EPTHowever you're taking these connotations and attitude and possibly slight bias perspective and trying to disprove his totally valid point with it. It's just unnecessary.
Healthcare Reform in the US - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
However you're taking these connotations and attitude and possibly slight bias perspective and trying to disprove his totally valid point with it. It's just unnecessary. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 16 2009 16:51 Kwark wrote: Saying you don't force people to live a preventative lifestyle because forcing people is bad and therefore the entire concept of preventative care is bad is the essence of a straw man. Literally, that is textbook. Nowhere did I advocate forcing people to live more healthily. In fact, I devoted much of my last point to making that astoundingly clear, leaving me only to assume that you are deliberately misrepresenting me. Woah, where did I say that Preventative care is bad? It is not. Forcing such measures is. I encourage people to live a more healthy lifestyle; exercise, eat foods that have less trans-fat and bad cholesterol, avoid lifestyle decisions that increase risk to certain medical conditions (Smoking, chewing, etc.). That's just it, encouragement. In this specific case, it seems we have both mischaracterized each others views. | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
On August 16 2009 16:57 SnK-Arcbound wrote: The main purpose for all companies is to provide a service to people. Second is to make a profit (otherwise you couldn't stay in business). Ah, sweet naivety. There, my friend, you are wrong. First and foremost of business is to make a profit. How you do it, is entirely up to you. So if that's what you meant by 'provide a service', then I'm afraid it is merely incidental. | ||
KwarK
United States43187 Posts
On August 16 2009 17:01 Aegraen wrote: Woah, where did I say that Preventative care is bad? It is not. Forcing such measures is. I encourage people to live a more healthy lifestyle; exercise, eat foods that have less trans-fat and bad cholesterol, avoid lifestyle decisions that increase risk to certain medical conditions (Smoking, chewing, etc.). That's just it, encouragement. In this specific case, it seems we have both mischaracterized each others views. On August 16 2009 16:08 Kwark wrote: Take smoking. In the UK and the US you're free to smoke if you want (although where you can is increasingly limited over here but that's a separate issue). In both places the authorities advise you not to. However the US system says you're free to get cancer and then spend vast amounts of money treating it, that is your free choice. The UK system says you're free to get cancer and the NHS will treat it but it's bad for you and if you want to stop then you can speak to one of our NHS quitting advisers for free and they'll get you on some state subsidised nicotene replacement and help you quit. And the thing is, we spend far less for the same level of service because subsidising nicotene gum is a fair bit cheaper than training surgeons. Without imposing on the civil liberties of the individual by forcing them to live more healthily the state has still managed to help them, and in doing so has lowered the overall healthcare bill of the nation. Yes, some of that bill falls on taxation rather than the individual but it is still significantly cheaper overall. Spending money on healthcare is burning money. Whether individuals burn money or the state does it it still makes society poorer. Finding ways to burn less of it benefits everyone. To which you reply On August 16 2009 16:48 Aegraen wrote: Yes, it is true, we don't force people to live a preventative lifestyle, this is a good thing.) I don't get why you felt saying "yes, we don't force people to live a preventative lifestyle, this is a good thing" was a rebuttal to this point then. I honestly can't begin to understand why you felt saying that you shouldn't force people to do stuff addressed anything I'd written here. My only possible explanations are that you read it into your own internal war on the reds and completely changed every word of what I said into an attack on the constitution and the founding fathers or that you had no answer so pretended I was attacking civil liberties and then burned that straw man to give the impression to a casual reader that you'd replied. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 16 2009 17:04 Kwark wrote: To which you reply I don't get why you felt saying "yes, we don't force people to live a preventative lifestyle, this is a good thing" was a rebuttal to this point then. I honestly can't begin to understand why you felt saying that you shouldn't force people to do stuff addressed anything I'd written here. My only possible explanations are that you read it into your own internal war on the reds and completely changed every word of what I said into an attack on the constitution and the founding fathers or that you had no answer so pretended I was attacking civil liberties and then burned that straw man to give the impression to a casual reader that you'd replied. Actually I had the response tab up for like a hour with my response halfway written as I was watching a movie (Nights are quiet), so I did not see your response. At least we agree that forcing people to do things against their will is wrong, now if I could just push that further and convince you that stealing another mans labor (taxation; forced) to subsidize the poor is just as wrong. I suspect in that case it will be fruitless, but its a good exercise in discussion at the least. | ||
|
EvilTeletubby
Baltimore, USA22256 Posts
Edit - of course as I post this, I see you at least finally made a concession, that much is appreciated. I'm all for good debate, but good debate implies you consider the possibility your overall position could be wrong, and you listen to the other side. I do not think you're at that point yet. | ||
|
Chezinu
United States7448 Posts
On August 16 2009 08:38 sdpgposd wrote: 'Bash', interesting word. Actually, i have no idea how popular fox are in the US but i really hope they're not as popular as you claim. That would be very sad indeed. I dont think you are able to make any accurate assumptions about me so i'd suggest you refrain from doing so. Fox is the number one cable news channel currently in the US. I think they have about 3 times more viewers than any other cable news station. One big contributor to this is that other news stations are in the tank with Obama. For example, MSNBC is owned by GE and of course GE supports Obama. People always exclaim here that fox news is bias because it leans right -- which I don't deny. But of course you have to look at other news stations and see how they are bias themselves to be fair. In the end, people are likely to tune in on the news station that best supports their own views. Fortunately in our capitalist society, news channels won't make as much money without the public support, so MSNBC's ratings are dropping. MSNBC will probably become more conservative soon to save themselves. Yes, I am bias and think this is good news. But I'm ok with being bias though. If you really don't know which sources to trust I would seriously consider just reading the healthcare bill yourself. I know it is a pain but that is the best way to understand who is lying and who is telling the truth. Healthcare Bill On August 16 2009 16:31 Brokenlamp wrote: That page by page breakdown of the health bill looks just like a chain email that my mom sent me. Verbatim. Politifact doesnt like it though.... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/ Politifact doesn't refute all points mentioned and some of the points it only half disagrees with. | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On August 16 2009 17:02 Tyraz wrote: Ah, sweet naivety. There, my friend, you are wrong. First and foremost of business is to make a profit. How you do it, is entirely up to you. So if that's what you meant by 'provide a service', then I'm afraid it is merely incidental. No, I'm not wrong. Name a business model that specifically moves to make a profit over providing a service for people. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 16 2009 17:14 EvilTeletubby wrote: Aegraen: Not every single argument you try to make needs to be so polarizing. You've been banned, numerous times, for this already. Stop it, now. I'm a pretty passionate person with strong convictions. With that said, I keep my tone civil and discourse back and forth. I think discussion, especially passionate is healthy. Even though more often than not it descends into a 'lets agree to disagree'. I think we can all agree that overwhelming one-sidedness is not conducive to constructive feedback or positive outcomes. There are others with similar views to my own, but the general consensus on TL is unequivocally disposed to a liberal (In the American view of the word) slant. Anytime with such disjointed viewpoints there will always be a polarization of ideas. I sincerely hope, that you do not ban based on ideology and that the promotion and discourse of differing ideas is allowed to happen. I think I am bringing up valid points, with evidence to support my positions. I also do not blanketly view myself as perfect, as you can see by me recognizing when I make mistakes. In any case, it's your site, you are free to do as you please. | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
On August 16 2009 17:18 SnK-Arcbound wrote: No, I'm not wrong. Name a business model that specifically moves to make a profit over providing a service for people. Lol try almost EVERY small business EVER. Also, pretty much all telco's. Most of them you must sign up to a plan, where they more often than not advertise false data rates. They say 'up too' some speed. If the service were their main priority, then they would do their best to make sure their service was the damn best into the future. Instead you see companies milking old technology for everything its got before moving on. Main priority has always been profitability. If it happens to be something they enjoy, then so be it. Also to suggest i could find a business model that could prove that is a red herring. Services and profitability come hand in hand. The difference is, the type of service is incidental. Good services wont survive if they are not profitable. If what you are suggesting were true, then you would see companies coming out with alot crazier products than you see today. It's fear of not being profitable that stifles new technologies. The mountain bike, for example, wasn't created by the major bike manufactures. Nor was it created by one lone genius in his shed. It was created by a bunch of enthusiasts who gathered the parts themselves. I can almost guarantee, on the other hand, that you can't give me a business model that values service over profitability (you must include the whole company, market share and marketing gimmicks don't count). | ||
|
KwarK
United States43187 Posts
On August 16 2009 17:12 Aegraen wrote: Actually I had the response tab up for like a hour with my response halfway written as I was watching a movie (Nights are quiet), so I did not see your response. At least we agree that forcing people to do things against their will is wrong, now if I could just push that further and convince you that stealing another mans labor (taxation; forced) to subsidize the poor is just as wrong. I suspect in that case it will be fruitless, but its a good exercise in discussion at the least. And I wish I could make you see that we live in a society, not a collection of isolated islands. One mans loss is a loss for society as a whole. Can you at least see people as assets of Americacorp? That when the Government spends money educating a child only to have them die preventably society as a whole has made a loss, in the same way as if a company invested in a staff training program only to have a staff member leave. Also there are distinct differences between communism, socialism and social justice which I'd like you to understand. Communism believes in the subversion of free will and liberties to the collective whole. I don't think anyone on tl endorses this. Socialism in it's most extreme sense is the collaborative striving for equality within society while in practice means a redistribution of wealth and nationalised utilities within a private setting. I'm sure there are some people on tl who believe in it but generally people fall into the third category, social justice. Social justice is the belief in equality of opportunity. That the state should provide a decent level of education, healthcare and ensure a basic minimum living standards to give all members of society the same opportunities to make whatever life they wish. It differs from socialism because it does not seek to equalise the success of the individual but rather the opportunity for success. Bizarrely enough I see this as the embodiment of the American dream but whatever, that's just me. This is what we aim for in Britain. The economy is mostly private and the free market decides the flow of goods and services. The role of the state is to ensure that each member of society has the opportunity (depending on their drive, ambition and ability) to make something of themselves. People who believe in social justice do not want to subvert free will, nor do they want to get rid of the free market. They believe furvently in both. What they do want is for people not to have their freedom limited by birth, health or family. That a child born into a poor family can still go to university if they have the ambition and the intelligence. Obviously this is an aspiration rather than a reality, we still have private schools and private hospitals for the rich but I believe it is a worthy one. To give a little personal background, my paternal grandfather was a wife beating alcoholic who drunk himself to death, leaving behind four sons. Fortunately Britain had a grammar school system in which an intelligent child can obtain an extremely high quality education should they be willing to learn. My father was such a child and as such, despite being from an extremely poor background he was able to go to a good university, get a very high paying job and buy a house for his mother. If the state schools were worse or if university had fees he would have been unable to do this, not through lack of ambition or intelligence but because there is no way his family could spare the money. Social justice allowed him to ignore the limitations of his birth. Furthermore, he was an excellent investment by the state. Having a man of his intelligence work the shipyards like his brothers would be a complete waste while subsidising his education to allow him to become highly skilled and highly profitable made society as a whole much richer. It was not a waste of money to give him and people like him the opportunity because although it costs tax money it makes the worth of the whole nation higher. On a slightly related note, I believe in a layered tax system for this reason. If the Government didn't subsidise people they could have a nice low flat tax rate which, for the sake of argument, would take 10% out of a 20k shipyard salary. Whereas if a nation does invest in its people and have a layered tax system it still takes 10% out of the people who did not, or could not, profit from its investment but takes 20% out of the 40k salary of the guy it put through university. He's still got the incentive, he's still 14k better off than his shipyard companions and he's repaying his debt to society. | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
On August 16 2009 17:22 Aegraen wrote: I'm a pretty passionate person with strong convictions. With that said, I keep my tone civil and discourse back and forth. I think discussion, especially passionate is healthy. Even though more often than not it descends into a 'lets agree to disagree'. I think we can all agree that overwhelming one-sidedness is not conducive to constructive feedback or positive outcomes. There are others with similar views to my own, but the general consensus on TL is unequivocally disposed to a liberal (In the American view of the word) slant. Anytime with such disjointed viewpoints there will always be a polarization of ideas. I sincerely hope, that you do not ban based on ideology and that the promotion and discourse of differing ideas is allowed to happen. I think I am bringing up valid points, with evidence to support my positions. I also do not blanketly view myself as perfect, as you can see by me recognizing when I make mistakes. In any case, it's your site, you are free to do as you please. I have to admit, i find the fact that you are standing (relatively effectively) up for your conservative beliefs a good thing, as almost the rest of the post (and evidence) seems to disagree with you. I agree that government control can be taken too far. The US Patriot act is one such example. It staggers me as to how you could let your government get away with something like that!? Unlike now, where you die if you cannot pay, they can fucking lock you up for NO reason and throw away the key... Doesn't that go against EVERYTHING the US Constitution stands for? | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On August 16 2009 17:30 Tyraz wrote: Lol try almost EVERY small business EVER. Also, pretty much all telco's. Most of them you must sign up to a plan, where they more often than not advertise false data rates. They say 'up too' some speed. If the service were their main priority, then they would do their best to make sure their service was the damn best into the future. Instead you see companies milking old technology for everything its got before moving on. Main priority has always been profitability. If it happens to be something they enjoy, then so be it. Also to suggest i could find a business model that could prove that is a red herring. Services and profitability come hand in hand. The difference is, the type of service is incidental. Good services wont survive if they are not profitable. If what you are suggesting were true, then you would see companies coming out with alot crazier products than you see today. It's fear of not being profitable that stifles new technologies. The mountain bike, for example, wasn't created by the major bike manufactures. Nor was it created by one lone genius in his shed. It was created by a bunch of enthusiasts who gathered the parts themselves. I can almost guarantee, on the other hand, that you can't give me a business model that values service over profitability (you must include the whole company, market share and marketing gimmicks don't count). You ramble a lot and don't seem to know what you're talking about. But from I can tell is that you think that things that aren't "profitable" don't sell. The first Mac that used your so common desktop, cost over $10000 to make. So they said find a way to make it cheaper. They wanted to provide a service, and make money because of it (kind of like how the guy who invented, well anything you use in your life is a millionaire now). What you seem to be talking about is a monopoly, which interferes with the invisible hand (and is thus a third variable which we aren't concerning ourselves with). I could have a monopoly on dog shit, but you still wouldn't buy any. | ||
|
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
lol I used urbandictionary for SCHIP and got this http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SCHIP On August 15 2009 23:44 Too_MuchZerg wrote: You can still take private sector medical treatment if you aren't happy how free healthcare does it. Do you know joke about 3 white deaths? It's sugar, salt and... health service! You need to seriously see bad healthcare system in action. Beware of that approach! In my country people pay for it but often have to wait months to see a "free" specialist. Sometimes this specialist has to decide what treatment should person with a cancer take and during crucial early phase of cancer they have to wait to even see him. Partially because of recession, partially because of buying a fucking submarine and keeping 100k army when for example North Korea is on totally different continent than Poland among other things, decisions were made not to refund treatment of people having cancer in some hospitals. I guess money amount is the only thing different in contracts thing called National Health Fund makes with public hospitals. I mean it totally resembles some sort of free market for me, except it's meant to be for everyone. We are in quite the opposite process right now, with more and more people coming to medical firms. My stepfather is a physiotherapist working in one of them ("Medicover"), he has his private "real" patients though because those at firm piss him off with their "massage me here" requests. My mother is a dental technician but due to recent health problems she's going to stop doing it. She gets about 30-40% of what dentists that give her handiwork to do get from their patients and has to pay for all materials :/ Like a year ago my neighbour, 70-80 years old woman, Mrs Ela, a widow, had fainted and hit something sharp with her head in her apartment. There was lots of blood everywhere - she wasn't sure what happened, walking around the apartment and few hours later when she finally was treated I saw she had about 10 centimetres scar on her head. My mom asked me to take this lady to a hospital, so we ordered a taxi and went to 1st one. I think we faced more problems than needed because after seeing so much blood me and my mom thought she needed a surgeon to take care of her. So we heard no surgeon was going to be available for like several hours and got redirected to another hospital. No one checked her injury. Again I had to call a taxi, wait for it and go to the 2nd one. At the 2nd one we heard the very same thing but what got me pissed enough to start yelling what made them take care of her was one of the receptionists calling yet another hospital because I asked her do it and after me asking her if there is going to be someone who would finally check how bad is Mrs Ela injury. She said in shockingly emotionless, not caring voice she had no idea. I asked her to give me the phone and call this hospital again so I could personally get sure if this would end at the 3rd hospital... she said something I can't remember, I started explaining what was going on, she said something again and I started yelling and cursing that something was obviously wrong with Mrs Ela and we didn't even fucking know if we wouldn't get redirected once again at 3rd hospital. Mrs Ela got treated, luckily there were no stitches nor surgeon needed and during much quieter talk I had with hospital staff we apologized each other and it was explained to me Mrs Ela fainted because of low blood pressure caused mainly by not drinking enough water. Happy End, I got some chocolates as reward later. Something definitely bigger was famous case of "skin hunters", ambulance employees killing their patients, mainly elderly people, to get money from funeral parlours who bid the most because they get even bigger cash for taking care of bodies and by selling gravestones etc. Skin Hunters killed patients 10.06.2008 The judge Zdzisław Klasztorny announced the sentence. The Court of Appeal upheld a ruling in Lodz District Court in the loud case of so-called "Skin Hunters", or ambulance men and doctors involved in the killing of - using Pavulon - Lodz ambulance patients. Orderly Andrzej N. (39) was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing four patients. The second paramedic, 41-year-old Karol B., for the killing of one patient and help in killing four will be 25 years behind iron bars. For endangering life of 14 patients who died, two doctors has been sentenced: 52-year old Janusz K. six years in prison and 36-year old Pawel W. for five years. This judgment is in force already. - A reading of more than 800 pages justification of a lower court ruling led to the conclusion that true decisions has been made - emphasized Judge Marian Baliński, justifying sentence. - Penalties for ambulance men are strict and could not be other. Penalties for doctors are quite mild. Judge Baliński recalled the words of Andrew N., spoken during the investigation, that "emergency service was living by taking money for bodies from funeral parlours." He recalled the words of Karol B., who at the time at the Sienkiewicz street in Lodz said to Andrew N.: "I tapped[killed] a patient, who had a rash." Marian Baliński stressed that the deaths of patients in this case were happening in ambulances, rather than in homes or hospitals. That's because patients were given Pavulon that caused disappearance of breath and deaths soon. According to the court, defendants were aware of such effect of Pavulon and their guilt is obvious, as was proven on the basis of the opinions of experts, the testimony of witnesses, defendants and the evidence. Prosecutors didn't hide their satisfaction from such a ruling. By contrast, criminal defenders don't preclude to go for cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. - My client dismissed his explanation from the investigation, they lost their credibility. Nevertheless, the court took the explanation of the investigation into account. Therefore, I am disappointed - said Jacek Klosinski, the main defender of the accused Andrew N. The accused were not in court to hear the pronouncement of the judicial decision. That's why I voted "non us NO" but after reading 4 pages I changed my mind... just look very close how is it going to be set up lol. It would be great success for Obama if he could convince enough people and actually go more formal and win referendum. + Show Spoiler + I thought translating would go faster by using google translate >.< Hunter hides killed patients 10.06.2008 The judge announced the sentence Zdzisław Klasztorny The Court of Appeal upheld a ruling in Lodz District Court in the so-called loud. Hunters pelts, or sanitariuszy and doctors involved in the killing - with pavulonu - Lodz ambulance patients. Orderly Andrzej N. (year 39) was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing four patients. The second paramedic, 41-year-old Charles B., for the killing of one patient and help with uśmierceniu spend four kratami for 25 years. With the exposure of living 14 patients who died, has been sentenced to two doctors: 52-year old Janusz K. six years in prison and 36-year old Paul W. for five years. Above is no longer valid. - A reading of more than 800 pages justify a lower court ruling led to the conclusion that he has made true findings - Judge Marian Baliński emphasized, above the ground. - Penalties for sanitariuszy are suro-we and others could not be. Penalties for doctors are quite mild. The judge recalled the words of Andrew Baliński N., spoken in the investigation, that "lived ambulance that took the money out of betting for the funeral." He recalled the words of Charles B., who at the time the courtyard at ul. Sienkiewicza in Lodz said Andrew N.: "Puknąłem patient, who had a rash." Marian Baliński stressed that the deaths of patients in the case, karetkach, rather than in homes or hospitals. That's because patients were given pavulon what doprowadzało to the disappearance of breath and soon śmier-ci. According to the court, defendants were aware of such activities pavulonu and their guilt is obvious, as was proven on the basis of the opinions of experts, the testimony of witnesses, defendants and the evidence. Prosecutions Krylia no satisfaction from such a ruling. By contrast, criminal defense counsel does not preclude that address appealed to the Supreme Court. - My client dismissed his explanation of the investigation, which they lost their credibility. Nevertheless, the court took into account the explanation of the investigation. Therefore, I am disappointed - said Jacek Klosinski, the main defender of the accused Andrew N. The accused was not in court on a case. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 16 2009 17:36 Tyraz wrote: I have to admit, i find the fact that you are standing (relatively effectively) up for your conservative beliefs a good thing, as almost the rest of the post (and evidence) seems to disagree with you. I agree that government control can be taken too far. The US Patriot act is one such example. It staggers me as to how you could let your government get away with something like that!? Unlike now, where you die if you cannot pay, they can fucking lock you up for NO reason and throw away the key... Doesn't that go against EVERYTHING the US Constitution stands for? While I am against the Patriot Act, you mischaracterize what it actually does. They can't just lock you up for no reason. All the Patriot does is allow law enforcement and government agencies (CIA, FBI, etc) to bypass the court process to get a warrant for wiretaps of overseas transmissions within the US. That is all it does. There are actual Presidential Executive orders that give the President far more power than SEC 106 of the Patriot Act that date back quite a ways ago. Curtailment of Executive power is something I am acutely aware needs to happen, however, I see the Judiciary (SCOTUS) as the main power player in a supposed 3 branch Government. The Judiciary is where we need to focus our efforts. Thank you for the kind words. Lastly, in America they cannot deny you critical care. You don't simply die if you cannot pay. | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
On August 16 2009 17:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: You ramble a lot and don't seem to know what you're talking about. But from I can tell is that you think that things that aren't "profitable" don't sell. The first Mac that used your so common desktop, cost over $10000 to make. So they said find a way to make it cheaper. They wanted to provide a service, and make money because of it (kind of like how the guy who invented, well anything you use in your life is a millionaire now). What you seem to be talking about is a monopoly, which interferes with the invisible hand (and is thus a third variable which we aren't concerning ourselves with). I could have a monopoly on dog shit, but you still wouldn't buy any. LOL invisible hand. Dude. I don't think you quite understand. There is no private company in the world that provides a a service and isn't profitable. There are plenty of companies, on the other hand, which provide a 'bad' service and are profitable. Pretty much most banks, for example. | ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32277 Posts
| ||
|
Chezinu
United States7448 Posts
On August 16 2009 17:48 Tyraz wrote: LOL invisible hand. Dude. I don't think you quite understand. There is no private company in the world that provides a a service and isn't profitable. There are plenty of companies, on the other hand, which provide a 'bad' service and are profitable. Pretty much most banks, for example. Ok, if a company provides bad services and are profitable then you would think people would boycott that company and switch to a better one. right? Which bank provides bad service, I'm just wondering? | ||
|
KwarK
United States43187 Posts
On August 16 2009 17:46 Aegraen wrote: Lastly, in America they cannot deny you critical care. You don't simply die if you cannot pay. This is a fairly important point imo because if you accept this, which I hope you do, then you accept public responsibility for care. Critical care is likely to be the most expensive because it's the most intensive, a guy in critical need requires direct attention from the more qualified and therefore higher paid professionals. This costs money and that cost will hit the public, one way or another. Wouldn't it be simpler to just pay up front for preventative care rather than having the hospital clean up the mess and charge you for it? On a related note, are there free flu vaccines for old people in the US? To me that's the most obvious no-brainer choice in healthcare. Vaccines are cheap and old people generally get flu in winter. | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
On August 16 2009 17:55 Chezinu wrote: Ok, if a company provides bad services and are profitable then you would think people would boycott that company and switch to a better one. right? Which bank provides bad service, I'm just wondering? Pretty much all of them sunshine;) Credit card companies wouldn't make money if they wanted to deliver a good service. Before the credit reform bill, they could just ramp up the price whenever they liked, or make massive interest rates without your knowledge. That doesn't sound like good service to me... People can't 'get out' because if they do, they get bad credit and thats going down a VERY bad road. | ||
| ||
