Quote:
Originally Posted by John Drake
Yeh, crying liberal cow, she only paid the money all these years in pure good faith like the company told her to, what's the whiny bitch want, justice?
She either been a victim of negligence (a 'bureaucratic oversight' is a mistake, and a mistake qualifies as negligence) or, if the company never intended to pay and so deliberately didn't tell her, she's the victim of fraud. In either case she used to be able to sue for at least what she paid for but apparently, the SCOTUS now takes your view that corporations can do no wrong, so we little people are just SOL if they decide to fuck us.
Compassionate conservatism at its best. We can't rely upon our insurance but rich people can still buy guns to protect themselves from all those they've swindled out of their life savings.
|
You should tell the conservative partisans that I'm one of them now. They all accuse me of being a liberal when acting just like you.
But, your assuming that anyone who disagrees with you must be your idealogical twin on the other side of the fence and subsequent strawman arguments dismissed as the hysterical pap they are, you haven't really made a strong argument in the first place.
The company enacted a policy and the dying man and his wife were unaware of it, perhaps through no fault of their own. Nevertheless, he didn't meet the criteria for receiving the payout, and thus didn't.
I've made no claim to agree with the law per se. I'm only pointing out what the SCOTUS agreeing not to hear it,
in this case, doesn't seem like a big deal. As I've said, there are no shortage of sob stories, and hysterically shrieking "there oughta be a law!!!" for each particular one doesn't really do the level of discourse any justice nor does it typically result in sensible policy, across the board. Perhaps I'll create a thread with gruesome images of people wearing red shirts killed in car crashes and then accuse anyone who disagrees with my assessment that that "compassionate conservatives" are fighting laws against red shirts and driving because they love guns.
Another way to look at it, in Devil's Advocate terms, is that allowing people to sue for large sums of money under these circumstances would cause all of our premiums to increase substantially.