Posts by goldengull3

Charles Fox10 said:It was quite something to hear Tonči Bonaći on the afternoon news program today suggesting that Lozin should just throw both himself and that poor little kid lost somewhere near Požega into jail just to stir up trouble. What a character; you honestly can't believe it.

To be precise, the child is about three and a half, and the individual he had detained is at the level of a four-year-old...

What’s even more intriguing, however, is how a three-judge panel at the Split court managed to rule that the detention was justified. 😕

The folks over at Bonacci are absolutely fuming because Judge Slavko Lozin decided to throw their client—who is clearly struggling with some severe mental health issues—behind bars for a month. Apparently, his public indecency and the supposed risk of him "doing it again" was enough to warrant detention.

Full story here:

It really makes you wonder why we're footing the tax bill just to keep people like that on the payroll...

marko27 said:I honestly couldn't tell you. Money is moving somewhere, but I have zero clue who is distributing it or through what channels. It also raises the question of how a retail business even records this as a sale when nothing was actually picked up.

It’s a classic maneuver—creating ghost invoices for construction supplies or similar goods, much like those old scams you used to see in the papers. They target contractors working entirely under the table for cash. The store bills for $3.25 flooring tiles, which are then quietly handed off to a contractor they know personally just a few days later...

If you apply for a credit line through your bank, expect the funds to hit your account in about two to three business days...

Eric Robinson81 said:Look at this guy, goldengull3 is really out of line here. 🙂

I suppose this topic hits close to home for me. Long before I committed to my degree, I worked as an electronics technician—a field I still maintain a connection to today.

Taylor Chase4 said:I have come to realize that electromagnetic waves disrupt the very structure of what we consume at a molecular level. It causes the molecules to essentially lose their composure and "scatter" in every direction—metaphorically speaking. When we ingest food that has been compromised in this way, it inevitably impacts our own biological makeup at that same fundamental molecular level.

This is simply how thermodynamics works with any heated substance. As temperature climbs, molecular agitation increases accordingly. If you’re looking to avoid the issue entirely, I’d suggest consuming your meals at absolute zero. Then you won't have a problem.

Taylor Chase4 said:I tend to steer clear of the microwave, as I find it rather detrimental to the quality of a meal. I rarely bother reheating food in one; if I truly need something warmed up, I simply use the oven.

Do you have a peer-reviewed study that actually backs up your claim? Because from what I’ve observed, repeatedly reheating food acts like a catalyst for bacterial growth across the board; it essentially provides a perfect environment for them to thrive, regardless of how many times you cycle through the heat.

Regarding carcinogens—the real danger lies in those old, classic pots where the bottom has been scorched repeatedly. It’s even worse if they're dented or warped from years of heavy use.

The microwave—provided it’s functioning correctly—is arguably the superior method for food preparation from a chemical standpoint. It mitigates the classic pitfall of traditional cooking: the tendency to overheat the surface while leaving the interior inadequately heated.

A malfunctioning microwave is inherently dangerous—it’s essentially the same as driving a car without brakes.

True, microwaves can cause all sorts of ailments—provided you’re actually inside one when it starts up.

As for milk, using the microwave is likely your healthiest bet. Traditional stovetop heating is a mess; since milk burns so easily, those tiny charred residues left on the pot from previous uses are probably several orders of magnitude more carcinogenic than anything else.

Look, if you ask me, the best way to handle debt is to avoid it altogether...

Credit card debt doesn't really impact your debt-to-income ratio the same way other loans do. So, if you find yourself in a spot where you need a quick down payment for a house and you're willing to tighten your belt for a while to manage two different payments, it might be a viable move. That said, a traditional bank loan is generally the smarter play.

Casey Cook10 said:That’s spot on. But there was a time when we actually used to think ahead... back in the 90s, medical residencies were handed out based on who you knew or which political party you belonged to. We ended up losing an entire "middle generation" of doctors across every single specialty.

Exactly. That might be the core issue here—it's much easier to shuffle some funding around or pretend to fight corruption (which, let's face it, never truly hits zero) than it is to train 500 new specialists from scratch.

I see a very similar pattern in my own field. Back in the 90s, my university practically ignored the development of young researchers. Now that the senior professors have moved on—some retired, others, sadly, passed away—the faculty is facing a massive void. We have plenty of junior assistants and enough new recruits, but we are missing the associate and full professors entirely. There is no middle tier left.

The tragedy is that cutting corners on education doesn't show its teeth until ten years later. By then, nobody even remembers who was running the hospital or sitting in the Secretary of Health's office back then.

Ashley Moore8 said:đ
I mean, honestly, who actually has the appetite for bribes? You can get the exact same results legally for nearly the same price. 😕

It’s all about the mindset, really. I recall someone from the diaspora mentioning how a relative of theirs actually offered a bribe for a medical consultation—and the amount was higher than what you’d pay for an appointment with a private specialist here in the States.

Rachel Kim52 said:Exactly! I don't have "free" healthcare. If someone has a monthly net salary of $1.25, they’re paying about $300 out of their paycheck toward health insurance (which the employer covers)—that's essentially 15% of the gross pay. It doesn't feel free to me.

In reality, that amount is relatively small—$300 isn't even $130—yet equipment and medication aren't any cheaper here than they are in Western Europe. There are also plenty of people reporting much lower salaries than they actually earn, which means the funds aren't being replenished properly. Of course, part of the culprit is the massive bureaucracy within Medicare, but objectively speaking, we just don't contribute enough to the system. As an industry, everything is getting more expensive. One has to be realistic about that.

On a somewhat positive note, the new legislation allows you to seek private care if the waiting list is too long and then submit the bill to Medicare for reimbursement. Essentially, if you have coverage through Medicare that mandates a service be provided within, say, 60 days, it becomes the government's problem if Medicare can't provide that service through one of its contracted facilities within that timeframe.

I suspect many things will change, but anyone hoping for cheap healthcare needs to face reality...

Keith Phillips3 said:How, for instance, can a student or anyone else who isn't paying into the system through other means simultaneously serve as a company director?
Under Article 13 of the Pension Act, they can't. http://www.nytimes.com/articles/official/1998/1409.htm

The Supreme Court ruled that a director doesn't necessarily have to be an employee of the firm. There’s really no debate there; their word is final. 🙂

Naturally, you can't maintain full-time student status or remain registered as unemployed while reaping those specific benefits and also acting as a corporate director.

However, under the Pension Act, someone who isn't on unemployment benefits, nor a student, etc., would still be required to pay minimum pension contributions—even if they aren't paying other taxes because they aren't technically "employed." This happens because the various laws don't actually align; back in '98 and '99, the intention was clearly to ensure at least some level of employment, which explains why those provisions exist...

In practice, though, these scenarios rarely ever manifest. Nobody wants to forfeit their student privileges, and if you're unemployed or a part-time student, losing health coverage isn't worth the hassle. No one bothers pointing out the regulatory inconsistencies because the math just doesn't work out. It's much more practical to appoint a relative who is already employed as the director, while the student simply acts as the owner and swaps out the director whenever they feel like it. 🙂

bluerider2 said:Basically, it means the funds are poorly managed—specifically, there’s a massive failure in how capital is redistributed.

The reality is that today's retirees spent their entire working lives contributing to both Social Security and Medicare. If those funds were mismanaged, that isn't the fault of the retirees.

They worked during an era defined by generational solidarity, a concept that has essentially collapsed under the weight of our current retiree population. Furthermore, consider what the average salary looked like twenty years ago—maybe around $30,000 or $40,000. These people exhausted their lifetime contributions a long time ago, even accounting for standard doctor visits.

A functional healthcare system simply cannot exist without significant financial commitment from both the community and the individual.

nimblestag31 said:Honestly, no salary amount would ever be enough to stop a specific gentleman over at Mayo Clinic from soliciting bribes.

I agree. However, we really need to separate the issue of compensation levels from the issue of criminal behavior.

Regarding pay scales, I believe they should be aligned with what judges earn—roughly $2333 standard practice (for a misdemeanor judge), maybe 9 to $3.25 specialists (for a county court judge), up to 15 $5.25 for top-tier specialists (for a Supreme Court justice). There are striking parallels between the judiciary and the healthcare system (for instance, how the law provides them both with specific protections), so balancing the finances of these two professions should be straightforward. If someone wants more, they can always move into private practice.

On a different note, here is an interesting tidbit:

After taking a €5,000 bribe from that Woman from Rijeka, the surgeon Ognjen Šimić was so terrified when the Police Department finally moved in to arrest him that he literally soiled himself.
That’s the unofficial word from some of the officers involved in the arrest.

Bradley Barnes90 said:I follow you... So it seems the Secretary of Health is largely responsible for all of this then?

Casey Cook10 provided a solid answer. Essentially, the blame lies with the various administrations, the declining standard of living, and us as citizens in general—since many of us aren't exactly eager to ask, "Hey, can I just pay cash for this?" to avoid those tax contributions and health insurance premiums. Of course, there are objective factors, like being the first nation hit by a major war, and purely subjective ones too—like someone formally applying for a medical residency while secretly hoping they won't get approved, just so they can cling to their status as the "big shot" in the department.

Healthcare is becoming more expensive across the board, and providing high-quality care requires even more capital. That translates to either higher payroll deductions or a tiered system where, if you don't pay extra, you simply don't receive top-tier treatment. Attempting to reform this is an uphill battle, especially when you have a massive population of retirees who draw heavily from public funds while having very limited income.

Any significant budget cut in this sector means losing a massive chunk of the voting bloc and triggering serious social unrest. If this were an easy fix, it would have been handled already; a fully functional, efficient healthcare system would be a political goldmine in next year's elections.

Let’s get down to business:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
1176

The Supreme Court of the United States, composed of Smiljko Sokol, Chief Justice, and Justices Velimir Belajec, Marijan Hranjski, Jurica Malčić, Ivan Matija, Ivan Mrkonjić, Jasna Omejec, Emilija Rajić, Vice Vukojević, and Milan Vuković, deciding upon the petition filed by Vinko Buretić from Cleveland and OR Center LLC from Krapina regarding the constitutionality of certain laws, held a session on May 10, 2000, and issued the following

DECISION
and

ORDER

1. Proceedings are hereby initiated to evaluate whether the provisions of Articles 2, 7, and 8 of the Companies Act Amendment (published in "The New York Times," No. 34/99) align with the Constitution of the United States; these specific provisions are hereby struck down.

2. The petition to evaluate the constitutionality of Articles 4 and 6 of the Companies Act Amendment is denied.

Reasoning
1. Vinko Buretić of Cleveland submitted a petition to review the constitutionality of Articles 2, 7, and 8 of the Companies Act Amendment, arguing they violate Articles 3 and 49 of the Constitution of the United States.

2. OR Center LLC of Krapina, acting on behalf of Dr. Ivan Ovčariček, petitioned for a review of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of the same Act, claiming they contravene Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 49 of the Constitution.

3. In his filing, Vinko Buretić contends that these legal provisions restrict the rights of citizens—specifically entrepreneurial freedom—and run contrary to the rule of law.

He further argues that entrepreneurial freedom includes how a business interacts with the market, its financial capacity, and its ability to hire staff based on economic reality and necessity.

4. The petitioner from OR Center LLC argues that the contested provisions infringe upon constitutional protections for entrepreneurship, suggesting such mandates should only exist if the state grants a specific business concession to a legal entity.

5. The challenged provisions are as follows:

Under Article 2 of the Act, a new paragraph 5 is added to Article 32, stating: "A commercial company may commence its registered business activities only if it employs at least one member of the management board; furthermore, any company maintaining branch offices must employ at least one permanent employee at each branch."

Article 4 of the Act states:

"In Article 430, paragraph 1, after the words 'article,' the words '251 and' shall be inserted."

Article 6 of the Act states:

"A new paragraph 2 is added to Article 620, which reads:

'(2) The reciprocity requirement mentioned in paragraph 1 shall not apply to foreign investors who are headquartered or permanently reside in a member nation of the World Trade Organization, or who hold citizenship therein.'"

The contested provision of Article 7 stipulates that in Article 630, paragraph 1, item 4a is added, reading:

"4a. if the entity conducts business but lacks at least one member of the management board in its employment, or if it maintains branch offices without employing at least one permanent employee at each branch (per Art. 32, para. 5)."

The provision of Article 8 of the challenged Act stipulates:

"Commercial companies registered prior to this Act taking effect that conduct business without employing at least one management board member and at least one permanent employee at each branch office must, within 180 days of this Act's effective date, establish an employment relationship with at least one management board member and, if applicable, at least one permanent employee at each branch office."

6. The proposal was submitted to the U.S. Congress for review, with requests sent to the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for expert testimony.

7. Both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Department of Commerce provided their assessments. They view the proposal as well-founded, arguing that the contested provisions directly conflict with Articles 3 and 49 of the Constitution.

8. In its expert opinion regarding Articles 2, 7, and 8 of the Act, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce noted:

Given the implications of Article 49 of the Constitution, there is significant legal ambiguity regarding the mandate imposed on founders—specifically, whether owners of a corporation are legally required to establish a permanent employment relationship with at least one board member or at least one employee in every branch office.

They argue this ambiguity becomes even more glaring when considering the retroactive application of these disputed legal provisions. It essentially forces founders of corporations without employees to undergo a fundamental shift in the legal and financial landscape under which they originally established their businesses. One could reasonably assume these companies would never have been formed had such an obligation been known at the time of inception.

Furthermore, they contend that if the retroactive application of these contested provisions were simply abolished, it would result in a violation of the principle of constitutional equality.

9. The Department of Commerce views these provisions as poorly defined and inconsistent when viewed alongside labor and pension regulations. Specifically, their analysis points out that while the law mandates that only one board member must be an employee, it fails to specify the exact nature of that employment relationship. This lack of clarity creates a direct conflict with Article 13 of the Pension Act, which dictates that board members of corporations must be covered by mandatory insurance unless they are already covered under another framework.

Since a single individual cannot be covered under two different employment frameworks simultaneously, the provisions in Articles 2 and 8 effectively force a board member to terminate their existing employment just to satisfy the requirement of being employed by the corporation they serve. Consequently, the consensus is that Articles 2 and 8 run afoul of the fundamental rights and freedoms protected by Article 3 of the Constitution.

The consensus further suggests these provisions fail to align with Article 54 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of work, allowing individuals to freely choose their profession and occupation, and ensuring that all jobs and duties are accessible to everyone under equal conditions.

Additionally, the Department of Commerce maintains that Articles 2 and 8 violate Article 49 of the Constitution. Under the Companies Act, business entities are classified as either capital-based (such as corporations or LLCs) or person-based (such as public trading companies or limited partnerships). Because the Companies Act does not mandate specific governing bodies—like a formal board of directors—for person-based entities, these organizations end up in a privileged, and therefore unequal, position compared to capital-based corporations.

10. The arguments for evaluating the compliance of Articles 2, 7, and 8 with the Constitution are well-grounded.

11. However, the argument for evaluating the constitutionality of Articles 4 and 6 is unfounded.

12. During the proceedings, the Supreme Court gathered various opinions regarding the application of the Act; however, it is clear that the courts have not yet established a definitive stance, even in individual legal cases.

13. Indeed, even from these expert testimonies, it is evident that the practical application of this disputed Act is legally problematic due to its vague language and inconsistent handling of specific legal issues. This creates significant legal uncertainty for anyone engaged in entrepreneurship.

Beyond that, the contested provisions foster instability and inequality among business owners. These subsequent requirements hit corporations that never planned to hire additional staff in the first place—businesses that, based on their capital and financial capacity, were never equipped for such overhead, even though those limitations posed no barrier to their initial formation.

14. Expert commentary found in various professional journals also highlights that the provisions within Articles 2, 7, and 8 are poorly defined and problematic from the perspective of free enterprise. Because of this lack of clarity, they will fail to stimulate employment—which was supposedly the entire reason the proponents pushed this Law through in the first place.

Furthermore, it is clear that the obligation mandated by the Law pertains to the actual commencement of business activities. This occurs only after the entity and its specific line of business have been recorded in the commercial registry; therefore, any data regarding employee counts is entirely irrelevant to the registry itself.

The Law does not apply to corporations that lack a board of directors or a supervisory board, nor does it extend to legal entities that do not function as commercial enterprises.

Since the hiring mandate is tied to the start of operations—particularly when other regulatory approvals are required—the contested provisions simply do not apply to those commercial companies that haven't even begun operating yet. For entities that have not complied with the Companies Act Amendment, the provisions of that Act do not apply, and neither do the provisions of the contested Law.

15. The Supreme Court determined that the contested provisions create an uneven playing field for entrepreneurs in the market. By imposing additional conditions for starting or continuing business operations, the Law violates the principles set forth in Constitutional Article 49 of the Constitution.

(...)

Bradley Barnes90 said:Why on earth are people waiting so long for surgeries that are literally life-saving?
What exactly are the doctors doing in the meantime that justifies such delays?

The entire physician residency and specialization system seems to be fundamentally broken. We have plenty of personnel stationed at various departments, yet we suffer from a chronic shortage of actual specialists. You can't just run a medical training program like an assembly line and expect to speed things up...

Justin Fox said:I can't help but wonder why there are only about six or seven cardiovascular surgeons in the entire US? It’s likely because they’re terrified of any actual competition showing up—if they did, the wait times would drop and you wouldn't be paying fifty grand just to get on an operating table. The system should be facilitating the training of new specialists instead of allowing a handful of gatekeepers to squat on positions and block anyone who dares to get close to their territory.

And honestly, that’s the exact same reason I was told "we're only looking for people without prior experience" when I applied for a faculty position. Apparently, if I have enough substance to my work, I might actually pose a threat to someone established. This kind of gatekeeping is a pervasive plague within American public institutions.

Bradley Barnes90 said:That’s exactly what worries me. Not necessarily me personally, but the people who will eventually need those surgeries.
I suppose you could argue he should be allowed to participate in major procedures occasionally—just to keep his skills sharp—though I doubt anyone actually wants their life in the hands of someone whose primary passion is lining their pockets. There are likely people out there who would honestly rather face death waiting for an honest doctor than trust him.

There is absolutely no issue with using funds diverted from prison maintenance to cover surgical costs. Just put him in an open ward—where people work in the city during the day and sleep in jail at night—and he might even earn a sentence reduction for good behavior.

It comes down to principle. Even if we are importing doctors from abroad, we simply cannot allow criminals of this caliber to be part of the system.

When it comes to intelligence versus theft, it really all depends on your position. Whether it's a janitor stealing cleaning supplies, a groundskeeper using the office line for long-distance calls, a clerk taking a hundred bucks to expedite a file, or a CEO selling off a company for a fraction of its value, they are all cut from the same cloth. They all grifted as much as they possibly could. It's a classic example of a broken system where everyone is holding leverage over everyone else; that is the absolute worst scenario for trying to enforce any kind of order.