Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Affordable Care Act Decreed

Posted Jul 6, '12 at 11:24pm

loloynage2

loloynage2

4,359 posts

That's great. Finally the poor (with the current medic prices you could even say the lower/ middle class), can live their miserable lives a little bit better. For once some compassion America!

 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 1:27am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,235 posts

Knight

I agree to disagree, sorta. There are actually a lot of competitors in the music industry. Any company that markets a smart phone automatically has a music player in it (you know how many companies market smart phones / players through Android?), and I could list a number of other companies that make specifically marketed music players. Not all of them are great, and indeed, not all of them stand out, but they do exist and survive.


It still is an oligopoly industry; a few big players, and small hanger ons. Other markets structures such as perfect competition monopolistic competitive markets tend to have large numbers of players. Relatively, the number of music player firms is still tiny compared to the number of firms in other industries. That's why it's classified as an oligopoly.


Now, about the ripoff, that is partly true. In the electronics industry, even though that are dozens of companies, one thing that irks me is the resolution of the screen. Resolution is surprisingly low compared to the technology that is constantly improving. Apple is the leader in terms of resolution, their devices far surpassing other electronics in the category. We have had relatively the same resolution for electronics for a couple of years now, and even though companies are pushing for bigger 'better' screens and all that, the resolution isn't really improving all that much. The Samsung Galaxy Tablet 10.1 has a 1280 x 800 resolution, while the iPad 3 has a 2048 x 1536 resolution (usually laptops have a 1366 x 768 resolution, I think). An 80" TV has 7680 x 4320 resolution. That's even an even smaller resolution per square inch. Also, memory in mobile devices is surprisingly small, and thus doesn't quite have as much processing power under its belt. In my opinion, electronics companies in general seem to be leeching off of consumers instead of giving them actually advancing technology.


A rip off is when companies deliberately jack up prices, overcharging or cheat based on quality. If a company only offers such a resolution, then they only do so, and it's not a deliberate ''rip off''. Technology has improved so much, I remember using chunky Nokia phones just 5 years ago, whereas now you can do virtually everything on your phone. A mobile phones' memory space/resolution is too small, or bad? What are you comparing that against? It's a phone, not a TV, or a laptop, they are different devices. Every few months, new models of phones are constantly churned out, each better than its predecessor. I would never have imagined my phone holding 16 GB of space, or even my computer if you told me a few years ago. Therefore, calling it a rip-off is rather unjust and unfair.

Still, companies have to put consumers ahead to some extent, else they fall. It's business practice. The only problem is when no company is actually willing to advance (profit for standstill), they can just monetize their already 'great' technology and profit. As long as the consumer is unaware, it doesn't matter, right? It's more of a lie of omission than anything.


Course they care about consumers. Because on the most fundamental level, it affects their eventual profits. As demonstrated above, it's not a ''lie''' or scam, mobile phone technology has improved far greater than what people would have thought it would.

But where would we get this technology if the companies didn't exist? The government? Of course one of a company's goals is to profit. How else could they grow and make better products for their consumers?


You forgot to read my last response to that rhetorical question.

Money. Profits. Revenue.
 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 10:24am

Pieguyme

Pieguyme

993 posts

OF COURSE IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL YOU OBAMA LOVING IDIOTS!

 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 1:22pm

zakyman

zakyman

1,682 posts

OF COURSE IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL YOU OBAMA LOVING IDIOTS!


I kindly direct you to the opinion of the Supreme Court, which as you (hopefully) know, has the final say on matters of constitutionality. I suggest you educate yourself on these matters before making moronic and ignorant statements insulting not only half the users of Armor Games, but also our president, whom you obviously dislike immensely, however still deserves your respect.
 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 3:06pm

Krill11

Krill11

99 posts

Ok, you misunderstood what I was trying to say, I am not saying that money. profits. revenue's. (which is three words to basically describe the same thing) is not the goals of companies, but that there is a better order, which is something I didn't explain very well.

1-Costumers, Why else do company's send out a ton of cash into the marketing business area? And where does the money come from? The consumers. If people don't like the product, or if they can get it at better quality and/or price, they will go for that instead. So you have to keep the costumers happy, and at the top of your mind.

2-The product, companies ask themselves, what will the consumers buy, how much will production cost, how much can we sell it for and still keep it a deal that costumers wont want to pass up, and still stay ahead of our competitors?

And then the list continues with other long and short term goals, more specified for the products. Like can we make the product cost less to make by 10% by the end of the year...

Anyway,

but also our president, whom you obviously dislike immensely, however still deserves your respect.


Respect is earned and then it is deserved, by the actions and the morals used to make things happen, as well as the plans, and the things that happen during, and after the plans were executed. Just because you have a president does not mean that you have to respect him, its your choice. But it is also by using wisdom to know that insulting someone who can cause you a lot of trouble is a stupid thing. From what I have seen, Obama has earned very little respect (at least in my eyes), and I don't like him all that much, but everyone has there opinion and you can't force yours down their throat and make them believe it, especially by making them angry. Arguments solve little, at least when anger is soaring high.

educate yourself


Education means nothing if wisdom is not used, and/or what was learned is false. Learning things is easier than knowing truth and using sense. Deciphering what is truth and what is not is a lot harder by far.

No offence, if any were, is intended, just wanting to clarify what I think. Just because people have different opinions doesn't mean that they can't be friends.

~Krill11
 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 7:14pm

jeol

jeol

3,987 posts

It still is an oligopoly industry; a few big players, and small hanger ons. Other markets structures such as perfect competition monopolistic competitive markets tend to have large numbers of players. Relatively, the number of music player firms is still tiny compared to the number of firms in other industries. That's why it's classified as an oligopoly.

While you may think that companies like Apple dominate the market, the reality is that Apple is actually expensive compared to other priced products on the market. You could easily get a device rivaling the Shuffle for probably $30 less, or a device rivaling the Nano for $100 less. When money is the restraining order or when functionality is not the greatest issue, there are many more options to choose from.

And lol, I felt like I was sort of reinforcing your point by stating all that... Whatever. But when it comes down to the money vs. customers, it is sort of irrelevant in business practice since it is a company's job to innovate and grow enough to stay alive. If that's a problem with the people, unless they abide by immoral practices, all the people can do (or should do) is ignore them. If you think they are only for the money and don't like that, just don't buy from them. Problem solved.
You forgot to read my last response to that rhetorical question.

Like I said, irrelevant.

Looking back, I recognize that we were originally talking about insurance companies and how they may be corrupted. However, when you put restrictions in place that are based on making it better for the people, a few things happen. First of all, this makes it harder for poor people to afford because these restrictions make companies drive up their prices. Sure, they get better care and all, but better care does cost money, and some people don't have that money. Second, it does not ensure the best healthcare for everyone. If a company is providing incomplete healthcare, there is still the possibility that the court is corrupt enough to pass it as nothing. Morals in business practice are a fickle thing, and when it comes to judging they can be easily apprehended and twisted to one's content. In my opinion, the government has become corrupt enough that this may become an issue. Why is this a problem? It is even a problem now. But for now, it is not a law that strict morals are in place for insurance companies. My point is, to think that corruption in health care is now dealt with will not be the case.
Respect is earned and then it is deserved, by the actions and the morals used to make things happen, as well as the plans, and the things that happen during, and after the plans were executed. Just because you have a president does not mean that you have to respect him, its your choice. But it is also by using wisdom to know that insulting someone who can cause you a lot of trouble is a stupid thing. From what I have seen, Obama has earned very little respect (at least in my eyes), and I don't like him all that much, but everyone has there opinion and you can't force yours down their throat and make them believe it, especially by making them angry. Arguments solve little, at least when anger is soaring high.

Correct, to an extent. Because he is in the position of our country's leader, he still deserves our honor. Believe it or not, respect and honor ARE different things, and like you said, respect is earned. Honor, however, is deserved. Everyone deserves some honor depending on their position. However, in America we seem to have become a bit selfish when it comes to honor. We only show dishonor, if anything. I could ramble on, but that's a bit off-topic.
 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 11:08pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,235 posts

Knight

money. profits. revenue's. (which is three words to basically describe the same thing) i


I know. It's just to hammer home the point.


1-Costumers, Why else do company's send out a ton of cash into the marketing business area? And where does the money come from? The consumers. If people don't like the product, or if they can get it at better quality and/or price, they will go for that instead. So you have to keep the costumers happy, and at the top of your mind.


Of course. But why keep them happy? For the revenue. Also, no for some products, people won't switch to others, because of brand loyalty, lack of substitutes, or relative price inelasticities of demand.

2-The product, companies ask themselves, what will the consumers buy, how much will production cost, how much can we sell it for and still keep it a deal that costumers wont want to pass up, and still stay ahead of our competitors?


That is all the normal part of a business process when a company tries to reduce cost of production, or improve their R&D, or attempt to achieve more economics of scale and reach Minimum Efficient Scale. (MES). All this is in a bid to increase their revenue.

So in the end, almost everything a company does is aimed at increasing their profit returns. Whether such order is however arranged is based on what the company itself wants, and what it can do in the short term, since fixed costs can't be changed in the short run, only variable costs.
 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 11:15pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,235 posts

Knight

While you may think that companies like Apple dominate the market, the reality is that Apple is actually expensive compared to other priced products on the market. You could easily get a device rivaling the Shuffle for probably $30 less, or a device rivaling the Nano for $100 less. When money is the restraining order or when functionality is not the greatest issue, there are many more options to choose from.


Not really. It's all relative. There are dozens or hundreds of food outlets in a town to choose from, therefore food outlets can be said to be part of a MC industry. However many options you have for music players, they are still very limited comparatively, and hence is why they are considered part of an oligopoly market. Also, the large firms in the market between them hold large market share and power, yet another characteristic of this market structure.

First of all, this makes it harder for poor people to afford because these restrictions make companies drive up their prices. Sure, they get better care and all, but better care does cost money, and some people don't have that money.


No it doesn't. It does the opposite. The Bill aims to remove many of these intricate restrictions, and to push the insurance companies to reduce their prices.

Second, it does not ensure the best healthcare for everyone. If a company is providing incomplete healthcare, there is still the possibility that the court is corrupt enough to pass it as nothing. Morals in business practice are a fickle thing, and when it comes to judging they can be easily apprehended and twisted to one's content.


1) It at least ensures healthcare.
2) Saying that something will be inadequate, and then reasoning we should rather have nothing of it, rather than part of it isn't exactly a good argument when you analyse it again.

In my opinion, the government has become corrupt enough that this may become an issue.


Disagree. The judiciary branch is separate from the executive branch that makes the policies. America has one of the better judiciary systems in the world, to just lampoon it as a generalization is foolish.

My point is, to think that corruption in health care is now dealt with will not be the case.


It deals with the corruption of the insurance companies who jack up prices and over charge. I don't find any of this vague corruption on a large scale in the government.
 
Reply to Affordable Care Act Decreed

You must be logged in to post a reply!