|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) |
![]() |
rpgamerd00d
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:38 PM Original message |
Some brave woman needs to take life insurance out on her fetus |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Duer 157099
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:40 PM Response to Original message |
1. Brilliant!! n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:40 PM Response to Original message |
2. Yeah, but what if Holy Roller Insurance Co. issues the policy? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rpgamerd00d
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:41 PM Response to Reply #2 |
4. Make it a $10 Billion policy and take the morning after pill |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LisaL
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:45 PM Response to Reply #4 |
9. Would that work with SO? Marry someone, take out a life insurance, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rpgamerd00d
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:48 PM Response to Reply #9 |
15. They usually dont pay if the beneficiary committed murder on the insured |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LisaL
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:49 PM Response to Reply #15 |
17. So, how do you propose this will work if a woman decides to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rpgamerd00d
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:50 PM Response to Reply #17 |
21. Simple. "Oops, miscarriage. Pay me." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LisaL
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:52 PM Response to Reply #21 |
22. The same would go for SO, i suppose? Oops, accident, pay me? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rpgamerd00d
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:53 PM Response to Reply #22 |
23. Cops would have to prove murder. And the same for miscarriage. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pharaoh
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 08:05 PM Response to Reply #23 |
59. They will tell you to read the fine print |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ehrnst
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 07:51 AM Response to Reply #4 |
68. You mean RU486 - not emergency contraception. EC prevents implantation. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nitrogenica
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:41 PM Response to Original message |
3. That's brilliant. Insurance company greed is a powerful force. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
shaniqua6392
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:42 PM Response to Original message |
5. You should send your idea to the ACLU! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:43 PM Response to Original message |
6. We could take it further and go for the sperm thing? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OmmmSweetOmmm
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:44 PM Response to Original message |
7. This is a totally BRILLIANT idea! Also, the Insurance Lobby is so Huge |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LisaL
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:45 PM Response to Original message |
8. I believe insurance companies can decline someone a life |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rpgamerd00d
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:46 PM Response to Reply #8 |
12. Nope. I am a licensed Life Insurance agent. Only pre-existing... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LisaL
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:48 PM Response to Reply #12 |
14. I suppose the fetus will have to be diagnosed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rpgamerd00d
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:50 PM Response to Reply #14 |
18. They wouldn't go that far, that is my point. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LisaL
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:53 PM Response to Reply #18 |
25. By aborting the fetus, you would be murdering the insured. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rpgamerd00d
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:59 PM Response to Reply #25 |
30. Again, the point isnt to file a claim really, its to get the Ins Company |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yupster
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 04:01 PM Response to Reply #12 |
32. Wait a minute rpgamer |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ehrnst
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 08:00 AM Response to Reply #32 |
69. A pregnant woman simply taking out the policy may be enough |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ehrnst
![]() |
Tue Feb-28-06 09:59 AM Response to Reply #69 |
106. Self-delete (dupe) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Misunderestimator
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 01:07 PM Response to Reply #12 |
87. Won't fly.... The preexisting risk would be the pregnancy itself. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TriMetFan
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:49 PM Response to Reply #8 |
16. What risk? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LisaL
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:50 PM Response to Reply #16 |
19. Risk of miscarriage and fetus not making it to be a baby. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TriMetFan
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 04:00 PM Response to Reply #19 |
31. But the right says the fetus is a baby. So there is a baby. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yupster
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 04:04 PM Response to Reply #16 |
35. The baby could have any number of life threatening illnesses |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jbnow
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 01:27 AM Response to Reply #35 |
66. Then have a person who |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FlaGranny
![]() |
Tue Feb-28-06 12:19 AM Response to Reply #35 |
105. They can examine the baby with |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TriMetFan
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:46 PM Response to Original message |
10. Great thinking. Now to only find that women. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WePurrsevere
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:46 PM Response to Original message |
11. I wonder if it would work if a grandmother took out a policy on her |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rpgamerd00d
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:47 PM Response to Reply #11 |
13. You can with permission from the guardian. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WePurrsevere
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:53 PM Response to Reply #13 |
24. My parents didn't need my permission to take out the policy on my |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yupster
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:50 PM Response to Reply #11 |
20. You have to have an insurable risk of loss in a person |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WePurrsevere
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 04:02 PM Response to Reply #20 |
33. As I said.. my parents took out policies on my daughters. One was a |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yupster
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 04:53 PM Response to Reply #33 |
46. Here's from an on-line law dictionary |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WePurrsevere
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 06:20 PM Response to Reply #46 |
54. Thank you for finding that info. :-) n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bobbieinok
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 08:51 PM Response to Reply #20 |
61. so WalMart has 'insurable interest' on employees it insures??? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AllegroRondo
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 09:18 AM Response to Reply #61 |
71. Yes, actually they do. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Freedom_Aflaim
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:53 PM Response to Original message |
26. I doubt that will go anywhere |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ArmchairActivist
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:55 PM Response to Original message |
27. This is one of the finest ideas I've ever seen on DU! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yupster
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:56 PM Response to Original message |
28. Nah |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rpgamerd00d
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 03:58 PM Response to Reply #28 |
29. This only is true for policies over $250,000, actually. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yupster
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 04:44 PM Response to Reply #29 |
42. That's not correct |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bunny
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 04:48 PM Response to Reply #29 |
44. Huh? I took out a life insurance policy on myself for quite a bit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sheelz
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 04:53 PM Response to Reply #29 |
45. Does the dollar amount of the policy matter? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
InsultComicDog
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 04:03 PM Response to Original message |
34. For all we know they would write up the policy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yupster
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 04:46 PM Response to Reply #34 |
43. Maybe, but |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
InsultComicDog
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 10:38 AM Response to Reply #43 |
74. "The whole idea of insurance" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Coyote_Bandit
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 04:05 PM Response to Original message |
36. Forget it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EVDebs
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 05:23 PM Response to Reply #36 |
52. The lawyers always win. Plan B and contraception are what they're against |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Autonomy
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 01:00 PM Response to Reply #36 |
86. re: First, the application will be declined. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sheelz
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 04:08 PM Response to Original message |
37. Great idea! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Freedom_Aflaim
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 04:20 PM Response to Reply #37 |
39. Its not illegal to discriminate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dmr
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 07:22 PM Response to Reply #39 |
55. I took out a policy on my son through Prudential |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sheelz
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 04:11 PM Response to Original message |
38. Could we also sue fundie doctors who |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yupster
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 05:00 PM Response to Reply #38 |
47. You can sue anyone for |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sheelz
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 05:18 PM Response to Reply #47 |
51. I realize you can sue anybody for anything. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JitterbugPerfume
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 04:21 PM Response to Original message |
40. I am pro choice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LizMoonstar
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 05:03 PM Response to Reply #40 |
48. i don't think that's the point - |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phylny
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 07:30 PM Response to Reply #40 |
57. There doesn't have to be any abortion, just applying for the policy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Walt Starr
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 04:22 PM Response to Original message |
41. It should be a woman in South Dakota |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EVDebs
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 05:24 PM Response to Reply #41 |
53. One who has just taken Plan B ! eom |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Freedom_from_Chains
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 05:09 PM Response to Original message |
49. It has always been the case in law, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yupster
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 11:47 PM Response to Reply #49 |
64. Not in inheritance though |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Freedom_from_Chains
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 10:37 AM Response to Reply #64 |
73. What statute or case are you getting that from? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yupster
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 02:08 PM Response to Reply #73 |
96. Here's an article from a Law Review |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Little Star
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 05:12 PM Response to Original message |
50. If a woman is pregnant |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phylny
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 07:25 PM Response to Original message |
56. I've posted the same thing for a few days. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SheilaT
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 07:46 PM Response to Original message |
58. I sincerely doubt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yupster
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 11:49 PM Response to Reply #58 |
65. My guess is the insurance policy would |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Innocent Smith
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 08:48 PM Response to Original message |
60. Some insurance companies would issue policies |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Poiuyt
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 09:31 PM Response to Original message |
62. Or use a fetus as a tax deduction |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
fob
![]() |
Sun Feb-26-06 10:06 PM Response to Original message |
63. I was thinking that if we all added the several million "dependents" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rainscents
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 02:24 AM Response to Original message |
67. Hell, I'll take out insurance for eggs... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
adwon
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 08:06 AM Response to Original message |
70. Problems |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rpgamerd00d
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 09:26 AM Response to Original message |
72. Folks, please remember, we want to LOSE, repeat, LOSE this case |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eyesroll
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 01:57 PM Response to Reply #72 |
90. No, it's instant Stare Decisis that insurance companies can turn fetuses |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Skinner
ADMIN ![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 10:43 AM Response to Original message |
75. Am I the only person that thinks this is a terrible idea? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rpgamerd00d
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 10:46 AM Response to Reply #75 |
76. Can't affect Dems as long as the mom claims to be Indy or Repug |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Skinner
ADMIN ![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 10:49 AM Response to Reply #76 |
79. It doesn't matter if the mother is a republican or democrat. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Autonomy
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 12:47 PM Response to Reply #75 |
83. I don't agree. This idea isn't about PR, it's about the law... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Misunderestimator
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 01:13 PM Response to Reply #75 |
88. Definitely not the only person... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pacifist Patriot
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 03:11 PM Response to Reply #75 |
100. Nope, you are not the only one. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
leesa
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 10:47 AM Response to Original message |
77. That's right. Another woman tried to get a break for drivig in the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rpgamerd00d
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 10:48 AM Response to Reply #77 |
78. Ooo, another good idea. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ChairmanAgnostic
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 10:50 AM Response to Original message |
80. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rpgamerd00d
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 10:54 AM Response to Reply #80 |
81. Are you nuts? Ins companies taking losses for every failed pregnancy? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ChairmanAgnostic
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 11:07 AM Response to Reply #81 |
82. depends on the premium and the language of the policy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Autonomy
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 01:31 PM Response to Reply #82 |
89. Strong argument |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ChairmanAgnostic
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 01:57 PM Response to Reply #89 |
91. Perhaps they are waiting for a Roberts Court. The time is now, and |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Autonomy
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 02:04 PM Response to Reply #91 |
94. There was no reason to wait for this SCOTUS |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Autonomy
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 12:56 PM Response to Reply #80 |
85. self-delete |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Autonomy
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 12:53 PM Response to Original message |
84. Very smart. I've had a similar, though less compelling idea... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sparkman
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 02:05 PM Response to Reply #84 |
95. This is logic...can we expect compelling logic to sway faith based lunacy? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
spanone
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 02:00 PM Response to Original message |
92. Nothing like having to pay benefits to get the right to turn left. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sparkman
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 02:03 PM Response to Original message |
93. VERY inventive & insightful surmize! Mind if I borrow your premise? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rpgamerd00d
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 02:11 PM Response to Reply #93 |
97. Public forum = no claim to copyright. :) :) :) -nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bill McBlueState
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 02:15 PM Response to Original message |
98. wedge issues |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Left Coast Lynn
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 03:10 PM Response to Original message |
99. The SCOTUS won't feel bound by consistency |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ChavezSpeakstheTruth
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 03:51 PM Response to Original message |
101. Oy vey! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 03:57 PM Response to Original message |
102. Deleted message |
Donkeyboy75
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 11:38 PM Response to Original message |
103. Oh my. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
greenbriar
![]() |
Mon Feb-27-06 11:46 PM Response to Original message |
104. that is actually a great idea |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ehrnst
![]() |
Tue Feb-28-06 10:01 AM Response to Original message |
107. Maybe this would work better on frozen embryos. (NT) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Sun Jun 16th 2024, 03:08 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC