ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6650

DesertFox- wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

It's her own fault for buying a stupid fucking car. And she's not tossing away $8k. Well she is, but that's regardless of whether someone fell 40 stories onto her car. Why the fuck is she entitled to a brand new car, hers was 2 years old, so insurance gives her the money to buy the same car of the same age.
Did they explicitly brand new car as in 2011 model year or "new" car as in new to replace the old (read: destroyed) one?
This sentence confuses me.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6406|North Carolina

jord wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

jord wrote:


I support the right to assisted suicide. Some people in pain don't have the means to off themselves and have a willing partner that would help them end their life but for the law.

Personally euthanasia clinics are never an option, its what £6000? I'd sooner off myself and give the money to funeral costs/charity.
Well, you wouldn't have to make it restricted to clinics.  I just think you should need a lawyer or law enforcement official present to confirm that the act of euthanasia is legit and not foul play.

Basically, there just needs to be a legal framework involved.
I wouldn't trust a Lawyer or Law enforcment official to ensure no "foul play". A Psychologist and if possible, another family member perhaps.
A psychologist and a family member could be part of the arrangement as well.  I just want to make sure that euthanasia doesn't become an avenue for crime or encouraging suicide.

Again, I believe people should have the right to die, but it's a very slippery slope that requires some legal safeguards.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6406|North Carolina

ghettoperson wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

It's her own fault for buying a stupid fucking car. And she's not tossing away $8k. Well she is, but that's regardless of whether someone fell 40 stories onto her car. Why the fuck is she entitled to a brand new car, hers was 2 years old, so insurance gives her the money to buy the same car of the same age.
Did they explicitly brand new car as in 2011 model year or "new" car as in new to replace the old (read: destroyed) one?
This sentence confuses me.
He's just asking if they were using "new" in a figurative/relative sense as opposed to literally getting a new car straight from a dealer.
rdx-fx
...
+955|6592

Turquoise wrote:

Well, I'm a bit leery of any culture that restricts the freedom of religion.  Even our own society is bordering that with this whole NYC community center controversy (and with a few unwise decisions restricting religious expression at schools).

I'm in a weird position being an atheist who dislikes religion but still fervently supports the freedom of religion....

That being said, banning minarets seems to violate the freedom of religious expression.  I realize Switzerland doesn't have the same Constitution design as us, but I would hope they have similar civil rights.  This ban makes me wonder about that though.
I am guessing that the Swiss really don't give a rip who you are, as long as you're quiet and dignified about it while visiting their country.
Case in point: Germans during WW-II
The noise level around Islamic culture is probably a bit higher than is comfortable for the Swiss right now.
I can respect the Swiss position on this much more than I can support the Saudi Arabian position of not allowing any decent BBQ restaurants in their country.  Hell, I could probably find a decent BBQ place in Israel, even.

I too am a supposedly mythical creature, the (former) 'Atheist in a Foxhole', who thinks freedom of religion is a good thing.

But I think I'm a bit off the OP, so I'll stop
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6685|United States of America
Wow I just read that sentence again. What was I smoking when I wrote that? Why did I say "brand"?
jord
Member
+2,382|6679|The North, beyond the wall.

Turquoise wrote:

jord wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, you wouldn't have to make it restricted to clinics.  I just think you should need a lawyer or law enforcement official present to confirm that the act of euthanasia is legit and not foul play.

Basically, there just needs to be a legal framework involved.
I wouldn't trust a Lawyer or Law enforcment official to ensure no "foul play". A Psychologist and if possible, another family member perhaps.
A psychologist and a family member could be part of the arrangement as well.  I just want to make sure that euthanasia doesn't become an avenue for crime or encouraging suicide.

Again, I believe people should have the right to die, but it's a very slippery slope that requires some legal safeguards.
I don't think it's a slippery slope. It starts with the right to end your own life and it ends with that, there's no slide. I do understand the risk of manipulation and forced suicide through blackmail and what not, but I think that's present to an extent anyway.

If it was legalised it would have to be 10 times cheaper than it currently is.

Last edited by jord (2010-09-04 14:28:16)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6406|North Carolina

rdx-fx wrote:

The noise level around Islamic culture is probably a bit higher than is comfortable for the Swiss right now.
I can respect the Swiss position on this much more than I can support the Saudi Arabian position of not allowing any decent BBQ restaurants in their country.  Hell, I could probably find a decent BBQ place in Israel, even.
Well, I'll just add this then...  I agree, but Switzerland is generally viewed as a "free" society, whereas Saudi Arabia isn't, and Israel...   well, Israel is just a clusterfuck.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6406|North Carolina

jord wrote:

I don't think it's a slippery slope. It starts with the right to end your own life and it ends with that, there's no slide. I do understand the risk of manipulation and forced suicide through blackmail and what not, but I think that's present to an extent anyway.

If it was legalised it would be to be 10 times cheaper than it currently is.
I can definitely agree with that last part.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6650

Turquoise wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:


Did they explicitly brand new car as in 2011 model year or "new" car as in new to replace the old (read: destroyed) one?
This sentence confuses me.
He's just asking if they were using "new" in a figurative/relative sense as opposed to literally getting a new car straight from a dealer.
Who's using new? Sorry I'm really not following this. She has a car from 2008, so the insurance company should have to pay out to buy her the same 2008 model of the car, not a 2010/11 model. So she isn't 'losing' any money at all.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6406|North Carolina

ghettoperson wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:


This sentence confuses me.
He's just asking if they were using "new" in a figurative/relative sense as opposed to literally getting a new car straight from a dealer.
Who's using new? Sorry I'm really not following this. She has a car from 2008, so the insurance company should have to pay out to buy her the same 2008 model of the car, not a 2010/11 model. So she isn't 'losing' any money at all.
I agree.  But I think Desert was wondering if people were talking about insurance paying enough for her to get a new car (as in another 2008 model) or enough to get a 2011 model.  I think we've established that a 2008 model is what insurance is really liable for.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6000|...
all I can gather out of that article is that all parties involved are comprised of douchebags.

"I was angry at first" about McCormack's remarks, "but some people just think materialistically."
jezus christ.

She questioned whether Magill feels "like an idiot" and why it had to be her car instead of the countless others parked in Manhattan that day.
jezus christ...
inane little opines
Beduin
Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid
+510|5751|شمال
I will sell the car on ebay.
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
rdx-fx
...
+955|6592

ghettoperson wrote:

Who's using new? Sorry I'm really not following this. She has a car from 2008, so the insurance company should have to pay out to buy her the same 2008 model of the car, not a 2010/11 model. So she isn't 'losing' any money at all.
Insurance is really goofy in the US.

Here, a car with $11,000 still owed on it (payoff value), with $10,000 worth of hail damage (gotta love unibody construction), will be considered 'totaled' by the insurance company.  So, they would pay $7000 outright, minus a $1000 deductible, minus the $3000 dollars to 'buy' the totaled vehicle back from them - so, they end up paying you $4000 while you still owe the bank $11,000. 

Tada!

Car is still damaged, but now you can't resell it (salvage title), and you end up $7000 lighter in the pocket for the experience.

Or, let them total the car, then you owe the bank the remaining $5000 right now, and you're down one less car.

Or, fix the car out of your own pocket for $10,000 and continue to pay off the remaining $11,000

(5 primary drivers, 5 cars, 2 companies, 2 houses, 3 pieces of heavy construction equipment, 1 policy. one vehicle didn't get put in a garage during a recent hail storm)


Edit: And I suppose a suicidal jumper would be akin to 'hail damage'...

Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-09-04 14:36:40)

rdx-fx
...
+955|6592

Beduin wrote:

I will sell the car on ebay.
As a morbid curiosity item, you might make a handy little profit on it.
jord
Member
+2,382|6679|The North, beyond the wall.
Is there no picture of the car? Cars of that value, ie £2000 an upwards are worth fixing. If it is just damage to the roof, it won't cost her $7000 anyway.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5586

rdx-fx wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Who's using new? Sorry I'm really not following this. She has a car from 2008, so the insurance company should have to pay out to buy her the same 2008 model of the car, not a 2010/11 model. So she isn't 'losing' any money at all.
Insurance is really goofy in the US.

Here, a car with $11,000 still owed on it (payoff value), with $10,000 worth of hail damage (gotta love unibody construction), will be considered 'totaled' by the insurance company.  So, they would pay $7000 outright, minus a $1000 deductible, minus the $3000 dollars to 'buy' the totaled vehicle back from them - so, they end up paying you $4000 while you still owe the bank $11,000. 

Tada!

Car is still damaged, but now you can't resell it (salvage title), and you end up $7000 lighter in the pocket for the experience.

Or, let them total the car, then you owe the bank the remaining $5000 right now, and you're down one less car.

Or, fix the car out of your own pocket for $10,000 and continue to pay off the remaining $11,000

(5 primary drivers, 5 cars, 2 companies, 2 houses, 3 pieces of heavy construction equipment, 1 policy. one vehicle didn't get put in a garage during a recent hail storm)


Edit: And I suppose a suicidal jumper would be akin to 'hail damage'...
Should have gotten some GAP insurance.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard