|
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:55:27 GMT, "Caustic Soda"
<metot@noneofyourbeeswax.org>
rights
Well, then, my insurance company and I must be operating
in violation of the law. My beneficiary is of no family relation
to me at all, but is still entitled to all benefits and has in fact
collected benefits. Why? Because I just happen to be the
one and only man responsible for paying the premiums,
not my employer or the government.
If you had a job, you might realize that the health insurance your
employer offers to you just can't be shared with anyone.
|
| |
| |
If you had a job, you might realize that the health insurance your
employer offers to you just can't be shared with anyone.
FYI, I have TWO jobs! One offers medical insurance to me,
but not to my chosen beneficiary. I pay out of my own
pocket to insure my beneficiary. Even if married, one can
not and should not expect their employers and the
government to do everything for them.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Caustic Soda wrote:
FYI, I have TWO jobs! One offers medical insurance to me,
but not to my chosen beneficiary. I pay out of my own
pocket to insure my beneficiary. Even if married, one can
not and should not expect their employers and the
government to do everything for them.
then you're purchasing an individual medical insurance policy for someone.
that isn't insurance through job benefits, which is what people are talking
about. that's where the inequality lies, among other places. the fact is
that employment benefits are granted to married couples (with some
exceptions in some places that expand some of those benefits).
whether or not you believe that people should have the opportunity to
participate in a common safety net does not change the fact that people have
inequal opportunities to participate in the limited net that exists.
you really *are* that ignorant.
-- astri
|
| |
| |
then you're purchasing an individual medical insurance policy for someone.
that isn't insurance through job benefits, which is what people are
talking
about. that's where the inequality lies, among other places. the fact is
that employment benefits are granted to married couples (with some
exceptions in some places that expand some of those benefits).
whether or not you believe that people should have the opportunity to
participate in a common safety net does not change the fact that people
have
inequal opportunities to participate in the limited net that exists.
Did you ever stop to consider that the employer is under no
legal or moral obligation to grant any insurance at all to the
workers? Did you ever stop to think that trying to force him
to insure both his workers and their counterparts would
cause him to cut his business expenses by completely
eliminating the insurance benefits? That's right, Kiddo.
Insurance is a gift from the employer and if you sit and
whine for more instead of doing anything to deserve that
gift, he will resort to giving you nothing. He might even go
as far as to fire you and hand your job over to some guy in
China.
you really *are* that ignorant.
Calling me ignorant won't change the facts.
-- astri
|
| |
| |
"Caustic Soda" <metot@noneofyourbeeswax.org> wrote:
"astri" <astri@lava.net> wrote:
then you're purchasing an individual medical insurance
policy for someone. that isn't insurance through job
benefits, which is what people are talking about. that's
where the inequality lies, among other places. the fact
is that employment benefits are granted to married
couples (with some exceptions in some places that expand
some of those benefits).
whether or not you believe that people should have the
opportunity to participate in a common safety net does
not change the fact that people have inequal
opportunities to participate in the limited net that
exists.
Did you ever stop
Did you ever stop to read what you were answering before
bumbling off on another tangent because you don't understand
the subject matter? Notice where she intimated that you
weren't talking about the same subject as everyone else?
One is only left to conclude the reason for that is that you
are too stupid to understand the subject matter, which _is_
legal inequalities imposed on same sex couples, and _is not_
Dan Sempsey's private insurance policies.
to consider that the employer is under no
legal or moral obligation to grant any insurance at all to the
workers? Did you ever stop to think that trying to force him
to insure both his workers and their counterparts would
cause him to cut his business expenses by completely
eliminating the insurance benefits? That's right, Kiddo.
Insurance is a gift from the employer
You really are that ignorant! Hey Dan, too much time with
the Powerpuff Girls: Santa Clause is _mythical_, and paid
company insurance is _compensation_, just like paid
vacations, free parking places, or free coffee. No employer
on the planet is _giving_ anyone medical insurance, or any
other benefit. They are all, universally, *trading*
_compensation_ for _labor_, full stop.
and if you sit and whine for more instead of doing
anything to deserve that gift, he will resort to giving
you nothing. He might even go as far as to fire you and
hand your job over to some guy in China.
When the company drops company paid insurance, it also drops
the attraction that insurance had to retain old employees
and win new employees in competition with other employers.
That's purely a business decision, not something based on the
employees' levels of gratitude or states of grace.
you really *are* that ignorant.
Calling me ignorant won't change the facts.
Pretending what you present are _facts_, or _pertinent to the
topic_, keeps on proving you ignorant, though.
Dan, the problem here is that you are unwise, ignorant, and
insistent. Any two of those could be withstood, but the
combination of having the facts wrong, the boorishness to
pound on that same sad set of incorrect facts over and over,
and the stupidity to do it where pretty much everyone around
you is smarter than you and knows better than you do, is a
really unattractive set. The jokes that are funny, the
arguments that work, in the trash haulers' break room, just
don't fit here.
"Rejection" is the hardest thing to face in the world, Dan,
but here, you just count as one of life's rejects. Living
in denial doesn't change things for you, sticking around to
be insulted shows just that you are too insecure to walk
away with your head up high.
As for your second job, convincing someone more gullible
than anyone around you here that what they needed to hire
was a proofreader, and a marginally literate one at that,
means only that you are good at convincing people even less
intellectually gifted than you are of things that are not
necessarily true, not that you are some splendid
entrepeneur, nor that you have a persuasive technique that
is _ever_ going to work on anyone much above the
intellectual level of a clam.
What you _are_ is a person who used substance abuse to
marginalize himself, financially and intellectually,
and has since spent _14_entire_years_ considering his
job as a trash hauler to be the pinnacle of existence,
just the ideal job any passing stranger would be lusting
to share.
That feeling you have toward the drunk in the gutter is
the feeling I have toward you, Dan, and I doubt I'm alone
here, sort of a "there but for the grace of good sense go
I". I had a chance to spend my life as a drunken sailor,
but I chose a different life. Not the happiest one, but
one adequate to my needs. I've now blown three years of my
life, come June, on wheel-spinning, but you are still, and
always will be, eleven years ahead of me in that regard.
xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Caustic Soda wrote:
Did you ever stop to consider that the employer is under no
legal or moral obligation to grant any insurance at all to the
true, but i'm not demanding insurance be provided by employers. i'm
pointing out the inequities between marriage and partnership laws. medical
insurance is not the only issue here. that seems to be something you keep
forgetting.
besides, this is not about bennies. this is about equal protection under
the law. key word: equal. that's a comparative, not an absolute term.
-- astri
|
| |
| |
In article <Pine.BSI.4.58.0402241931480.29153@malasada.lava.net>,
astri <astri@lava.net> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Caustic Soda wrote:
true, but i'm not demanding insurance be provided by employers. i'm
move to california then
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Caustic Soda wrote:
true, but i'm not demanding insurance be provided by employers. i'm
pointing out the inequities between marriage and partnership laws.
medical
insurance is not the only issue here. that seems to be something you keep
forgetting.
besides, this is not about bennies. this is about equal protection under
the law. key word: equal. that's a comparative, not an absolute term.
Oh, but you say this is about more than benefits.
Let's look at the Family Leave Act. That was a bad
idea to begin with. It only promotes habitual
absenteeism. Yet, the gays are not entitled to it
because a man's resident boy toy does not fit the
legal definition of "family". So, gay marriage is
being promoted so more people can be habitual
absentees.
Instead of trying to redefine "family", why not
concentrate on eliminating the Family Leave
Act and allow employers to get rid of the dead
wood? That's equal treatment because then,
gays and hetero sexuals would stand on an
equal footing with their employers. They can
show up sober and do the job or get fired for
absenteeism equally.
|
| |
| |
"Caustic Soda" <metot@noneofyourbeeswax.org> wrote:
They can
show up sober and do the job or get fired for
absenteeism equally.
It just dawned on me; for someone like you, living
the dregs of life left over after a long history of
substance abuse, "show up sober" is probably the
most you think any employer should possibly demand,
very likely because there were years of your life
when you couldn't even manage that. So, from your
vantage, "showing up sober" is the acme of human
accomplishment. Thus for fourteen years you've held
a job where "show up sober" was the only needed skill.
And this is why you drone on about "show up sober";
you have no clue what skills and ethics are needed for
a professional career.
Little starbursts of comprehensibility about your
behavior emerge despite your best efforts to pretend
you are anything more than you are, Dan. You're in a
crowd where being as stupid as you are is a real
disadvantage, mostly, to most of us, you're mostly
transparent as glass, not the case among your fellow
trash gatherers. Presumably another thing comforting
to you about that job is that you aren't confronted
moment to moment with people much smarter than you,
between the gambling addicts and those who prey on
them.
If you weren't so utterly contemptible in every conceivable
way, though, you'd maybe get a little more of your fair
share of pity from others for your truly miserable life.
Explain to us one more time about your obsession with the
powerpuff girls newsgroup full of pre-nubile girls, eh,
Dan?
xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| |
| |
Explain to us one more time about your obsession with the
powerpuff girls newsgroup full of pre-nubile girls, eh,
Dan?
Go talk to those people yourself and you will very quickly
discover that all of them are MEN and WOMEN very well
over the age of 21.
|
| |
| |
"Caustic Soda" <metot@noneofyourbeeswax.org> wrote:
"Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com> wrote:
Explain to us one more time about your obsession with the
powerpuff girls newsgroup full of pre-nubile girls, eh,
Dan?
Go talk to those people yourself and you will very quickly
discover that all of them are MEN and WOMEN very well
over the age of 21.
Really? Some congressional act I missed noticing has raised
the posting age to 21? Why do I just know you are lying through
your teeth, Dan Sempsey?
Anyway, it must be nice to know you are not the only pederast
on the planet, I suppose. I noticed you stopped posting there
shortly after I put the rest of your personality on display
for that newsgroup, or have you just ginned up another hidden
identity, and gone back to predator mode, Dan Sempsey?
Speaking of:
:> Perfect example of a guy who listens to only half a statement
:> and then runs off on an irrelevant tangent.
Weren't there a few other issues in that post you might not have
wanted it understood you were confessing to by failing to address
them?
xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| |
| |
Anyway, it must be nice to know you are not the only pederast
on the planet, I suppose. I noticed you stopped posting there
shortly after I put the rest of your personality on display
for that newsgroup, or have you just ginned up another hidden
identity, and gone back to predator mode, Dan Sempsey?
See that? Just go there if you are such a f*cking expert on the
PROVE that I'm lying. There are no children anywhere to be
found in that group and there never have been any. This
fabrication of yours glaringly tells the truth about you.
Go there and fetch even one kid to prove your lie!
Use that damned Google or any other tool you can name.
YOU CAN'T!
|
| |
| |
|
