No, it is not "profitable" at all. It is a pyramid scam, even if it is a complicated one.
Thank you for using the word pyramid. I've seen "Ponzi" so many times in relation to Bitcoin, despite being utterly unrelated. And then the Bitcoin defenders come out and say, "No, it isn't a Ponzi scheme." and of course they're correct, even though that's missing the point entirely.
I should say that the devs are very conscientious about the play-to-win aspect that many of these games have: it really isn't a problem in this case. Paying will net you very few advantages.
it is just a left VS right battle over who controls the kleptocratic fascist state
No, it's another example of why we need an amendment nullifying Citizens United. Money influencing politics is always bad, no matter who is doing it. Let's focus on the real problem here - this is something that we can solve. Throwing up your hands and saying, "It's all fucked." is not constructive.
You make it sound like my doctor can't treat me. That there is some procedure he would recommend but can't because of the evil insurance company.
It happens all the time. In fact, it seems to be so unextraordinary that most of my search results are turning up questionairs about how to deal with it rather than news stories about how outrageous it is. A good doctor will consider your coverage when they make a recommendation, so they'll try not to recommend something that you won't be able to pay for, but it doesn't always work out that way.
This is how it's been for a long time, and it won't change with the Affordable Care Act. The only difference is that private insurers are required to provide a certain level of coverage. So there'll be fewer surprises.
Speaking of that level of coverage, there's also this. One of the biggest features of the Affordable Care Act is the requirement that people with preexisting conditions can't be excluded.
Your other points are supposition. What I've seen so far are stories about how the health care exchange is cost-effective (once you can get past the technical glitches), and stories like this one. But these are just anecdotal. The Affordable Care Act is expected to save us money in the long run, but we won't know exactly how much for a while.
In fact, when I searched for this the only related thing that came up was the interesting point that under the current system your health insurance provider can exclude your doctor if he doesn't match their performance goals. Medicare and the IPAB doesn't do this. Though as you say, in both cases this is about money - regardless of your insurance provider and regardless of the policies that the IPAB sets, you can still see your doctor if you are willing to pay out of pocket.
This is not to say that doctors aren't subject to ethics and competence review, but that has nothing to do with the IPAB or with your health insurance provider.
As for your hyperbolic nonsense about the Independent Payment Advisory Board: someone has to decide what should and should not be covered, and that person can not and never has been your doctor. Right now it's your health insurance company, seeking to maximize its profits. In the future it will be a panel appointed by the president and subject to senate confirmation. This is an improvement.
The point that Pelosi was making was that the debate had become so politicized (death panels) that what was actually in the bill wasn't really known by the public. She was trying to say that once the bill was passed and the hysteria died down, people would find out that death panels had never been part of it.
Of course, that's from Fox News so not only is it out of context, it's not even the full sentence: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”
Politifact has a little write-up on it, if you'd care to educate yourself.
Your statement seems to lead that there is only one govt. That's the fallacy. There are municipalities (cities, townships, maybe even county) govt, then there's state govt., and finally the federal govt.
When people complain about Big Government, they are talking about the federal level. Why would someone want the size of government to be small at the top (federal level)? Because we have the least amount of say at that level, and it has the most reaching effects. The lower you go, the more influence you have.
This is a common belief, but local governments, being smaller, are also easier to influence. This was the issue with Montana's challenge to Citizens United: Montana had a history of corruption stemming from mining companies which was severe enough that they had special anti-lobbying laws passed. (Struck down by the supreme court.) The money that a big company has to throw around goes much further when the government that they're trying to influence is smaller and more local.