Fatties Need Not Apply......CVS imposes penalties on fatties and smokers.

WU said once that we are in control of how we react to what he says. I agree with that 100%. He can't affect anyone unless they let him. If they let him then that's on them. Originally Posted by Eccie Addict

The best way to make WU insignificant would be not to pay him any attention.....

Apparently he is significant to you? Originally Posted by Eccie Addict

Would you please save the psychology 101 sessions for others. Personally I read right through it.

Before I move on, please let me do some enlightenment. On the last two socials I've been to, I've talked and hung out with wakeup. I find the man I talked to, to be highly intelligent, and in real life to be a very significant person. He's wanted and needed on the wall, and has seen and lived through terrors most of us will never know. In real life I like and admire this man, and I'm glad he's been armed and fighting for all of our rites. The real wakeup I know is a man I highly admire and respect, and one I would gladly call a friend.

But, that's the flesh and blood man.

Unfortunately we're living with another totally different person on this site. One who puts down people, uses the term 'whore' like it's nothing. One who is a very miserable person. One the real wakeup probably wouldn't care for.

I guess since most of us are guys, they don't think of the term 'whore' being inflammatory, but to the ladies on this board I would imagine it is. I know I think it's inflammatory, but then again, even when I was with providers, I called them ma'am, opened the door for them, etc. What am I supposed to do, say "open your own door whore?'' I don't think so. Then again, I'm at an age where some of this may be considered old school. Imagine manners and being polite to be old school, what a terrible thought.

I find the term whore and fatty such terms that others may find inflammatory, whether to a certain race, religion, job name, or whatever.

I have no doubt that if a person drops a derogatory term against a certain race of people (of the several races we encounter on this board) there would at least be points handed out and maybe a ban, so why can we use a derogatory term for providers on many occasions and freely get by with it? Is it because some guys on this board don't like providers to begin with, so they can use that term and nobody cares?

It bothers me that nobody seems to care, or those that do just don't feel like getting involved. We don't need to go there with those terms.

But why do we go there and nothing happens?

Is it because we're 'johns' posting on a 'whore' board, and since most of us are actually breaking the law, whether it's a ridiculous law or not, that we can out and out disregard being decent to others?

Maybe my feelings are wrong, or maybe their spot on. I don't really know, but it's something I feel strongly about.

DJ you are welcome to care and spend your time going back and forth all you like. I shared my views on your actions here and have no reason to go any further since you obviously want to continue.

I have a high respect for women as a whole. There are good and bad ones sure but I'm not wasting my time trying to change a man that isn't going to change. I'll be who I am and he can be who he wants.

There are many ladies here who have learned that not giving a shit what he thinks of them is the best way to handle him.

By all means keep on keepin on sir.....

No...how sad their insignificant lives ARE...I've seen it all my life. All they have to do is take control...of something so simple as themselves...and they can't...

That's what makes them insignificant...they can't control themselves, so they'll never control anything, anywhere, in the old around them... Originally Posted by Wakeuр

Well I have trouble controlling myself when it comes to certain things ie: my sex drive, or impulse shoe buying.... Does that make me insignifi-cunt?

DJ you are welcome to care and spend your time going back and forth all you like. I shared my views on your actions here and have no reason to go any further since you obviously want to continue.

I have a high respect for women as a whole. There are good and bad ones sure but I'm not wasting my time trying to change a man that isn't going to change. I'll be who I am and he can be who he wants.

There are many ladies here who have learned that not giving a shit what he thinks of them is the best way to handle him.

By all means keep on keepin on sir..... Originally Posted by Eccie Addict

I honestly thank you for your considerations.

WU said once that we are in control of how we react to what he says. I agree with that 100%. He can't affect anyone unless they let him. If they let him then that's on them. Originally Posted by Eccie Addict

What came first the chicken or the egg?

An insidious post or the reaction to it?

You know what is going to blow OFS' mind? The fact that a lot of people have the reaction to my post BEFORE I make it, so a benign post instantly turns "insidious"...

I love that shit...

What came first the retarded chicken or the egg? Originally Posted by oilfieldscum

I believe I can answer this one..........

In the beginning there were fish swimming around in water. Then one day a couple of fish came in contact with GSO3 and had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish comes in contact with GSO3 and goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawls out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands and it has butt sex with a squirrel and made this retard frog squirrel. The retard frog squirrel got hold of some GSO3, then had a retard baby which was a monkey-fish-frog. This monkey-fish-frog got hold of some GSO3 and had butt sex with a monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard monkey-fish-frog baby that screwed a rodent…………………and that made Joanie............Joanie wandered the earth looking for that perfect cup of coffee (price was not an obstacle). One day he waddled into a new coffee shop called a Starbucks and ordered a mocha latte lite (heavy cream & no sugar). He was in heaven. He enjoyed it so much he sat there and drank mocha latte lites (heavy cream & no sugar) all day. Soon he started feeling a bit queezy and light headed. He fell to the floor flopping around like a fish out of water (see first sentence for you tards). Suddenly his face turned purple and he started sweating profusely. To his amazement and delight, an egg popped out of his butt. The egg cracked open and out popped a retard chicken. Joanie named the retard chicken "Buttfly", and bought him a mocha latte lite (heavy cream & no sugar). Of course, Joanie was thrown out of Starbucks for having made such a huge mess. Alas, in his wake Buttfly was unable to order a mocha latte lite (heavy cream & no sugar) correctly without his big pappa, and was thrown out of Starbucks as well.

So, there you have it.......I have solved the age old riddle of "which came first, the retard chicken or the egg".......I thinck.

Partly true, and partly unadulterated horseshit...

If you went out and got your own private insurance and answered "yes" to the questions "do you smoke" or "do you have diabetes", you'd have to pay more for that insurance than me, all other things equal. Up until now, your employer has been gleefully sucking up that cost and paying the extra for you. Now they're saying, "hey, he has to pay for his own insurance if we don't give it to him, so he can damn well pay for his own fucked up health choices, we're not going to subsidize his idiocy anymore".

So. It's true that this is about them keeping their money and you not keeping your money.

It's not true that it's about greed, it's about not giving you the gift of totally free healthcare anymore and not paying for your fucked up lifestyle choices. That's not greed, that's not giving away something for nothing...in other words, good business sense...

P.S-I'm not going to break down how a group plan works and what I have to pay for employees, but the fact that more than two thirds of our population is obese means that the insurance companies no longer get a benefit from a large healthy employee group and are able to suck up the costs of the sick ones...it's the exact opposite now...hence, people get to start paying their own way... Originally Posted by Wakeuр

OF COURSE the most recent trends in insurance actually are based on GREED. Health premiums went up an AVERAGE of 40% in the two years preceding the passage of Obamacare and CERTAINLY the claims history did not dictate a necessity for those hikes.

A recent class action lawsuit decided in New Mexico proved a major property insurer made a 22% increase in the bottom line by simply telling policyholders that their claims weren't covered when they actually were covered by the policy. It was proven that fully half the RIGHTEOUS claimants DROPPED their claims after being told no the first time.

A similar percentage argued once and then gave up after the second "No". A third group argued three times before giving up on their claims. After the fourth "No" the company was perfectly willing to pay the people who persisted since the 50% drop in numbers of claimants at each level saw the insurer paying out on only 6.25 claims out of each 100 righteous claims and either nothing or a reduced amount on the others,

In four years, the major insurer had reduced payouts per $100 in premiums from $78 to $64 NOT by better operations or educating consumers about avoiding property losses but by sheer dishonesty!

The company was making a solid profit BEFORE they decided to cheat by intimidation and withholding what is deemed in the claims industry's consumer protection laws as "superior knowledge" that put policyholders at a disadvantage when facing an adjuster.

Sorry! Your concept ignores the original business plan for the beginnings of the insurance industry at the coffee houses in England where merchants met to "spread the risks" of international shipping by pooling money to help harmed members after losses from storms, pirates and other perils.

Since that time, insurers have pushed the envelope from the concept of "spreading the risks" to "avoiding" risks. I still do not disagree with some fair avoidance of risk, especially when it also benefits the consumer by helping that consumer avoid losses.

I do, however, vehemently disagree with the direction taken that seems to be heading more and more toward avoiding ALL risks.

If there were no regulation, the policy application question would have already been pared down to read only these words - "Will you ever seek to make a claim on the policy for which you are applying?"

A "yes" answer gets you declined and a "no" answer buys you a worthless policy that covers nothing. That is the insurance industry's perfect world. SERIOUSLY!

The scream of "But we are in business to make a profit" has been over-used by the paid whiners in the many, many trade associations and lobbying firms that are paid complainers for an insurance industry that is still among the most profitable of any industry in the country.

I have absolutely NO sympathy for many of your heavily-flawed and narrowly-annotated contentions however telling others they are wrong and using d=said annotations seems eerily similar to the greedy way insurers handle righteous claimants these days. I'd call it "superior knowledge" but when insurers are deemed to have "superior knowledge" they are presumed to know more than the policyholder. In your case, the denial of the points made by others seems as hollow as the the insurers action were proved to be when the class action verdict ruled that "just saying no" to legitimate claims was a very bad mistake.

Um...you realize that the "greed" comment was being applied to the companies paying for your health insurance and NOT the insurance company itself right?

Fail...try again...

I think the term "Greed" is being applied to both the companies that pay for your health insurance and the insurance companies themselves.

Insurance companies want it to be a federal law where you HAVE to have insurance else be in violation of the law, and they want to raise the premiums.

So how is that fair? If insurance is state or federally mandated and required by law, then the STATE or FEDERAL government should offer a low cost plan that is accepted all over. But the insurance companies do not want the government to get into the insurance business, they only want the "legal enforcement" side of the government to make sure you pay them or else.

Reminds me of the 1920's..... you would open a business and was told by a nice well dressed man that you need to pay protection to keep your place safe... if you did not, it got robbed, burned etc..... by friends of friend who were friends of the guy who came to see you.

Dear John,

What part of occasional smoker did you miss? I’m not addicted to smoking. Read that one more time, slowly if you have to. I’m not addicted to smoking! I would guess on average, I may smoke half a dozen cigs and maybe one cigar a week. I just simply enjoy the way tobacco compliments an alcoholic beverage. I’m 5’9” and 155 lbs., slim with a well muscled physique. I’m either in the gym three times a week or working out in my home gym. I seldom go a day without hitting a body part or two, running on the treadmill, or riding my bike. Both my parents were regular smokers, and lived to be in their early eighties. Who would you rather insure, a 52 yr old like myself, or a three hundred pound non smoker with diabetes? You say you don’t see a difference between food addiction and smoking. Again, I’m not addicted. But, I know a number of sixty and seventy years olds that smoke. I know very few people over three hundred pounds that have lived to that age range. Do you?
Kettle disputing allegations from pot.... Originally Posted by GymRat

Speak for yourself...I plan to live forever... Originally Posted by Wakeuр

Insurance companies don't care how long you live. They care about how long you are sick.

This one is interesting. On one hand, it does make some sense for insurance companies to change their rates based on factors that would affect how often they would have to pay out on a person.

However, this also leads you down the slippery slope of insurance companies starting to dig deeper into your medical history and potentially start doing things like charging rates based on race or gender in the future. Especially as we continue to unlock more of the human genome, could we see a time when you're charged different rates based on your genes?

Just to be clear...insurance companies have ALWAYS charged fatties and smokers more, that's why you have to fill out the medical history forms to enroll.

Employers have fairly recently started passing those extra costs on to their employees in large numbers...that's what the OP is about...

Fair enough. Who knows if in the future premiums start going up for those who say might be prone to breast or prostate cancer as technology advances and the ability to detect that increases.

You mean like banging hookers? Originally Posted by oilfieldscum

SAME THING I WAS THINKING LMAO