will_brown

Looks like a really good resource/starting place.

Law is an unforgiving beast so you would always want to refer to the source law they cite, and finding case law (much more difficult task) which references said Law and see how it’s applied/interpreted in practice.

What you linked is certainly much more practical for educational/informational purposes.

In Florida you can checkout Florida Statute 395.301 (Price transparency;itemized patient statement or bill;patient admission status notification).

I know this off hand, and don’t have the time but from there you could probably find a few websites that will reference comparable laws for each state, if they exist.

>I'm sure hospitals will all include a "all promises maid by staff are null and void unless documented in writing"

Despite all the FUD about health care prices, most states have consumer protection laws that require providers/hospitals to provide estimates for services upon request. Therefore, by law (state by state) the hospitals could not employ the tactic you suggest.

>They took it; now I use this technique all the time.

I’ve done this once for a $12,000 bill for a few stitches. They refused any deals, until I showed I actually took video of hospital staff promising it wouldn’t be more than $2,000 before treatment, in response they waived the entire bill.

The way you phrase this though...how often are you receiving acute medical treatment?

I take it you are neither accountant/CPA nor attorney who regularly deals with these tax matters.

In lieu of penciling you a tax treatise, you may Google “wholly owned subsidiary tax strategies“. While there are no shortage of tax benefits, inevitably one of the elementary examples you find towards the top will be segregation of manufacturing and sales entities. Unfortunately you likely will not find much on more nuanced situations for example Wholly owned IC-Discs or LOB for wholly owned foreign entities (in many instances those situations can result in 0% US withholding and tax rates)

you do know that this is a well known tax avoidance strategy right? The profits would be later used to offset the losses carried forward by the parent.

Are you an accountant/CPA or attorney?

>those widgets would sit on the balance sheet and no loss would be recognized in year 1 and just profit in year 2

Unless of course the company manufacturing the widgets (A) sells them to a wholly owned subsidiary (B) for a loss...then A can take the deduction.

>The evidence linking diet and depression is really very limited.

I’d say the opposite is true there are many available studies on dietary inflammation (ie chronic inflammation) and depression being linked.

See the inflammatory hypothesis of depression, also interesting is data is beginning to reveal a link between inflammation and the 1/3 of patients who do not respond to antidepressant medications. Generally when working antidepressants have an anti inflammatory effects.

It should also be noted that the diets mentioned Keto/carnivore/vegan all generally emphasize the removal of inflammatory foods (ie refined sugars, refined carbs, fried foods, artificial trans fats, etc...).

>Should Smsrt TV makers be forced to allow any third party app? What about console makers? Should Nintendo be forced to allow adult oriented games on their platform?

I think the argument is Apple has a little more market dominance (both smart phone hardware and OS) than a single smart tv maker or even Nintendo in the console market.

Keeping the market dominance point in mind, Apple isn’t just deciding what is and isn’t allowed...you had a number of developers with successful apps not just have to contend with a copy cat app created by Apple but because of their control over the marketplace Apple killed their developers apps and took the entire market (rightly or wrongly).

So yeah if you change your facts and the smart tv or Nintendo allowed apps/adult games, saw developers create a market and then the hardware maker launched their own software competitors and disallowed the initial apps/games...there would be blowback.

It’s kinda strange you read into my comment I’m pushing Ancient Greek ideas which include slavery and pedophilia.

>No need to appeal to the ancients. Appeal to facts instead.

I’m going to let you in on a secret, it’s a fact that the world has been influenced by Socrates and Pluto for 2,500 years and the world is going to continue to reference and qoute them for the foreseeable future for all sorts of reasons...the least of which will be to push slavery and pedophilia. if you’d like to take up the good fight to stamp out any references to Socrates and Plato by calling it an appeal to authority and pushing slavery and pedofilia, good luck.

>forcing people to commit suicide via hemlock ( as what happened to socrates himself ).

This is actually much more interesting. Socrates was indeed sentenced to death, but as was the way his friends/students broke in the take Socrates out of the city (like a quasi prison escape/excommunication) but he refused and had a debate as to why he would not escape and but see the sentence through. I’d share some of the dialogue but I know how you feel about quoting ancient works.

>Proof?

It’s your assertion show me proof IPOs are for “unprofitable companies”.

>By your logic we all should have been protected from investing in this obvious scam of a company, right?

Based on my logic? I never said slack/uber/Lyft are scams, I even admit they may be good investments when they IPO...I even said profitability is not the full picture.

I never said the SEC was your nanny, I never said you couldn’t read an S-1...though based on your assertions I have to question you reading comprehension.

Maybe you could give me a comprehensive breakdown of how the market would be different if amazon did have to post profit before IPO, since you are so sure we would all be worse off...even non investors. Are investors, public markets and private markets really all better off? Is it possible amazon wouldn’t dominate and there be other companies competing in the space? Better jobs even more investment opportunites? I don’t think you could answer any of those questions with certainty.

>What future growth would there be for buyers if the company went public already at its peak?

I never said anything about peak. I said profit. Certainly a company making profit may want to go public to finance growth to make more profit (ie peak).

IPOs/stock companies were not created for companies that were unprofitable.

But you agree people still want to invest in them right? I think ICO proved that there is a market for known fraud/pump and dumps, you may think you can get in and out and make a buck because a bunch of morons don’t see the fraud.

My comment is not in a vacuum it’s a direct response to a comment that suggest regulation of a thing is improper because “people want to do it”. Your point is directly in line with mine...we can regulate things notwithstanding “people wanting to do it.” And that is not a reason to not regulate a thing, if people don’t agree with the merits of the proposed regulation, fine, but I think we both agree “because people want to do it” is not a reason to not regulate something.

I’m not saying slack is a fraud...I’m not even saying it’s a bad investment. People have read all that in to a concept.

>While there are many arguments against your proposed change, the first step seems to be establishing that the problem you’re trying to solve actually exists.

It’s clear not many here care to understand the problem, tech generally loves a good pump and dump...look at all the recent tech IPOs... how many of those were boot strapped vs VC backed? And VC backed tech IPOs were in the black?

It’s not about investor risk...its About leveling the playing field.

Again everyone here is screaming investor risk/their choice/don’t have to buy...I don’t see anyone advocating allowing small investors to get in on unicorn tech cos pre IPO. I’m not sure why everyone is pretending it’s about giving opportunity to the little guy...it’s about the need for VC to liquidate.

>you're suggesting that "public investors shouldn't have access to loss making companies, regardless of growth".

No that’s not what I’m saying...there is a difference between a company that is registering for an IPO and an existing publicly traded company.

And let’s not pretend Tech companies IPOing at losses is somehow protection to small investors...I don’t see anyone clamoring to allow these small investor be allowed to get in on unicorns pre IPO.

>In no world is the SEC's role to determine whether or not a company's business strategy qualifies them to go public or not.

Profitability is objective...let’s not pretend what I’m suggesting is the SEC subjectively making a decision on a business judgement or business plan. Simply you want to register a security for public offering show a GAAP profit...I understand that’s not “how it works” or I wouldn’t have suggested it “should” be considered, I never said anything about SEC subjectively determining worthiness of an investment.

They didn’t speak English either...and yet Socrates qoute is attributable to his student Xenophon.

Socrates was also a foot soldier/war hero who elected to continue to socialize and drink with famous athletes all his life.

Plato’s quote I’m not so sure but there is no shortage of discussion of mind/body, exercise, movement in his works.

Ancient ideas:

“No citizen has a right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training…what a disgrace it is for a man to grow old without ever seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable.” - Socrates

“In order for man to succeed in life, God provided him with two means, education and physical activity. Not separately, one for the soul and the other for the body, but for the two together. With these two means, man can attain perfection.” - Plato

>That's for investors to assess when deciding whether, or not, to buy shares.

Yes for a public company...but it’s the SECs job to regulate who can have public offerings to begin with.

As I’ve iterated in the thread it’s not legal to publicly offer unregistered private stock to non-accredited investors and let them choose to invest or not. The SEC protects investors and our markets.

I think a company going public should not operating at $150M losses using VC money...letting them cash out and profit by selling to the public.

I also think there are other fundamental benefits to the economy. Yes the public is free not to buy...just as non-accredited investors would be free not to invest in unregistered securities yet regulations are still in place for a reason to protect would be investors.

It doesn’t seem unreasonable that is your company operates at a $500,000,000.00 loss over 3 years you can’t avail yourself to the public market and sell your stock to non accredited investors.

That’s not the point/issue though. The markets are regulated to protect consumers/investors...private companies can’t just have unregistered public offerings to non accredited investors...so it’s not just “up to you to assess the investments” there are rules and nothing is stopping additional rules to not permit registration of a public offering when the company is operating at a $150,000,000.00 annual loss or more to the point any loss.

Obviously not a popular idea here where everyone is trying to get in early and dump the bag on someone else, but that’s kinda the point of protections, some people won’t like them.

Is there any other industry where a company can go public having lost $500,000,000 over the last 3 years?

I get it their “market share” is increasing every year and the loses are staying the same...and even that is not the full picture of a path to profit.

But if the company could turn a profit, then why not do it privately, show that and then go public? My guess like Uber and Lyft...they can’t turn a profit, and for any hope to turn profit they need this continual growth at a loss, and at some point the investors dump the bag on the public getting a return in a bubble they created and let the public fund the losses.

I think to balance the playing field with VC and private investment, companies shouldn’t be able to IPO with loses.

I don’t disagree, but it could have the reverse effect.

Everything from just a ton of media attention and some adoption, to maybe something really positive like coins getting deposited to charity wallets (pineapple foundation seemed to get a lot of attention/vitality for donating their bitcoin).

And it would be pretty ironic if it the coins moved and price of bitcoin crashed and actually became a peer to peer electronic currency for the masses.

>People through history have always had an outraged culture

Sure has...just look at the Bible and the story of a mob chasing down Mary trying to stone her, until Jesus intervened and ask he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Of course society couldn’t handle such self-reflection - much less some radical preaching about love - and given the first chance, the mob took out their outrage on him and had him strung up on a cross Roman style.

Leaving out any religious context, those are perfect stories encompassing human nature.

>The notion of bullshitters needs to be brought to the front of our industry's consciousness

The industry (tech, startups, VC money) do bring bullshit to the front of the industry consciousness. I’ve never seen another industry push and promote “fake it till you make it” so hard.

Democratizing this...disrupting that...we respect your privacy and data...DAO/code is law...Self driving cars...uber is creating good jobs...Fyre fest...VR/AR...Theranos

From top down the industry promotes bullshitters.

There is no reason for this not to happen.

US corporations have record revenues/profits, US markets have never been at higher highs...yet the gap between executive pay and common employee has never been greater, social mobility has never been lower, wages have been stagnant for workers for 30 years.

Unfortunately strikes are to little to late...look toward google who fired organizers of the Google worker walkout, the powers that be have to much power, don’t give a shit about legal rights/laws, and know they could replace anyone with unpaid interns if needed because well that’s the state of desperation already.

Equifax did not violate the terms of a prior FTC settlement agreement in order to avoid punishment for their prior bad behavior. It’s a lot easier to expedite penalties when there is a written settlement that is being violated than original bad acts.

The Equifax matter is far from over, they are being investigated by: 48 state Attorneys General offices, the District of Columbia, the FTC, the CFPB, the SEC, the Department of Justice, other U.S. state regulators, certain Congressional committees of both the Senate and House of Representatives, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority.

Not to mention they made a recent SEC filing acknowledging they expect fines from FTC and CFPB.

Inflammation is tricky because you have accute (a hard work out, an injury, gingivitis) or chronic/dietary inflammation which is more akin to a reversible disease.

It’s like saying type2 diabeties or fatty liver disease are not diseases but symptoms caused by certain dietary habits. Though as I write this...maybe you are correct and we should look at these things like symptoms of poor diet and not diseases.