a lot about a lot of services we buy, really. And if we made a concerted effort to give excellent information to everyone on the web about health to at least equal what we know about our food, would it be OK to introduce profit to the equation then?

BTW, even a single payer government would be buying from for-profit companies and doctors, so it's not like one can get it out of the system. We have a hybrid system today (some government, some profit) and we'll have a hybrid system tomorrow.

[Louis]

Not quite sure how ignorance interacts with how something is paid for.

Not how something is paid for, but how the buying decisions are made.

[93legendti]

Thank G-d for govt making health care decisions for us stupid folk:


'It's been less a month since the Affordable Care Act started providing health coverage for people who bought insurance through the exchange, and now some people who are going to the doctor for the first time are finding some complications.

"We have health insurance that is worthless," said customer Shawnna Simpson.

Simpson found out last week the new insurance for which she is paying $600 a month was a bad choice for her family.

Her 15-year-old daughter was hurt in a cheerleading accident, so Simpson called her family doctor only to learn they don't take her new health plan: Blue Cross Network E.

Ever since, she's been on the phone with the healthcare exchange, looking for a family doctor in Williamson County that accepts her plan, but finding none.

"We can't use it in the county where we live," she said.'

http://www.wsmv.com/story/24560302/some-finding-coverage-problems-under-new-health-exchange

[fuzzalow]

As famously quoted by Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks, he replied "Because that's where the money is".

The health care profession has been one of the few showing steady growth in jobs while the rest of the US labor market has been stagnant or in decline. And with many who have now entered into one of the few industries with growth in jobs and attractive salaries, there will be a vested interest of the industry participants in sustaining and fueling that growth as long as possible. The danger and pitfall occurs when the view and attitude towards the persons under care in the health care profession are no longer seen as patients but as revenue streams. indeed, with many hospitals, institutions and MDs, that malignant view of patients has already occurred. I believe the handling of patients as tantamount to revenue streams to be immoral and inhumane.

I am not adverse to the profit motive in the health care industry. I am adverse to the profit motive in the health care industry that incentivizes and rewards financial profitability rather than some metric centered on the success of patient outcomes.

The health care industry is not a growth industry in the sense of it expanding economic growth, fostering opportunity and export of goods and services. It is a zero-sum game that leeches from the misfortune of illness and malady that befalls a percentage of the citizenry drawn from a reasonably fixed population pool. Its dominance in an economy the size of the USA speaks not of innovation but of opportunism and exploitation of its own citizenry. Concerning a matter of health and wellness on which many have no leeway in choosing or expertise insofar as negotiating or education themselves in order to contribute to their own better outcome.

Realize that the amount of health care the population gets can be made suboptimal not only by profit leakage but by bureaucratic indifference and inefficiencies (and even official priorities) that reflect the lack of profit motive. I am not advocating one or the other, just pointing out that what is obvious to some about profit is obvious to others about non-profit beyond a certain size. There are goods and bads about both visions, period.

Respectfully, that is speculation as to outcomes that may be for a strawman construct of your own conjecture. If your phrasing of "and even official priorities" is a trope for "government death panels" I simply view that as inflammatory language from nescient polemics.

There are no easy fixes. Without resorting to speculation, the facts can be distilled to the simple numbers that the US ranked 37th overall in quality while 1st in expenditure for health care as per the World Health Organization (WHO) report from a few years back. Those two numbers don't jibe. The World Bank number for health care as a percent of USA GDP was about 17%. Sure, Belize was some big % number too but that country's GDP is peanuts - 17% of the USA GDP is a very big number.

I am not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination, but I know when somethings not working.

Thank G-d for govt making health care decisions for us stupid folk:


'It's been less a month since the Affordable Care Act started providing health coverage for people who bought insurance through the exchange, and now some people who are going to the doctor for the first time are finding some complications.

"We have health insurance that is worthless," said customer Shawnna Simpson.

Simpson found out last week the new insurance for which she is paying $600 a month was a bad choice for her family.

Her 15-year-old daughter was hurt in a cheerleading accident, so Simpson called her family doctor only to learn they don't take her new health plan: Blue Cross Network E.

Ever since, she's been on the phone with the healthcare exchange, looking for a family doctor in Williamson County that accepts her plan, but finding none.

"We can't use it in the county where we live," she said.'

http://www.wsmv.com/story/24560302/some-finding-coverage-problems-under-new-health-exchange

There will always be outliers that can be made illustrative of and a story about as testimony to the problems in moving forwards with anything new. So what? It is not that I don't feel for the persons in this news story, but this discussion is about the bigger story and not localized to the plight of this particular circumstance. Change is a fundamental condition of life.

[verticaldoug]

There are no easy fixes. Without resorting to speculation, the facts can be distilled to the simple numbers that the US ranked 37th overall in quality while 1st in expenditure for health care as per the World Health Organization (WHO) report from a few years back. Those two numbers don't jibe. The World Bank number for health care as a percent of USA GDP was about 17%. Sure, Belize was some big % number too but that country's GDP is peanuts - 17% of the USA GDP is a very big number.


I believe there is a huge spend in the U.S. during the last 6 mo of a patients life that is non-existent in other countries and a small percentage of the population end up being a big percentage of the total consumption. Unless you ration, you are throwing deck chairs off the titanic hoping it doesn't sink.

[Tony T]

Simpson found out last week the new insurance for which she is paying $600 a month was a bad choice for her family.

Her 15-year-old daughter was hurt in a cheerleading accident, so Simpson called her family doctor only to learn they don't take her new health plan: Blue Cross Network E.


What I find extremely hard to believe in this story (but I don't doubt its accuracy), is that someone would commit to a plan for $7,200/year without first calling their "Family Doctor" to make sure that they take that health plan.

I mean, come-on… "Blue Cross Network E"… Call your doctor to see if he's in that Network before you sign-up.

[Tony T]

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2013/04/11/361201.jpg

Wow! Wish I had bought some bit-coin when you started this thread :)

[oldpotatoe]

Thank G-d for govt making health care decisions for us stupid folk:


'It's been less a month since the Affordable Care Act started providing health coverage for people who bought insurance through the exchange, and now some people who are going to the doctor for the first time are finding some complications.

"We have health insurance that is worthless," said customer Shawnna Simpson.

Simpson found out last week the new insurance for which she is paying $600 a month was a bad choice for her family.

Her 15-year-old daughter was hurt in a cheerleading accident, so Simpson called her family doctor only to learn they don't take her new health plan: Blue Cross Network E.

Ever since, she's been on the phone with the healthcare exchange, looking for a family doctor in Williamson County that accepts her plan, but finding none.

"We can't use it in the county where we live," she said.'

http://www.wsmv.com/story/24560302/some-finding-coverage-problems-under-new-health-exchange

9 mos, 3 days......then 2 more years.

"Anecdotal evidence", perfect for the news, faux or otherwise.

BTW, I am on Tricare, 100% government policy, ala what members of congress has, and it is tremendous. Another isolated instance that 'proves' nothing.

[redir]

Med School for the 99%:

http://jeremybernsdorff.com/blog/uploaded/Images/operation_game1.jpg

hahahaha :hello:

[redir]

Very true. The words "defined benefit" does not enter into the lexicon of an entire cross section of virtually anyone that started a career about the time John Travolta filmed "Saturday Night Fever". I dunno about any of the union worker base if this is also true or not.

Middle class is under attack in the desperate attempt in maintaining living standard expectations amid an overall declining standard of living for the USA. Scary stuff.

Growing segment of income is misleading as it mainly applies to the health care professions. This is one contributor to a very dangerous death spiral in light of the overall US economy - it a fundamental perversion to have health care driven and incentivized by the profit motive. It is as rapacious as unfettered capitalism.

When you drive down the road you pass the local police department, the fire department, the rescue squad, the National Guard, and then the hospital.

One of those sticks out like a soar thumb.

[cfox]

9 mos, 3 days......then 2 more years.

"Anecdotal evidence", perfect for the news, faux or otherwise.

BTW, I am on Tricare, 100% government policy, ala what members of congress has, and it is tremendous. Another isolated instance that 'proves' nothing.

No one is surprised that congress has given themselves a tremendous health care plan.

My insurance was cancelled because of Obama Care and I was forced to buy a new policy through an Obama Care exchange. Much weaker coverage for a 50% increase in my premium/out of pocket cost. What a deal!! The sign-up process was a complete disaster. I started the process as early as possible, yet I wasn't able to confirm I actually had coverage until 2 weeks after my prior plan expired. Super comforting with a wife and two young kids. That 'anecdote' still feels pretty real to me. A mountain of isolated incidents = a mountain.

[54ny77]

I know 3 others in your same boat, of varying ages.

The older person is going to have a tough time of it. Blue Cross said adios to his private policy (non-employer).

Mountain is right.

No one is surprised that congress has given themselves a tremendous health care plan.

My insurance was cancelled because of Obama Care and I was forced to buy a new policy through an Obama Care exchange. Much weaker coverage for a 50% increase in my premium/out of pocket cost. What a deal!! The sign-up process was a complete disaster. I started the process as early as possible, yet I wasn't able to confirm I actually had coverage until 2 weeks after my prior plan expired. Super comforting with a wife and two young kids. That 'anecdote' still feels pretty real to me. A mountain of isolated incidents = a mountain.

[oldpotatoe]

No one is surprised that congress has given themselves a tremendous health care plan.

My insurance was cancelled because of Obama Care and I was forced to buy a new policy through an Obama Care exchange. Much weaker coverage for a 50% increase in my premium/out of pocket cost. What a deal!! The sign-up process was a complete disaster. I started the process as early as possible, yet I wasn't able to confirm I actually had coverage until 2 weeks after my prior plan expired. Super comforting with a wife and two young kids. That 'anecdote' still feels pretty real to me. A mountain of isolated incidents = a mountain.

Congress didn't give themselves anything, it's a government employee health insurance plan. It took 20 years in the USN to get mine. I don't think anybody in congress earned this good deal.

ACA has problems, decent first step, poorly implemented, IMHO, that is in need of improvement. Social security, when new, did too. What makes no sense is to can it......that would be a mess.

But we'll see in 2016, vote early and vote often.....now back to bit coins!

[the bottle ride]

Pete, CPI includes energy, food etc:

.......

There is a turkish saying: If you hold the honey pot, you get to lick your fingers.

Great post- I come for the bike pictures and discussion - but sometimes the OT discussion on politics and the economy is first rate. Always good to read all sorts of views.

[cfox]

Congress didn't give themselves anything, it's a government employee health insurance plan. It took 20 years in the USN to get mine. I don't think anybody in congress earned this good deal.

ACA has problems, decent first step, poorly implemented, IMHO, that is in need of improvement. Social security, when new, did too. What makes no sense is to can it......that would be a mess.

But we'll see in 2016, vote early and vote often.....now back to bit coins!


oh, they gave it to themselves, alright. That shameless rabble are part time employees; they don't deserve tricare. Veterans like you and my father-in-law certainly do.

Agree, back to coins! This health care talk is depressing.

[54ny77]

why does health care cost so damned much?

here's an example: pal of mine worked on a drug for 20+ years, company has invested mind blowing amounts in it (10 figures).

that means zero revenue for 20+ years. huge operating costs. expensive, well-educated and smart employees dedicated to getting that thing to market.

and it still ain't done. literally some folks on the project have retired in the interim.

:bike:

[verticaldoug]

why does health care cost so damned much?

here's an example: pal of mine worked on a drug for 20+ years, company has invested mind blowing amounts in it (10 figures).

that means zero revenue for 20+ years. huge operating costs. expensive, well-educated and smart employees dedicated to getting that thing to market.

and it still ain't done. literally some folks on the project have retired in the interim.

:bike:

Actually, prescriptions are only 10.1% of the total pie. The yoy% increase is only 1.2%. Believe it or not, prescription drugs are almost a bargain in U.S. healthcare. YOY% increase for hospitals and physicians was 4.9%. This is the largest driver of healthcare costs. It's also 50.8% of the total pie.

Hospital concentration is a large driver of cost increases. In markets where mergers took place to increase concentration and limit competition, price increased at 20%. Maximizing the revenue stream so to speak.

[1centaur]

fuzzalow: I don't think it can be viewed as speculation that when there is less of something than one desires it will be rationed by one means or another. If it is a for profit system, the rationing might be accomplished by price. If a non-profit system, the rationing will probably be done by availability. No government will ever offer unlimited health care, so how will it limit that care? We shall hope that one person will not make that decision. Groups of people will make those decisions over time, presumably on the basis of cost/benefit of some sort. Still not reaching the range of speculation but merely logic, I think.

If health care is limited, some people will presumably die sooner because of such limits. Hard to argue with that. Others will suffer in less serious ways. So if a group of people makes a decision to limit health care, and some people die, could one for the sake of a sound bite fairly call that a death panel, there having been a panel and some death? Yes. Then again, people die today because of insurance company policies and insurance affordability, so it's really just the means of denial we are discussing, not the fact of it.

But when I talked of official priorities I was not saying death panels per se because that issue is related to a lot more than death and because some minds stop working when that phrase is uttered. Inevitably, not speculatively, logic dictates that people will be harmed by the structure of the health care business, regardless of the payer.

[verticaldoug]

fuzzalow: I don't think it can be viewed as speculation that when there is less of something than one desires it will be rationed by one means or another. If it is a for profit system, the rationing might be accomplished by price. If a non-profit system, the rationing will probably be done by availability. No government will ever offer unlimited health care, so how will it limit that care? We shall hope that one person will not make that decision. Groups of people will make those decisions over time, presumably on the basis of cost/benefit of some sort. Still not reaching the range of speculation but merely logic, I think.

If health care is limited, some people will presumably die sooner because of such limits. Hard to argue with that. Others will suffer in less serious ways. So if a group of people makes a decision to limit health care, and some people die, could one for the sake of a sound bite fairly call that a death panel, there having been a panel and some death? Yes. Then again, people die today because of insurance company policies and insurance affordability, so it's really just the means of denial we are discussing, not the fact of it.

But when I talked of official priorities I was not saying death panels per se because that issue is related to a lot more than death and because some minds stop working when that phrase is uttered. Inevitably, not speculatively, logic dictates that people will be harmed by the structure of the health care business, regardless of the payer.

There are also issues of fairness when individuals made lifestyle choices with long term medical consequences vs those who maintained healthy lifestyles.
It's like a reverse stupid tax.

[tylerbick]

Just another symptom that capitalism is in the beginning stages of death-throws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[mcrispl]

why does health care cost so damned much?

here's an example: pal of mine worked on a drug for 20+ years, company has invested mind blowing amounts in it (10 figures).

that means zero revenue for 20+ years. huge operating costs. expensive, well-educated and smart employees dedicated to getting that thing to market.

and it still ain't done. literally some folks on the project have retired in the interim.

:bike:
In addition the billions of dollars that are spent on quality control throughout development and during production in order to maintain good standing with the FDA (I suppose you could get cynical and suggest that the FDA is being bribed, etc. but still a massive expense) All companies obviously do a degree of quality control, but for the most part it doesn't come close to what medical device and pharmaceutical companies spend.

[Ahneida Ride]

My health care went up 50% and coverage went down.
My good plan was declared illegal.
Another promise broken.

That means less frns to spend on bike stuff.
Less disposable income.
I can't practice fictional reserve like a bank and create frns outa
thin air and charge interest on nothing.

[Louis]

ACA was designed such that for those who did not support Obama costs would go up and coverage would go down. Those who did vote for him get it for $50 a month and everything is covered, including $10,000 bikes every other year, since cycling improves your health.

[Pete Mckeon]

I have seen it AND SUPPORT/AGREE. with Aneida except I Use USA $$ NOT BITCOIN OR FRNS but could be not fully understanding Frns -----&&&. but as to Bitcoins :fight: ! They are being hyped for no monetary reason for us:confused:

ACA was designed such that for those who did not support Obama costs would go up and coverage would go down. Those who did vote for him get it for $50 a month and everything is covered, including $10,000 bikes every other year, since cycling improves your health.

[fuzzalow]

@ 1centaur: As noted in my post #101, I was not taking a position that health care services should be provided on a non-profit basis. That will not be feasible within the culture and traditions of US society.

I do not understand where you are going with your post on for-profit versus non-profit and the consequence of spending limit caps on health care coverage. There is no controversy that there are finite resources available to anyone.

It is consistent that if health care were enabled to leverage government pricing power such as found with the Medicaid/Medicare programs, health care costs would be decreased considerably as compared to what an individual patient is forced to pay under their own coverage. Under this scenario the extent and duration of heath care might be extended for a given spending limit given the pricing structure advantages the patient rather than corporate margins.

Prescription drugs are expensive relative to other modern, industrialized nations because the US leaves prices to market competition among pharmaceutical companies. Allowing this however opens up all manner of manipulations.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . . but after reading the whole thing I see no reason to. The initial run was a bit, uh, contentious, but this latest conversation is for the most part civil, courteous, and fascinating. Just please let's keep it that way. Offering contrasting, well-spoken viewpoints on a variety of subjects--not just cycling--is one of the best things about this forum.

Thanks.

Now my two cents :rolleyes: . . . Regardless of all the bitcoin, medical costs and insurance, and inflation discussion, capitalism is, at it's heart, a competition. There are winners and losers in competitions. Eventually there's only one winner.

The role of our government has been to represent the people's interests--BUT it has also been to slow down that competition so the largest number of competitors continue to benefit. Over the last 50 years, monied interests have corrupted our government to the point where it is worthless in that particular duty. Anybody that believes we still live in a true democracy on a national level needs to pull their head out of the sand.

Liken it to the Tour de France. Everybody starts out equal, and there are interim winners for each stage. But at the end of 20 stages, there's only one big winner in the yellow jersey.

Well, our capitalistic economy "Tour de USA" is way past stage ten, and the majority of the players in this race are realizing they are going to be losers--and that the clear winners have been cheating. Not only that, but they've bought off the referees.

The rest of the riders are getting angry. So far they're just grousing. But if things don't change they are going to get angrier and eventually start expressing that anger in other ways. It may well turn out that capitalism doesn't work any better than communism as a governmental/economic system. It is just taking longer for that to play out than it did for Stalin & Co. The next hundred years in this country could be very interesting--and increasingly polarized, contentious, and violent.

As for medical costs, they are possibly THE prime example of an area where the market forces just plain don't work. Why? Because the ultimate product is the continuation of life and good health itself. Nobody but nobody is going to argue that anybody should be left to die in order to save money for the rest of the majority. It is politically not possible. Witness the reaction whenever anybody mentions medical care rationing in any form. NO amount of money is too much to spend in his country if it keeps somebody alive--even if their quality of life is that of a vegetable. The health care industry knows that and that's why they can charge almost whatever they want. I don't think it's a conscious action and they wouldn't call it that, but that's the end result, and it's the 500 lb. gorilla in the health care debate that nobody wants to talk about. Instead they'd rather complain about insurance costs and blah, blah, blah, rather than acknowledging the true cost driver.

BBD

[witcombusa]

[QUOTE=BumbleBeeDave;1491448The role of our government has been to represent the people's interests--BBD[/QUOTE]


Really?


Since when?


More correct would be, "The role of our government historically has been to represent their interests", read $$$ in their pockets (or offshore accounts)

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . it should be to represent the people's interests. But aside from that I stand by my comments.

BBD

[Ahneida Ride]

We have the very best politicians that frns can buy ! :banana:

[Louis]

We have the very best politicians that frns can buy ! :banana:

I think we can all agree on that.

[fuzzalow]

. . . it should be to represent the people's interests. But aside from that I stand by my comments.

BBD

We have the very best politicians that frns can buy ! :banana:

Very true. We, as a country, have created a terrible mess. Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. - John F. Kennedy There is nothing that we, as a nation, cannot come together with and fix. But the biggest first step to make is to make a fractured, disengaged electorate become less so. I have not a clue as to how to go about doing this. I keep hoping that voters get frustrated and angry enough that they in exasperation get more informed and involved than seems currently to be the case. Hasn't happened yet.

BTW, there are people in politics that are honest and are trying to do the right thing. Kudos to Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer for representing the interests of her city rather than the interests of a real estate developer that Governor Christie works with/for. But she is small beans in the bigger picture and no doubt her next reelection she will face an opponent with ample campaign financing. We, the voters, lose good people like her when we don't pay attention.

Impossible to separate money from politics, best that can be hoped for is to limit and contain its influence. But it has got to start with us.

[djg]

. . . . but after reading the whole thing I see no reason to. The initial run was a bit, uh, contentious, but this latest conversation is for the most part civil, courteous, and fascinating. Just please let's keep it that way. Offering contrasting, well-spoken viewpoints on a variety of subjects--not just cycling--is one of the best things about this forum.

Thanks.

Now my two cents :rolleyes: . . . Regardless of all the bitcoin, medical costs and insurance, and inflation discussion, capitalism is, at it's heart, a competition. There are winners and losers in competitions. Eventually there's only one winner.

The role of our government has been to represent the people's interests--BUT it has also been to slow down that competition so the largest number of competitors continue to benefit. Over the last 50 years, monied interests have corrupted our government to the point where it is worthless in that particular duty. Anybody that believes we still live in a true democracy on a national level needs to pull their head out of the sand.

Liken it to the Tour de France. Everybody starts out equal, and there are interim winners for each stage. But at the end of 20 stages, there's only one big winner in the yellow jersey.

Well, our capitalistic economy "Tour de USA" is way past stage ten, and the majority of the players in this race are realizing they are going to be losers--and that the clear winners have been cheating. Not only that, but they've bought off the referees.

The rest of the riders are getting angry. So far they're just grousing. But if things don't change they are going to get angrier and eventually start expressing that anger in other ways. It may well turn out that capitalism doesn't work any better than communism as a governmental/economic system. It is just taking longer for that to play out than it did for Stalin & Co. The next hundred years in this country could be very interesting--and increasingly polarized, contentious, and violent.

As for medical costs, they are possibly THE prime example of an area where the market forces just plain don't work. Why? Because the ultimate product is the continuation of life and good health itself. Nobody but nobody is going to argue that anybody should be left to die in order to save money for the rest of the majority. It is politically not possible. Witness the reaction whenever anybody mentions medical care rationing in any form. NO amount of money is too much to spend in his country if it keeps somebody alive--even if their quality of life is that of a vegetable. The health care industry knows that and that's why they can charge almost whatever they want. I don't think it's a conscious action and they wouldn't call it that, but that's the end result, and it's the 500 lb. gorilla in the health care debate that nobody wants to talk about. Instead they'd rather complain about insurance costs and blah, blah, blah, rather than acknowledging the true cost driver.

BBD

Yeah, this is all really genius material and not the least little bit contentious.

Might you add me to the list of folks requesting that the thread be closed?

And to AHR -- no doubt you are a great guy in person, smart, thoughtful, etc. People who've met you like you, and I'm sorry I've not had the pleasure. But this is a board for cyclists; if conversation does stray a bit, we're nonetheless supposed to avoid contentious (most?) political discussions; and some of us thought that the fringe view f.r.n. rant got old well before its ten thousandth reiteration. I would ask you to consider your role as moderator on the way to considering that you just never again post on this topic on this board.

So now I'm insulting two moderators (and I've met BBD, and I have a personal opinion that he's a good guy), and maybe I'll get the boot for this, but for crying out loud, people . . .

[fuzzalow]

Yeah, this is all really genius material and not the least little bit contentious.

Might you add me to the list of folks requesting that the thread be closed?

Respectfully, rather than sarcasm, might you state you objections so we know where you are coming from...other than the fact you are unhappy?

It is offseason for us Paceliners situated in the Northern Hemisphere, fer cryin' out loud. There are plenty of threads about buying bike stuff. Bandwidth is cheap. I read nothing in this thread approaching a flame-war. Tell me what you are angry at.

P.S. If this thread should somehow be deemed to be locked by the Mods - please may there be an reason given as to why.

I say this because it is unjust that a thread be locked if it were the result of actions taken "Behind the scenes" based on complaints voiced solely to the Mods, rather than objections at least voiced out in the open, public forum first. All posts are open to public scrutiny including contrary views or complaints.

[Pete Mckeon]

come down here and I will provide a couch and many glasses of red.

this is freedom of expression not censorship, as well as no personal attacks:)

chill, read, think, and Many things are done well and some not but better than MOST when one looks at a macro view. Congress and Senate has been asleep in 2013 on everything that requires a vote AND it is cold and snow here:mad:
but enough food and wine:)

BBDave and the other moderators do a good job.

Yeah, this is all really genius material and not the least little bit contentious.

Might you add me to the list of folks requesting that the thread be closed?

And to AHR -- no doubt you are a great guy in person, smart, thoughtful, etc. People who've met you like you, and I'm sorry I've not had the pleasure. But this is a board for cyclists; if conversation does stray a bit, we're nonetheless supposed to avoid contentious (most?) political discussions; and some of us thought that the fringe view f.r.n. rant got old well before its ten thousandth reiteration. I would ask you to consider your role as moderator on the way to considering that you just never again post on this topic on this board.

So now I'm insulting two moderators (and I've met BBD, and I have a personal opinion that he's a good guy), and maybe I'll get the boot for this, but for crying out loud, people . . .

[oldpotatoe]

-Might you add me to the list of folks requesting that the thread be closed?

-And to AHR -- no doubt you are a great guy in person, smart, thoughtful, etc. People who've met you like you, and I'm sorry I've not had the pleasure. But this is a board for cyclists; if conversation does stray a bit, we're nonetheless supposed to avoid contentious (most?) political discussions; and some of us thought that the fringe view f.r.n. rant got old well before its ten thousandth reiteration. I would ask you to consider your role as moderator on the way to considering that you just never again post on this topic on this board.



Don't agree about closure..good thread, not mean and snipping yet.

Yup, My Opinion also, and like Opinions, ya know.

[verticaldoug]

I have nothing to add but some humor.
Just buy the dip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jllJ-HeErjU

[sg8357]

We have the very best politicians that frns can buy ! :banana:

The politicos are getting smarter, extortion is replacing bribery.

http://www.amazon.com/Extortion-Politicians-Extract-Money-Pockets/dp/0544103343

[djg]

Respectfully, rather than sarcasm, might you state you objections so we know where you are coming from...other than the fact you are unhappy?

It is offseason for us Paceliners situated in the Northern Hemisphere, fer cryin' out loud. There are plenty of threads about buying bike stuff. Bandwidth is cheap. I read nothing in this thread approaching a flame-war. Tell me what you are angry at.

P.S. If this thread should somehow be deemed to be locked by the Mods - please may there be an reason given as to why.

I say this because it is unjust that a thread be locked if it were the result of actions taken "Behind the scenes" based on complaints voiced solely to the Mods, rather than objections at least voiced out in the open, public forum first. All posts are open to public scrutiny including contrary views or complaints.

Fair enough, and I do apologize.

If some of this strikes me very differently from the way it strikes others, then plainly it's the case that it strikes others differently from the way it strikes me. Sorry to insult good folks making a good faith effort at civil discussion.

I find myself in an odd position -- some things to which I think I devote serious attention -- say, at work -- are things of some general interest that I just should not address, at all, in a general discussion forum such as this. But many folks no doubt find themselves in similar positions.

Sorry again, I'll drop from the thread, but drop my objections at the same time.

[1centaur]

@ 1centaur: As noted in my post #101, I was not taking a position that health care services should be provided on a non-profit basis. That will not be feasible within the culture and traditions of US society.

I do not understand where you are going with your post on for-profit versus non-profit and the consequence of spending limit caps on health care coverage. There is no controversy that there are finite resources available to anyone.

It is consistent that if health care were enabled to leverage government pricing power such as found with the Medicaid/Medicare programs, health care costs would be decreased considerably as compared to what an individual patient is forced to pay under their own coverage. Under this scenario the extent and duration of heath care might be extended for a given spending limit given the pricing structure advantages the patient rather than corporate margins.

Prescription drugs are expensive relative to other modern, industrialized nations because the US leaves prices to market competition among pharmaceutical companies. Allowing this however opens up all manner of manipulations.

I was responding directly to your words in 101 below my copied in quote, both as to what constitutes speculation or not and to the death panel reference, lest my words be viewed henceforth as simply in that vein.

Further to the quote from you above, but in the same vein as my last one, I want to reiterate what I and perhaps you view as a simple point but one that is clearly not viewed thus in mainstream discussions: the current system does both good and bad things for both outcomes and costs, as would single payer. The devil is not in corporate margins related to health care in the aggregate, though surely that is the case in some specific instances. The bads of margin can be calculated and observed quite easily; the bads of bureaucratic indifference, political trade offs, and systematic constipation are not so clearly visible and are harder to demagogue in a sound bite, but their implications for suboptimal health and unfair outcomes are no less real.

As simply a giant buyer, even if not the only buyer, the government could squeeze margin out of any business through threats implied and stated as well as purchasing power. With margins shattered, outcomes, products and services would change, not just cost less. Good and bad changes would occur. Probably, and this is speculation, the easy stuff would get cheaper and be more available and the harder stuff would go away or only be available to the rich, if the law allowed that outcome. As for pharmaceuticals, the makers logically base their pipeline development on what they can earn, and that earning stream is a mix of the regulated costs overseas and the much less regulated costs elsewhere. Thus US buyers subsidize foreign drug consumption. If there were coordinated efforts to minimize drug profits across all major buying nations, many drugs would not be developed, which might be good for societal health care costs (more people dying sooner is great for affordability). Win win, in a sense.

The fascinating thing about the health care payment structure debate is that even the best informed, best intentioned, most intellectually honest people would end up making both informed and uninformed decisions that would harm a lot of people. It is not a solvable problem, it is a barely manageable problem, which is why it is tempting to let the anonymous market make lots of hard decisions. If we were going with single payer, having an awesome executive run the program would be incredibly important. Somebody that awesome would be wise to do something else.

[54ny77]

Health care's insane. There is no answer. Just lesser of evils. People do what they can, as patients and service providers who try their best. Have lots of friends in the profession, and they're good people.

The sheer enormity of hospitals, especially in expensive locations, must be mind-boggling to run. Maybe they make money, maybe they don't. Dunno. What I do know is I had a friend who did their residency at St. Vincent's in Greenwich Village, a hospital in an immensely populated town (NYC) that is literally no longer there. How that can possibly happen is hard to grasp.

I remember a bunch of us rushing over there on 9/11 getting in line to donate blood. It's a memory that will last forever, that's for sure--particularly because we were told by nurses and staff that due to the situation, blood was not needed. Humbling.

My family doc thinks globally but acts locally: doesn't accept any insurance (he hasn't in the 25-30 years I've been going to him), but charges a fair price for majority of the services he provides. Funny enough, it's been only in the past decade or so that he even started accepting credit cards. Much of what he does is preventative care, or treatment as needed (flu stuff, broken bones, that sort of thing). Xrays are done with a machine likely as old as me. He uses the profit to provide for heavily discounted or free medical services for those in need.

[fuzzalow]

Fair enough, and I do apologize.
I appreciate your measured response and an apology is not needed as we both share and expect mutual respect participating on this forum.
If some of this strikes me very differently from the way it strikes others, then plainly it's the case that it strikes others differently from the way it strikes me. Sorry to insult good folks making a good faith effort at civil discussion.

I find myself in an odd position -- some things to which I think I devote serious attention -- say, at work -- are things of some general interest that I just should not address, at all, in a general discussion forum such as this. But many folks no doubt find themselves in similar positions.

Sorry again, I'll drop from the thread, but drop my objections at the same time.

No insult was given and none were taken. I would also ask that you not exit this thread, or any others like it in the future, and continue to add to the discussion. Especially if you have a real world perspective on a subject; that is highly valued insight that helps makes this forum a diverse and exceptional place. That nothing proprietary is divulged here is already understood as a given.

I'd like to believe we are all adults here and as such, are fully cognizant of the separation of our professional lives & identities from that of our personal lives & identities. What I must do as necessary to earn a living need not be absolutely lockstep and synchronized with what my personal mores and ethics might be.

For example, my work in capital markets does not create an unalloyed and unwavering faith in the sanctity and wisdom of the free markets as part and parcel with my own personal beliefs. Good grief, I know how the sausage is made, or at least a few varieties of all the different sausages that get sold. And anyone taking a a harsh view or voicing criticism of the sausage industry would never be taken as directed at me personally. This is the real world, there are skeletons everywhere.

Every adult in a professional career may find themselves placed in situation of moral ambiguity. It is not always cut and dried. It is also the price we pay as adults with careers and responsibilities.

[54ny77]

Mmmmm....sausage.....

http://austin.culturemap.com/crop/225x300/129269/photos/2013/09/25/Plate-of-sausages-and-beer_180616.jpg

[fuzzalow]

I'd agree that there will be collateral damage and errors along the way in trying solutions, having them fail, revising approaches and refining recursively this process again. But there is no thought that there will be an edict or even the goal to change all of health care to a singular monolithic approach anytime in your or my lifetime. But there should be an attempt at a model other than a pure pay-by-procedure based system which is largely in effect today.

I was responding directly to your words in 101 below my copied in quote, both as to what constitutes speculation or not and to the death panel reference, lest my words be viewed henceforth as simply in that vein.

Further to the quote from you above, but in the same vein as my last one, I want to reiterate what I and perhaps you view as a simple point but one that is clearly not viewed thus in mainstream discussions: the current system does both good and bad things for both outcomes and costs, as would single payer. The devil is not in corporate margins related to health care in the aggregate, though surely that is the case in some specific instances. The bads of margin can be calculated and observed quite easily; the bads of bureaucratic indifference, political trade offs, and systematic constipation are not so clearly visible and are harder to demagogue in a sound bite, but their implications for suboptimal health and unfair outcomes are no less real.

I don't accept the view that personifies the control of health care to some governmental agency that brings harm by technocratic mandate on how to run a health care system. There are professionals working in the medical fields that equally want to see improvements to their ability to improve the success curve of their patient outcomes. And that medical and health services administrative talent & expertise will no doubt be incorporated and partnered with into crafting a solution. For example, the Mayo Clinic is often cited as an institution which produces a high standard for patient outcomes while simultaneously effectively controlling costs for the care provided. Might their approach be adapted into other venues and specialties. Try to replicate what works and revise or discard those that hinder, sub-perform or are excessively expensive.

Yes, there is risk to try something new. And a solution may well exhibit qualities of "bureaucratic indifference, political trade offs, and systematic constipation". That should not presume a a crushing weight of just those qualities to the exclusion of any positive result in care services - it makes it sound like doing this was just make a useless bureaucracy. There is no way the health care professionals would ever sign up for that - most actually want to do some good.

As simply a giant buyer, even if not the only buyer, the government could squeeze margin out of any business through threats implied and stated as well as purchasing power. With margins shattered, outcomes, products and services would change, not just cost less. Good and bad changes would occur. Probably, and this is speculation, the easy stuff would get cheaper and be more available and the harder stuff would go away or only be available to the rich, if the law allowed that outcome. As for pharmaceuticals, the makers logically base their pipeline development on what they can earn, and that earning stream is a mix of the regulated costs overseas and the much less regulated costs elsewhere. Thus US buyers subsidize foreign drug consumption. If there were coordinated efforts to minimize drug profits across all major buying nations, many drugs would not be developed, which might be good for societal health care costs (more people dying sooner is great for affordability). Win win, in a sense.

When the US pays 17% of GDP for health services and France expends 11% for a higher quality result, I don't accept the argument that a reduction in margin will be a crushing disincentive in services or products. The profit margin cannot be held at this level as it is an artificially expensive pricing construct based on lack of regulation and pricing manipulations.

Elisabeth Rosenthal for the NYTimes (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/elisabeth_rosenthal/index.html) has covered medical costs extensively. There is nothing in commercial necessity that drives a 300% or greater margin for medical devices or prescrition drugs other than profit maximization.

The fascinating thing about the health care payment structure debate is that even the best informed, best intentioned, most intellectually honest people would end up making both informed and uninformed decisions that would harm a lot of people. It is not a solvable problem, it is a barely manageable problem, which is why it is tempting to let the anonymous market make lots of hard decisions. If we were going with single payer, having an awesome executive run the program would be incredibly important. Somebody that awesome would be wise to do something else.
All we can do is make our best effort. But what you have listed is a poor excuse to try. I do not believe in a fate that will befall us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing. - Ronald Reagan

[1centaur]

I do not for a moment suggest that nothing should be done just because there will be, not might be, significant negatives from the changes. I also do not doubt that doctors want to treat patients well and do not naturally become DMV workers when in giant bureaucracies (as hospitals often are). I HAVE seen the negatives of ALL the other less profit oriented systems over the years, and by this time find them unsurprising.

As a matter of interest, I have probably analyzed the financials from at least 150 minor players in US health care over the last decade, and the vast majority are not very profitable and a stunning number exist to save one side or another money through various means, partly existing as a derivative of the intersection of governmental rules and the never very free market. The clunkiness of Obamacare's early days partly reflects the same thing: government rules on what to pay for interacting with insurance companies actually trying to make money within those guidelines. When people say it was designed to fail, I think it's been failing in the same way for a long time.

As for giant profits, 300% is NOT sustainable in a competitive market and almost certainly NOT genuinely reflective of the calculus. Sort of like the oil business, the cost of failures is not counted by the accusers against the profits of success, and is 300% gross or net and how long does it last? To go to cycling references, Di2 is hugely profitable if you ignore the 17 years of research and development to bring it to market. One of the things non-investors don't get in their gut is that capitalism forces profits down to fairly predictable numbers. EBITDA margins are <10% for commodity products, 10-20% for products with some value added, 20-30% for some pretty exceptional products, and 30-60% for some niche monopoly products but more likely exceptional software, other than brief spurts of profit before others catch up (most health care is between 5% and 15%; anything above 10% and the government thinks you are a profiteer and skews regulations against you if the can). 300% is some other measurement (I am guessing gross margin on a single product with no thought to return on investment) that is designed to inflame rather than elucidate.

[fuzzalow]

This conversation has likely whittled down to include just you and me and a bunch of geeks and wonks into this kind of thing. As important as this topic is, I'd have hoped it would have a bigger crowd, but whaddaya gonna do?

So I'll comment here and we can agree to disagree while leaving our opposing arguments out here in the forum for posterity. LOL. You are welcome to the last word and thanks for a civil discourse, it was fun.

I do not for a moment suggest that nothing should be done just because there will be, not might be, significant negatives from the changes. I also do not doubt that doctors want to treat patients well and do not naturally become DMV workers when in giant bureaucracies (as hospitals often are). I HAVE seen the negatives of ALL the other less profit oriented systems over the years, and by this time find them unsurprising.

To make an omelette you gonna have to break a few eggs.

All kidding aside, the particular circumstances have to be looked at to determine if there really was damage done or if people are grousing over having to make a change and what the effect of the change was.

For example, some of the well publicized "losers" in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were confined to an estimated 3% who had a coverage change because their prior plan did not meet the minimum standard for coverage as far as a cap on out of pocket costs per year. Their old policies were cheaper because the coverage was lower quality than the new minimum required by ACA.

Chart: Winners and Losers from ObamaCare (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=obamacare%20losers&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&ved=0CGwQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftalkingpointsmemo.com%2Flivewire% 2Fchart-winners-and-losers-from-obamacare&ei=W-XsUqqWA8rlsASHkYL4DA&usg=AFQjCNGXtkue_duz8FdkCZjXfKdV3AMKCA&bvm=bv.60444564,d.cWc)
TheNewYorker article that was the basis for the above chart (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/10/obamacares-three-per-cent.html?mobify=0)

As a matter of interest, I have probably analyzed the financials from at least 150 minor players in US health care over the last decade, and the vast majority are not very profitable and a stunning number exist to save one side or another money through various means, partly existing as a derivative of the intersection of governmental rules and the never very free market. The clunkiness of Obamacare's early days partly reflects the same thing: government rules on what to pay for interacting with insurance companies actually trying to make money within those guidelines. When people say it was designed to fail, I think it's been failing in the same way for a long time.

I don't know the particulars of these institutions and why they skirt profitability. Then let the free market take its course. I don't take the view that these institutions are the drivers for overall health care as the priority is not to ensure their viability. Capitalism is adaptable and viable institutions will find ways for profit irrespective as to the changes to the healthcare landscape in which they operate.

The priority is the bring the overall cost curve down as it impacts the ability for any US citizen access to the health care system. As a secondary concern, the overall healthcare expenditures are a drawdown against GDP and need to be reduced as it is a detriment to US competitive capacity in the global economy (i.e. health care is not an exportable growth industry so for the US to burn about 17% of its GDP resources on healthcare means it can't deploy those resources for more profitable growth opportunities)

As for giant profits, 300% is NOT sustainable in a competitive market and almost certainly NOT genuinely reflective of the calculus. Sort of like the oil business, the cost of failures is not counted by the accusers against the profits of success, and is 300% gross or net and how long does it last? To go to cycling references, Di2 is hugely profitable if you ignore the 17 years of research and development to bring it to market. One of the things non-investors don't get in their gut is that capitalism forces profits down to fairly predictable numbers. EBITDA margins are <10% for commodity products, 10-20% for products with some value added, 20-30% for some pretty exceptional products, and 30-60% for some niche monopoly products but more likely exceptional software, other than brief spurts of profit before others catch up (most health care is between 5% and 15%; anything above 10% and the government thinks you are a profiteer and skews regulations against you if the can). 300% is some other measurement (I am guessing gross margin on a single product with no thought to return on investment) that is designed to inflame rather than elucidate.

HaHa, we start talking EBITDA and this conversation has even the geeks and wonks tuning out.

Again, I don't view the problem as one in support of corporate margins and what those interests would like to have. As a concerned American voter, I only care about how health care effects the citizenry and, in aggregate, the nation. And the number that is most relevant to a patient is not the margin percentage or the cost of manufacture of a medical device but what they have to pay for it. And the current markups are considerable, excessive to most any criteria except to those institutions that seek maximization of profit.

Hospitals and orthopedic clinics typically pay $4,500 to $7,500 for an artificial hip, according to MD Buyline and Orthopedic Network News, which track device pricing. But those numbers balloon with the cost of installation equipment and all the intermediaries’ fees, including an often hefty hospital markup.

That is why the hip implant for Joe Catugno, a patient at the Hospital for Joint Diseases in New York, accounted for nearly $37,000 of his approximately $100,000 hospital bill; Cigna, his insurer, paid close to $70,000 of the charges. At Mills-Peninsula Health Services in San Mateo, Calif., Susan Foley’s artificial knee, which costs about the same as a hip joint, was billed at $26,000 in a total hospital tally of $112,317. The components of Sonja Nelson’s hip at Sacred Heart Hospital in Pensacola, Fla., accounted for $30,581 of her $50,935 hospital bill. Insurers negotiate discounts on those charges, and patients have limited responsibility for the differences.

The basic design of artificial joints has not changed for decades. But increased volume — about one million knee and hip replacements are performed in the United States annually — and competition have not lowered prices, as would typically happen with products like clothes or cars. “There are a bunch of implants that are reasonably similar,” said James C. Robinson, a health economist at the University of California, Berkeley. “That should be great for the consumer, but it isn’t.”

Excerpt from NYTimes In Need of a New Hip, but Priced Out of the U.S. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html?ref=elisabethrosenthal)

I am in error about the margin regarding the markup on the hip joint referenced in the above article. It was not the rhetorical blurb of 300%, it was arithmetically 433%.

[Pete Mckeon]

Thanks


We are a huge country and with a diverse population. "One size does not fit all".

Over life i have learned to plan but execute in increments. :confused:


There are some very sharp people on the forum and we can learn from them, and maybe not agree but learn and grow/adapt. Very few things in life have only one solution for all and we can work together in life for common goals:help:

[djg]

I'd agree that there will be collateral damage and errors along the way in trying solutions, having them fail, revising approaches and refining recursively this process again. But there is no thought that there will be an edict or even the goal to change all of health care to a singular monolithic approach anytime in your or my lifetime. But there should be an attempt at a model other than a pure pay-by-procedure based system which is largely in effect today.

I don't accept the view that personifies the control of health care to some governmental agency that brings harm by technocratic mandate on how to run a health care system. There are professionals working in the medical fields that equally want to see improvements to their ability to improve the success curve of their patient outcomes. And that medical and health services administrative talent & expertise will no doubt be incorporated and partnered with into crafting a solution. For example, the Mayo Clinic is often cited as an institution which produces a high standard for patient outcomes while simultaneously effectively controlling costs for the care provided. Might their approach be adapted into other venues and specialties. Try to replicate what works and revise or discard those that hinder, sub-perform or are excessively expensive.

Yes, there is risk to try something new. And a solution may well exhibit qualities of "bureaucratic indifference, political trade offs, and systematic constipation". That should not presume a a crushing weight of just those qualities to the exclusion of any positive result in care services - it makes it sound like doing this was just make a useless bureaucracy. There is no way the health care professionals would ever sign up for that - most actually want to do some good.



When the US pays 17% of GDP for health services and France expends 11% for a higher quality result, I don't accept the argument that a reduction in margin will be a crushing disincentive in services or products. The profit margin cannot be held at this level as it is an artificially expensive pricing construct based on lack of regulation and pricing manipulations.

Elisabeth Rosenthal for the NYTimes (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/elisabeth_rosenthal/index.html) has covered medical costs extensively. There is nothing in commercial necessity that drives a 300% or greater margin for medical devices or prescrition drugs other than profit maximization.


All we can do is make our best effort. But what you have listed is a poor excuse to try.

Ok, you were kind enough in your response that I'll say something -- some very general things, anyway. First, yeah it's a swamp. Second, WRT pharma profits, it's true that they can be extremely high and, in some specialty drug cases, troubling indeed. But let's notice, first, the increasing (already majority) share of Rx sales moving to generics (the recent "patent cliff" is really a drop in a long-running trend). Some generics are still relatively pricey, but many are dirt cheap, average prices are even lower than in many countries that exert buying power -- say, Canada, at least via the provinces (well, we do it too, just not across the whole market). WRT branded drugs, read the economic literature on pharm. development and, in broad strokes, this is the ideal case -- truly, one of the only strong cases -- for strong, long-term patent protection. New drugs have a long and costly development pathway. For a NME, we're talking quite a few years and a billion dollars or more of development costs (from the lab through the Phase III clinical trials) where those large sunk costs are at risk, both in the sense that the trials may not pan out, post-approval issues might not be apparent, and in the sense that, for many products knowing the range of products that might compete more-or-less well as substitutes in the market can be pretty tricky over a big window.

Yes, businesses game the system, the various Hatch-Waxman provisions, etc., etc., and the details can get ugly in any given case. Without trying to argue that the present system is optimal -- not even as a joke on a board where most folks don't know my name -- I will suggest, first, that trying to design an optimal IP/competition balance is an intractable problem, second, that the promise of huge post-marketing profits is a key driver (necessary, I'd say) to new product development (independent of the handfuls of cool things we might get from this or that top-down long-term government project) and, third, that price discrimination can be rational for both sellers and buyers. What to do as a foreign policy matter about nations that free-ride on our expenditures is another question, and perhaps even thornier, but it doesn't alter the basic problem: how would you know, as a policy matter, what the next blockbuster drug should cost in its first year post-approval? Its third?

On the International thing, yeah, we pay tons for all sorts of things and some of those tons give very poor value for money. But most international comparisons are -- or really ought to be -- highly contentious. We've got some serious background health issues that contribute to relatively high chronic care and neonatal costs. We spend huge amounts of money on high-cost intervention late in life -- things rationed or accounted for very differently (perhaps very reasonably) in many other systems. Lop off trauma -- car accidents right up there, but also gun violence, etc. -- and you save a ton. The fact is, most people do fine with low-cost intervention most of their lives. Most Americans too. Nudge a few environmental factors and that's even more true. What should we spend on the rest of us, individually or collectively, and how should we spend it? I dunno. That's not to suggest that we have the best or third-best health care system, or even that the term "system" applies appropriately to health care, just to nod to some of the many wrinkles in the problem of international comparisons and the far more complex problem how you would "engineer" a tractable alternative, here, if you were to take a shot.

I'm not sure that bit coins or foundations of shiny rocks have anything much to do with this, but the thread had wandered, as threads do, and this seems responsive to something.

Not sure what I'm doing here -- a good follow-up question or rejoinder (and you or anybody else might have many) should ask for a 10 page paper or a stack of them, but there it is.

[malcolm]

Hey I'll leave some perspective on health care from someone who's practiced emergency medicine for 20 years.

First off it's difficult to compare systems from other countries and say one is better. Better has many different facets. Acute care medicine in the US is the best available, in my opinion. By acute care I mean if you have an injury or illness that is life threatening and demands immediate attention. We also do very well with catastrophic illness assuming you are insured and have had a modicum of prior treatment and were dx early. Few countries do as well as we do in these instances. A frequently cited statistic is infant mortality where we lag behind but if you look at the way the data is collected and what's excluded it can yield a different result.

Where we do poorly is preventative medicine. Medical practice in the US in my opinion for the most part quit being about health maintenance and disease prevention years ago and became focused on controlling symptoms and parameters of disease. Essentially selling drugs. Most diabetics would respond to exercise and weight loss, but for the most part we don't address that for many reasons. Just a quick look at the meds people are on will tell you something, almost every person I see is on an SSRI, something for attention/focus, reflux and the list goes on.

I've always been quite conservative, grew up in a single parent family, mom with two jobs. Paid my way through school. Had very little belief in free lunch. As I've gotten older I'm becoming convinced medicine will never be effective in a capitalistic system, nothing against capitalism, just don't think it works well in medicine especially independent primary care if for no other reason than it hinders the physician from telling the patient the whole truth because you have to preserve them as a customer. I've transitioned from the ER to an urgent care setting and I've seen the difference in me. In the ER, at least before the advent of patient satisfaction surveys and satisfaction tied to your income I did what I thought was right and necessary and really didn't give much consideration to what you wanted unless I thought you needed it. I now give way more steroid shots and antibiotics to people who really don't need them but are convinced they do. Many studies are done more based on patient desire than need. I think it also lends its self to loss of clinical practice of medicine. If you see a patient and treat them conservatively and they don't get better very likely they'll go somewhere else and if tests done then reveal they had X then they assume you were incompetent because you were conservative on the first visit. That in turn creates many unnecessary work ups, driving up costs.

We also as a group tend to have unrealistic expectations of medicine and insurance. If you talk to average joes they can't understand why everyone can't have this totally unrestricted insurance where they can go to the doctor anytime they want for any reason and not cost a dime. We want mack daddy coverage for everyone but nobody wants to pay. One thing some people don't realize is how much some of their fellow man go to the doctor. It's not unusual to look at the roles of a family practice clinic or walk in clinic and see people that go to the doctor for colds 6-8 times a year with only a 10-30 cost to themselves. This again drives up costs but the consumer has no real skin in the game. I don't think you have this kind of usage in most socialized systems.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do think it's broken. Sorry if this is rambling it was just off the top of my head. I've been amazed at how many really smart people have no idea about their own healthcare.

One last thought. I just read an article in the New York Times that bemoaned the income of physicians and gave numbers suggesting these increases in physician income. I'm not going to whine much because medicine afforded me a good living, but trust me I worked hard for, long hours, many holidays and weekends, missed recitals, birthdays, Christmases, etc. I don't personally know one physician that makes any more money now than they did 10 years ago unless their status has changed (become a partner). I spent my entire ED career with the same group in the same ER and my income change one time, when I became partner. I made the exact same amount of money the day I quit as the day I became partner. My wife is a radiologist and they are making about the same amount they did 10 years ago, some private practice guys actually make less due to restrictions on outpatient imaging centers.

Interesting discussion and I hope you younger guys live to see medicine be what it should be. I'm not sure government control is the answer and there will be painful fits and starts but something has to change.

One other thing I'll add is look at the cost of taking care of the elderly. It consumes most of our health care dollar. I'm not saying don't take care of the elderly but you need to do it with clinical decision making. Many of the preventative things we do don't necessarily add to life. Chasing PSAs on guys that are 80 and many other examples. Our end of life care is appalling we let our elderly die a cell at a time long after they've had a lucid thought and trust me that's way expensive. I suspect if you look at socialized systems these sort of things are not done.

[93legendti]

The Unaffordable Care Act's next gift to Americans:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/next-obamacare-crisis-small-business-costs-101212.html

And 89% of the uninsured aren't buying oliarcare.gov. Well, you can't buy on fubarcare.gov, because the payment mechanism hasn't been built yet!

The uninsured were the reason for this disaster, according to Oliar. The CBO projects UACA will never lower the amount of uninsured below 30 million. That and a promised premium reduction of $2,500. Instead, we have average hikes of $2,900. Politifact was right. Lie of the year.

[jblande]

The Unaffordable Care Act's next gift to Americans:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/next-obamacare-crisis-small-business-costs-101212.html

And 89% of the uninsured aren't buying oliarcare.gov. Well, you can't buy on fubarcare.gov, because the payment mechanism hasn't been built yet!

The uninsured were the reason for this disaster, according to Oliar. The CBO projects UACA will never lower the amount of uninsured below 30 million. That and a promised premium reduction of $2,500. Instead, we have average hikes of $2,900. Politifact was right. Lie of the year.

how are you still allowed to post on this board?

[1centaur]

Before this gets shut down, in response to the hip implant cost discussion, if I followed that bouncing ball the margin was made in the hospital, not the device maker (or at least we don't see the margin at the implant maker, but can read their financial statements), but hospitals have 20% uninsured care losses and don't end up with high profit margins overall, which is a point that a reporter would choose not to report because the mark-up angle is sexier. One man's mark-up is another man's subsidy, for uninsured, Medicaid, etc. It's an ugly, twisted system that reflects non-market levers entwined with market levers encircled with fear, confusion and other emotions.

[buldogge]

Adam…Give it a rest…seriously.

Find a political board to troll, or a tea-party circle-jerk to join.

You can't even share your wacko crap without using kindergarten re-namings.

Go ride your bike, or play with your kids, or read a book…something.

Jeesh…
-Mark in St. Louis

The Unaffordable Care Act's next gift to Americans:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/next-obamacare-crisis-small-business-costs-101212.html

And 89% of the uninsured aren't buying oliarcare.gov. Well, you can't buy on fubarcare.gov, because the payment mechanism hasn't been built yet!

The uninsured were the reason for this disaster, according to Oliar. The CBO projects UACA will never lower the amount of uninsured below 30 million. That and a promised premium reduction of $2,500. Instead, we have average hikes of $2,900. Politifact was right. Lie of the year.

[witcombusa]

how are you still allowed to post on this board?

Nothing beats the intolerance of people who can only stand to hear their own views echoed back at them...

93ledgendti, your opinion is as good as any other forum members

[jblande]

Nothing beats the intolerance of people who can only stand to hear their own views echoed back at them...

93ledgendti, your opinion is as good as any other forum members

for the record, it's because i believe the 93legendti is hostile to reasoned disagreement that i said what i did.

[2LeftCleats]

Another long-time practicing primary care doc here. Thread has drifted way off bitcoin, but interesting.

There is no perfect healthcare system. The best we can do is find the balance between the best care and a sustainable system. What we currently have really accomplishes neither very well. IMO some form of universal insurance system untethered to employment would be the best compromise. Expanding Medicare to all is one approach. It has it's quirks and detractors, but overall works reasonably well at low overhead, and patients are mostly happy with it. The Anthems and Uniteds are profit-driven and aggressively limit care and reduce reimbursement. Not all of that is inappropriate, but with unconscionable CEO salaries and bonuses tied to that profit, it's hard to see patient well-being at the center of the these efforts. It's amazing how much time and money is wasted trying to get prior authorizations.

Another approach championed several years ago in their book "Critical Condition", Barlett and Steele suggest a Fed-style (aah-there's the bitcoin tie-in) approach with a centralized coordination of healthcare and healthcare research including oversight of drug and device development. There is currently insufficient evaluation of new stuff. Too often, the latest scan seems like it should work, is profitable, and quickly becomes the standard of care. Later, after careful review, we find that it has only driven up costs with little benefit.

Obamacare is the bastard stepchild of an ineffectual president and a hostile House. It doesn't really go far enough to do a lot of good, the implementation has been unbelievably inept, and may be smothered in its crib. I wish a public option would have been allowed at least as a demonstration project.

We as a nation must realize that there is probably enough money currently in the system to give everyone what he needs, but not necessarily everything he thinks he needs. We don't need antibiotics for colds, MRIs for all back pain, futile care at the end of life, etc. We do need better immunization coverage, infant care, etc. As mentioned previously, it wouldn't hurt if as much effort and money went into promoting healthful living as it now does for fast food and video games. Healthcare starts at home.

[verticaldoug]

Another long-time practicing primary care doc here. Thread has drifted way off bitcoin, but interesting.

There is no perfect healthcare system. The best we can do is find the balance between the best care and a sustainable system. What we currently have really accomplishes neither very well. IMO some form of universal insurance system untethered to employment would be the best compromise. Expanding Medicare to all is one approach. It has it's quirks and detractors, but overall works reasonably well at low overhead, and patients are mostly happy with it. The Anthems and Uniteds are profit-driven and aggressively limit care and reduce reimbursement. Not all of that is inappropriate, but with unconscionable CEO salaries and bonuses tied to that profit, it's hard to see patient well-being at the center of the these efforts. It's amazing how much time and money is wasted trying to get prior authorizations.

Another approach championed several years ago in their book "Critical Condition", Barlett and Steele suggest a Fed-style (aah-there's the bitcoin tie-in) approach with a centralized coordination of healthcare and healthcare research including oversight of drug and device development. There is currently insufficient evaluation of new stuff. Too often, the latest scan seems like it should work, is profitable, and quickly becomes the standard of care. Later, after careful review, we find that it has only driven up costs with little benefit.

Obamacare is the bastard stepchild of an ineffectual president and a hostile House. It doesn't really go far enough to do a lot of good, the implementation has been unbelievably inept, and may be smothered in its crib. I wish a public option would have been allowed at least as a demonstration project.

We as a nation must realize that there is probably enough money currently in the system to give everyone what he needs, but not necessarily everything he thinks he needs. We don't need antibiotics for colds, MRIs for all back pain, futile care at the end of life, etc. We do need better immunization coverage, infant care, etc. As mentioned previously, it wouldn't hurt if as much effort and money went into promoting healthful living as it now does for fast food and video games. Healthcare starts at home.

Infant mortality rates can be a pretty good measure about the state of total healthcare system. Compared to other industrialized nations, the U.S. is pretty poor here. United States 5.9 Canada 4.78 UK 4.5 Czech 3.7 Germany 3.48 Japan 2.17 just to name a few.

Japan accomplishes this with a single payer NHS. Contributions are progressive and based on income. For regular salary, the max is around $6000. Bonus are considered separately and these can taxed to another $17,000.

Japan spends approximately 7% of GDP and accomplishes a lot. Cost containment is a big component of the system.

[PQJ]

Great post 2LeftCleats. That's the dialogue we ought to be having but it occurs oh so infrequently.



MODS: PLEASE ADD 'LIKE' BUTTON OR SOMETHING LIKE IT. THANKS. ;)

[malcolm]

Infant mortality rates can be a pretty good measure about the state of total healthcare system. Compared to other industrialized nations, the U.S. is pretty poor here. United States 5.9 Canada 4.78 UK 4.5 Czech 3.7 Germany 3.48 Japan 2.17 just to name a few.

Japan accomplishes this with a single payer NHS. Contributions are progressive and based on income. For regular salary, the max is around $6000. Bonus are considered separately and these can taxed to another $17,000.

Japan spends approximately 7% of GDP and accomplishes a lot. Cost containment is a big component of the system.

Good article about the cause of the us high infant mortality rate. Basically it's related to the high rate of premature birth here. The don't really know why that exists or at least can't fully explain it. It probably multifactorial related to life style, comorbidities of the mother and many other factors. I don't know that you can reliably use it as an indicator of the overall state of healthcare. It's like looking at the steering wheel for the overall condition of the car.

http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2013fall/article2.html

[cfox]

To make an omelette you gonna have to break a few eggs.

All kidding aside, the particular circumstances have to be looked at to determine if there really was damage done or if people are grousing over having to make a change and what the effect of the change was.

For example, some of the well publicized "losers" in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were confined to an estimated 3% who had a coverage change because their prior plan did not meet the minimum standard for coverage as far as a cap on out of pocket costs per year. Their old policies were cheaper because the coverage was lower quality than the new minimum required by ACA.



Broken egg here. I am a loser in the wake of ACA, but other than my griping on Paceline, my plight has not gotten any publicity. Like I've written before, me and my business partner both saw our premiums rise by 50% and our out of pocket max go from $3,000 to $12,000, all for less coverage than our prior outlawed plans*. While I certainly don't like the changes, I can "afford" them which is precisely why I am not considered a "loser" in the process. I'm just someone expected (forced) to sacrifice more for the greater good, though I'm not certain many more people are going to wind up with coverage.

Seriously, it's not just some story on Fox News; ACA has caused a lot of angst.

*It turns out my prior plan was ACA compliant, but my insurer decided to nuke it anyway

[pbarry]

Good stuff Malcolm! Being in the trenches, your opinion holds more sway, for me at least.

Recently had my first WC claim in 20+ years. I was amazed by the attention I was given and the accelerated timeline from intake to the MRI appointment. Figure it's got to do with guaranteed payment for WC cases(?). Not done yet, but I have been very impressed with the level of care I've received thus far.

Keep on, y'all are heroes, and the political dialog rarely addresses your arduous training and work schedules.

Be Well

Hey I'll leave some perspective on health care from someone who's practiced emergency medicine for 20 years.

First off it's difficult to compare systems from other countries and say one is better. Better has many different facets. Acute care medicine in the US is the best available, in my opinion. By acute care I mean if you have an injury or illness that is life threatening and demands immediate attention. We also do very well with catastrophic illness assuming you are insured and have had a modicum of prior treatment and were dx early. Few countries do as well as we do in these instances. A frequently cited statistic is infant mortality where we lag behind but if you look at the way the data is collected and what's excluded it can yield a different result.

Where we do poorly is preventative medicine. Medical practice in the US in my opinion for the most part quit being about health maintenance and disease prevention years ago and became focused on controlling symptoms and parameters of disease. Essentially selling drugs. Most diabetics would respond to exercise and weight loss, but for the most part we don't address that for many reasons. Just a quick look at the meds people are on will tell you something, almost every person I see is on an SSRI, something for attention/focus, reflux and the list goes on.

I've always been quite conservative, grew up in a single parent family, mom with two jobs. Paid my way through school. Had very little belief in free lunch. As I've gotten older I'm becoming convinced medicine will never be effective in a capitalistic system, nothing against capitalism, just don't think it works well in medicine especially independent primary care if for no other reason than it hinders the physician from telling the patient the whole truth because you have to preserve them as a customer. I've transitioned from the ER to an urgent care setting and I've seen the difference in me. In the ER, at least before the advent of patient satisfaction surveys and satisfaction tied to your income I did what I thought was right and necessary and really didn't give much consideration to what you wanted unless I thought you needed it. I now give way more steroid shots and antibiotics to people who really don't need them but are convinced they do. Many studies are done more based on patient desire than need. I think it also lends its self to loss of clinical practice of medicine. If you see a patient and treat them conservatively and they don't get better very likely they'll go somewhere else and if tests done then reveal they had X then they assume you were incompetent because you were conservative on the first visit. That in turn creates many unnecessary work ups, driving up costs.

We also as a group tend to have unrealistic expectations of medicine and insurance. If you talk to average joes they can't understand why everyone can't have this totally unrestricted insurance where they can go to the doctor anytime they want for any reason and not cost a dime. We want mack daddy coverage for everyone but nobody wants to pay. One thing some people don't realize is how much some of their fellow man go to the doctor. It's not unusual to look at the roles of a family practice clinic or walk in clinic and see people that go to the doctor for colds 6-8 times a year with only a 10-30 cost to themselves. This again drives up costs but the consumer has no real skin in the game. I don't think you have this kind of usage in most socialized systems.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do think it's broken. Sorry if this is rambling it was just off the top of my head. I've been amazed at how many really smart people have no idea about their own healthcare.

One last thought. I just read an article in the New York Times that bemoaned the income of physicians and gave numbers suggesting these increases in physician income. I'm not going to whine much because medicine afforded me a good living, but trust me I worked hard for, long hours, many holidays and weekends, missed recitals, birthdays, Christmases, etc. I don't personally know one physician that makes any more money now than they did 10 years ago unless their status has changed (become a partner). I spent my entire ED career with the same group in the same ER and my income change one time, when I became partner. I made the exact same amount of money the day I quit as the day I became partner. My wife is a radiologist and they are making about the same amount they did 10 years ago, some private practice guys actually make less due to restrictions on outpatient imaging centers.

Interesting discussion and I hope you younger guys live to see medicine be what it should be. I'm not sure government control is the answer and there will be painful fits and starts but something has to change.

One other thing I'll add is look at the cost of taking care of the elderly. It consumes most of our health care dollar. I'm not saying don't take care of the elderly but you need to do it with clinical decision making. Many of the preventative things we do don't necessarily add to life. Chasing PSAs on guys that are 80 and many other examples. Our end of life care is appalling we let our elderly die a cell at a time long after they've had a lucid thought and trust me that's way expensive. I suspect if you look at socialized systems these sort of things are not done.

[fuzzalow]

Ok, you were kind enough in your response that I'll say something -- some very general things, anyway. First, yeah it's a swamp. Second, WRT pharma profits, it's true that they can be extremely high and, in some specialty drug cases, troubling indeed. But let's notice, first, the increasing (already majority) share of Rx sales moving to generics (the recent "patent cliff" is really a drop in a long-running trend). Some generics are still relatively pricey, but many are dirt cheap, average prices are even lower than in many countries that exert buying power -- say, Canada, at least via the provinces (well, we do it too, just not across the whole market). WRT branded drugs, read the economic literature on pharm. development and, in broad strokes, this is the ideal case -- truly, one of the only strong cases -- for strong, long-term patent protection. New drugs have a long and costly development pathway. For a NME, we're talking quite a few years and a billion dollars or more of development costs (from the lab through the Phase III clinical trials) where those large sunk costs are at risk, both in the sense that the trials may not pan out, post-approval issues might not be apparent, and in the sense that, for many products knowing the range of products that might compete more-or-less well as substitutes in the market can be pretty tricky over a big window.

Yes, businesses game the system, the various Hatch-Waxman provisions, etc., etc., and the details can get ugly in any given case. Without trying to argue that the present system is optimal -- not even as a joke on a board where most folks don't know my name -- I will suggest, first, that trying to design an optimal IP/competition balance is an intractable problem, second, that the promise of huge post-marketing profits is a key driver (necessary, I'd say) to new product development (independent of the handfuls of cool things we might get from this or that top-down long-term government project) and, third, that price discrimination can be rational for both sellers and buyers. What to do as a foreign policy matter about nations that free-ride on our expenditures is another question, and perhaps even thornier, but it doesn't alter the basic problem: how would you know, as a policy matter, what the next blockbuster drug should cost in its first year post-approval? Its third?

On the International thing, yeah, we pay tons for all sorts of things and some of those tons give very poor value for money. But most international comparisons are -- or really ought to be -- highly contentious. We've got some serious background health issues that contribute to relatively high chronic care and neonatal costs. We spend huge amounts of money on high-cost intervention late in life -- things rationed or accounted for very differently (perhaps very reasonably) in many other systems. Lop off trauma -- car accidents right up there, but also gun violence, etc. -- and you save a ton. The fact is, most people do fine with low-cost intervention most of their lives. Most Americans too. Nudge a few environmental factors and that's even more true. What should we spend on the rest of us, individually or collectively, and how should we spend it? I dunno. That's not to suggest that we have the best or third-best health care system, or even that the term "system" applies appropriately to health care, just to nod to some of the many wrinkles in the problem of international comparisons and the far more complex problem how you would "engineer" a tractable alternative, here, if you were to take a shot.

I'm not sure that bit coins or foundations of shiny rocks have anything much to do with this, but the thread had wandered, as threads do, and this seems responsive to something.

Not sure what I'm doing here -- a good follow-up question or rejoinder (and you or anybody else might have many) should ask for a 10 page paper or a stack of them, but there it is.

Thanks for the response. Some of what you posted here is over my head as I have only a rudimentary understanding of the process in FDA approval for New Molecular Entities (NME). It seems that the approval process and clinical trials imposes a tremendous time-sink to the ability for the pharmaceutical innovator to maximize its earned market monopoly position as the inventor of the NME. And we all know that time is money.

And the provisions of Hatch-Waxman do seem to shortcut and advantage generic pharmaceuticals to eat into the monopoly position from both the perspectives of time to market and piggy-backing (copying?) the conceptual breakthrough underpinning the innovation implicit to the NME. The molecular design is not per se where the genius lies but rather in the how's & whys of the targeted therapeutic interactions in achieving a desired result.

It might have been fashionable and easy to villainize Big-Pharma as one of the evils in modern life (thanks Hollywood) much less modern health care but there is always something lost in making the stereotype and missing the biggest point of all:

For better or worse, these pharmaceutical companies innovated, made a new solution that did not exist before and should be allowed to profit in a ethical fashion to the maximum that their patent-protected monopoly position allows.

If there is an inadequate time frame to have patent protections in force and effect, then perhaps that needs to be looked at and amended. In fairness, I would find it hard for the average person to be receptive as to the equity in extending patent protection for longer than 30 years from the current 20/+5 years. I think the idea won't fly because the average person sees a 30-year home mortgage as a very significant time frame and giving a patent protection beyond even that of a mortgage looks for all intents as patent protection in perpetuity.

Yes, I can be viewed as one of the culprits that drifted this bitcoin thread OT, sorry not done on purpose.

I do not work in your field or do I claim expertise in healthcare. I may be wrong about everything in this post. I am only a concerned American voter and I read. If there is indeed 10 page stacks of paper that expand on your, and your industry's, views if you can reference the literature, I'm all eyes.

[1centaur]

Workers comp is interesting to me because I have reviewed the investment case for a number of companies that specialize in "handling" WC for companies. There's an intersection of interests in that business: employers want workers back at work; the state wants reporting of both fair treatment and outcomes; insurers want WC claims to be short and finite; most workers want their conditions healed though employers at least think that some will milk the opportunity. In a more sinister light, WC administrators could be seen as limiting choices, HMO style, so the claim costs less. More positively, they can be seen as focusing the treatment so time and tests are not wasted on the wrong stuff by opportunistic providers. They provide expertise in getting an expedited cure where the patient has no such expertise. I always have some suspicion that it's easier to limit care than to maximize outcomes.

So when pbarry says he is surprised at the accelerated time line, I suspect that's because a company is truly focused on his case in a well worn groove of actions. Which begs the question: could we have single administrator, rather than single payer, who worked that groove for everything, not just worker's comp? One set of billing codes; outcomes based. Payers pick the menu of available treatments (maybe with some minimum viewed as societally good), billers compete to look good in the outcomes based rankings with costs made public on a standardized schedule.

But I suppose if it can be described in a couple of sentences on a cycling forum it's woefully inadequate.

[Climb01742]

Hey I'll leave some perspective on health care from someone who's practiced emergency medicine for 20 years.

First off it's difficult to compare systems from other countries and say one is better. Better has many different facets. Acute care medicine in the US is the best available, in my opinion. By acute care I mean if you have an injury or illness that is life threatening and demands immediate attention. We also do very well with catastrophic illness assuming you are insured and have had a modicum of prior treatment and were dx early. Few countries do as well as we do in these instances. A frequently cited statistic is infant mortality where we lag behind but if you look at the way the data is collected and what's excluded it can yield a different result.

Where we do poorly is preventative medicine. Medical practice in the US in my opinion for the most part quit being about health maintenance and disease prevention years ago and became focused on controlling symptoms and parameters of disease. Essentially selling drugs. Most diabetics would respond to exercise and weight loss, but for the most part we don't address that for many reasons. Just a quick look at the meds people are on will tell you something, almost every person I see is on an SSRI, something for attention/focus, reflux and the list goes on.

I've always been quite conservative, grew up in a single parent family, mom with two jobs. Paid my way through school. Had very little belief in free lunch. As I've gotten older I'm becoming convinced medicine will never be effective in a capitalistic system, nothing against capitalism, just don't think it works well in medicine especially independent primary care if for no other reason than it hinders the physician from telling the patient the whole truth because you have to preserve them as a customer. I've transitioned from the ER to an urgent care setting and I've seen the difference in me. In the ER, at least before the advent of patient satisfaction surveys and satisfaction tied to your income I did what I thought was right and necessary and really didn't give much consideration to what you wanted unless I thought you needed it. I now give way more steroid shots and antibiotics to people who really don't need them but are convinced they do. Many studies are done more based on patient desire than need. I think it also lends its self to loss of clinical practice of medicine. If you see a patient and treat them conservatively and they don't get better very likely they'll go somewhere else and if tests done then reveal they had X then they assume you were incompetent because you were conservative on the first visit. That in turn creates many unnecessary work ups, driving up costs.

We also as a group tend to have unrealistic expectations of medicine and insurance. If you talk to average joes they can't understand why everyone can't have this totally unrestricted insurance where they can go to the doctor anytime they want for any reason and not cost a dime. We want mack daddy coverage for everyone but nobody wants to pay. One thing some people don't realize is how much some of their fellow man go to the doctor. It's not unusual to look at the roles of a family practice clinic or walk in clinic and see people that go to the doctor for colds 6-8 times a year with only a 10-30 cost to themselves. This again drives up costs but the consumer has no real skin in the game. I don't think you have this kind of usage in most socialized systems.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do think it's broken. Sorry if this is rambling it was just off the top of my head. I've been amazed at how many really smart people have no idea about their own healthcare.

One last thought. I just read an article in the New York Times that bemoaned the income of physicians and gave numbers suggesting these increases in physician income. I'm not going to whine much because medicine afforded me a good living, but trust me I worked hard for, long hours, many holidays and weekends, missed recitals, birthdays, Christmases, etc. I don't personally know one physician that makes any more money now than they did 10 years ago unless their status has changed (become a partner). I spent my entire ED career with the same group in the same ER and my income change one time, when I became partner. I made the exact same amount of money the day I quit as the day I became partner. My wife is a radiologist and they are making about the same amount they did 10 years ago, some private practice guys actually make less due to restrictions on outpatient imaging centers.

Interesting discussion and I hope you younger guys live to see medicine be what it should be. I'm not sure government control is the answer and there will be painful fits and starts but something has to change.

One other thing I'll add is look at the cost of taking care of the elderly. It consumes most of our health care dollar. I'm not saying don't take care of the elderly but you need to do it with clinical decision making. Many of the preventative things we do don't necessarily add to life. Chasing PSAs on guys that are 80 and many other examples. Our end of life care is appalling we let our elderly die a cell at a time long after they've had a lucid thought and trust me that's way expensive. I suspect if you look at socialized systems these sort of things are not done.

Malcolm, if there were ever a study group put together to 'solve' our healthcare system, I hope you, or doctors like you, are sitting at the table. Thanks for taking the time to share a from the trenches POV.

[fuzzalow]

Broken egg here. I am a loser in the wake of ACA, but other than my griping on Paceline, my plight has not gotten any publicity. Like I've written before, me and my business partner both saw our premiums rise by 50% and our out of pocket max go from $3,000 to $12,000, all for less coverage than our prior outlawed plans*. While I certainly don't like the changes, I can "afford" them which is precisely why I am not considered a "loser" in the process. I'm just someone expected (forced) to sacrifice more for the greater good, though I'm not certain many more people are going to wind up with coverage.

Seriously, it's not just some story on Fox News; ACA has caused a lot of angst.

*It turns out my prior plan was ACA compliant, but my insurer decided to nuke it anyway

It is too bad that this has happened with your plan. And I am not defending what they did or do but I would like to present a slightly different perspective on this.

Some precepts:


Insurance works by the pooling of persons so that the risks may be shared across a large superset of potential occurrences
The insurance companies are not in the business of paying out money (claims)
Insurance is all about the actuarial numbers
There is no such thing as a free lunch

In theory, all insurance, fairly allocated (to all policy holders) and with equal financial exposure as to terms, payouts and conditions (for the underwriter) will cost the same to everyone.

If you got a better deal, something had to give to get you that better deal. For example, if your insurer wrote policies the discriminated for prior conditions as a way to increase the quality of the pool that you were in, they could offer you a better rate on your coverage. That's before even getting to the fine print in the policy as far as deductibles, co-pay amounts and coverage limits and caps on the basis of treatment types, illness classifications, etc, etc, etc.

In financial terms, which seems largely appropriate to me as insurance is a financial product, there are higher and lower quality tranches established targeting expected rates of return for any given block of underwriting that must be done. If you are a young, healthy male - they want you. If you are a middle-aged, healthy male that has a sparse claim history - then they really want you.

A comment was made earlier, that no one reads the fine print of their health policy. I have never read the fine print of my health care plan. It is the fine print that creates opacity and the advantage the insurers hold over the policyholders.

[djg]

Thanks for the response. Some of what you posted here is over my head as I have only a rudimentary understanding of the process in FDA approval for New Molecular Entities (NME). It seems that the approval process and clinical trials imposes a tremendous time-sink to the ability for the pharmaceutical innovator to maximize its earned market monopoly position as the inventor of the NME. And we all know that time is money.

And the provisions of Hatch-Waxman do seem to shortcut and advantage generic pharmaceuticals to eat into the monopoly position from both the perspectives of time to market and piggy-backing (copying?) the conceptual breakthrough underpinning the innovation implicit to the NME. The molecular design is not per se where the genius lies but rather in the how's & whys of the targeted therapeutic interactions in achieving a desired result.

It might have been fashionable and easy to villainize Big-Pharma as one of the evils in modern life (thanks Hollywood) much less modern health care but there is always something lost in making the stereotype and missing the biggest point of all:

For better or worse, these pharmaceutical companies innovated, made a new solution that did not exist before and should be allowed to profit in a ethical fashion to the maximum that their patent-protected monopoly position allows.

If there is an inadequate time frame to have patent protections in force and effect, then perhaps that needs to be looked at and amended. In fairness, I would find it hard for the average person to be receptive as to the equity in extending patent protection for longer than 30 years from the current 20/+5 years. I think the idea won't fly because the average person sees a 30-year home mortgage as a very significant time frame and giving a patent protection beyond even that of a mortgage looks for all intents as patent protection in perpetuity.

Yes, I can be viewed as one of the culprits that drifted this bitcoin thread OT, sorry not done on purpose.

I do not work in your field or do I claim expertise in healthcare. I may be wrong about everything in this post. I am only a concerned American voter and I read. If there is indeed 10 page stacks of paper that expand on your, and your industry's, views if you can reference the literature, I'm all eyes.

Any thread might wander a bit and you'll get no complaint from me if you helped drift this one off the topic of bit coins. FWIW, I don't think there's anything crazy about your concerns. Frankly, I don't recall them going back through the entire thread, but looking at this post I have to say that we'd do very well indeed if the typical voter could think about some of these issues at the level you've crammed into a single, brief chat-board response. At the same time, (a) there's no good reason anybody should seek to replicate the particular basket of human capital goods I bring to the health policy table and (b) for most stuff, I have no easy answers.

I don't want to type here in any professional capacity, and I sure-as-···· don't want to pretend to represent my employer, or seem to. I'm not, by the way, employed in the pharmaceuticals industry -- not by big pharma or small, not by branded/innovator firms or generics, not by a trade association or lobbying entity affiliated with any or all of 'em. I picked it as one example of how complicated or messy it gets. Easy to bemoan 300 or 1200 percent markups -- and we might cry if we start looking at particular people who get left out in particular cases -- but as you yourself see in a flash, if pills sell at perfectly competitive prices (the marginal cost of producing the next pill) or anything like them, then there's no rational business path to developing the next blockbuster drug to begin with. Sure the regulatory costs are high, and there too I won't pretend to argue that we've nailed it (optimizing across all our properly weighted policy priorities? do we do that kinda thing?), but there are very few folks indeed who decry the basic idea of substantial pre-clinical and clinical testing requirements for the next blood pressure pill or cancer treatment.

Moving to physician-centered issues or hospital-centered issues doesn't make it easy either.

If you have a question about this or that, you can send it to me off-line. I don't promise anything but to read it. If I can think of what seems to me a decent source, I'll point you to it. You yourself can be the judge whether or to what extent it's useful to you.

[PQJ]

It is too bad that this has happened with your plan. And I am not defending what they did or do but I would like to present a slightly different perspective on this.

Some precepts:


Insurance works by the pooling of persons so that the risks may be shared across a large superset of potential occurrences
The insurance companies are not in the business of paying out money (claims)
Insurance is all about the actuarial numbers
There is no such thing as a free lunch

In theory, all insurance, fairly allocated (to all policy holders) and with equal financial exposure as to terms, payouts and conditions (for the underwriter) will cost the same to everyone.

If you got a better deal, something had to give to get you that better deal. For example, if your insurer wrote policies the discriminated for prior conditions as a way to increase the quality of the pool that you were in, they could offer you a better rate on your coverage. That's before even getting to the fine print in the policy as far as deductibles, co-pay amounts and coverage limits and caps on the basis of treatment types, illness classifications, etc, etc, etc.

In financial terms, which seems largely appropriate to me as insurance is a financial product, there are higher and lower quality tranches established targeting expected rates of return for any given block of underwriting that must be done. If you are a young, healthy male - they want you. If you are a middle-aged, healthy male that has a sparse claim history - then they really want you.

A comment was made earlier, that no one reads the fine print of their health policy. I have never read the fine print of my health care plan. It is the fine print that creates opacity and the advantage the insurers hold over the policyholders.

The problem is, it's all so fuzzy. No transparency at all. No sense or rationality at all. cfox's story sucks. No doubt there are many more like it. But there are many completely opposite stories as well. Like mine. I struck out on my own last July. Left an employer and group coverage so that I could be a "small businessman" and "job creator (in waiting")." Pregnant wife meant I couldn't get an individual policy until the ACA kicked in. So I was stuck getting screwed by COBRA, which is fine I guess since I can afford it.

Fast forward to 1/1/14. I'm now on a plan that (i) costs less in premiums than my old employer-sponsored plan, (ii) has lower deductibles and copays, and (iii) has much richer coverage. Why? How does this make sense? I have no frikkin clue.

I do know that:
1. drugs that used to cost me $120 and $190, respectively, per prescription, have now dropped to $10 (and some change) and $15 (and some change), respectively. The $190 drug is a tiny bottle of eyedrops for my daughter who has sever allergies.

None of this makes any sense to me. No statement I ever receive from any medical provider ever makes sense to me. No statement I ever receive from my dentist ever makes sense to me. The people I speak to, in billing at the provider's office, in administration at the insurance company, never, ever, ever make sense to me.

I know that the delivery of healthcare services is incredibly complex. So complex that I can't make sense of it in an intelligent way. But I'm pretty sure that I'm spot on with this: all the crap we deal with, all the obfuscation, all the lack of transparency, all the insane costs, the inhumanity of it all, has at its root the following: greed/$$/capitalism/the free market.

And for the doctors among us, I want to be clear that they're not the problem. But we live in a screwed up world and the almighty greenback is the root of many of our problems.

I represented PE funds while practicing law in New York during the 'golden age.' One of the senior guys I worked for - let's call him J - , was worth around $100 million in 2003 at age 39; today his net worth is north of $2 billion. One of the grunts I worked with (28-year bulldog at the time, super smart, very hard worker), sat on a board of a portfolio company his fund acquired for 1 year, and left with options valued at $2.1 million (this ignoring any base or incentive comp he received in addition) - let's call him S. Today, at age 38, he is worth around $500 million.

Don't get me wrong. S and J are both smart guys, both hard workers. But there is no way they have created the 'value' they think they have, and there is no way in hell they are worth what they are worth because of what they have done for humankind.

Sad, sad state of affairs over all.

/rant and off to yoga

[malcolm]

Some of the problem is with advances/increases in technology and complexity. I do not mean technology in form of diagnosis and treatment I mean more application. For years doctors ran medicine and had control of their profession. As medicine became more complex both in technology and more in billing and reimbursement and the business side it became more than most physicians could deal with and business men and business models moved in. The same basic rules of business used to run say Nabisco have been used with minimal modification to now run hospitals and healthcare and we are finding that it doesn't work the product is fundamentally different. I think it's evolving but hasn't yet reached a workable model.

Early in my career you did what needed to be done submitted a bill and were paid. We now have an entire industry that has been created to determine the maximum way to submit your bill and it's constantly evolving. Somewhere around 8% of our income is spent on coding, billing and reimbursement in the two clinics I'm part owner of. If I'm being honest even going back to my ER days it has a certain feel of dishonesty about. You have to do or say just the right things to maximize reimbursement, make sure all the boxes are ticked. Sorry to ramble but this topic gets me stirred up. Most providers want to provide a good product for a fair price to a satisfied patient and so often it seems the provider and patient are in an antagonistic relationship.

[cfox]

It is too bad that this has happened with your plan. And I am not defending what they did or do but I would like to present a slightly different perspective on this.

Some precepts:


Insurance works by the pooling of persons so that the risks may be shared across a large superset of potential occurrences
The insurance companies are not in the business of paying out money (claims)
Insurance is all about the actuarial numbers
There is no such thing as a free lunch

In theory, all insurance, fairly allocated (to all policy holders) and with equal financial exposure as to terms, payouts and conditions (for the underwriter) will cost the same to everyone.

If you got a better deal, something had to give to get you that better deal. For example, if your insurer wrote policies the discriminated for prior conditions as a way to increase the quality of the pool that you were in, they could offer you a better rate on your coverage. That's before even getting to the fine print in the policy as far as deductibles, co-pay amounts and coverage limits and caps on the basis of treatment types, illness classifications, etc, etc, etc.

In financial terms, which seems largely appropriate to me as insurance is a financial product, there are higher and lower quality tranches established targeting expected rates of return for any given block of underwriting that must be done. If you are a young, healthy male - they want you. If you are a middle-aged, healthy male that has a sparse claim history - then they really want you.

A comment was made earlier, that no one reads the fine print of their health policy. I have never read the fine print of my health care plan. It is the fine print that creates opacity and the advantage the insurers hold over the policyholders.

The only tranche available now to health insurers is age. The theory behind ACA: trash the tranche process -> require everyone to join the risk pool -> much larger risk pool will offset the (prior uninsurable tranche) unhealthy. The theory breaks down if new, healthy membership lags and people pay the penalty rather than join the pool. The people who don't qualify for the subsidy but still buy insurance make up a large part of the difference (me). Honestly, I'd be okay with it if I were confident the % of uninsured would be reduced by a significant margin, but so far that is not the case.

[PQJ]

Malcolm,

From the outside looking in - ie, as a consumer only and not someone really involved in the industry - it seems very, very dishonest. Again, not the providers, but the system/big corporate interests.

I'm currently working with some doctors who are setting up a specialized surgery practice. A few doctors combining assets and resources with a view to building something much, much bigger. There are some complex issues but none so much as the various billing arrangements. It's been quite an eye-opener to get into the reeds and see how these things really operate. Let me be clear: the doctors are all excellent professionals and good people; everything they are doing/looking to do is perfectly legal and squarely within the bounds of what they can do and what they and others are doing. From my perspective, however - and again, as a lay person with heretofore very limited knowledge about the system and process - I am left with the distinct impression that it's a game, a giant scam where the biggest losers are the patients. The next biggest losers are the medical professionals themselves.

The winners? I've read that health insurance companies and drug companies aren't profitable, or aren't that profitable. Maybe. Maybe. But the cynic in me says they are simply 'engineering' their poor profits. The insurance companies are far and away the worst actors and I believe we'd all be better off if we could get rid of them entirely.

As for drug companies, I get that the process of developing drugs is expensive. I get that drug companies need to be invented to develop the drugs we need (and those we don't - hello psychopharma, I'm looking squarely at you). But how is it that this year, the same person (me), with the exact same condition I had last year, is all of a sudden paying 1/10 of the cost for the exact same drug I purchased not two months ago. Dat sh1t just does not make sense! I'm the lucky winner (this year), but it makes me feel all the more a loser for the 5 years I was on a different frikkin plan. Drug companies should develop the drug, recoup their costs, make a nice profit, and all of us should pay about the same for said drug, not somewhere between a 1% difference and a 1000% difference. It just does not compute.

[malcolm]

Malcolm,

From the outside looking in - ie, as a consumer only and not someone really involved in the industry - it seems very, very dishonest. Again, not the providers, but the system/big corporate interests.

I'm currently working with some doctors who are setting up a specialized surgery practice. A few doctors combining assets and resources with a view to building something much, much bigger. There are some complex issues but none so much as the various billing arrangements. It's been quite an eye-opener to get into the reeds and see how these things really operate. Let me be clear: the doctors are all excellent professionals and good people; everything they are doing/looking to do is perfectly legal and squarely within the bounds of what they can do and what they and others are doing. From my perspective, however - and again, as a lay person with heretofore very limited knowledge about the system and process - I am left with the distinct impression that it's a game, a giant scam where the biggest losers are the patients. The next biggest losers are the medical professionals themselves.

The winners? I've read that health insurance companies and drug companies aren't profitable, or aren't that profitable. Maybe. Maybe. But the cynic in me says they are simply 'engineering' their poor profits. The insurance companies are far and away the worst actors and I believe we'd all be better off if we could get rid of them entirely.

As for drug companies, I get that the process of developing drugs is expensive. I get that drug companies need to be invented to develop the drugs we need (and those we don't - hello psychopharma, I'm looking squarely at you). But how is it that this year, the same person (me), with the exact same condition I had last year, is all of a sudden paying 1/10 of the cost for the exact same drug I purchased not two months ago. Dat sh1t just does not make sense! I'm the lucky winner (this year), but it makes me feel all the more a loser for the 5 years I was on a different frikkin plan. Drug companies should develop the drug, recoup their costs, make a nice profit, and all of us should pay about the same for said drug, not somewhere between a 1% difference and a 1000% difference. It just does not compute.

Very well said and I agree. Most doctors I've known and I've known many are incredibly hard working dedicated and try to do the right thing.

I was always the guy that said the pharma industry had no impact on what I did at all. As I've been doing this awhile I realized that my view was way to simplistic and I now believe pharma and insurance controls it all but not with direct interaction with the individual practitioner but with far more insidious and subtle financing and support of research that furthers their interests and suppression of research to the contrary. It can be difficult to publish in a meaningful journal something that goes against the dogma. Also with massive advertising manipulating the customer or patient.

I'm proud of my profession and my career. I've seen human beings at their very best and worst. I've seen more than my share of life go and some snatched from the brink. Medicine has been a blessing and I'm sad to see us losing our way.

[1centaur]

I agree that all these billing codes are a giant productivity suck at the very least and that costs money which indirectly reduces care. Thus my thought that single administrator (government sponsored entity would be OK) with unified billing codes would be a help.

One of the problems is that each insurance company devises its own billing codes and has its own standards and definitions around those codes, a morass that can quickly overcome any doctor's office and lead to hiring third parties to deal with billing, which third parties try hard to maximize the billing for their doctor clients, while the insurance company (and sometimes THEIR third party helpers) try to make sure they are not being gamed in a way the insurance actuaries did not contemplate when pricing the policies. No wonder patients have no clue what's going on. It's not necessarily some nefarious corporate game so much as a very human level of confusion at way too much data and confusing rules.

Your eye drops prescription cost you that much because your employer had a crappy (cheap) plan. They chose not to have the sort of plan that leads to $10 co-pays for its employees. There are pharmaceutical benefit managers (PBMs) that negotiate volume discounts with drug manufacturers in return for administering drug coverage for insurance plans. There are 3-5 large PBMs that do this for most plans; that's whom CVS's computers are interacting with when you get a prescription. Some employers get plans that are great for generics and lousy for brand name drugs. More expensive plans may be $5 for generics and $10 for brand name drugs on the contracted PBM's formulary. When a patient need drugs not on that list, the prices can sky rocket quickly, soaking up the max out of pocket number quite quickly (good reason to have a flex spending account as well).

[PQJ]

We agree that it was a crappy plan. Cheap? Not so much; quite expensive, actually. It also wasn't sold to us as crappy or cheap, not that that matters. Fwiw, I'm talking about a very well regarded regional enterprise with north of 500 employees. Maybe it has something to do with the regulatory environments where you and I live, a blue state (you) that looks out for the consumer and a red state (me) that looks out for corporate interests? That's a genuine inquiry, not red meat. That also gets at one of the points I'm making - the differences in coverage from state to state, company to company, just don't make sense. Too arbitrary. Too much like there's a giant team of very smart people looking to see how best to screw the consumer. I'll concede that complexity and confusion are part of the problem, but given what I know about private enterprise in a capitalist system (and which, I suspect, you know as well), I think it is naive to think there isn't also a very real nefariousness at play as well.

[Kirk Pacenti]

think it is naive to think there isn't also a very real nefariousness at play as well.

.

[harlond]

Hope Ray already sold:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-just-completely-crashed-major-105751675.html

[Ahneida Ride]

Stayed in frns (fed reserve non notes)

[christian]

The theory breaks down if new, healthy membership lags and people pay the penalty rather than join the pool. The people who don't qualify for the subsidy but still buy insurance make up a large part of the difference (me). Honestly, I'd be okay with it if I were confident the % of uninsured would be reduced by a significant margin, but so far that is not the case.There are obvious ways to address this; single-payer, or allowing other people to opt out of their company-sponsored plans in order to sign up for plans on the exchange. If provided that opportunity, my family would, despite the fact that I get good insurance through work. Coupling insurance to work, and providing tax incentives to employers on that basis is one of the key issues here.

[verticaldoug]

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/bitcoin-exchange-struggles/?hp

We have Reg T, Reg Sho, Fail-Deliver-Rules for buy-in, counter party risk and all sorts of other regulations in security markets designed to help prevent fraud and systemic risk. A lot of this stuff is referred to as the back-office in the markets. If settlesments don't work smoothly, the financial markets quickly grind to a halt. It looks like MtGox is getting a lesson on how important and hard the back office is to get right. It's not sexy like the front office, but just as important and even more important for preventing fraud.

This could be lights out for MtGox and maybe fatal to some of the bitcoin realm.

[R2D2]

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/bitcoin-exchange-struggles/?hp

We have Reg T, Reg Sho, Fail-Deliver-Rules for buy-in, counter party risk and all sorts of other regulations in security markets designed to help prevent fraud and systemic risk. A lot of this stuff is referred to as the back-office in the markets. If settlesments don't work smoothly, the financial markets quickly grind to a halt. It looks like MtGox is getting a lesson on how important and hard the back office is to get right. It's not sexy like the front office, but just as important and even more important for preventing fraud.

This could be lights out for MtGox and maybe fatal to some of the bitcoin realm.

It is worse than just correctly implementing a system:

undetected glitch in the basic Bitcoin protocol that made it possible for users to falsify transactions.

Now Bitcoin counters:

“The issues that Mt. Gox has been experiencing are due to an unfortunate interaction between Mt. Gox’s highly customized wallet software, their customer support procedures, and an obscure (but long-known) quirk in the way transactions are identified and not due to a flaw in the Bitcoin protocol,” Mr. Andresen said in a statement.



Either way Bitcoin could be on shaky ground. Users need to have confidence in the currency and exchanges. I have written software all my working life. Words like glitch and quirk are BS. Either the application code or protocol have flaws.

[FlashUNC]

Hope nobody here had Bitcoins at Mt.Gox. You're hosed:


http://valleywag.gawker.com/mt-gox-died-and-took-the-money-with-it-1530533538/@sarah-hedgecock

[christian]

Anyone who poses for a picture of a plastic coin to promote a virtual currency should be punched in the face, sort of on principle.

[R2D2]

Anyone who poses for a picture of a plastic coin to promote a virtual currency should be punched in the face, sort of on principle.

If you can find him.

[Tony T]

WSJ: Mt. Gox Disappears From Web in New Setback (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304834704579404101502619422?mod=WS J_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection)
Trading of Bitcoin Via Exchange Appears to Halt

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/AM-BC426_JBITCO_G_20140224132607.jpg
Londoner Kolin Burges protests outside Mt. Gox's offices in Tokyo earlier this month.
Takashi Mochizuki/The Wall Street Journal

As difficulties accumulated at Mt. Gox—until recently the dominant bitcoin trading platform—the wider bitcoin community sought to both distance itself from the Tokyo-based exchange and offer reassurance about the virtual currency's future.

Underlining a wider worry in the industry that the upheaval at Mt. Gox has caused significant harm to the bit coin business, the chief executives of six major bitcoin exchanges and businesses pledged in a joint statement to coordinate efforts to assure customers of the security of their funds.

Investors have been unable to withdraw funds from Mt. Gox since the beginning of this month. The exchange has said that a flaw in the bitcoin software allowed transaction records to be altered, potentially making possible fraudulent withdrawals. No allegations have been made of wrongdoing by the exchange, but the potential for theft has raised concern that the exchange wouldn't be able to meet its obligations.

A report widely circulated online since Monday in the U.S. said Mt. Gox had lost almost 750,000 bitcoin to long-running theft. Though the value of the alleged loss is difficult to quantify because of bit coin price fluctuations, that amount would represent around 6% of bitcoin in existence and a value of around $365 million at Monday's prices.
"This tragic violation of the trust of users of Mt. Gox was the result of one company's actions and doesn't reflect the resilience or value of bitcoin and the digital currency industry," the statement said. "As with any new industry, there are certain bad actors that need to be weeded out, and that is what we are seeing today."

The firms' statement didn't offer specific details on what they would do to reassure bitcoin investors.

Reached by phone later Tuesday, BTC China CEO Bobby Lee said the latest signs of trouble at Mt. Gox were no surprise: "This has been in the making for a good six to nine months," he said.

He said he doesn't see Mt. Gox's difficulties as opening up more business for any particular exchange, given the way the bitcoin business is spread around the globe. He said BTC China currently trades around 10,000 bitcoin a day, which is up since January but down since December, when Chinese regulators restricted banks and payment platforms from engaging in bitcoin-related activities in China.

—Chao Deng in Shanghai contributed to this article.

[jpw]

now might be a good time to buy, from the right seller, and through the right platform.

[Tony T]

now might be a good time to buy, from the right seller, and through the right platform.

Well, until recently, MtGox was the "right platform"
Anything (BitCoin, FaceBook, Twitter, Amazon, MySpace, etc) with that much volatility is speculation and has a high risk of loss.
Some pay off in the long run (AMZN), some don't (MySpace).

…and when an analyst on CNBC says "Buying Opportunity", run


edit: Didn't know this: "The Mt. Gox website was originally founded by Jed McCaleb as an online exchange for buying and selling Magic: The Gathering cards, a popular trading card game. Its name was an acronym of Magic: The Gathering Online eXchange"

— I guess that's what's known as a "Red Flag"

[ultraman6970]

I think the bitcoin guy ran as hell and took all the money???

[pbarry]

FRN's looking better all the time.

[1happygirl]

Sorry I couldn't post this earlier so you could have a chance at a race car ride.
Apologies if been posted b4.

[cfox]

"legit", regulated financial entities never run off with customer funds. Except that time when MF Global stole 40 grand from me to post margin for Jon Corzines lame-brained euro debt trades.

[Rada]

What seems really scary about the mess with Mt. Gox and the whole Bitcoin/virtual currency thing is the refusal of the Japanese government to get involved. Seems like open season on hundreds of millions of dollars for anyone with the know how and moxy to steal a whole bunch of money and get away Scott free.

[verticaldoug]

Actually, the Japanese have started an investigation. The difficulty is if bitcoin is not a currency controlled by regulators, Mt Gox is not technically a bank, and it is not taking deposits, why do regulators want to get involved? Should financial authorities regulate the buying and selling of Pokemon cards on ebay?

This is no different than wine collectors who had their stored wines sold out of the back door in the San Fran warehouse a few years ago. It is consumer fraud.

In another day or two, you will see pictures of the Tokyo Prosecutors going into MtGox offices on a early morning raid, and coming out with card board boxes of computers and documents. This is what the Japanese prosecutors and police do.

[FlashUNC]

What seems really scary about the mess with Mt. Gox and the whole Bitcoin/virtual currency thing is the refusal of the Japanese government to get involved. Seems like open season on hundreds of millions of dollars for anyone with the know how and moxy to steal a whole bunch of money and get away Scott free.

I guess the converse argument is not to invest in a highly speculative, unregulated virtual currency?

Latest appears Japanese authorities are investigating, but I wouldn't expect any kind of backstop for the funds lost.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/us-bitcoin-mtgox-japan-idUSBREA1P0D820140226

[akelman]

What incentives do nations have to backstop extra-national currencies?

[verticaldoug]

What incentives do nations have to backstop extra-national currencies?

It is not a back stop on the currency, it is a back stop on the deposit. This is a big difference. But the back stop in deposits comes with regulations, depositor insurance, audits, segregated accounts etc etc. This adds friction to the system. Commerce doesn't exist without the rule of law. There will always be bad actors. You have to pay to have the rule of law.

[gavingould]

see, this is why i don't invest - i don't even have a 401k right now.

if the suits decide to screw you, they're gonna screw you, and they're most likely going to get away with it. this means banks, funds, stocks, bonds, gov't, private, whatever.

[akelman]

Commerce long predated the rule of law That bit of pedantry aside, I shouldn't have written my original comment. I don't care enough or know enough about bitcoin to get involved in the discussion. My apologies.

[chuckred]

see, this is why i don't invest - i don't even have a 401k right now.

if the suits decide to screw you, they're gonna screw you, and they're most likely going to get away with it. this means banks, funds, stocks, bonds, gov't, private, whatever.

Curious what criteria you use to decide how to protect and or build your livelihood and plan for the future? Nothing is totally safe but not sure I'd want a bunch of gold buried in the back yard of a place I haven't invested in. Not meaning to be flippant but I'm more worried about potential new and unproven investing vehicles than the old standards.

[R2D2]

see, this is why i don't invest - i don't even have a 401k right now.

if the suits decide to screw you, they're gonna screw you, and they're most likely going to get away with it. this means banks, funds, stocks, bonds, gov't, private, whatever.

So do you just barter? Have gold stuffed in a mattress?

[Ahneida Ride]

FRN's looking better all the time.

At least you know they shrink 6% per year.

[93legendti]

I agree that Venezuela has had its own share of issues - but for all its faults there are two things that are a certainty:

1. The Venezuelan election system is widely regarded as incorrigible, even by its detractors.

2. Chavez brought oil under govt control, and with the revenues he actually did social good - set up schools, govt run hospitals, housing for the poor, etc.

A major criticism of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela has been #2 above, that he generated huge revenues from oil and put very little back into it. Although if you refer to the cornerstones of Bolivarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarianism) there is more similarities in there with pragamatic capitalism, than differences with the only exception being South American economic and political sovereignty, since the means to achieve this was cutting out access to oil to oil co's of foreign nations.

Why then in the US is there such a poor view of Chavez despite him being democratically elected thrice? Is it due to the sour taste left in the mouth of american legislators by the indirect US-aided coup attempt in 2002 (See Q5 (http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/13682.pdf)), during which the people protested to bring Chavez back to power hence giving unprecedented legitimacy to Chavez's policies even outside of the ballot box? Is it due to the fact that Venezuela's natural resources are nationalised, hence making it impossible for foreign oil co's to exploit? Or is it due to the proximity of Chavez to Castro? Is it due to the fact that for a long time Bolivarian economics was actually performing well, hence posing a threat to the overtly capitalistic intentions of Wall St and their lobbied puppets? All these are valid questions, and being unbiased by virtue of not belonging to any of the contested nationalities/interests herein I've found it rather easy to at least partially laud the Bolivarian economics.

At the present, yes there definitely is a crisis in terms of inflation in the country. Let's see where Maduro can lead the country.

By the way, this video (http://youtu.be/S1UbflMW5Dg) is quite an unbiased, in my view, discussion of the Venezuelan economics.

Yeah, Venezula is the second coming of the Garden of Eden. I hear the citizens are thrilled:

"The anti-government demonstrations are the biggest threat President Nicolas Maduro has faced since his election last year. And inside and outside the South American country's borders, there's a major question many are asking: Could this be the beginning of the end for Venezuela's socialist
The situation doesn't look pretty. Inflation topped 56% last year. Crime rates are high. Goods shortages have left store shelves bare."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/22/world/americas/venezuela-socialism/index.html

[sg8357]

What seems really scary about the mess with Mt. Gox and the whole Bitcoin/virtual currency thing is the refusal of the Japanese government to get involved.[snip].

The point of BitCoin is to be independent of evil job killing government
regulation. Crowd sourced justice and regulation is BitCoin's protection.

So unless MtGOX was destroyed by Godzilla the Japanese will stand
aside.

[christian]

So unless MtGOX was destroyed by Godzilla the Japanese will stand aside.No, the BoJ and JFSA will stand aside. Presumably the local Tokyo PD will be interested in fraud. I've never tried to steal millions of dollars' worth of someone's property in Tokyo, but I imagine the Japanese police take a dim view of it, whether it be Van Gogh paintings, Magic the Gathering cards, or Bitcoins.

[Pete Mckeon]

I THINK IT IS AT LEAST 6,

ALTHOUGH CPI IS LESS AND THE GOV IS WANTING TO CHNGE THE WAY OF MEASURING CPI

SO that IT HAS A SMALLER inflation number - FOR THOSE THINGS LIke BONDS AND SOCIAL SECURITY, as well as INFLATION ADJUSTED finance instruments of the feds .
lower reported INFLATION benefits government IOUs and the elected :eek:

At least you know they shrink 6% per year.

taking emotion out of this inflation has always been around - as recorded by history all over the world.

the USA is better than most countries ___ but could also be
better itself.

Keith or any other moderator .such as Flyhest, can delete this rambling of mine
with my blessings

FOR they have more knowledge and patience than me:help:

[Pete Mckeon]

but I will rather play the financial markets with Germany or Swiss, or even the USA.:beer: lets talk over it with friends and some good red wine,

in NC preferably :cool: I have some wine waiting


The point of BitCoin is to be independent of evil job killing government
regulation. Crowd sourced justice and regulation is BitCoin's protection.

So unless MtGOX was destroyed by Godzilla the Japanese will stand
aside.

[gavingould]

So do you just barter? Have gold stuffed in a mattress?

not exactly. i do use a bank, but stay away from credit cards. at some point i will need to look seriously at planning for retirement, but let's just say i haven't had the kind of income that it was a possibility.

[verticaldoug]

The point of BitCoin is to be independent of evil job killing government
regulation. Crowd sourced justice and regulation is BitCoin's protection.

So unless MtGOX was destroyed by Godzilla the Japanese will stand
aside.

Where is the cyberposse on the case? 850,000 bitcoins (6%) of the float was stolen.

Imagine if someone broke into the NY Fed, and stole 6% of the world's gold reserves. (NY Fed holds 25% of world's reserves)

D

[oldpotatoe]

Where is the cyberposse on the case? 850,000 bitcoins (6%) of the float was stolen.

Imagine if someone broke into the NY Fed, and stole 6% of the world's gold reserves. (NY Fed holds 25% of world's reserves)

D

If somebody stole 6% of the US gold stock, it weighs 972,000 pounds...

[fuzzalow]

I admittedly know little about Bitcoins and care about them even less than that. But the structure of what they represent as faux currency is all that is needed to know about how it can never be anything more than a scam and a means to theft of participant's real currencies. The slight of hand is the bartering of goods that lulls the participants to think there is a store of value in Bitcoins when all there is is a network of people trading worthless computer IOUs the way kids traded Pogs in schoolyards during recess.

Bitcoin exchanges are real currency roach motels - the money goes in and never comes out. How many exchanges really exist and is the same person or organization running all the exchanges? What's the total available liquidity in terms of real currency?

Any government cares not a whit about what private citizens do on matters of how they barter amongst themselves. But real currency has impact to trade, commerce and stability in real markets and real economies. And Bitcoins is never going to come within a whiff of seeing any of that action.

There is a entire shadow banking system already in place that governments and central banks would like to curtail. But at least even there are real financial instruments underlying those transactions. Bitcoins and and their manipulation and theft are largely a private matter and pose no threat except to Bitcoin participants.

54ny77 gave the answer a long time ago in this thread about Bitcoins.

IMO, a system (or financial product) outside of the regulated currency-based systems are, and likely always will be, a destabilizing force that a government (or governments) will do their best to shut down. Or at the very least they will make it very difficult to be widely used by everyday citizens for everyday needs.

A decade or so ago i had a very interesting education on hawala by an EM money mgr., and the impact on a sovereign's money supply (and concurrent ability to issue & service its own debt).

The numbers then were staggering, and I cannot fathom how large the underground network is today.

Looks like Sweden or a Swedish bank is the first to really push to squash it. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-27/bitcoin-crime-risk-sparks-warning-at-biggest-nordic-forex-trader.html

[Pete Mckeon]

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL News Alert
Bitcoin Exchange Mt. Gox Files for Bankruptcy Protection
A lawyer for Mt. Gox announced at a news conference at the Tokyo District Court that the embattled bitcoin exchange was filing for bankruptcy protection and that Mt. Gox had outstanding debt of about $63.6 million.

The exchange has been under fire from investors since it stopped bitcoin withdrawals in early February, citing a technical issue that potentially made fraudulent withdrawals possible.

On Tuesday, Mt. Gox, which at one point handled more than 80% of trades in the virtual currency, stopped all transactions, dealing the severest blow to the bitcoin industry yet and raising concerns about a lack of protection for users.

See More Coverage »






Follow Us

Unsubscribe Email Settings Contact Us Privacy Policy
You are currently subscribed as pjmckeon@mac.com.
For further assistance, please contact Customer Service at support@wsj.com

Copyright 2014 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[R2D2]

I admittedly know little about Bitcoins and care about them even less than that. But the structure of what they represent as faux currency is all that is needed to know about how it can never be anything more than a scam and a means to theft of participant's real currencies. The slight of hand is the bartering of goods that lulls the participants to think there is a store of value in Bitcoins when all there is is a network of people trading worthless computer IOUs the way kids traded Pogs in schoolyards during recess.

Bitcoin exchanges are real currency roach motels - the money goes in and never comes out. How many exchanges really exist and is the same person or organization running all the exchanges? What's the total available liquidity in terms of real currency?

Any government cares not a whit about what private citizens do on matters of how they barter amongst themselves. But real currency has impact to trade, commerce and stability in real markets and real economies. And Bitcoins is never going to come within a whiff of seeing any of that action.

There is a entire shadow banking system already in place that governments and central banks would like to curtail. But at least even there are real financial instruments underlying those transactions. Bitcoins and and their manipulation and theft are largely a private matter and pose no threat except to Bitcoin participants.

54ny77 gave the answer a long time ago in this thread about Bitcoins.
In this case government needed to do nothing. Amateurs built an unregulated exchange and it crashed..

[fuzzalow]

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL News Alert
Bitcoin Exchange Mt. Gox Files for Bankruptcy Protection

I had not read that news report yet at the time of my previous post. I would not have posted if I had because it seems too much like saying "I told you so...". What I think about Bitcoins would be unchanged regardless.

[cfox]

I had not read that news report yet at the time of my previous post. I would not have posted if I had because it seems too much like saying "I told you so...". What I think about Bitcoins would be unchanged regardless.

The first thing anyone says when they decry bitcoin is they know nothing about bitcoin. It's not a "scam". It's early. It's the wild west. But there are hundreds of millions of silicon valley VC betting on its viability. Mt. Gox is a disaster. There will be more, I'm sure. But Mt. Gox is a story of incompetence, not a breach of the bitcoin protocol. I dabble in crypto currencies for fun. The exchange I use has, at the moment, a market in bitcoin $10mm a side bid/offer. Not too bad. After you trade, you can move your coins out of there right away. It's not a roach motel by any means. MF Global was a real life, regulated, honest-to-goodness roach motel. Jon Corzine took 40 grand from me and I'm still waiting to get it all back. Hey look, I don't know where it will all end up, but one exchange failing is a bit early to say "I told you so."

[FlashUNC]

I, for one, am shocked that a site that started as a trading exchange for Magic: The Gathering cards wasn't able to handle becoming the world's largest exchange of a crypto-currency.

And just why did people trust their money -- real or otherwise -- to these clowns?


http://valleywag.gawker.com/bitcoin-kingpin-admits-everyones-money-is-gone-1533315083/@sarah-hedgecock

[fuzzalow]

The first thing anyone says when they decry bitcoin is they know nothing about bitcoin. It's not a "scam". It's early. It's the wild west. But there are hundreds of millions of silicon valley VC betting on its viability.

OK, point taken that my limited knowledge of Bitcoin hinders my recognition of the value or solution it offers. Is it safe to say that the main thing it offers is a way to circumvent banking & financial transaction fees? Because if true, the payoff for me as a retail customer is NOT paying credit card fees or PayPal fees to move small to medium size amounts of money around. In this example, Amex & PayPal both charge ~3% to transact across which is a savings to me using Bitcoin. But this may be offset by the variable exchange rate in cashing in Bitcoins back to real currency if not completing a full one-way trip for the transaction.

I seek not a primer on Bitcoin, if I am wrong about the preceding, then simply advise and I will look further. But my actual point here is this is a very small payoff to me as a retail client to entrust a Bitcoin exchange to safeguard my money - a steekin' 3% savings!?!? Or is the real seduction the ability to "mine" bitcoins which I see as burning CPU cycles to "produce" bitcoins from thin air.

VC participation as an investment is a very different animal than the retail users with their money in Bitcoin exchanges.

Mt. Gox is a disaster. There will be more, I'm sure. But Mt. Gox is a story of incompetence, not a breach of the bitcoin protocol. I dabble in crypto currencies for fun. The exchange I use has, at the moment, a market in bitcoin $10mm a side bid/offer. Not too bad. After you trade, you can move your coins out of there right away. It's not a roach motel by any means. MF Global was a real life, regulated, honest-to-goodness roach motel. Jon Corzine took 40 grand from me and I'm still waiting to get it all back. Hey look, I don't know where it will all end up, but one exchange failing is a bit early to say "I told you so."

$10M side bid/offer is for all purposes a fictitious number. It will change, and certainly the spread will change, if the volatility, demand for liquidity and order imbalance were to heat up. In fairness, perhaps the daily aggregate dollar volume is enormous so there really is liquidity in the Bitcoin exchange. I dunno.

I don't want to sound like I'm just bashing away, hence the remark that I didn't wish to appear to say "I told you so" based on the hindsight of reading of the Mt Gox bankruptcy.

[cfox]

OK, point taken that my limited knowledge of Bitcoin hinders my recognition of the value or solution it offers. Is it safe to say that the main thing it offers is a way to circumvent banking & financial transaction fees? Because if true, the payoff for me as a retail customer is NOT paying credit card fees or PayPal fees to move small to medium size amounts of money around. In this example, Amex & PayPal both charge ~3% to transact across which is a savings to me using Bitcoin. But this may be offset by the variable exchange rate in cashing in Bitcoins back to real currency if not completing a full one-way trip for the transaction.

I seek not a primer on Bitcoin, if I am wrong about the preceding, then simply advise and I will look further. But my actual point here is this is a very small payoff to me as a retail client to entrust a Bitcoin exchange to safeguard my money - a steekin' 3% savings!?!? Or is the real seduction the ability to "mine" bitcoins which I see as burning CPU cycles to "produce" bitcoins from thin air.

VC participation as an investment is a very different animal than the retail users with their money in Bitcoin exchanges.



$10M side bid/offer is for all purposes a fictitious number. It will change, and certainly the spread will change, if the volatility, demand for liquidity and order imbalance were to heat up. In fairness, perhaps the daily aggregate dollar volume is enormous so there really is liquidity in the Bitcoin exchange. I dunno.

I don't want to sound like I'm just bashing away, hence the remark that I didn't wish to appear to say "I told you so" based on the hindsight of reading of the Mt Gox bankruptcy.

The appeal varies depending on the end user: some like the fee-less structure, some like the fixed supply/inflation "hedge" angle, and some just like the libertarian aspect to it. And, yes, it appeals to criminals, although that use is supposedly greatly exaggerated by the press and is (massively) dwarfed by the use of actual currency.

Without going to far into it, you don't need to keep your coins at an exchange. You can store them locally on your own hard-drive or, better yet, a "cold storage" device not connected to the internet, like a thumb drive. As long as you don't lose your drive, your coins are 100% safe. Unless you are a very active trader, there is no point in storing your coins in your exchange account.

And yes, like any market, the bid/offer size is fictitious to a degree. Like any market, once a bid starts to get hit/offer lifted, a lot of the stack will cancel.

[cloudguy]

You don't need to keep your coins at an exchange. You can store them locally on your own hard-drive or, better yet, a "cold storage" device not connected to the internet, like a thumb drive. As long as you don't lose your drive, your coins are 100% safe.

Should I then place my thumb drive under my mattress, for extra safety?

[Tony T]

…As long as you don't lose your drive, your coins are 100% safe.

…or if the flash drive is damaged, so have multiple copies, with one in a Safe or Safe Deposit Box.

Old new: IT worker throws out hard drive, loses $7.5 million Bitcoin fortune (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/it-worker-throws-out-hard-drive-loses-7-5-million-v21654552) (I wonder if he's still looking)

[cfox]

Should I then place my thumb drive under my mattress, for extra safety?

safest place? ass

[cfox]

…or if the flash drive is damaged, so have multiple copies, with one in a Safe or Safe Deposit Box.

Old new: IT worker throws out hard drive, loses $7.5 million Bitcoin fortune (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/it-worker-throws-out-hard-drive-loses-7-5-million-v21654552) (I wonder if he's still looking)

I remember that story. sad/funny. I would round up a posse and rent 20 back hoes

[Tony T]

Thumb Drive:
http://s33.dlnws.com/images/products/images/1387000/1387590-large (http://www.amazon.com/Quality-Finger-shaped-Flash-drive/dp/B005LTBCKM/?tag=dealnewscom&m=A35HIKRLBF6RXB)

[Tony T]

I remember that story. sad/funny. I would round up a posse and rent 20 back hoes

He posted a pic of the site on Twitter: https://twitter.com/howelzy/status/405743141695004672/photo/1

[Pete Mckeon]

Folks have different experiences and information of the various aspects of financial environments.

How they use it for things like bitcoin, penny stocks and even gold are the users responsibility and happiness thus whichever gives you the biggest smile:).

I personally would not be a person that would use them based on my personal views of risks vs rewards which I use for investments

Sorry I did not mean to offend you. Pete:beer:


I had not read that news report yet at the time of my previous post. I would not have posted if I had because it seems too much like saying "I told you so...". What I think about Bitcoins would be unchanged regardless.

[fuzzalow]

Folks have different experiences and information of the various aspects of financial environments.

How they use it for things like bitcoin, penny stocks and even gold are the users responsibility and happiness thus whichever gives you the biggest smile:).

I personally would not be a person that would use them based on my personal views of risks vs rewards which I use for investments

Sorry I did not mean to offend you. Pete:beer:

No worries, no problem at all. :beer: Offend?! You mean to me?? I have no couth so I am not even sure you're talkin' to me. :)

I am wary of financial instruments that get portrayed as swiss army knives of finance. Makes me believe that it purposely obscures the fact that there is supposed to be real money functioning behind all this bitcoin facade. But the only thing that's real is the currency and not the multipurpose razzle dazzle of the bitcoin.

Reminds me of a saying of sage wisdom in the casino industry: "The guy that invented gambling was smart but the guy that invented the gaming chip was a genius".

[Tony T]

Meanwhile, at Citigroup:
Citigroup Takes $400 Million Hit, Alleging Fraud in Mexico (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304071004579410863489379726?mod=WS J_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection&mg=reno64-wsj)

Citigroup Inc. said as much as $400 million was stolen from its Mexico unit in what the bank's chief executive called a "despicable crime."

The New York bank announced Friday that it was cutting its fourth-quarter and full-year results by about $235 million after finding allegedly fraudulent billings at its Mexico unit, Banco Nacional de Mexico, CORPTRC.MX 0.00% or Banamex.

[Louis]

Meanwhile, at Citigroup:

We're not setting the bar terribly high, if our criterion is that Bitcoins be better than the existing banksters...

[happycampyer]

This was published a few months back, but is still an interesting read:

Yermack, Is Bitcoin a Real Currency? (http://www.centerforfinancialstability.org/research/DavidYermack-Bitcoin.pdf)

The abstract:

Motivated by Bitcoin’s rapid appreciation in recent weeks, I examine its historical trading behavior to see whether it behaves like a traditional sovereign currency. Bitcoin has exchange rate volatility an order of magnitude higher than the volatilities of widely used currencies, undermining Bitcoin’s usefulness as a unit of account or a store of value. Bitcoin’s daily exchange rates exhibit virtually zero correlation with bona fide currencies, making Bitcoin useless for risk management purposes and exceedingly difficult for its owners to hedge. Bitcoin also lacks access to a banking system with deposit insurance, and it is not used to denominate consumer credit or loan contracts. Bitcoin appears to behave more like a speculative investment than like a currency.

[cfox]

This was published a few months back, but is still an interesting read:

Yermack, Is Bitcoin a Real Currency? (http://www.centerforfinancialstability.org/research/DavidYermack-Bitcoin.pdf)

The abstract:

Motivated by Bitcoin’s rapid appreciation in recent weeks, I examine its historical trading behavior to see whether it behaves like a traditional sovereign currency. Bitcoin has exchange rate volatility an order of magnitude higher than the volatilities of widely used currencies, undermining Bitcoin’s usefulness as a unit of account or a store of value. Bitcoin’s daily exchange rates exhibit virtually zero correlation with bona fide currencies, making Bitcoin useless for risk management purposes and exceedingly difficult for its owners to hedge. Bitcoin also lacks access to a banking system with deposit insurance, and it is not used to denominate consumer credit or loan contracts. Bitcoin appears to behave more like a speculative investment than like a currency.

Thanks Happy, that's a great paper, but he is incorrect on a major point: there is a growing bitcoin derivatives market. It, like everything regarding bitcoin, is young, but it does provide a way to hedge, or get outright short, bitcoin.

Another interesting thing in the paper; the author debunks the myth that bitcoin is a bonanza for criminals. He makes the point that Marc Andreesen has been making for a long time, and that is that it's much more difficult to launder money or avoid taxes with bitcoin than with hard cash.

I don't want to come across as the bitcoin cheerleader here, as I'm sure it seems, but I see a lot of people (not you, Happy) with strong opinions about bitcoin while they freely admit to not knowing anything about it.

[CNY rider]

Meanwhile, at Citigroup:
Citigroup Takes $400 Million Hit, Alleging Fraud in Mexico (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304071004579410863489379726?mod=WS J_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection&mg=reno64-wsj)

Citigroup Inc. said as much as $400 million was stolen from its Mexico unit in what the bank's chief executive called a "despicable crime."

The New York bank announced Friday that it was cutting its fourth-quarter and full-year results by about $235 million after finding allegedly fraudulent billings at its Mexico unit, Banco Nacional de Mexico, CORPTRC.MX 0.00% or Banamex.

When they do it it's "accounting irregularities".
When it's done to them it's a "despicable crime".

[fuzzalow]

Thanks Happy, that's a great paper, but he is incorrect on a major point: there is a growing bitcoin derivatives market. It, like everything regarding bitcoin, is young, but it does provide a way to hedge, or get outright short, bitcoin.

Another interesting thing in the paper; the author debunks the myth that bitcoin is a bonanza for criminals. He makes the point that Marc Andreesen has been making for a long time, and that is that it's much more difficult to launder money or avoid taxes with bitcoin than with hard cash.

I don't want to come across as the bitcoin cheerleader here, as I'm sure it seems, but I see a lot of people (not you, Happy) with strong opinions about bitcoin while they freely admit to not knowing anything about it.

Heck, don't take an ad hominen dig at me, instead why don't you counter the points of my arguments. Anything I could possibly bring up as downside risk and variables in the Bitcoin landscape should have already been vetted as part of the diligence and strategy formation in how Bitcoin was to be used. Because unless the plan is flying blind with no instruments, none of what I said should have come across as news. Finance is a cruel profession, what rigor isn't self imposed will, with harsh surety, be exposed and exploited by others.

None of this is personal. The conversations are civil and interesting and I don't wish to spoil the conversation so I will stand down my comments.

[cfox]

Heck, don't take an ad hominen dig at me, instead why don't you counter the points of my arguments. Anything I could possibly bring up as downside risk and variables in the Bitcoin landscape should have already been vetted as part of the diligence and strategy formation in how Bitcoin was to be used. Because unless the plan is flying blind with no instruments, none of what I said should have come across as news. Finance is a cruel profession, what rigor isn't self imposed will, with harsh surety, be exposed and exploited by others.

None of this is personal. The conversations are civil and interesting and I don't wish to spoil the conversation so I will stand down my comments.

I apologize; that wasn't meant as an attack at you at all. You always engage in civilized dialogue and I appreciate that. It's a phenomenon that has a scope much greater than this forum; many, many articles have been written decrying bitcoin where the author freely admits to not really understanding it at all.

[verticaldoug]

Thanks Happy, that's a great paper, but he is incorrect on a major point: there is a growing bitcoin derivatives market. It, like everything regarding bitcoin, is young, but it does provide a way to hedge, or get outright short, bitcoin.
.

One of the ironies of the derivatives market is that much growth was to increase leverage, avoid taxes or other holding rules. Derivatives will not make the market safer beyond the point that counter parties correctly monitor the risk. We all know how well that worked out in 2008.

Presently, the value of bitcoin is anchored by it's convertibility into other recognized currencies. If people were unwilling to hand over dollars/euro/yen for bitcoins, the currency would fall over night.

It is naive to think bitcoin will exist without a more robust regulatory environment. This will come with costs.

The current regulatory market for the U.S. has been built over decades in response to crisis- prevent bank runs, prevent fraud, etc etc.

Even though you can change the medium of exchange, you are not changing HUMAN NATURE. That's the fundamental flaw with bitcoin, people are involved. It will have the same problems as other currencies because people are involved.

[cfox]

One of the ironies of the derivatives market is that much growth was to increase leverage, avoid taxes or other holding rules. Derivatives will not make the market safer beyond the point that counter parties correctly monitor the risk. We all know how well that worked out in 2008.

Presently, the value of bitcoin is anchored by it's convertibility into other recognized currencies. If people were unwilling to hand over dollars/euro/yen for bitcoins, the currency would fall over night.

It is naive to think bitcoin will exist without a more robust regulatory environment. This will come with costs.

The current regulatory market for the U.S. has been built over decades in response to crisis- prevent bank runs, prevent fraud, etc etc.

Even though you can change the medium of exchange, you are not changing HUMAN NATURE. That's the fundamental flaw with bitcoin, people are involved. It will have the same problems as other currencies because people are involved.

All true, I was just pointing out the author's assertion that there was no way to short bitcoin.

[1centaur]

One of the ironies of the derivatives market is that much growth was to increase leverage, avoid taxes or other holding rules. Derivatives will not make the market safer beyond the point that counter parties correctly monitor the risk. We all know how well that worked out in 2008.

Presently, the value of bitcoin is anchored by it's convertibility into other recognized currencies. If people were unwilling to hand over dollars/euro/yen for bitcoins, the currency would fall over night.

It is naive to think bitcoin will exist without a more robust regulatory environment. This will come with costs.

The current regulatory market for the U.S. has been built over decades in response to crisis- prevent bank runs, prevent fraud, etc etc.

Even though you can change the medium of exchange, you are not changing HUMAN NATURE. That's the fundamental flaw with bitcoin, people are involved. It will have the same problems as other currencies because people are involved.

You'll always get my attention with a reference to human nature, one of the great anchoring elements of most large scale speculative arguments, so I really enjoyed this post.

One of the things that stood out to me was the reference to counterparties correctly monitoring risk. I view derivative counterparties as being in Lloyd Blankfein mode - trading the spread and indifferent to risk. Let the customers price the risk as they wish (prop desks aside). So a good question is whether customers price risk well. I'm going to say no. The conventions around credit default swaps, for example, sound like a joke to somebody who lives and breathes credit every day. Multi-variable pricing models with several of the variables assumed and unlikely to be correct. Like Black-Scholes, pricing is a convention, not a genuinely thoughtful assessment.

As for Bitcoin, I finally read the Wiki last night to get up to speed. It strikes me as a cool idea with some decent but presumably not unbreakable safeguards that works today because it's not one of many, people feel like using it, and it has not been thrashed by some computer driven technique the believers have not figured out yet. Of course, regulators could kill it too, at any time (one wonders whether the US tolerates it because they want the NSA to see who uses it). When there are too many crypto currencies so it's more problematical to exchange for real currency, or too many people think there's a problem, they will become niche "off the books" exchange media. Just like Apple computers were not hacked like PCs because there were too few to bother with, so a Paceline Forum crypto currency might be pretty reliable because it's not worth hacking microcells. Relative and total computing power available to all sides will be factors.

The US dollar is a human nature-controlled currency too, but there's public accountability on how those FRNs are created and counted. Bitcoin feels like the accountability is related to an idea and its execution. That's very different.

[akelman]

a Paceline Forum crypto currency

Might I suggest silver alloy Chorus 10-speed shifters? (Kidding aside, that was a thoughtful post, 1centaur.)

[Germany_chris]

The appeal of bit coin is two fold it anonymous and finite, the same with all the others; doge, lite et.al.

Sent from my newest gadget I'm either on the bike or in the Jeep

[Rada]

Thought I heard another Bitcoin trading site shut down because it was hacked into similarly to Mt Gox.

[ultraman6970]

Time to jump off the boat before is too late.

[Pete Mckeon]

did not mean to take it the way I did

[Louis]

No one that I know of is attacking Ray. He's the opposite of a Bitcoin type of guy, which is why I thought it would be amusing to have his name in the title.

It's a joke.

[oldpotatoe]

Donno

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573863/Bitcoin-exchange-CEO-dead-home-suspected-suicide-age-28.html

[Anarchist]

Donno

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573863/Bitcoin-exchange-CEO-dead-home-suspected-suicide-age-28.html

That is a really interesting article, mainly in how much it differs from one I read yesterday (can't remember where).But it points up the differences between US and UK media. This points out the ties to Virgin and Branson, sings her "business smarts", etc. The article I read yesterday really had her as a silicon valley product whose only experience before becoming CEO of this organization was with companies doing "crypto-currency" deals (i.e. people playing online games and having "money" wanting to buy it, sell it, exchange for another game, etc).

We live in a weird world. I had no idea there was a "business" in banking electronic games phoney money.

[Tony T]

Creator Unmasked (http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto.html)?

"Far from leading to a Tokyo-based whiz kid using the name "Satoshi Nakamoto" as a cipher or pseudonym (a story repeated by everyone from Bitcoin's rabid fans to The New Yorker), the trail followed by Newsweek led to a 64-year-old Japanese-American man whose name really is Satoshi Nakamoto. He is someone with a penchant for collecting model trains and a career shrouded in secrecy, having done classified work for major corporations and the U.S. military."

and: MAN SAID TO CREATE BITCOIN DENIES IT (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-man-denies-hes-bitcoin-founder)

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto said Thursday that he is not the creator of bitcoin, adding further mystery to the story of how the world's most popular digital currency came to be.

[Tony T]

Don't follow bitcoin, but this caught my eye tonight:
WSJ: Bitcoin’s Plunge Bites ‘Miners’ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoins-plunge-bites-miners-1421281616?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection)

Bitcoin’s value fell 21% to $179.37 late Wednesday, according to news service Coindesk.

The virtual currency, which proponents hail as a potential alternative to mainstream money and critics dismiss as a fad or a haven for money-laundering, has fallen 44% since the start of the year and 85% from the record high of $1,165 it hit in early December 2013. In total, almost $11.3 billion in value has been lost since that peak.

[Louis]

About 15 minutes ago I almost looked for this thread to bump it (because of this news) but decided against it...

[pbarry]

About 15 minutes ago I almost looked for this thread to bump it (because of this news) but decided against it...

And then you bumped it up further since Tony T. "did it first".. In Fourth grade we'll talk more about Geography, improve our Spelling and Grammar, and work on harder Math problems.

[Louis]

And then you bumped it up further since Tony T. "did it first"..

Pots, kettles, and all that...

You're just upset because Matt dredged up that Soylent thread that got you so worked up a while back.

[unterhausen]

I suppose the day over day decline was precipitous, but the decline of the bitcoin has occurred at a steady rate over the last year so I'm not sure how it is news. Don't think I've seen a chart that followed a straight line for quite so long. My advise, "don't get in front of that train"

[MattTuck]

bitcoin up 7% after this fiasco in Greece. :banana:

[Tony T]

Looks like the creator of Bitcoin has been identified:
http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692
http://www.wired.com/2015/12/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-this-unknown-australian-genius/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/world/australia/sydney-bitcoin-raid.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[grawk]

Looks like the creator of Bitcoin has been identified:
http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692
http://www.wired.com/2015/12/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-this-unknown-australian-genius/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/world/australia/sydney-bitcoin-raid.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

or someone who wants people to think he's the inventor of bitcoin...

[Tony T]

The evidence in the articles is compelling
(Wired 'acknowledged that the trail of clues could be a hoax, but it added: "If Wright is seeking to fake his Nakamoto connection, his hoax would be practically as ambitious as Bitcoin itself." ')

[grawk]

Wired has been similarly convinced about other people in the past, however.

Edit. That evidence does look pretty clear, tho.

[Tony T]

Don't follow bitcoin, but this caught my eye tonight:
WSJ: Bitcoin's Plunge Bites "Miners" (http://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoins-plunge-bites-miners-1421281616?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection) (Jan 2015)

Bitcoin's value fell 21% to $179.37 late Wednesday, according to news service Coindesk.

The virtual currency, which proponents hail as a potential alternative to mainstream money and critics dismiss as a fad or a haven for money-laundering, has fallen 44% since the start of the year and 85% from the record high of $1,165 it hit in early December 2013. In total, almost $11.3 billion in value has been lost since that peak.

Haven't look at this is awhile, but just saw bitcoin mentioned in a NYT article and it's currently at $1,600 — Wow!

[cash05458]

Ray, how many bitcoins for some good tape?