Y2HH

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 03:39 PM) So finally filing a claim about my cracked Iphone 5 and since its discontinued I can only be given the 5c as a replacement. Kind of f***ed up if you ask me. I dont want a lime green phone. They don't have refurb-repair models left? Usually, they have a ton of those. Aside from it being colorful, the 5c is actually a better phone. Has a better front camera, and larger battery. Did you use AppleCare+ to do this?

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 03:23 PM) You do know that is not the terms that the hospitals offer, it is what they are stuck with accepting from people that are under insured? And you do realize that interest free loan increases the cost. I'm over insured, and I'd leverage those interest free loans if it ever presented itself. As a matter of fact, I have, prior to having the insurance I have now. Why pay the amount you owe up front, regardless of what it is, when you don't have too? Anyone can do this, not just underinsured people or people without money. If you end up owing 500$, pay 50$ a month, interest free. I mean, why wouldn't you?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 02:27 PM) The issue is we were having a discussion about the real world, you interjected with a theoretical opinion and Y2HH and I continue to debate things that are real. That's fine if you want to have a theoretical debate, but his point is the only way to get to your theoretical world is to have massive government intervention, which you stated you don't want. Hence the disconnect here. Exactly how I felt. If this was a theoretical discussion, I think anyone would be hard pressed to not want said utopia. Yes, it would be amazing to live in a world where nobody cares about profit, and where sickness/disease are eradicated...and that everyone is nice to everyone, and uses whatever skills they have for the betterment of all mankind. That's not much of a discussion, however...because there is no reason to NOT want that.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 02:24 PM) I never said that other areas dont make more profit. I merely pointed out that when you count profit, you have already deducted the massive CEO salaries (thats a fact). Im not sure what the rest of it has to do with anything. While part of the calculation, you are claiming that publicly traded insurance companies are artificially lowering their profit margins by paying out to executives...and again, no, that's just not the case. Investors wouldn't accept that, as it's their money, and they have the collective power, not some CEO inflating his salary to "hide profits". That's just laughable.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 02:17 PM) No I actually do understand how they work. You just have yet to articulate why "profit margin" actually matters. So please, explain to stupid old me, why it matters if the insurance company has a "low profit margin" when the insurance market is dominated by an oligarchy. Thanks for playing. Because people erroneously think insurance companies are a massive for profit business, and it's not. The margins are quite thin in the medical landscape. Profit margins for drug companies and land ownership that lease to hospitals, however, are astoundingly high (20-40% in most cases), as compared to the margins of 3-5% for insurance companies. And again, profits are NOT hidden simply by paying out lavish salaries and bonuses to executives. Most of these are publicly traded companies, and investors don't take kindly to profits being drained away by executives as you're claiming. Just doesn't happen to that extent, nor for the reasons you claim.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 02:05 PM) Do you understand "profit margin" is a meaningless term if I am sticking "hundreds of millions of dollars of compensation" into the cost? Profit is Revenue minus expenses. Thus if I put things like "trip for CEOs to Hawaii" into expenses, I made less profit. It's you that doesn't understand how profit margin works, as companies do not "hide" profits by paying executives to this extent, as it shows up on the public record, and the investors (shareholders) would demand answers. If a publicly traded company was burying profits by giving them all to their executives, they'd all get voted out by the shareholders. It's as simple as that. What you're saying simply isn't reality. Yes, they make millions...but that's not very much considering the massive revenues and payouts to care.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 02:01 PM) Where did I say that the govt should regulate it? I said "This is what I think". Just because I believe that the world should be better, doesnt mean I think that the govt should force it upon people. Those are 2 different issues, perhaps you have confused yourself. Unless you can find where I said "The govt should enforce this". Prove me wrong. If a government doesn't enforce it, the free market enforces it. That means profit. What you're saying is akin to being a little bit pregnant. Either you want something to govern with all power, or you don't. There is no in between. If it's utopia you want, why bother having a conversation? That's a dream world, and it's not happening, ever...so stop wasting everyones time by injecting it into the real world conversation we're having.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 01:59 PM) You were the one that asked if attorneys should make profit. I answered that in no area should they make profit. In a better world the reason people become lawyers/drs is to use their abilities to help others, not to make money. My original response was to y2hh because he said insurance companies dont make a lot of profit, and I just happen to have a little bit of insight into how you can make a lot of money, but show very little profit. So I wanted to make sure it was clear that there are plenty of people in the insurance game making millions upon millions. They're making millions because the slice of the pie medical care covers is astoundingly massive. But their profit margins are still very low.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 01:53 PM) Sure things have improved. And I can make them better. Good enough may be okay for people like you, but its not for me. Really? Orwellian? Do you even know what that means? Id be pretty much the exact opposite of big brother. I hate regulations/restrictions. I want no rules. Then stop asking for rules to regulate everyones pay/profit margin, how money is distributed, etc. Da fuq? You JUST said that you think these should all be zero profit industries. Then you pretend you want no rules and restrictions? Yes, I know what Orwellian means, and it's exactly what you want, only you think you don't. You don't hate regulations/restrictions, you love them. That's exactly what you've been asking for here, over and over. I think you've lost it, and/or have confused yourself at this point.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 01:40 PM) Absolutely Lawyers should make 0 profit. In fact if I really had my way lawyers would be far more regulated and their salaries would be fixed. That way we can ensure that everyone actually gets justice, not that one side has a lot more money so they have a disproportionate advantage. Why don't you just go all the way and say you want to live in Orwellian world. No thanks.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 01:34 PM) And interestingly I believe that it should be a 0 profit business. You can still have millionaire CEO's etc, they just dont get extra millions of profit on top of it. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/201...past-16-million I just have a fundamental problem with people getting rich off of other peoples sickness. I believe that we should live in a world where people can be guaranteed a basic level of medical treatment and not have to worry about being broke because of it. Call it rose colored glass optimism, but what is the point of all this if we arent going to actually improve the human existence? But despite these things, we HAVE improved human existence. A LOT.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 01:10 PM) Call it an educated guess mixed with an understanding of the economics behind insurance (the majority will never spend as much as they put in). How many people in college do you remember ever having a major surgery? Or someone who was involved in a major accident? I knew of probably 2 people out of hundreds. What was wrong with the 10k deductible? Something that wouldn't be easy for most but also a figure that wouldn't leave you financially ruined either. And of course i'd expect them to pay back. Of course, if anyone stopped for a second to think about that, they'd realize that more money MUST be going into insurance or there would be no profit margin to begin with.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 01:07 PM) That's not insurance then. That's having everyone pay for what they need. Insurance is by definition something you need to cover costs that are potentially larger than what you can afford. You can still conduct some weighting in costs based on details like age and smoking in this system, but if I find out next year I have cancer I'm suddenly using the most insurance and by your statement I should "pay the most". That's not insurance, that's a payment plan! I wasn't attempting to redefine what insurance meant, I was just pointing out what he was getting at. Insurance is designed to spread the risk by spreading the premiums...but again, just as I said when this all started, you can't stop premiums from rising if you did nothing to curb WHY they're rising. And they didn't. Maybe it's time they drop that first A off of the acronym ACA. And there is no doubt the law did some very good things, but it came at a cost a lot of people are now balking at. Call it sticker shock, or what have you, but most of these people don't realize that the plans they had covered almost nothing, and they got lucky to never get sick with them, or they'd experience serious sticker shock.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 12:59 PM) so...you disagree with the concepts of insurance in general. I don't think so...I think he's saying that people who will use insurance the most should be the ones that pay the most, versus spreading it around like they're doing now. Of course, you knew that's what he meant, but decided to play games with his words, instead.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 12:56 PM) 9 out of 10? Do you have a link somewhere with that? But more interesting how high of a deductable are you wishing for? And do you expect the person to actually pay the deductable if they are in an accident, get ill, etc? Even if the deductible is 10,000$, that's just there to cover catastrophic hospital stay, which could exceed hundreds of thousands in mere days...versus 10,000, which they can pay over time. You do realize that at any hospital, at any time, you can pay down your bill -- interest free -- over a span of years, right? So yes, I expect them to pay it...since they can do so over a span of 5 years at a low low interest rate of nothing.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 11:40 AM) I think people shat on you for disrupting a college class that a lot of people pay a lot of money for - and thinking that people thought your old technology was mind-blowing.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 06:22 PM) Your friend was duped. No, he wasn't. There was a time these cases were real, and actually went to court. And there was no upside to going to court. If you went, and won, you'd end up owing about 3250 in lawyer/court costs (more than what they asked to settle), and in the off chance you lost, you'd be losing even more. It wasn't until a few years later the courts started striking these suits down and they became easily defendable. IIRC, this was when they were living on 36th Lowe -- which would make it around 1998.

Health insurance is also a very low profit margin business, contrary to popular belief.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 05:42 PM) Yep, I got the same letter. I told them to get bent. Never heard from them about it again. Yea he tried to do the same, but actually did hear from them. Multiple times. There was a time they were serious about taking these to court, but that faded away a few years after, when they started losing these suits. But at that time, court was going to happen.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 05:00 PM) Yeah, they would only work for a few hours to a few weeks at which point you'd have to go online and find the new code to zap into your card reader to reprogram your access card. It was a pain in the butt to keep up with, but probably better than paying for it Friend got busted for this when one if the card writer sellers was raided, they got his information, and DTV threatened to sue unless he settled out of court for 3k. Hiring a lawyer to fight the case all told would have been more, so he relented and paid it. Kind of like using the court system to hold people ransom.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 02:28 PM) I hope you all realize the entire last 4 pages or so happened because a few people decided to s*** on me for no reason for saying I thought the IR blaster in my phone was cool. Never said my phone invented the technology, never said it is the only phone to do it, and never said a damn thing about iPhones not being able to do it (which I had no idea if they could or couldn't, because I couldn't care less either way). Just said I thought it was cool. Basically what I've learned here is I need to be super jaded about technology and not be impressed by anything, because god forbid someone else has used this technology before me, I will be criticized for being out of date and easily impressed and thought of as a kid. Duly noted. After all that went down, having Chilihead90 chime back in all butthurt...this is exactly how I feel. But seriously, consider it a rite of passage around here...we all go through getting messed with.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 11:22 AM) Now you're taking my comments out of context. I'll say this...you make a fair point about this being a technology thread. However, I come to this thread mostly to see links about various products in the marketplace. I also enjoy hearing peoples' comments and reviews about these various products. At some point, this thread devolved into a pissing match between Apple and Android products, which has, in turn, devolved into a who has the biggest dick contest relative to technology know-how. I certainly respect that some of you have technology backgrounds and I never meant to disparage any of you for that. However, I will say that, in general, most technology consumers don't have the slightest clue (nor do they care) about many of the nuanced discussions about technology features present here. That doesn't make your discussions worthless by any measure, however, it does drastically reduce the size of their audience to those folks who have a career in technology or to those folks who have an extensive knowledge of technology. IMHO, that was NOT what this thread was intended to be, nor why it was started. Well said.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 10:56 AM) Already done: http://www.samsung.com/us/article/turn-you...e-possibilities Needs to be universal. I have two samsung tv's, including a 2013 model, and neither has the ability to do this (despite requiring a samsung tablet/phone which wouldn't' work for me, my tv still cannot do it)...if they're going to implement this, they need to do it across ALL of their devices.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 10:43 AM) Edit: and DirecTV has this technology already. Through the app you can control your tv, look through the guide, look at your DVR list and play shows, etc. So does Comcast...but that doesn't control the receiver/tv. They all should be using something similar these days.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 10:41 AM) I don't really want my TV remote to go away. I don't want to have to use up my phone to control my TV. I use both simultaneously. That's probably the main reason this technology hasn't been implemented yet. It's just not necessary. And for you, you can still use your crappy remote. But for me, I'd love to bury my entertainment center behind a slick cabinet so it's out of sight, out of mind, with as few exposed components/wires as possible...and be able to control all of it sight unseen. Sounds like if you were in control of pushing TV tech, we'd still have a f***ing dial on our tv, because a remote "just isn't necessary" when you could get up and change the channel.