"We Were Stunned When We Saw This in Michael Moore's Latest Film" — Claire Shipm

[Soul Crusher]

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? 

[Slapper]

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.

[Slapper]

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.

 

[Skip8282]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[Slapper]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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? 

[Slapper]

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.

[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

[Slapper]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.  

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[Skip8282]

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.

[The Luke]

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]

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. 

[The Luke]

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

[Soul Crusher]

...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? 

[The 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

[Skip8282]

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?

[Skip8282]

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!!

[The Luke]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

 

[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. 

...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

[Soul Crusher]

...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.         

[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.         

...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