On Mon, 21 May 2007 22:22:55 +0000, Andrealphus wrote:
> In News pan.2007.05.21.12.44.41.240853@furburger.net,, KK at
> _KK_@furburger.net, typed this:
>
>> On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:23:12 +0000, Andrealphus wrote:
>>
>>> In News pan.2007.05.16.15.15.03.913845@furburger.net,, KK at
>>> _KK_@furburger.net, typed this:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2007 23:09:10 +0000, Andrealphus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Go look up how munch they paid out after Katrina and see if the
>>>>>> cases you keep talking about were all they did.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have, and the cases I am talking about are the vast majority of
>>>>> cases.
>>>>
>>>> "waiting for claims to be paid" is *not* the same as claims denied
>>>> because of fraud, which is what you alleged.
>>>>
>>>> In either case, I do not believe that denied claims make up the vast
>>>> majority of cases. If you're insisting that they do, please provide
>>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/1995/feb/feb1995c.htm
>>
>> World Chiropractic Alliance? Are you .ing serious?
>>
>>
>>> http://www.ican2000.com/news/article_detail.asp?article=32
>>>
>>> http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/katrina_lott.html
>>>
>>> http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/08/state_farm_insi.html
>>>
>>> http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3986
>>>
>>> You are wrong.
>>
>>
>> No, but you're an idiot.
>
> Yet, far more intelligent than you. Thank you for surrendering.
Surrender? After you post five links - one from a .ing chiropractic
association - none of which support your point? I don't think so.
Your clipping out my response sure seems like surrender, though. Who
cheats if they're not losing?
Here it is, in case you forget:
> No, but you're an idiot. Two of those pages don't have anything to do
> with Katrina, and *zero* - not a single one - of them mention anything
> about the proportion of denied Katrina claims, let alone support your
> foolish claim that "denied claims make up the vast majority of cases".
|