you can't rescind participation once you reach the age of majority, unlike every other legally binding agreement your parents enter you into
I don't understand you here.
My parent's never entered me into any kind of agreement...
It isn't like THEY signed me up for SS...as I mentioned, I signed up for in in a 9th grade typing class at school, something of a "class project". I wish I hadn't back then.
I would have much rather have taken all that SS money I've contributed over the years...and put it into investments for retirement myself and used that money to make money.
I would definitely find out about what religion to 'join' to get out of it, if I had the choice back then link here to exception page
But again to the point...I'm confused when you say my parents obligated me to something, it isn't like they signed me up for social security or anything....
It's only called "Superstorm Sandy" because of the pathetic response of government and the self-centered hubris of nor-easters. It was just a hurricane; the Southeastern US getting far stronger storms much more often.
Yep...wait till a Katrina or Andrew hits your ass and then you can call it a "super" storm.
I feel poorly for the NY/NJ areas that Sandy hit, it was a weak storm, but did damage. I'm torn between feeling sympathetic....but also remembering SO many calls, from people (especially in the NE of the US) calling for moving New Orleans, that no one should live there, it is dangerous, stupid placement (it is there for a reason)...etc. The rudeness and lack of sympanthy for a sister city (not just NOLA but all the gulf that suffered from Katrina) from many in the northeast, does at time hamper my ability to feel for them.
I've not seen nearly as many calls to move NYC and the important things there to a safer area...
Yet, I relent and still do feel for the folks up there, knowing how tough it can be...and like many in LA, have sent or contributed to help to those that got hit up there...
Anyway....now they're getting to see what we went through with FEMA and dealing with the Feds, etc. And hey guys...it is IMPROVED and BETTER now than when we had to deal with it...
[rolls eyes]
See how good the feds to for you, you're closer to them, maybe they'll listen and help a bit more than they did for us.
One benefit of Obamacare is standardizing insurance policies for what they will cover, eliminating many fine print items (like pre-existing conditions, age restrictions, setting standard limits for copays and out-of-pocket expenses).
And one of the drawback of the standardizing of insurance policies is that one size does not fit all.
As a male that really doubts he'll change his plans on having a child...I don't think I should be forced to buy a policy that covers female birth control, or maternity needs, etc.
I'm all in favor of chicks doing birth control, but personally, the pill isn't gonna do me any good. Why should that be on MY policy?
When I was going some 1099 work a couple years back, I did a high deductible policy, $1200/yr deductible, and about $220/mo (I have pre-existing conditions and still got the policy)....to be used ONLY as emergency care, heart attack or hit by a bus.
I used that in conjunction with a HSA (Health Savings Account) and socked about about $3K a year pre-tax, for my routine meds and Dr. visits. I paid for my routine maintenance with this.
Why not do this, something simple....allows folks to be covered for emergencies, but yet responsible to save for their routine care (just like we save for rent, food, gas, etc).
This type of policy I described is PERFECT for a young person starting a business, etc. Yet...Obamacare, despite Obama's promises, is causing people that were happy with this policy to lose it...and be forced to pay for more $$$ policies that include coverage that doesn't apply to their situation.
When you signed onto social security did you have to read and sign a huge legal document?
Well, it wasn't a HUGE form..but I did have to fill one out, along with the rest of my classmates in 9th grade typing class.
I wish I knew then, what I know now...and would have refused to sign up citing religious reasons, and never had to participate in the pyramid scheme that is Social Security.
I hope they don't vote for any extensionsâ¦and let this thing collapse and fail under its own weight.
The pain it causes will reflect on what a true piece of crap the Obama administration has foisted upon the US, and hopefully, that will be reflected in the next election cycle.
They _really_ worry about people signing up the second they get sick.)
That's what I'd do if I didn't have insurance. I don't think the penalties at this point, are worse than paying for the insuranceâ¦so, it would make sense to anyone that does the numbers for themselves, and for many, that is EXACTLY what is going to be the best for them expense-wise.
There's a reason I've never owned any car with more than two (practical) seats, and all manual transmissions. I like to DRIVE.
Every day, I enjoy my drive to and from workâ¦.with the weather hitting now, I drop the top on my car and hit the road enjoying the thrill and experience.
I also enjoy the fact that my car so far, has very little on it to be tracked, and little data storage on it that I know in terms of a black box that can report on me (although I"m sure there is more than I would care for).
I'm hoping the laws banning human drivers in favor of robot "Johnny Cars" is far enough in the future to where I'm dead and gone from the earth.
I"d much rather take the risks for the rewards of a freer life where I'm more in control of things.
Actually, many roads were first built because of lobbying by cyclists -- it wasn't until cars came later that bikes were pushed off to the shoulders.
That's more my point. Times have changed....back then cars likely didn't go as fast a bikes...but now, is not the case. The speed difference is too much to be safe.
We don't really want horse drawn carts on these roads these days...so, why should slow bikes be on roads that cars are traveling on.
And, with reference to those other cars around me, if I was going only 45-50mph, I'd likely get run over by the other drivers, so, I'm driving at the speed to be safe with traffic, which around here, has nothing to do with the posted speed limits. The only time anyone really bothers observing those, is if a cop in around and the radar detector goes off.
Perhaps you're driving too fast for conditions if you've "almost killed a few". Speed limits are *maximums", driving below the speed limit when conditions warrant it is always legal. Another option would be to pull off the road and wait until conditions improve to the point where you can see safely - a good rule of thumb is that if you can't see a human shaped object on the road, then you can't see well enough to drive.
I'm driving at a speed that is safe for the automobile traffic around me....most of us are. We aren't expecting to have to slow quickly or stop for a slow moving, non-motorized vehicle suddenly appearing in the middle of the road.
Face it...the roads are built and meant for motorized vehicles. It is the smaller bicycles that have to be on the lookout and use judgement on when it is save to ride and on what roads.
You can go on and on all you want on laws and insurance, etc....but what good is that going to do for you when racked up in the hospital for months, and that's even if you survive a duel with a 3000+ lbs metal vehicle going about 3-4x as fast as you are?
You door me, you or your insurance company just bought me a new bicycle - which is worth more than your mortgage payment. And pay for a lot of medical bills. And pain and suffering.
Well, maybe you shouldn't have been driving illegally between cars (in many or most areas this is not legal)...and hey, you were doing wrong, and "I" *ahem* didn't see you.
:)
Be a bit balky in paying up? Damn if my back isn't acting up from the accident and in need of an MRI.
And I'll be sure to turn off the camera before you get out of the car and I kick you in the balls as hard as I can - and I can squat over 600 pounds, so that kick will leave your GRANDFATHER singing soprano. If the bike cleats don't castrate you.
Yeah, I carry concealed...good luck getting close to me.
And even if I don't choose to use that, I'm quite well trained in self defense, and chances are you will be the idiot holding his balls.
You mean it's not safe to be on the road with YOU.
Waaah waaah waaaah. YOU need to get to work, so the cyclist is supposed to get out of YOUR way?
Seems like YOU are the problem.
It isn't just me...its everyone on the road in a car driving along with ME....
I've seen other cars driving in other lane almost clock a couple of bicyclists more than a few times on busy roads in the morning, I have actually cringed a couple of time expecting a *splat*.....but they slammed the brakes in time or was able to swerve around them enough to miss them.
Cars and bikes on roads just do not mix...hell, I ride a motorcycle and even motorcycles and cars barely mix. Cars just can't see you....at least with a motorcycle, I have a fighting chance of quickly getting the fuck out of the way of the car coming at me, and my bike is fairly loud...enough so that a car driver will usually hear me and take notice.
I'm cool with bicycles except in the mornings when everyone is trying to get to work....you're passing someone, and BANG, you have to hit the brakes when you see a damned bike in the road with heavy traffic slowing shit down, when you're trying to make it to work.
I've likely almost killed a few idiots that I almost didn't see, especially in areas where the sun glare hits you in the early morning or late afternoon.
I know bikes "technically" have the same right to be on the road as cars, but let's be realistic in this day in age....there are times when it is NOT safe to be on a bike on a public road without a specific bike lane that is out of the main traffic lanes.
I like to ride a bike for exercise, but I'd damned sure not be out on the road during rush out without a being on a motorized vehicle.
But, isn't the big TV and stereo (AV stuff) generally the centerpiece of the home or at least the living room in most homes? I take that as a given for most folks in the US...?
Like pubic hair? Yea, I'm pretty sick of all this "look like a little girl when I'm really 30" crap, too.
Ugh...no!!!
Look at some good old, 70's pr0n....Debbie Does Dallas or the like, man...if you wanted to go down on one of those ladies, you'd better take a machete and a sherpa with you if you wanted any hope of ever returning alive!!
Seriously, I don't like mandatory flossing after eating....
Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?
Well, depends on if you're in a right to work state (I think most states are?)....you can be fired for any reason or no reason whatsoever as long as it isn't one of the few discriminatory reasons (age, sex, race)...but sure, you can be fired at any given time, and no reason has to be given in many/most states.
Remember, there has hardly ever been a law by the govt (state or federal) that hasn't usually in the future, been happily expanded or applied to activities and situations that were not the original intent of said law.
I remember in my state, when they advertised that the "new" seatbelt laws would not be primary reason for pulling a motorist over, they could only ticket you for not wearing a seatbelt IF they pulled you over for something else, and noticed you didn't have one on.
I think most people see the recent "Click-it-or-Ticket" ads on tv where they definitely say they'll pull you over if they see you not wearing a seatbelt.
Whether you agree with this (I wear my seatbelt)...this is a quick example of saying one thing to worn a law in with the public, and then soon expanding and changing it to allow more intrusion into your life.
Hell, these days the RICO act is being used in new imaginative ways not pictured when it was passed...and that's an old well known law structure.
I can surely see this tracking that is supposedly anonymous now....to be expanded (maybe with help of the Bluetooth article yesterday) to be used for real time tracking, I mean, would that be useful during an Amber Alert???
Golly gee...remember that both child abuse and terrorism are the new keys to the Constitution, and surely we'd be willing to trade a little more privacy for the sake of the children being abducted by terrorists, wouldn't we?
What's to stop the Obama administration from rounding up all the redheads and forcing them to work in salt mines?
Well, I think anyone with common sense could see the difference in this...your example would be covered by the constitution with regard to 'people'.
However, we've very often seen laws extended well past the laws intended use, much less extended the law further.
Remember the seatbelt laws? I know in my state, they advertised them specifically as NOT being a primary reason they could pull you over...they had to pull you over for something else, and only then could they cite you for not having a seatbelt on too.
Now? Pretty much every state is boldly advertising click-it-or-ticket...where not wearing a seat belt is a primary reason to be pulled over.
What about the girl that killed herself over harrasement by another girls mother. There was no law against that, but it didn't stop the Atty from trying to charge the lady with crimes that didn't even truly apply to the crime.
Hell, RICO is being stretched these modern days to apply to actions it was never intended to....
With this in mind, I see no problem with the govt type quickly changing to gather MAC attacks because of some 'good' reason, say like aiding with Amber alerts...
To my knowledge, they suggested a law that would get rid of the TSA, but require private companies to take over their role; in other words, nothing would change. Or was that incorrect?
Well, if the airlines and the security companies they hire are private, I'd hope some sensible measure might take place.
If an airline replaced all the damed xray machines, and show removal, etc...and replaced it with a simple metal detector, and walking by a bomb sniffing dog and had no more hassle than that....THAT airline would get more of my business that the other ones keeping to the current TSA practices.
I remember not that long ago...accompanying friends or family to their gate to see them off...or to meet them AT the gate to greet and help them carry luggage, etc.
I remember no metal detectors...etc.
But back to this article...they're wanting like 25% of the public compliant? If they're wanting Passport numbers, I gotta guess that compliance number will be VERY low, as that most Americans don't have a passport or won't ever need one.
Now, if due to this, the feds start requiring this passport, then it becomes the ubiquitous National ID...which we've been trying to avoid like the plague.
Requiring one to travel? Yep..sounds like the "Papers Please" you see in movies set in Nazi Germany.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand you here.
My parent's never entered me into any kind of agreement...
It isn't like THEY signed me up for SS...as I mentioned, I signed up for in in a 9th grade typing class at school, something of a "class project". I wish I hadn't back then.
I would have much rather have taken all that SS money I've contributed over the years...and put it into investments for retirement myself and used that money to make money.
I would definitely find out about what religion to 'join' to get out of it, if I had the choice back then link here to exception page
But again to the point...I'm confused when you say my parents obligated me to something, it isn't like they signed me up for social security or anything....
Yep...wait till a Katrina or Andrew hits your ass and then you can call it a "super" storm.
I feel poorly for the NY/NJ areas that Sandy hit, it was a weak storm, but did damage. I'm torn between feeling sympathetic....but also remembering SO many calls, from people (especially in the NE of the US) calling for moving New Orleans, that no one should live there, it is dangerous, stupid placement (it is there for a reason)...etc. The rudeness and lack of sympanthy for a sister city (not just NOLA but all the gulf that suffered from Katrina) from many in the northeast, does at time hamper my ability to feel for them.
I've not seen nearly as many calls to move NYC and the important things there to a safer area...
Yet, I relent and still do feel for the folks up there, knowing how tough it can be...and like many in LA, have sent or contributed to help to those that got hit up there...
Anyway....now they're getting to see what we went through with FEMA and dealing with the Feds, etc. And hey guys...it is IMPROVED and BETTER now than when we had to deal with it...
[rolls eyes]
See how good the feds to for you, you're closer to them, maybe they'll listen and help a bit more than they did for us.
Dyslexics of the world....UNTIE!!!
And one of the drawback of the standardizing of insurance policies is that one size does not fit all.
As a male that really doubts he'll change his plans on having a child...I don't think I should be forced to buy a policy that covers female birth control, or maternity needs, etc.
I'm all in favor of chicks doing birth control, but personally, the pill isn't gonna do me any good. Why should that be on MY policy?
When I was going some 1099 work a couple years back, I did a high deductible policy, $1200 /yr deductible, and about $220/mo (I have pre-existing conditions and still got the policy)....to be used ONLY as emergency care, heart attack or hit by a bus.
I used that in conjunction with a HSA (Health Savings Account) and socked about about $3K a year pre-tax, for my routine meds and Dr. visits. I paid for my routine maintenance with this.
Why not do this, something simple....allows folks to be covered for emergencies, but yet responsible to save for their routine care (just like we save for rent, food, gas, etc).
This type of policy I described is PERFECT for a young person starting a business, etc. Yet...Obamacare, despite Obama's promises, is causing people that were happy with this policy to lose it...and be forced to pay for more $$$ policies that include coverage that doesn't apply to their situation.
That sucks.
Well, it wasn't a HUGE form..but I did have to fill one out, along with the rest of my classmates in 9th grade typing class.
I wish I knew then, what I know now...and would have refused to sign up citing religious reasons, and never had to participate in the pyramid scheme that is Social Security.
You'd better know those distinctions during football season!!
The pain it causes will reflect on what a true piece of crap the Obama administration has foisted upon the US, and hopefully, that will be reflected in the next election cycle.
That's what I'd do if I didn't have insurance. I don't think the penalties at this point, are worse than paying for the insuranceâ¦so, it would make sense to anyone that does the numbers for themselves, and for many, that is EXACTLY what is going to be the best for them expense-wise.
There's a reason I've never owned any car with more than two (practical) seats, and all manual transmissions. I like to DRIVE.
Every day, I enjoy my drive to and from workâ¦.with the weather hitting now, I drop the top on my car and hit the road enjoying the thrill and experience.
I also enjoy the fact that my car so far, has very little on it to be tracked, and little data storage on it that I know in terms of a black box that can report on me (although I"m sure there is more than I would care for).
I'm hoping the laws banning human drivers in favor of robot "Johnny Cars" is far enough in the future to where I'm dead and gone from the earth.
I"d much rather take the risks for the rewards of a freer life where I'm more in control of things.
That's more my point. Times have changed....back then cars likely didn't go as fast a bikes...but now, is not the case. The speed difference is too much to be safe.
We don't really want horse drawn carts on these roads these days...so, why should slow bikes be on roads that cars are traveling on.
And, with reference to those other cars around me, if I was going only 45-50mph, I'd likely get run over by the other drivers, so, I'm driving at the speed to be safe with traffic, which around here, has nothing to do with the posted speed limits. The only time anyone really bothers observing those, is if a cop in around and the radar detector goes off.
Well, an easy way to combat that...open every beverage he brings you, pointed back at his face...
I'm driving at a speed that is safe for the automobile traffic around me....most of us are. We aren't expecting to have to slow quickly or stop for a slow moving, non-motorized vehicle suddenly appearing in the middle of the road.
Face it...the roads are built and meant for motorized vehicles. It is the smaller bicycles that have to be on the lookout and use judgement on when it is save to ride and on what roads.
You can go on and on all you want on laws and insurance, etc....but what good is that going to do for you when racked up in the hospital for months, and that's even if you survive a duel with a 3000+ lbs metal vehicle going about 3-4x as fast as you are?
Well, maybe you shouldn't have been driving illegally between cars (in many or most areas this is not legal)...and hey, you were doing wrong, and "I" *ahem* didn't see you.
Yeah, I carry concealed...good luck getting close to me.
And even if I don't choose to use that, I'm quite well trained in self defense, and chances are you will be the idiot holding his balls.
It isn't just me...its everyone on the road in a car driving along with ME....
I've seen other cars driving in other lane almost clock a couple of bicyclists more than a few times on busy roads in the morning, I have actually cringed a couple of time expecting a *splat*.....but they slammed the brakes in time or was able to swerve around them enough to miss them.
Cars and bikes on roads just do not mix...hell, I ride a motorcycle and even motorcycles and cars barely mix. Cars just can't see you....at least with a motorcycle, I have a fighting chance of quickly getting the fuck out of the way of the car coming at me, and my bike is fairly loud...enough so that a car driver will usually hear me and take notice.
Who cares?
Amazing how a well timed car door opening will stop that "asshole" dead in his tracks.
I've likely almost killed a few idiots that I almost didn't see, especially in areas where the sun glare hits you in the early morning or late afternoon.
I know bikes "technically" have the same right to be on the road as cars, but let's be realistic in this day in age....there are times when it is NOT safe to be on a bike on a public road without a specific bike lane that is out of the main traffic lanes.
I like to ride a bike for exercise, but I'd damned sure not be out on the road during rush out without a being on a motorized vehicle.
But, isn't the big TV and stereo (AV stuff) generally the centerpiece of the home or at least the living room in most homes? I take that as a given for most folks in the US...?
Ugh...no!!!
Look at some good old, 70's pr0n....Debbie Does Dallas or the like, man...if you wanted to go down on one of those ladies, you'd better take a machete and a sherpa with you if you wanted any hope of ever returning alive!!
Seriously, I don't like mandatory flossing after eating....
You missed the point about the example of seatbelts. It wasn't about the belts..but how they sold the law.
Originally, you could not be pulled over for simply not wearing a belt, they sold it that way.
Not long after, they changed the laws, so that merely not wearing a seatbelt..allowed them to pull you over.
A simple example of how they start a law in a limited way to pass it...then quickly expand the law to catch more people and more disparate behaviors.
Well, depends on if you're in a right to work state (I think most states are?)....you can be fired for any reason or no reason whatsoever as long as it isn't one of the few discriminatory reasons (age, sex, race)...but sure, you can be fired at any given time, and no reason has to be given in many/most states.
I remember in my state, when they advertised that the "new" seatbelt laws would not be primary reason for pulling a motorist over, they could only ticket you for not wearing a seatbelt IF they pulled you over for something else, and noticed you didn't have one on.
I think most people see the recent "Click-it-or-Ticket" ads on tv where they definitely say they'll pull you over if they see you not wearing a seatbelt.
Whether you agree with this (I wear my seatbelt)...this is a quick example of saying one thing to worn a law in with the public, and then soon expanding and changing it to allow more intrusion into your life.
Hell, these days the RICO act is being used in new imaginative ways not pictured when it was passed...and that's an old well known law structure.
I can surely see this tracking that is supposedly anonymous now....to be expanded (maybe with help of the Bluetooth article yesterday) to be used for real time tracking, I mean, would that be useful during an Amber Alert???
Golly gee...remember that both child abuse and terrorism are the new keys to the Constitution, and surely we'd be willing to trade a little more privacy for the sake of the children being abducted by terrorists, wouldn't we?
Well, I think anyone with common sense could see the difference in this...your example would be covered by the constitution with regard to 'people'.
However, we've very often seen laws extended well past the laws intended use, much less extended the law further.
Remember the seatbelt laws? I know in my state, they advertised them specifically as NOT being a primary reason they could pull you over...they had to pull you over for something else, and only then could they cite you for not having a seatbelt on too.
Now? Pretty much every state is boldly advertising click-it-or-ticket...where not wearing a seat belt is a primary reason to be pulled over.
What about the girl that killed herself over harrasement by another girls mother. There was no law against that, but it didn't stop the Atty from trying to charge the lady with crimes that didn't even truly apply to the crime.
Hell, RICO is being stretched these modern days to apply to actions it was never intended to....
With this in mind, I see no problem with the govt type quickly changing to gather MAC attacks because of some 'good' reason, say like aiding with Amber alerts...
I've never lived in a state where I have to register any of my firearms (handguns or rifles).
Well, if the airlines and the security companies they hire are private, I'd hope some sensible measure might take place.
If an airline replaced all the damed xray machines, and show removal, etc...and replaced it with a simple metal detector, and walking by a bomb sniffing dog and had no more hassle than that....THAT airline would get more of my business that the other ones keeping to the current TSA practices.
I remember no metal detectors...etc.
But back to this article...they're wanting like 25% of the public compliant? If they're wanting Passport numbers, I gotta guess that compliance number will be VERY low, as that most Americans don't have a passport or won't ever need one.
Now, if due to this, the feds start requiring this passport, then it becomes the ubiquitous National ID...which we've been trying to avoid like the plague.
Requiring one to travel? Yep..sounds like the "Papers Please" you see in movies set in Nazi Germany.