View Post
Ka-pi96 said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes, because other people would be paying. Read again where I put POPULATION and not single person.

I haven't looked in to it at all, but it probably is cheaper for the majority of the population still. So yeah, still is cheaper for the population as a whole.

Being cheaper to a part while a lot more expensive to other isn't exactly being cheaper for majority of population.

It's as simples as you paying yourself it would cost 100, with governement involvement it costs 140 but it may be other person paying it without using. Not a real benefit.

I have friends that got their "mandatory" health care go from 1k to 4k in a matter of few years on Obamacare while not even using, wanting or needing the health care.

sethnintendo said:
DonFerrari said:

You know that cost structure is a sensitive information that basically defines if a company is competitive or not and that releasing that information is basically the destruction of a company? You already have the price they charge to decide if you want to pay or not and for publically traded companies you have their accountability release where you can see how much is their profit margins and verify if they are overcharging or just the cost itself is high.


So you are saying if they release their prices so people know how much they are expected to pay up front they will go under.  What if a fast food company ran its pricing like a hospital where you don't know until you get to the pay window.  So you order a meal thinking it will be 10 dollars and once you get to the window they want 100. 

Most people don't know how much they are going to pay for health service rendered unless they actively take charge and call offices asking them for their prices.  You can say well all people should do that.  Well what happens in an emergency where you either go or are taken to a random hospital.  You don't know shit for pricing if it is an emergency except you know for sure its at least 1,000 charge just to be omitted to the emergency room.

Nope. There is a difference between Price, Value and Cost.

What I said is that no one should demand they to reveal their COSTS. But sure no issue with they making their prices public on direct threatment (agreements with healthcare plans and similars is discretionary between the companies).

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"


Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"