Law Needed > To Regulate Pet Insurers & Veterinarians

[Spiderman]

Your last sentence is talking to then majority (tens of millions) of pet owners. YOU have idea what YOU are talking about.

Having a pet is not a right now is it?

Tell you what when you get a new pet open up a savings account and put money away every week for vet bills.

If you're not willing to act responsibly then you shouldn't have a pet. Period.

We should pass a law to do something about irresponsible people not veterinarians.

If you had an ounce of decency (or responsibility), you wouldn't dream of accepting anything other than having pet insurance work same as human insurance > ie. vets are reimbursed after pets are cared for. How much money pet owners have on hand is irrelevant, (as long as they pay their monthly insurance bills).

Weird how you can even begin to accept the pet owner pay up front lunacy. You aren't connected to the veterinarian industry by any chance are you ? If not, no excuse for taking such a ridiculous position.

As for whether having a pet is a right or not, I can't see any connection between that and what this discussion is.

So you want pet insurance to be run like human insurance.

Therefore you want veterinary prices to skyrocket and you would force small veterinary hospitals to hire additional staff to handle claims and billing insurance companies right?

Then you would piss and moan about the vet raising his fees to cover the extra costs you would force on him because you don't know how to handle your money.

 

[protectionist]

Don't know who that is. Care even less.

Of course Jake...

Deany-weenie is another wild eyed leftist - just like you.

I am not a leftist. I am a staunch conservative, opposed to immigration, Islamization, affirmative action, abortion, gun control, and in favor of tough law enforcement and the death penalty. You come jumping in here not knowing what you're talking about.

See my other OPs in this forum.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/321591-shouldn-t-islam-be-banned-in-the-usa.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...he-united-states-1950-2012-a.html#post8086824

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...blic-schools-and-textbooks-major-players.html

 

[protectionist]

Having a pet is not a right now is it?

Tell you what when you get a new pet open up a savings account and put money away every week for vet bills.

If you're not willing to act responsibly then you shouldn't have a pet. Period.

We should pass a law to do something about irresponsible people not veterinarians.

If you had an ounce of decency (or responsibility), you wouldn't dream of accepting anything other than having pet insurance work same as human insurance > ie. vets are reimbursed after pets are cared for. How much money pet owners have on hand is irrelevant, (as long as they pay their monthly insurance bills).

Weird how you can even begin to accept the pet owner pay up front lunacy. You aren't connected to the veterinarian industry by any chance are you ? If not, no excuse for taking such a ridiculous position.

As for whether having a pet is a right or not, I can't see any connection between that and what this discussion is.

So you want pet insurance to be run like human insurance.

Therefore you want veterinary prices to skyrocket and you would force small veterinary hospitals to hire additional staff to handle claims and billing insurance companies right?

Then you would piss and moan about the vet raising his fees to cover the extra costs you would force on him because you don't know how to handle your money.

1. You act like insurance companies reimbursing patients was normal. It's not. It's extremely abnormal. It's contradictory to how human health insurance is done. Do you go around bitching that human insurance is done wrong, and should be done like veterinary insurance, so prices could be less ? (so you believe) Do you have posts in this forum prior to this date, that say that ? If so, let's see them.

2. For your edification, veterinarians have to process insurance claims no matter whether they get reimbursed or the pet owner does. You think the insurance company is just going to take the word of the pet owners without any verifications from the veterinarians ?
Extra costs my ass.

3. I taught microeconomics in college, but one does not need to be a microeconomics teacher to know that business owners cannot raise their prices whenever they so choose.
There is a thing called a "market price". This is the highest price that a business can charge for something without going so high that sales begin to fall off to the point that the income is less than before that price hike. And this is the price that every business sells its items at. So business really cannot raise prices, and to say that they can is one of the most common fallacies, that businesses and their running dog politicians toss around.

 

[Spiderman]

If you had an ounce of decency (or responsibility), you wouldn't dream of accepting anything other than having pet insurance work same as human insurance > ie. vets are reimbursed after pets are cared for. How much money pet owners have on hand is irrelevant, (as long as they pay their monthly insurance bills).

Weird how you can even begin to accept the pet owner pay up front lunacy. You aren't connected to the veterinarian industry by any chance are you ? If not, no excuse for taking such a ridiculous position.

As for whether having a pet is a right or not, I can't see any connection between that and what this discussion is.

So you want pet insurance to be run like human insurance.

Therefore you want veterinary prices to skyrocket and you would force small veterinary hospitals to hire additional staff to handle claims and billing insurance companies right?

Then you would piss and moan about the vet raising his fees to cover the extra costs you would force on him because you don't know how to handle your money.

1. You act like insurance companies reimbursing patients was normal. It's not. It's extremely abnormal. It's contradictory to how human health insurance is done. Do you go around bitching that human insurance is done wrong, and should be done like veterinary insurance, so prices could be less ? (so you believe) Do you have posts in this forum prior to this date, that say that ? If so, let's see them.

Pets are not humans. And Yes I do believe that human insurance is done wrong because it removes market pressure from medical service providers. I would much rather see people filing their own claims so hospitals didn't have to hire hundreds of people just to deal with insurance companies. If we did that we would see the cost of medicine go down.

2. For your edification, veterinarians have to process insurance claims no matter whether they get reimbursed or the pet owner does. You think the insurance company is just going to take the word of the pet owners without any verifications from the veterinarians ?
Extra costs my ass.

No you have to fill out the claim forms so you get reimbursed. All you have to do is include a copy of your records of the treatment.

3. I taught microeconomics in college, but one does not need to be a microeconomics teacher to know that business owners cannot raise their prices whenever they so choose.
There is a thing called a "market price". This is the highest price that a business can charge for something without going so high that sales begin to fall off to the point that the income is less than before that price hike. And this is the price that every business sells its items at. So business really cannot raise prices, and to say that they can is one of the most common fallacies, that businesses and their running dog politicians toss around.

If you demand extra services then you will see prices go up.

It doesn't take a degree in economics to know that.

I still don't know what you're pissing and moaning about. You knew the way pet insurance worked when you signed up for it if you didn't like it you shouldn't have signed up.

I find it funny that you taught economics yet you can't even manage your own finances

 

[protectionist]

So you want pet insurance to be run like human insurance.

Therefore you want veterinary prices to skyrocket and you would force small veterinary hospitals to hire additional staff to handle claims and billing insurance companies right?

Then you would piss and moan about the vet raising his fees to cover the extra costs you would force on him because you don't know how to handle your money.

1. You act like insurance companies reimbursing patients was normal. It's not. It's extremely abnormal. It's contradictory to how human health insurance is done. Do you go around bitching that human insurance is done wrong, and should be done like veterinary insurance, so prices could be less ? (so you believe) Do you have posts in this forum prior to this date, that say that ? If so, let's see them.

Pets are not humans. And Yes I do believe that human insurance is done wrong because it removes market pressure from medical service providers. I would much rather see people filing their own claims so hospitals didn't have to hire hundreds of people just to deal with insurance companies. If we did that we would see the cost of medicine go down.

2. For your edification, veterinarians have to process insurance claims no matter whether they get reimbursed or the pet owner does. You think the insurance company is just going to take the word of the pet owners without any verifications from the veterinarians ?
Extra costs my ass.

No you have to fill out the claim forms so you get reimbursed. All you have to do is include a copy of your records of the treatment.

3. I taught microeconomics in college, but one does not need to be a microeconomics teacher to know that business owners cannot raise their prices whenever they so choose.
There is a thing called a "market price". This is the highest price that a business can charge for something without going so high that sales begin to fall off to the point that the income is less than before that price hike. And this is the price that every business sells its items at. So business really cannot raise prices, and to say that they can is one of the most common fallacies, that businesses and their running dog politicians toss around.

If you demand extra services then you will see prices go up.

It doesn't take a degree in economics to know that.

I still don't know what you're pissing and moaning about. You knew the way pet insurance worked when you signed up for it if you didn't like it you shouldn't have signed up.

I find it funny that you taught economics yet you can't even manage your own finances

1. I'm really tired of this thread, and I'm even more tired of all the idiots coming in here and arguing against what is an open & shut case. How stupid.

2. Maybe if you had a degree in economics or at least took a microecomonics 101 course, you'd know that business owners CANNOT raise prices (unless they enjoy losing money)

3. HA HA. When did I ever say I signed up for pet insurance ? Dreaming out loud a little bit today ?

4. I also didn't say I couldn't manage my finances. My finances (and those of the 99% of pet owners who aren't buying pet insurance ) are just fine relative to a pet insurance system set up correctly.

5. The one thing you said that was correct was when you said >> "I still don't know"

 

[Spiderman]

1. You act like insurance companies reimbursing patients was normal. It's not. It's extremely abnormal. It's contradictory to how human health insurance is done. Do you go around bitching that human insurance is done wrong, and should be done like veterinary insurance, so prices could be less ? (so you believe) Do you have posts in this forum prior to this date, that say that ? If so, let's see them.

Pets are not humans. And Yes I do believe that human insurance is done wrong because it removes market pressure from medical service providers. I would much rather see people filing their own claims so hospitals didn't have to hire hundreds of people just to deal with insurance companies. If we did that we would see the cost of medicine go down.



No you have to fill out the claim forms so you get reimbursed. All you have to do is include a copy of your records of the treatment.

3. I taught microeconomics in college, but one does not need to be a microeconomics teacher to know that business owners cannot raise their prices whenever they so choose.
There is a thing called a "market price". This is the highest price that a business can charge for something without going so high that sales begin to fall off to the point that the income is less than before that price hike. And this is the price that every business sells its items at. So business really cannot raise prices, and to say that they can is one of the most common fallacies, that businesses and their running dog politicians toss around.

If you demand extra services then you will see prices go up.

It doesn't take a degree in economics to know that.

I still don't know what you're pissing and moaning about. You knew the way pet insurance worked when you signed up for it if you didn't like it you shouldn't have signed up.

I find it funny that you taught economics yet you can't even manage your own finances

1. I'm really tired of this thread, and I'm even more tired of all the idiots coming in here and arguing against what is an open & shut case. How stupid.

2. Maybe if you had a degree in economics or at least took a microecomonics 101 course, you'd know that business owners CANNOT raise prices (unless they enjoy losing money)

3. HA HA. When did I ever say I signed up for pet insurance ? Dreaming out loud a little bit today ?

4. I also didn't say I couldn't manage my finances. My finances (and those of the 99% of pet owners who aren't buying pet insurance ) are just fine relative to a pet insurance system set up correctly.

5. The one thing you said that was correct was when you said >> "I still don't know"

You're just another chronic whiner.

 

[protectionist]

Pets are not humans. And Yes I do believe that human insurance is done wrong because it removes market pressure from medical service providers. I would much rather see people filing their own claims so hospitals didn't have to hire hundreds of people just to deal with insurance companies. If we did that we would see the cost of medicine go down.



No you have to fill out the claim forms so you get reimbursed. All you have to do is include a copy of your records of the treatment.



If you demand extra services then you will see prices go up.

It doesn't take a degree in economics to know that.

I still don't know what you're pissing and moaning about. You knew the way pet insurance worked when you signed up for it if you didn't like it you shouldn't have signed up.

I find it funny that you taught economics yet you can't even manage your own finances

1. I'm really tired of this thread, and I'm even more tired of all the idiots coming in here and arguing against what is an open & shut case. How stupid.

2. Maybe if you had a degree in economics or at least took a microecomonics 101 course, you'd know that business owners CANNOT raise prices (unless they enjoy losing money)

3. HA HA. When did I ever say I signed up for pet insurance ? Dreaming out loud a little bit today ?

4. I also didn't say I couldn't manage my finances. My finances (and those of the 99% of pet owners who aren't buying pet insurance ) are just fine relative to a pet insurance system set up correctly.

5. The one thing you said that was correct was when you said >> "I still don't know"

You're just another chronic whiner.

So what's YOUR excuse for taking a position against 99% of pet owners. Are you a veterinarian ? Member of AVMA ? What's YOUR dog in this fight ? Hmmm ?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am not a leftist.

BWAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, and if we like our insurance, we can keep it.....

I am a staunch conservative, opposed to immigration, Islamization, affirmative action, abortion, gun control, and in favor of tough law enforcement and the death penalty. You come jumping in here not knowing what you're talking about.

See my other OPs in this forum.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/321591-shouldn-t-islam-be-banned-in-the-usa.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...he-united-states-1950-2012-a.html#post8086824

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...blic-schools-and-textbooks-major-players.html

I see what you post here, and you are a big government lefty.

 

[protectionist]

I am not a leftist.

BWAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, and if we like our insurance, we can keep it.....

I am a staunch conservative, opposed to immigration, Islamization, affirmative action, abortion, gun control, and in favor of tough law enforcement and the death penalty. You come jumping in here not knowing what you're talking about.

See my other OPs in this forum.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/321591-shouldn-t-islam-be-banned-in-the-usa.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...he-united-states-1950-2012-a.html#post8086824

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...blic-schools-and-textbooks-major-players.html

I see what you post here, and you are a big government lefty.

You are a Reaganist, not a Conservative. You apparently don't even know what a Conservative is. Here's a tip for you. The guy in my avatar is the most Conservative president we've had in the US in the last 100 years , and he was a BIG GOVT Conservative,with a 91-92% tax on the rich. He built the US interstate highway system with BIG GOVT tax $$, expanded the federal prison system, and presided over many other infrastructure/public safety and Conservative causes, like Operation Wetback in 1954, running millions of illegal alien invaders back to Mexico. He also was the Supreme Commander of the Allies in Europe in World War II, while your hero Reagan was in Hollywood making movies about it, and giving amnesty to illegal aliens years later. You don't even know what a Conservative or a lefty is.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are a Reaganist, not a Conservative.

FakeyJake, even for you, that's an astoundingly retarded claim.

You claim to be an "Eisenhower Republican." We all know that you're no Republican at all, and are another Obamunist troll promoting leftism.

BUT if your claim was true, it would still be stupid. Ike was a Republic of sorts, of course he flirted with running as a democrat and went with the GOP simply because of the open slot in the party. Ike wanted to be president and will willing to run under either party.

There was nothing that even hinted at "conservative" with Ike. He was a big government liberal - no, he wasn't a leftist like today's dims - but he was a lot closer to FDR than to a true conservative.

Of course Reagan was conservative - which is why you hate him. He ended your beloved USSR, and you'll NEVER forgive him for that. He moved to a more market based economy, where you seek government control of the means of production.

You apparently don't even know what a Conservative is. Here's a tip for you. The guy in my avatar is the most Conservative president we've had in the US in the last 100 years , and he was a BIG GOVT Conservative,with a 91-92% tax on the rich.

Ah, so a "conservative" is someone who seeks government control of the means of production, confiscatory taxation, and severe restrictions on personal liberty?

So you would be about as "conservative" as this guy, then?

He built the US interstate highway system with BIG GOVT tax $$, expanded the federal prison system, and presided over many other infrastructure/public safety and Conservative causes, like Operation Wetback in 1954, running millions of illegal alien invaders back to Mexico. He also was the Supreme Commander of the Allies in Europe in World War II, while your hero Reagan was in Hollywood making movies about it, and giving amnesty to illegal aliens years later. You don't even know what a Conservative or a lefty is.

We get it, you are a big government lefty.

 

[protectionist]

You are a Reaganist, not a Conservative.

FakeyJake, even for you, that's an astoundingly retarded claim.

You claim to be an "Eisenhower Republican." We all know that you're no Republican at all, and are another Obamunist troll promoting leftism.

BUT if your claim was true, it would still be stupid. Ike was a Republic of sorts, of course he flirted with running as a democrat and went with the GOP simply because of the open slot in the party. Ike wanted to be president and will willing to run under either party.

There was nothing that even hinted at "conservative" with Ike. He was a big government liberal - no, he wasn't a leftist like today's dims - but he was a lot closer to FDR than to a true conservative.

Of course Reagan was conservative - which is why you hate him. He ended your beloved USSR, and you'll NEVER forgive him for that. He moved to a more market based economy, where you seek government control of the means of production.

You apparently don't even know what a Conservative is. Here's a tip for you. The guy in my avatar is the most Conservative president we've had in the US in the last 100 years , and he was a BIG GOVT Conservative,with a 91-92% tax on the rich.

Ah, so a "conservative" is someone who seeks government control of the means of production, confiscatory taxation, and severe restrictions on personal liberty?

So you would be about as "conservative" as this guy, then?

He built the US interstate highway system with BIG GOVT tax $$, expanded the federal prison system, and presided over many other infrastructure/public safety and Conservative causes, like Operation Wetback in 1954, running millions of illegal alien invaders back to Mexico. He also was the Supreme Commander of the Allies in Europe in World War II, while your hero Reagan was in Hollywood making movies about it, and giving amnesty to illegal aliens years later. You don't even know what a Conservative or a lefty is.

We get it, you are a big government lefty.

I never claimed to be a Republican. I'm not. I'm a registered Independent, and I generally don't vote, since the Republicans are a basket case on economics, and the Democrats are a train wreck on immigration, Muslims, affirmative action, gun control, death penalty, abortion, etc.

HA HA. You say Ike was a big govt. liberal. You are so ignorant about what conservatism is that you don't even know that the size of govt has nothing to do with conservatism. It only has to do with Reaganism, which is what you are. In fact, if the size of govt had anything to do with conservatism, then like with Ike, it would be the BIG STRONG govt fueled by high taxes on the rich, and capable of supporting a strong national defense (the military) and homeland security (FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, ICE, etc) that would be the conservative one, not the small, weak one that you favor, with not enough taxation and revenue to support the agencies, building the Mexican border fence, creating more immigrations courts & jails, bolstering the FBI, CIA, ICE, etc,

You're just another young Reaganist, too young to remember the REAL conservative days before Reagan came along and fouled everytuing up, and starting harping about small govt > only to relieve his big movie star income of its taxation burden. All this small govt stuff was just a ploy to please Reagan and his movie star buddies, and you fall for it.

Reagan was only a "conservative" according to the distorted definition of one that HE created, for HIS benefit.

And Reagan ended the USSR did he ? HA HA HA HA!!

EARTH TO UNCENSORED: No American ended the USSR, except all those who engineered the space and military races with the USSR for 40 years, causing the USSR to spend itself to death. Reagan just happened to be there when it fell, and he let his backers rant about him being involved in it, and thereby let himself take the credit for it. What a joke!

So you say Ike wasn't a conservative. HA HA. That's because you're one of these (I'll guess young > under 40) PSUEDO-conservatives who isn't old enough to remember REAL conservatism, and thereby even know what it is. You think it has to do with the size of govt, and you haven;t even got THAT right. The bigger and stronger the govt, the more able it is to fight immigration, Muslim loonies, affirmative action, excessive welfare dispursement, and other liberal causes. You and your movie star tax boys (who think you're conservatives) are the best friends the liberals ever had. You want to keep taxes on the rich down ? Who does that favor ? I'll tell you who. Criminals who get let out of prison too early because of not enough funds to build enough prisons. Criminals who succeed in crime because of not enough cops on the street, because of you and all your cut spending loons. The immigration lobby who love you for your help at keeping the number of ICE and CBP officers low. Oh yes, La Raza loves you. LULAC, MALDEF, MECHA. They all love you. As does the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.

You guys who call yourselves "conservatives" are the farthest thing from a REAL conservative there ever has been. I don't know who's worse. The liberals or you.

Govt control of the means of production is irrelevant. I support capitalism with a reasonable degree of regulation. I owned my own business for 12 years. That's not what conservatism is about .

Conservatism is CONSERVING our American way of life, against the changes to it threatened by immigrants, looney tune Muslims, looney tune liberals, et al.

Forget it man. You're probably too young, and too steeped in this Reaganist RE-DEFINITION of conservatism, to ever know what conservaitism is. You think it's the movie star tax. Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)

 

[dblack]

poop

 

[Uncensored2008]

I never claimed to be a Republican. I'm not. I'm a registered Independent, and I generally don't vote, since the Republicans are a basket case on economics, and the Democrats are a train wreck on immigration, Muslims, affirmative action, gun control, death penalty, abortion, etc.

HA HA. You say Ike was a big govt. liberal. You are so ignorant about what conservatism is that you don't even know that the size of govt has nothing to do with conservatism. It only has to do with Reaganism, which is what you are. In fact, if the size of govt had anything to do with conservatism, then like with Ike, it would be the BIG STRONG govt fueled by high taxes on the rich, and capable of supporting a strong national defense (the military) and homeland security (FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, ICE, etc) that would be the conservative one, not the small, weak one that you favor, with not enough taxation and revenue to support the agencies, building the Mexican border fence, creating more immigrations courts & jails, bolstering the FBI, CIA, ICE, etc,

You're just another young Reaganist, too young to remember the REAL conservative days before Reagan came along and fouled everytuing up, and starting harping about small govt > only to relieve his big movie star income of its taxation burden. All this small govt stuff was just a ploy to please Reagan and his movie star buddies, and you fall for it.

Reagan was only a "conservative" according to the distorted definition of one that HE created, for HIS benefit.

And Reagan ended the USSR did he ? HA HA HA HA!!

EARTH TO UNCENSORED: No American ended the USSR, except all those who engineered the space and military races with the USSR for 40 years, causing the USSR to spend itself to death. Reagan just happened to be there when it fell, and he let his backers rant about him being involved in it, and thereby let himself take the credit for it. What a joke!

So you say Ike wasn't a conservative. HA HA. That's because you're one of these (I'll guess young > under 40) PSUEDO-conservatives who isn't old enough to remember REAL conservatism, and thereby even know what it is. You think it has to do with the size of govt, and you haven;t even got THAT right. The bigger and stronger the govt, the more able it is to fight immigration, Muslim loonies, affirmative action, excessive welfare dispursement, and other liberal causes. You and your movie star tax boys (who think you're conservatives) are the best friends the liberals ever had. You want to keep taxes on the rich down ? Who does that favor ? I'll tell you who. Criminals who get let out of prison too early because of not enough funds to build enough prisons. Criminals who succeed in crime because of not enough cops on the street, because of you and all your cut spending loons. The immigration lobby who love you for your help at keeping the number of ICE and CBP officers low. Oh yes, La Raza loves you. LULAC, MALDEF, MECHA. They all love you. As does the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.

You guys who call yourselves "conservatives" are the farthest thing from a REAL conservative there ever has been. I don't know who's worse. The liberals or you.

Govt control of the means of production is irrelevant. I support capitalism with a reasonable degree of regulation. I owned my own business for 12 years. That's not what conservatism is about .

Conservatism is CONSERVING our American way of life, against the changes to it threatened by immigrants, looney tune Muslims, looney tune liberals, et al.

Forget it man. You're probably too young, and too steeped in this Reaganist RE-DEFINITION of conservatism, to ever know what conservaitism is. You think it's the movie star tax. Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)

You are an ignorant and uneducated baboon, Jake.

You have zero grasp of basic economics, and less grasp of political systems.

 

[protectionist]

I never claimed to be a Republican. I'm not. I'm a registered Independent, and I generally don't vote, since the Republicans are a basket case on economics, and the Democrats are a train wreck on immigration, Muslims, affirmative action, gun control, death penalty, abortion, etc.

HA HA. You say Ike was a big govt. liberal. You are so ignorant about what conservatism is that you don't even know that the size of govt has nothing to do with conservatism. It only has to do with Reaganism, which is what you are. In fact, if the size of govt had anything to do with conservatism, then like with Ike, it would be the BIG STRONG govt fueled by high taxes on the rich, and capable of supporting a strong national defense (the military) and homeland security (FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, ICE, etc) that would be the conservative one, not the small, weak one that you favor, with not enough taxation and revenue to support the agencies, building the Mexican border fence, creating more immigrations courts & jails, bolstering the FBI, CIA, ICE, etc,

You're just another young Reaganist, too young to remember the REAL conservative days before Reagan came along and fouled everytuing up, and starting harping about small govt > only to relieve his big movie star income of its taxation burden. All this small govt stuff was just a ploy to please Reagan and his movie star buddies, and you fall for it.

Reagan was only a "conservative" according to the distorted definition of one that HE created, for HIS benefit.

And Reagan ended the USSR did he ? HA HA HA HA!!

EARTH TO UNCENSORED: No American ended the USSR, except all those who engineered the space and military races with the USSR for 40 years, causing the USSR to spend itself to death. Reagan just happened to be there when it fell, and he let his backers rant about him being involved in it, and thereby let himself take the credit for it. What a joke!

So you say Ike wasn't a conservative. HA HA. That's because you're one of these (I'll guess young > under 40) PSUEDO-conservatives who isn't old enough to remember REAL conservatism, and thereby even know what it is. You think it has to do with the size of govt, and you haven;t even got THAT right. The bigger and stronger the govt, the more able it is to fight immigration, Muslim loonies, affirmative action, excessive welfare dispursement, and other liberal causes. You and your movie star tax boys (who think you're conservatives) are the best friends the liberals ever had. You want to keep taxes on the rich down ? Who does that favor ? I'll tell you who. Criminals who get let out of prison too early because of not enough funds to build enough prisons. Criminals who succeed in crime because of not enough cops on the street, because of you and all your cut spending loons. The immigration lobby who love you for your help at keeping the number of ICE and CBP officers low. Oh yes, La Raza loves you. LULAC, MALDEF, MECHA. They all love you. As does the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.

You guys who call yourselves "conservatives" are the farthest thing from a REAL conservative there ever has been. I don't know who's worse. The liberals or you.

Govt control of the means of production is irrelevant. I support capitalism with a reasonable degree of regulation. I owned my own business for 12 years. That's not what conservatism is about .

Conservatism is CONSERVING our American way of life, against the changes to it threatened by immigrants, looney tune Muslims, looney tune liberals, et al.

Forget it man. You're probably too young, and too steeped in this Reaganist RE-DEFINITION of conservatism, to ever know what conservaitism is. You think it's the movie star tax. Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)

You are an ignorant and uneducated baboon, Jake.

You have zero grasp of basic economics, and less grasp of political systems.

1. I am a former college economics teacher, and I could teach you plenty. You seem to be very ignorant.

2. I don't care about political systems. That's YOUR hang-up, not mine.

3. I have no idea who this "Jake" person is you keep babbling about. Seen a shrink lately ?

 

[Spiderman]

1. I'm really tired of this thread, and I'm even more tired of all the idiots coming in here and arguing against what is an open & shut case. How stupid.

2. Maybe if you had a degree in economics or at least took a microecomonics 101 course, you'd know that business owners CANNOT raise prices (unless they enjoy losing money)

3. HA HA. When did I ever say I signed up for pet insurance ? Dreaming out loud a little bit today ?

4. I also didn't say I couldn't manage my finances. My finances (and those of the 99% of pet owners who aren't buying pet insurance ) are just fine relative to a pet insurance system set up correctly.

5. The one thing you said that was correct was when you said >> "I still don't know"

You're just another chronic whiner.

So what's YOUR excuse for taking a position against 99% of pet owners. Are you a veterinarian ? Member of AVMA ? What's YOUR dog in this fight ? Hmmm ?

I'm not taking a position against or for anyone.

I'm of the mind that if you have a pet you can't afford that it's not the vet's fault.

If one signs up for pet insurance knowing it's policies then he has no right to whine about it. Instead one should plan for it. You know as a pet owner that sooner or later there will be a big vet bill. And seriously if you can't front a payment for the time it takes to get reimbursed from the insurance co it's your own fault.

We certainly don't need more government intervention.

 

[Uncensored2008]

1. I am a former college economics teacher, and I could teach you plenty. You seem to be very ignorant.

I am a current University economics instructor, and I call bullshit. You clearly have no grasp of basic principles, didn't have a clue what Say's law is, nor how basic market functions operate.

I'd guess that you read a Krugman column on ThinkProgress and decided to bullshit. I doubt you know who Keynes was, much less what turns are or why they have failed to support Keynesian theories on modification of the business cycle.

I KNOW that you have no clue who Hayek, Von Mises, or Rothbard were. You picked a seriously bad topic to bullshit on...

2. I don't care about political systems. That's YOUR hang-up, not mine.

3. I have no idea who this "Jake" person is you keep babbling about. Seen a shrink lately ?

Yeah, you're not a JakeStarkey sock - sure...

 

[protectionist]

1. I am a former college economics teacher, and I could teach you plenty. You seem to be very ignorant.

I am a current University economics instructor, and I call bullshit. You clearly have no grasp of basic principles, didn't have a clue what Say's law is, nor how basic market functions operate.

I'd guess that you read a Krugman column on ThinkProgress and decided to bullshit. I doubt you know who Keynes was, much less what turns are or why they have failed to support Keynesian theories on modification of the business cycle.

I KNOW that you have no clue who Hayek, Von Mises, or Rothbard were. You picked a seriously bad topic to bullshit on...

2. I don't care about political systems. That's YOUR hang-up, not mine.

3. I have no idea who this "Jake" person is you keep babbling about. Seen a shrink lately ?

Yeah, you're not a JakeStarkey sock - sure...

I suppose you also think tax hikes on the rich and minimum wage increases can be passed on to consumers in higher prices, right ? And you also think they can be compensated for by laying off workers > Hmmmm ? Those are also part of the big scam (and you fall for it). Well, I don't teach Microeconomoics 101 any more (and haven't in decades), but lots of other people do. I suggest you go take a course in it.

I might be offended by what you say about my economics expertise, if I thought you had the slightest idea about economics. Fact is , it looks like you're just another young (under 40) Reaganist, hoodwinked by Reagan's small govt, movie star tax, poppycock.

As for this Jake person, THIS is what I've been doing during the time period that you thought I was him >> Political Forum.......................http://www.politicalforum.com/member.php?u=54036

 

[Uncensored2008]

I suppose you also think tax hikes on the rich and minimum wage increases can be passed on to consumers in higher prices, right ?

So then, you are dispensing with the fraud of teaching, or even having a fundamental grasp of economics, then?

I find it particularly amusing that you specified "micro-economics," which crosses over into finance. This is amusing since you lack even a rudimentary grasp of the elements of cost. While the above statement is ignorant in general, it is absurd from one who claims knowledge in financial studies. You lack even a semblance of grasp of what overhead is and how it is applied to product costing.

And you also think they can be compensated for by laying off workers > Hmmmm ?

I think what?

Since you invented a fiction of expertise in economics, I should be unsurprised that you would fabricate claims of what I think...

Those are also part of the big scam (and you fall for it). Well, I don't teach Microeconomoics 101 any more (and haven't in decades), but lots of other people do. I suggest you go take a course in it.

Nor did you ever, nor could you pass a class in economics (101 would be a survey level course and would not segregate micro from macro, you ignorant baboon.)

I might be offended by what you say about my economics expertise, if I thought you had the slightest idea about economics.

Bluster as you please, you are as transparent as gossamer, though think otherwise.

Sadly for you, there are a great deal of individuals in this forum who are well versed in economics. Why so many of us have gravitated to this forum is a mystery - or perhaps we stay because people here are knowledgeable.

But you are not knowledgeable; bluff and bluster will not aid you.

Fact is , it looks like you're just another young (under 40) Reaganist, hoodwinked by Reagan's small govt, movie star tax, poppycock.

LOL

You don't even know what was behind the economic models championed by Reagan.

The depth of your ignorance is astounding, the clearness of your fraud is blinding.

As for this Jake person, THIS is what I've been doing during the time period that you thought I was him >> Political Forum.......................View Profile: protectionist - Political Forum

It would be hard to believe that two utter frauds could lie about being Republicans - but I suppose anything is possible.

 

[protectionist]

I suppose you also think tax hikes on the rich and minimum wage increases can be passed on to consumers in higher prices, right ?

So then, you are dispensing with the fraud of teaching, or even having a fundamental grasp of economics, then?

I find it particularly amusing that you specified "micro-economics," which crosses over into finance. This is amusing since you lack even a rudimentary grasp of the elements of cost. While the above statement is ignorant in general, it is absurd from one who claims knowledge in financial studies. You lack even a semblance of grasp of what overhead is and how it is applied to product costing.

And you also think they can be compensated for by laying off workers > Hmmmm ?

I think what?

Since you invented a fiction of expertise in economics, I should be unsurprised that you would fabricate claims of what I think...



Nor did you ever, nor could you pass a class in economics (101 would be a survey level course and would not segregate micro from macro, you ignorant baboon.)



Bluster as you please, you are as transparent as gossamer, though think otherwise.

Sadly for you, there are a great deal of individuals in this forum who are well versed in economics. Why so many of us have gravitated to this forum is a mystery - or perhaps we stay because people here are knowledgeable.

But you are not knowledgeable; bluff and bluster will not aid you.

Fact is , it looks like you're just another young (under 40) Reaganist, hoodwinked by Reagan's small govt, movie star tax, poppycock.

LOL

You don't even know what was behind the economic models championed by Reagan.

The depth of your ignorance is astounding, the clearness of your fraud is blinding.

As for this Jake person, THIS is what I've been doing during the time period that you thought I was him >> Political Forum.......................View Profile: protectionist - Political Forum

It would be hard to believe that two utter frauds could lie about being Republicans - but I suppose anything is possible.

"Crosses over ?" I don't recall ever talking about any economics other than MICROeconomics. The macroeconomics was all YOUR yammering.

So you DO think prices can be raised and "passed on to the consumer huh ? And you DO think workers can be laid off also to compensate for a raise in costs. Exactly as I said. You're clueless, and just another victim of the Reaganist propaganda mill - more commonly known as what passes for conservatism nowadays (but doesn't really even come close)

And millions of 18 year old college freshman all over the world, know what you are oblivious to > That when the firm raises its price above the "market price" (ie. the HIGHEST price that can be charged without sales dropping such that income becomes less than before), SALES DROP. And the higher the price is raised, the more sales drop, and the more money is LOST.
LESSON 2 > This is graphically shown as a moderately flattened bell-shaped curve, with prices going up on the X axis, and business income going up (and then down) on the Y axis. (Market price -ie the ONLY price you sell at- at the top of the curve)

As for the laying off of workers, which you have also fallen for the very common ploy, no sucker. Workers can't be cut loose either. Same principle as prices. If you let them go, again, your sales fall, causing you to LOSE money. That's why you had a certain # of employees to begin with.
Example: My ex-wife had a boutique in a mall. She had 10 employees. So you think if her taxes went up or the minimum wage went up, she could lay off some workers to compensate for the higher costs ? HA HA HA. What do you think the number 10 represented to her ? Her lucky number ? Why 10 rather than 9 ? (especially when 9 would be cheaper) You think maybe she just liked that number 10 ? Maybe she just liked round numbers, huh ?

Or maybe you'd guess she was a philanthropist, and just wanted to give another person a job, huh ? It's because she MADE MORE MONEY with 10 than 9, you dolt! And ONLY because of that. So to release even one person, means LOSING SALES and LOSING MONEY. Get it ? Pheeeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle; eyes rolling around in head)

Yeah, I know what was behind the "economic models" as you call them, championed by Reagan. >> A very high individual income (movie stars are among the highest), and at 70% (the individual tax before Reagan took office), he didn't want to pay that much tax. The whole economic yakety yak was never anything more than him wanting to pay less tax. I hope you didn't fall for all the trickle down nonsense, too.

PS - if you ever decide to open a business, take that microeconomics course first, or at least don't forget these 2 lessons I just gave you now.

BTW, this thread is about pet owners and pet insurance, not economics, so you've been all along here. So now, either get on topic, or get lost.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Crosses over ?" I don't recall ever talking about any economics other than MICROeconomics. The macroeconomics was all YOUR yammering.

Doubling down on stupid, huh?

I said the cross over is from microeconomics into finance. Not only do you lack any knowledge of economics, you lack basic reading comprehension.

So you DO think prices can be raised and "passed on to the consumer huh ? And you DO think workers can be laid off also to compensate for a raise in costs. Exactly as I said. You're clueless, and just another victim of the Reaganist propaganda mill - more commonly known as what passes for conservatism nowadays (but doesn't really even come close)

You can spew Marxist rhetoric, but you lack the foundational knowledge to discuss the issue intelligently.

IF you had even a survey level course in economics you would grasp that business MUST absorb costs in order to survive. One that fails to absorb costs must go bankrupt. Taxes are an element of cost. BECAUSE you have zero knowledge of microeconomics, you do not know the terms "EBIT" and "EBITDA."

These are income statement items, Earnings Before Taxes and Interest. (Depreciation and Amortization.) No investor (a person interested in microeconomics) is ignorant of these terms - you are - but no one knowledgeable is.

Taxes affect the bottom line and MUST be absorbed into the cost of the product, or the business goes out of business. Taxes are passed on to the consumer in the cost of the product 100% of the time - MUST be passed on.

Marxist morons like you think that business owners are like Scrooge McDuck, swimming in a pool filled with gold coins and jewels. And if you put high taxes on them, they'll just toss a few coins from that pool and it will have no effect.

This is because you are ignorant and uneducated. I'm guessing you were a postal carrier or maybe a DMV clerk? Part of a government union where there was no need to produce anything , right?

And millions of 18 year old college freshman all over the world, know what you are oblivious to > That when the firm raises its price above the "market price" (ie. the HIGHEST price that can be charged without sales dropping such that income becomes less than before), SALES DROP. And the higher the price is raised, the more sales drop, and the more money is LOST.

Again sparky, you spent your life in a government union, shielded from the need to produce a product that people were willing to pay for. Raising taxes was what the union bosses always advocated - since it would pad your pocket at the expense of others.

But what you lack the IQ points to grasp, is that a raise in taxes, increases costs across the board.

Look, you probably didn't finish high school, you have zero grasp of finance or economics, so let me try to make this really simple.

Joe has a business printing business cards. Now you think Joe makes up a number and starts selling cards. But unlike you, Joe went to college and took economics, finance, and accounting classes. (also SCM, 6 Sigma, and marketing.)

So what Joe REALLY does is create a "Cost Breakdown." He starts with his infrastructure, the building, machinery and equipment, utilities are all calculated. Then Joe accounts for materials. Ink, card stock, silk, and other consumables. Then Joe calculates labor - including taxes paid for labor.

But he doesn't stop there, because unlike you, Joe is smart. Joe adds in his fee - how much he wants to EARN for the product. Let's say he puts 6% in. But he isn't done, now he adds in taxes and license fees. NOW he divides it all up, and this is the cost per card that he MUST charge to stay in business.

Notice that the MARGIN (a microeconomics term that you've never been exposed to before) is embedded in the product price structure. So if everything goes perfect, no scrap or problems with equipment, Joe will earn his 6%

LESSON 2 > This is graphically shown as a moderately flattened bell-shaped curve, with prices going up on the X axis, and business income going up (and then down) on the Y axis. (Market price -ie the ONLY price you sell at- at the top of the curve)

As for the laying off of workers, which you have also fallen for the very common ploy, no sucker. Workers can't be cut loose either. Same principle as prices. If you let them go, again, your sales fall, causing you to LOSE money. That's why you had a certain # of employees to begin with.

Again, I've said nothing of laying off workers.

Because you don't have any knowledge of economics - you fail to grasp that labor is a commodity. A business is not welfare - though the Post Office or DMV that you worked for were.

Example: My ex-wife had a boutique in a mall. She had 10 employees. So you think if her taxes went up or the minimum wage went up, she could lay off some workers to compensate for the higher costs ? HA HA HA. What do you think the number 10 represented to her ? Her lucky number ? Why 10 rather than 9 ? (especially when 9 would be cheaper) You think maybe she just liked that number 10 ? Maybe she just liked round numbers, huh ?

Employing a straw man is the act of a weak mind.

Or maybe you'd guess she was a philanthropist, and just wanted to give another person a job, huh ? It's because she MADE MORE MONEY with 10 than 9, you dolt! And ONLY because of that. So to release even one person, means LOSING SALES and LOSING MONEY. Get it ? Pheeeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle; eyes rolling around in head)

Yeah, I know what was behind the "economic models" as you call them, championed by Reagan. >> A very high individual income (movie stars are among the highest), and at 70% (the individual tax before Reagan took office), he didn't want to pay that much tax. The whole economic yakety yak was never anything more than him wanting to pay less tax. I hope you didn't fall for all the trickle down nonsense, too.

PS - if you ever decide to open a business, take that microeconomics course first, or at least don't forget these 2 lessons I just gave you now.

BTW, this thread is about pet owners and pet insurance, not economics, so you've been all along here. So now, either get on topic, or get lost.

Finished tilting at windmills, spunky?

You are an ignorant baboon who believes that your career of collecting welfare from some government make-work job gives you insight into how real life works.

You've exposed yourself as an utter fraud without education or knowledge, who must engage in logical fallacy to even approach an argument. I said not one word of laying anyone off. Taxes drive prices up - period.