TGIF Thanks all you can eat appetizers.

Aaron_K123

Out of curiosity how do uou view maintaining infrastructure (something I agree the government should do) as not robbing Peter farmer to give to Paul urbanite?

Wiyh your answer can you further elaborate how this is different from providing a basic level of health care.

If Peter the farmer mines his own ore and grows his own trees to build his own tools and drills and refines whatever petrochemicals he uses and doesn't attach to the electrical grid or use city water and doesn't use the roads to go into town to buy from shops and has no use for the court system and basically operates independently of all that infrastructure then, hell yeah, don't tax him for it. Some reasonable amount -- not sure what the numbers would work out to be -- toward national defense because it's pretty hard to opt out of benefitting from that would be about it.

I wouldn't force Peter the farmer to pay for something he didn't use any more than I would force someone else to lay for someone else's healthcare.

So you recognize that in reality even a farmer is actually very much supported by the infastructure of a city and yet you do not recognize how societies ability to function is dependent upon healthcare.

Do you know a lot of stable civilizations without healthcare? I am sorry but a farmer who doesn't drive on city roads is still very much supported by those roads and in the same way you and I, even if we never get sick, are supported by the framework of general healthcare that underpins a functional society. Pretending we don't need it doesn't do us any fiscal favors.

You're the one who set up the hypothetical. Don't get upset with me for understanding that Peter the farmer really does benefit from that infrastructure unless he is an honest to God island of his own. Therefore, taxing him is not at all equivalent to taking money from him to give to someone else.

Even granting for the sake of argument that a society's ability to function is dependent on having people pay for the healthcare of others -- as dubious as that is -- you still haven't shown why that must be done via compulsion. Again, if you think the only way to get people to pay is to force them to pay, you're tacitly admitting that we are willing to let people die in the streets even though you claim we aren't. Which is it?

It is currently done in the United States via compulsion, just in a hugely inefficient and ridiculous way. Rather than "at gunpoint" (as you say) are tax payers forced to pay the $25 for a course of antibiotics for the homeless guy who comes in with a toothache we are instead forced "at gunpoint" to pay $50,000 for the ambulance ride to the emergency room to be hooked to fluids and provided with a long course when the dude is found passed out in the street with a life-threatening infection.

Option 3, which seems to be what you are advocating, is that we pay for neither...in which case, I must ask, what do you think happens in that scenario? Who do you think voluntarily pays $50,000 to save this guys life? Oh and the hospital isn't just charging that for yuks, that is their cost...if the hospital itself eats that cost then it will not be able to afford the supplies it needs to continue to function.

The idea that the community should come together and take care of their own is on the largest of scales what the government is. If the government doesn't do it through basic taxation then that bill is put in the hands of individuals or individual communities, that bill doesn't just evaporate. The bills themselves would be greatly GREATLY reduced if they were done at the point of preventative care rather than the point of emergency.

That is my point. I am a fiscal conservative, I am a strong proponent of personal responsibility....but waiting to pay $50,000 because we are unwilling to let a man die rather than pay $25 to help him out early on is just asinine.

I do not consider letting the guy die to be a viable ethical option which is what I meant by basic healthcare being a human right.

redversustheblue

Huh, that sounds awesome!

SarahWSU36

They offer a product - that's it. They aren't shoveling food down anyone's throat. The onus of "taking the healthful high road" is on individuals, not companies.

Exactly.

Oi_Sunshine

I have no TGIFs. I haz sadz. ????????????

Aaron_K123

@DeguelloTex

Look man, I respect your opinion on this...honest. I am proud to be in a country where this sort of spirited debate is free to occur publicly. I think you have valid points, I just happen to have my own viewpoint on the matter that steers me a different direction. I'm guessing in person we would be having a beer together. That all said I think we should give this a rest. MFP probably not the place for a heated political debate and if we keep it up we might even get the thread shut down unnecessarily for being derailed.

So I am going to bow out of the discussion, not out of anger or frustration but simply because I think this is not the place for it.

Cheers

DeguelloTex

Out of curiosity how do uou view maintaining infrastructure (something I agree the government should do) as not robbing Peter farmer to give to Paul urbanite?

Wiyh your answer can you further elaborate how this is different from providing a basic level of health care.

If Peter the farmer mines his own ore and grows his own trees to build his own tools and drills and refines whatever petrochemicals he uses and doesn't attach to the electrical grid or use city water and doesn't use the roads to go into town to buy from shops and has no use for the court system and basically operates independently of all that infrastructure then, hell yeah, don't tax him for it. Some reasonable amount -- not sure what the numbers would work out to be -- toward national defense because it's pretty hard to opt out of benefitting from that would be about it.

I wouldn't force Peter the farmer to pay for something he didn't use any more than I would force someone else to lay for someone else's healthcare.

So you recognize that in reality even a farmer is actually very much supported by the infastructure of a city and yet you do not recognize how societies ability to function is dependent upon healthcare.

Do you know a lot of stable civilizations without healthcare? I am sorry but a farmer who doesn't drive on city roads is still very much supported by those roads and in the same way you and I, even if we never get sick, are supported by the framework of general healthcare that underpins a functional society. Pretending we don't need it doesn't do us any fiscal favors.

You're the one who set up the hypothetical. Don't get upset with me for understanding that Peter the farmer really does benefit from that infrastructure unless he is an honest to God island of his own. Therefore, taxing him is not at all equivalent to taking money from him to give to someone else.

Even granting for the sake of argument that a society's ability to function is dependent on having people pay for the healthcare of others -- as dubious as that is -- you still haven't shown why that must be done via compulsion. Again, if you think the only way to get people to pay is to force them to pay, you're tacitly admitting that we are willing to let people die in the streets even though you claim we aren't. Which is it?

It is currently done in the United States via compulsion, just in a hugely inefficient and ridiculous way. Rather than "at gunpoint" (as you say) are tax payers forced to pay the $25 for a course of antibiotics for the homeless guy who comes in with a toothache we are instead forced "at gunpoint" to pay $50,000 for the ambulance ride to the emergency room to be hooked to fluids and provided with a long course when the dude is found passed out in the street with a life-threatening infection.

Option 3, which seems to be what you are advocating, is that we pay for neither...in which case, I must ask, what do you think happens in that scenario? Who do you think voluntarily pays $50,000 to save this guys life? Oh and the hospital isn't just charging that for yuks, that is their cost...if the hospital itself eats that cost then it will not be able to afford the supplies it needs to continue to function.

The idea that the community should come together and take care of their own is on the largest of scales what the government is. If the government doesn't do it through basic taxation then that bill is put in the hands of individuals or individual communities, that bill doesn't just evaporate. The bills themselves would be greatly GREATLY reduced if they were done at the point of preventative care rather than the point of emergency.

That is my point. I am a fiscal conservative, I am a strong proponent of personal responsibility....but waiting to pay $50,000 because we are unwilling to let a man die rather than pay $25 to help him out early on is just asinine.

I do not consider letting the guy die to be a viable ethical option which is what I meant by basic healthcare being a human right.

I think the basic flaw in your argument is presuming that people will take advantage of the preventive care rather than continue to use the ER as a primary care physician and continue not to treat the toothache but the infection. They don't.

Personal responsibility isn't avoiding primary care then sticking the other guy with a big bill. Or using an ambulance as a taxi service. Or the ER as primary care.

Putting "at gunpoint" in scare quotes doesn't change anything. The bottom line on government compulsion is the threat of guns. When they come to get you for tax evasion and you say "no thanks, I'd rather not go with you" you will be forced to go. At gunpoint.

DeguelloTex

@DeguelloTex

Look man, I respect your opinion on this...honest. I am proud to be in a country where this sort of spirited debate is free to occur publicly. I think you have valid points, I just happen to have my own viewpoint on the matter that steers me a different direction. I'm guessing in person we would be having a beer together. That all said I think we should give this a rest. MFP probably not the place for a heated political debate and if we keep it up we might even get the thread shut down unnecessarily for being derailed.

So I am going to bow out of the discussion, not out of anger or frustration but simply because I think this is not the place for it.

Cheers

Fair enough, as long as it's Shiner Bock.

WinoGelato

@DeguelloTex

Look man, I respect your opinion on this...honest. I am proud to be in a country where this sort of spirited debate is free to occur publicly. I think you have valid points, I just happen to have my own viewpoint on the matter that steers me a different direction. I'm guessing in person we would be having a beer together. That all said I think we should give this a rest. MFP probably not the place for a heated political debate and if we keep it up we might even get the thread shut down unnecessarily for being derailed.

So I am going to bow out of the discussion, not out of anger or frustration but simply because I think this is not the place for it.

Cheers

Fair enough, as long as it's Shiner Bock.

OK good, now can we please get back to talking about TGIF appetizers!? I'm not sure if I am understanding the promo right. I think someone said it was $10/person/single appetizer choice with unlimited refills. Right?

Someone brought up mozzarella sticks.... So if my husband and I go, it is $20 and we get unlimited baskets of mozzarella sticks? Let's assume there are 6 in a basket? That's $3.33/stick for the first basket - if we consume two baskets, it is $1.66/stick, and so on and so forth. But if my husband and I go with another couple, then the price goes up to $40 for the first basket, doubling the price/stick (but presumably we would eat twice as many total sticks so the price/stick ends up being the same in the end). What if one of the people at the table is lactose intolerant and decides not to partake? What if we go with our kids - do they pay the same price?

Sorry - not trying to overthink this, I am actually intrigued by the price point chosen for this promotion, and what the tipping points are for when it becomes more or less of a value for the consumer (assuming you aren't some sort of competitive eater and rather have a *relatively* normal appetite).

PikaKnight

@DeguelloTex

Look man, I respect your opinion on this...honest. I am proud to be in a country where this sort of spirited debate is free to occur publicly. I think you have valid points, I just happen to have my own viewpoint on the matter that steers me a different direction. I'm guessing in person we would be having a beer together. That all said I think we should give this a rest. MFP probably not the place for a heated political debate and if we keep it up we might even get the thread shut down unnecessarily for being derailed.

So I am going to bow out of the discussion, not out of anger or frustration but simply because I think this is not the place for it.

Cheers

Fair enough, as long as it's Shiner Bock.

OK good, now can we please get back to talking about TGIF appetizers!? I'm not sure if I am understanding the promo right. I think someone said it was $10/person/single appetizer choice with unlimited refills. Right?

Someone brought up mozzarella sticks.... So if my husband and I go, it is $20 and we get unlimited baskets of mozzarella sticks? Let's assume there are 6 in a basket? That's $3.33/stick for the first basket - if we consume two baskets, it is $1.66/stick, and so on and so forth. But if my husband and I go with another couple, then the price goes up to $40 for the first basket, doubling the price/stick (but presumably we would eat twice as many total sticks so the price/stick ends up being the same in the end). What if one of the people at the table is lactose intolerant and decides not to partake? What if we go with our kids - do they pay the same price?

Sorry - not trying to overthink this, I am actually intrigued by the price point chosen for this promotion, and what the tipping points are for when it becomes more or less of a value for the consumer (assuming you aren't some sort of competitive eater and rather have a *relatively* normal appetite).

It's $10 per person (not sure about kids. I'd assume so). And if someone is lactose intolerant, then they shouldn't get the mozzarella appetizers.

In fact, if it were you and your husband, you each should get a different appetizer and then sneak share.

WinoGelato

@DeguelloTex

Look man, I respect your opinion on this...honest. I am proud to be in a country where this sort of spirited debate is free to occur publicly. I think you have valid points, I just happen to have my own viewpoint on the matter that steers me a different direction. I'm guessing in person we would be having a beer together. That all said I think we should give this a rest. MFP probably not the place for a heated political debate and if we keep it up we might even get the thread shut down unnecessarily for being derailed.

So I am going to bow out of the discussion, not out of anger or frustration but simply because I think this is not the place for it.

Cheers

Fair enough, as long as it's Shiner Bock.

OK good, now can we please get back to talking about TGIF appetizers!? I'm not sure if I am understanding the promo right. I think someone said it was $10/person/single appetizer choice with unlimited refills. Right?

Someone brought up mozzarella sticks.... So if my husband and I go, it is $20 and we get unlimited baskets of mozzarella sticks? Let's assume there are 6 in a basket? That's $3.33/stick for the first basket - if we consume two baskets, it is $1.66/stick, and so on and so forth. But if my husband and I go with another couple, then the price goes up to $40 for the first basket, doubling the price/stick (but presumably we would eat twice as many total sticks so the price/stick ends up being the same in the end). What if one of the people at the table is lactose intolerant and decides not to partake? What if we go with our kids - do they pay the same price?

Sorry - not trying to overthink this, I am actually intrigued by the price point chosen for this promotion, and what the tipping points are for when it becomes more or less of a value for the consumer (assuming you aren't some sort of competitive eater and rather have a *relatively* normal appetite).

It's $10 per person (not sure about kids. I'd assume so). And if someone is lactose intolerant, then they shouldn't get the mozzarella appetizers.

In fact, if it were you and your husband, you each should get a different appetizer and then sneak share.

Agreed - I was just trying to imagine these poor TGIF servers trying to police how many people are actually eating the appetizers. $20 for unlimited buffalo wings for two doesn't sound bad at all, but $40 for mozzerella sticks for a four top seems excessive... probably because I can see myself eating nothing but buffalo wings, but would have a hard time making a meal out of fried cheese (although I'm sure I've done it before!).

jofjltncb6

Good. We're back to AYCE apps.

Someone mentioned it a few pages back...(sorry, too lazy to scroll back)...about it being a sign a business is struggling. I disagree. Done correctly, AYCE can be more profitable than regular menu pricing. You have to remember that the markup is substantial. If the restaurant can get you to part with 30% more $$$ and you eat twice as much food, that doesn't mean the business is losing money. Coupled with the fact that the average adult won't actually eat twice as much food and you have the recipe for increased profit. (This TGIF example of $10/person for *ONE* unlimited app is a great example of this. The markup in apps is ridiculous.)

Blah blah blah TL;DR - I disagree about AYCE being a sign of a struggling business.

missdibs1

How gross… TGIF is offering all you appetizers for $10. Another "stuff your face America" let's get fatter move.

I'm only supporting restaurants taking the healthful high road.

bottomless potstickers oooooh

sorry you were saying?

WinoGelato

Good. We're back to AYCE apps.

Someone mentioned it a few pages back...(sorry, too lazy to scroll back)...about it being a sign a business is struggling. I disagree. Done correctly, AYCE can be more profitable than regular menu pricing. You have to remember that the markup is substantial. If the restaurant can get you to part with 30% more $$$ and you eat twice as much food, that doesn't mean the business is losing money. Coupled with the fact that the average adult won't actually eat twice as much food and you have the recipe for increased profit. (This TGIF example of $10/person for *ONE* unlimited app is a great example of this. The markup in apps is ridiculous.)

Blah blah blah TL;DR - I disagree about AYCE being a sign of a struggling business.

Exactly - I'm interested in the economics of this for both the consumer and the business. Maybe that's Freakonomics. I can't remember.

Shalaurise

Well, now I know where I'm going if I'm ever without cooking facilities and down to my last ten bucks.

I wonder how many hours you can sit there and stuff your face before the manager throws you out?

This!

I'm only supporting restaurants taking the healthful high road.

You could just not order that and get something else. I'm only supporting people that have personal responsibility.

And this is a great example of why I adore this guy despite only having begged for his friendship this week.