to make sure the employee isn't doing anything wrong
Answer:
Nope. That would require enormous labor hours and isn't worth it.
However, there are probably certain flags built into the system for automatic review. I used to have to review each and every return. I also had to authorize any purchases over a certain dollar amount and any check over $100. We could run reports to show various statistics: breakdown of cash, check, credit cards, coupons, etc per cashier and compared to each other. Number of transactions, number of items per transactions, etc. Any employee well outside of the numbers for the rest of the store might be worth watching.
The only time I would watch all of an employee's transactions was if I had noticed a weird pattern in their transactions. Like one employee with a lot of voids and way more credit card transactions than cash. That might indicate the employee was taking the cash and voiding the transaction, for example. I might start watching the signatures on the credit card transactions to make sure they were legit. I would also watch employees who kept turning in short cash drawers. I had one cashier who was "borrowing" lunch money. His drawer would be $5 short one day and $5 over the next. It was nice that he was replacing the money he was stealing but still a violation. I would watch cashiers with really high coupon numbers on their stats but few actual coupons in the drawers.
I used to tell my crew that if they were doing their jobs right, they didn't need to worry about me watching their every move. But if they felt like being dishonest, it really wouldn't take me long to catch on.
some companies yes. others larger companies they only take a sampling of transactions by an employee, and if the sampling clears then the employee is ok. but if something appears suspicious they will then do a full review of all transactions. If you are above board on everything, then you are alright.
What do you think those cameras are for. And why do you think POS systems are now connected to computers?
It's very simple to 'view' each transaction using certain software.
They could but its unlikely. What LP does is wait for "alert signals" that an employee may be stealing then check all transactions. Exmaple if you have a large cash refund your rung up that might be looked at. If you have above average cash refunds and on and on. LP does not have the time to radomly go over every transaction unless they suspect something. If you need more help on LP duties and limits check your yahoo search engine for Retail Security answers
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Does Lalu Yadav's father / father-out-law own the Indian Railways?
Laluwa's Brother-out-law Subhash Yadav MP recently created a scene @ Patna Rly Stn , since he was not allotted a First Class AC berth in the Train . In the ensuing violent melee, the brazen Subhash abused the Mediapersons %26 Rly staff present %26 the Train could nor move out for about 20 Minutes.
When questioned , unabashed Laluwa said, "So what has happened ? You write that I am enquiring in the matter. "
Last year his brazen father-out-law %26 Mother-out-law were caught in I class Compartment without any tickets. So disgraceful, but no such effect on Laluwa, %26 his blind %26 equally unabashed admirer Sonia.
Where will India go with such crooked, corrupt, %26 conscience-free leaders %26 their equally reckless families ?can even God help us to get rid of these parasites ?
Answer:
Eee kaun humare khilaf bol raha hai ? humka janat nahin ho ?
Itna gayi bhainsan ka chara dakar gaye, aur dakaar bhi nahin liya. Tumko kachha chaba lenge
Railaway humaar hai, bharat humaar hai, Advani humse dare hai , tum susura ka cheej ho
Jai gayya maata (aur chaara deve humko)
It seems so!
india is run by pests and will continue to be run by pests.we can't help it coz each and every person who sits in the parliament automatically converts into a pest.
so unless we as a community stand together and act as a pesticide it will never help.
unfortunately it just a dream that one fine day we will get a govt. with highly educated, extremely crisp looking individuals. coz such individuals are either NRI's or are just 10% of the total population..Our major vote bank are the lower class and they too want to elect those people who they feel are birds of the same feather!
Look, its nothing new that politicians and their families abuse the amenities given to them by the Constitution. Every session of the Parliament, they sanction a pay hike for themselves but for government servants, there is a pay commission only after a gap of few years.
They will keep on abusing these powers until we as citizens will not demand greater answerability of the politicians to the people not just the power to vote after 5 years
They will in due course own thecountry
YES - OFFCOURSE. OUR POLITICIANS THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE OWNERSHIP OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY
Lalu is a substandard and corrupt leader.So everything is possible for him
Yes Indian Railways is the family property of Lalo Prasad Yadav, do you have any objections for that? Didn't you see how he was spitting on the platform openly in view of whole T.V. media that was later telecast though out India %26 abroad. You tell me why the bloody so called IMA's of India %26 even foreign countries send their students for his so called Bihari management course ? What this Lalwa %26 his whole family thinks that not only the Bihar but whole of India is their personal property %26 height of their thoughts is the soon he will be the next Prime Minister of India. No doubt he is really very intelligent man %26 we the fools who go out %26 vote for people like him to the Lok Sabha %26 make him Union Minister. Shame on Congress Party for depending on guys like him to rule the country.
We need emergency again
Fear for the day..they are going to own india.
our democracy is so faulty... 100 donkeys are ruling over 99 horses
That's Laloo Yadav.Of-course he owns our great country.He can do whatever he wants to do because he runs our country.
People stand-up and do something to change our entire govt..It needs educated people to bring some good decisions which can lead us solving our national problems.We the people are responsible for these govt. nuisance to continue like this.
The incidents are outrageous though, are not exclusive to the near and dear of the bigwig but a common phenomenon in Bihar. If you had seen the scene in the serial "Yaatra" a decade ago when the train enters Bihar, you would understand. Or travel once in a train with an overnight jorney crossing Bihar, and you will find any reserved compartment infested with Ticketless Travellers.
But I would only counsel that any agitation shall not turn abusive. "tere baap ka hai kya" is a typical Indian agitated expression, which does not quite fit in while the bigwig is seemingly doing well his job.
LALLU RABADI MAYASONIA : OWNS THIS COUNTRY.
yes, government is corrupt %26 it is possible that after say fifty years from now a paper might be discovered in future stating that railway was sold to some Mr. yadav's kin in the beginning of the century %26 there is a signed document regarding this.
The technical answer to this question is 'no', they do not own the railways. The technical answer to the last question is that God helps those who help themselves. We have to do something about it. The crux of the problem is that the Minister can transfer any officer without any explanation. This leads to unquestioned servility of the officers to the Ministers. They cannot take any action against their political masters under the fear of transfers to some remote location or non-lucrative posting.
very interesting view.
If there is anybody who can change the parasitic nature of the ministers it is the very highly educated sons and daughters of the ultra rich Indians who are willing or in the future - will be willing to take a stand of leadership to lead India in this new century. I do not write off the poor here but for them their roji roti becomes more important than taking Panga with the Unjust mafia type people.
This new breed will have the intelligence, knowledge, power, strength and the hunger for NAME to gain for their families. I do hope the children of all the people signed above will take this chance.
Jai Bharat Mata -
When questioned , unabashed Laluwa said, "So what has happened ? You write that I am enquiring in the matter. "
Last year his brazen father-out-law %26 Mother-out-law were caught in I class Compartment without any tickets. So disgraceful, but no such effect on Laluwa, %26 his blind %26 equally unabashed admirer Sonia.
Where will India go with such crooked, corrupt, %26 conscience-free leaders %26 their equally reckless families ?can even God help us to get rid of these parasites ?
Answer:
Eee kaun humare khilaf bol raha hai ? humka janat nahin ho ?
Itna gayi bhainsan ka chara dakar gaye, aur dakaar bhi nahin liya. Tumko kachha chaba lenge
Railaway humaar hai, bharat humaar hai, Advani humse dare hai , tum susura ka cheej ho
Jai gayya maata (aur chaara deve humko)
It seems so!
india is run by pests and will continue to be run by pests.we can't help it coz each and every person who sits in the parliament automatically converts into a pest.
so unless we as a community stand together and act as a pesticide it will never help.
unfortunately it just a dream that one fine day we will get a govt. with highly educated, extremely crisp looking individuals. coz such individuals are either NRI's or are just 10% of the total population..Our major vote bank are the lower class and they too want to elect those people who they feel are birds of the same feather!
Look, its nothing new that politicians and their families abuse the amenities given to them by the Constitution. Every session of the Parliament, they sanction a pay hike for themselves but for government servants, there is a pay commission only after a gap of few years.
They will keep on abusing these powers until we as citizens will not demand greater answerability of the politicians to the people not just the power to vote after 5 years
They will in due course own thecountry
YES - OFFCOURSE. OUR POLITICIANS THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE OWNERSHIP OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY
Lalu is a substandard and corrupt leader.So everything is possible for him
Yes Indian Railways is the family property of Lalo Prasad Yadav, do you have any objections for that? Didn't you see how he was spitting on the platform openly in view of whole T.V. media that was later telecast though out India %26 abroad. You tell me why the bloody so called IMA's of India %26 even foreign countries send their students for his so called Bihari management course ? What this Lalwa %26 his whole family thinks that not only the Bihar but whole of India is their personal property %26 height of their thoughts is the soon he will be the next Prime Minister of India. No doubt he is really very intelligent man %26 we the fools who go out %26 vote for people like him to the Lok Sabha %26 make him Union Minister. Shame on Congress Party for depending on guys like him to rule the country.
We need emergency again
Fear for the day..they are going to own india.
our democracy is so faulty... 100 donkeys are ruling over 99 horses
That's Laloo Yadav.Of-course he owns our great country.He can do whatever he wants to do because he runs our country.
People stand-up and do something to change our entire govt..It needs educated people to bring some good decisions which can lead us solving our national problems.We the people are responsible for these govt. nuisance to continue like this.
The incidents are outrageous though, are not exclusive to the near and dear of the bigwig but a common phenomenon in Bihar. If you had seen the scene in the serial "Yaatra" a decade ago when the train enters Bihar, you would understand. Or travel once in a train with an overnight jorney crossing Bihar, and you will find any reserved compartment infested with Ticketless Travellers.
But I would only counsel that any agitation shall not turn abusive. "tere baap ka hai kya" is a typical Indian agitated expression, which does not quite fit in while the bigwig is seemingly doing well his job.
LALLU RABADI MAYASONIA : OWNS THIS COUNTRY.
yes, government is corrupt %26 it is possible that after say fifty years from now a paper might be discovered in future stating that railway was sold to some Mr. yadav's kin in the beginning of the century %26 there is a signed document regarding this.
The technical answer to this question is 'no', they do not own the railways. The technical answer to the last question is that God helps those who help themselves. We have to do something about it. The crux of the problem is that the Minister can transfer any officer without any explanation. This leads to unquestioned servility of the officers to the Ministers. They cannot take any action against their political masters under the fear of transfers to some remote location or non-lucrative posting.
very interesting view.
If there is anybody who can change the parasitic nature of the ministers it is the very highly educated sons and daughters of the ultra rich Indians who are willing or in the future - will be willing to take a stand of leadership to lead India in this new century. I do not write off the poor here but for them their roji roti becomes more important than taking Panga with the Unjust mafia type people.
This new breed will have the intelligence, knowledge, power, strength and the hunger for NAME to gain for their families. I do hope the children of all the people signed above will take this chance.
Jai Bharat Mata -
Does it trouble you that the 5 conservative Supreme Court Justices are all Catholic?
Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito are now the majority. All but Kennedy are Ivy League graduates.
This certainly isn't representative of the US population which is 24% Catholic.
Answer:
It troubles me that the 5 conservative justices are overturning judicial doctrines that have been in place for decades.
It troubles me that the 5 conservative justices believe that Congress has the authority to dictate medical practices, despite the fact that its' not in their enumerated powers.
It troubles me that the 5 conservative justices believe its acceptable for a teacher to tear down a banner held by another adult on a public street, just become some students happen to be attending the same event.
It troubles me that the 5 conservative justices, including the two most recently appointed by Bush, are going to cause massive consitutional damage over the next 30 years.
No, it doesn't trouble me that they're catholic.
Nope.
I am happy with the current ideological makeup of the USSC. It is the most constructionist it has been in decades. The religious affiliations of the Justices do not concern me.
Should I assume that you are worried about a possible future ruling overturning Roe v. Wade? I am hopeful this is the case. Conservative Catholics do show a strong commitment to pro-life issues, yes.
Yes.
No, because it isn't the conservative justices who use foreign law to justify their decisions.
Since their decisions are based on sound Constitutional foundations, their religion has no part in their jurisprudence.
Does it trouble you that ANYONE in government has a religious belief?
It would trouble me a great deal more if they were Islamic. I'm not catholic but, what the hell! You think they're going to stage some kind of Catholic Coup and take over the entire U.S. and call it the United States of Vatican? Get a grip.
76% of America are Christians. You didn't mention what the other Justices affiliations were.
No.
As a practicing Roman Catholic I think it is kinda neat.
Does it trouble you that the past two Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Bank are Jewish?
What does religious preference have to do with being political?
As long as they do their job, who cares what their religion is. Really, you must have a lot of time on your hands.
I have no problem. They are the most qualified people in their, that's why they are on the court. sometimes "representative" isnt always the best way. This case is one of them.
I suppose if you want a pure representative in the court you need:
catholic
protestant
atheist
terrorist
racist
polygamist
homosexual
.etc
It doesn't concern me that they are Catholic, it concerns me they are all conservatives. Too many " same thinkers " on the supreme court is not a good thing.
This certainly isn't representative of the US population which is 24% Catholic.
Answer:
It troubles me that the 5 conservative justices are overturning judicial doctrines that have been in place for decades.
It troubles me that the 5 conservative justices believe that Congress has the authority to dictate medical practices, despite the fact that its' not in their enumerated powers.
It troubles me that the 5 conservative justices believe its acceptable for a teacher to tear down a banner held by another adult on a public street, just become some students happen to be attending the same event.
It troubles me that the 5 conservative justices, including the two most recently appointed by Bush, are going to cause massive consitutional damage over the next 30 years.
No, it doesn't trouble me that they're catholic.
Nope.
I am happy with the current ideological makeup of the USSC. It is the most constructionist it has been in decades. The religious affiliations of the Justices do not concern me.
Should I assume that you are worried about a possible future ruling overturning Roe v. Wade? I am hopeful this is the case. Conservative Catholics do show a strong commitment to pro-life issues, yes.
Yes.
No, because it isn't the conservative justices who use foreign law to justify their decisions.
Since their decisions are based on sound Constitutional foundations, their religion has no part in their jurisprudence.
Does it trouble you that ANYONE in government has a religious belief?
It would trouble me a great deal more if they were Islamic. I'm not catholic but, what the hell! You think they're going to stage some kind of Catholic Coup and take over the entire U.S. and call it the United States of Vatican? Get a grip.
76% of America are Christians. You didn't mention what the other Justices affiliations were.
No.
As a practicing Roman Catholic I think it is kinda neat.
Does it trouble you that the past two Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Bank are Jewish?
What does religious preference have to do with being political?
As long as they do their job, who cares what their religion is. Really, you must have a lot of time on your hands.
I have no problem. They are the most qualified people in their, that's why they are on the court. sometimes "representative" isnt always the best way. This case is one of them.
I suppose if you want a pure representative in the court you need:
catholic
protestant
atheist
terrorist
racist
polygamist
homosexual
.etc
It doesn't concern me that they are Catholic, it concerns me they are all conservatives. Too many " same thinkers " on the supreme court is not a good thing.
Does it matter who pays the child support to the legal system? All that matters is that someone pays right?
All the legal system is looking at thru the child support collection office is that it is being paid right? My ex-daughter in law says she is going to tell her atty. that her ex-husband is not paying it, don't ask way it's a long story, and he shouldn't be given any credit for it being paid.
Answer:
If the mysterious person with money is paying the money to the proper account, through the proper channels, it doesn't matter how it got there.
From the brief details, I'm having to guess that she is receiving the court-ordered child support, but the source of the funds isn't actually the ex-husband...for instance, his girlfriend is making the payments, or his parents? All the court cares about is whether she is receiving the payments it ordered. Child support is not a fine intended to punish the ex-spouse; it's money to help support the child.
No the court doesnt care who actually pays it as long as it is paid. For instance my friend pays her sons child support for him so that her grandchild gets the money that is needed for her support! Her son is on drugs and not reliable.
I suggest you tell your ex-daughter-in-law that what she is considering will do three things:
1. lose custody to the father - People in prison can't have custody;
2. result in her facing felony fraud charges, and;
3. depending on where she lives, result in her financial records being subpoenaed and her facing not only criminal penalties, but also civil penalties for defamation.
Normally a defamation case (slander / libel) has a built-in defense for truth or what one believes as true. However, accusing someone of a crime or of criminal action KNOWING that they are not guilty, can result in her having to defend against a civil suit and awards for puntative damages.
Ask her if this childish game is worth it?
Answer:
If the mysterious person with money is paying the money to the proper account, through the proper channels, it doesn't matter how it got there.
From the brief details, I'm having to guess that she is receiving the court-ordered child support, but the source of the funds isn't actually the ex-husband...for instance, his girlfriend is making the payments, or his parents? All the court cares about is whether she is receiving the payments it ordered. Child support is not a fine intended to punish the ex-spouse; it's money to help support the child.
No the court doesnt care who actually pays it as long as it is paid. For instance my friend pays her sons child support for him so that her grandchild gets the money that is needed for her support! Her son is on drugs and not reliable.
I suggest you tell your ex-daughter-in-law that what she is considering will do three things:
1. lose custody to the father - People in prison can't have custody;
2. result in her facing felony fraud charges, and;
3. depending on where she lives, result in her financial records being subpoenaed and her facing not only criminal penalties, but also civil penalties for defamation.
Normally a defamation case (slander / libel) has a built-in defense for truth or what one believes as true. However, accusing someone of a crime or of criminal action KNOWING that they are not guilty, can result in her having to defend against a civil suit and awards for puntative damages.
Ask her if this childish game is worth it?
Does it cost to call emergency services? 911?
Does it cost to call 911? Or a dispatcher?
Answer:
well not excatly it doesnt cost anything to call 911
but did you ever see your phone bill
sometimes there is a tax (for gues what !) 911!
it might called a 911 tax or emegercy services fee
it shouldnt but if it do i would reverse the charges
No.
No it doesn't cost anything. Even cell phones that are disconnected can still dial 911 for free.
the tax payers, but if it is a false call, you can be fined or jailed or both
Doesn't cost anything from a landline or cell.
nothing is free! tax dollars @ work!!
It does not cost. Even a cell phone with no service will connect to 911.
This is why if you have old phones you can't or don't use, you can donate them to women's shelters. Woman who have been abused and are now living in shelters can use them to call 911 when needed.
What happen if it DOES cost to call 911? Should people pay during the call or after the call?
it does not cost to call 911 but it does cost if EMT responds. cost break down is something like this:
the response of EMT
the radio link to hospital staff
the medicines and equipment used
transportation of patient to medical facility
follow up
about $6000. that's why you need insurance
Answer:
well not excatly it doesnt cost anything to call 911
but did you ever see your phone bill
sometimes there is a tax (for gues what !) 911!
it might called a 911 tax or emegercy services fee
it shouldnt but if it do i would reverse the charges
No.
No it doesn't cost anything. Even cell phones that are disconnected can still dial 911 for free.
the tax payers, but if it is a false call, you can be fined or jailed or both
Doesn't cost anything from a landline or cell.
nothing is free! tax dollars @ work!!
It does not cost. Even a cell phone with no service will connect to 911.
This is why if you have old phones you can't or don't use, you can donate them to women's shelters. Woman who have been abused and are now living in shelters can use them to call 911 when needed.
What happen if it DOES cost to call 911? Should people pay during the call or after the call?
it does not cost to call 911 but it does cost if EMT responds. cost break down is something like this:
the response of EMT
the radio link to hospital staff
the medicines and equipment used
transportation of patient to medical facility
follow up
about $6000. that's why you need insurance
Does it annoy you when we are expected to support people who dug their own holes?
For instance, a person who smoked 2 packs a day and now has lung cancer or some respitory disease, or a person who ate themselves up to 500 pounds, blew out their knees, and now can't work, or an alchoholic who drank like a fish and now needs a transplant. Here are these people who made their choices, and now we have to pay to support them, pay for their medical care, and their medicine? If I decide to drive without insurance, I pay for the consequences. What about these people?
Answer:
Yes, it annoys me. Self inflicted wounds always annoy me. I have absolutely no mercy for them to include my Dad, who died of lung cancer after smoking 4 packs a day.
As for "the what if pundits" the question was about people who did it to themselves, and it is valid. When people "choose" destructive behavior than they should pay the price for that behavior. As for the ones that didn't, then they deserve our mercy and generosity.
Fine.what about the kid born with mental or physical handicaps into a family with no insurance.
What about the person who's being paying for medical insurance for 10 years yet they drop him after two chemo sessions for brain cancer? Using some loop hole.
What about the legitimate causes of people who need insurance and were screwed over?
How about the person who got lung cancer and never smoked? How about the person who knew there was something wrong and the doctor's kept saying you are just looking for an excuse to be fat only to be diagnosed with a disorder that should have diagnosed 23 years earlier(happened to me and now I am 200 pounds over weight, I eat less than the average person but all you see is my fat). How about the person who gives a kidney to someone only to get kidney disease later in life? I can play this game all day long! Why don't you just pull your head out and realise that everything isn't as clear cut as you think!
I think that we should all be willing to help others just because we never know when we ourselves will need help.
Namaste
No it doesn't annoy me. Everyone comes to a point when they need help. How they got there is irrelevant to me as I cannot claim to understand why people do the things they do and therefore have no right to judge them.
Yeah, it really pisses me off...people who go deaf because they blew their eardrums out with IPODS or going to loud concerts, I really hate paying for their hearing aids, drunks that get DUI'd and have to go to jail, I really hate paying for their upkeep in jail, four hots and a cot, that really aggravates me...I guess your parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, cousins, children and grandchildren are all perfectly healthy and have no need for any of those services...no one has ever been hurt on the job or needed therapy for substance abuse or had a disability. Lucky you, now you can be self righteous and indignant about "paying for everyone else" from your ivory tower. The depths of your self centeredness astounds me.
What about miners?
Cigarettes and alcohol are addictive; it's not easy to break the habit. Food is addictive for some people. They can't just choose to stop but they should seek some help in breaking bad habits.
As for having to "support them, pay for their medical care," we are all in the same pool, whether it's private or govt health insurance. What if you got sick and had to stay in a hospital 6 mos. or needed a transplant: should I resent that?
We need a kinder, gentler society where we all look out for each other.
Instead of just letting them be sick and die (which is what you imply), find the right culprit. We got tobacco cos. to stop advertising cigs. and the rate of smoking has gone down. To help control obesity, food manufacturers must stop adding sugars like corn syrup to so many foods, and so heavily: I don't want my pasta sauce to taste like dessert! Sugar is addictive - makes you want to eat more and more, which is why food companies add it. Then we have an obesity epidemic we need more (affordable) programs that help people kick alcohol, cigarettes and other drugs.
Meanwhile we need more (affordable) programs to help treat all these addictions.
Doctors wont give transplants to people that are drug addicts or alcoholics.
We are not expected to take care of these people.
I think you have been mislead about how much money a 500 lb. person who cant work gets from the government.
Welfare reform (started under Clinton) has changed they way people get help from the Fed's.
No one who is lazy or has made bad decisions is getting "supported" as you say.
you should check for yourself.
if you do have a source for the claims you made please post it, I would be interested.
please don't say you have a friend that knows a person who told you, give a real source please.
We all make choices in life, some of them good and some of them are bad. But it doesn't mean that we can stand judge and jury over the few that have made the wrong choice. I am almost certain that if you ask the people that smoke 2 packs a day, the alcoholic, the obese person if they were or are truly happy with the choices they made then, that they would reflect on their mistakes and try and change them. The argument goes further, quite rightly so, as some others have stated already within their answers, the child that is born with a disability, the guy that's run over and has no insurance. The guy that can't afford his chemo treatment, the list is endless. I think to deny anyone treatment when they are ill is a shameful thing. Thankfully here in the UK we have the NHS, although the staff that work for his organization see many cases of people who have abused their bodies over a long period of time, they treat each and every member of this country. Providing them with a service that is second to none, as it quite rightly should be.
So in short the answer to your question is NO, if someone is unfortunate enough to be ill and suffering regardless of how they became that way, they should be offered treatment to help them recover,to deny them this is morally wrong!
You should know that people do drive without insurance, and the rest of us do pay for it in increased rates to cover those that do not have insurance.
That said, I hear ya. Its frustrating and annoying. However, if you ever find yourself in a hole that you dug and society helps you get out, you will be thankful for it.
Answer:
Yes, it annoys me. Self inflicted wounds always annoy me. I have absolutely no mercy for them to include my Dad, who died of lung cancer after smoking 4 packs a day.
As for "the what if pundits" the question was about people who did it to themselves, and it is valid. When people "choose" destructive behavior than they should pay the price for that behavior. As for the ones that didn't, then they deserve our mercy and generosity.
Fine.what about the kid born with mental or physical handicaps into a family with no insurance.
What about the person who's being paying for medical insurance for 10 years yet they drop him after two chemo sessions for brain cancer? Using some loop hole.
What about the legitimate causes of people who need insurance and were screwed over?
How about the person who got lung cancer and never smoked? How about the person who knew there was something wrong and the doctor's kept saying you are just looking for an excuse to be fat only to be diagnosed with a disorder that should have diagnosed 23 years earlier(happened to me and now I am 200 pounds over weight, I eat less than the average person but all you see is my fat). How about the person who gives a kidney to someone only to get kidney disease later in life? I can play this game all day long! Why don't you just pull your head out and realise that everything isn't as clear cut as you think!
I think that we should all be willing to help others just because we never know when we ourselves will need help.
Namaste
No it doesn't annoy me. Everyone comes to a point when they need help. How they got there is irrelevant to me as I cannot claim to understand why people do the things they do and therefore have no right to judge them.
Yeah, it really pisses me off...people who go deaf because they blew their eardrums out with IPODS or going to loud concerts, I really hate paying for their hearing aids, drunks that get DUI'd and have to go to jail, I really hate paying for their upkeep in jail, four hots and a cot, that really aggravates me...I guess your parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, cousins, children and grandchildren are all perfectly healthy and have no need for any of those services...no one has ever been hurt on the job or needed therapy for substance abuse or had a disability. Lucky you, now you can be self righteous and indignant about "paying for everyone else" from your ivory tower. The depths of your self centeredness astounds me.
What about miners?
Cigarettes and alcohol are addictive; it's not easy to break the habit. Food is addictive for some people. They can't just choose to stop but they should seek some help in breaking bad habits.
As for having to "support them, pay for their medical care," we are all in the same pool, whether it's private or govt health insurance. What if you got sick and had to stay in a hospital 6 mos. or needed a transplant: should I resent that?
We need a kinder, gentler society where we all look out for each other.
Instead of just letting them be sick and die (which is what you imply), find the right culprit. We got tobacco cos. to stop advertising cigs. and the rate of smoking has gone down. To help control obesity, food manufacturers must stop adding sugars like corn syrup to so many foods, and so heavily: I don't want my pasta sauce to taste like dessert! Sugar is addictive - makes you want to eat more and more, which is why food companies add it. Then we have an obesity epidemic we need more (affordable) programs that help people kick alcohol, cigarettes and other drugs.
Meanwhile we need more (affordable) programs to help treat all these addictions.
Doctors wont give transplants to people that are drug addicts or alcoholics.
We are not expected to take care of these people.
I think you have been mislead about how much money a 500 lb. person who cant work gets from the government.
Welfare reform (started under Clinton) has changed they way people get help from the Fed's.
No one who is lazy or has made bad decisions is getting "supported" as you say.
you should check for yourself.
if you do have a source for the claims you made please post it, I would be interested.
please don't say you have a friend that knows a person who told you, give a real source please.
We all make choices in life, some of them good and some of them are bad. But it doesn't mean that we can stand judge and jury over the few that have made the wrong choice. I am almost certain that if you ask the people that smoke 2 packs a day, the alcoholic, the obese person if they were or are truly happy with the choices they made then, that they would reflect on their mistakes and try and change them. The argument goes further, quite rightly so, as some others have stated already within their answers, the child that is born with a disability, the guy that's run over and has no insurance. The guy that can't afford his chemo treatment, the list is endless. I think to deny anyone treatment when they are ill is a shameful thing. Thankfully here in the UK we have the NHS, although the staff that work for his organization see many cases of people who have abused their bodies over a long period of time, they treat each and every member of this country. Providing them with a service that is second to none, as it quite rightly should be.
So in short the answer to your question is NO, if someone is unfortunate enough to be ill and suffering regardless of how they became that way, they should be offered treatment to help them recover,to deny them this is morally wrong!
You should know that people do drive without insurance, and the rest of us do pay for it in increased rates to cover those that do not have insurance.
That said, I hear ya. Its frustrating and annoying. However, if you ever find yourself in a hole that you dug and society helps you get out, you will be thankful for it.
Does inheritance need to be divided in a divorce settlement in Oregon?
Answer:
If Oregon is a state that uses "equitable distribution of marital property" in divorces, any inheritances are considered not to be marital property. However, an increase in the value of the inheritance from the time of its receipt until property settlement could be considered to be marital property.
I know, it sounds like a "Catch 22." But I would rather you were aware of it in the event that the family farm you inherited is soon to be the subject of a commercial land development.
Generally, inheritances are separate property of the person who inherited, not joint or community property. But if the property was commingled with other marital assets, that could change the nature of the inherited property.
Usually in a divorce settlement, all separate property goes to the person who owned it separately and only the joint marital assets are divided. But all of this is negotiable in a settlement agreement.
If you are asking for yourself, please be sure to see an Oregon divorce lawyer.
Oregon is (no longer) a community property state, so the rules work in the simpler fashion.
See the above answer for the general rule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)