TGIF Thanks all you can eat appetizers.

jkwolly

OP quick question for you, or a question for anyone really who chooses to answer. Which world, as an adult, would you like to live in:

World A: One person has decided that the world should conform to their own personal needs and has set up regulations for businesses and social life that will make the world the most convenient for them and there needs. They eat 3 times a day and want to get about 1500 calories per day so they require that all restaurant served meals come to an even 500 calories so that they don't have to think about it and can just grab whatever 3 meals look tasty throughout the day. Of course that might not conform to everyone's needs but hey, its convenient for them and that is what matters.

World B: A consumer driven marketplace has allowed for a large amount of diversity in choices that are available. Meals served at restaurants range all over the place from 100 calorie green leaf salads to 2000 calorie triple bacon cheeseburgers. No one is forced to eat what they don't want to eat but they have a choice based on what is available in the market.


By the way before we launch into some silliness about conservative versus liberal (well American politics anyways) let me say I'm actually quite liberal in my politics and support things such as government provided universal healthcare provided by taxation. That said I also think that when it comes down to what you put in your own mouth that its about personal responsibility.

So, you're fine with the government forcing things with which you agree, just not restaurant meals. A whose ox is gored political philosophy. Nice.

ZOMG NO! THE GOVERNMENT RUINS EVERYTHING

If people would just shut up and realize how AMAZING health care is, FFS!

DeguelloTex

OP quick question for you, or a question for anyone really who chooses to answer. Which world, as an adult, would you like to live in:

World A: One person has decided that the world should conform to their own personal needs and has set up regulations for businesses and social life that will make the world the most convenient for them and there needs. They eat 3 times a day and want to get about 1500 calories per day so they require that all restaurant served meals come to an even 500 calories so that they don't have to think about it and can just grab whatever 3 meals look tasty throughout the day. Of course that might not conform to everyone's needs but hey, its convenient for them and that is what matters.

World B: A consumer driven marketplace has allowed for a large amount of diversity in choices that are available. Meals served at restaurants range all over the place from 100 calorie green leaf salads to 2000 calorie triple bacon cheeseburgers. No one is forced to eat what they don't want to eat but they have a choice based on what is available in the market.


By the way before we launch into some silliness about conservative versus liberal (well American politics anyways) let me say I'm actually quite liberal in my politics and support things such as government provided universal healthcare provided by taxation. That said I also think that when it comes down to what you put in your own mouth that its about personal responsibility.

So, you're fine with the government forcing things with which you agree, just not restaurant meals. A whose ox is gored political philosophy. Nice.

What? You mean health care? Yeah I view that as a basic human right that the citizenry of any country should be entitled to along with basic civil protections such as a police force, the ability to own and purchase land and shelter and food. I am not sure how one "forces" health care on someone anymore than you could have roads "forced" on you.

If we are going to have a government at all I view its purpose as allowing its citizenry a base of general health in which to participate in the free market. We do not profit economically ot socially from not treating the sick.

Basic human right? Tell me how a "basic human right" can be such when it necessarily relies on conscripting the labor and resources of other people. Where did you get a "basic human right" to claim my work, or a doctor's work, or anyone's work to meet your needs?

As far as "forcing" healthcare, we are forced to pay taxes to support it and we are forced to buy particular kinds of health insurance, whether we want to or not.

I view a government's purpose as punishing aggression and fraud, enforcing contracts, and implementing a common physical infrastructure. I don't view it's purpose as taking money from Peter to give it to Paul.

Aaron_K123

OP quick question for you, or a question for anyone really who chooses to answer. Which world, as an adult, would you like to live in:

World A: One person has decided that the world should conform to their own personal needs and has set up regulations for businesses and social life that will make the world the most convenient for them and there needs. They eat 3 times a day and want to get about 1500 calories per day so they require that all restaurant served meals come to an even 500 calories so that they don't have to think about it and can just grab whatever 3 meals look tasty throughout the day. Of course that might not conform to everyone's needs but hey, its convenient for them and that is what matters.

World B: A consumer driven marketplace has allowed for a large amount of diversity in choices that are available. Meals served at restaurants range all over the place from 100 calorie green leaf salads to 2000 calorie triple bacon cheeseburgers. No one is forced to eat what they don't want to eat but they have a choice based on what is available in the market.


By the way before we launch into some silliness about conservative versus liberal (well American politics anyways) let me say I'm actually quite liberal in my politics and support things such as government provided universal healthcare provided by taxation. That said I also think that when it comes down to what you put in your own mouth that its about personal responsibility.

So, you're fine with the government forcing things with which you agree, just not restaurant meals. A whose ox is gored political philosophy. Nice.

What? You mean health care? Yeah I view that as a basic human right that the citizenry of any country should be entitled to along with basic civil protections such as a police force, the ability to own and purchase land and shelter and food. I am not sure how one "forces" health care on someone anymore than you could have roads "forced" on you.

If we are going to have a government at all I view its purpose as allowing its citizenry a base of general health in which to participate in the free market. We do not profit economically ot socially from not treating the sick.

Basic human right? Tell me how a "basic human right" can be such when it necessarily relies on conscripting the labor and resources of other people. Where did you get a "basic human right" to claim my work, or a doctor's work, or anyone's work to meet your needs?

As far as "forcing" healthcare, we are forced to pay taxes to support it and we are forced to buy particular kinds of health insurance, whether we want to or not.

I view a government's purpose as punishing aggression and fraud, enforcing contracts, and implementing a common physical infrastructure. I don't view it's purpose as taking money from Peter to give it to Paul.

lets be clear, unless we are willing to let people die on the street that could have been saved by medical care our tax money CURRENTLY pays for their treatment in a very ad hoc inneficient manner. Do you honestly think we end up with a cheaper more efficient system when we tutn away the homeless guy with the toothache unyil iy becomes a life threatening infection payed for by a 50,000 dollar ER visiy?

You speak a strong game but I have yet to meet someone whi took your position to yhe point of saying we should just let the sick and impoverished die when we could treat them.

The practical consideration therefore isn't between paying nothing or paying for health care, the choice is between payinh out the nose for ER trips rather than comprehensive preventative care.

The idea that basic health care would somehow cost more than ignoring the problem and assuming charities can domrhow handle it is ludicrous and easily refuted by looking at yhe per capita operating costs of health care of pretty much any developed nation versus the United States.

Aaron_K123

I view a government's purpose as punishing aggression and fraud, enforcing contracts, and implementing a common physical infrastructure. I don't view it's purpose as taking money from Peter to give it to Paul.

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

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

DeguelloTex

OP quick question for you, or a question for anyone really who chooses to answer. Which world, as an adult, would you like to live in:

World A: One person has decided that the world should conform to their own personal needs and has set up regulations for businesses and social life that will make the world the most convenient for them and there needs. They eat 3 times a day and want to get about 1500 calories per day so they require that all restaurant served meals come to an even 500 calories so that they don't have to think about it and can just grab whatever 3 meals look tasty throughout the day. Of course that might not conform to everyone's needs but hey, its convenient for them and that is what matters.

World B: A consumer driven marketplace has allowed for a large amount of diversity in choices that are available. Meals served at restaurants range all over the place from 100 calorie green leaf salads to 2000 calorie triple bacon cheeseburgers. No one is forced to eat what they don't want to eat but they have a choice based on what is available in the market.


By the way before we launch into some silliness about conservative versus liberal (well American politics anyways) let me say I'm actually quite liberal in my politics and support things such as government provided universal healthcare provided by taxation. That said I also think that when it comes down to what you put in your own mouth that its about personal responsibility.

So, you're fine with the government forcing things with which you agree, just not restaurant meals. A whose ox is gored political philosophy. Nice.

What? You mean health care? Yeah I view that as a basic human right that the citizenry of any country should be entitled to along with basic civil protections such as a police force, the ability to own and purchase land and shelter and food. I am not sure how one "forces" health care on someone anymore than you could have roads "forced" on you.

If we are going to have a government at all I view its purpose as allowing its citizenry a base of general health in which to participate in the free market. We do not profit economically ot socially from not treating the sick.

Basic human right? Tell me how a "basic human right" can be such when it necessarily relies on conscripting the labor and resources of other people. Where did you get a "basic human right" to claim my work, or a doctor's work, or anyone's work to meet your needs?

As far as "forcing" healthcare, we are forced to pay taxes to support it and we are forced to buy particular kinds of health insurance, whether we want to or not.

I view a government's purpose as punishing aggression and fraud, enforcing contracts, and implementing a common physical infrastructure. I don't view it's purpose as taking money from Peter to give it to Paul.

lets be clear, unless we are willing to let people die on yhe street that could have been saved by medical care our tax money CURRENTLY pays for their treatment in a very ad hoc inneficient manner.

You speak a strong game but I have yet to meet someone whi took your position to yhe point of saying we should just let the sick and impoverished die when we could treat them.

The practical consideration therefore isn't between paying nothing or paying for health care, the choice is between payinh out the nose for ER trips rather than comprehensive preventative care.

The idea that basic health care would somehow cost more than ignoring the problem and assuming charities can domrhow handle it is ludicrous and easily refuted by looking at yhe per capita operating costs of health care of pretty much any developed nation versus the United States.

You conflate the cost of keeping the sick and impoverished from dying with per capita operating health care costs. They aren't the same thing.

Just because something might be a good thing to do doesn't mean it has to be done by the government at gunpoint. And if it does have to be done by the government at gun point, why is that? If we're not willing to let people die in the street, why wouldn't the money and other resources be made available voluntarily? And, if those resources aren't forthcoming, why is taking them by force justified?

Maybe our tax money can be spent more efficiently. Maybe the VA would be a good model for how the government would do it.

Aaron_K123

OP quick question for you, or a question for anyone really who chooses to answer. Which world, as an adult, would you like to live in:

World A: One person has decided that the world should conform to their own personal needs and has set up regulations for businesses and social life that will make the world the most convenient for them and there needs. They eat 3 times a day and want to get about 1500 calories per day so they require that all restaurant served meals come to an even 500 calories so that they don't have to think about it and can just grab whatever 3 meals look tasty throughout the day. Of course that might not conform to everyone's needs but hey, its convenient for them and that is what matters.

World B: A consumer driven marketplace has allowed for a large amount of diversity in choices that are available. Meals served at restaurants range all over the place from 100 calorie green leaf salads to 2000 calorie triple bacon cheeseburgers. No one is forced to eat what they don't want to eat but they have a choice based on what is available in the market.


By the way before we launch into some silliness about conservative versus liberal (well American politics anyways) let me say I'm actually quite liberal in my politics and support things such as government provided universal healthcare provided by taxation. That said I also think that when it comes down to what you put in your own mouth that its about personal responsibility.

So, you're fine with the government forcing things with which you agree, just not restaurant meals. A whose ox is gored political philosophy. Nice.

What? You mean health care? Yeah I view that as a basic human right that the citizenry of any country should be entitled to along with basic civil protections such as a police force, the ability to own and purchase land and shelter and food. I am not sure how one "forces" health care on someone anymore than you could have roads "forced" on you.

If we are going to have a government at all I view its purpose as allowing its citizenry a base of general health in which to participate in the free market. We do not profit economically ot socially from not treating the sick.

Basic human right? Tell me how a "basic human right" can be such when it necessarily relies on conscripting the labor and resources of other people. Where did you get a "basic human right" to claim my work, or a doctor's work, or anyone's work to meet your needs?

As far as "forcing" healthcare, we are forced to pay taxes to support it and we are forced to buy particular kinds of health insurance, whether we want to or not.

I view a government's purpose as punishing aggression and fraud, enforcing contracts, and implementing a common physical infrastructure. I don't view it's purpose as taking money from Peter to give it to Paul.

lets be clear, unless we are willing to let people die on yhe street that could have been saved by medical care our tax money CURRENTLY pays for their treatment in a very ad hoc inneficient manner.

You speak a strong game but I have yet to meet someone whi took your position to yhe point of saying we should just let the sick and impoverished die when we could treat them.

The practical consideration therefore isn't between paying nothing or paying for health care, the choice is between payinh out the nose for ER trips rather than comprehensive preventative care.

The idea that basic health care would somehow cost more than ignoring the problem and assuming charities can domrhow handle it is ludicrous and easily refuted by looking at yhe per capita operating costs of health care of pretty much any developed nation versus the United States.

You conflate the cost of keeping the sick and impoverished from dying with per capita operating health care costs. They aren't the same thing.

Just because something might be a good thing to do doesn't mean it has to be done by the government at gunpoint. And if it does have to be done by the government at gun point, why is that? If we're not willing to let people die in the street, why wouldn't the money and other resources be made available voluntarily? And, if those resources aren't forthcoming, why is taking them by force justified?

Maybe our tax money can be spent more efficiently. Maybe the VA would be a good model for how the government would do it.

We dont let people die, we do treat them but only when they are about to die...if they cannot afford preventative care then they don't recieve it which just ends up costing us, the tax payer, far more.

Not letting people die whom you can help is something we do but at great and unnecessary cost compared to if we had just provided a universal basic level of preventative care.

Treat the toothache, not the life threatening infection.

The idea that this basic preventative care will be somehow provided by the free market or private citizens is evidentally false because obviously it isn't.

Our tax bill for medical care is not low. An orchastrated system of basic universal preventative care is the more fiscally practical way of dealing with the ethical concern we frankly have to deal with anyways. It will help people before the are in a life threatening situation and it will save us money by lowering overall cost.

As I said I have never met someone who actually thought it was okay to let people with treatable conditions die. Who do you think pays for that currently if not us?

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.

DeguelloTex

The idea that this basic preventative care will be somehow provided by the free market or private citizens is evidentally false.

Private citizens are doing it now. What the government spends it gets from taxes or bonds (for the most part) from private citizens. What you're arguing isn't really government vs. private citizens -- the government essentially doesn't have money of its own -- it's private citizens doing it by choice vs. private citizens doing it at gunpoint. That aside, your argument basically comes down to saying that we are willing to let people die in the streets unless someone else forces us not to, right?

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.

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?

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!).