We'll make a leftie of you yet Prez
Prez wrote on Feb 11, 2014, 07:31:But, but, but the free market is the most efficient and solves all problems!
It could be I think if it were properly regulated.
If its regulated, it isnt exactly free now is it?
That's not really what "free" means. A "free" society still has laws it must follow. Un-regulated capitalism is a disaster.
But, but, but the free market is the most efficient and solves all problems!
It could be I think if it were properly regulated.
If its regulated, it isnt exactly free now is it?
Beamer wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 18:37:Cutter wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 16:42:Beamer wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 13:03:Cutter wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 12:02:
B) No they shouldn't be cutting benefits for everyone. There do, however, need to be limits for everyone however so they don't bleed everyone else dry. The needs of the many outweigh those of the few sort of thing. Life at any cost? I don't think so. That goes against the natural order of things.
So people buy insurance for these situations, then... shouldn't be able to use it?
The baby, who will grow up healthy, should die? Because natural order of things?
I assume, then, you take no medication. Cavemen didn't take medication! If they had a kidney stone they died, dammit!
Also, keep in mind that this didn't cost AOL $1 million (I don't think.) It cost their insurance company that much. A company that exists solely for this reason.
You're wrong again, as usual. People have used natural medicines for time immemorial. However, what they didn't use were machines to artificially alive when they were clearly meant to die.
And unless you're willing to have a wholly regulated society that puts people ahead of profits - and clearly you anti-socialists are not - then there will never be enough to go around. So that means tough choices and limits for everyone - except the wealthy. So the millionaires and billionaires win as usual because you don't think they should pay their share like everyone else.
"Natural medicines." So you use nothing prescription, instead you chew on tree bark from GNC?
And I do appreciate being called an anti-socialist after so many years of being called a socialist here. But, if you're criticizing someone for being anti-socialist, does that make you a full fledged socialist?
Also, it makes no sense. I say we should be willing to pay to save babies that can be saved, and that AOL is wrong to put their profits first, and that the insurance company shouldn't complain because this is why you exist, and you claim I'm putting profits first.
I literally said that, in this case, fuck profits, and you claim I'm putting profits first.
Prez wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 16:41:jdreyer wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 15:41:Yosemite Sam wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 15:17:
For profit healthcare isn't it wonderful.
But, but, but the free market is the most efficient and solves all problems!
It could be I think if it were properly regulated.
Cutter wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 16:42:Beamer wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 13:03:Cutter wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 12:02:
B) No they shouldn't be cutting benefits for everyone. There do, however, need to be limits for everyone however so they don't bleed everyone else dry. The needs of the many outweigh those of the few sort of thing. Life at any cost? I don't think so. That goes against the natural order of things.
So people buy insurance for these situations, then... shouldn't be able to use it?
The baby, who will grow up healthy, should die? Because natural order of things?
I assume, then, you take no medication. Cavemen didn't take medication! If they had a kidney stone they died, dammit!
Also, keep in mind that this didn't cost AOL $1 million (I don't think.) It cost their insurance company that much. A company that exists solely for this reason.
You're wrong again, as usual. People have used natural medicines for time immemorial. However, what they didn't use were machines to artificially alive when they were clearly meant to die.
And unless you're willing to have a wholly regulated society that puts people ahead of profits - and clearly you anti-socialists are not - then there will never be enough to go around. So that means tough choices and limits for everyone - except the wealthy. So the millionaires and billionaires win as usual because you don't think they should pay their share like everyone else.
Cutter wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 16:42:
However, what they didn't use were machines to artificially alive when they were clearly meant to die.
Beamer wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 13:03:Cutter wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 12:02:
B) No they shouldn't be cutting benefits for everyone. There do, however, need to be limits for everyone however so they don't bleed everyone else dry. The needs of the many outweigh those of the few sort of thing. Life at any cost? I don't think so. That goes against the natural order of things.
So people buy insurance for these situations, then... shouldn't be able to use it?
The baby, who will grow up healthy, should die? Because natural order of things?
I assume, then, you take no medication. Cavemen didn't take medication! If they had a kidney stone they died, dammit!
Also, keep in mind that this didn't cost AOL $1 million (I don't think.) It cost their insurance company that much. A company that exists solely for this reason.
jdreyer wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 15:41:Yosemite Sam wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 15:17:
For profit healthcare isn't it wonderful.
But, but, but the free market is the most efficient and solves all problems!
Creston wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 13:25:Yeah, that blows.
You have a better ESPP than I do. I can do the same thing, 15% off the stock, it gets purchased every six months, you buy it for the lowest price either of day one or day 180, but I can't sell it for a year. So that makes it kinda pointless...
jdreyer wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 15:41:Yosemite Sam wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 15:17:
For profit healthcare isn't it wonderful.
But, but, but the free market is the most efficient and solves all problems!
Mr. Tact wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 12:37:HorrorScope wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 12:21:Yeah, it really depends on the specific situation. For instance, I max out my 401k contributions, but none of the money is invested in my company except as part of my investment in a S&P 500 fund. However, my company also offers an ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Plan). You put anywhere from $10 to $1000 per month into an account and every six months they use whatever is in the account to purchase company stock in your name at 15% under the lower of the prices from the start of the period or the end of the period. Which is a total win. Even if the stock price is going down, you can simply sell the shares the day after they are purchased and you immediately make 15% on your money.
Which most financial advisors will tell you don't put all your money streams into your employer, paycheck and investments. You'd think that employees couldn't do that just to keep them safe and companies honest. But no, my company pushes their stock on their employees. I say no, even tough last year it was a monster and would have been a smart move for at least that year, but overall it is too risky.
The Dec. 31st purchase represented an immediate 40% gain -- the stock was up 25% from mid year. So, even though it's now down 15% in the last month, I really don't care too much.
Beamer wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 13:03:
Also, keep in mind that this didn't cost AOL $1 million (I don't think.) It cost their insurance company that much. A company that exists solely for this reason.
Mr. Tact wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 12:37:HorrorScope wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 12:21:Yeah, it really depends on the specific situation. For instance, I max out my 401k contributions, but none of the money is invested in my company except as part of my investment in a S&P 500 fund. However, my company also offers an ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Plan). You put anywhere from $10 to $1000 per month into an account and every six months they use whatever is in the account to purchase company stock in your name at 15% under the lower of the prices from the start of the period or the end of the period. Which is a total win. Even if the stock price is going down, you can simply sell the shares the day after they are purchased and you immediately make 15% on your money.
Which most financial advisors will tell you don't put all your money streams into your employer, paycheck and investments. You'd think that employees couldn't do that just to keep them safe and companies honest. But no, my company pushes their stock on their employees. I say no, even tough last year it was a monster and would have been a smart move for at least that year, but overall it is too risky.
The Dec. 31st purchase represented an immediate 40% gain -- the stock was up 25% from mid year. So, even though it's now down 15% in the last month, I really don't care too much.
Cutter wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 12:02:
B) No they shouldn't be cutting benefits for everyone. There do, however, need to be limits for everyone however so they don't bleed everyone else dry. The needs of the many outweigh those of the few sort of thing. Life at any cost? I don't think so. That goes against the natural order of things.
HorrorScope wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 12:32:
Hey if you are going to say it like that then I have to put in the other part of the equation... compassion. That plays the biggest role. It's not if the baby is going to make the million back, it's the human race being better than that more than anything else.
HorrorScope wrote on Feb 10, 2014, 12:21:Yeah, it really depends on the specific situation. For instance, I max out my 401k contributions, but none of the money is invested in my company except as part of my investment in a S&P 500 fund. However, my company also offers an ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Plan). You put anywhere from $10 to $1000 per month into an account and every six months they use whatever is in the account to purchase company stock in your name at 15% under the lower of the prices from the start of the period or the end of the period. Which is a total win. Even if the stock price is going down, you can simply sell the shares the day after they are purchased and you immediately make 15% on your money.
Which most financial advisors will tell you don't put all your money streams into your employer, paycheck and investments. You'd think that employees couldn't do that just to keep them safe and companies honest. But no, my company pushes their stock on their employees. I say no, even tough last year it was a monster and would have been a smart move for at least that year, but overall it is too risky.