They’re exaggerating. In any practical sense, the odds of an egg actually getting fertilized by a single lone sperm are incredibly, incredibly slim—we're talking tiny decimals here. We're looking at a baseline of 20 million sperm per milliliter, with about 50% showing decent motility. That's what provides a realistic chance at conception. Anything less than that is purely speculative. In other words, even if there happens to be some sperm present in a lubricant, it’s nowhere near enough to result in pregnancy. 🙂
I actually started this thread because someone very close to me—someone I care about deeply—is facing the exact same mess I dealt with two years ago.
Every time I think back to waiting two months just to see a urologist, I feel a wave of pure frustration. I remember sitting there, staring at a waiting room full of retirees who can barely make it to the bathroom without trouble. Now, here I am—a guy who might actually want to start a family—stuck in the same queue as seniors for whom their anatomy is basically just a plumbing issue. We’re all waiting two months for the same appointment. Unbelievable.
We’ve already covered this ground plenty of times regarding our public healthcare system and Medicare. It’s an absolute train wreck. For all intents and purposes, the system only functions at the primary care level—you know, the "sore throat and a pack of Amoxicillin" stage. Everything beyond that is a disaster. Specialist consultations and diagnostics? Completely botched.
The usual suspects: burning during urination. Naturally, my GP sent me for a microbiology test, which came back negative. Then the specialist—who was sent by the same doctor—sent me for *another* microbiology test, also negative, followed by a urogram just to rule out kidney stones. Nothing. They just send you home like nothing is even wrong. 🙄 😲 A month later, here we go again. Suddenly, my doctor hits on the idea that it might be chlamydia. FINE, let's run the chlamydia test. And wouldn't you know it? Chlamydia. I felt like a kid on Christmas, thinking I’d finally get rid of this crap. I took the antibiotics, but nothing happened. I went in for a follow-up; the chlamydia was gone, but the symptoms remained. That’s when I snapped and went to a private clinic, where they fixed everything in no time at all.
My favorite part was when the private doctor sent me for additional microbiology work. He actually wrote down that an ejaculate culture was needed and specified exactly which tests to perform. He even added notes about how vital this was because not every lab runs the same panels. Of course, I was handed a standard referral instead, and half the time, they didn't even do what was requested. Naturally, I had to go to a different private doctor just to get it done right.
So, I have to ask: what am I even paying for when I shell out roughly $667 every month for Medicare? Is it to support that bunch of pampered retirees who pay absolutely NOTHING because they're privileged, while I have to pay out of pocket for a mountain of medication? What exactly am I funding if I’m still forced to visit private doctors for anything remotely serious because our public health system is so sloppy and incompetent!? What kind of message does it send when I spend $667 at a private clinic for a full battery of microbiology tests, four ultrasounds, and two specialist visits, when in reality most of us just burn through two packs of antibiotics and two GP visits a year? Why should I keep paying into Medicare? Just to support a crowd of entitled people who start complaining the second someone running late for work gets bumped in line? Just take those costs out of the general budget or some other tax pool, and let me spend my own money on my health whenever, wherever, and however I want.
I’ve been dealing with this constant ringing in my ears ever since I had that cold. My ear canals get completely blocked up, and once that happens, it’s an absolute disaster. Maybe you're dealing with the same thing!?
Hey there. Greetings to my fellow psoriasis sufferers. Has anyone actually tried this gel? What was your experience? Apparently, this stuff is supposed to be some kind of revolutionary breakthrough. Or at least, that’s how they market it.
My dermatologist prescribed this to me a long time ago. I picked it up from Walgreens. I can't quite recall if it ever really helped, but clearly it wasn't doing much since I eventually gave up on it. I’ve decided to give it another shot recently. Maybe it's just me being impatient, but I've been applying it for a week now and I'm seeing zero improvement. Sure, the scale flaked off, but the inflammation is still right there... no signs of things getting better.
Anyone else gone down this road? If this gel actually works, how long did it take before you saw any real relief?
Look, everyone... stop filling these kids' heads with nonsense. What on earth are you talking about when you mention HPV or those spiked growths?
A lot of people just deal with issues involving their sebaceous glands. It’s not just limited to the genital area either; it happens all over the body, so there really is no reason to panic. Going under the knife for something like that is just plain foolish.
Adam Collins4 said:It also speaks volumes about the corporate legal teams that the Indian conglomerate managed to outmaneuver...
It just goes to show how much sheer incompetence and negligence is out there...
They didn't outmaneuver me, but they certainly did others. And I don't feel a shred of sympathy for them. Not even half a percent. They should have been smarter and seen this coming...
Indians are amateurs. Honestly, I'd rather deal with anything else. First, they lure you in with those flashy marketing gimmicks, and by the time you realize you've been played, the damage is already done. You need to shield yourself with every legal loophole and contract possible, because once the trap snaps shut, there’s no turning back. By the time you figure out they sold you a beat-up Ford when you thought you were buying a Mercedes, it's far too late.
Taylor Chase4 said:I don't know much about the specific symptoms, but given how fast testicular cancer can move, I’d be heading straight to a urologist if I were you. I hate to sound an alarm, but since this has been going on for a while... check out this site: http://www.mayoclinic.org/?section...id=4684&show=1, you might find some answers there.
Is that pain in your "groin" area located right below the testicles? Does it hit more on the left side, and does the ache radiate into your groin? Does physical exertion make it worse? Also, do you actually feel the pain inside the testicle itself?
To be honest, an urologist shouldn't need to run a mountain of tests. If you bring in those bacterial culture results, get a quick ultrasound, and go through a digital rectal exam, they should have a clear picture pretty quickly... It doesn't necessarily have to be the prostate.
P.S. Frequent ejaculation is actually quite beneficial for prostate health.
Oh, I’ve seen this movie before. Doctors throwing out diagnoses based on nothing but symptoms, without waiting for actual lab results. They hand you a pack of antibiotics and call it a day. But the second you come back and tell them the meds didn't work, they get defensive—as if you're personally attacking their ego. Like, "Oh, sure, you just came back here specifically to mess with me." It's always about them, never the patient.
jadesailor14 said:The only thing I don't get is how you aren't planning on actually working, just spending money? Where is the capital coming from?
My business plan isn't your concern. Honestly, this subforum has been a massive letdown. A lot of noise, zero substance. There are plenty of other places where I can dig into the specifics. Best regards to the rest of the finance crowd here. 👋. Short and sweet.
P.S. Hire someone who actually knows what they're talking about. P.P.S. darkraven10, your irony missed the mark entirely. My goal is to launch my own startup, not screw over the IRS.
You’re all heading in the wrong direction here. darkraven10, you keep framing every single example around me as an individual. Look, I don't necessarily have to be on the payroll of my own LLC, but I can certainly serve as the Director. But what does that actually mean for the LLC itself? Put yourself in the shoes of the corporation and tell me: in that scenario, would I really need to hire someone else? Harold Vaughn6, I couldn't care less whether I'm legally allowed to be the director of ten different companies. I know I am. That's a given. Such simple questions... yet nobody seems interested in answering how things actually work. You keep focusing on me as a person, which is irrelevant to the point. What I'm asking is whether I can maintain a company without any employees and leave it inactive for a period of time. In other words, just letting money bleed out.
Nicholas Sanchez3 said:If that’s the case, what’s stopping you from just signing up for minimum wage?
LOL. So I should just burn an extra $333 every month because our government can't seem to fix its own laws? Or rather, because they've already managed to screw everything up in the meantime. Brilliant. Way to go, United States of America. Do they honestly think money grows on trees? As if being one of those $333 would net me better healthcare or a higher pension. I'd rather have things easy. With this kind of attitude and these regulations, I might as well just pack up and move my business overseas. 🙄
cartmann said:Anyway, moving on—where can I go to get definitive confirmation that a company is legally allowed to operate with a director who isn't technically an employee (meaning they aren't paying payroll taxes, Social Security, Medicare, etc., through that specific entity)?
That’s not what I asked. My question was: can an LLC have a director who is already employed by another company? Basically, someone who stays fully compliant with the IRS and all tax obligations, just not through the firm where they serve as director. Furthermore, does such a company need to hire at least one additional employee to meet the minimum staffing requirement?
From what I can gather, the only real solution is to have at least one employee on the books. It’s either you acting as the director or someone else. But then what happens with the taxes? If I'm working elsewhere, am I stuck paying double the payroll taxes, similar to how it works for sole proprietors?
jadesailor14 said:...If a corporation wasn't actually conducting business, the hiring mandate didn't apply...
What does that actually mean in practice? This is drafted so poorly it’s almost laughable. What qualifies as "not conducting business"? Does it mean I can't have a single cent moving through my business account, or what?
So, what’s the deal? Is it mandatory or not? That’s why I started this thread. Half the people I talk to say yes, the other half say no.
Here’s the situation: I want to set up an LLC to focus on R&D and marketing, then eventually transition everything over to my main company once the timing is right. I have two associates, one of whom would be a co-owner. We’d all put in the work for a few years to scale the business before moving operations over. But that plan only works if I'm not forced to maintain a specific headcount in this LLC. Basically, I need to know if I can stay lean without running afoul of tax obligations or payroll requirements based on my bank activity.
Alright, look. A contact of mine mentioned that under the new regulations, an LLC has to have at least one employee on the books. What’s the actual deal here? If I'm the CEO, am I legally required to be an employee of my own company and pay into social security, even if I already have a full-time gig elsewhere where my taxes and benefits are being handled?