Medical Malpractice???

So every time I watch TV, during the commercials, there are groups of lawyers advertising some sort of, what they believe to be, medical malpractice.  They say things like, "If you ever took "this" and then developed "this" you could be entitled to a large settlement.  Call us now!"  Or they say, "If you ever had surgery for "this" and they used "this" and you developed "this" you could be entitled to a large settlement" Call us now!"

My big problem with this type of class action lawsuit is that I personally believe that it should be illegal to sue someone or a corporation for these types of "medical malpractices".  Honestly, I don't believe that it's medical malpractice at all.  In most cases, the commercials that I see are lawyers suing over things that were considered safe maybe 20, 30, or even 40 years ago that now in todays society are considered unsafe.  For example, 40 years ago asbestos was considered safe because at the time they didn't have the same technology as we do today.  Today we now know that asbestos can lead to cancer, but back then we didn't know.  Same thing with lead based paint.  Lead based paint was considered safe back in the 60's, but today we now know that it's unsafe and can also lead to cancer if inhaled.  In fact, lead based paint was so popular that most houses build before 1970 have lead based paint in them.  Back in the 60's, we didn't know the effects that lead based paint had on humans as we know today.

This is where I have a major problem with lawyers trying to sue corporations and people over things that are today considered unsafe, but 40 or 50 years ago were considered safe.  It would be different if back then we knew all the things that we know today about some things like asbestos and lead, but the truth is that we didn't know back then what we now know today.  When I see a commercial for a lawyer that says, "If you were exposed to asbestos in the 60's and you have recently developed cancer, you may be entitled to a large settlement.  Call us now."  It just doesn't make sense to me that we sue someone or a corporation or whatever over something that is now considered unsafe, yet back then was considered safe.  Like I said, technology back then was limited to what we knew at the time and what we considered safe.  There might be some things that we use today that we consider safe that in 20 years might be considered unsafe but right now, using the technology that we have, we consider them to be safe.  Does that make sense?

Personally I believe that this type of lawsuit should be illegal simply because of the types of things that they are suing over.  We should not be allowed to sue corporations or people on things that are considered unsafe today that we thought were perfectly safe 20+ years ago.  It's wrong.  These people and corporations tried to keep there people safe with what they knew about these products back then even though it turns out that modern day technology says other wise.  I don't believe that these corporations intentionally exposed their workers or the public to something that they knew would cause cancer 20+ years down the line.  That's foolish.  It would be different if we knew back then that these products would have caused cancer, but the fact is that we didn't.

12 years ago I had hernia surgery.  They used a mesh fabric to put me back together.  If 20 years from now they find out that the mesh fabric they used is considered unsafe, I'm not going to sue the doctor or the hospital for putting in the wrong mesh simply because at the time the mesh that they used was considered safe.  I just think that it's wrong for lawyers to try and make a buck this way.  It's wrong, but the fact is that lawyers all across this great country of ours are suing people and corporations on things that are considered unsafe today that 20+ years ago were considered safe.  That's wrong.

The FDA thoroughly inspects all the medicines that the approve before allowing them to be put on the market using todays high standards.  This doesn't mean that 20 years from now they might find out that something they put out is considered unsafe.  Medicines get pulled all the time.  Why?  Because the FDA finds out that they were wrong about a certain medicine.  How do they know?  Because modern day technology tells them.  Technology grows at an extremely fast pace.  So something considered safe 5 years ago might be pulled because they find out something about that medicine today that they didn't know know 5 years ago.  So does that mean we should sue the FDA for putting this medicine out 5 years ago?  Absolutely not.  The FDA doesn't put out stuff that they know will harm the public.  

As technology grows we have a better understanding of what  products we should and shouldn't use.  This doesn't mean that we may be wrong about some things today as in years to come we might find out that we were actually were wrong.  For us to sue over things that we didn't know in years past is just plain wrong and shouldn't be allowed in todays society.  We are ruining people's lives and shutting down or severely hurting corporations that only were doing what they believed was in the best interest of their employees or the public back then.  We may have been wrong about some things back then, but it's even more wrong to try and make a buck from these people and corporations over things that were considered safe many years ago.

The 3-1-6

If you ask almost anybody what the most famous verse in the Bible is, they will tell you it's John 3:16. Believers, non-believers, and skeptics alike can tell you this. Used and quoted more than any other verse in the Bible, this verse basically sums up the entire Bible in only a few short words.

John 3:16 is also the favorite verse of Tim Tebow, quarterback of the New York Jets and former quarterback of the Denver Broncos. In college, Tim would write John 3:16 on his eye blacks. Tim has never been shy about letting people know that he is a christian. After each game, win or lose, he has always thanked Jesus Christ first and foremost! However, this really isn't about Tim Tebow, rather it's about his favorite verse in the entire Bible, John 3:16.

If you ask me if I believe in the Bible I would tell you yes. I grew up in church all my life. I believe in God not because someone told me that God is real, rather because I have a hard time believing that somehow this Earth and everything in it just came about by mere chance. I look at how this Earth rotates and gravity and how we seem to be constantly protected against disasters that could take place. I look at the human body and how it works and just tell myself that all this could not be by mere chance. I honestly believe that there is a greater power at work here on Earth. I believe in God because in my opinion, God is plainly seen. Not physically, but in everything he has created. But sometimes things happen that almost demand an explanation. I believe that sometimes sometimes God just makes his presents so obvious that it's almost undeniable that he does exist! One of these incidences came on January 8, 2012.

Now this is going to sound so crazy but everything I am going to say is true. It has been confirmed by major news outlets such as Fox News, ABC News, CNN and others as well as major sports outlets such as ESPN and the NFL. If you doubt me then go ahead and feel free to google it yourself.

January 8, 2012 was a NFL playoff game between the Denver Broncos and the Pittsburg Steelers. Tim Tebow was the quarterback for the the Broncos during this particular game. Remember though, this is not about Tim Tebow, but rather his favorite Bible verse, John 3:16. What's interesting about this game is how many times the numbers 316 come into play in this game. Let's take a look!

When Tim Tebow won the game against the Steelers it came 3 years and 16 hours after he won his college championship game with the Florida Gators. That's an interesting number. 316.

During the game against the Steelers, the turning point of the game happened on a play that, strangely enough, happened to be on 3rd and 16.

Tim Tebow just happened to throw for 316 total yards during the entire game. This is getting weird.

Tim Tebow's average yardage per throw was 31.6. But wait, it gets even weirder.

The Neilson ratings gave that particular game a total of 31.6 viewing audience.

The total time the Steelers had the ball the entire game was 31 minutes, 6 seconds.

Finally, the grand finally of entire game was when Demaryius Thomas caught the pass by Tim Tebow to win the game. It's not the pass or the catch that's so amazing. It's that Demaryius Thomas' birthday just happens to be on December 25th, the same date as Christians celebrate the birthday of Jesus Christ.

Now you can look at these stats and say that they are merely just coincidence, however I'm not so sure. The numbers 316 appeared in the game over and over. That's just so strange to me. Then the winning touchdown just happens to be caught by a guy who just happens to have the same birthday as Jesus. Take it how you will, but as for me I honestly believe that God inserted himself into the game. For what reason, I'm not sure, but maybe, just maybe, just to let us know that he is still here and he is in total control.

Why Divorce?

Have you ever just sat back and thought, what would the world be like if everybody just got along? If people never got divorces and just worked out their differences! How would this effect our children today? What would they be like if they didn't come from a broken home? After all, it seems that when I watch a show on TV and the people have problems, it seems like
almost always that they blame it on the parents. So what if the people came from perfect homes? What then? Would they be perfect citizens walking around with Ph.D's or would they still be jerks? Or maybe they would just be your average Joe! Who knows, but let's look back at the parents.

It's been said that children as well as teens look to their parents as roll models. If you look at your kids, or someone who has them, you can see that the children want to be involved with their parents! Children want to do what their Father's do, and do what their Mother's do. Let's say that Daddy is in the Military, there is a real good chance that son or daughter is going to want to be in the military too! This isn't to say that their choice in careers won't change by the time that they graduate high school, but it is saying that for a good chunk of their life, they are going to want to be what their Father or Mother is as far as a career.

However the real question to me is why are people divorcing in the first place? You see, when you married you made a vow! Everybody make them! Most people follow a set of vows that says they will stick with their partner through thick and thin! They make a lifelong commitment to be with their spouse "until death do they part" meaning that only death will separate them! Nothing else will come between them. Not health issues or finance issues or any other kind of issue. No matter what the circumstance, they vow to stick with each other. In most marriages this is sworn on a Bible. Basically it means that the marriage vows that each person takes is not sworn to each other. The wife doesn't swear to her husband that she will stick with him through thick and thin, nor does the husband swear that he will stick with his wife through thick and thin. Rather both of them swear to God, the creator of this universe, that they will stick with their spouse through thick and thin. When they do get divorced they have broken the commitment that they make with God, not with each other. And let's face it, if your a Christian you know that God hates divorce. Malachi 2:16 says, “The man who hates and divorces his wife, ” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the Lord Almighty. Basically it says that you should stick with your spouse no matter what because divorce does more harm than good. You might think your getting away, but your not. The pain is very real and when you divorce it makes it that much worse.

There are tons of reasons that people divorce, but the number one reason always seems to be the same and that is finances. People divorce over money, or lack there of, more than any other reason. But is money a real reason to divorce? No. We all have struggles in this life that we have. If you can find one person in this world that has had the perfect life then you are fooling yourself because there is not one person in this world who has not had it hard in their life at some point. We all struggle in life, but if your married you struggle together. Listen, I would rather struggle with my wife than struggle alone. At least if my wife and I struggle together I have someone who knows how I feel and I have a shoulder to cry on. Being alone is just no fun in my opinion.

If there is one thing that I have found out in life it's that the Bible has the answer to literally everything in life. No matter what I am going through I can look to God and find help. God wants to help you and he will if you are willing to let him. So if you are struggling in the divorce area, get help. I would encourage anybody thinking about divorce to get help from a local church. Get counseling from a church not some guy who is going to charge you $200 bucks an hour for his opinion. Get help from God. He deeply cares for you and desperately wants to help you.

People Not So Sugar Sweet to Sugarland

I have yet to figure out why people sue each other here in this country.  I can understand suing someone for really screwing you out of your money or for being coned or something like that, but for no reason makes no sense what so ever.

It's sad for me to see that the band Sugarland is being sued by some of the victims families that died or got injured in last years Indiana State Fair.  It doesn't even make sense to me that people would even think to sue Sugarland.  They had nothing to do with this incident.  They just happened to be there.  If Sugarland knew in advance that the stage was going to collapse and didn't tell anybody, or if they had built the stage themselves, then it might be worth suing them, but not for things that were beyond their control.

It's sad that people want to point fingers and blame everyone.  However, an attorney representing one of the victims in the lawsuit(no name given) said the band was trying to “pass the blame.”  Basically, this attorney is saying that it is Sugarlands fault.  So, so sad that even lawyers are blaming Sugarland for a simply buck!

No Point

So I go to Lowe's Home Improvement the other day because I needed a few things to finish a project that I was working on.  So I go in the store, find everything that I needed, and then proceed to checkout.  Not a big deal right?  Everything normal so far, right?  Well, it's not during the checkout that things get weird, not even when the guy told me to have a great day.  It's when I've already left the store that things get weird, or rather Lowe's gets weird!

I'm out the door walking to my car when all of the sudden a guy comes out the store chasing me telling me that I set off the alarm in the store.  I understand that sometimes things like this happen, so I'm not in any way offended, however what bothered me is what the guy says next.

He tells me that he has to take me back to the store to "deactivate" the metal strips that caused the store alarms go off!  This is where they got me!  First, I just don't understand the logic in making me go back to the store.  Second is because I have my receipt that proves that I bought the stuff that I have in my hands! I had only bought 3 items and my receipt proves that I bought them, but the guy insisted in taking me back to the store and deactivating the metal strips.

Well to make a long story short, I ended up going back to the store and letting him deactivate my stuff.  The point is that this was stupid.  A total waste of time.  What Lowe's should have done was checked my receipt and sent me on my way.  There is no point in dragging a customer back to the store to deactivate something that was already out the store.  Just check their receipt and send them on their way!

And that's my rant for the day...I think!

What's Wrong With Flexible Spending Accounts

So if you don't know anything about what a flexible spending account is, here's a little breakdown.  A flexible spending account is an amount of money that is given to you and you are forced to pay back.  You set the amount of money that you want to receive and at the beginning of the year you receive a credit card with that amount of money on it.  The payback on the money is taken right out of your paycheck.  The payback is divided into 52 equal payments  or 26 biweekly payments or 12 equal payments so that it is paid back in one year.  Flexible spending accounts are  tied in with your insurance.  The only way to have a flexible spending account is to have insurance.  This is not a loan.  In a loan situation, a company gives you money, trusting that you"ll pay them back.  If you don't there is nothing that they can do to you.  They can't send you to jail and they can't garnish your wages.  They can't do anything except ding your credit score which can be damaging enough by itself.  This is not a loan in that you are forced to pay it since it is taken right out of your paycheck.  There is another reason that it is not a loan but we will get into that later.  Basically, the only way to default on a flexible spending account is to quit your job.  Finally a flexible spending account can only be used to cover the cost of medical treatments or dental treatments and to cover the cost of prescription medicine!


So that's the low down on a flexible spending account.  Sounds pretty good, right?  In some ways it's great.  Having a flexible spending account means that if you get sick and have to go to the doctor or you have a dental appt., you don't have to worry about having enough money to cover the cost because you already have the money with you on the flexible spending account.  Or if you get a prescription filled, you can use the flexible spending account to pay for your medicine!  Also money that you put on a flexible spending account cannot be taxed by the federal government.  So if you put $3000 on a felxible spending account, that money is not taxed!


So what's wrong with flexible spending accounts you ask?  Well several things.  For every one thing that sounds good one a flexible spending account, there is something that's bad about having a flexible spending account.  Let's see if you agree!


First would have to be the amount of money that you put on a flexible spending account.  Currently you can put up to $4000 dollars on a flexible spending account.  Starting in 2013, that amount will change from $4000 to $2500.  But that's not why I am complaining.  When I say the amount of money that's put on a flexible spending account is a problem, what I mean is that you have to "guess" on how much time your going to be sick this year.  How much your going to be a the doctor or how much your kids are going to be in the clinic or hospital.  How much time your going to be in the dentist.  Things like that.  My thing is, who in their right mind plans to be sick?  Who plans on going to the dentist expecting to have cavities?  Who plans on their kids breaking an arm?  Who plans like that?  I certainly don't and I hope that you don't either.  I don't think that there is anybody out there that plans to be unhealthy.  The truth is that you cannot plan on things happening.  It's like driving in a car and getting in a wreck.  Nobody plans to get involved in a wreck!  So basically you have to plan on getting sick and guess how much money your going to use that year.  Pretty much impossible.  If you don't put enough on a flexible spending account, you may have to start digging money out of your own pocket that you might not have.  This might get you into trouble in some cases.  On the other hand if you put too much on a flexible spending account and don't use it, well in that case your just going to lose it, which is my next topic.  Once you set the amount that you want to be put into the flexible spending account you cannot change it unless a qualifying event occurs such as the birth of a child or death of a spouse, etc.


Use it or lose it.  One major drawback is that the money must be spent within the coverage period as defined by the benefits plan coverage.  This can be different depending on the type of flexible spending account that you have.  There are several different types but for the most part, they are typically the same.  Some require that the money be used within 12 months while others give you a grace period.  The grace period usually is about 3 months but sometimes can be shorter.  Any money that is left unspent at the end of the coverage period is forfeited and can be applied to future plan administrative costs or can be equally allocated as taxable income among all plan participants.  This is why people call this the "Use it or Lose it" rule.  If you want to get technical, if you don't use some of the money and you lose it, they you are taxed on that money.  Basically you get taxed on money that you didn't have.  Let's say that you put $2000 on your flexible spending account.  They give you the $2000 at the beginning of the year.  You only use $1000 so you lose $1000.  Even though you paid $2000 back through payroll deductions, you still lose that money and then are taxed on the money that "they", the government, took back.  Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  I'm not sure why you lose the money at all!  If you pay all the money back anyways, why do you lose that money if you don't spend it within a certain time frame?  You earned it, right?  They just gave it to you in advance, yet you are paying it all back with equal payments.  There is not a more devastating feeling than the government taking money away from you that you earned!  Well just one other which ties into my last topic.


Finally, a major drawback is where you spend the money.  The government has designated where you can spend the money that is on a flexible spending account.  The money that is on a flexible spending account must be spent on medical expenses, dental expenses, and prescription costs.  In certain cases it can be spent on things like childcare services.  Used to, you could spend the money on over the counter  medications but as of 2011, this feature has been taken away unless these over the counter medications are prescribed by your doctor of dentist.  However, I don't know of any doctor or dentist that prescribe over the counter medications.  This is the other reason that a flexible spending account is not a loan.  Unlike a loan, you cannot spend it wherever you want.  On a loan, you can spend the money where ever you want.  The only loans that you can't are a care loan or a house loan.


Audits.  This ties in with where you spend the money.  Anytime that you use the money, you are subject to an audit.  They can audit you every time you swipe the card, or they may never audit you at all.  It all up to "them".  What boggles me is why the government tells you where you can spend the money.  Especially when you earn it.  True that they give it to you at the beginning of the year, but if you pay it back then why does it matter where you spend the money?  It's your money and you earned it, yet the government tell you where to spend it!  In my opinion that's totally wrong!  Especially in a free country as we live in.  But that's government for you!


So tell me what you think?  Am I wrong or does what I'm saying have any merit to it at all?

Out Of Control Infringement

So my son is at his school's talent show.  I'm taking pictures and my wife is taking a video.  My son is 11 at the time and he really knows how to rock on a guitar!  Taught himself how to play he did!  It was awesome!  On of the best acts of the night!

So we go home after the show and then my wife decides post the video to Youtube.  No problem right?  Wrong!  Within a day or two I get a letter from Youtube that the video of MY son playing HIS guitar in a video that WE took, might have might violate copyright laws and therefore be copyright infringement!  But how?  This is a personal video!  We took it ourselves!  

So I got in contact with Youtube and asked how this could possibly be copyright infringement if we took the video ourselves!  I didn't add any type of other stuff into the video that would make it infringement!  The answer I got was this.  The video constituted copyright infringement because he was playing to a song that was copyrighted.  Because the song is in the video, even though I didn't add the song to the video personally, it still constitutes infringement!  I was thinking that this certainly couldn't be right!  So I decided to write to a copyright forum and see what they had to say.

I wrote to the forum and told them my situation.  I gave them another scenario that I was taking video around my house and went into my sons room where he was listening to the radio and then I posted the video to youtube and got an infringement letter.  The forums response was the same as Youtube.  They said that as soon as I posted the video with the song in it as public, that it became infringement even if I did not add the song to the video myself!  Simply that the song is in the video alone constitutes infringement.  

So in a nutshell, if you have ever posted a video to Youtube and it has music in it, chances are that you have broken the law, no matter how the music got there.  Unless of coarse you wrote the song yourself!  But is this the best thing for the music industry to be doing?  I mean, do they really need to pursue these copyright claims the way that they are?  Are not the people posting the videos with music in them in a sense promoting someone else's music?

Personally I think that big corporations like Sony and others should just stop heckling us peons about copyright infringement simply because there are way too many videos out there with music on them!  Every minute on Youtube, there is 24 hours worth of video uploaded.   You couldn't hire enough people to go through all that video footage just to see if there if copyrighted material or music on them!  Why even keep trying?  By posting YOUR music in OUR videos we are just helping promote YOUR music!  Essentially we are advertising for them and who doesn't want free advertising?  Corporate America I guess!

Look, when we go buy shoes at a store, no matter how cheap or expensive they are, we are promoting for that company.  Every shoe has at least two ways to identify it.  One is the name of the shoe, and the other is their logo that is incorporated onto the shoe, usually on either side of the shoe!  Same thing for cars.  When you buy a car, not only is the name of the car on the car but that company's logo is also on the car so people will know one way or another what type of car you are driving!  Clothing companies too!  Old Navy does it more than any other company I know of!  I would go as far as to challenge you to go into an Old Navy store and find something that doesn't have the words Old Navy blatantly obvious on their stuff!  It's all over it!  No matter what you buy from Old Navy, people won't even have to ask you where you got it from because it will be so obvious!  

But what if we didn't want to promote their product?  Do we have a choice?  Can I take these companies to court and demand that I don't want their logo or name on their stuff that I wear of theirs?  Probably not!  In most cases I would figure that I would be told to go shop somewhere else!  Not that it bothers me because it doesn't, but if it did then would I have a case?  Why when I don't want to promote a product, I'm forced too, but when I want to promote a song in a video I make, I can't!  That doesn't make a whole lot of sense!  Big companies every year save millions in advertising by making their customers the promoters of their product, yet big music companies get mad at their customers when they post music to homemade videos that might make them more sales in the long run!  Some of the best music I have in my music library is from videos that I saw on Youtube!  I watched a video, heard a song that sounded cool, got that song info and bought a rocking new CD!  And that's how Corporate America should view this!  People want to promote your music!  Why?  Because they like it and they want others to like it too!  They wouldn't post it to their video if they thought that it was trash and not worth listening too!  

Copyright infringement has gotten out of control.  It's so nit picky!  Most people who copyright infringe, don't even know that they are doing so!  If they did, would they really do it?  Highly doubtful!    Give your customers a break!  Look at it from our view!  People are not intending to break the law, but rather they want to promote the music that they love into their videos!  What's wrong with that?  Customers make or break companies.  When companies stab their customers in the back for petty things, that's when you may lose customers!  And you don't want negative customers!  While a happy customer might tell one person about their good experience, an angry customer will tell every person that they come in contact with about their bad experience!  So Corporate America, keep your customers happy and stop being so legalistic!