This response to A. Jolie's surgery rubbed me the wrong way...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/angelina-jolie-says-the-decision-to-deal-with-her-cancer-was-simple-mine-is-not/ar-AA9WfBL?ocid=iehp#page=2

What do you think of this article? Maybe I am being too harsh.

I too am at risk for ovarian cancer and I have kids, which according to this author perhaps makes my decision simpler especially if I have a high level risk. There is risk any time you go under the knife and I would hardly consider Angelina Jolie's surgery an easy decision. I can understand if this woman were younger saying she doesn't want to give up her chance of having kids. The doctor advised her to remove her ovaries by 42. She is 39, single and it sounds like she only wants kids once a man is in the picture. Her chances of having kids are not high at 39 and by 42 the chances are not good. This is not judgment, this is fact. Even with intervention the chances are not that high. I completely understand not wanting to go into early menopause and I don't think it would be any easier for Angelina Jolie than it is for this woman. Also, she seems to think menopause doesn't happen until at least a decade after 42. Perimenopause starts way before the 50s for a lot of women and you can enter menopause in your 40s. It is definitely easier on your body to have the surgery post menopause so I understand that.

I agree with her on one thing-Angelina's money makes it easier to do whatever she feels needs to be done. In that sense Angelina has it easier. Otherwise I see her decision as just as difficult as the author of this piece. Your thoughts?

I agree with you wholeheartedly-up to the last paragraph.

I was so irritated with the author throughout. Why attack Jolie because you don't have kids, underwent surgeries, etc. Jolie's op-ed was a piece that should have reminded us all that there are some things that bond us all. No matter how much money you make, illness is a human issue.

While reading the op-ed, there were so many points on which I was able to relate to Jolie despite being a single mom with no Brad Pitt, middle(?) class with no private jet, of a different race, etc. As a survivor of a female cancer, I appreciated that she was so open about her journey when she did not have to be. Struggling to determine the best treatment, the thought of leaving your children behind, struggling to be healthy with the C word over your head are just a few of the things we all go through despite our socio-economic status.

But some would rather carry on with mindless, juvenile-type envy of the rich.

I do not have Jolie's money, but I do have health insurance that provides me with the option to take whatever route I'd like, as Jolie did. It also paid for my genetic testing. I know of non-celebs who've had surgery due to breast cancer AND reconstructive surgery covered by insurance.

Facing cancer is not easy for anyone, regardless of money.

I'm proud of Jolie for her openness and found tremendous comfort in being reminded that I'm not alone and that if Jolie can endure what she did and continue to smile and look good while doing it, so can I.

Wanna know one of the first things I did after receiving my cancer diagnosis? I looked to other cancer survivors as examples and was reminded that this is something I can overcome and continue to live life fully. I found inspiration in celebs who shared their stories when they didn't have to as well as people I know personally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/angelina-jolie-says-the-decision-to-deal-with-her-cancer-was-simple-mine-is-not/ar-AA9WfBL?ocid=iehp#page=2

What do you think of this article? Maybe I am being too harsh.

I too am at risk for ovarian cancer and I have kids, which according to this author perhaps makes my decision simpler especially if I have a high level risk. There is risk any time you go under the knife and I would hardly consider Angelina Jolie's surgery an easy decision. I can understand if this woman were younger saying she doesn't want to give up her chance of having kids. The doctor advised her to remove her ovaries by 42. She is 39, single and it sounds like she only wants kids once a man is in the picture. Her chances of having kids are not high at 39 and by 42 the chances are not good. This is not judgment, this is fact. Even with intervention the chances are not that high. I completely understand not wanting to go into early menopause and I don't think it would be any easier for Angelina Jolie than it is for this woman. Also, she seems to think menopause doesn't happen until at least a decade after 42. Perimenopause starts way before the 50s for a lot of women and you can enter menopause in your 40s. It is definitely easier on your body to have the surgery post menopause so I understand that.

I agree with her on one thing-Angelina's money makes it easier to do whatever she feels needs to be done. In that sense Angelina has it easier. Otherwise I see her decision as just as difficult as the author of this piece. Your thoughts?

I agree with this part. I too have tested positive for the gene and am weighing similar options. I have lost my mother and sister to breast cancer and my aunt had breast cancer, beat it, and then died of ovarian cancer. I would have to use FMLA to have these surgeries and that means no paycheck for me. I am also dealing with raising middle schoolers who really need me way more then ever before so being down and out for months at a time seems unfair...however I want to be at their weddings as well. I am also worried about post surgery therapies which are timely, expensive and for the most part trial and error which is hard when you HAVE to be at work and you HAVE to pick up your kids at 3:10 on the dot...I don't have a nanny or a cook to pad my life until I get better. Its a terrible position to be in rich or poor or somewhere in the middle but I think having more $ makes it a different story.

You sound like a pessimist, pure and simple. One who loves to complain. I suspect unhappiness is your default emotion.

Many women in your situation have figured out a way to make it work. Under FMLA, you are entitled to regular pay and your position. But I think you'd simply prefer to groan, complain and blame everything on money and real life situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a complete hysterectomy at 38 because I had no choice. I would give anything to have my overies back. Hormone replacement therapy is not the same. And I only took estrogen for two years.

I instantly aged. I'm 47 now with osteoporosis and because of that, arthritis. My skin has aged much faster. I am anxious and often depressed. I just feel old. Every single doctor has said these changes (and many others) were directly related to early menopause.

It's not as easy as many people seem to believe.

This. I know two women who had to get hysterectomies in their 30s and they both aged 10 years instantly. Its so hard on your body to unnaturally loose all those hormones and try and find a "therapy" to replace them isn't as easy as popping some pills.

I also know women who've had hysterectomies in their 30s. They look great to me. On the way hand, people are affected differently. On the other, I wonder how much of this has to do with attitude and outlook?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/angelina-jolie-says-the-decision-to-deal-with-her-cancer-was-simple-mine-is-not/ar-AA9WfBL?ocid=iehp#page=2

What do you think of this article? Maybe I am being too harsh.

I too am at risk for ovarian cancer and I have kids, which according to this author perhaps makes my decision simpler especially if I have a high level risk. There is risk any time you go under the knife and I would hardly consider Angelina Jolie's surgery an easy decision. I can understand if this woman were younger saying she doesn't want to give up her chance of having kids. The doctor advised her to remove her ovaries by 42. She is 39, single and it sounds like she only wants kids once a man is in the picture. Her chances of having kids are not high at 39 and by 42 the chances are not good. This is not judgment, this is fact. Even with intervention the chances are not that high. I completely understand not wanting to go into early menopause and I don't think it would be any easier for Angelina Jolie than it is for this woman. Also, she seems to think menopause doesn't happen until at least a decade after 42. Perimenopause starts way before the 50s for a lot of women and you can enter menopause in your 40s. It is definitely easier on your body to have the surgery post menopause so I understand that.

I agree with her on one thing-Angelina's money makes it easier to do whatever she feels needs to be done. In that sense Angelina has it easier. Otherwise I see her decision as just as difficult as the author of this piece. Your thoughts?

I agree with this part. I too have tested positive for the gene and am weighing similar options. I have lost my mother and sister to breast cancer and my aunt had breast cancer, beat it, and then died of ovarian cancer. I would have to use FMLA to have these surgeries and that means no paycheck for me. I am also dealing with raising middle schoolers who really need me way more then ever before so being down and out for months at a time seems unfair...however I want to be at their weddings as well. I am also worried about post surgery therapies which are timely, expensive and for the most part trial and error which is hard when you HAVE to be at work and you HAVE to pick up your kids at 3:10 on the dot...I don't have a nanny or a cook to pad my life until I get better. Its a terrible position to be in rich or poor or somewhere in the middle but I think having more $ makes it a different story.

You sound like a pessimist, pure and simple. One who loves to complain. I suspect unhappiness is your default emotion.

Many women in your situation have figured out a way to make it work. Under FMLA, you are entitled to regular pay and your position. But I think you'd simply prefer to groan, complain and blame everything on money and real life situations.

Wow -- you have no idea what FMLA is or how it works, do you? It's unpaid leave, dear.

Begone, troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/angelina-jolie-says-the-decision-to-deal-with-her-cancer-was-simple-mine-is-not/ar-AA9WfBL?ocid=iehp#page=2

What do you think of this article? Maybe I am being too harsh.

I too am at risk for ovarian cancer and I have kids, which according to this author perhaps makes my decision simpler especially if I have a high level risk. There is risk any time you go under the knife and I would hardly consider Angelina Jolie's surgery an easy decision. I can understand if this woman were younger saying she doesn't want to give up her chance of having kids. The doctor advised her to remove her ovaries by 42. She is 39, single and it sounds like she only wants kids once a man is in the picture. Her chances of having kids are not high at 39 and by 42 the chances are not good. This is not judgment, this is fact. Even with intervention the chances are not that high. I completely understand not wanting to go into early menopause and I don't think it would be any easier for Angelina Jolie than it is for this woman. Also, she seems to think menopause doesn't happen until at least a decade after 42. Perimenopause starts way before the 50s for a lot of women and you can enter menopause in your 40s. It is definitely easier on your body to have the surgery post menopause so I understand that.

I agree with her on one thing-Angelina's money makes it easier to do whatever she feels needs to be done. In that sense Angelina has it easier. Otherwise I see her decision as just as difficult as the author of this piece. Your thoughts?

I agree with this part. I too have tested positive for the gene and am weighing similar options. I have lost my mother and sister to breast cancer and my aunt had breast cancer, beat it, and then died of ovarian cancer. I would have to use FMLA to have these surgeries and that means no paycheck for me. I am also dealing with raising middle schoolers who really need me way more then ever before so being down and out for months at a time seems unfair...however I want to be at their weddings as well. I am also worried about post surgery therapies which are timely, expensive and for the most part trial and error which is hard when you HAVE to be at work and you HAVE to pick up your kids at 3:10 on the dot...I don't have a nanny or a cook to pad my life until I get better. Its a terrible position to be in rich or poor or somewhere in the middle but I think having more $ makes it a different story.

You sound like a pessimist, pure and simple. One who loves to complain. I suspect unhappiness is your default emotion.

Many women in your situation have figured out a way to make it work. Under FMLA, you are entitled to regular pay and your position. But I think you'd simply prefer to groan, complain and blame everything on money and real life situations.

Wow -- you have no idea what FMLA is or how it works, do you? It's unpaid leave, dear.

Begone, troll.

You sound insane.

I'm out of work on FMLA now. Maybe you zoomed through all of your leave and sick days. Otherwise, you'd be able to use it and get paid while out on FMLA.

[Anonymous]

Heard of short term disability? The sick bank?

Bottom line is that responsible adults who care to find ways to do right by themselves and their families instead of simply resorting to petty jealousies and rantings about the rich!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/angelina-jolie-says-the-decision-to-deal-with-her-cancer-was-simple-mine-is-not/ar-AA9WfBL?ocid=iehp#page=2

What do you think of this article? Maybe I am being too harsh.

I too am at risk for ovarian cancer and I have kids, which according to this author perhaps makes my decision simpler especially if I have a high level risk. There is risk any time you go under the knife and I would hardly consider Angelina Jolie's surgery an easy decision. I can understand if this woman were younger saying she doesn't want to give up her chance of having kids. The doctor advised her to remove her ovaries by 42. She is 39, single and it sounds like she only wants kids once a man is in the picture. Her chances of having kids are not high at 39 and by 42 the chances are not good. This is not judgment, this is fact. Even with intervention the chances are not that high. I completely understand not wanting to go into early menopause and I don't think it would be any easier for Angelina Jolie than it is for this woman. Also, she seems to think menopause doesn't happen until at least a decade after 42. Perimenopause starts way before the 50s for a lot of women and you can enter menopause in your 40s. It is definitely easier on your body to have the surgery post menopause so I understand that.

I agree with her on one thing-Angelina's money makes it easier to do whatever she feels needs to be done. In that sense Angelina has it easier. Otherwise I see her decision as just as difficult as the author of this piece. Your thoughts?

I agree with this part. I too have tested positive for the gene and am weighing similar options. I have lost my mother and sister to breast cancer and my aunt had breast cancer, beat it, and then died of ovarian cancer. I would have to use FMLA to have these surgeries and that means no paycheck for me. I am also dealing with raising middle schoolers who really need me way more then ever before so being down and out for months at a time seems unfair...however I want to be at their weddings as well. I am also worried about post surgery therapies which are timely, expensive and for the most part trial and error which is hard when you HAVE to be at work and you HAVE to pick up your kids at 3:10 on the dot...I don't have a nanny or a cook to pad my life until I get better. Its a terrible position to be in rich or poor or somewhere in the middle but I think having more $ makes it a different story.

You sound like a pessimist, pure and simple. One who loves to complain. I suspect unhappiness is your default emotion.

Many women in your situation have figured out a way to make it work. Under FMLA, you are entitled to regular pay and your position. But I think you'd simply prefer to groan, complain and blame everything on money and real life situations.

Wow -- you have no idea what FMLA is or how it works, do you? It's unpaid leave, dear.

Begone, troll.

You sound insane.

I'm out of work on FMLA now. Maybe you zoomed through all of your leave and sick days. Otherwise, you'd be able to use it and get paid while out on FMLA.

Not everyone gets PTO. Welcome to the real world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/angelina-jolie-says-the-decision-to-deal-with-her-cancer-was-simple-mine-is-not/ar-AA9WfBL?ocid=iehp#page=2

What do you think of this article? Maybe I am being too harsh.

I too am at risk for ovarian cancer and I have kids, which according to this author perhaps makes my decision simpler especially if I have a high level risk. There is risk any time you go under the knife and I would hardly consider Angelina Jolie's surgery an easy decision. I can understand if this woman were younger saying she doesn't want to give up her chance of having kids. The doctor advised her to remove her ovaries by 42. She is 39, single and it sounds like she only wants kids once a man is in the picture. Her chances of having kids are not high at 39 and by 42 the chances are not good. This is not judgment, this is fact. Even with intervention the chances are not that high. I completely understand not wanting to go into early menopause and I don't think it would be any easier for Angelina Jolie than it is for this woman. Also, she seems to think menopause doesn't happen until at least a decade after 42. Perimenopause starts way before the 50s for a lot of women and you can enter menopause in your 40s. It is definitely easier on your body to have the surgery post menopause so I understand that.

I agree with her on one thing-Angelina's money makes it easier to do whatever she feels needs to be done. In that sense Angelina has it easier. Otherwise I see her decision as just as difficult as the author of this piece. Your thoughts?

I agree with this part. I too have tested positive for the gene and am weighing similar options. I have lost my mother and sister to breast cancer and my aunt had breast cancer, beat it, and then died of ovarian cancer. I would have to use FMLA to have these surgeries and that means no paycheck for me. I am also dealing with raising middle schoolers who really need me way more then ever before so being down and out for months at a time seems unfair...however I want to be at their weddings as well. I am also worried about post surgery therapies which are timely, expensive and for the most part trial and error which is hard when you HAVE to be at work and you HAVE to pick up your kids at 3:10 on the dot...I don't have a nanny or a cook to pad my life until I get better. Its a terrible position to be in rich or poor or somewhere in the middle but I think having more $ makes it a different story.

You sound like a pessimist, pure and simple. One who loves to complain. I suspect unhappiness is your default emotion.

Many women in your situation have figured out a way to make it work. Under FMLA, you are entitled to regular pay and your position. But I think you'd simply prefer to groan, complain and blame everything on money and real life situations.

Wow -- you have no idea what FMLA is or how it works, do you? It's unpaid leave, dear.

Begone, troll.

You sound insane.

I'm out of work on FMLA now. Maybe you zoomed through all of your leave and sick days. Otherwise, you'd be able to use it and get paid while out on FMLA.

Not everyone gets PTO. Welcome to the real world.

What is PTO? If it's paid time off, you can indeed use whatever (sick) leave you have under FMLA. AND you're guaranteed your a job to return to.

There's also a sick bank in many jobs.

But again, pessimism is simply the default for many.

I'd much rather focus on finding ways to do what I can health wise to ensure I'm here to meet the great-grands. Some would prefer to be negative and figure out all the reasons they can't. Oh well. It's your life.

[Anonymous]

Let's not lash out at Angelina Jolie for a lack of employer funded sick time or bad insurance. Maybe some of the women who are in a similar position but lack her wealth should write their own op-eds. We should be pulling for better care for all women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's not lash out at Angelina Jolie for a lack of employer funded sick time or bad insurance. Maybe some of the women who are in a similar position but lack her wealth should write their own op-eds. We should be pulling for better care for all women.

Ummmm that's what Obama had in mind with 'Obamacare', which he clearly stated was in reaction to watching his own mother fight on the phone with insurance companies for hours while grappling with breast cancer.

The help is out there. When scheduling my own treatment I was advised that some locations, centers, etc catered more to those with little to no healthcare. Those people see the same doctors I do and receive the same treatments. But they're able to make payments on hugely discounted treatments.

Some people would just prefer to lash out at the wealthy instead of really mining all of their options.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/angelina-jolie-says-the-decision-to-deal-with-her-cancer-was-simple-mine-is-not/ar-AA9WfBL?ocid=iehp#page=2

What do you think of this article? Maybe I am being too harsh.

I too am at risk for ovarian cancer and I have kids, which according to this author perhaps makes my decision simpler especially if I have a high level risk. There is risk any time you go under the knife and I would hardly consider Angelina Jolie's surgery an easy decision. I can understand if this woman were younger saying she doesn't want to give up her chance of having kids. The doctor advised her to remove her ovaries by 42. She is 39, single and it sounds like she only wants kids once a man is in the picture. Her chances of having kids are not high at 39 and by 42 the chances are not good. This is not judgment, this is fact. Even with intervention the chances are not that high. I completely understand not wanting to go into early menopause and I don't think it would be any easier for Angelina Jolie than it is for this woman. Also, she seems to think menopause doesn't happen until at least a decade after 42. Perimenopause starts way before the 50s for a lot of women and you can enter menopause in your 40s. It is definitely easier on your body to have the surgery post menopause so I understand that.

[b] I agree with her on one thing-Angelina's money makes it easier to do whatever she feels needs to be done. In that sense Angelina has it easier. Otherwise I see her decision as just as difficult as the author of this piece. Your thoughts?[/quote][/b]


I agree with this part. I too have tested positive for the gene and am weighing similar options. I have lost my mother and sister to breast cancer and my aunt had breast cancer, beat it, and then died of ovarian cancer. I would have to use FMLA to have these surgeries and that means no paycheck for me. I am also dealing with raising middle schoolers who really need me way more then ever before so being down and out for months at a time seems unfair...however I want to be at their weddings as well. I am also worried about post surgery therapies which are timely, expensive and for the most part trial and error which is hard when you HAVE to be at work and you HAVE to pick up your kids at 3:10 on the dot...I don't have a nanny or a cook to pad my life until I get better. Its a terrible position to be in rich or poor or somewhere in the middle but I think having more $ makes it a different story. [/quote]

You sound like a pessimist, pure and simple. One who loves to complain. I suspect unhappiness is your default emotion.

Many women in your situation have figured out a way to make it work. Under FMLA, you are entitled to regular pay and your position. But I think you'd simply prefer to groan, complain and blame everything on money and real life situations.[/quote]

Wow -- you have no idea what FMLA is or how it works, do you? It's unpaid leave, dear.

Begone, troll. [/quote]

You sound insane.

I'm out of work on FMLA now. Maybe you zoomed through all of your leave and sick days. Otherwise, you'd be able to use it and get paid while out on FMLA.[/quote]

Not everyone gets PTO. Welcome to the real world. [/quote]

You can pay a little over 25 cents per month and obtain short or long-term disability through many non-work related insurance companies. In many cases it covers 100% if your pay when you must leave work for an extended period of time.

But being a pessimistic whiner is so much better than being proactive, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/angelina-jolie-says-the-decision-to-deal-with-her-cancer-was-simple-mine-is-not/ar-AA9WfBL?ocid=iehp#page=2

What do you think of this article? Maybe I am being too harsh.

I too am at risk for ovarian cancer and I have kids, which according to this author perhaps makes my decision simpler especially if I have a high level risk. There is risk any time you go under the knife and I would hardly consider Angelina Jolie's surgery an easy decision. I can understand if this woman were younger saying she doesn't want to give up her chance of having kids. The doctor advised her to remove her ovaries by 42. She is 39, single and it sounds like she only wants kids once a man is in the picture. Her chances of having kids are not high at 39 and by 42 the chances are not good. This is not judgment, this is fact. Even with intervention the chances are not that high. I completely understand not wanting to go into early menopause and I don't think it would be any easier for Angelina Jolie than it is for this woman. Also, she seems to think menopause doesn't happen until at least a decade after 42. Perimenopause starts way before the 50s for a lot of women and you can enter menopause in your 40s. It is definitely easier on your body to have the surgery post menopause so I understand that.

I agree with her on one thing-Angelina's money makes it easier to do whatever she feels needs to be done. In that sense Angelina has it easier. Otherwise I see her decision as just as difficult as the author of this piece. Your thoughts?

I agree with you wholeheartedly-up to the last paragraph.

I was so irritated with the author throughout. Why attack Jolie because you don't have kids, underwent surgeries, etc. Jolie's op-ed was a piece that should have reminded us all that there are some things that bond us all. No matter how much money you make, illness is a human issue.

While reading the op-ed, there were so many points on which I was able to relate to Jolie despite being a single mom with no Brad Pitt, middle(?) class with no private jet, of a different race, etc. As a survivor of a female cancer, I appreciated that she was so open about her journey when she did not have to be. Struggling to determine the best treatment, the thought of leaving your children behind, struggling to be healthy with the C word over your head are just a few of the things we all go through despite our socio-economic status.

But some would rather carry on with mindless, juvenile-type envy of the rich.

I do not have Jolie's money, but I do have health insurance that provides me with the option to take whatever route I'd like, as Jolie did. It also paid for my genetic testing. I know of non-celebs who've had surgery due to breast cancer AND reconstructive surgery covered by insurance.

Facing cancer is not easy for anyone, regardless of money.

I'm proud of Jolie for her openness and found tremendous comfort in being reminded that I'm not alone and that if Jolie can endure what she did and continue to smile and look good while doing it, so can I.

Wanna know one of the first things I did after receiving my cancer diagnosis? I looked to other cancer survivors as examples and was reminded that this is something I can overcome and continue to live life fully. I found inspiration in celebs who shared their stories when they didn't have to as well as people I know personally.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I just made this same choice. I applaud Jolie for her honesty and bringing this issue into the public eye. For me, at least, it has made my conversations with others go smoother and is another means of support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many women in your situation have figured out a way to make it work. Under FMLA, you are entitled to regular pay and your position. But I think you'd simply prefer to groan, complain and blame everything on money and real life situations.

Sorry, but you are not correct. FMLA guarantees that non-essential employees can take up to 12 weeks off (typically, some states provide a higher limit) from their position for either their own health or to tend to the care of a family member. The time off is unpaid, but if the employer provides short-term disability, sick leave, or vacation, the employee can receive that benefit while on FMLA. You don't get 12 weeks paid under FMLA, followed by your sick leave, vacation (or PTO), and/or disability time.

FMLA provides the continuance of a job (for non-essential employees) after your return. FMLA doesn't provide that the time off is paid.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

Not everyone gets PTO. Welcome to the real world. [/quote]

You can pay a little over 25 cents per month and obtain short or long-term disability through many non-work related insurance companies. In many cases it covers 100% if your pay when you must leave work for an extended period of time.

But being a pessimistic whiner is so much better than being proactive, no?

[/quote]

Many insurance companies will not offer those disability plans to feds, even if you're not trying to get them through work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Heard of short term disability? The sick bank?

Bottom line is that responsible adults who care to find ways to do right by themselves and their families instead of simply resorting to petty jealousies and rantings about the rich!

AMEN!