partyman66-
You said, "Having 16 kids is abnormal... that's all there is to it." Well, since we all agree who's to say what's 'normal' or not, maybe using a less subjective word like 'unusual' makes sense. Hell, I don't think there's any question 16 kids is
unusual. And it's not likely to become normal in the sense that it happens so frequently as to no longer be seen as unusual. But so what if having 16 kids is simply unusual. It's no secret there are plenty of young kids in this forum driving a nice, new G, some as young as 18yo. Doesn't make that a bad thing either, just
unusual. BTW, I don't consider 28 to be a 'kid' but, in measuring one's lifetime, I would hope it's still considered young. And why are you assuming I was referring to you anyway!? Do you see me mention your name somewhere?
I did read your posts and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so don't get yer panties in a bunch. Like I already said, I'm just trying to understand why you called these people "sick" and "irresponsible" when they do, in fact, appear quite responsible, capable and loving.
Personally I didn't see anything to give the impression these parents went running for national attention. What makes you think that... simply because they agreed to an interview, something you can bet the big media outlets all hounded them for? I don't know whether it is fair to say these parents are commercializing or "whoring" their family. I mean, who the hell has ever even heard of these people before now? Compared to that other family that had quints(?) and allowed a camera to follow them around every day for about 5 years in exchange for financial gain (ie., house, vans, college savings accounts, etc.), these people don't seem to be using or taking advantage of their circumstances for financial or material gain. Now Phelan has a unique perspective on his local media, but saying the father 'used' his kids in an attempt to further his career? I should think a family that size would be mighty hard to keep out of the spotlight during a run for public office. If I had to guess, I bet the media made more of it than the father.
But hey, what do I know? Opinions are like ass cracks; everybody has one. And, if you were offended somehow by what I said, well sorrrry. Everbody is ignorant about one thing or another. Ignorant is not a bad word, and if you understand the distinction between ignorance and stupidity you wouldn't be offended. I'm not calling you stupid, but I am saying the characterization of insurance in your example is so totally wrong that you must be uninformed. You said
"if he payed $200K a year for a policy, he might have one that would pay out sufficient funds to maintain his family well beyond his demise... but then it's highly unlikely that he could afford to support his family while he was alive with such an expensive policy to pay for." Clear enough, but you never even say how much death benefit you think he needs... $1mil, $3mil, $5mil? FYI, a simple 15yr level premium term policy for a 40yo non-smoker (ok, I DID assume that!) in AK costs about $180/mo, or $2200/yr, for a $5,000,000 death benefit. I would expect $5mil to be more than sufficient to support his family for quite some time even if he left no other assets. I'll even go out on a limb and assume a guy making $600k/yr could afford a $180/mo. premium.