throw123123123

Because they don't know it yet. They audit and review each claim a an office sends, which starts a negotiation process to see if each claimed item by the physician was warranted and done properly. All that information is codified then into a level of visit, which changes the amount it will be payed out.

It is grotesquely complex, but the core issue here is that patients want to consume their healthcare through insurance, because it is tax advantaged. Thus it is impossible to make a cash business that would cut through all this bullshit for the majority of healthcare.

HDP is definitely in the right path, but you need to get rid of many layers of bureacracy and paperwork. Need an absolute de-reg.

It's not going to happen, so the most likely scenario is innovation will be coming from fringe services.

> Progress isn't profitable enough according to the Excel spreadsheet.

It's precisely the opposite. Its a racket but its not for profit. If you made a health care service that didn't have any of this cruft and just provided great care, it would not be used, because it would not be compliant with insurance, and employees would not get the tax benefit of using it.

If it were for profit, it would work better.

It's not the same regulation.

Because the real world is more complex than a lever, and there are many unknowns in how either physical or human manifestations respond to actions, and doing nothing removes your intent from the mix.

A very clear example of this is medicine with the "do no harm" principle - that the actions of the physician should be chosen to minimize the scenarios of harming the patient under any circumstance - under chance, under lack of patient compliance, etc.

Furthermore, the actions in the real world have also different experiences and meanings. Its easy to think about pulling a lever to kill 1 instead of 5, but not easy to think of killing one to harvest their organs and save other 5, though they are, with a lot of abstraction, "equivalent moral actions".

Generally the issue with pricing in healthcare is insurance, which has the perverse structure of being consumed as a tax benefit without competition to get patients.

There isn't a specific rule that explains this but there is a whole system that begets this as the most efficient system by the current players.

Read again

The content range is very wide, and some of the most popular anime's/mangas are geared towards pre-teens.

But there's plenty of art that has no match in any other field. A list of my favorites if you want to test them out, that don't include "fan-service" (most of what you mention).

Wolf's Rain

Fullmetal Alchemist

Evangelion (includes some pandering, but the content is way too original to care)

Berserk (recommend manga over anime)

Vagabond (manga)

Death Note

Attack on Titan

Utena (old, but a very strong story about grooming and abuse)

And these are the popular ones. If you start going deeper and branching out you can find jewels, specially in manga.

Hello Caio. I've sent you an email before to connect. Do you want to ping me on email? gabriel at silver.dev.

I am thinking of a couple of blockchain startups that you might be interested in.

Because the obscurity of the prices is a result of regulation as well. We need less layers of control with "unintended" consequences.

> conspiracy fence.

What do you mean conspiracy? It's the official purpose of the Fed to maintain inflation low, it has failed, it has cost a devaluation of the assets of everyone holding dollars or dollar-linked financial instruments, and it's gone significantly down in value.

> Well, crypto has been around for about 10 years. There's been plenty of choice, and yet what do you see today?

A thriving crypto market big enough to be acknowledged as a threat by the head of the federal reserve, the head of the central european bank, and several other high ranking officials.

> If modern finance prevents scams better,

Its better at preventing a type of scam, but significantly worse at legal scam -> how much is an 8% inflation of the dollar on dozens of trillions of USD denominated financial instruments?

And there is also plenty of equity scams that are sanctioned by government - the kind that suppresses the ability of people to invest or get funded, to give special permissions to those that play the rules, etc. The way some get bailouts at the expense of the rest.

A system with a high degree of freedom and lack of oversight will have higher scams. The big question is, if people were given the choice to participate in both systems, which one will thrive?

LVT is not the same tax to all land, its precisely based on land rent.

I think a developer productivity is measured by the eng output, not the market pricing of the goods they sell.

Im pretty sure LOC/person went down a lot with the pandemic across all companies.

> I understand what you are trying to say but your concept of market price is only applicable to fungible goods. "Market price" for land leases makes very little sense and only implies that it's whatever price you've managed to negotiate. There are no supply/demand curves, there is no spread, nothing like you are used to with pricing fungible goods.

To make sure I understand - you say that because each land is as unique as an NFT, the market for every single piece of land has supply of 1, and the classical supply/demand curves don't make sense/apply.

I have multiple answers to that concept:

1- From a mathematical abstraction, the key to riches would be to get one land and split it into as many sub-pieces of land as possible and sell them all at the same price as the larger one!

2- There are differences between fungibles and non-fungibles, crypto has taught us, but overall most properties are similar and allow for the exchange of a non-fungible for another. Each land NFT is unique, but there are many land NFTs, and they compete against each other as if they were fungible. Each wine is unique too, even each bottle of wine is unique! but albeit this does affect demand, it doesn't turn supply to perfect inelasticity. There are subsitutions!

> But that is not the point of my argument, your original assertion was that "the land owner doesn't have any bargaining power - his only choice is to not rent the land and absorb the loss of all value." Now you are saying seller and buyer negotiate? Why would they do if the seller has no bargaining power?

Bargaining power to increase rents to cover the land value tax - he cant change the supply of land, or repurpose it for something else.

> Why then a 1kg of Skittles on Amazon.co.uk costs more than 50 oz (1.5kg) of the same on Amazon.com (GBP 9.43 vs USD 9.98)? Is it really because British people want to taste the rainbow so much more than Americans?

I've waited all my life to a microeconomics conversation about skittles. The bigger question, sir, is why do blue skittles sell at the same price as all the other skittles, when they are clearly the worst.

Many equal goods have different prices in different parts of the world for cost of labor, supply, taxes, etc etc. I have no idea in this particular case why it would be so, but relevant to economic incidence of taxes, sales taxes do change supply/demand curves of skittles bought on amazon. Because skittles are a unique product, but also substitutable for other non-sales taxable foods, its very likely both producer and purchaser eat part of the tax hike - they both lose.

> So if you charge the tenant the tax, prices will fall by $2000 making the landlords absorb the cost. If you charge the landlord the tax both the supply and demand curves are unchanged and the tenants pay the same.

Beautifully correct. Can you imagine peddling in politics a tax on renters claiming it is in their benefit?

> They totally can. Go to any marketplace and see for yourself: sellers set prices. Buyers can negotiate, accept or refuse, but the seller setting the price (ask) is completely unilateral and happens billions of time every day.

There is some subtlety about talking about prices conceptually. Both sellers and buyers can make an offer or a bid at any price, but market prices are the result of sellers and buyers meeting - about making the actual exchange.

In this context, saying "sets prices" would mean that the buyer takes the price, not that the seller has made a listing at an arbitrary number. Offering 1$ for a car and not buying a car is not setting a price - neither is Asking 1000000$ and not getting an offer.

Rent prices are paid at all because there is a benefit to the land. If the Ask for the land is higher than the value, it will meet demand and validate the price.

> If this theory had been correct than raising taxes on businesses would not result in the increase of consumer prices.

Thats not true - economic incidence requires evaluation in a case by case basis. It depends on the relative market strength or demand/supply elasticity. For example, a tax on life saving medication is borne by the consumer, but a tax on skittles is born on the skittles manufacturer (as consumers replace skittles with other candy).

The point is that the economic incidence on unimproved land is very much against the landlord - he can't do anything with the unimproved land but rent it.

For longer, wider and more interesting historical analysis of LVT I recommend reading from source - Henry George and Provery and Progress, a book denouncing homelessness and land speculation in...San Francisco, 100 years ago.

They can't set rent prices - prices occur when supply meets demand, it's not unilateral.

The origin of rent in land - beware it is not the same for buildings - is the difference in value from one land to the least valuable land. (roughly, David Ricardo). A land tax is about taxing this rent, not about nominal land taxes on everything.

If the land tax is roughly correct, the owner of land cant charge more with the tax because it is less competitive than land that is a little farther away.

Adam smith, David Ricardo, Henry George, Milton Friedman and even Stiglitz have all lauded that land taxes are less distortive than any other tax and would be great as a local tax policy. (In the us, for cities and states).

Probably not true nominally but proportionally 250k is very far away from being 4x 60k.

I make 235k in the bay area and just rent + daycare for 2 kids would be 10k a month - on a net income of 12k a month.

Taxes on land dont have economic incidence on rents.

The reasoning is that land's profit stems from its location and the land owner doesn't have any bargaining power - his only choice is to not rent the land and absorb the loss of all value.

Its not the same with property taxes because builders/buyers can choose not to build, so there is some distortion.

Same - with a family in the bay area 250k is not a lot of money.

I think cash-wise i would fall in this bucket. Of course i have plenty of savings, but most of my income is spent away.

One issue when talking about incomes is that its not properly adjusted for COL and taxes. A 250k salary in the bay area is about 12k a month in hand. Im a head of family - I support my wife and my kid with this income. Rent is 5k, and pre-school is another 2.5k. Between unnegotiables like phone lines, food, internet, electricity etc etc the reminder to be stingy about is not a lot.

I used to live in this area with 100k and still save, but as a single person living in a dump and eating in the office every day.

At the same time, the proposal has to be better than what others companies offer, or nobody would accept the position.

relatively, all payroll taxes are tax penalties, and also income taxes relative to capital taxes

Why is the solution to "uneven tax structure" always to raise taxes? can we just lower income tax to same as capital taxes instead? Thats real money in your pocket.

The life of a pro baduk player is pretty poor. Unless you are in the top you basically scrape by, and still need to train and think about the game 24/7. The majority of pro players live very frugally.

A mediocre programmer works 1/5th and making 5x than a p90 pro player.

I played seriously because I learned the game when i was very poor with no prospects, and then it latches on to your brain and you cant quit, like an addiction. I think I studied 8 hours a day while I was in highschool - during class, before and after school, weekends, vacations. Probably did 2~3 college degrees of time between 16-20 y-old, but the competition is simply brutal. You face kids that have 10,000 games before they turn 7.

Again, the great danger of teaching go to kids is not that they dont care about it, its what happens if they do.

Achieving a high level in this game requires thousands of hours of study. I did reach far in the ladder and could have gotten the actual pro title, albeit honorary like most westerners historically. Its just a time-sink with infinite competition.

I dont want to teach it to my daughter.

The worst thing that could happen is that they like the game and end up spending thousands of grueling work for a thankless game.

Source: former professional-aspiring player

The cube rule was made by a chaotic neutral, only explanation.

You can start with Atari-Go, thats pretty obvious for a while, and then 9x9 scoring is relatively easy.

I think there are other reasons not to teach go than this one.