CCCToad on 3/9/2009 at 03:39
Because the version of the bill that's been floating around is fairly vague in many respects, and it uses tax and regulatory code that the federal plan is exempt from.
If the bill was modified so that I could try to skip on insurance without being punished for it, I'd be much happier with it.
Really, it comes down to whether you believe senator obama or president obama. the tax, the clause that forbids review of payments made by the court system and other provisions in the bill seem to me consistent with Senator obama's stated desire to eliminate private health insurance over the next few decades.
Of course, that probably won't be realized unless presidents with that same agenda continue to get elected. More likely, the program will continue to get tossed around like the political football it is and the only thing to come of it will be yet another expensive, wasteful bureaucracy (like any other in the insurance business)
edited: I don't think my view is that cynical. Its generally accepted that governments are willing to go to war for economic benefit (some would say the current one), while a recent example of corporate sponsored violence was the assassination of Colombian union leaders by the coca cola company.
Of course, abuse and coercion occur on smaller levels as well, like your stereotypical corrupt sheriff. However, when power is decentralized to some degree, it is easier to fight misuse. Again, there is no perfect solution, I just think that power (economic, military, or otherwise) is more dangerous when its all in one place
If you want to fight more, lets take it to another thread and let him get advice on his car in peace.
D'Juhn Keep on 3/9/2009 at 03:45
Quote Posted by Thief13x
Okay I just have to call you out on this shit
Agent Monkeysee, look up the word 'ladder'... it actually has more than one definition or meaning.
Turtle on 3/9/2009 at 03:46
Get the fuck out of this thread. Both of you.
CCCToad on 3/9/2009 at 03:49
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
so in other words you hate freedome is that it
Guilty as charged. :ebil:
As long as I'm the one ordering the minions about.
mudi on 3/9/2009 at 04:19
Here then Here then, what's all this then?
Aha! Flamebait! And the bait is taken so quickly!
Now folks, this thread ISN'T ABOUT INSURANCE COMPANIES, IT IS ACTUALLY ABOUT A CAR RENTAL COMPANY. Go pollute your own threads :rolleyes:
Rug Burn Junky on 3/9/2009 at 05:35
You're new around these parts, aren't you? You should probably go back to ThiefGen.
theBlackman on 3/9/2009 at 07:07
Quote Posted by Marecki
[...]We identified him, then said we would follow up as soon as the rental company tells us what to do (we were about to leave).
[...]we were informed the rental company would for now withhold our deposit of 500 USD, estimate the damage, follow the matter up with the perpetrator or his insurance company and refund us the deposit afterwards. There the matter rested.
Complications began to rise when, having got fed up with waiting for the refund, we contacted the company in April this year. The lady in charge of the situation informed us she couldn't get the perpetrator's insurance company to respond so she would mail us all the paperwork so that we would take care of the matter ourselves. We began waiting for the package.[...]
At the beginning of August we got fed up with waiting and called the company yet again. We then discovered the following:
- the lady in question, who has since been laid off, had apparently made no attempt whatsoever to extract a refund from the perpetrator! She simply made sure the total cost would be exactly 500 USD (according to their information the real total of repairs, an "administrative fee" and a "loss of use" penalty - was just over 512 USD, and the lady waived everything over 500) and marked it off as paid by the customer. Mind you, we were never told about any of this;
[...]said the company would not be able to follow up with the perpetrator because "the file is now closed" so we do have to do it ourselves. He has forwarded us a copy of the repair bill and said breakdown of total cost (but not an official invoice, despite us having specifically asked for it).
[...]
As much as it pains me, Mudi is correct. It is about the rental company and they way they handled the situation and screwed Marecki out of the deposit.
SubJeff on 3/9/2009 at 07:26
Quote Posted by Thief13x
I'll be damned, Touché, I really thought he was looking for portray and cannot pass up an opportunity to fire back...carry on
Looks like that degree did f all for you after all.
mudi on 3/9/2009 at 13:58
Or maybe YOU'RE NEW AROUND HERE? OHHHH
Ok actually no. But I wasn't blaming you, the fact that the obvious bait was taken so readily was most of my problem.
(that thiefgen comment was tongue-in-cheek guys. come on.) :rolleyes:
Rug Burn Junky on 3/9/2009 at 14:39
You have, at the time of this post, 8 posts in CommChat in your history, that's about as new as it gets, n00b. What you've done elsewhere doesn't matter: you're new around here.
Maybe you ought to get the lay of the land a bit first before you start shooting your mouth off.
