Your Government, Your Friend

[Victus]

Davin wrote

Responding to Brick's point and responding to Brick are two separate things.

Heh. Surrender accepted.

Davin wrote

I'll go with responding to the point, and Brick avoiding the point that I made...

Then your more recent post was inaccurate, either by confusion or active deception on your part. Either way, we've established that you responded to Brick's point that insurance is a financial mechanism for dealing with non-routine risks.

Davin wrote

Which is completely separate from anything previously brought up in the conversation.

To the extent that co-pays are a means of not-insuring a given routine medical expenditure, and to the extent that you want to make the case that your asthma is routine medical expenditure, then Brick's comment about co-pays logically follows from his definition of insurance as provided. If you pay co-pays, then your insurance company isn't 'insuring' the cost of your asthma (and hence your counter-point to Brick's definition is moot).

As such, it has been brought up in the preceding conversation, although your lack of knowledge of insurance markets and economics may have prevented you from realizing it.

Davin wrote

No he didn't argue that...

It's right there in plain text - pretty hard to deny. But if you think you're right, why won't we just ask Brick?

Hey Brick, when you said, "Did it ever occur to you that the reason your insurance pays for medication is because there are relatively few people with asthma?", were you arguing that asthma isn't actually a 'routine risk'? Thanks!

Davin wrote

Because he failed to address the point that was brought up, and I refuse to move on to something else until the moron can show that it has some ability to have a rational conversation even if I have to hold its hand.

As noted previously, he's responded to you by asking you whether you have co-pays for your asthma medication. You deny that this is the case, despite it's plain presence on the page. The only way to resolve that, then, is to ask Brick.

Davin wrote

You said:

"To such a definition you responded:" then quoted my response:

So let's look at the date of my response and the date of what you claimed I was responding to:

My "response" occurred on: 02-15-2012, 08:53 AM
What you said I responded to occurred on: 02-16-2012, 08:04PM

So you're saying that I was responding to something that hadn't even been said yet. Good work, moron.

Actually, if you check my post you can see that I cited a number of Brick's posts as a counter to your suggestion that Brick was using an inconsistent definition of 'insurance' (i.e., multiple posts demonstrating a consistent use of the term).

Checking the time stamps of each of the posts I cited, interspersed with your responses (translated for my local times, of course)...

02-15-2012, 03:24 AM (Brick's original (?) offering of a definition of insurance)
02-15-2012, 03:53 PM (Davin responds to Brick's definition of insurance)
02-17-2012, 03:04 AM
02-18-2012, 11:40 PM
02-19-2012, 11:31 PM
02-21-2012, 03:35 PM (Davin declares Brick's definition inconsistent)

Of the posts I cited (to the effect of demonstrating a consistent definition), one is prior to your initial response (the original definition, as far as I can tell). All the rest are later, but still prior to your declaration of his definition as being inconsistent (which was the point of my post, in any case)

Davin wrote

But changing the order that the conversation occurred in is honest? Right...

I haven't changed the order of the conversation - the original post to which you responded was included among the ones that I cited. Rather, you simply selected one example, seemingly arbitrarily, and declared the conversation out of sequence. A little more time reading and a little less time formulating ad hom comments will take you far in life.

Davin wrote

I posted the conversation in the order that it occurred. The inconsistencies are you saying I responded to things that hadn't been said yet. You're either being dishonest, or you're having some kind of mental issues.

See previous. The source of the imagined dis-order is you. Make inferences about your mental capacity as necessary.

Davin wrote

I'm not complaining about anything.

Except that Brick won't answer you questions (even though he clearly appears to have done so). But ok.

Davin wrote

Yeah, let me know when you grow up.

So I take it you're not really that confident in the truth of your position, then?

Returning to my initial conclusion...

Victus, earlier wrote

So the long and the short of this whole discussion is that you seem to have trouble extracting information from written words.

[Victus]

Sol wrote

Prick - Do you think car accidents are NOT routine, ordinary (everyday) occurrences. ???? And, that car accidents are performed separately from a regular course of action, such as driving. ???

For the individual (i.e., the purchaser of insurance)? Yes - car accidents are rare (hence why an insurance market exists).

[Brick]

Sol wrote

Sorry to jump in Davin, but I have to ask him.

Prick - Do you think car accidents are NOT routine, ordinary (everyday) occurrences. ????

And, that car accidents are performed separately from a regular course of action, such as driving. ????

Or are you going to vacillate once more about what it is you think you posted ?

For individuals, they are not routine occurences. If they were, it would make no sense to offer insurance for it.

Is winning at a casino an ordinary occurence? In a large group, yes, but it's not frequent or routine occurence.

Davin wrote

No, it doesn't, but I see that the stupid is strong with this one. Did you even look at your definitions? Where did "misfortune" come from? Let's look:

Nope, not there. So you looked at the definition of the words, and still picked some random meaning from no where to just throw in there? And you're trying to be condescending about teaching me English? Are you extremely stupid or just dishonest?

Tell me, Brick: Do you think there is still a risk for a car accident after it already happened? Car accidents are not routine, but the possibility of getting into one is. Which is why it's called a routine risk and not a routine happening.

Keep up trying to understand English, I'm sure you'll get to an eight year olds reading level soon.

Risk means a possible bad outcome. A routine risk is a possible bad outcome which is likely to occur. What is so hard to understand here? As Victus put it, insurance is about providing protection against high-cost, low-probability events. Do you agree with that definition?

Of course there's always a risk for car accidents- that's not the point. The probability of one happening and its average cost are what matter.

If you're convinced I'm in the wrong on this, why not explain how you think insurance works and why it exists? And after that, you can explain to me how given that framework, it's sensible for the govt to force insurance companies to pay for birth control.

Victus wrote

Heh. Surrender accepted.

No, he's more like one of those fanatical Japanese soldiers who didn't surrender until 30 years after the war was over.

It's right there in plain text - pretty hard to deny. But if you think you're right, why won't we just ask Brick?

Hey Brick, when you said, "Did it ever occur to you that the reason your insurance pays for medication is because there are relatively few people with asthma?", were you arguing that asthma isn't actually a 'routine risk'? Thanks!

Why, yes I was.

[ILOVEJESUS]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...best-care.html Just an interesting perspective/read/opinion.

[Stargazer]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...best-care.html Just an interesting perspective/read/opinion.

Undeniably, the UK has a better system for healthcare. People can get treatment without going bankrupt, and are, dare I say it, treated like people, not patients.

[Davin]

Victus wrote

Heh. Surrender accepted.

What surrender, you made an incorrect claim, I corrected you, so you're accepting your own surrender? Very well,I accept.

Victus wrote

Then your more recent post was inaccurate, [...]

Yes, I was responding to Brick's point, not Brick. I said I was responding to psychodiva, as I was, and you said I was responding to Brick, which I wasn't.

Victus wrote

To the extent that co-pays are a means of not-insuring a given routine medical expenditure, [...]

Despite your lack of knowledge of whether I pay a co-pay for my asthma medication or not, you and Brick assumed that I do. Good work and your baseless assumptions!

Victus wrote

It's right there in plain text - pretty hard to deny. [...]

No, it's not there in any kind of text, but you go ahead and keep irrationally assuming things that aren't there.

Victus wrote

As noted previously, he's responded to you by asking you whether you have co-pays for your asthma medication. You deny that this is the case, despite it's plain presence on the page. The only way to resolve that, then, is to ask Brick.

Where did I deny that? So if I don't pay for my Asthma medication, that makes Brick incorrect. But because I've not divulged that information one way or the other, you're both just opperating from assumptions. BTW, my GF pays a co-pay for her birth control, so I guess that means her insurance doesn't cover it right?

Victus wrote

Actually, if you check my post [...]
02-15-2012, 03:24 AM (Brick's original (?) offering of a definition of insurance)
02-15-2012, 03:53 PM (Davin responds to Brick's definition of insurance)
02-17-2012, 03:04 AM
02-18-2012, 11:40 PM
02-19-2012, 11:31 PM
02-21-2012, 03:35 PM (Davin declares Brick's definition inconsistent)

I never declared Brick's definition inconsistent, please cite where I did. Or you could just stop lying. Also, the response of mine that you said I responded to Brick about occured a day and a half before the statement of Brick's that you cited. Just go back and look at my post, take your time this time, if I'm using words too difficult for you, let me know because I'm really trying to keep this simple for you.

Victus wrote

I haven't changed the order of the conversation[..]

Yeah, you did. Did you get this kind of apologetic response from reading Egor?

Victus wrote

See previous. The source of the imagined dis-order is you. Make inferences about your mental capacity as necessary.

I never made any inferences of my mental capacity, I made inferencses of yours. But I that's OK, I'm sure you're trying real hard to be able to read.

Victus wrote

Except that Brick won't answer you questions (even though he clearly appears to have done so). But ok.

I'm not complaining, just pointing it out.

Victus wrote

So I take it you're not really that confident in the truth of your position, then?

Take it however you want, Victus, I won't stand in the way of your delusions.

Victus wrote

Returning to my initial conclusion...

lol

Edit: removed more of Victus' irrational banter.

[Davin]

Brick wrote

Risk means a possible bad outcome.

Good work, now where did you get "misfortune" from?

Brick wrote

No, he's more like one of those fanatical Japanese soldiers who didn't surrender until 30 years after the war was over.

The lack of your self-awareness is hilarious.

Brick wrote

Why, yes I was.

Then cite where you stated so prior to Victus' interjection. Otherwise, all I can take from it is that you're saying so after the fact.

[Davin]

BTW, Brick and Victus: I don't pay a co-pay for my asthma medication and my GF does for her birth control pills.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Davin wrote

BTW, Brick and Victus: I don't pay a co-pay for my asthma medication and my GF does for her birth control pills.

My dyslexia had that at " I don't pay for a three way with my asthma medication and my GF". Whats on my mind these days.....?

[Davin]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

My dyslexia had that at " I don't pay for a three way with my asthma medication and my GF". Whats on my mind these days.....?

Well, I don't pay for three-ways either.

[Sol]

You asked:

Brick wrote

Tell me Davin: do you think car accidents are routine; ordinary occurrences performed as part of a regular course of action? If so, it would be best not tell your insurance company.

I asked - do you think car accidents are not routine occurrences:
You responded

Brick wrote

For individuals, they are not routine occurences.

I asked do you think car accidents are not routine occurrences.

Could I have a fuckin answer you vacillating twat.

I've bolded the fuckin important words to make it fuckin easier for you to follow you thick fuck..........
If you cannot answer... say so.

[Smellyoldgit]

Getting a straight, non-convoluted, non-bullshit answer out of a libertariatheist is like ........................?

[dogpet]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Getting a straight, non-convoluted, non-bullshit answer out of a libertariatheist is like

sanding an elephant into a flea.

How do you subdue a libertarian?

˙ɹǝqɯnu ʇuǝɹǝɟɟıp ɐ sɐɥ uıɐɹʇ ʎɹǝʌǝ ʇı llǝ┴

[Stargazer]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Getting a straight, non-convoluted, non-bullshit answer out of a libertariatheist is like ........................?

Trying to throw potato chips at a dart board and hit the center.

[Brick]

Davin wrote

Good work, now where did you get "misfortune" from?

The lack of your self-awareness is hilarious.

Then cite where you stated so prior to Victus' interjection. Otherwise, all I can take from it is that you're saying so after the fact.

Routine risk = ordinary misfortune = high-probability, low-cost event.
See post #40 of this thread.

Davin wrote

BTW, Brick and Victus: I don't pay a co-pay for my asthma medication and my GF does for her birth control pills.

See? Was that so hard?

Sol wrote

You asked:


I asked - do you think car accidents are not routine occurrences:
You responded


I asked do you think car accidents are not routine occurrences.

Could I have a fuckin answer you vacillating twat.

I've bolded the fuckin important words to make it fuckin easier for you to follow you thick fuck..........
If you cannot answer... say so.

Of course car accidents happen everyday- that's not the point. Insurance companies want to know the odds of an individual being in a car accident, not the odds of one happening at all, anywhere.