It seems that 9 months after the exchanges opened and people switched, I'm suddenly seeing a lot of people just like me having unpaid medical bills that used to be taken care of by insurance.

I have a fraud complaint against my Cover Oregon insurance company in the works because of false advertising on Cover Oregon.

"Is the presumption then that natural market forces (ie, not regulations from governmental forces) will prevent the employers from either colluding against employees or from buying each other out? "

The presumption is that due to differing currencies between markets, with such small governments, there will be natural monopolies or oligarchies of single industrymen and maybe an apprentice or two. And that the control will be social- you are not likely to cheat a neighbor that you have to continue to live with.

" It would seem that you would eventually end up with markets where > 90% of the population is involved in food production or trades that exist to aid in the same. To me that seems to operate counter to the types of gains in efficiency that we have tended to celebrate in the past century or so."

Yes, and that's the point. Efficiency reduces the number of jobs available drastically, and centralizes ownership of first level maslow industries such as food, shelter, clothing. This is a great thing for the few centralized aristocrats, but a negative thing for consumers and workers.

And when markets are small, there is always a better ratio of employers to employees, because you need more companies to serve the same population.

I'm saying that restrictions on travel and trade, are beneficial to local populations of workers, who enjoy a smaller but steadier market because of it.

"you have basically each person representing on average 186 people. "

Exactly. Or fewer.

Politicians that could actually be *close friends* with their constituents, what a weird concept that Marxist Hacker fellow has.

" I would expect that trade, travel, and relocation would become nightmares for the serfdom."

Which of course is the real point. Economy of scale being the eternal enemy of the working man and all that.

"The difference is how we see the owned politicians acting to support those scenarios from above. If I may ask you a question though how would you prevent politicians from being purchased in the future?"

By increasing the supply of purchased politicians, and limiting governments and markets to no more than 100,000 citizens

He could have made his point better with say, open source software, an unregulated market if there ever was one.

Are you kidding? In most markets, the cable provider was given a franchise by city government. The oil cartel sprung up, along with OPEC, as a price fixing oligarchy that bought politicians to keep other, cheaper providers out of the market. With Obamacare, health insurance is just a bunch of contractors working for the federal government, a complete monopoly with all of the problems that includes, such as this new trick where they outright lie to you about benefits.

ALL three of these situations ONLY exist because of government regulation. Without the ability to buy politicians, none of these business models would stay profitable in the face of competition.

Not that I disagree with your point, but could you pick three industries that aren't regulated by crony capitalists to eliminate competition?

European or African swallow?

By his journal entries, about 6 years give or take a few comments.

And yes, it is exactly the same.

You'd find the cat, but it would be dead from a heart attack after it's collar suddenly went BLEEP for an extended period very loudly.

A lot of non zero can add up to something greater than one. But you are never going to miniaturize it into a keyfob tag.

Jewishness isn't contagious. But Leprosy is, and this is how we practically wiped it out of the Western Hemisphere.

HIV is easy to erradicate. Just use mandatory testing, sterilization, and quarantine, and no mater how it mutates, it will be gone in two generations.