There are restrictions, it is domain specific (the original Watson was for Jeopardy questions)
That's a pretty big domain.
Apart from the linguistic abnormalities of Jeopardy, you'd think that adding more domains would mostly be a matter of adding data, storage space, and processing power.
Actually, the beauty of Watson's performance on Jeopardy was its ability to determine the domain of a question from the esoterically-phrased answers.
Wow, previous post moderated to the basement as flamebait. That's a rather chilling effect to place on a discussion.
Anyhow... you took a drive-by swipe at people who want the government to be less dominant in their lives. I took a contrarian position. Seems rather hypocritical for you to jump into an ad hominem (in your subject line, no less) and accuse me of pigeon-holing an issue. Yeah, I was generalizing... unfairly? That's debatable, but a pretty long discussion.
Then a bunch of the rest of your argument was a straw man. I chose my words about capitalism carefully and you chose to interpret them in some a different way. I didn't say that capitalism is always right or that you should never act against it. I just said that going against it often has unintended negative consequences. I don't see a need to defend a position I didn't take.
Then there's another straw man supposing that I'm looking for a greater degree of truth in labeling (carbon offsets? Really?) than I even want in regulation of the thing itself. Apparently, you missed the words in bold: all I really ask to be mandated by government in this kind of case is truth in labeling. We were talking about red dye on the peel of an orange, I think you should recall.
What ever happened to taking the arguments given rather than making up the ones you'd prefer to debate?
Because oranges aren't always orange and they have imperfections. Shipping and storing only exacerbates this. But suppliers noticed that people bought more oranges when they looked "pure" orange. And the FDA allowed it (for whatever reason). Go to an organic food store sometime and look at the produce. You'll think it looks like shit. But it's really just not coated in dye.
Oh, but if the big bad evil government stopped oranges getting coated with food dye then everyone would complain that the nanny state is killing capitalism. So vote with your dollar and be lost in the sea of people who put perception above knowledge.
Why is it that slashdot is all about crowd sourcing things and peer-to-peer distributing the load until it comes to government? Then, suddenly, there's all kind of trust and faith in consolidation of power, authority, (re)distribution of resources, etc..
The fact that there are stores that openly and proudly sells uncolored produce tells me that many consumers know the difference and make a strong choice based upon those differences.
As a person who believes that going against capitalism often has unintended negative consequences, all I really ask to be mandated by government in this kind of case is truth in labeling.
Creativity/innovation vs copying is almost as useful as a semantic argument. Everything is just an evolution from previous ideas. It's impossible to say who really invented what, so it's useless to debate.
What Apple excels at is the ability to push evolution forward a little faster within highly polished products. You mentioned Sandisk's offerings... never again will I buy another Sandisk product after having to endure that buggy Sansa View piece of crap that I made the mistake of purchasing years ago. In contrast, I've had dozens of Apple products in my life, and I've never really regretted purchasing a single one of them - well, that Newton never really lived up to its promise, but that was pre-Jobs-return.
All of my Apple products have been high quality, sleek, powerful, were cutting edge when I purchased them, easy to use, and stylish. Microsoft just doesn't know how to consistently do all of those things at once.
Apparently from the few companies that do perform as well as Apple, doing so much of it right isn't easy.
Let's just delay this argument until 2020 when we'll have that space elevator. We can discuss it on the moon.
See you there!
The GP was correct. These materials fads pop up every couple of years and most of it is hype designed to get funding. Sure, a few applications may come out of the latest sexy material, but most of it is nonsense.
There were plenty of Slashdotters saying that about carbon nanotubes years ago. I'm a little gunshy about hoping for the new material's awesomeness until we actually see macro-scale ribbons of it produced that stand up to the theoretical claims.
You really think that when people use the term "nanny state" to describe bad governance that they don't have a bundle of issues that directly illustrate the problem?
Am I supposed to define every term in every slashdot thread? How is communication supposed to occur in a meaningful way in your world without abstraction and encapsulation?
I'm kind of surprised to see someone bickering over the term "nanny state" as though they don't know what it means.
Political attack and support ads are not the main problem crippling our government. Corruption and the amassing of power are.
You say that as if they are not one and the same.
Let's see:
campaign (support and attack ) ads - the feeding of information to voters who can make up their own minds
corruption - accepting bribes, giving jobs to relatives, redirecting tax money to campaign donors, etc.
Hmm... yeah, I'm going to have to say those aren't the same thing.
Repealing of Glass-Steagall was the gate letting the horses loose.
Well by the same token, the nanny state helped create the toxicity of the assets being traded by forcing banks to make risky loans. Then the government controlled and backed company in charge of the lions' share of the mortgages (more corporatism/socialism) in the country fell asleep at the wheel and let the whole thing go straight into the shitter -- despite the warnings from the Bush administration, I might add. Since the government was very much to blame for the whole mess, no one responsible (Barney Frank) was sued or even relieved of duty.
The financial meltdown was a perfect storm involving a shitload more than just Glass-Steagall.
>monopolies are not a problem
I beg to differ. I am a t-mobile customer.
Woah, misquote much? I didn't say the words you attributed to me.
>nanny state
Wedge issue to distract you from what's really going on. Just like abortion, gay marriage, and all that other horse-shit.
Yeah, you're in a thread talking about how the government is once again overstepping its bounds to help its corporate buddies, and you don't think that the government is too big for its britches? It's just some horse-shit wedge issue to distract from what's really going on? What's really going on? Professional wrestling and American Idol?
I definitely don't like that - but monopolies aren't our worst problem right now. It's corporations buying influence and laws. That's the first giant that we have to slay. The pendulum has swung so irrevocably far toward the big government nanny state side of the spectrum that someone like Paul is needed just to move us back toward sanity.
By the way, the free market, even completely devoid of regulation, is a myth. Just so you know.
So you think that we're in danger of accidentally falling into unregulated capitalism after someone like Paul would have a term or two in the President's chair? Really?
- Where are all these powerful lobbyists going to come from if we get rid of the quid pro quo of having government officials become lobbyists with huge salaries? - Which political organizations will lobbyists target if we reduce the power of those organizations by allowing other parties to be voted in? - Which politicians will lobbyists target when term limits prevents them from buying a senator for 20 to 30 years? Fresh blood in congress means a reduction in strings.
Political attack and support ads are not the main problem crippling our government. Corruption and the amassing of power are.
Lobbyists only have real power because we've allowed them to be incestuously intertwined with government. Those ties should be broken, but not by curtailing free speech.
Isn't it funny how most people don't recognize the libertarian roots in the US that were a beacon and the envy of the world? Instead, we've destroyed our libertarian heritage by dramatically growing government while managing to confuse capitalism for corporatism. Thomas Jefferson was so prescient in this regard.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
-- Thomas Jefferson
It's so dreadfully sad that everyone these days is looking for the government to solve their problems. Oh, if we just get the right new program in place. If we just spent a little more money on MY pet project... If we just gave a little more authority to MY candidate...
We've managed to do exactly what Jefferson warned us not to. We've created a government-corporate monster by giving away all our liberty and money for the illusion of safety and being taken care of. Now, rather than hacking away at the monster, we think that we can add to it and manipulate it in the direction that we want. Utter foolishness.
At least you're honest about your main problem there. I have no clue why anyone gives allegiance to a political party. Political parties are no more logical, ethical, or relevant to good policy than football teams - especially in the US where you can only choose between two of them. Political party affiliation clouds your judgment and is the cause of the allowance of so much government shenanigans in this country.
Not even Ron Paul is worth a damn, because maybe he's for individual rights, he's a corporatist to the bone and would sell out the entire US public,
Complete and utter bullshit.
Ron Paul is as anti-corporatist as they come. Corporatists enact legislation to favor corporations. Corporatists are in favor of heavy manipulation of the tax code, industry subsidies, protectionism, etc. Ron Paul is against those things.
Ron Paul is a Capitalist. He speaks out against Corporatism, and he's definitely not a hypocrite.
Campaign finance reform ran into the first amendment. It's normally right to have the first amendment prevail against other well intentioned laws.
We can get a lot of things done without messing with the first amendment:
1. Term limits to reduce the amassing of power and favors. 2. End of plurality voting so that we end the power sharing duopoloy that continues to favor corporatism. 3. Much stronger restrictions on the ability of government officials to do favors for corporations and then take jobs with them as lobbyists and executives. 4. Transparency transparency transparency! Government officials should be required to keep extensive records online declaring every source of income or benefit they receive. We should be able to know who is using commercial airlines, whether or not they're flying first class, where they're going, who's paying for their hotel rooms, dinners, trips, doing their home remodeling, etc. 5. Stronger ethical training and rules enforcement. The self-policing of congress is pathetic. Every congressman and staffer should have to take one of those ethical IQ tests, similar to the one they make you take to get a retail job; but much much more detailed. Any difficulties with the test should result in extensive ethics training. All test results should be posted online for every citizen to examine.
I don't know. Actually, I think that Newt was more of a damaged entity after the Clinton impeachment. Since then, he's reformed his image to a degree by staying out of elected office.
If Newt has kept his nose clean for the last ten years and expresses regret for his past family issues, the Republicans will give him a pass on his personal life.
He talks about god for the same reason Obama does. You can't get elected President in this country (especially not by the Republican party) if you don't talk about your strong faith. Sad, I know, but the public is too mired in its superstitions for things to work otherwise.
I guess Clinton paid Jones $850,000 friggin' dollars to shut her up just for the hell of it? Then you add in that he was a proven philanderer and abuser of his power with Monica Lewinsky, and it's pretty obvious that Paula Jones was the victim of the crime.
You're right about the Republicans keeping Clinton fairly clean, although I'd argue that he was too busy thinking with his dick and dealing with the aftermath of his compulsions to get himself in other trouble. He was also also extraordinarily lucky to be president when the Internet took off, taking the economy with it.
What an obscene, vile, disingenuous hypocrite that man is.
Wait... you mean Clinton? The guy who used the power of the presidency in an attempt to smear and bury Paula Jones to cover up just some of his illegal sexual harassment activities?
People joke about the Repubs going after Clinton for getting blow jobs in the White House. I never cared that much about that part of it. It was the fact that he abused his power to go after Paula Jones that sickened and disgusted me. The guy was absolutely reprehensible, and the fact that he still has the support of his party -- ostensibly the party that supports women -- points out the extraordinary hypocrisy of the Democrats.
You'd likely be wrong. Malign the guy as you will - lord knows the US press was all too eager to do so back in the 90's - but he's extremely intelligent. It's obvious if you listen to the guy speak for five minutes that he's very thoughtful and well read.
Exactly. Government that asks for more money, power, and complexity should be curtailed as a matter of course. Portions of it should be torn down and rebuilt periodically, just to get rid of the old assumptions and cruft. To do this effectively, government must be extremely transparent so that everyone can get in and take a look at it.
The above principles are good for software development, and they'd be great applied to our government.
You didn't at all understand what I said. High deductibles don't get you any kind of transparent pricing from a doctor. They don't get you any kind of leverage in the situation. That's all determined by private pricing between doctors and insurance companies. You are a minor percentage of your doctor's business and he has no need to cater to your needs because he's protected by insurance companies and the laws that they've helped write to force most people to go to their employers for the one size fits all plans that make insurance companies the most money.
I recently was researching getting a vasectomy. The doctors that I went to each had done thousands of them, yet their offices could NOT tell me what the procedure would cost. No clue. How was I supposed to make an informed decision to even fund my FSA without being able to get a price on a procedure that's routine? What, the doctor's office couldn't look at the last dozen bills they sent out and give me a range? You think the doctor and insurance company weren't excruciatingly aware of the costs and charges for the doctor's most commonly performed procedure? If you went in to a auto shop and they couldn't tell you what it cost to get your brake pads replaced, you'd turn around and walk back out.
I honestly don't think we'll get a level playing field between patients and insurance companies without legislation that forces doctors to treat walk-in patients with the same level of negotiating leverage and transparency as the insurance companies.
You even mentioned that most doctors won't even take your plan. That alone shows that you didn't get it. If a doctor doesn't even have to accept your high deductible personal health plan then something in the system is broken. There's institutional collusion between doctors and insurance companies that current health care legislation supports in every way. It needs to be torn down and replaced with something that allows transparency, accountability, choice, efficiency, and effectiveness for each citizen.
There's no incentive for doctors to be judicious in testing since they send the bills to the insurance company. There's no incentives for the patients to undergo less testing, since they never see the bills.
Do patients know what the charges are for various tests before they get them? No. They can't participate in any meaningful way in the whole process.
Only when doctors start putting costs in front of patients and when patients have to make decisions about how they spend their health care dollars will this entire situation begin to be reined in.
Doctors secretive billing practices and the whole Insurance company tied to your job model are to blame for this mess.
Slashdot Mirror
There are restrictions, it is domain specific (the original Watson was for Jeopardy questions)
That's a pretty big domain.
Apart from the linguistic abnormalities of Jeopardy, you'd think that adding more domains would mostly be a matter of adding data, storage space, and processing power.
Actually, the beauty of Watson's performance on Jeopardy was its ability to determine the domain of a question from the esoterically-phrased answers.
Wow, previous post moderated to the basement as flamebait. That's a rather chilling effect to place on a discussion.
Anyhow... you took a drive-by swipe at people who want the government to be less dominant in their lives. I took a contrarian position. Seems rather hypocritical for you to jump into an ad hominem (in your subject line, no less) and accuse me of pigeon-holing an issue. Yeah, I was generalizing... unfairly? That's debatable, but a pretty long discussion.
Then a bunch of the rest of your argument was a straw man. I chose my words about capitalism carefully and you chose to interpret them in some a different way. I didn't say that capitalism is always right or that you should never act against it. I just said that going against it often has unintended negative consequences. I don't see a need to defend a position I didn't take.
Then there's another straw man supposing that I'm looking for a greater degree of truth in labeling (carbon offsets? Really?) than I even want in regulation of the thing itself. Apparently, you missed the words in bold: all I really ask to be mandated by government in this kind of case is truth in labeling. We were talking about red dye on the peel of an orange, I think you should recall.
What ever happened to taking the arguments given rather than making up the ones you'd prefer to debate?
Because oranges aren't always orange and they have imperfections. Shipping and storing only exacerbates this. But suppliers noticed that people bought more oranges when they looked "pure" orange. And the FDA allowed it (for whatever reason). Go to an organic food store sometime and look at the produce. You'll think it looks like shit. But it's really just not coated in dye.
Oh, but if the big bad evil government stopped oranges getting coated with food dye then everyone would complain that the nanny state is killing capitalism. So vote with your dollar and be lost in the sea of people who put perception above knowledge.
Why is it that slashdot is all about crowd sourcing things and peer-to-peer distributing the load until it comes to government? Then, suddenly, there's all kind of trust and faith in consolidation of power, authority, (re)distribution of resources, etc..
The fact that there are stores that openly and proudly sells uncolored produce tells me that many consumers know the difference and make a strong choice based upon those differences.
As a person who believes that going against capitalism often has unintended negative consequences, all I really ask to be mandated by government in this kind of case is truth in labeling.
Creativity/innovation vs copying is almost as useful as a semantic argument. Everything is just an evolution from previous ideas. It's impossible to say who really invented what, so it's useless to debate.
What Apple excels at is the ability to push evolution forward a little faster within highly polished products. You mentioned Sandisk's offerings... never again will I buy another Sandisk product after having to endure that buggy Sansa View piece of crap that I made the mistake of purchasing years ago. In contrast, I've had dozens of Apple products in my life, and I've never really regretted purchasing a single one of them - well, that Newton never really lived up to its promise, but that was pre-Jobs-return.
All of my Apple products have been high quality, sleek, powerful, were cutting edge when I purchased them, easy to use, and stylish. Microsoft just doesn't know how to consistently do all of those things at once.
Apparently from the few companies that do perform as well as Apple, doing so much of it right isn't easy.
Let's just delay this argument until 2020 when we'll have that space elevator. We can discuss it on the moon.
See you there!
The GP was correct. These materials fads pop up every couple of years and most of it is hype designed to get funding. Sure, a few applications may come out of the latest sexy material, but most of it is nonsense.
There were plenty of Slashdotters saying that about carbon nanotubes years ago. I'm a little gunshy about hoping for the new material's awesomeness until we actually see macro-scale ribbons of it produced that stand up to the theoretical claims.
You really think that when people use the term "nanny state" to describe bad governance that they don't have a bundle of issues that directly illustrate the problem?
Am I supposed to define every term in every slashdot thread? How is communication supposed to occur in a meaningful way in your world without abstraction and encapsulation?
I'm kind of surprised to see someone bickering over the term "nanny state" as though they don't know what it means.
You must not have been paying attention. Here, let me wikipedia it for you.
No argument here.
Political attack and support ads are not the main problem crippling our government. Corruption and the amassing of power are.
You say that as if they are not one and the same.
Let's see:
campaign (support and attack ) ads - the feeding of information to voters who can make up their own minds
corruption - accepting bribes, giving jobs to relatives, redirecting tax money to campaign donors, etc.
Hmm... yeah, I'm going to have to say those aren't the same thing.
Repealing of Glass-Steagall was the gate letting the horses loose.
Well by the same token, the nanny state helped create the toxicity of the assets being traded by forcing banks to make risky loans. Then the government controlled and backed company in charge of the lions' share of the mortgages (more corporatism/socialism) in the country fell asleep at the wheel and let the whole thing go straight into the shitter -- despite the warnings from the Bush administration, I might add. Since the government was very much to blame for the whole mess, no one responsible (Barney Frank) was sued or even relieved of duty.
The financial meltdown was a perfect storm involving a shitload more than just Glass-Steagall.
>monopolies are not a problem
I beg to differ. I am a t-mobile customer.
Woah, misquote much? I didn't say the words you attributed to me.
>nanny state
Wedge issue to distract you from what's really going on. Just like abortion, gay marriage, and all that other horse-shit.
Yeah, you're in a thread talking about how the government is once again overstepping its bounds to help its corporate buddies, and you don't think that the government is too big for its britches? It's just some horse-shit wedge issue to distract from what's really going on? What's really going on? Professional wrestling and American Idol?
He is anti-Sherman Antitrust Act.
I definitely don't like that - but monopolies aren't our worst problem right now. It's corporations buying influence and laws. That's the first giant that we have to slay. The pendulum has swung so irrevocably far toward the big government nanny state side of the spectrum that someone like Paul is needed just to move us back toward sanity.
By the way, the free market, even completely devoid of regulation, is a myth. Just so you know.
So you think that we're in danger of accidentally falling into unregulated capitalism after someone like Paul would have a term or two in the President's chair? Really?
- Where are all these powerful lobbyists going to come from if we get rid of the quid pro quo of having government officials become lobbyists with huge salaries?
- Which political organizations will lobbyists target if we reduce the power of those organizations by allowing other parties to be voted in?
- Which politicians will lobbyists target when term limits prevents them from buying a senator for 20 to 30 years? Fresh blood in congress means a reduction in strings.
Political attack and support ads are not the main problem crippling our government. Corruption and the amassing of power are.
Lobbyists only have real power because we've allowed them to be incestuously intertwined with government. Those ties should be broken, but not by curtailing free speech.
Isn't it funny how most people don't recognize the libertarian roots in the US that were a beacon and the envy of the world? Instead, we've destroyed our libertarian heritage by dramatically growing government while managing to confuse capitalism for corporatism. Thomas Jefferson was so prescient in this regard.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
-- Thomas Jefferson
It's so dreadfully sad that everyone these days is looking for the government to solve their problems. Oh, if we just get the right new program in place. If we just spent a little more money on MY pet project... If we just gave a little more authority to MY candidate...
We've managed to do exactly what Jefferson warned us not to. We've created a government-corporate monster by giving away all our liberty and money for the illusion of safety and being taken care of. Now, rather than hacking away at the monster, we think that we can add to it and manipulate it in the direction that we want. Utter foolishness.
I'm a lifelong Democrat
At least you're honest about your main problem there. I have no clue why anyone gives allegiance to a political party. Political parties are no more logical, ethical, or relevant to good policy than football teams - especially in the US where you can only choose between two of them. Political party affiliation clouds your judgment and is the cause of the allowance of so much government shenanigans in this country.
Not even Ron Paul is worth a damn, because maybe he's for individual rights, he's a corporatist to the bone and would sell out the entire US public,
Complete and utter bullshit.
Ron Paul is as anti-corporatist as they come. Corporatists enact legislation to favor corporations. Corporatists are in favor of heavy manipulation of the tax code, industry subsidies, protectionism, etc. Ron Paul is against those things.
Ron Paul is a Capitalist. He speaks out against Corporatism, and he's definitely not a hypocrite.
Campaign finance reform ran into the first amendment. It's normally right to have the first amendment prevail against other well intentioned laws.
We can get a lot of things done without messing with the first amendment:
1. Term limits to reduce the amassing of power and favors.
2. End of plurality voting so that we end the power sharing duopoloy that continues to favor corporatism.
3. Much stronger restrictions on the ability of government officials to do favors for corporations and then take jobs with them as lobbyists and executives.
4. Transparency transparency transparency! Government officials should be required to keep extensive records online declaring every source of income or benefit they receive. We should be able to know who is using commercial airlines, whether or not they're flying first class, where they're going, who's paying for their hotel rooms, dinners, trips, doing their home remodeling, etc.
5. Stronger ethical training and rules enforcement. The self-policing of congress is pathetic. Every congressman and staffer should have to take one of those ethical IQ tests, similar to the one they make you take to get a retail job; but much much more detailed. Any difficulties with the test should result in extensive ethics training. All test results should be posted online for every citizen to examine.
I don't know. Actually, I think that Newt was more of a damaged entity after the Clinton impeachment. Since then, he's reformed his image to a degree by staying out of elected office.
If Newt has kept his nose clean for the last ten years and expresses regret for his past family issues, the Republicans will give him a pass on his personal life.
He talks about god for the same reason Obama does. You can't get elected President in this country (especially not by the Republican party) if you don't talk about your strong faith. Sad, I know, but the public is too mired in its superstitions for things to work otherwise.
Hey, if you hate the guy, at least "know thy enemy". The guy is a pretty hefty intellectual in his own right.
I guess Clinton paid Jones $850,000 friggin' dollars to shut her up just for the hell of it? Then you add in that he was a proven philanderer and abuser of his power with Monica Lewinsky, and it's pretty obvious that Paula Jones was the victim of the crime.
You're right about the Republicans keeping Clinton fairly clean, although I'd argue that he was too busy thinking with his dick and dealing with the aftermath of his compulsions to get himself in other trouble. He was also also extraordinarily lucky to be president when the Internet took off, taking the economy with it.
What an obscene, vile, disingenuous hypocrite that man is.
Wait... you mean Clinton? The guy who used the power of the presidency in an attempt to smear and bury Paula Jones to cover up just some of his illegal sexual harassment activities?
People joke about the Repubs going after Clinton for getting blow jobs in the White House. I never cared that much about that part of it. It was the fact that he abused his power to go after Paula Jones that sickened and disgusted me. The guy was absolutely reprehensible, and the fact that he still has the support of his party -- ostensibly the party that supports women -- points out the extraordinary hypocrisy of the Democrats.
You'd likely be wrong. Malign the guy as you will - lord knows the US press was all too eager to do so back in the 90's - but he's extremely intelligent. It's obvious if you listen to the guy speak for five minutes that he's very thoughtful and well read.
Exactly. Government that asks for more money, power, and complexity should be curtailed as a matter of course. Portions of it should be torn down and rebuilt periodically, just to get rid of the old assumptions and cruft. To do this effectively, government must be extremely transparent so that everyone can get in and take a look at it.
The above principles are good for software development, and they'd be great applied to our government.
Please, come work for me!
I always love it when the developers working in my group tell me to shove my directives up my ass!
You didn't at all understand what I said. High deductibles don't get you any kind of transparent pricing from a doctor. They don't get you any kind of leverage in the situation. That's all determined by private pricing between doctors and insurance companies. You are a minor percentage of your doctor's business and he has no need to cater to your needs because he's protected by insurance companies and the laws that they've helped write to force most people to go to their employers for the one size fits all plans that make insurance companies the most money.
I recently was researching getting a vasectomy. The doctors that I went to each had done thousands of them, yet their offices could NOT tell me what the procedure would cost. No clue. How was I supposed to make an informed decision to even fund my FSA without being able to get a price on a procedure that's routine? What, the doctor's office couldn't look at the last dozen bills they sent out and give me a range? You think the doctor and insurance company weren't excruciatingly aware of the costs and charges for the doctor's most commonly performed procedure? If you went in to a auto shop and they couldn't tell you what it cost to get your brake pads replaced, you'd turn around and walk back out.
I honestly don't think we'll get a level playing field between patients and insurance companies without legislation that forces doctors to treat walk-in patients with the same level of negotiating leverage and transparency as the insurance companies.
You even mentioned that most doctors won't even take your plan. That alone shows that you didn't get it. If a doctor doesn't even have to accept your high deductible personal health plan then something in the system is broken. There's institutional collusion between doctors and insurance companies that current health care legislation supports in every way. It needs to be torn down and replaced with something that allows transparency, accountability, choice, efficiency, and effectiveness for each citizen.
There's no incentive for doctors to be judicious in testing since they send the bills to the insurance company. There's no incentives for the patients to undergo less testing, since they never see the bills.
Do patients know what the charges are for various tests before they get them? No. They can't participate in any meaningful way in the whole process.
Only when doctors start putting costs in front of patients and when patients have to make decisions about how they spend their health care dollars will this entire situation begin to be reined in.
Doctors secretive billing practices and the whole Insurance company tied to your job model are to blame for this mess.