OT: She got fired

Man and woman live together.
Not married.
Two children.
Woman on welfare.
Food stamps, utilities paid by the state, monthly check.
Same employer.
Man, estimated annual income $45,000
Woman, estimated annual income $24,000
Combined estimated incomes, $69,000
Own home, 2 fairly new cars.

Man gets sick, needs to go to the hospital.
Woman claims her as husband under company insurance, family plan.
Office picks up on the claim. Man not family.
By not having insurance this guy and his mate saved about $16/wk.
Woman is fired for insurance fraud.
Man is not???

Don't know if it will be looked into further but I'd like to see the
employer report the findings to Massachusetts Welfare. Rumor that the woman
has multiple social security numbers but it's only a rumor.

Re: OT: She got fired

Ed wrote:
> Man and woman live together.
> Not married.
> Two children.
> Woman on welfare.
> Food stamps, utilities paid by the state, monthly check.
> Same employer.
> Man, estimated annual income $45,000
> Woman, estimated annual income $24,000
> Combined estimated incomes, $69,000
> Own home, 2 fairly new cars.

If so the woman is committing welfare fraud.

>
> Man gets sick, needs to go to the hospital.
> Woman claims her as husband under company insurance, family plan.
> Office picks up on the claim. Man not family.
> By not having insurance this guy and his mate saved about $16/wk.
> Woman is fired for insurance fraud.
> Man is not???
>

If they work for the same company, why isn't man covered by the same
insurance as woman? If man not employed by the same company, then the
company could'nt have fired him. Something missing in your story.

> Don't know if it will be looked into further but I'd like to see the
> employer report the findings to Massachusetts Welfare. Rumor that the
woman
> has multiple social security numbers but it's only a rumor.

Re: OT: She got fired

"PeterL" <> wrote

>> Man gets sick, needs to go to the hospital.
>> Woman claims her as husband under company insurance, family plan.
>> Office picks up on the claim. Man not family.
>> By not having insurance this guy and his mate saved about $16/wk.
>> Woman is fired for insurance fraud.
>> Man is not???
>>
>
> If they work for the same company, why isn't man covered by the same
> insurance as woman?

Because he elected not to be covered so they could save money. See above.

> If man not employed by the same company, then the
> company could'nt have fired him. Something missing in your story.

Both employed at same company. They are not married, they just live together
and they have two children.

Re: OT: She got fired

then can be "not married" and covered under the same insurance policy?

Re: OT: She got fired

"jIM" <> wrote

> then can be "not married" and covered under the same insurance policy?

no, that's why she got fired.

Re: OT: She got fired

Ed wrote:
> "PeterL" <> wrote
>
> >> Man gets sick, needs to go to the hospital.
> >> Woman claims her as husband under company insurance, family plan.
> >> Office picks up on the claim. Man not family.
> >> By not having insurance this guy and his mate saved about $16/wk.
> >> Woman is fired for insurance fraud.
> >> Man is not???
> >>
> >
> > If they work for the same company, why isn't man covered by the
same
> > insurance as woman?
>
> Because he elected not to be covered so they could save money. See
above.

Well, "the above" did not say that he elected not to be covered, and
instead chooses to be covered by his gf, who is not his wife. In our
company the benefits office requires a show of marriage license before
they'll cover the husband or wife.

>
> > If man not employed by the same company, then the
> > company could'nt have fired him. Something missing in your story.
>
> Both employed at same company. They are not married, they just live
together
> and they have two children.

Both should've been fired.

Re: OT: She got fired

"PeterL" <> wrote

>> Because he elected not to be covered so they could save money. See
> above.
>
> Well, "the above" did not say that he elected not to be covered, and
> instead chooses to be covered by his gf, who is not his wife. In our
> company the benefits office requires a show of marriage license before
> they'll cover the husband or wife.

"The above" does say that.

Once again:
Man gets sick, needs to go to the hospital.
Woman claims her as husband under company insurance, family plan.
Office picks up on the claim. Man not family.
By not having insurance this guy and his mate saved about $16/wk.
Woman is fired for insurance fraud.

> Both should've been fired.

I agree.

Re: OT: She got fired

In article <>,
Ed <> wrote:
> "The above" does say that.

No, saying "by not having insurance" is not the same as saying "by
electing not to have insurance".

> By not having insurance this guy and his mate saved about $16/wk.

The statement you wrote doesn't say "why" he doesn't have insurance,
it just says he doesn't.

Re: OT: She got fired

"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote

> No, saying "by not having insurance" is not the same as saying "by
> electing not to have insurance".

Fuck you, you are nothing but a burden to the taxpayer doing a meaningless
job at taxpaxer expense. A lice on the back of taxpayers.

>> By not having insurance this guy and his mate saved about $16/wk.
>
> The statement you wrote doesn't say "why" he doesn't have insurance,
> it just says he doesn't.

Isn't that enough.?
Doesn't the statement that they save $16/week by him not enrolling explain
why he doesn't have it?
Is english your first language?

Go back into your fucking hole and rot.

You suck, you are a fucking idiot. I don't like you. Your're a stupid
asshole.

Furthermore:

You should think about night school and work toward getting your GED. I
think you can do it if you REALLY try.

And.....

I'm willing to bet that your parents claim they never had any children.

Re: OT: She got fired

> Is english your first language?
>

How about you Tarzan?

Re: OT: She got fired

"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote in message
news:d6lddc$mmf$
> In article <>,
> Ed <> wrote:
>> "The above" does say that.
>
> No, saying "by not having insurance" is not the same as saying "by
> electing not to have insurance".
>
>> By not having insurance this guy and his mate saved about $16/wk.
>
> The statement you wrote doesn't say "why" he doesn't have insurance,
> it just says he doesn't.
>
>

What are you, goofy?

Re: OT: She got fired

"J D" <> wrote

>> Is english your first language?
>>
>
> How about you Tarzan?

How about me what, Cheetah?

Re: OT: She got fired

"Gary C" <> wrote

>>> By not having insurance this guy and his mate saved about $16/wk.
>>
>> The statement you wrote doesn't say "why" he doesn't have insurance,
>> it just says he doesn't.
>>
>>
>
> What are you, goofy?

He's unbelievable. It's there in black and white. Massachusetts also doesn't
have a FreeCare program. I sent him the page and he still wouldn't believe
it.

His friend couldn't get assistance because he had money/property/assets of
some kind and elected not to pay for it. He couldn't use other people's
money because he had some of his own.

Re: OT: She got fired

In article <>,
Ed <> wrote:
> He's unbelievable. It's there in black and white. Massachusetts also doesn't
> have a FreeCare program. I sent him the page and he still wouldn't believe
> it.

And the page you sent me clearly stated the program didn't pay for
medications, and my friend needed chemo. Luckily my friend has ended
his course of treatements and is doing reasonably well.

> His friend couldn't get assistance because he had money/property/assets of
> some kind and elected not to pay for it.

It never ceases to amaze me how you create things out of thin air to
match your perception o reality. Your speculation is incorrect.

Re: OT: She got fired

"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote

>> His friend couldn't get assistance because he had money/property/assets
>> of
>> some kind and elected not to pay for it.
>
> It never ceases to amaze me how you create things out of thin air to
> match your perception o reality. Your speculation is incorrect.

That's the only way he would have been denied.

What amazes me is when you read something and then claim you didn't read it.
When you are shown something and then claim it doesn't exist.

Your friend must be as stupid as you are.

Re: OT: She got fired

In article <>,
Ed <> wrote:
> What amazes me is when you read something and then claim you didn't read it.

When have I claimed I didn't read it?

Why is this so important to you?

Re: OT: She got fired

"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote

> When have I claimed I didn't read it?

You can't be serious. Ok, so you don'y understand what you read. More
support for my claim that you are one of the dumbest shitheads I've ever
come across. What makes this supporting evidence so sweet is that it came
from you.

> Why is this so important to you?

It's not important to me in any way shape or form. Your statement doesn't
specify what you mean when you ask whay it's important. Leat me expand.

If you are talking about your friend, it's not important to me. I don't know
him and really don't care if he lives or dies. People die everyday. Someday
each of us will get a turn. No big deal. I was just trying to help when I
offered up the FreeCare program to you. It won't happen again.

If you are talking about your persistant stupidity, it's not important
either. What does bother me is that when you post, 99% of the time you
attach your message to one of my posts. If you get your facts together it
would be ok but you don't. You are clueless, stupid, and an asshole. What
more can I say.

Re: OT: She got fired

In article <>,
Ed <> wrote:
> Leat me expand.

I'm always amazed at the rule of thumb that when you write a long post
calling someone else stupid, you must make a mistake in grammar.

You done expand good, Ed.

Re: OT: She got fired

"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote

> I'm always amazed at the rule of thumb that when you write a long post
> calling someone else stupid, you must make a mistake in grammar.
>
> You done expand good, Ed.

You got the message didn't you? Maybe not. You can't seem to understand
anything you read.
You are THE dumbass.