Fair enough. While I agree sugar is poison, so is alcohol. When drank in moderation it can be enjoyable. When addicted to it, it can kill a person. Similarly I don't think the problem is sugar, but rather sugar addiction. Eating a slice of cake for my birthday is fine. Eating large bowls of ice cream and two cans of coke every day is deadly.

The trick is to teach people that sugary foods are more enjoyable when they are special treats and not an everyday food. It's true. If I eat one small bowl of ice cream every other week, that ice cream tastes so much better than when I eat a large bowl of ice cream every day. Same with soda. I put two cans of soda in the fridge every Sunday. I can drink them whenever I want, but when they are gone, they are gone for the week. Soda is terrible for me, but when drank in moderation like that, it won't kill me.

Your wage is multiple times the national average and you struggle with having a high deductible? Insurance is for the big stuff like cancer, it's not for the little stuff like a runny nose. I think there is a disconnect here.

I missed the part where I'm complaining about not getting candies. Is it the part where I say that "It's actually nice" or the part where I say, "they care about us rather than care about what makes us happy in the moment"? I'm just saying my employer is wise and correct to not give us junk food to get fat and diabetes on.

Yes. I only think for myself since I would rather keep the money I earned than to give it to someone who's unwise with their money. Greed in action. Caught me red handed.

Your words betray any sort of confidence that you know what you're talking about. Yes, they have two types of profits. One for when they collect more in premiums than they pay out (rare) or one in which they make a profit from their investments (more common). They are primarily interested in making investment income. I have first hand information regarding this.

See, you bought into this weird "rich people are evil" concept. It's okay to make money. It's okay to be wise with money. It's not greedy or thinking of only yourself. You seem passionate about helping others. Imagine how much more you can help others if you didn't squander your money. I've never quite understood this whole, "I'm not winning, so you can't either" type mentality. Try winning for a change and then help others with your winnings.

There is no free junk food here. :( But we have a free gym! It's actually really nice since they care about us rather than care about what makes us happy in the moment.

The problem is that this conversation illuminates that you're not very good with money. When you take a high deductible plan, you don't use the savings on beer and video games (or whatever you're into), you save it. Then when you've saved enough, you can go in and start investing the money and make even more money. If you're one to want to spend everything you make or you get sick often, then it's a bad idea. But if you're responsible, don't smoke, take care of yourself, etc... it's a good way to earn more money.

You have this liberal conception that insurance companies have infinite money. They don't. They make their money by investing money paid by people like you and then earn off the interest. They expect that they will pay out every dollar that is put in, so they profit off of the investments. The scam is low deductible, high premium. Let me guess, you also have whole life insurance, right?

Either
1: It's no longer necessary because the next gen consoles from Sony and Microsoft will have some sort of way of limiting used game sales
And/Or
2: EA is missing out on a lot of revenue by taking its ball and going home.

No, you didn't fix that. What I was asking is if I were a Scientologist and voted for politicians who wants to turn Kansas City into a Scientology theocracy, is it a bribe if I donate to him? He didn't change his position. He was already committed to said position.

I'm not following your analogy. If I'm for a position, is it bribery when I donate to a politician that shares my views? So if I were for free municipal Internet access, is it bribery if I donate money to a politician that feels the same? Or am I required to donate to a politician that does not share my views on an issue?

Is it bribery or do companies donate more money to politicians that agree with their policies?

You say that because you see the left as being center. MSNBC is the left's version of Fox News. Lifetime is on the left. [redacted] is on the left. There are many channels on the far left. In fact some people are so emotionally attached to their politics that I can't even name one of the channels lest I be hated on for dare calling them a leftist channel (despite that it must be a leftist channel by necessity of what it advertises it programs).

That's actually right on the money. It's about what I told AT&T when I canceled my u-Verse cable. Why should I pay for Lifttime, [redacted], MSNBC, and Fox News when all I want is Cartoon Network, SyFy, and Discovery Channel? I'm not interested in funding the extreme left and extreme right in order to watch certain channels. Of course what really gets me is the idea that I have to subscribe to every single channel before I can get the Funimation channel.

Showrooming. Look at it and then buy it cheaper online.

This isn't as ridiculous of a request as it may seem. Caching music is what made me a Spotify customer.

A agree 200%. I broke AT&T's flowchart when they tried to save me as a cable TV customer. They didn't get the concept that cable TV was old and antiquated. In fact the rep was so confused that she had to get her manager. Now with Google Fiber coming to town, their Internet will be old and antiquated. It's like they just want to roll over and play dead.