Obama Care

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Sr. I pay over $700 a month for health ins and would love for things to get better but I know the one thing I don't want is for the goverment to take over health ins. I'm open to any other ideas on how to improve the system. Just because I do not agree with him does not mean I'm bashing him or the dems we just do not agree on this subject and the expanding of goverment. If you look back at my post I do not believe I have used any words attacking Obama personally only his plan and I thought that as an American I had the right to disagree. Oh, I do believe I called Obama dumb but that was in response to another post calling someone else dumb and I did so to be sarcastic.

Do you think your insurance payment will ever go down without regulation from the government? I guess you'd just have to hope and pray the insurance company decides they don't need as much profit (not sure what their profit margins are, but you get my point).

I had personal insurance for 2 years and my premiums went up at least 3 times. During that period I never saw a doctor, nor had any claims, and I was single and 25. Why do you think my premiums went up? My guess is so the insurance company could cover losses elsewhere. So, don't you see, you're already part of a social program.

I guess it comes down to choosing between two evils: corporate greed or government corruption. I suppose I would prefer government corruption -- at least they're accountable (to a degree).

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Do you think your insurance payment will ever go down without regulation from the government? I guess you'd just have to hope and pray the insurance company decides they don't need as much profit (not sure what their profit margins are, but you get my point).

I had personal insurance for 2 years and my premiums went up at least 3 times. During that period I never saw a doctor, nor had any claims, and I was single and 25. Why do you think my premiums went up? My guess is so the insurance company could cover losses elsewhere. So, don't you see, you're already part of a social program.

I guess it comes down to choosing between two evils: corporate greed or government corruption. I suppose I would prefer government corruption -- at least they're accountable (to a degree).

Comparatively speaking they are sh*t. Most of the money goes to doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals. They're merely middlemen who try to protect what little crumbs they get from the big pie.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by saden1

Comparatively speaking they are sh*t. Most of the money goes to doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals. They're merely middlemen who try to protect what little crumbs they get from the big pie.

I had a feeling, but they are in business to make money -- as much as they can. Always coming back to the flawed corporate model.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I had a feeling, but they are in business to make money -- as much as they can. Always coming back to the flawed corporate model.

What the heck wrong with making a profit? Are you working for free?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by firstdown

What the heck wrong with making a profit? Are you working for free?

Nothing is wrong with making a profit, unless profits are more important than ethics. That is the flaw in the corporate model.

Do you see a problem killing people for profit? That is one way how making a profit can be wrong. What about Madoff? He just wanted to make a profit.

You know this already. Don't let my annoyance to you cloud your judgment. Read my words -- not my username.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Nothing is wrong with making a profit, unless profits are more important than ethics. That is the flaw in the corporate model.

Do you see a problem killing people for profit? That is one way how making a profit can be wrong. What about Madoff? He just wanted to make a profit.

You know this already. Don't let my annoyance to you cloud your judgment. Read my words -- not my username.

What Madoff did was illegal and he will spend the rest of his life in jail. What do you mean killing people to make a profit?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by firstdown

What Madoff did was illegal and he will spend the rest of his life in jail. What do you mean killing people to make a profit?

Exactly. He chose profits over ethics. Don't you see a problem with that? Profits don't justify his behavior. Hence, it can be wrong to make a profit if your motives are unethical.

Mercenaries are people who are paid to kill. Think of hit men. Their actions are not justified either by making profits. Just trying to explain that making profits is not always OK.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Do you think your insurance payment will ever go down without regulation from the government? I guess you'd just have to hope and pray the insurance company decides they don't need as much profit (not sure what their profit margins are, but you get my point).

I had personal insurance for 2 years and my premiums went up at least 3 times. During that period I never saw a doctor, nor had any claims, and I was single and 25. Why do you think my premiums went up? My guess is so the insurance company could cover losses elsewhere. So, don't you see, you're already part of a social program.

I guess it comes down to choosing between two evils: corporate greed or government corruption. I suppose I would prefer government corruption -- at least they're accountable (to a degree).

First off one of the reasons that health ins is so expensive is that the goverment mandates that ins co provide certain coverages in all policies. The best one of these mandates is for Viagra. Thats right we pay for old men to get it up. They also force me to buy drug and alcohol addiction and treatment and this list goes on and on. Why not let me pick the package that fits my needs like in other ins.?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Do you think your insurance payment will ever go down without regulation from the government? I guess you'd just have to hope and pray the insurance company decides they don't need as much profit (not sure what their profit margins are, but you get my point).

I had personal insurance for 2 years and my premiums went up at least 3 times. During that period I never saw a doctor, nor had any claims, and I was single and 25. Why do you think my premiums went up? My guess is so the insurance company could cover losses elsewhere. So, don't you see, you're already part of a social program.

I guess it comes down to choosing between two evils: corporate greed or government corruption. I suppose I would prefer government corruption -- at least they're accountable (to a degree).

Here I go interjecting again.

A few points to ponder:

1) if the corporation is corrupt, who regulates them?
2) if the government is corrupt, who regulates them?
3) if a corporation is losing money how do they continue to operate?
4) if a government program is losing money, how does it continue to operate?
5) How many private corporations went out of business last year due to failed practices or poor structure?
6) How many government programs have ever been shut down due to failed practices or poor structure?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Here I go interjecting again.

A few points to ponder:

1) if the corporation is corrupt, who regulates them?
2) if the government is corrupt, who regulates them?
3) if a corporation is losing money how do they continue to operate?
4) if a government program is losing money, how does it continue to operate?
5) How many private corporations went out of business last year due to failed practices or poor structure?
6) How many government programs have ever been shut down due to failed practices or poor structure?

1) goverment
2) goverment
3) Most have to restructure and alter their business model.
4) In the negative or with higher taxes
5) Alot
6) I'll have to say none of the big federal programs have been shut down but I'm sure some of the smaller programs have been for these reasons.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I guess it comes down to choosing between two evils: corporate greed or government corruption. I suppose I would prefer government corruption -- at least they're accountable (to a degree).

I love getting to the root of this "greed" issue...

When you're searching for a job, all other things being equal, do you go for the one that pays more over the one that pays less?

Are you being greedy if you choose the higher paying job?

If you're shopping for a product, and two products are on the shelf that both will do the job you want them to do, are you being greedy by selecting the less expensive brand?

If you start a business, and you do everything in your power to cut down on expenses to earn as much money as you possibly can, are you being greedy?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I love getting to the root of this "greed" issue...

When you're searching for a job, all other things being equal, do you go for the one that pays more over the one that pays less?

Are you being greedy if you choose the higher paying job?

If you're shopping for a product, and two products are on the shelf that both will do the job you want them to do, are you being greedy by selecting the less expensive brand?

If you start a business, and you do everything in your power to cut down on expenses to earn as much money as you possibly can, are you being greedy?

You're smarter than that, but I'll spell it out for you, since you asked.

Corporate structure:
Shareholders -> Executive Officers -> Employees

Shareholders want return on investment, but are usually not involved in the everyday activities and/or decisions of the business. They usually only care about the bottom line.

If the executive officers of a corporation are faced with a moral dilemma, and chose the morally right thing to do but profits suffer, the shareholders will elect new officers. If the executive officers want to keep their jobs, they will almost always be forced to choose profits over ethics. See the Ford Pinto as a case study.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

You're smarter than that, but I'll spell it out for you, since you asked.

Corporate structure:
Shareholders -> Executive Officers -> Employees

Shareholders want return on investment, but are usually not involved in the everyday activities and/or decisions of the business. They usually only care about the bottom line.

If the executive officers of a corporation are faced with a moral dilemma, and chose the morally right thing to do but profits suffer, the shareholders will elect new officers. If the executive officers want to keep their jobs, they will almost always be forced to choose profits over ethics. See the Ford Pinto as a case study.

All right -- you answered none of my questions, but I'll still play along.

The Ford Pinto is a good example, but it proves my point more than it does yours. The Pinto is just one of the many examples of American cars that signified the decline in quality of the Big Three. As a result, they started losing out to better cars made by Toyota, Honda, and (at the time) Datsun. The American car companies paid the price for trying to cut corners and deliver an inferior product. So for them, choosing "profits over ethics" ultimately wound up losing them profits.

The free market worked like a charm; make a better product at a better price, and in the end, the consumers benefit.

The question is, what do you consider "immoral" in a business sense? And that goes back to the questions that you neglected to answer. I look forward to your response.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I love getting to the root of this "greed" issue...

GhettoDogAllStars may not have answered your questions but I will. First, your "questions" tend to be simplistic and stupid in nature. Second, they tend to be leading questions but not the good kind. Finally, they tend to be very insulting to sensibility.

When you're searching for a job, all other things being equal, do you go for the one that pays more over the one that pays less?

Are you being greedy if you choose the higher paying job?

If all things are equal why does one job pay more than the other? Perhaps one requires you to be away from your family more often? Maybe it will but a strain on your marriage? Maybe you're being too short sighted to see that you may lose your family at the expense of few more bucks and a shiny new boat?

If you're shopping for a product, and two products are on the shelf that both will do the job you want them to do, are you being greedy by selecting the less expensive brand?

WTF kind of question is this and what does it have to do with greed? I don't believe you understand what the word greedy means.

If you start a business, and you do everything in your power to cut down on expenses to earn as much money as you possibly can, are you being greedy?

Your best question so far but a very stupid question nonetheless. Making as much money as possible is perfectly fine, making as much money as possible at the expense of your customers, employees and shareholders is not.



You might want to spend more time practicing "getting to the root" of problems because this attempt is TT FAIL.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by saden1

GhettoDogAllStars may not have answered your questions but I will. First, your "questions" tend to be simplistic and stupid in nature. Second, they tend to be leading questions but not the good kind. Finally, they tend to be very insulting to sensibility.

If all things are equal why does one job pay more than the other? Perhaps one requires you to be away from your family more often? Maybe it will but a strain on your marriage? Maybe you're being too short sighted to see that you may lose your family at the expense of few more bucks and a shiny new boat?

Clearly you don't understand the question. When I say "all other things being equal" I mean that the two jobs are otherwise equal in their perks, their distance from your home, the health and vacation benefits they're offering -- the two jobs offers are indentical, but one pays more than the other. Which job would you choose? And are you being greedy by taking the higher paying job?

If you're shopping for a product, and the two products on the shelf both will do the job you want them to do, are you being greedy by selecting the less expensive brand?

Originally Posted by Saden1

WTF kind of question is this and what does it have to do with greed? I don't believe you understand what the word greedy means.

From your link: "Greed: 1. Excessively desirous of acquiring OR POSSESSING, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves."

If you're trying to save money by choosing a less expensive product, aren't you trying to possess more wealth? The object, in the end, is to have as much money left over after the purchase as possible, no? Again, greed = possessing more than you deserve -- think real hard here, Saden.

If you start a business, and you do everything in your power to cut down on expenses to earn as much money as you possibly can, are you being greedy?

Originally Posted by Saden1

Your best question so far but a very stupid question nonetheless. Making as much money as possible is perfectly fine, making as much money as possible at the expense of your customers, employees and shareholders is not.

Saden, you really ought to endeavor to do two things: spend more time actually reading the links you provide, and start using a dictionary. Your Enron example doesn't fit what we're talking about here. Check the definiton of fraud.

"1. Fraud: A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain."

You say that making as much money as possible is fine, but not at the expense of your customers, employees, and shareholders. No kidding. One constitutes fraud, the other does not. That's like saying studying hard in college and working diligently for a higher paying job is fine but robbing banks is not. That's why the Enron Wiki link does nothing to prove your point. Enron engaged in accounting fraud which is against the law.

The point behind those questions I posed was to help distinguish between what is greedy and what is acting in your own best interests. If you answer the questions honestly, you will see that there's not much difference between the two.

GhettoDogAllStars used the phrase "corporate greed". Problem is, corporate greed is no different than what an individual does to enhance his or her position in life. We all want a better life for ourselves. Some of us spend more time with education, getting as much training as we can so that we're better qualified for a higher paying job. Some of us then use the money we've earned at that higher paying job to start or acquire a business that makes us more money. If we're successful, we expand, hire more employees, invest more, save more, and spend more.

Corporations, businesses big and small are no different. They've done exactly the same thing. In fact, just about all big businesses started small in the beginning. But somewhere along the line, they crossed the line from being respectable, to being hated by those on the left. I've tried for a long time to find out exactly what that line is. Is there a specific budget you can't exceed? A certain number of employees you can hire before you become "evil" in the minds of socialists? To me, that makes no sense.

That's why philisophically, I don't accept that 'greed' or even 'selfishness' is necessarily a bad thing.