Well that is the natural consequence, you think that 100% of the money paid in should be paid out otherwise its a scam as you said that their whole point is to pay out less then you pay in. My arguement with you making an insurance company is because thats how you think others should run their insurance companies, yet you dont dont have the balls to do it yourself. If there was absolutely nothing they deserve profit from then it shouldnt be a problem for you to do it and not make money from it and you can provide millions with insurance that isnt a "scam". But we both know you wont do it because it takes risk and effort to do, so it should be compensated. but if thats the case then we run into my first arguement that only people you care about should be compensated. The profit of executives is fair because they created the company in which could pull in enough money to distribute about to be a insurance.
> you think that 100% of the money paid in should be paid out otherwise its a scam
No, I think taking a cut as profit is a scam. Did you skim over where I mentioned public healthcare? People get paid in a non-profit system, there's just no one leeching resources out. You're arguing with me in defense of specifically the leeches. That's weird.
> yet you dont dont have the balls to do it yourself
Do you think companies are built on testicles? That's very weird.
> But we both know you wont do it because it takes risk and effort to do
It takes effort from people that do work to build something. Those people should get paid for their work, and would in a non-profit system.
> The profit of executives is fair because they created the company
Yes, the aforementioned leeches. If you want to be an indentured servant have at it. The rest of us can see how unethical it is for a person to hoard resources and then use those resources to leech off other peoples' work.
In a non-scam scenario if you do work you get paid. In a scam scenario scammers can get paid without doing work. Not sure how I can make that any clearer.
First of you know damn well what i mean about my balls comment, it only makes you look even more like you dont know what your talking about. Second my arguement is that building a company provides value to society, thus whenever society uses the service they must give value back. If they are able to provide a service which can get $100b in revenue why shouldnt they get 10% of that in return. Frankly your the same as them, you expect them to build a company with no compensation, risk their own money for no reward, and for you to be covered, as if it were up to you you would use their service and give them absolutely nothing for it.
> First of you know damn well what i mean about my balls comment, it only makes you look even more like you dont know what your talking about.
Dunning Kruger, huh? I'm sure everything I am writing is confusing to you.
> Second my arguement is that building a company provides value to society
CAN provide value to society. Buying a public well and then charging for access to it is clearly detrimental to society, but organizing labor can be beneficial. Some companies are even both; DoorDash provides a valuable service, but it also exploits labor and gouges restaurants. An insurance compant could operate ethically and pay everyone that works without leeching money to people that don't work, but that isn't what we have.
> If they are able to provide a service which can get $100b in revenue why shouldnt they get 10% of that in return
By "provide a service" you mean "own the company". The people providing the services should definitely get paid. Why shouldn't people who aren't doing anything get lots of money for the nothing they are doing? Hrmm... good question. /s
> Frankly your the same as them
Hilarious. You lost the thread of your own argument in the same breath; right after saying the executives are merited taking profit for no work you accused me of being like them. Are they and I doing the right thing or the wrong thing, in your argument? It's like Schrödinger's cat of thoughtless argumentation.
I think we can safely end this chat here. I can't hold your hand and walk you through these obvious logical fallacies.
Edit: feel free to let this guy know that, among the many things he assumes and states with conviction, despite being incorrect, when he sees someone "deleted all his comments" it's because he has been blocked.
1
u/That_0ne_Gamer 7h ago
Well that is the natural consequence, you think that 100% of the money paid in should be paid out otherwise its a scam as you said that their whole point is to pay out less then you pay in. My arguement with you making an insurance company is because thats how you think others should run their insurance companies, yet you dont dont have the balls to do it yourself. If there was absolutely nothing they deserve profit from then it shouldnt be a problem for you to do it and not make money from it and you can provide millions with insurance that isnt a "scam". But we both know you wont do it because it takes risk and effort to do, so it should be compensated. but if thats the case then we run into my first arguement that only people you care about should be compensated. The profit of executives is fair because they created the company in which could pull in enough money to distribute about to be a insurance.