Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on October 03, 2009, 06:28:01 AM
-
-
Ever hear of key man insurance? Look it up and educate yourself before spouting ignorant crap from michael moore.
I swear, this board has the largest group of economic incompetents, you included Blacken, that have no clue about business. None. The level of ignorance you display is staggering.
Key Man insurance and insurance like this is to protect the business if the employee dies since the business loses the value of what that employee adds to the business. This is nothing new.
Educate yourself fool! .
-
YEA THE MUSIC STORE CASHEIR WAS VERY VALUABLE AND ALOT OF COMPANIES ARE NOW INSURING LOWER LEVEL EMPLOYIES FOR A TAX WRITEOFF
The level of lies you display is staggering.
-
YEA THE MUSIC STORE CASHEIR WAS VERY VALUABLE AND ALOT OF COMPANIES ARE NOW INSURING LOWER LEVEL EMPLOYIES FOR A TAX WRITEOFF
The level of lies you display is staggering.
There is nothing illegal about this and more propaganda from the left.
-
YEA THE MUSIC STORE CASHEIR WAS VERY VALUABLE AND ALOT OF COMPANIES ARE NOW INSURING LOWER LEVEL EMPLOYIES FOR A TAX WRITEOFF
The level of lies you display is staggering.
Maybe you should blame the government for this since they allow the tax deduction in the first place.
Maybe you should ask yourself why businesses feel the need to do these types of things in the first place?
Ever think that maybe taxes are too damned high Blacken?
-
Evil corporations...waaaaas. I guess all businesses are Republican and Blacken doesn't buy anything from them. He grows his own food, makes his own cloths and cars...built his own computer from the metals he mined..self smarted himself into making said computer...taught himself to read from books he wrote...Blacken stop me when u get the point. Ur an idiot.
-
JUST BECAUSE ITS LEGAL DOES'T MAKE IT RIGHT. AND I THINK NOW YOU HAVE TO BE INFORMED
-
JUST BECAUSE ITS LEGAL DOES'T MAKE IT RIGHT. AND I THINK NOW YOU HAVE TO BE INFORMED
Who the hell are you to say what is right or wrong?
Blame the govt for this if you dont like it. They created the tax write off in the first place.
You cant blame people or businesses for doing what is perfectly legal to lower their AGI.
-
I DON'T THINK I SAID IT WAS A REPUB OR DEM THING. SO GO PLAY ARMY
-
U idiots blame big business for everything...go play civilian douchbag..my jobs not a agame.
-
I DON'T THINK I SAID IT WAS A REPUB OR DEM THING. SO GO PLAY ARMY
Abortion may be legal but is not right. Whats your stupid imbecilic point?
-
U idiots blame big business for everything...go play civilian douchbag..my jobs not a agame.
SORRY I FORGOT :D :D :D :D
-
That would only work if I ordered the code red...with u I do it myself. ;D
-
LIGHTEN UP FRANCIS
That would only work if I ordered the code red...with u I do it myself. ;D
-
I don't know why people are so "stunned" at crap like this.
I know some people are in the dark when it comes to corporate innuendo... but come on! Are you really THAT "stunned"?
It's amazing how the media is now, all of a sudden, playing stupid to all this crap that went on for all these years.
-
They can take away tax deductions if they slash the rate of taxation. They are killing businesses who try to play by the rules. Stop the f-cking spending and lower our outrageous corporate tax rates.
-
US governement secretly listening to our phone calls or raising our taxes is something most of you adamantly and actively denounce without any nuance.
Now, I cannot comprehend how you can understand, and be against, government intrusion but somehow "lower the bar" to corporate intrusion.
How in the friggin world do you connect them dots??
??? ??? ???
-
I'd rather not work for a company that benefits if I die.
Call me old fashioned but when times are tough, I'd rather not be watching my back at work...
In fact, I'd go further and say that no-one should be able to insure your life without your knowledge.
-
Why is everyone complaining? A minute ago you were all for CAPITALISM...now that you see a glowing example of it you are turned off. Remember CAPITALISM is the worship of MONEY...earn it by ANY MEANS NECESSARY is the rule of the game.
-
Why is everyone complaining? A minute ago you were all for CAPITALISM...now that you see a glowing example of it you are turned off. Remember CAPITALISM is the worship of MONEY...earn it by ANY MEANS NECESSARY is the rule of the game.
I really dont know why people are complaining over this. Insurance is highly regulated by the govt and insurance is nothing more than a contract between two parties as to who is going to share a risk in the event of an event.
If you left wing cry babies dont like it, contact your state represenatives and get it changed.
You guys are blaming the wrong party in this, its the govts fault, not the insurance company or business owner, since the govt regulates insurance and allows for the tax dedecution in the first place.
-
I really dont know why people are complaining over this. Insurance is highly regulated by the govt and insurance is nothing more than a contract between two parties as to who is going to share a risk in the event of an event.
If you left wing cry babies dont like it, contact your state represenatives and get it changed.
You guys are blaming the wrong party in this, its the govts fault, not the insurance company or business owner, since the govt regulates insurance and allows for the tax dedecution in the first place.
The government has nothing to do with this. This has all to do with a tax cut and a corporation's willingness to BET on an employees life.
What you say would make sense if corporations had not fired anyone in the past 5 years. The opposite has taken place: Millions of people that were supposed to be so valuable to a corporation their lives needed to be insured were suddenly shown the door.
Aside from that, YOU, OF ALL PEOPLE, the champion of governmental mistrust, the very same guy that says that governments should have ZERO intrusion in anyone's lives, all of a sudden says it's OK for someone else to bet ON YOUR LIFE.
Talk about dropping your pants and taking a big erect penis up your arse!
Not to mention double standards.
-
The government has nothing to do with this. This has all to do with a tax cut and a corporation's willingness to BET on an employees life.
What you say would make sense if corporations had not fired anyone in the past 5 years. The opposite has taken place: Millions of people that were supposed to be so valuable to a corporation their lives needed to be insured were suddenly shown the door.
Aside from that, YOU, OF ALL PEOPLE, the champion of governmental mistrust, the very same guy that says that governments should have ZERO intrusion in anyone's lives, all of a sudden says it's OK for someone else to bet ON YOUR LIFE.
Talk about dropping your pants and taking a big erect penis up your arse!
Not to mention double standards.
First off - the govt regulates what policies can be written in a state. Just go the NYS Insurance department website and take a look over there. Plus, the govt allows the tax writeoff. So, if this is so bad and evil the govt should end the tax break.
As far as the rest of your point, I think most people should be in their own businesses but that is besides the point.
Under your point, the only way the carrier would have to pay out is if all these people died, not if they get fired. The carrier would not pay because murder is not an event that usually triggers the policy to come into effect where the settlor of the policy kills the insureds' lives.
-
First off - the govt regulates what policies can be written in a state. Just go the NYS Insurance department website and take a look over there. Plus, the govt allows the tax writeoff. So, if this is so bad and evil the govt should end the tax break.
As far as the rest of your point, I think most people should be in their own businesses but that is besides the point.
Under your point, the only way the carrier would have to pay out is if all these people died, not if they get fired. The carrier would not pay because murder is not an event that usually triggers the policy to come into effect where the settlor of the policy kills the insureds' lives.
That's BULLSHIT!
The ones carrying out the crime are corporations, not the government, and I hate the government as much as you do.
You, my friend, have some weird ass priorities.
I DO NOT WANT ANY FUCKING BODY, TAX WRITE OFFS OR NOT, TO BET ON MY LIFE. PERIOD.
(Self-censored)
-
From now on, I expect to hear the same, or similar, schepticism on any decision the government decides to take.
I mean... if you're able to articulate and defend what some corporations are doing... You've drunk the cool aid my friend.
-
That's BULLSHIT!
The ones carrying out the crime are corporations, not the government, and I hate the government as much as you do.
You, my friend, have some weird ass priorities.
I DO NOT WANT ANY FUCKING BODY, TAX WRITE OFFS OR NOT, TO BET ON MY LIFE.
FUCKING PERIOD.
Neither do I, but if you understand insurance, most carriers are not in the business to lose money. Most insurance underwriters and actuaries I have dealt with are pretty smart people and know when someone is trying to commit fraud.
Do you really think an insurance company is going to just accept neasly preimums on people and than [ay out when the settlor of the policy goes on to murder en mass to collect the policies and the carrier not figure out what is going on?
BTW Slapper - did you see that we are now the highest taxed county in the nation?
-
From now on, I expect to hear the same, or similar, schepticism on any decision the government decides to take.
I mean... if you're able to articulate and defend what some corporations are doing... You've drunk the cool aid my friend.
The govt has the authority to enact criminal laws and a penal code. If the people or corps are not committing a crime that the govt enacts as law, I dont know what you are talking about in relation to this case at hand. What crime did the corporations commit here?
-
Neither do I, but if you understand insurance, most carriers are not in the business to lose money. Most insurance underwriters and actuaries I have dealt with are pretty smart people and know when someone is trying to commit fraud.
Do you really think an insurance company is going to just accept neasly preimums on people and than [ay out when the settlor of the policy goes on to murder en mass to collect the policies and the carrier not figure out what is going on?
BTW Slapper - did you see that we are now the highest taxed county in the nation?
That is besides the point.
No one should take out an insurance policy on MY life whithout MY consent.
Coporate intrusion is the same as government intrusion.
There is no difference.
-
The govt has the authority to enact criminal laws and a penal code. If the people or corps are not committing a crime that the govt enacts as law, I dont know what you are talking about in relation to this case at hand. What crime did the corporations commit here?
The corporations are getting away with it on a technicality. We all have the right to own firearms. The US government has no choice but to accept that as law (too much social pressure). That does not mean that we can all go out and start indiscriminately shooting innocent people. Or even worst, that the government sanctions such actions.
Look, there is something called natural logical law and the laws that emanate from our Constitution. Just because there isn't legislation preventing corporations from taking out insurance policies on their own employees, without their consent mind you, doesn't mean it is not a crime, it just means there isn't any legislation. I bet my left nut, right now, that if the issue were to be voted on right now 95-99% of The People would choose to either forced consent or to reject the employee insurance scheme.
Like I said, I expect you to use the same logic, from now on, when it comes to government actions. I mean, you guys were up in arms when Bush "legally" suspended habeas corpus, you're up in arms now that Obama is trying to "legally" pass all there pseudo-socialist (not to be confused with communist) laws.
Yet, your company betting against your own life wakes no such similar inquisition and mistrust on your part.
???
-
That is besides the point.
No one should take out an insurance policy on MY life whithout MY consent.
Coporate intrusion is the same as government intrusion.
There is no difference.
Help me follow your objection(s) Slapper.
Do you feel that this is a moral issue and that corporations are behaving immorally and that's why it should be stopped? If so, what are the mores being violated?
Is it corporate intrusion? What part of an employees private life is being intruded on?
Is it OK if the employee consents to it?
I think there are instances where the same or similar would be considered mostly valid. For example, I think we could all agree that if you take out a small business loan from a bank, the bank could reasonably protect itself from default by either getting life insurance on you or requiring, as part of the loan, that you get life insurance naming the bank as beneficiary.
So I'm trying to follow your objection and where to draw the line.
-
The corporations are getting away with it on a technicality. We all have the right to own firearms. The US government has no choice but to accept that as law (too much social pressure). That does not mean that we can all go out and start indiscriminately shooting innocent people. Or even worst, that the government sanctions such actions.
Look, there is something called natural logical law and the laws that emanate from our Constitution. Just because there isn't legislation preventing corporations from taking out insurance policies on their own employees, without their consent mind you, doesn't mean it is not a crime, it just means there isn't any legislation. I bet my left nut, right now, that if the issue were to be voted on right now 95-99% of The People would choose to either forced consent or to reject the employee insurance scheme.
Like I said, I expect you to use the same logic, from now on, when it comes to government actions. I mean, you guys were up in arms when Bush "legally" suspended habeas corpus, you're up in arms now that Obama is trying to "legally" pass all there pseudo-socialist (not to be confused with communist) laws.
Yet, your company betting against your own life wakes no such similar inquisition and mistrust on your part.
???
Is is slimy? Maybe.
So are a ton of other things we have, as you said earlier. I am not shocked by these things.
-
Help me follow your objection(s) Slapper.
Do you feel that this is a moral issue and that corporations are behaving immorally and that's why it should be stopped? If so, what are the mores being violated?
Is it corporate intrusion? What part of an employees private life is being intruded on?
Maybe... Perhaps... Some one or some thing betting against your life? Wouldn't you concur that some one or some thing can eventually exercise, what may be entertainment at first, enough interest into turning the insurance contract into a profit (like the Sword of Damocles)? It's been shown time and time again that most corporations, like most people, will do anything for money. We've all heard about someone killing someone else for the insurance money.
And yes, it is a moral issue because no one or no thing should ever be allowed to financially speculate on your existance.
Is it OK if the employee consents to it?
In my opinion? No. Never. Am I all The American People? No. Thus it requires agreement, on an individual basis, on a labor contract, from the employee.
I think there are instances where the same or similar would be considered mostly valid. For example, I think we could all agree that if you take out a small business loan from a bank, the bank could reasonably protect itself from default by either getting life insurance on you or requiring, as part of the loan, that you get life insurance naming the bank as beneficiary.
I do not know the specifics or types of mortgages, but I believe a mortgage is a transfer of interests, from which a corporation can shield its investment by simply taking ownership of the house or business you just purchased, in the case you can't meet your requirements as a borrower, and selling it in the open market. I can see how a corporation can further insure their investment on things like price fluctuation, business risk, et cetera, but not human life.
So I'm trying to follow your objection and where to draw the line.
It's simple: I'm not objecting, I'm rejecting. No insurance agains my life. Or anyone's for that matter.
-
Maybe... Perhaps... Some one or some thing betting against your life? Wouldn't you concur that some one or some thing can eventually exercise, what may be entertainment at first, enough interest into turning the insurance contract into a profit (like the Sword of Damocles)? It's been shown time and time again that most corporations, like most people, will do anything for money. We've all heard about someone killing someone else for the insurance money.
And yes, it is a moral issue because no one or no thing should ever be allowed to financially speculate on your existance.
In my opinion? No. Never. Am I all The American People? No. Thus it requires agreement, on an individual basis, on a labor contract, from the employee.
I do not know the specifics or types of mortgages, but I believe a mortgage is a transfer of interests, from which a corporation can shield its investment by simply taking ownership of the house or business you just purchased, in the case you can't meet your requirements as a borrower, and selling it in the open market. I can see how a corporation can further insure their investment on things like price fluctuation, business risk, et cetera, but not human life.
It's simple: I'm not objecting, I'm rejecting. No insurance agains my life. Or anyone's for that matter.
Here is a question for you slapper. Gays cant marry, and hence they cant get the typical life insurance contract under your scenario.
Isnt it the same thing if a gay couple buys life insurance on one another, being that they are betting on each others' life?
Im not arguing with you, just trying to see under your scenario where that leads?
-
Here is a question for you slapper. Gays cant marry, and hence they cant get the typical life insurance contract under your scenario.
Isnt it the same thing if a gay couple buys life insurance on one another, being that they are betting on each others' life?
Im not arguing with you, just trying to see under your scenario where that leads?
Yes, but you are confusing two things. Two gays guys taking out insurance on each other is ok because there's an emotional dimension which the relationship corporation-employee lacks. The later being solely a relationship of financial interest (exchange of money for labor). Marriage is a 24/7 contract. Your employment with Corporationg x is an 8-hour contract.
-
This thread is absolutely hilarious... but for all the wrong reasons.
But I think I have a succinct question that properly elucidates the debate:
For the patriots, would you re-enlist today, in these troubed economic times, if you new the army had taken out a billion dollar life assurance policy on you... payable to the Governmet?
That might end the inane stupidity.
Defending the morality of the "Dead Peasants" insurance... sheesh... guess you just can't fix stoopid.
The Luke
-
This thread is absolutely hilarious... but for all the wrong reasons.
But I think I have a succinct question that properly elucidates the debate:
For the patriots, would you re-enlist today, in these troubed economic times, if you new the army had taken out a billion dollar life assurance policy on you... payable to the Governmet?
That might end the inane stupidity.
Defending the morality of the "Dead Peasants" insurance... sheesh... guess you just can't fix stoopid.
The Luke
What's even more hilarious is that someone else has said (sort of) what you just said already.
So, technically, that puts you in the "inane stupidity" group.
You said it, not me.
-
This thread is absolutely hilarious... but for all the wrong reasons.
But I think I have a succinct question that properly elucidates the debate:
For the patriots, would you re-enlist today, in these troubed economic times, if you new the army had taken out a billion dollar life assurance policy on you... payable to the Governmet?
That might end the inane stupidity.
Defending the morality of the "Dead Peasants" insurance... sheesh... guess you just can't fix stoopid.
The Luke
Defending the morality of the "Dead Peasants" insurance... sheesh... guess you just can't fix stoopid.[/color]
Learn how to spell before calling others stupid.
-
This thread is absolutely hilarious... but for all the wrong reasons.
But I think I have a succinct question that properly elucidates the debate:
For the patriots, would you re-enlist today, in these troubed economic times, if you new the army had taken out a billion dollar life assurance policy on you... payable to the Governmet?
That might end the inane stupidity.
Defending the morality of the "Dead Peasants" insurance... sheesh... guess you just can't fix stoopid.
The Luke
Show me the insurance carrier who is willing to write that policy.
-
This thread is absolutely hilarious... but for all the wrong reasons.
But I think I have a succinct question that properly elucidates the debate:
For the patriots, would you re-enlist today, in these troubed economic times, if you new the army had taken out a billion dollar life assurance policy on you... payable to the Governmet?
That might end the inane stupidity.
Defending the morality of the "Dead Peasants" insurance... sheesh... guess you just can't fix stoopid.
The Luke
Ugghhh..
Do you actually have an argument? Are you capable of expressing it? Is your reading comprehension really that poor?
More Eurotrash speak.
(http://)
-
Learn how to spell before calling others stupid.
...other than the dropped "l" in 'troubled' (bad keyboard on my laptop) I don't see any spelling mistakes. Certainly none in the sentence you (tried) to highlight.
Enlighten me.
Show me the insurance carrier who is willing to write that policy.
...if such a policy was available, would it be moral for America to insure its soldiers?
If not, shouldn't the same protection apply to civilians?
TRY ANSWERING A QUESTION.
Again, lots and lots of attacks... NO COUNTER ARGUMENT.
Skip8282 is even attacking me personally for daring to ask for an argument.... (sigh).
Can any of you Palin-voters make an argument to back your opinions? Or is all just Pavlovian response?
The Luke
-
Skip8282 is even attacking me personally for daring to ask for an argument.... (sigh).
Can any of you Palin-voters make an argument to back your opinions? Or is all just Pavlovian response?
The Luke
More attacks. Still NO ARGUMENT. Offer up a reasonable, logical, cogent ARGUMENT.
-
Here's my argument:
This thread is absolutely hilarious... but for all the wrong reasons.
But I think I have a succinct question that properly elucidates the debate:
For the patriots, would you re-enlist today, in these troubled economic times, if you new the army had taken out a billion dollar life assurance policy on you... payable to the Governmet?
That might end the inane stupidity.
Defending the morality of the "Dead Peasants" insurance... sheesh... guess you just can't fix stoopid.
The Luke
...did you miss it?
The Luke
-
...other than the dropped "l" in 'troubled' (bad keyboard on my laptop) I don't see any spelling mistakes. Certainly none in the sentence you (tried) to highlight.
Enlighten me.
...if such a policy was available, would it be moral for America to insure its soldiers?
If not, shouldn't the same protection apply to civilians?
TRY ANSWERING A QUESTION.
Again, lots and lots of attacks... NO COUNTER ARGUMENT.
Skip8282 is even attacking me personally for daring to ask for an argument.... (sigh).
Can any of you Palin-voters make an argument to back your opinions? Or is all just Pavlovian response?
The Luke
No carrier would ever write that policy because its an utterly moronic risk that no carrier would ever accept.
Insurance is a contract that allocates risk amongst parties in return for a premium.
No carrier is going to write a policy where one party can make a snap decision to trigger the policy paying out the entire amount like in your analogy.
Geez - do you really want to be embarassed again Luke?
-
You can't criticise a hypothetical question for being hypothetical, so your point is vacuous.
No carrier would ever write that policy because its an utterly moronic risk that no carrier would ever accept.
...try answering the question instead of criticising it.
Would such a policy be MORAL if it existed?
Would you enlist again if the government stood to gain (even more) financially from your demise?
Should anyone have to work for an employer who hopes to gain from them becoming a "dead peasant"?
Stop evading the crux of the moral quandry blacken presented.
The Luke
-
Here's my argument:
...did you miss it?
The Luke
Still no argument? Just name calling and an attempt at an irrelevant analogy?
Let me help you along. Don't worry buddy, for you, we'll go slow.
What is the exact moral being violated?
Is it unreasonable for a bank to be insured against a persons death if that person takes out a loan? If it's not unreasonable, where's the line?
Slapper was very clear in articulating his point. That he feels it's not unreasonable that a company could go rogue and cash in. Do you agree?
-
No carrier would ever write that policy because its an utterly moronic risk that no carrier would ever accept.
Insurance is a contract that allocates risk amongst parties in return for a premium.
No carrier is going to write a policy where one party can make a snap decision to trigger the policy paying out the entire amount like in your analogy.
Geez - do you really want to be embarassed again Luke?
33...You've really got to stop embarassing this dweeb in front of everybody. I'm actually starting to feel bad...well, just a little...
Anyway guys.....IT'S FOOTBALL TIME!!
-
What is the exact moral being violated?
...it's called "moral hazard".
Based on the history of corporate behaviour, would YOU want to incentivise a corporation to wish you ill?
Imagine a mine operator who institutes the full gamut of health and safety procedures necessary to guarantee a very low cost premium on the lives of his miners.
Is he incentivised to maintain his stringent health and safety standards, even at the cost of profit?
Or is he incentivised to maximum profit at the cost of health and safety?
Actually he is incentivised to maximise profits by cutting back on health and safety right up until the point where his "Dead Peasants" premiums start to increase beyond the savings made in reduced health and safety.
Effectively, he has to decide upon and quantify the cost of his workers lives, which is immoral. Mathematics then dictates the death toll.
We've already had 200 years of profits above safety, it was called the Industrial Revolution... not a nice time for those involved.
The Luke
-
Just give it up Luke. Embarassing you is getting boring.
Go over to DU or Kos where you can be of like small minds with other left wingers who are perfectly content with complaining about things you have no idea about.
-
Just give it up Luke. Embarassing you is getting boring.
Go over to DU or Kos where you can be of like small minds with other left wingers who are perfectly content with complaining about things you have no idea about.
...if anyone should be embarrassed it should be YOU.
You attack me about a misspelling that isn't there; you attack me for making a point; you attack me for requesting a counter argument; you attack me for not explicitly detailing my argument for those who can't extrapolate; when I detail my argument and offer an example you attack me for posting on GetBig?
Is this what costitutes discussion in America? Personal attacks without counter argument?
Is that your position? That corporations should be allowed profit from "Dead Peasants" insurance claims because Luke from Ireland isn't right-wing enough for you?
Who should be embarrassed again?
The Luke
-
...if anyone should be embarrassed it should be YOU.
You attack me about a misspelling that isn't there; you attack me for making a point; you attack me for requesting a counter argument; you attack me for not explicitly detailing my argument for those who can't extrapolate; when I detail my argument and offer an example you attack me for posting on GetBig?
Is this what costitutes discussion in America? Personal attacks without counter argument?
Is that your position? That corporations should be allowed profit from "Dead Peasants" insurance claims because Luke from Ireland isn't right-wing enough for you?
Who should be embarrassed again?
The Luke
You tried to make a "point" by putting forth a nonsensical hypothetical scenario that you thought would prove your brilliance and genius. Just like in the other thread, I again exposed your tragic ignorance on most issues and now you ignore it.
As far as your spelling goes, look back at your posts in this thread. You spelled "stupid" wrong. Normally I could care less about other posters' spelling, but in your case, its fun pointing out your numerous and multiple failings since you are so quick to mock anyone who disagrees with you.
-
You tried to make a "point" by putting forth a nonsensical hypothetical scenario that you thought would prove your brilliance and genius. Just like in the other thread, I again exposed your tragic ignorance on most issues and now you ignore it.
As far as your spelling goes, look back at your posts in this thread. You spelled "stupid" wrong. Normally I could care less about other posters' spelling, but in your case, its fun pointing out your numerous and multiple failings since you are so quick to mock anyone who disagrees with you.
...and my question is answered where in this post? Or any other post? All I see is a dismissal of an explicitly hypothetical question on the grounds that it is hypothetical.
This accusatory stance you adopt; of claiming you have disproved something you haven't even addressed is patently laughable. Answer a question, or maybe try addressing an argument, maybe even attempt a counter argument if you want to be taken seriously.
I don't make personal attacks here... I attack and mock stupidity; prejudice and illogical thinking in all their forms. Some of you take that personally, but that says more about my detractors than it does about me.
That's why you aren't considered just plain stupid when you react in this way, you are redneck stupid: stoopid.
My challenge remains, if there is nothing wrong with "Dead Peasant" insurance policies... would there similarly be nothing wrong with applying such a policy to soldiers?
The Luke
-
...and my question is answered where in this post? Or any other post? All I see is a dismissal of an explicitly hypothetical question on the grounds that it is hypothetical.
This accusatory stance you adopt; of claiming you have disproved something you haven't even addressed is patently laughable. Answer a question, or maybe try addressing an argument, maybe even attempt a counter argument if you want to be taken seriously.
I don't make personal attacks here... I attack and mock stupidity; prejudice and illogical thinking in all their forms. Some of you take that personally, but that says more about my detractors than it does about me.
That's why you aren't considered just plain stupid when you react in this way, you are redneck stupid: stoopid.
My challenge remains, if there is nothing wrong with "Dead Peasant" insurance policies... would there similarly be nothing wrong with applying such a policy to soldiers?
The Luke
Luke: you are brain dead. Must be too much sniffing chemicals in the lab on your part.
Your question is not even worth answering because its ridiculous and completely neglects the fact that the govt' can't be prosecuted for murder for sending soldiers off to war to die for a payout on the policy. The two examples you gave are apples and oranges.
If a corp murders its workers for payouts on the policy(s), the carrier does not have to pay out since murder by one of the parties to the contract for pecuniary gain is always an exclusion under any life insurance policy.
Are you saying that corporations murder their workers for $?
-
First off...Uncle Sam isn't in the business of loosing soldiers..unlike popular myths created by libs...we're very highly trained and its expansiuve even to replace a bullet magnet infantryman. This is yet another ridiculous Luke inspired thread
-
First off...Uncle Sam isn't in the business of loosing soldiers..unlike popular myths created by libs...we're very highly trained and its expansiuve even to replace a bullet magnet infantryman.
...sounds insurable to me? Isn't that the whole purpose of insurance, to hedge against financial loss?
I think you guys are forgetting the basic rules of discussion, you can't really make the other guys point and then disagree with him.
The Luke
-
...sounds insurable to me? Isn't that the whole purpose of insurance, to hedge against financial loss?
I think you guys are forgetting the basic rules of discussion, you can't really make the other guys point and then disagree with him.
The Luke
If the govt could do this why havent they?
BECAUSE NO INSURER WOULD EVER WRITE THAT POLICY SINCE ITS A RIDICULOUS PREMISE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
-
If the govt could do this why havent they?
BECAUSE NO INSURER WOULD EVER WRITE THAT POLICY SINCE ITS A RIDICULOUS PREMISE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
...so HYPOTHETICALLY would such a policy, if it existed, be moral? In your opinion.
The Luke
-
...so HYPOTHETICALLY would such a policy, if it existed, be moral? In your opinion.
The Luke
Insurance is not about morals, its about protecting an asset.
-
I don't make personal attacks here...
The Luke
Luke, you are a leader of personal attacks here. Just because you don't typically name the person, implying or insinuating that the people you are discoursing with are dumb, stupid, ignorant, especially because they simply don't agree with you, is still a personal attack. I know you think of yourself as an intellectual who's trying to slide one by, but I assure you, ad-hom attacks are second nature for you.
-
Luke, you are a leader of personal attacks here. Just because you don't typically name the person, implying or insinuating that the people you are discoursing with are dumb, stupid, ignorant, especially because they simply don't agree with you, is still a personal attack. I know you think of yourself as an intellectual who's trying to slide one by, but I assure you, ad-hom attacks are second nature for you.
Skip: its hard to have a conversation with Luke because he is so uninformed about these topics. He presents hypothetical questions that bear no resemblence to reality and he expects me to provide him answers.
Its ridiculous.
-
...it's called "moral hazard".
Based on the history of corporate behaviour, would YOU want to incentivise a corporation to wish you ill?
Imagine a mine operator who institutes the full gamut of health and safety procedures necessary to guarantee a very low cost premium on the lives of his miners.
Is he incentivised to maintain his stringent health and safety standards, even at the cost of profit?
Or is he incentivised to maximum profit at the cost of health and safety?
Actually he is incentivised to maximise profits by cutting back on health and safety right up until the point where his "Dead Peasants" premiums start to increase beyond the savings made in reduced health and safety.
Effectively, he has to decide upon and quantify the cost of his workers lives, which is immoral. Mathematics then dictates the death toll.
We've already had 200 years of profits above safety, it was called the Industrial Revolution... not a nice time for those involved.
The Luke
Alright. Seems we're getting somewhere. You can't name a moral that the insurance company has violated, you're simply worried that the company may act immorally if given to such temptation.
What about occupations where the company has a vested interest in keeping the person healthy? Ex: Airline Pilot.
What about banks who make large loans to individuals?
As to your challenge, that's what I'm trying to figure here. I'm not agreeing with your assumption that it's either good or bad in all cases. There may be times where it should be acceptable and times when it should not be acceptable.
-
Skip: its hard to have a conversation with Luke because he is so uninformed about these topics. He presents hypothetical questions that bear no resemblence to reality and he expects me to provide him answers.
Its ridiculous.
Yeah, that's the very core of the problem. He's making an assumption and deriving a non-sense hypothetical from it.
-
Luke....we're insured. My family gets 450K if I get smoked and another 100k within 24 houres after I'm confirmed dead. They get their medical and my son gets my GI Bill or about 65 grand in financial aid. I also have insurance on them under the same plan. Whats the point the ur thread again?
-
Luke....we're insured. My family gets 450K if I get smoked and another 100k within 24 houres after I'm confirmed dead. They get their medical and my son gets my GI Bill or about 65 grand in financial aid. I also have insurance on them under the same plan. Whats the point the ur thread again?
...would you resign your commission if you found out the army was sending you back to Iraq/Afghanistan but had a billion dollar "Dead Peasants" policy, payable to the US government?
Simple question, pretty hypothetical... but you need only give me a hypothetical answer.
The Luke