*Official* Vent and Rant Thread

[zipzam]

here here KR!

look, if a business wants to allow smoking, isn't that up to the OWNER of the business?
if a business wants to be smoke free, isn't that up to the OWNER of the business?

if a smoker wants to eat at a non-smoking place... he's not allowed to smoke. he KNOWS this when choosing the place to eat. if the smoker doesn't like it, he doesn't have to eat there!

same with a non-smoker. they have a choice of going to a place that allows/doesn't allow smoking.

imo, it's supply/demand. if the demand were REALLY high for non-smoking places... why weren't more business owners switching over to non-smoking establishments?

it's ok though.. we're too stupid to make decisions for ourselves. i'm so glad we have smart people in charge looking out for us and making health choices for us.
seriously,,, our dumbazz legislature can't seem to keep a budget balanced (something most of us HAVE to do)... and we're trusting these people to make health decisions for us?

[zipzam]

frey said:

Yesterday on the local news (I believe it was WTVA), they ran a story on the human papillomavirus vaccination. Whether or not to give this vaccine at the appropriate time is something that really gets my blood boiling.

In order for the vaccine to protect women from cancer, it must be administered before they are exposed to the virus. This means it must be given, realistically, before she is sexually active. Some experts suggest that the girl should be nine or ten at the time (prepubescent). Some say that giving a girl this cancer-preventing vaccine will allow her to think she has a right to premarital sex...because the vaccine also protects against the std hpv (which most people who have it do not even know). Is that argument really important...saving lives vs. girls having premarital sex? What if it were boys and not girls...would it be the argument be the same?

why not add it to the booster shot girls take when going to kindergarden? at that age.. they wouldn't have any idea they're getting a shot that connects to sex in any way.
another great example of something that NEEDS to be done but SIFs have to complicate the whole situation.

[King Rat]

zipzam said:

frey said:

Yesterday on the local news (I believe it was WTVA), they ran a story on the human papillomavirus vaccination. Whether or not to give this vaccine at the appropriate time is something that really gets my blood boiling.

In order for the vaccine to protect women from cancer, it must be administered before they are exposed to the virus. This means it must be given, realistically, before she is sexually active. Some experts suggest that the girl should be nine or ten at the time (prepubescent). Some say that giving a girl this cancer-preventing vaccine will allow her to think she has a right to premarital sex...because the vaccine also protects against the std hpv (which most people who have it do not even know). Is that argument really important...saving lives vs. girls having premarital sex? What if it were boys and not girls...would it be the argument be the same?

why not add it to the booster shot girls take when going to kindergarden? at that age.. they wouldn't have any idea they're getting a shot that connects to sex in any way.
another great example of something that NEEDS to be done but SIFs have to complicate the whole situation.

Why not get the city council to just pass a law and make it mandatory for all females over the age of 9 to have the shot before entering Tupelo or Mantachie (maybe expand it to horses there)?? If you are a female on the streets of Tupelo the cops can ask for your imunization card and you'd BETTER have the HPV shot!

[Frey]

zipzam said:

frey said:

Yesterday on the local news (I believe it was WTVA), they ran a story on the human papillomavirus vaccination. Whether or not to give this vaccine at the appropriate time is something that really gets my blood boiling.

In order for the vaccine to protect women from cancer, it must be administered before they are exposed to the virus. This means it must be given, realistically, before she is sexually active. Some experts suggest that the girl should be nine or ten at the time (prepubescent). Some say that giving a girl this cancer-preventing vaccine will allow her to think she has a right to premarital sex...because the vaccine also protects against the std hpv (which most people who have it do not even know). Is that argument really important...saving lives vs. girls having premarital sex? What if it were boys and not girls...would it be the argument be the same?

why not add it to the booster shot girls take when going to kindergarten? at that age.. they wouldn't have any idea they're getting a shot that connects to sex in any way.
another great example of something that NEEDS to be done but SIFs have to complicate the whole situation.

I think this is a good idea, but some backwoods zealot will have a problem with that also. That girl could grow up and find out the vaccine can protect her from an std. What happens if we come up with an HIV vaccine...the same argument? Women will start getting that foolish idea into their heads that they have bodies and are free to use them as they see fit.

[Frey]

cpurdon said:

zipzam said:

why not add it to the booster shot girls take when going to kindergarden? at that age.. they wouldn't have any idea they're getting a shot that connects to sex in any way.
another great example of something that NEEDS to be done but SIFs have to complicate the whole situation.

Why not get the city council to just pass a law and make it mandatory for all females over the age of 9 to have the shot before entering Tupelo or Mantachie (maybe expand it to horses there)?? If you are a female on the streets of Tupelo the cops can ask for your imunization card and you'd BETTER have the HPV shot!

Mantachie...

[missfairy]

Is it just me or is insurance virtually useless?

I'm not just talking any one particular type of insurance either.

1. Medical Insurance- It's been my experience that they will try and screw you out of coverage when possible. Example; My husband found a chiropractor that was in network because he was experiencing a lot of back-pain. Our insurance was supposed to cover 80%. So dan was going 2-3 times a week after work for a month or two before we get the first bill, telling us that the insurance was only paying for the initial x-rays and like one other basic thing. The bill was 2,000$. Needless to say, Dan doesn't go back to the chiropractor. I have a fear of doctors so why the hell are we paying out of his check for insurance that we can't even use the majority of the time? Don't EVEN get me into emergency coverage. I hear similar stories from the majority of people I know. They pay in for insurance, and when it's a time when they need it, it's not there for them.

2. Car insurance- Oh brother. Same thing really...just not being there when you need them. I really think it should be a choice again whether you have car insurance! Having the option would be nice. I think we certainly pay in a hell of a lot more than we get out of it.

3. House Insurance- We just bought our first home a few months ago and during our moving in, we had a break-in. Many sentimental things were stolen (including some antique guns inherited from his grandfather) and I called the homeowner's insurance because I thought they had it covered. They really pushed paying extra for that theft insurance. WRONG. I was told unless it was worth 1,000$ or more, they couldn't do anything. They said if we discovered more things later we could still file it as one claim but that it would raise our rates. SO, let me get this straight...someone STEALS from ME and I have to pay extra like a PENALTY. WHAT?!!! Another example, my father's house (and the house I grew up in from age 11-18) burned down and they gave him SUCH a hard time. I understand they have to investigate things like that, but they treated him like a criminal from the get-go. He stayed in a cheap motel for the first month or so, but being a retired veteran, he could not afford it. He ended up having to live in the abandoned building behind the burned house. He stayed several months like that, thru the summer with no a/c- just a bed, a fan, a mini-fridge, and a microwave. I dunno how he didn't go crazy! He went to their office on several occasions and he was given a big runaround and they wouldn't give him a tentative date or any information about how the case was going. He was led along for over a year and it was apalling to make a senior citizen (much less a veteran) practically homeless. In the end, he did get the money but the ordeal was just horrible.

Life Insurance- Ok, I don't really have a major problem with this one. (I do think the cost of funerals is apalling however.) This may be the most selfish thing out of my mouth EVER, but I really don't care to have life insurance because I'm going to be dead. Not my problem. I understand with people who have families to care for why they would have it, but it's just not for me.