Who knew about this? What do you make of this? Clicky.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

There is nothing wrong with the original premise of it, but the loopholes need to be cleaned up. I haven't heard of companies using it on lower-level employees before, but just like everything else, people find a way to scheme the system.
It can be fixed relatively quickly and simply. For example, a simple clause is all that would be needed to eliminate the ability of companies continue to insure ex-employees.

But wouldn't that be a case of the government meddling with capitalism? Just sayin.

KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:But wouldn't that be a case of the government meddling with capitalism? Just sayin.

See, you guys love to act as if the belief in Capitalism precludes any kind of regulations which keep things ethical. This is not the case. Simple, basic rules can be implemented that are not intrusive, and not destructive to the growth and prosperity that Capitalism can produce. And one thing that these rules do not have to contain is the government spending money and taking things over.

Again, this was a case of a legitimate program that has some loopholes for fraud and abuse. The system doesn't need to be overhauled, just a few simple rules which prohibit these abuses, but allow the system to work as intended.

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:But wouldn't that be a case of the government meddling with capitalism? Just sayin.

See, you guys love to act as if the belief in Capitalism precludes any kind of regulations which keep things ethical. This is not the case. Simple, basic rules can be implemented that are not intrusive, and not destructive to the growth and prosperity that Capitalism can produce. And one thing that these rules do not have to contain is the government spending money and taking things over.

Again, this was a case of a legitimate program that has some loopholes for fraud and abuse. The system doesn't need to be overhauled, just a few simple rules which prohibit these abuses, but allow the system to work as intended.

So what your saying is, government regulations and controls are ok as long as they fit your ideas, even though you preach as though they are the devil and not in line with the beliefs this country was founded on when they don't fit your ideas. Thats not hypocritical at all, you can't have it both ways.

KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:So what your saying is, government regulations and controls are ok as long as they fit your ideas, even though you preach as though they are the devil and not in line with the beliefs this country was founded on when they don't fit your ideas. Thats not hypocritical at all, you can't have it both ways.

No, what I'm saying is that some regulation is necessary. What is not necessary, or acceptable, is over regulation that is intrusive, and usually an attempt at manipulation for an outcome. Again, you put words in my mouth, and misunderstand the premise.

Nice try on the attack, though. LOL.

Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:So what your saying is, government regulations and controls are ok as long as they fit your ideas, even though you preach as though they are the devil and not in line with the beliefs this country was founded on when they don't fit your ideas. Thats not hypocritical at all, you can't have it both ways.

No, what I'm saying is that some regulation is necessary. What is not necessary, or acceptable, is over regulation that is intrusive, and usually an attempt at manipulation for an outcome. Again, you put words in my mouth, and misunderstand the premise.

Nice try on the attack, though. LOL.

It was not an attack nor was I trying to put words into your mouth, no need to put words into your mouth, the views you portray on here are that all regulations are bad and the government should stay out of our daily lives, or is it just regulation by liberals is bad? Just because I think your views on the country are insane doesn't mean that I am trying to attack you, I am just questioning where you are coming from and why your views on this topic seem to go against all your other views you have expressed in this forum. I did not call you any names nor did I try and tell you that you don't know what is really going on in this country. You can think how you want and have the political views you want, I just want to understand where you are coming from, maybe you should give that a try sometime.

Like I said before it just seems you are anti regulation at every turn and in this thread you are saying how this needs regulation. I did not miss the premise at all, I read you loud and clear, regulation is ok as long as it fits into your political view. So who is to judge how much regulation is to much or not enough? Who should decide on what needs to be regulated? Is it up to elected officials to make these judgements as long as they are conservatives or is it ok for liberals to make these judgements too?

KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:Thats not hypocritical at all, you can't have it both ways.

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:It was not an attack nor was I trying to put words into your mouth, no need to put words into your mouth, the views you portray on here are that all regulations are bad and the government should stay out of our daily lives, or is it just regulation by liberals is bad? Just because I think your views on the country are insane doesn't mean that I am trying to attack you, I am just questioning where you are coming from and why your views on this topic seem to go against all your other views you have expressed in this forum. I did not call you any names nor did I try and tell you that you don't know what is really going on in this country. You can think how you want and have the political views you want, I just want to understand where you are coming from, maybe you should give that a try sometime.

Like I said before it just seems you are anti regulation at every turn and in this thread you are saying how this needs regulation. So who is to judge how much regulation is to much or not enough? Who should decide on what needs to be regulated? Is it up to elected officials to make these judgements as long as they are conservatives or is it ok for liberals to make these judgements too?

I didn't say you called me names, but the hypocritical comment was a personal attack. It was not trying to understand where I'm coming from, as you insinuate by suggesting I might like to try it sometime.

I find it thoroughly humorous that you try to place some kind of partisan prejudice on my suggestion that a slight regulatory adjustment is needed in an area that has obviously been abused. I do not judge a policy by the proponent of it, I judge it on the substance. The simple fact of the matter is that the majority of the liberal arguments go against my beliefs. You sound just like the MSM right now. The Republicans are fighting health care reform just because the Democrats are pushing it. It couldn't possibly be that they are fighting it because of how the Democrats want to go about it. As for your entire notion that I'm hypocritical because I believe in some reasonable regulations, nowhere in this forum will you find anything I have posted that said I believe all regulations are bad. Hell, Goodwrench has tried the hypocrite argument with regards to this on more than one occasion, too. It's funny how you seem to draw a conclusion that when I say too much government regulation is a bad thing, that the word "all" is somehow implied.

The problem is that right now there is a major push for so much added regulation where it shouldn't be, that in most discussions of current topics I will be on the side of less regulation. What you are not seeing is the fact that it's a simple matter of taking things too far. With regard to your question about who should decide which regulations are OK, I will say that it obviously comes down to the elected officials hashing it out with their debates. The biggest problem with this process is that it has become such a perverted game by owed favors to supporters, and a highly active media bias, that it's hard for an actual substantive debate to take place anymore without the public hearing a twisted report of what is being debated.

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:I did not miss the premise at all, I read you loud and clear, regulation is ok as long as it fits into your political view.

Yes, you missed the point. Regulation is OK as long as it's not intrusive and manipulative. I'll give you an example of the difference:

Passive (non-intrusive) regulations are things like tobacco is not legal for sale to minors, you must obey the speed limits on public roads, or in the case of this thread's topic, a company can not carry Dead Peasant policies on ex-employees.

Intrusive and manipulative regulations include things such as banks must write a minimum percentage of sub-prime mortgages, or schools must admit a minimum percentage of minorities regardless of the ratio of applicants and/or actual merits.

This should clarify it for you.

Now what I find particularly laughable is the fact that you are somehow trying to use as a negative connotation the idea that I find something OK as long as it fits my political view. Seriously? You're saying it's a bad thing that I would argue something based on my view? Did you really think about that before you posted it?

You take this way to personal. If I were trying to personally attack you I would have come out and said "Quick you are a hypocrite. I do try to understand where you are coming from but you never answer my questions, you skate around them and try to infer that I am personally attacking you. Straight out of the conservative play book, MSM blah blah blah, You do not know whats really going on blah blah blah, Socialism blah blah blah, government regulation is bad unless it suits my needs blah blah blah. You arguments are old, overused and lack any true sustenance.

Quick wrote:I find it thoroughly humorous that you try to place some kind of partisan prejudice on my suggestion that a slight regulatory adjustment is needed in an area that has obviously been abused.

I find that statement the definition of irony. Are you serious, everything that comes out of your mouth is partisan prejudice and for you to try to play it off like it's not is thoroughly humorous.

What I also find hypocritical is that you accuse me of putting words into your mouth but yet you turn right around and do the same thing:

quick wrote:You sound just like the MSM right now. The Republicans are fighting health care reform just because the Democrats are pushing it.

Was health care even mentioned in this thread?

quick wrote:Now what I find particularly laughable is the fact that you are somehow trying to use as a negative connotation the idea that I find something OK as long as it fits my political view. Seriously? You're saying it's a bad thing that I would argue something based on my view? Did you really think about that before you posted it?

Seems you have missed the premise here, I never said it is a bad thing that you would argue something based on your view (If you are any kind of man I would expect this). My point is that you are so close minded you do not listen to nor do you contemplate views that differ from your own, you dismiss them as wrong or incorrect, and that is a bad thing, as if your opinion is more important than the next guy's. Is it hard for you to go through your everyday life never being wrong?

quick wrote:Yes, you missed the point. Regulation is OK as long as it's not intrusive and manipulative.

Isn't that point of regulation, to intrude into and manipulate the system that is to be regulated? Did you really think about that before you posted it?



So now that we are completely off topic, why is it ok for a company to have dead peasant life insurance policies on employees but not ex-employees? What is the difference? Will the company use the money to take care of the family I leave behind, I seriously doubt that. Why should anyone benefit from my death besides my family, no matter if I work for them or not?

KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:You take this way to personal.

I take none of it personal. I make statements on my view, and you are one of a few on here that can't seem to make an argument without throwing some kind of personal jab into it, or try to cast doubt on the person rather than the subject. My first two posts had 100% substance of my view in it. In your second post, you chose to play the hypocrisy card, which is played here almost on a daily basis these days. It's getting as burned out as the race card. I was pointing this out, not getting offended. There is a big difference.

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:Socialism blah blah blah, government regulation is bad unless it suits my needs blah blah blah. You arguments are old, overused and lack any true sustenance.

Ignoring the rest of the ridiculousness in this statement, the bold portion is an example of putting words in my mouth, as a contrast to this accusation:

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:What I also find hypocritical is that you accuse me of putting words into your mouth but yet you turn right around and do the same thing:

quick wrote:You sound just like the MSM right now. The Republicans are fighting health care reform just because the Democrats are pushing it.

Was health care even mentioned in this thread?

This was not putting words into your mouth, it was a comparison of what you said, and what the MSM is saying right now on a daily basis. Note: making a comparison is different than putting words into your mouth.

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

Quick wrote:I find it thoroughly humorous that you try to place some kind of partisan prejudice on my suggestion that a slight regulatory adjustment is needed in an area that has obviously been abused.

I find that statement the definition of irony. Are you serious, everything that comes out of your mouth is partisan prejudice and for you to try to play it off like it's not is thoroughly humorous.

In spite of having spelled this out in other threads, I will say this again: I do not believe all Republicans are good, nor do I believe that all Democrats are bad. I defend policies, and not blindly the people of a party. However, as a rule, I agree with the Republican agenda, and disagree with the Democrat agenda. This does not make my views partisan, it means I have my principles, and they happen to align with Republicans the majority of the time. I challenge you to read through this forum and find any arguments of mine that are actually a partisan stance, and not based on the substance of a position in any given debate. I will also suggest that you stop distracting from the original topic with your attempts at discrediting me, and feel free to start your own thread with that purpose. By the way you post, you should be able to fill at least an entire page of examples of my hypocrisy, straight party-line partisan bias, and lack of substance.

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

quick wrote:Now what I find particularly laughable is the fact that you are somehow trying to use as a negative connotation the idea that I find something OK as long as it fits my political view. Seriously? You're saying it's a bad thing that I would argue something based on my view? Did you really think about that before you posted it?

Seems you have missed the premise here, I never said it is a bad thing that you would argue something based on your view (If you are any kind of man I would expect this). My point is that you are so close minded you do not listen to nor do you contemplate views that differ from your own, you dismiss them as wrong or incorrect, and that is a bad thing, as if your opinion is more important than the next guy's. Is it hard for you to go through your everyday life never being wrong?

Read what you said in your first post this morning regarding reading me loud and clear. While you did not come out and say it, the statement was crafted to have a negative connotation.

With regard to your accusation that I dismiss everything that differs from my own as wrong or incorrect, I'll say this: for starters, it's a debate. Of course I believe my view to be correct, and an opposing view to be wrong, unless it can be shown that it makes sense. As long as I believe I am right, and the other person is wrong, I will make my arguments as such. Perhaps I should start all of my rebuttals with "IMO" from now on, or change my sig to have a disclaimer that my view is opinion and is not intended to preclude the possibility of ever being wrong. Would that make you feel better?

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

quick wrote:Yes, you missed the point. Regulation is OK as long as it's not intrusive and manipulative.

Isn't that point of regulation, to intrude into and manipulate the system that is to be regulated? Did you really think about that before you posted it?

No, the purpose of regulation is to keep a reasonable measure of restraint, not to intrude. Read my examples again and tell me you don't understand this difference.

Now, it's been amusing, but this is the end of my responses to this ridiculousness, so you can post another rebuttal if you like, and feel that you got the last word on it.

I will, however, return to the discussion at hand:

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:So now that we are completely off topic, why is it ok for a company to have dead peasant life insurance policies on employees but not ex-employees? What is the difference? Will the company use the money to take care of the family I leave behind, I seriously doubt that. Why should anyone benefit from my death besides my family, no matter if I work for them or not?

In my opinion, the reason it is OK for a company to have a policy on an existing employee is that they are an asset. If the employee dies, that company no longer has the benefit of that employee's contribution, at whatever level it may be. Once that employee is gone, the company is no longer counting on that employee for anything, so there is nothing to insure.

Let me put it this way: A company insures the building they operate in, because if that building were to burn to the ground, the company would need the money to either rebuild it, or move to another one. Let's assume Company A owns a building which they operate in. They sell that building and buy another one, moving their operations to the new one. They can no longer carry insurance on the original building, because they do not own it, and do not operate out of it. They would not have a loss due to anything happening to it.

This is the entire premise of insurance. Anything else is just a distorted form of gambling, and it is an abuse of the system. Does this make sense to you?

i dont know how that got blown out of proportion. and harrington i cant beleive that you dont understand quick's stance.


one side is saying the health care system is flawed. so lets sit here and come up with an entirely new system, rework everything, come up with all new rules and put the govement in control of it all.


what quick and i and others are saying is, yes the healthcare system is flawed so lets take it and fix all the problems with the system as it is.. clean up the loopholes. make some changes to clean things up and get it on track, versus a complete overhaul and change.






http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

This thread has nothing to do with, and never has had anything to do with health care reform.

KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.

i just used that as an example. the same line of thought can be used on most things out there. just because someone is against an entire overhaul doesnt mean they dont think it should be changed at all.

its like saying hey, you have a car, fix it instead of just throwing it out and buying a car you can't afford.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography