Re: POLITICS - Mike , Germ Theory and insurance contracts

February 8, 2004

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:09:28 EST

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>In a message dated 2/7/04 12:53:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>s.fisher22@... writes:

>

>> btw, i'm not going to respond to the other (much lengthier) post you just

>> sent because it seems like we're in agreement for the most part, with the

>> possible exception of the meaning of " corollary " , but i don't think it's

>> worth the time to debate that, so i'm not going bother.

>

>It would be more efficient to have Mike adjudicate between us.

>Unfortunately, I don't think either of us had an insurance contract with him

*before*

>the dispute, so I don't know if that would be valid. Perhaps Mr. Miles knows?

>

>Chris

There was a time in Washington state where an insurance contract

purchased after the " incident " would be a perfectly valid contract. Our

former insurance commissioner help to devastate the health insurance

market here by forcing companies to cover preexisting conditions.

Imagine what response that got.

Fortunately she is gone. Perfect example that economic laws work even

when politicians try to act otherwise.

But hey, if Mike *agrees* to insure you after the fact what is

there to stop him from adjudicating the dispute if he included such

language as a part of the terms of service? <g>

Abolish the FDA!!

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

Recommended Posts