Discovery Health - Vitality & Team Vitality plus everything else you need to know

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Why not take that 10% and use it to build schools, pay for the teachers / other staff, provide lunch meals and basic medical for students. Maybe even keep the text books up to date? Discovery to own and run the program, no sub contacting to thieves. I have no problem when a business is trying to make real, long term change to uplift the country and not individuals who, if can afford to bank probably aren’t the most in need of free help.

Why not both?

 

I agree that this system may not get as many of those people who they are trying to target, but the simple fact is that, on a basis of ethnicity & economic involvement, black SAns are far worse off on average than white SAns. This may go some way towards addressing that imbalance, and who knows - maybe Discovery Schools are next on the list?

[Neverfit]

if someone can offer up an extremely good reason as to why this was a bad move, or why it should be opened to anyone, instead of helping those which need it most, I'll be happy to change my mind. 

The reason it is a bad move, is because they are using race as a divider. In our current political climate, everything is polarized as white vs black vs colored. Take the color out of it.

I would much rather them design the business model as a using a % of the investment to be used for actual tangible development. Build schools in rural areas, build clinics, build houses, sponsor transport etc. Whatever the most needy (as the plan is alluding to "benefit") needs, fill that gap.

We have enough over eager politicians, stay our of politics and muddying the water with ongoing race issues.

It's the same as someone taking 1000 pictures of them helping someone - it's more to do about your own image than the person you are helping. If you want to really help - as a company - build something people can use.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

I guess it would alleviate some of the frustration people feel if it wasn't ring fenced on race, but rather on social economic standing.

 

ie.

Someone with an income below the threshold of the middle income bracket. Or someone who lost their job after a retrenchment and is living off UIF.

 

You need to uplift the poor with these schemes, not the guy working in Rosebank who already made it, just because of the colour of his skin.

Bold: possibly, but here, in South Africa, you can pretty much do that across racial lines. That fact is inescapable, and as much as I'd like to agree with you on the socio-economic factor side of things, there is a vast difference in earnings and socio-economic status between your average caucasian SAn and your average black SAn. 

 

Italic: Yes, but that is not a good enough reason to not do it at all, when the numbers so clearly show that the "target" market of this scheme is far worse off on average. 

 

Think of your domestics, your gardeners, your guys doing odd jobs for R 150 per time a couple times a week, who never would have had access to a bank account before. This is powerful, for them, and they also need upliftment. 

 

Look - I see both sides, but in my opinion there's a good reason why this has been done the way it has, and I've tried to explain that a bit. The data is there. 8% unemployment amongst white SAns. Over 40% in the black SAn population. In my opinion, it's like a share incentive scheme for non-employees (which also generally heavily favours black SAns in their make-up)

[Vetplant]

Maybe Discovery Schools are next on the list?

First reaction was to laugh, but I think it has a real possibility of happening, seeing how Adrian Gore is expanding and how profitable education can be if you supply a good product.

 

This product can then be built in a way that can also benefit the low income bracket by having allot(40%) of bursary students on-board, thus uplifting a large part of the underprivileged in our society.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

The reason it is a bad move, is because they are using race as a divider. In our current political climate, everything is polarized as white vs black vs colored. Take the color out of it.

I would much rather them design the business model as a using a % of the investment to be used for actual tangible development. Build schools in rural areas, build clinics, build houses, sponsor transport etc. Whatever the most needy (as the plan is alluding to "benefit") needs, fill that gap.

We have enough over eager politicians, stay our of politics and muddying the water with ongoing race issues.

It's the same as someone taking 1000 pictures of them helping someone - it's more to do about your own image than the person you are helping. If you want to really help - as a company - build something people can use.

Again - why not both? You can delineate on racial lines, in this instance, and see what the differences in economic involvement are quite clearly. The data is there, you just have to glance at it to see. 

 

As for the building schools thing - I'm kinda torn. From a corporate social responsibility perspective it'd be fantastic, but then it would also kinda taking over somewhat from the government's prerogative, which is to further re-energise education. PROPERLY. The cynic in me says that if a company / companies start building schools, and opening them up to those who need it most, gov't may not concentrate as much as they should on things like that. Over-stepping their boundaries, so to speak.

 

But I'd like to see it, still. 

[Opc_danny]

Whether a company does or doesnt, government wont budge unfortunately because its seems easier to rather stop one race from receiving any opportunity and giving another race all the opportunity instead of rather focusing on how this can be changed and once again it starts at education.

 

Anyways sir mayhem thanks for the feedback and your views, very interesting and made me see things in a different way as well. A debate is always healthy.

 

Looking forward to the bank as im gonna be a diamond next year woooop woooop 

 

 

Again - why not both? You can delineate on racial lines, in this instance, and see what the differences in economic involvement are quite clearly. The data is there, you just have to glance at it to see. 

 

As for the building schools thing - I'm kinda torn. From a corporate social responsibility perspective it'd be fantastic, but then it would also kinda taking over somewhat from the government's prerogative, which is to further re-energise education. PROPERLY. The cynic in me says that if a company / companies start building schools, and opening them up to those who need it most, gov't may not concentrate as much as they should on things like that. Over-stepping their boundaries, so to speak.

 

But I'd like to see it, still. 

[madmarc]

if someone can offer up an extremely good reason as to why this was a bad move, or why it should be opened to anyone, instead of helping those which need it most, I'll be happy to change my mind. 

 

Its actually simple ! Its racist pure and simple, if it was for white, colored or Indian people only it would still be racist. If you or the Disco executive cannot see that, then you need to go back to school instead of trying to sugar coat this thing as addressing wealth disparity. Individual wealth is not a color thing it affects all races.

Why not offer this type of scheme to poor people irrespective of race.

 

Now when a white person responds by canceling their business dealings with Disco, you call them short sighted !! really ?

 

None of your clients may have cancelled their policies with you yet because this thing is still in its infant stages, well hold the phone - this ball is only starting to roll.

 

I asked to see my financial adviser who normally can see me within a day or 2, now i have to wait 2 weeks, cause he too busy trying to convince his white clients not to cancel their policies.

 

What would you and Disco say if i started a med scheme or a bank for whites only.

[Vetplant]

Bold: possibly, but here, in South Africa, you can pretty much do that across racial lines. That fact is inescapable, and as much as I'd like to agree with you on the socio-economic factor side of things, there is a vast difference in earnings and socio-economic status between your average caucasian SAn and your average black SAn. 

 

Italic: Yes, but that is not a good enough reason to not do it at all, when the numbers so clearly show that the "target" market of this scheme is far worse off on average. 

 

Think of your domestics, your gardeners, your guys doing odd jobs for R 150 per time a couple times a week, who never would have had access to a bank account before. This is powerful, for them, and they also need upliftment. 

 

Look - I see both sides, but in my opinion there's a good reason why this has been done the way it has, and I've tried to explain that a bit. The data is there. 8% unemployment amongst white SAns. Over 40% in the black SAn population. In my opinion, it's like a share incentive scheme for non-employees (which also generally heavily favours black SAns in their make-up)

I get your angle.

 

Just to clarify: I am not against giving black people a leg up, I am all for it.

 

I just want the leg-up to go to those who it would benefit the most, those in need.

 

Using race as you only deferentiator is not going to increase your chance of hitting that target much better because the black middle class is already larger than the entire white population in the country.

 

Keep the Black Race requirement, but add socio-economic stipulations as well for beneficiaries and I will personally be content.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

I get your angle.

 

Just to clarify: I am not against giving black people a leg up, I am all for it.

 

I just want the leg-up to go to those who it would benefit the most, those in need.

 

Using race as you only deferentiator is not going to increase your chance of hitting that target much better because the black middle class is already larger than the entire white population in the country.

 

Keep the Black Race requirement, but add socio-economic stipulations as well for beneficiaries and I will personally be content.

that's a nice little addition, and one I'd support as well. 

[Opc_danny]

BOOOOOM 

 

For me i hope there is something for my children going forward, all this wealth disparity seems the thing to do now but is there a goal, is there a timeline? where does the line get drawn?

 

Going forward what happens to the 8% of unemployed whites, does that now go for a ball of **** now, im all for changing the 40% unemployment rate but i honestly think the higher powers can think of innovative ways that do not take from one to pay for the other. It really is a mess and why i say that its because the same higher powers i talk about are the same people deep in corruption and scandals and and and. Arrrrg im gonna go ride my bike when i leave work lol - feeling sad.

Its actually simple ! Its racist pure and simple, if it was for white, colored or Indian people only it would still be racist. If you or the Disco executive cannot see that, then you need to go back to school instead of trying to sugar coat this thing as addressing wealth disparity. Individual wealth is not a color thing it affects all races.

Why not offer this type of scheme to poor people irrespective of race.

 

Now when a white person responds by canceling their business dealings with Disco, you call them short sighted !! really ?

 

None of your clients may have cancelled their policies with you yet because this thing is still in its infant stages, well hold the phone - this ball is only starting to roll.

 

I asked to see my financial adviser who normally can see me within a day or 2, now i have to wait 2 weeks, cause he too busy trying to convince his white clients not to cancel their policies.

 

What would you and Disco say if i started a med scheme or a bank for whites only.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Whether a company does or doesnt, government wont budge unfortunately because its seems easier to rather stop one race from receiving any opportunity and giving another race all the opportunity instead of rather focusing on how this can be changed and once again it starts at education.

 

Anyways sir mayhem thanks for the feedback and your views, very interesting and made me see things in a different way as well. A debate is always healthy.

 

Looking forward to the bank as im gonna be a diamond next year woooop woooop 

there, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Not JUST education, but also training colleges (technikon) teachers training, public works programs etc etc etc. 

[Opc_danny]

This is an incredible reply, i wonder if these type discussions happen when companies make decisions like this, i cant help feel that most companies are pressured into making certain decisions (Political Pressures). 

 

 

I get your angle.

 

Just to clarify: I am not against giving black people a leg up, I am all for it.

 

I just want the leg-up to go to those who it would benefit the most, those in need.

 

Using race as you only deferentiator is not going to increase your chance of hitting that target much better because the black middle class is already larger than the entire white population in the country.

 

Keep the Black Race requirement, but add socio-economic stipulations as well for beneficiaries and I will personally be content.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Its actually simple ! Its racist pure and simple, if it was for white, colored or Indian people only it would still be racist. If you or the Disco executive cannot see that, then you need to go back to school instead of trying to sugar coat this thing as addressing wealth disparity. Individual wealth is not a color thing it affects all races.

Why not offer this type of scheme to poor people irrespective of race.

 

Now when a white person responds by canceling their business dealings with Disco, you call them short sighted !! really ?

 

None of your clients may have cancelled their policies with you yet because this thing is still in its infant stages, well hold the phone - this ball is only starting to roll.

 

I asked to see my financial adviser who normally can see me within a day or 2, now i have to wait 2 weeks, cause he too busy trying to convince his white clients not to cancel their policies.

 

What would you and Disco say if i started a med scheme or a bank for whites only.

 

Sorry, what?! Have you not read what I've said? I've said that I recognise the other side of the coin, have considered it and have determined that the benefits of what they're doing in an attempt to alleviate wealth disparity overcome the negatives. Therefore I support the initiative, but I recognise that some people may not. And I'm fine with that. 

 

As for the telling clients they would be foolish to cancel just because Disco Bank will be earmarking 10% of its share allocation towards social upliftment of a historically disadvantaged subset of the population, whose unemployment and average earning figures are FAR worse than those complaining about this whole thing, damn right I would. If a product works, it works. A share incentive scheme that you (the client) disagrees with doesn't change that. I work on determining the ideal policy structure, efficiency, product and price for a particular client, based on their circumstances. This changes none of that, and I'd be failing in my job as a Financial Advisor if I did otherwise. 

 

 

As for the italicized bit - are you sure, cos this only came to light on Wednesday. A lot of people are trying to reduce their outgoings, and generally life assurance and med aid are the first items on the chopping block. I'm also certain that that is a hyperbole. 

This is an incredible reply, i wonder if these type discussions happen when companies make decisions like this, i cant help feel that most companies are pressured into making certain decisions (Political Pressures). 

I have no doubt that this was deeply considered, and this blowback (as small as it probably is) was considered as well. 

 

"As small as it is" taken to mean that those who are making a noise on social media are, in my opinion, a very small set of society, and probably not even Discovery clients. 

 

EDIT: Improperly placed apostrophe. My pet hate. Grrrr. Also removed something that didn't need to be there. 

 

EDIT EDIT: Whose to say that there won't be a socio-economic / earnings scale for this share incentive scheme? Those with higher earnings receive fewer shares, those with lower, more... I don't know the intricacies of the scheme, nor do I expect I ever will, unless AG does an interview explaining the whole thing (which he might) but it is a possibility that they may have considered. 

Edited November 16, 2018 by Cptmayhem

[shaper]

Doesn't it just perpetuate the continued give something for nothing.  If people don't have to work for it, then there will be no upliftment !!

 

Just adds to the give me, give me attitude... there are better ways to uplift the social and economic disadvantage as has already been mentioned.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Doesn't it just perpetuate the continued give something for nothing.  If people don't have to work for it, then there will be no upliftment !!

 

Just adds to the give me, give me attitude... there are better ways to uplift the social and economic disadvantage as has already been mentioned.

Yeah, there is that danger, unfortunately. Again, possibly alleviated by improved education and access to unemployment, together with the rampant drug & crime problems those sectors of the population have to deal with (those with truly nothing, that is)

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Anyways sir mayhem thanks for the feedback and your views, very interesting and made me see things in a different way as well. A debate is always healthy.

 

This is the type of debate I like. One with constructive arguments from both sides, things that expand my knowledge and give me insight into things I may not have considered. 

 

The things I don't like, is when it gets ad-hominem.