Early Morning Open Thread: Lucky

More calendar pics; I think I fell for this guy because the youngest of our rescue papillons has the same one-ear-up, one-ear-down profile (which is why the Spousal Unit renamed him Sydney — he said it looked like a bushranger’s hat). Commentor Chad S describes his canine companion:

Dog that we rescued last year. His name is Boner. My wife calls him Lucky.

20 replies
  1. 1
    Raven says:

    Good doggie!

  2. 2
    Phylllis says:

    Who’s a good pup-pup? You with the face there, you are!

  3. 3
    El Tiburon says:

    His name is Boner. My wife calls him Lucky.

    Not gonna that with Bea Arthur’s c**k.

  4. 4
    PhoenixRising says:

    My first use of open threadiness ever, so be kind:

    Am I being unreasonable here?

    My health insurance company, WeaselCo, used to only offer one plan for families (independent of employer groups). It was lousy and expensive, but better than worrying, so we bought it.

    This year’s “new” (meaning “state commissioners told us we were going to have to stop ripping people off”) family plan, with the same premium I’ve been paying for 5 years, has benefits twice as good.

    So I’m thinking that it might be a good idea to switch to the new worst-available plan, which costs the same as the former worst-available plan but has more stuff in it (per the requirements of a state regulator who saw the old plan and laughed so hard she had to change her pants, I’m guessing…”People actually pay this? For that?…stop, just stop. Jesus, they’re so desperate to be insured that…oh fuck it, just put a little coverage in there so no one sues me, okay?”).

    However, before the period in which I’m allowed to make that change, I was diagnosed with an illness that is going to make me a very expensive customer for (I hope) a very long time (as in, the remainder of my life).

    WeaselCo now refuses to switch my family to the new, covers-something plan that didn’t exist during my last opportunity to make a change–because underwriting says I’m not eligible. Weasel words for “But now you’re going to use medical care, instead of paying premiums and NOT going to the doctor, so no!”

    My position: Yes, you caught me. I was desperate enough to know my kid was covered by insurance to buy something so lousy you’re not allowed to sell it to an unsuspecting public anymore. As it happens, the timing of my diagnosis was before my first opportunity to get better coverage for the same premium I agreed to pay, and paid more or less cheerfully for 54 months before the month in which both a) we both found out I’m expensive in a manner neither of us predicted and b) you’re selling something that is better that I’d prefer.

    So I’m getting a lawyer to look at this, and she says: Yeah, the only angle we’ve got here–because this “I’m rubber you’re glue” level of reasoning that says you’re unlucky to have gotten sick when you did, so haha and we wrote the contract is in fact the law, ask Elizabeth Warren–is that they sent everyone in your plan a renewal letter. This letter tells you that your new premium for 2012 is $X, and that you can now access the Better Plan, subject to underwriting. But it does not say that you can get the Better Plan for the exact same state-approved community-rated premium.

    That means that someone else in your situation who is currently cancer-free, but gets sick in the coming year, will end up in the same trap you’re in, and it’s dishonest because it uses information they have that their customers don’t have, and would never expect to be the case. No reasonable consumer would assume that they could get a Caddy for what they had been paying for a Yugo if the car dealer didn’t tell them that, and selling your neighbor a Caddy and you a Yugo for the same price isn’t justified by underwriting, it’s just lying by omission.

    Shorter lawyer: The weasels squeaked out this contract between rounds of golf and it really does say that they got lucky here–but we can go after them for deceptive marketing practices.

    Any lawyers w experience in weasel management litigation care to comment?

  5. 5
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @PhoenixRising: I don’t have direct experience with health care litigation, but I have successfully used consumer rights laws either to invalidate contract provisions or to force a favorable settlement. IOW it is frequently a valid path to follow. I don’t know enough about the specifics of your case, your contract, or your state’s laws to say more than that. I wish you the best with it. Stick it to the fuckers.

  6. 6
    PhoenixRising says:

    Wow, that was fast. (Maybe you are in a time zone in which it’s currently day. Secondary insomnia is underrated for productivity, though.) And thank you. I’m finding the energy I need to trap and neuter the weasels at WeaselCo by channeling my considerable anger into the project. My bucket list now includes “embarrass executives at so-called nonprofit insurance company” and “attend my oncologist’s funeral”, along with the good stuff that was always on there.

  7. 7
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @PhoenixRising: Woke up earlier than I wanted to, but it is day-ish here in CST. Let your lawyer know about your willingness/eagerness to work on the project. Depending on firm size, work style, and personality, he/she may very well be able to help you channel your anger-fueled energy in productive directions for the case. Even if not, he/she can give you some advice about things that you might want to do, but perhaps shouldn’t, from the standpoint of moving your case forward. Things like contacting the media and the like.

  8. 8

    Is that Sausalito in that middle photo?

    … adding, oh wait never mind it must be Seattle?
    … adding, I don’t know where it is but I’m sure I’ve been there ….

  9. 9
    cmorenc says:

    @Annie Laurie:

    Commentor Chad S describes his canine companion:

    Dog that we rescued last year. His name is Boner. My wife calls him Lucky.

    I fear to ask how the dog acquired the name “boner”, and if it has any connection with the wife adding the nickname “lucky”.

  10. 10
    Someguy says:

    Hey, good news today. It looks like DOJ is starting to take the climate denialist conspiracy seriously. Looks like they’re cracking down on bloggers who stir the pot with stolen email. ‘Bout damn time…

  11. 11
    wonkie says:

    He’s an adorable doggie. He has the kind of face that makes people smile.

  12. 12
    burnspbesq says:


    I’m afraid you’re probably grasping at straws here. The kind of international cooperation in information-gathering between law enforcement agencies that is represented by DOJ’s issuance of a hold request to Automattic is pretty commonplace. I wouldn’t infer that there is an actual DOJ criminal investigation without more. In particular, the fact that the request comes from Main Justice is a tell. If there were an actual criminal investigation going on in the US, the request would have come from a local US Attorney’s office.

    That said, it’s nice to see that the English cops are continuing to investigate.

  13. 13
    jayboat says:

    What’s not to love about that face? Who’s the lucky one?

    @OO- always impressed with the depth of reality you manage to inject into your posts. or something- feels like sanity. ok,make that mostly impressed. 8-]

  14. 14
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    Marcy says (I see her point) the Iraq war is not over……..

    “he fact that the Iraq AUMF remains on the books matters. It matters because no matter how many times we wax eloquent about Iraqis controlling their own destiny, Nuri al-Maliki knows that little prevents Obama from bringing in troops again–or dropping drones in his country. Maybe that’s why Maliki is doing unfathomable things like laying a wreath at the military cemetery of the country that has occupied and ravaged his country for 8 years.”


  15. 15
    Someguy says:


    In particular, the fact that the request comes from Main Justice is a tell. If there were an actual criminal investigation going on in the US, the request would have come from a local US Attorney’s office.

    I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Main Justice takes over a lot of high profile issues and runs the case – for instance the Microsoft antitrust litigation, or the criminal case in the BP oil spill.

  16. 16
    shwabout says:

    I believe that is a picture from Victor Steinbrueck Park right next to the Pike Place Market.

    Years ago when I worked downtown, on nice days I used to walk down to the market get some lunch from a (literally) hole in the wall Mexican place and eat my burrito in the park.

  17. 17
    dollared says:

    @shwabout: La Vaca! I love those burritos! I go to that area about 2-3 times a week, but I don’t think I’ve seen Boner/Lucky there.

  18. 18
    PhoenixRising says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Y U think I am anonymouse on intertubes, dude? Don’t want my wife and kid confronted with my opinions, plus what you said. I know how to get famous, and I know how to get deposed. (And wouldn’t those have been better lyrics for the the bridge of ‘Total Eclipse of the Heart’?) “Do you know what time it is?” “Yes.”

  19. 19
    Anoniminous says:

    GOP insiders are going all out to stop Gingrich.

    In today’s news Rasmussen has released one of their patented bullshit polls putting Romney ahead of both Gingrich and Paul.

  20. 20
    tkogrumpy says:

    I always present myself as a cynical pet hater, yet these pictures make me smile. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Comments are closed.