Comments on: Republicans: Mortgaging Old Black People

By: Roni

Roni — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:07:13 +0000

Frank_D Jul 14th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Testy, aren t we?

Frank, you set the ‘testy’ bar for this blog.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:07:18 +0000

Deja vu, my ass! It wasn’t a story from first post to last

My first remark: “And the article s author admits he is speculating as to how it would have gone.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:07:39 +0000

Like you needed this to “decide” Abramoff and Reed are scum. LOL!

Yeah, it wasn’t nice. So what?

Is it the first time a politician did a “not nice” thing?

It’s a “dog bites man” story

By: z adura

z adura — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:07:25 +0000

Frank, deja vu all over again…

By: z adura

z adura — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:07:14 +0000

Frank, I see you dig yourself into this kind of rhetorical hole all the time. Neither Oliver nor the article ever mentions this being a crime. It doesn’t rise to that level. It was legal for them to offer up the “Black Churches Insurance Program” because Reed and Abramoff were exploiting a tax loophole. Does this make it right? No. Does it lend credibility to the argument that Abramoff and Reed are scum? Yes.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:07:11 +0000

From the quoted piece:

In July of 2003, Abramoff and Reed considered launching something

We know how this scheme would have gone

This would have been the same thing

So now, thinking about doing a bad thing is a crime.

We better get to building lots more jails.

By: z adura

z adura — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:07:38 +0000

Frank, I wish you could some day admit that there are topics you about which you are clueless. This is one of them.

First, there is no similarity at all between the nursing home scenario you described and this program. They both involve life insurance and that is the depth of it. Second, the fact that neither the tribe nor black churches agreed to the program does not minimize the fact that it is a despicable program to have proposed and an abuse of a tax loophole.

This is a proxy for a lot of what is wrong with America: (1) Smart people exploit the tax code. That is what Reed and Abramoff were trying to do. (2) Poor people don’t have access to lobbyists unless they mortgage their death. That is why the pay-to-play politics is inherently bad.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:07:31 +0000

Testy, aren’t we?

It’s not the crime Oliver is making it out to be, nor is it racially focused.

In fact, it didn’t even happen!

By: z adura

z adura — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:07:20 +0000

Frank, don’t be a prick. The situations are not the same. With a nursing home, it would make sense for the person entering to turn over all of their assets so that they can qualify for Medicaid. Either the person entering the nursing home or someone in their family would probably know what is happening and why.

In this case, the company or church or tribe takes insurance policies out on their workers/parishoners/tribe members essentially without their knowledge and names the corporation/charity/tribe as the beneficiary.

I don’t follow the status of the legislation on this, but there was some movement in the Finance subcommittee to disqualify such policies from favorable tax treatment. It’s certainly a despicable use of a tax loophole.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 07:07:06 +0000

And, Zadura, the real world is bigger than the World Wide Web…

Ever hear the saying, “The map is not the territory.”

By: doug r

doug r — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 03:07:59 +0000

Some corporations do it too:
Mike Rice was a 48-year-old assistant manager when he died of a massive heart attack at the Wal-Mart store in Tilton, N.H. His widow, Vicki, became the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against the company after she discovered Wal-Mart collected $300,000 from a life insurance policy it owned on him. Vicki Rice believes job-related stress contributed to the heart attack and says it is totally immoral for Wal-Mart to profit from his death.

By: doug r

doug r — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 03:07:40 +0000

Oops from: http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/P64954.asp

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 03:07:03 +0000

Call a nursing home.. They don’t usuually post the practice on their websites.

I heard about it 30 years ago.

The “patient” turns over all their assets (including insurance) to the nursing home, and are taken care of for the rest of their lives.

Not identical, I know, but still creepy.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:07:33 +0000

Nursing homes do the same thing for all races all over the country. And the article’s author admits he is speculating as to how it “would have gone.”

Keep trying, Oliver, you’ll get a good smear one day.

“Tail Gunner” Joe would be so proud of you.

By: z adura

z adura — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:07:22 +0000

Frank, I have honestly never heard of nursing homes doing it. I would love to see a link.

By: scratch

scratch — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:07:02 +0000

Sounds more like a lease option.

By: Big D

Big D — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:07:56 +0000

The sad part is how effectively these folks can use Black religious leaders to achieve their goals.

By: z adura

z adura — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:07:46 +0000

The practice used to be pretty common for corporations as well. It was called “janitor’s insurance” and worked on the basis of the tax-free death benefits of life insurance. That was intended to be the “widows and orphans” exemption, but it has clearly lost that context with Abramoff, Reed and the like.