As the FT reports (https://app.newsoveraudio.com/article/3324) isn't this much the same as the Healthcare Transformation Alliance in which IBM, Shell and Verizon (to name a few) are members of?
Not highly profitable without assuming too much risk, but yes, 1.0 is profitable.
But let’s say the LTC underwriters can pay out 10% more and stay in business. That would mean that in The OP’s “scam” scenario situation, instead of getting, say, $100,000 in benefits over two years, they could get $110,000. However, the inflamed wording suggests OP wants a lot more than his relative is getting, not a little bit more, like $300,000 over four years. That wouldn’t be possible to do in aggregate without charging a higher premium.
Are your thoughts that Facebook et al would - instead of charging for an ad 'impression' - charge ecommerce sites a sales commission for the referral? (Disclaimer; I think/imagine they do this already to some extent, but it's not the main revenue driver.)
If this were the case, then it would absolutely be in Facebook's interest to present ads based on a persons likelihood of purchase (perhaps using a deep neural recommendations network (akin to YouTube's) to power it all).
Listened to an FT article about this yesterday (https://goo.gl/2p8fDH) on the back of a VC's prediction of a tie-up in 2018. It would definitely place added competitive pressures on Walmart and, I imagine, allow Amazon to build a bigger/better Click and Collect business.
Fantastic story with ample background. Thanks for sharing.
Another excellent historic look at German politics was a piece from The Independent before the Sept elections about the economic successes of Germany today. It argues that policies laid down before Merkel's time came into fruition during her Chancellorship, which began in 2005 (namely; fiscal rectitude, a close relationship between education and industry, and labour reforms brought about in 2003): https://goo.gl/ULExiQ
