Protocol417

So because it was in Forbes, health care costs ARE NOT rising? Great news.

My post didn't contain the words "health care costs are not rising", nor can I really see how you could think I was implying that.

All politics should be discussed this way

Sure. Republicans need to convince Dems to vote for them so they can win.

When they do...they will be able to use the IRS to defund their enemies because we did nothing to change the system to stop it. They wil be able to cut your health care benefits because we put them in charge of healthcare, they will be able to spy on you and read your emails because we allowed Obama to get away with continuing what Republicans started.

There's a big difference between "defunding" people and rejecting them for tax exempt status. Personally, while I definitely believe the rules should be applied equally and fairly, I can't figure out why these obviously-political groups (of ANY political stripe) are getting tax exempt status in the first place. If I go on GoFundMe to try to raise money to pay for medical treatment, for example, I have to pay taxes on the money I'm given. Why do they get a break?

Regarding health care: Though I'm no fan of the ACA, I'd rather have the government in charge of healthcare because at least we have some sort of accountability (I'd like to see much more not-for-profit involvement though... at the very least, like Germany has). Right now my employer or my insurance company could "cut my health care benefits" and what exactly could I do about that? Quit my job and ask to see a detailed breakdown of insurance policy options in the middle of the interview with potential employers? Complain to the insurance company? If anything, the problem as I see it isn't that we "put government in charge of healthcare", it's that we're looking at our current system and admitting it doesn't work, but instead of trying something new we're just making everyone buy into the broken one.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/23/even-in-over-regulated-washington-state-obamacare-will-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-34-80-percent/?partner=yahootix

Despite every attempt to regulate healthcare insurance costs to keep it affordable in Washington state, the Obama plan will override the state's efforts and raise premiums 30-80%

Somewhat different than than the 3000% decrease Obama promised (persons not mathmatically dysfunctional always knew 3000% was very unlikely)

The USA already pays the highest amount per capita for medical care in the world and Obama is determined to increase profits for insurance companies and drug companies with his plan.

Oh, Forbes. Gotta love 'em. Just the other day they were pulling a mea culpa for ragging on the ACA because the author found out that California saw a drop in costs.

(BTW, I say this as a person who is not particularly a big fan of ACA/Obamcare. I find it quite sad that our current political climate has dragged everyone so far to the right, so that something like Obamacare is considered the most liberal option and universal healthcare is off the table completely.)

Thanks for all the response guys. I’ll hold off on any wedding plans besides some of the ones suggested such as my dress, maybe even let the bridesmaids get theirs too. We can always store those away till later.

As someone who's been married before, I can't recommend doing this. In my previous marriage I had a long engagement because my father was stationed in Iraq, and we were waiting for him to return. I found a really good deal on a wedding dress and so I snapped it up, but by the time the wedding had come around I'd gained weight and could barely breathe in the thing! *lol* Not saying the same will happen to you, but you never know. The anxiety and stress from this whole process can affect your eating habits one way or the other.

Personally, we're having a small legal ceremony once he arrives on his K-1, and then later when we're both working and can afford it, we'll have a nice celebration

The best medical care in most countries is cheaper than the worse care in the US. For the uninsured the cost of even routine surgery is shattering. My oldest son had an appendectomy without insurance. The hospital costs alone topped 100,000 . If someone like a new immigrant does not have insurance and they have medical issues it will either fall back on their sponsor ( spouse) or the treatment may be tagged as not urgent and delayed until you either save up for it or it becomes urgent. How long will it take you to save up 100,000 Consider fixing whatever issue there it is probably cheaper.

And even if you have insurance, "adding your spouse" isn't necessarily as simple as it sounds. My employer offers insurance benefits for employees and spouses, but to add a spouse to the least-expensive policy costs more than what I pay in rent each month.

I completely understand the situation now and yes I know everyone else has been in my shoes at some point or another. We were misinformed and now have a longer wait than anticipated. We were told Belfast would be able to process our case and schedule an interview within 4 weeks of receiving info from NVC. I did not put any blame or anger on anyone here on VJ....the people here have been a lifeline through all of this. I simply did not find some of the comments constructive when feeling fragile over the situation like asking if I have many other K-1's. Anyway good luck to you with your journey.

People lean on humor to keep themselves going through tough situations. We all here have those moments of tension and despair, where we wonder how we can possibly wait another week, another month, whatever (god, I was feeling that before I'd even finished putting together the I129F packet)... and sometimes, you get to the point where you realize that all you can do is try to find a way to be patient, that no amount of stressing out will make the process go any faster, or make the delays go away (real or imagined). In other words: Don't lose your sense of humor because it'll make it that much harder. (And good luck with that, m'dear, cuz it's a hard goal to accomplish.)

That said, seriously, is there anyone here who's seen a single story of someone's attorney actually helping rather than hurting? This is getting ridiculous.

Ever since I started working on the I129-F packet I have had levels of stress and anxiety higher than anytime in my life.

Glad I'm not the only one.

Well, not really glad, but... you know...

Of course it does, you just don't want to accept it. If there were 10 homicides in the country and 7 of them were by gun, it would still be 70%. But guns wouldn't even be a blip on the radar then, would they? If guns are the cause of homicides like many like to argue, then logically, the more guns, the more murders by guns. Since 1993, tens of millions of guns have been sold, so why less deaths, not more?

Ooooh, you just reminded me of another question I have: You were saying "homicides" at one point, and then "deaths" at another, but I would imagine these are separate statistics (ie a death can be accidental). So do these figures take into account accidental deaths? And what about shootings that don't result in death? Have other factors been taken into account, such as better access to hospitals, or what I mentioned before about a greater concentration of guns per owner (as opposed to a larger number of gun owners?

Just trying to get a clearer idea of the picture you're painting here.

I'd have to go searching for the statistics again, but during the time period I read about homicide by guns dropped by about 10,000, the population increased by over 50 millions and and many millions of guns were sold during the same time period. There are tens of millions more guns today than there were in 1993, yet there has been a huge drop in gun deaths. I bet if we went to work on the mental health issues, there would be another big drop.

You seem to be a bit more knowledgable about statistics than I am, so I was wondering if you happened to know something.

I've seen articles saying that the number of households with guns is actually down. So, pairing this with what you're saying about the number of guns in the country going up, could it be that there are fewer (or relatively the same number of) owners, but that those who own guns just own more of them? What're your thoughts?

Really... I can change a mag in less time than it takes to acquire a moving target in the open. Why do you have to wait until a mag change. If the target is in the open engage while another officer gives cover fire, or engage when the target is laying down fire else where.. He the target seeks cover to reload, it's a moot point.

Wanna talk small unit tactics, I got all day.

Then you're good. Listen, I'm not saying that everyone has to (or should) wait until that moment, I'm saying that the pause can give (and, more importantly, has given) opportunity to stop a gunman in some instances. You can talk theoretical tactics all you want, and how you personally are so good that you wouldn't ever have to wait for that window, but it's documented. It happens, plain and simple.

Bottom line is that it's a small measure that doesn't really impact people's rights, so why not? It's like seat belts on a car. Maybe you're such a good driver (and so lucky) that your seat belt will never help you because you'll never get into an accident. Does that mean mandating seat belt use is a bad idea?

because magazines can be swapped out fairly fast. that's what they are designed to do, after all.

zombie attacks!

Hahaha! Nice

You do have to be pretty damn good though to be able to switch out ammo so quickly that it doesn't give a big enough pause for a cop to take advantage. As I mentioned, there are well famous sprees which could have gone on for longer had that pause not happened. It just seems like a simple middle-ground measure that can help save lives in at least some cases (as evidenced) without impacting very much on normal people's rights.

Wait for it. There is going to be a story where a 10 round limit was proposed and then someone's home had been invaded by 11 people. Just wait for it.

If your home is being invaded by 11 people, you've got bigger problems than round limits

Limiting size of magazine, or banning a gun based on how it looks is not a stronger gun control.

I'll give you "based on how it looks" but how is limiting size of magazine NOT stronger gun control? It seems to be the very definition of it. Shooters can be stopped more easily when they are reloading; this is not conjecture, it's happened on many occasions. So even if they just bring more ammo, limiting the number of bullets they can use in one go is absolutely helpful to law enforcement and potential victims.

Conversely, can you think of many situations where being able to spray dozens of bullets without reloading would be necessary for your self-preservation?

2008 -- 13,354

2009 -- 13,136

2010 -- 12,244

2011 - 15,327

2012 - 13,954

Funny thing is anti gun folks trust someone else with gun to protect them.

Woah, where to start on this one...

First, I'm not sure why you implied I'm "anti-gun". Sure, I'm not particularly comfortable around them, but that's mostly because I was raised in the South and encountered too many Good Ol' Boys and their unnerving disregard for firearms safety. That doesn't make me "anti-gun", though. There are shades of gray in between. In fact, I'm not even anti-conceal-carry, as a concept, I just don't like how it's implemented. I think you should be required to have a helluva lot more training to get your CCW permit than what's been proposed.

Second: "Funny thing is anti gun folks trust someone with a gun who has adequate training and experience to protect them." There, fixed that for you.

Third: Not sure what those numbers are supposed to represent, or what they have to do with the subject of my response, which was that Chicago hasn't actually implemented concealed carry yet. I just saw someone post something about Chicago, which is where I happen to live, and it was inaccurate, so I responded.

As a side note, I do find it kind of strange that you have to go to the bottom of the 2nd page to find the first thread about religion in a section called "Politics and Religion".

Chicago has seen a 31% reduction in homicides since finally being forced to implement concealed carry, and they have barely begun.

Chicagoan here (well, close enough). Just wanted to point out that concealed carry hasn't actually been implemented here yet. A 30-day extension was granted to give the governor more time to review it.

By the way, that was a 34% decrease... from this time last year, which was a statistically unusual high period. We should probably also take into account that the city put hundreds of additional police on the streets in high-crime areas in response to the previous increase in homicides, and Chicago experienced a trend of strangely cold weather for this area during the decline (yes, the weather does play a part... the hotter it is, the higher the rate tends to be. I'm not even joking)... whiiiich is why we're not too optimistic about the trend continuing.

I love the suitcase full of British food! The supermarket near my wife's house has a small British food section that includes chocolate digestives, PG Tips and even Ambrosia.When I'm in the US for any length of time I really miss cider (although Woodchuck cider is not bad it's not like scrumpy) crumbly fudge, clotted cream and pasties. Can you tell where in the UK I'm from lol.

I miss pasties, and I'm the USC!

They're not necessarily made of fish sex organs. They're like meatballs but use the flesh of fish instead. They are of course shaped to look like moist, tasty balls and then fried or steamed.

I love how you had to specify "not necessarily"

1. Do I have to have a K-1?

Do you mean should you have had a K-1 visa prior to marrying?

That probably would've been the best option. Now that you're married, though, a K-1 visa is not what you need to apply for, as this is only for unmarried people.

I guess it's just different there. It seems to be no big thing to just go by a different name in the UK.

From UK citizen's advice: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/relationships_e/relationships_birth_certificates_and_changing_your_name_e/change_of_name.htm

If you wish to be known by a different name you can change your name at any time, provided you do not intend to deceive or defraud another person. There is no legal procedure to follow in order to change a name. You simply start using the new name. You can change your forename or surname, add names or rearrange your existing names.

It probably should be noted that later on in the article it does say that this is not acceptable in all circumstances. I'm guessing for immigration purposes, a more formal method is necessary (especially because you do have to have a valid passport, and a passport is one of the things that it says a deed poll is required for).

Technically, in the US, you can "go by" any name you want. To be able to have that name on official things, like credit cards, ID's, etc., though, you do have to go through official channels. For a divorce in the US, part of the documentation needed for your divorce hearing has a question about whether or not you are reverting to your maiden name. When the judge signs off on the divorce documents, after your hearing, the certified copy serves as your proof that you legally changed your name. You give this to the Social Security office to get a new SS card, and then present it at the DMV to get your revised driver's license and/or state ID. At this point, you're pretty much official.

No offense to the customs people at heathrow, but they were awful to me. : ( I had no job at the time, and their "official" reason was that my unemployed status made them suspect I was going to stay in the UK, because I had no ties to the US. You know, despite having spent my life here and having my TWO CHILDREN back at home. They said TONS of women leave their kids behind and move illegally to the UK.

I think the real reason was that I had met my fiance online and had, at that time, never met him in person, and was splitting up from my now ex husband. When she asked how we met and I explained it was on twitter she got all horrified looking and decided she needed to call him to verify our relationship. (he wasn't at the airport because I was meeting him at Manchester airport). However speaking to him on the phone wasn't enough for her and she and her coworkers made me sit in a small room for NINE HOURS, with my passport and belongings locked away from me, while they asked me insanely detailed questions like when did he divorce and what were my parents jobs and what did my ex think of me flying to the UK to be with another man? It was torture. They eventually decided there was no proof I'd return home, despite my kids, current passport, return plane tickets and my fiance and his mother vouching for me. Oh and they also accused my fiance of getting into an argument with me and kicking me out on the street, which he would NEVER do!!!

He wrote letters to his MP's after this experience and they forwarded it on but the UKBA stood by their decision and in the future I'll need a tourist visa to go there, presumably even after I marry him.

He's never had a problem entering the US, so he always comes here. He has a job and has told them he's here to visit his girlfriend (he never says fiance of course) and they barely even look at him. Fingers crossed it stays that way!!!

Funny how they would consider a job to be sufficient evidence, but not kids. Because, you know, nobody ever leaves their job without notice...

It is perfectly legal to marry in the US or Canada

I see plenty of websites that are suggesting London as a destination wedding place so I don't see why it would not be possible to marry in the UK

Destination weddings are a thing everywhere, but usually with destination weddings, neither the bride or the groom are actually residents of that country so there is very little risk of either staying illegally. It's understood they are there to get married in a pretty setting and then leave. Not quite the case when one member is a citizen.

It isn't legal for someone to enter the United States on a tourist visa (which is what we were talking about) with the intention of marrying a USC, and I have been... reminded... by Customs officers in the UK that it would not be legal for me and mine to marry while I'm there. There are also many forums here discussing this same thing.

Even if I ended up being completely wrong, it is still better to check the laws of the country rather than risk being deported and banned.

Hi all,I am new here.I would like to ask what would be good for me to send as evidence.I live in Europe for a long time I meet my fiance here in my town who lives near me 2 years and a few months,I am asking this as I do not have chat logs,we call each other and see each other almost every day and also we use prepaid cell numbers and they only give prepaid users logs from the last six months,I have pictures with many friends and my family,we went only once to a trip this year but I do not have dates on the photos.I have a engagement ring I bought and pictures where I set the stone my self as I got the stone separately.So what can I provide,I used MSN from the start but it was terminated this year in March,only have a Skype log one year old,used it to make a call to her phone,never use Skype anyway.Any suggestions,anything would help?

Pictures but no date but lots of them with many friends,town,beach,travel and my family and her mom.I have pictures from the first day we meet and my friends wedding also but again,no dates on them

Ring receipt that I orderd from USA

Cell logs six months only back from this month

Hotel and ticket purchase receipt and passport stamps

We dont send email as we live in the same city and never used our home phones as we have free to talk on our cell phones

The thing is I did not plan this,I asked her for us to move to the US and live there,so any help would mean a lot.Thank you!

Cell phone/Skype records, emails/IMs, and photos are secondary evidence anyways. I think what you've got, with regards to those, is fine. Just write the dates on the back of the photos and where they were taken.

Now, for primary evidence: Can you prove you live in the same city? Since they're just looking for evidence of meeting within the last two years, this should help prove your case. Do you have any receipts that put you in the same place at the same time?

I have my fiancee added as an additional user on a credit card account and I have western union-ed a couple of times to her so I keep copies of those transactions.

Wow, I didn't even think of that My fiance is listed as my beneficiary for my bank accounts if I were to pass away, and I've PayPal'd him money a few times but didn't think to put that in the packet. Good advice!