You don’t have experience though, lol. You’ve never dealt with an estate in the US, have you?
Medical debt != child support debt, genius.
Also, I specifically said previous procedures. If they had medical debt from a procedure 10 years ago, that’s not part of it. The filial responsibility laws - rarely enforced - have to do with things like nursing home care or hospice, it’s not a blanket “all medical debt”.
Credible sources man, I’m waiting for them. Not Wikipedia, not another -pedia. Legal sources. You said you have read all kinds of stories.
Comedian story isn’t plausible because child support debt doesn’t fall under filial responsibility laws. The end.
And why, again, doesn’t medical debt get dissolved through insolvency… genius?
Because not all debt gets dissolved through insolvency in probate. You don’t even know the words. Because I know have experience on the subject in general, it’s rather trivial to see what the circumstances are in the US. Which are that because of FILIAL RESPONSIBLITY LAWS, not all debt gets dissolved through insolvency.
I feel like I’m kinda repeating myself here.
Comedian story isn’t plausible because child support debt doesn’t fall under filial responsibility laws. The end.
Source: your sweaty (and probably overweight) ass.
So now you’re on the “nuh-uh, my ‘nuh-uh’ is way more credible of a source than Wikipedia and Investopedia” rhetoric? Ugh. Remember how I called your rhetoric childish before? Yeah I take that back. In comparison, the earlier wasn’t this childish.
It’s not a comprehensive list of all the filial laws nor does it state that child-support debt isn’t covered.
A bit touchy about your size, are you? It’s not your height or weight which decree how fat you are. It’s your fat percentage. But even if I was wrong in assuming you’re part of the majority population of the US, which is slightly obese, that won’t change the facts of the matter.
You are bizarrely aggressive at defending a random comedian discussing laws that do not pertain to you whatsoever.
Just using Lemmy, my man, I feel absolutely no aggression whatsoever, but you saying that you perceive some let’s me know that I’ve got to you. Cheers. ;)
Not all debt is dissolved through insolvency and that’s because of the filial responsibility laws which you said had “NOTHING to do” with this. But you’re not incapable of admitting when you’re wrong? :D
If you can find any kind of source that says child support falls under medical debt, which is the only reason filial responsibility exists, then I’ll admit that I’m wrong. I searched and I don’t see anything in any state laws that would indicate that you’re correct.
It’s just weird that you’re resorting to personal attacks, after implying I’d be the one starting that. Usually people resort to the personal attacks when they have nothing else to fall back on. I haven’t really met many Finns before, is this just how you guys are over there?
medical debt, which is the only reason filial responsibility
ONLY REASON
You just can’t help yourself from being wrong, gawddamnit. Like genuinely you’ve proven yourself wrong several times in this thread. In hilariously simple ways, like when saying “oh if that’s how filial responsibility laws work in Finland” when the article literally begins “… are laws in the United States.”.
#Typically, these laws obligate adult children (or depending on the state, other family members) to pay for their indigent parents’/relatives’ food, clothing, shelter and medical needs.
Weird how there’s a bunch of words before “medical needs”, innit, buddy?
Like I said earlier, you really should just say “okay, I was wrong, TIL, thanks sir”, and bugger away. “Gracefully” isn’t an option anymore.
Like I said, you’d try to make this personal. Me being personal doesn’t have anything to do with it. You’re just desperate to make it personal, because you’re not qualified to talk on the subject and you know it. (In short, insults do not constitute an ad hominem. I’ll leave you to figure out the meaning behind those words. I’m assuming it’ll take a few years.)
I’d like to see a single source for anything you’re claiming that isn’t a Wikipedia or other -pedia.
You’re correct I’m not qualified to speak on inheritance law because I’m not a lawyer. Neither are you.
The reason I brought up Finland is because you’re making ridiculous claims that don’t happen here in the United States. Just like how you say the article doesn’t mention child support, that article doesn’t mention Finland. I don’t have any clue what the laws are there, much like you don’t have any clue what the laws are here.
Who said anything about ad hominem? I’m not claiming that you say my argument is wrong for some personal flaw of mine. That’s an ad hominem. You’re just insulting me because you have no argument here, no supporting evidence for the frankly ridiculous claim that child support debt falls under filial responsibility.
Once again, you resort to insults, because you have no grounds for your claims.
I’d like to see a single source for anything you’re claiming that isn’t a Wikipedia or other -pedia.
Yeah keep chanting this, as if Wikipedia and Investopedia don’t have sources. 2005 called and wants it’s “wikipedia is bullshit” rhetoric back.
You don’t have sources. You keep constantly being wrong, but then not admitting that you’ve made a single mistake. Just like I called it a dozen comments ago, you’re just simply one of those people who can not accept when they’re wrong.
You’ll just keep ignoring all the times you’re wrong, and then you’re pathetically going to try to make it personal, while I’ll keep repeating the actual arguments, which you didn’t know jack shit about from the start, while I do.
That’s ad hominem. It’s not “insults” unlike people assume it is. It’s when you’re pathetically trying to drag an argument to be about something on a personal level, instead of the facts, because you’re wrong and would like to ignore the facts. Such as:
Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?
Filial responsibility laws aren’t only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?
And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. Are you gonna ignore that?
Still waiting on you to cite multitude of legitimate stories that you mentioned earlier. I reckon they don’t actually exist.
Shit man, you’re failing to comprehend the things you said I wouldn’t comprehend. You don’t even know what ad hominem constitutes. Ad hominem is “your argument is wrong because of <issue> with your character”. If I said that because you’re a Finn, you’re wrong about filial responsibility, that’s an ad hominem. I haven’t done anything of the sort. Your points are incorrect because they’re incorrect, not because of an issue with your character or other personal characteristic not related to the argument.
Medical debt is dismissed in probate insolvency, except in rare cases. If my mother had a pacemaker implanted, owed $250k, died the next day in a car crash, that’s not subject to filial responsibility. Once again, you’re wrong. Classic case of someone reading a Wikipedia article and thinking they understand the laws of a foreign country.
Are you gonna ignore that?
Probably, yeah. The opinion of a Finn on US estate law matters little to me. I have a lawyer to deal with the facts.
You don’t have experience though, lol. You’ve never dealt with an estate in the US, have you?
Medical debt != child support debt, genius.
Also, I specifically said previous procedures. If they had medical debt from a procedure 10 years ago, that’s not part of it. The filial responsibility laws - rarely enforced - have to do with things like nursing home care or hospice, it’s not a blanket “all medical debt”.
Credible sources man, I’m waiting for them. Not Wikipedia, not another -pedia. Legal sources. You said you have read all kinds of stories.
Comedian story isn’t plausible because child support debt doesn’t fall under filial responsibility laws. The end.
And why, again, doesn’t medical debt get dissolved through insolvency… genius?
Because not all debt gets dissolved through insolvency in probate. You don’t even know the words. Because I know have experience on the subject in general, it’s rather trivial to see what the circumstances are in the US. Which are that because of FILIAL RESPONSIBLITY LAWS, not all debt gets dissolved through insolvency.
I feel like I’m kinda repeating myself here.
Source: your sweaty (and probably overweight) ass.
So now you’re on the “nuh-uh, my ‘nuh-uh’ is way more credible of a source than Wikipedia and Investopedia” rhetoric? Ugh. Remember how I called your rhetoric childish before? Yeah I take that back. In comparison, the earlier wasn’t this childish.
Child support debt isn’t medical debt and wouldn’t fall under filial responsibility laws.
Source: the ones you’ve provided.
Child support isn’t medical debt. Are you even following your own logic, or does your LLM not have that sort of memory?
6’3” (1.9m) and 200lbs (90kg), not fat, but I am a bit sweaty at the moment, it’s summertime and to be expected at the end of the day.
You are bizarrely aggressive at defending a random comedian discussing laws that do not pertain to you whatsoever.
It’s not a comprehensive list of all the filial laws nor does it state that child-support debt isn’t covered.
A bit touchy about your size, are you? It’s not your height or weight which decree how fat you are. It’s your fat percentage. But even if I was wrong in assuming you’re part of the majority population of the US, which is slightly obese, that won’t change the facts of the matter.
Just using Lemmy, my man, I feel absolutely no aggression whatsoever, but you saying that you perceive some let’s me know that I’ve got to you. Cheers. ;)
Not all debt is dissolved through insolvency and that’s because of the filial responsibility laws which you said had “NOTHING to do” with this. But you’re not incapable of admitting when you’re wrong? :D
If you can find any kind of source that says child support falls under medical debt, which is the only reason filial responsibility exists, then I’ll admit that I’m wrong. I searched and I don’t see anything in any state laws that would indicate that you’re correct.
It’s just weird that you’re resorting to personal attacks, after implying I’d be the one starting that. Usually people resort to the personal attacks when they have nothing else to fall back on. I haven’t really met many Finns before, is this just how you guys are over there?
You just can’t help yourself from being wrong, gawddamnit. Like genuinely you’ve proven yourself wrong several times in this thread. In hilariously simple ways, like when saying “oh if that’s how filial responsibility laws work in Finland” when the article literally begins “… are laws in the United States.”.
Let’s have another look at that link, shall we?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws
#Support required
Weird how there’s a bunch of words before “medical needs”, innit, buddy?
Like I said earlier, you really should just say “okay, I was wrong, TIL, thanks sir”, and bugger away. “Gracefully” isn’t an option anymore.
Like I said, you’d try to make this personal. Me being personal doesn’t have anything to do with it. You’re just desperate to make it personal, because you’re not qualified to talk on the subject and you know it. (In short, insults do not constitute an ad hominem. I’ll leave you to figure out the meaning behind those words. I’m assuming it’ll take a few years.)
I’d like to see a single source for anything you’re claiming that isn’t a Wikipedia or other -pedia.
You’re correct I’m not qualified to speak on inheritance law because I’m not a lawyer. Neither are you.
The reason I brought up Finland is because you’re making ridiculous claims that don’t happen here in the United States. Just like how you say the article doesn’t mention child support, that article doesn’t mention Finland. I don’t have any clue what the laws are there, much like you don’t have any clue what the laws are here.
Who said anything about ad hominem? I’m not claiming that you say my argument is wrong for some personal flaw of mine. That’s an ad hominem. You’re just insulting me because you have no argument here, no supporting evidence for the frankly ridiculous claim that child support debt falls under filial responsibility.
Once again, you resort to insults, because you have no grounds for your claims.
Yeah keep chanting this, as if Wikipedia and Investopedia don’t have sources. 2005 called and wants it’s “wikipedia is bullshit” rhetoric back.
You don’t have sources. You keep constantly being wrong, but then not admitting that you’ve made a single mistake. Just like I called it a dozen comments ago, you’re just simply one of those people who can not accept when they’re wrong.
You’ll just keep ignoring all the times you’re wrong, and then you’re pathetically going to try to make it personal, while I’ll keep repeating the actual arguments, which you didn’t know jack shit about from the start, while I do.
That’s ad hominem. It’s not “insults” unlike people assume it is. It’s when you’re pathetically trying to drag an argument to be about something on a personal level, instead of the facts, because you’re wrong and would like to ignore the facts. Such as:
Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?
Filial responsibility laws aren’t only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?
And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. Are you gonna ignore that?
Still waiting on you to cite multitude of legitimate stories that you mentioned earlier. I reckon they don’t actually exist.
Shit man, you’re failing to comprehend the things you said I wouldn’t comprehend. You don’t even know what ad hominem constitutes. Ad hominem is “your argument is wrong because of <issue> with your character”. If I said that because you’re a Finn, you’re wrong about filial responsibility, that’s an ad hominem. I haven’t done anything of the sort. Your points are incorrect because they’re incorrect, not because of an issue with your character or other personal characteristic not related to the argument.
Medical debt is dismissed in probate insolvency, except in rare cases. If my mother had a pacemaker implanted, owed $250k, died the next day in a car crash, that’s not subject to filial responsibility. Once again, you’re wrong. Classic case of someone reading a Wikipedia article and thinking they understand the laws of a foreign country.
Probably, yeah. The opinion of a Finn on US estate law matters little to me. I have a lawyer to deal with the facts.