Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/2004/atn040101.html

Most of these are working citizens, not illegal immigrants or unemployed slackers, as some people *COUGHKIDROCKCOUGH* like to pretend.

The terrorist attacks of 2001, in contrast, killed around 3,000. Looks like insurance companies are the real deadliest enemies of the US.

Originally posted by King Kandy
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/2004/atn040101.html

Most of these are working citizens, not illegal immigrants or unemployed slackers, as some people *COUGHKIDROCKCOUGH* like to pretend.

The terrorist attacks of 2001, in contrast, killed around 3,000. Looks like insurance companies are the real deadliest enemies of the US.

While I agree with your point, thoroughly, your comments about KR are considered trolling.

Originally posted by King Kandy
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/2004/atn040101.html

Most of these are working citizens, not illegal immigrants or unemployed slackers, as some people *COUGHKIDROCKCOUGH* like to pretend.

The terrorist attacks of 2001, in contrast, killed around 3,000. Looks like insurance companies are the real deadliest enemies of the US. Insurance companies?

Do you mean diseases, cause that would make more sense.

This is simply what they deserve. I don't understand how people can see it any other way.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Insurance companies?

Do you mean diseases, cause that would make more sense.

His argument is an argument of murder by inaction. I think that has some sort of legal validity in some states.

It does. I just looked it up. It's called "duty to rescue".


Found something that's closer to home, for you, Bards.

http://www.123recht.net/Echte-Unterlassungsdelikte-__a739__p3.html

Originally posted by Bardock42
Insurance companies?

Do you mean diseases, cause that would make more sense.
No, because if they were able to get covered the diseases could get treated, for the most part.

The possibility of for-profit health insurance being criminalized in the united states is one of the reasons I still support the death penalty.

OK that's just a bit too vengeful...

Why? I have no problem with capital punishment as long as it's equitably applied to the people that cause the most harm to society.

I just think that saying that the death sentence should be maintained because of the chance health insurance executives could be executed, does not seem like reasonable motivation.

I mean, they may or may not deserve it, but that's not the kind of stuff laws should be based on.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Why? I have no problem with capital punishment as long as it's equitably applied to the people that cause the most harm to society.

Which is sort of paradoxical, because death penalty cannot be applied nor will it even be applied fairly nor justly, not to mention without error.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Which is sort of paradoxical, because death penalty cannot be applied nor will it even be applied fairly nor justly, not to mention without error.
That's not paradoxical at all. There's nothing inherent in the concept of death penalty that is unjust, erring, or unfair. All the problems are execution errors, not concept errors.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's not paradoxical at all. There's nothing inherent in the concept of death penalty that is unjust, erring, or unfair. All the problems are execution errors, not concept errors.

Wait, this is even funner.

You think there is nothing paradoxical about ''justice system'' killing people because they've killed/suspected of killing someone/pushed drugs.

In case you were unfamiliar with the history of justice system, we invented it so we wouldn't have to employ tribal like means of dealing with delinquent behaviour.

And in case you failed to read the post above (which you have) DJ argued that he is in favour of death penalty if distributed right.
It can NEVER be distributed right due to money distribution within society, institutionalized racism and range of other factors.

So please READ before comment.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You think there is nothing paradoxical about ''justice system'' killing people because they've killed/suspected of killing someone/pushed drugs.
That the punishment should be equal to the crime, is certainly one idea of justice. Pushing drugs, I would not have that be a death crime if I were in charge of things, but i'm not.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
In case you were unfamiliar with the history of justice system, we invented it so we wouldn't have to employ tribal like means of dealing with delinquent behaviour.
And evidently YOU are unfamiliar that the justice system has historically used the death sentence liberally in many countries. That nobody should ever be put to death, is a very recent phenomenon. All across the british empire people were hanged upon conviction of certain crimes.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And in case you failed to read the post above (which you have) DJ argued that he is in favour of death penalty if distributed right.
It can NEVER be distributed right due to money distribution within society, institutionalized racism and range of other factors.
I have read all the posts. I have already said, these things are not anything to do with the death penalty itself. If all you can say is that there could be problems in the execution of it, that speaks more of the justice system then it does of the death penalty. Your criticism is not a criticism of the system he mentioned, where it's fairly distributed, it's a criticism of how it's applied in the real world.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So please READ before comment.
I have read everything, and everything you have said is nonsense. It's poor logic to think you can make ideal systems bad by mentioning applied systems.

Subject for another thread but my view is that the purpose of capital punishment is to relieve society of and punish people who are too dangerous to live. You know, serial rapists and murderers, corporate criminals, death profiteers, traitors, war criminals, cult leaders, and TV network executives.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That the punishment should be equal to the crime, is certainly one idea of justice. Pushing drugs, I would not have that be a death crime if I were in charge of things, but i'm not.


And evidently YOU are unfamiliar that the justice system has historically used the death sentence liberally in many countries. That nobody should ever be put to death, is a very recent phenomenon. All across the british empire people were hanged upon conviction of certain crimes.


I have read all the posts. I have already said, these things are not anything to do with the death penalty itself. If all you can say is that there could be problems in the execution of it, that speaks more of the justice system then it does of the death penalty. Your criticism is not a criticism of the system he mentioned, where it's fairly distributed, it's a criticism of how it's applied in the real world.


I have read everything, and everything you have said is nonsense. It's poor logic to think you can make ideal systems bad by mentioning applied systems.

I have a degree and MA in Criminology and Criminal Justice and I find it laughable that you should try and teach me anything about history of it.
It's offensive and embarrassing - for you.

Modern justice system you know today was born in France, although the ideas were taken from an Italian sociologist.
And the whole BASES of the system is that there will NOT be an eye for an eye.
Death penalty was viewed as barbaric and incomparable with the new justice system.

Before such there was NO modern type justice system in any country - it was a feudal/religious ''court'' rule that put people to death.
It was the whole reason for the creation of justice system, and thank the French, otherwise you'd still be chopping heads off for all kinds of offences.

Delinquent behaviour is a sociological phenomenon caused by range of factors not something that just happens because people are bastards.

And no, you have not read anything - you saw my post that was indicating lack of support for death penalty and you jumped in to type a stupid response.

If you have read the question, DO care to address it - what you wrote is ''bla bla bla death penalty is great!'' when in fact I have addressed EQUAL AND JUST DISTRIBUTION of death penalty.

Therefore, you may lack reading comperhantion.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Subject for another thread but my view is that the purpose of capital punishment is to relieve society of and punish people who are too dangerous to live. You know, serial rapists and murderers, corporate criminals, death profiteers, traitors, war criminals, cult leaders, and TV network executives.

Those are that do the most damage and are least (statistically) persecuted. They cause more loss of life, theft and ruined lives than all blue collar crime put together.

You can whine and whine that what you were addressing was REAL LIFE APPLICATIONS of the death penalty, but it is obvious what you were saying was a reaction to Jello's post, which addressed no such matters.

Again, if you have nothing to say about problems in an IDEALIZED death penalty system, then nothing you say can in any way form a counterpoint to Jello or my post. Theory=/=practice.

I'd love to hear you hurl more insults at me for trying to show you the difference between actual practice and an idealized system, but we really should be getting back to healthcare here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
His argument is an argument of murder by inaction. I think that has some sort of legal validity in some states.

It does. I just looked it up. It's called "duty to rescue".


Found something that's closer to home, for you, Bards.

http://www.123recht.net/Echte-Unterlassungsdelikte-__a739__p3.html That only applies amongst real persons not corporate entities, and even if we apply it to them, why only target insurance companies Wal Mart, McDonald's, Exxon, they have even more money and could easily save people. Or even Bill Gates or Warren Buffet...heck, you could probably save someone if you'd buy just a few less DVD's.

Really, singling out insurance companies solely because they are already in the business of saving people (for profit) is silly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That only applies amongst real persons not corporate entities, and even if we apply it to them, why only target insurance companies Wal Mart, McDonald's, Exxon, they have even more money and could easily save people. Or even Bill Gates or Warren Buffet...heck, you could probably save someone if you'd buy just a few less DVD's.

Really, singling out insurance companies solely because they are already in the business of saving people (for profit) is silly. Hey, I'm just explaining what KK said. That's what he was getting at.

And, ever hear of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation? awesome Good ol' Bill is nicer than you thought, eh?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Before such there was NO modern type justice system in any country - it was a feudal/religious ''court'' rule that put people to death.
It was the whole reason for the creation of justice system, and thank the French, otherwise you'd still be chopping heads off for all kinds of offences.

lol, at the risk of another "off topic" warning...

how do the traveling judges of England and the rule of precedence fit into this? Does that predate the French revolution or was it something adopted sort of to parallel what you are talking about?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Again, if you have nothing to say about problems in an IDEALIZED death penalty system, then nothing you say can in any way form a counterpoint to Jello or my post. Theory=/=practice.

what is the purpose of discussing idealized things? technically, religion is perfect when idealized, so is fascism, and slavery...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Hey, I'm just explaining what KK said. That's what he was getting at.

And, ever hear of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation? awesome Good ol' Bill is nicer than you thought, eh?

And I explained why my post you replied to still stands.


I knew of it, yes.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And I explained why my post you replied to still stands.


I knew of it, yes.

And I explained that "duty to rescue" actually exists. And, since the organization is DIRECTLY involved in the healthcare and survival of a person, you're comparisons to other rich people is flawed. I didn't want to call you on it, but, you're getting lippy. I was going to let KK take care of it.



And, if you knew of it, why did you mention Bill Gates name? Hmmm? You think that's air you're breathing?

All i'm saying, is that most of the time the diseases would not have killed them if they were treated. Hence, if everyone were able to be treated, these deaths would not occur.

This is bananas yo because i was just thinking..,"yo, by my calculamlations 18,000 americans die each year from inoculation shots". hmmmmm. this is a weird coincidence.

Based on what came out about the woman with lung cancer, can we ask how many Americans die each year because their insurance company covers of their serious medical conditions until it's too late?

How about the woman who got fired because of her lupus, and since she lost her health insurance providing job, she died from it.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Based on what came out about the woman with lung cancer, can we ask how many Americans die each year because their insurance company covers of their serious medical conditions until it's too late? Oh, I agree that insurance companies, especially in the US, are pieces of shit, I just figure one should blame them for what they do.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And I explained that "duty to rescue" actually exists. And, since the organization is DIRECTLY involved in the healthcare and survival of a person, you're comparisons to other rich people is flawed. I didn't want to call you on it, but, you're getting lippy. I was going to let KK take care of it.



And, if you knew of it, why did you mention Bill Gates name? Hmmm? You think that's air you're breathing?

You are wrong though, the comparison to rich people is fair in the wording of the law that you quoted to me. There's no reason according to the law (forgetting once more that it SOLELY applies to real persons under the law) to single out insurance companies, anyone else who could reasonably provide for their coverage is just as guilty.


Well, it's something, I tend to call it air.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, I agree that insurance companies, especially in the US, are pieces of shit, I just figure one should blame them for what they do.

You are wrong though, the comparison to rich people is fair in the wording of the law that you quoted to me. There's no reason according to the law (forgetting once more that it SOLELY applies to real persons under the law) to single out insurance companies, anyone else who could reasonably provide for their coverage is just as guilty.


Well, it's something, I tend to call it air.
I never said that the insurance companies are doing anything illegal, but what they are doing is immoral and hurts the US.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I never said that the insurance companies are doing anything illegal, but what they are doing is immoral and hurts the US.

You mean not covering everyone even if they can't pay?

Or that really immoral stuff?

Their existence is inherently immoral.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Their existence is inherently immoral.

Don't be ridiculous. How so?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are wrong though, the comparison to rich people is fair in the wording of the law that you quoted to me. There's no reason according to the law (forgetting once more that it SOLELY applies to real persons under the law) to single out insurance companies, anyone else who could reasonably provide for their coverage is just as guilty.

"since the organization is DIRECTLY involved in the healthcare and survival of a person, you're comparisons to other rich people is flawed."

Emphasis was made on purpose. You can't get into trouble because your inaction indirectly allowed someone to die. Do you see what that point of yours is horribly illogical?

Originally posted by dadudemon
"since the organization is DIRECTLY involved in the healthcare and survival of a person, you're comparisons to other rich people is flawed."

Emphasis was made on purpose. You can't get into trouble because your inaction indirectly allowed someone to die. Do you see what that point of yours is horribly illogical? But they aren't directly involved. If the people are insured and the insurance refused to pay, then you'd have a point, but this is about them not being insured at all and therefore dying, which means the insurance is NOT DIRECTLY involved (emphasis was made on purpose as well).

Can or should this topic be merged with the health care thread?