Please. People like me provide “little people” jobs.
I look at a poor person and I see someone who can make something of themselves if they have the talent and the drive to do so. You see a lump of shit who needs the government to give them a handout or they’ll die in the streets. And then you say I’m the one that treats poor people badly.
Dude, are you talking about the joke where I said “4. Profit!”? That was meant to be a joke. It was not meant to wound you to the core and cause you to lash out against me in multiple posts, calling me all manner of vile names. You flagrantly overreacted, and fuck, is that going around these days. I know you savor your reputation as enfant terrible around here, but I was not remotely your enemy, and was in fact your sometime defender, until you flipped out like this over an intellectual argument. You’re awfully emotional. Fucking relax.
I’m perfectly happy to call a truce with you, but I do think you owe me an apology. That would be awesome. Fat chicks really dig apologies. They make our twinkies taste better. 
In any case, not interested in more insulting exchanges. They put me off my feed.
Shrug. I wasn’t me that insisted that many/most/all people who get into financial trouble are completely innocent and responsible. The only way to determine that is to look at details. Instead of, you know, just assuming that everyone is upright and responsible.
Ah. You are expecting that I will read all posts on side topics in a thread that moves as quickly as this one?
You don’t see a big difference between “letting people die” and offering full medical (and probably dental) to everyone in the country, supported by tax dollars? Yes, we will always have to pay something to keep the poor from dieing or to deal with other major health problems, but you want to extend even more than that to everyone, including a large number of people who could afford insurance and/or are capable of paying off medical debt eventually. It appears that the reason you support a UHC in order to make sure that people like you are not inconvenienced by their own debt.
OK, I guess I should have realized that there are major differences between group insurance thru an employer and individual private plans. I have no experience with the latter. Your links seem to indicate that these things are illegal tho, since at least BC Life is getting hit with fines.
Etc. Portrait of a man/woman who is unable to communicate at an adult level. According to this, Madof wasn’t all that “safe and legitimate” quite a bit prior to when they finally got him. Which is why my personal investments are with companies that have been around for decades.
(Which of course doesn’t really have much to do with what I said, but any chance to make up new insults, eh?)
OK, I’ll just ignore the fact that you demand proof from me without providing any of your own, and then I will refer you to contract law. Such as this, under the sub heading of Denial of Claims or Reduced Payment of Benefits.
You are welcome.
You remark the following:
My emphasis.
You are wrong. You are confusing total value for marginal value to a particular consumer. You do not provide any more value “to society”, and very likely, you provide less. How much you make is orthogonal to the total value you provide society, save in your self-serving and somewhat delusional habits of thought.
Well, if you say so. I don’t know why your bald assertion is any more persuasive than my own, but if that’s what you want to believe, then go for it.
Also, you still haven’t explained how any of this relates to me supposedly saying something about tax lawyers as a profession v. any other profession. Your confusion about that shows you don’t know what you are talking about.
Also, why the distinction between “total value” and “marginal value to a particular consumer”? Are you saying that a school teacher has more “total value” even though the marginal value to any particular consumer is less than the services I provide? I think you are using the term “total value” in other than its ordinary sense. By that I mean–if I hire a plumber and pay him $500 for something, it’s because I value his services at $500. I’m not sure how you can say that the “total value” of those services is some different amount.
Emphasis mine.
Actually, I did provide cites. I gave you a video of sworn testimony before Congress, and I gave you the text that was provided to the House of Representatives. You implied that since people lie, even under oath, that the sworn testimony before the freakin’ CONGRESS must therefore be disregarded. I gave you proof, and you decided it was a lie.
Having said that, I read the page you linked, and the sub-heading you pointed to. Nowhere does it say that denying claims is illegal. And if you look at your own post, you typed ‘contract law’. Not ‘criminal law’. ‘Contract law’. It may surprise you that civil matters are not criminal ones.
Your link says:
‘Actionable’ how? Under Civil Law? Or under Criminal Law? It doesn’t say. You still have not shown that claim denial is illegal. In fact, your own ‘cite’ clearly shows that denials of claims do happen regularly. And the burden of proof is on the injured party, who must argue his case against medical doctors – whose sole purpose in the insurance company is to find ways to deny claims. The one place that does state that there are laws, merely says that the laws require a response to a claim within a certain timeframe. It says nothing about denial of claims being illegal.
And there is at least one, and possibly two, people who posted in this thread who actually worke(ed) for insurance companies and who actually saw claims being denied for the benefit of the company and to the detriment of the policyholder.
Anyone care to give me a run-down of the history of curlcoat’s participation in this thread? I haven’t followed any of it (I just keep seeing huge-ass posts from him/her/it). Thanks in advance.
She agrees with you and she’s an absolute tard.
But I repeat myself.
Which is still not a response to what I said - “If you (generic you) have done nothing at all to prepare for an emergency, such as having a savings account, then it is extremely irresponsible to expect that the taxpayer will cover all of your costs. If you choose to, say, buy a house you can’t quite afford and use all of your savings to do so, and then have a medical emergency, do you think that is responsible?”
Yes, young people have had less time to save up, but the point is not the amount of savings, it is the lack of savings - of foresight - at all.
That is the point of the current safety nets (whether or not they actually act that way is another issue). What is being proposed is not a safety net, it is taking over everyone’s responsibility to take care of themselves WRT to healthcare, and having the taxpayer pay for it. Even if it ends up that only the rich taxpayers have to pay for it, why is it a good thing to force them to be responsible for people who could take care of themselves?
It is you that is running with your prejudices. You know - I must be heartless because I am not excited to pay out more in taxes. You also like to jump to conclusions - did I say I value their opinions over anyone else’s? No, all I did was comment on an idea.
You know a person who had their home and place of work destroyed and then got cancer. Which comes back to what I said before - how many people with that sort of horrible luck are out there? And, isn’t that what the current safety nets are supposed to be for?
I’m not sure what this has to do with a plan to have the taxpayer provide medical insurance to everyone in the country?
Now and/or yet. My point is that having that many children means it is far more likely that the family would end up being supported by the taxpayer. If this country didn’t have some freakish fascination with serial birthers, there would have been no TV income and most likely, no rental properties. I think they were the first of this sort to have a TV show? So they couldn’t have know as they had 12-14 kids that a TV station would come along and support them.
I already have, in the children hating thread I believe. But really, the only difference between her and the Duggars is that her financial situation was national news and that of the Duggars was not. But, once again we are going to reward her for being completely irresponsible, since she is getting a TV show too.
Only if spending a pile of money on something isn’t likely to send them to the poorhouse. And having 18 children in 19 years is far more likely to cause severe financial hardship than a one time big ticket payout. Since you seem to have a problem with the “sick pet” part, pretend we bought a motorhome. Can you really equate that expense to that of raising 18 children? Do you really think both are equally responsible choices?
As I said, I believe that since they gave the responsibility of paying to raise their children to God, I don’t feel that prior to the TV income they were themselves at all responsible and are very lucky they didn’t end up on welfare, or supported by their church.
That was just one of many things in the article that made it sound like Jim Bob wasn’t doing so well as a provider.
Do you see how these two things tend to contradict each other? On one hand, what the doctor was doing was legal and on the other you counsel people to make sure they know what their benefits are. How about what the doctor was doing legal, because the insured had no idea that whateveritwas wasn’t covered or had a cap?
I can’t remember now why we were talking about student loans.
I have an issue with the increase in number of irresponsible goo-spewing asshole parents, who expect that simply having children and getting them to the age of 18 more or less healthy and sane is all they have to do. They don’t feel they need to pay to educate their kids, or even help them if they are having trouble, nor do they appear to think their kids’ health is their responsibility after age 18. And I think that their impression that they have the right to send their children off into the world essentially unprepared is because there are so many programs out there to raise the kids for them, and no incentive to be responsible for anything but the basics.
I realize that is the theory, but I have no idea if it works out that way. I do remember quite a bit of talk about a lot of people defaulting on student loans several years ago, but I don’t know how true that was or if it is still happening.
Apparently, not as far as the IRS in concerned.
That would be true if it were only poor people who have no savings, but it is also going on in the middle class.
And? We have insurance on both the house and myself. What is your point?
I said teens picking berries - you know, during the summer for spending money? I suppose they don’t do things like that anymore? As for “real” job, it is the IRS defining, not me.
Shrug. I am unconcerned with what you wish to believe. I have posted more than once that I was simply too busy trying to stay alive to be able to go to college, and once I got on at Aetna, college was no longer necessary.
Already did. If you don’t like that one, try researching contract law.
I don’t see what paying for your child’s “every possible want and need” is the same thing as what I was asking about, which was " finances such as college funds, and teaching things like budgeting and delayed gratification". I also think either your parents taught you about budgeting and delayed gratification long before college, or you were smart enough to figure it out on the fly.
I wasn’t talking about whether or not his parents could have known that he was going to be born specifically with spina bifida. What I meant was that i cannot imagine that his parents were unaware that it was possible that their baby wouldn’t be born perfect. Well prior to science being able to test for these things in utero, the human race was aware that some babies are born with severe problems.
Which I have done, and was greeted with how horrid I was to want to try to starve all the poor people. The biggest issue here is the emotionalism and the overreactions. Such as SteveG1’s exaggeration in the post you quoted, or your lack of understanding that the difference between me not being able to go to college and someone not paying for insurance is that I didn’t expect that anyone else was going to take care of me. Indeed, I didn’t go to college for that reason, since I wasn’t about to find someone or the government to not only pay for college, but also all of my expenses that I wouldn’t be able to afford due to not working.
There also wouldn’t be so many pages if people didn’t submit posts that are just about how dumb I am or such things…
Wow. I can’t believe this argument is still going on.
I’ll take my bald assertion over your tautology any day. You basically assert that an object’s exchange value is essentially the same as its moral value, that is, its goodness to society. This view is simplistic to say the least, and fortunately for our society, is an unpopular view. It is also empirically false. There is a substantial literature in empirical sociology that you can review to remedy your ignorance. I would be happy to recommend both some theory and empirical work.
I am struggling to understand your confusion. You say:
Some professions on the whole make more than others. By extension of your illogic, those professions that make more money must ipso facto create more value. Fortunately, once again, this view is both unconventional and empirically false.
But when what you say is:
That really isn’t the same thing at all.
Just doing my part to keep pushing this thread onward towards 2,000 replies, 40,000 views and 40 pages.
Good grief there’s a wealth of entertainment here!
Christ on a jive-dancing cracker! I am emphativally NOT saying this, as I have repeated over and over and over. I am talking only about the value (by which I mean something of value) that I provide to society (by which I mean other people). I’m not saying anything about my “moral value” or my worth as a human being or my value to society or anything like that, I’m just talking about the value I provide.
I’m also sayung nothing about the value provided by people in my profession as a whole v. Other professions as a whole.
Here’s another illustration. If you sell a widget for $2 and I sell a widget for $100, then I have provided more value to society because I provided something that society values at $100 and you only provided something that society values at $2. Substitute services for widgets and that is all I’m saying.
Not clearly or concisely. The direct approach is the best.
Also, it is unlikely that any of us can control other people’s reactions to what we post. Therefore, we should be prepared for people to call us horrid, or awesome, or any number of things, in the Pit.
Take note that not everyone has done that. Although it is tempting at times.
RR, you are really making my head hurt here.
Serious question, no snark: how is “the value (by which I mean something of value) that I provide to society” not the same as “my value to society”?
You repeat over and over that this is not what you are saying, but at the same time, it is exactly what you are saying.
Value to society is exactly what you are saying.
It is obvious and tautological that you (or I, for that matter) provide services that cost more and, as such, have a higher exchange value. The question is, who cares? What does this mean? What can reasonable people infer from this?
This does not follow. You might have generated more producer surplus, but you probably fleeced an idiot for $98. If you want to avoid persistent misunderstanding or illogic, I would really encourage you to stop using terms like “value to society”. You use this term ambiguously and idiosyncratically.