Then you are a moron. Not, of course, that that wasn’t already a settled issue.
Uh huh. I’m a moron for believing that it’s far more likely that you didn’t understand a legalese document, rather than a company in a highly regulated industry did something illegal?
Again with blaming everyone else. :rolleyes:
Considering I write legalese for a living, and the state insurance regulators fully agreed with our complaint, that would be a yes.
You write insurance legalese?
Wait, what? State Farm did pay?
Yes, though not policies.
We settled for a quarter of the claim amount rather than wait four months to a year for an administrative law ruling and incurring the additional cost of hiring an attorney.
Erm… if my tax dollars pay for universal healthcare, then isn’t what I’m getting for my tax dollars insurance? Rather exactly like what I’m getting now when I pay for insurance?
And aren’t you on SSDI? I’m sure as hell getting fuckall for my contributions to that government program.
If I’m not mistaken, that latter bit of logic has been pitched a few dozen times already, and each time glanced off like so many ping-pong balls off a tombstone.
So, you are mad at State Farm for disagreeing with your definition of “flooding” but paying (something) anyway?
First definition - “A flood is rain entering through wind-damaged windows, doors or a hole in a wall or the roof, resulting in standing water or puddles, is considered windstorm damage”
Second definition - “A flood is defined as “a general and temporary condition during which the surface of normally dry land is partially or completely inundated”. Flooding can be caused by heavy rains, melting snow, by inadequate drainage systems, failed protective devices such as levees and dams, as well as by tropical storms and hurricanes.”
Right there in the first paragraph. Number one is what happened to Really Not All That Bright, and number two is what he/she says a flood is.
Sure, if you decide to be covered under the government plan. However, for those of us that stay with private insurance, we will be paying twice.
You aren’t going to claim your SS when you qualify?
Probably because, it isn’t logic…
Like people who pay for private school? You’re *choosing *to pay twice. Quit your bitching.
Maybe, but I don’t much plan on sitting around on my ever-broadening ass until then, and I don’t see why I should pay for you to.
Why does your argument work for your first assertion but not for your second? When you were paying in to SS, you were paying for other people’s benefits. You did not plan on needing SSDI, but now you get it thanks to everyone who is currently contributing via their taxes. What return am I getting by paying in for your SSDI? Can I depend on a return on my investment someday via SS? Maybe not. Should I demand you stop receiving SSDI because I might not need it/get it myself?
Medicaid a safety net for those who need it, just like SSDI. You feel entitled to the SSDI, which my taxes are currently paying, but squeal when taxes help someone else? You sound selfish and cruel.
How do you know you will never ever need Medicaid, anyway? It’s like buying insurance; you contribute, hoping you’ll never have to use it. 
So sorry, please play again. Your first “definition” is, in point of fact, a description. Really, seeing that you were so gung-ho about people being careful how they approach legalese, it’s kind of surprising that you were so – careless.
ETA: to make my point explicit, on a site devoted to legal definitions, if it doesn’t have some form of the phrase “is defined as”, it’s not a definition.
P.S. Again, curlcoat, thank you for responding to my question. 
Did you not think anyone else might click the link or something?
Horseshit. You pay for fair-n-speedy trials and public defenders for suspects, for example, even if you yourself are never suspected of a crime.
People who imagine that the rights currently recognized by the Constitution don’t actually cost them anything financially are living in a fantasy world.
Man, no matter how long I spend on the Dope, I’m always way behind on these conversations.
You either are or used to be a lawyer, right? Surely you’ve heard of this rhetorical technique. You don’t directly say that the unemotional term is related to the emotional one. Sure, you may offer an apparently legitimate connection, but the whole point is to connect the two terms together in the audience’s mind.
It’s why everyone and their dog will eventually compare their opponent’s position to that of Hitler --sure, there may be a small legitimate comparison to be made, but the point is to say that the opposition are Nazis.
I’m not particularly happy about paying so much to support our glorified babysitters either, but that is an existing tax not a proposed one, whose original purpose was not to take yet another personal responsibility off of the individuals and on to the “government”.
Yeah right, it isn’t and you don’t.
The fact that the government has been mismanaging Social Security since essentially the beginning does not negate the fact that it is a retirement plan/insurance policy that (almost) all of us are required to pay into when we work. I may have been paying for other people’s benefits when I was paying SS tax, but I was also building up my personal fund (even if there was no money in it) that the government would pay me when I qualified. If the government had had any brains way back when, they would not have robbed the SS money to pay for other things but instead would have invested it and therefore wouldn’t have to use current SS income to pay out benefits.
Medicaid is simply a tax we are forced to pay to be responsible for other people’s health care. There are people here in California who are on their third generation of birth to death Medicaid (maybe more, those just happen to be those I know personally) and far too many of them don’t pay back into the system - they are essentially dead weight on the taxpayers. And since Medicaid pays to create another generation, it’s an on-going problem.
I have no idea, and no. If SS goes under before you qualify for it, you should demand a refund of all you have paid into it. Besides, if you demanded that my SSDI stop, it would be a much tinier drop in the bucket than all of those who get regular SS who don’t need it to put food on the table, since I get far less in benefits than I would have if I’d been able to work until I was 65.
No, in two ways. For one thing, Medicaid is no longer just a safety net for far too many - it is a way of life. And SSDI isn’t a safety net - if you don’t qualify for your SS early due to disability, you will still get it later on without having to qualify for it by being poor.
No, I sound like a typical California taxpayer that is seeing my state go under, maybe for the last time, due to all of the tax paid programs we have here to support people who have never been much if any of an asset to society. California has been a welfare state for decades, but the rest of the country doesn’t seem to want to learn from our errors, the major error being that you simply cannot continue to tax the responsible to support the irresponsible. All you do is create more irresponsible people to support and fewer responsible ones to pay for it.
Medicaid is actually an example of that. Because it has morphed from a safety net to something you can live on your whole life, public opinion has morphed from the idea that “you pay your own way” to “everyone has a right to government subsidized healthcare”. The US already has a huge deficit - why are we adding to it?? Will we be able to survive it?
At 52, it is highly unlikely that I will lose so much that I would need any sort of welfare before I die. However, back when I was eligible for it, I didn’t take it then either since I was raised that one didn’t take charity. If you want to believe that you are paying for my SSDI, then you can console yourself with the fact that you never had to pay for me to take Medicaid or any sort of welfare during the decades I was eligible for it. Indeed, I didn’t apply for the SSDI until 10 or so years after I was first eligible for it, so there is 10 years less likely that I will get back what I paid in.
Well, all I read was what Really Not All That Bright was referring to - I have no idea what that site is or whether they are legit. And that site’s “is defined as” is not binding since it isn’t the language of a particular contract. Really Not All That Bright simply pointed to that site’s paragraph on floods to “prove” that his/her State Farm policy was supposed to cover that damage, and all I did was point out that the site defined flood two different ways in the same paragraph. If a real insurance policy has that language in it, I’d have a serious problem with it and I imagine our insurance commissioner would too.
That part wasn’t under discussion, the definition of “flood” in your policy was. You still haven’t shown how your policy defined flood.
If you think I’m going to bother engaging you after you tried to pull that little stunt, you are sadly mistaken. I admire your gumption, though.
No, you weren’t.