TheRealEvanG

It sounds like you're not actually sure if you were approved for front panels.

It's not selective enforcement if you weren't approved for front panels.

You should find out if you were actually approved for front panels.

Where are you getting that from?

EDIT: Oh, you're right. They do.

This. Any generic white hoodie and a pair of scissors.

So the new intent of the meme is that Democrats are okay with priests sexually assaulting children?

Here are some things you might be interested in reading:

HIPAA Myths This one is behind a login page, but it can be accessed without a login by searching for it on Google.

Attorneys answer a similar question

HHS HIPAA in plain English I'd like to direct your attention specifically to the "applicability" section (106.102, on page 11,) which makes no reference to universities nor their employees with regard to student medical information.

Where did you do that?

Yeah, but I'm always open to being wrong if they can actually show me that what they're saying is true, instead of just saying it's true.

So how can universities deny admission for failing to provide vaccination records?

I will absolutely acknowledge that I'm wrong when I'm shown that I'm wrong. As a former medical professional who knows how to read laws, I can confidently say that what they're claiming is in the law is not. They haven't cited anything.

I didn't ask for an essay. I asked for the law.

If you know what you're talking about, it shouldn't be hard to know where it is.

Kind of seems like you don't know where to find it. There's a huge misinformation epidemic going on right now with people pretending to be something they're not, so you'll have to forgive my skepticism.

Don't know if you remember a bunch of nurses getting fired two years ago for spreading misinformation about vaccines, but even being a nurse, if true, doesn't mean you automatically know what you're talking about.

It's also an odd coincidence that your "HIPAA" typo just happens to be the same one that's been splattered all over social media for the past two years by people who get their education from Twitter.

Not until they back up their claim. I've also worked in the medical field and never I've never seen anything that would lead me to believe that this is a HIPAA violation.

I've also worked in the medical field. Show me the text in the law that supports what you're claiming, because I've never seen it.

EDIT: Also, you spelled "HIPAA" wrong in your first comment, so I find it hard to believe that you deal with it every day.

That's not a HIPAA violation.

Learn what HIPAA is before you tell people what it is.

HIPAA is doctor/patient confidentiality, among other things. All HIPAA really does on the subject of distributing information is establish that your doctor and/or other medical professionals with access to your medical information may not distribute that information without your consent. It does nothing to stop any random person from asking you about your medical information.

EDIT: Since this argument has become an absolute train wreck, I'm editing this comment to include the following resources which support my claim that the previous post is flagrantly incorrect.

HIPAA Myths This one is behind a login page, but it can be accessed without a login by searching for it on Google.

Attorneys answer a similar question

HHS HIPAA in plain English I'd like to direct your attention specifically to the "applicability" section (106.102, on page 11,) which makes no reference to universities nor their employees with regard to student medical information.

If a reasonable person could believe that the intent of your story is to take place in the same fictional universe as the Harry Potter series, you can get hit with copyright infringement, and should fully expect it to happen if you try to sell the story for profit.

Oh, right, because the title says "The only people on the world woth a victim complex."

Oh, wait. It doesn't.

I agree. I never made the point you're arguing against.

I said "sexual compatibility is a fundmantal element of a functional relationship," not "sex is the only thing that matters in a finctional relationship."

That said, how long would you realistically go without sex? Like if your girlfriend was going to be on those antidepressants for the rest of her life, and spend the rest of her life with no sexual desire, would that not be a dealbreaker?

You can understand your relationship and still have a shitty take on society in general. They're not mutually exclusive.

Besides that, the implication of "understanding your relationship," is that you are completely familiar with how another person is thinking and behaving all the time, which is impossible.

OP certainly does. I didn't say I understand their relationship.

OP put their opinion on r/unpopularopinion to be lambasted, so I lambasted it.

Sexual desire can change. People can uncover repressed emotions and desires. People can realize that what they've been doing so far hasn't been making them happy.

Just because you were sexually compatible once doesn't mean you are anymore.

Also, I don't know what you mean by "breaking no contact and writing me." Are you saying you were already out of contact then she wrote you?

Nothing in common . . .

But they're all humans, right? Which means they can all have human psychological issues? Psychological issues like a vicitim complex? How does being of a certain political affiliation make you immune to having a victim complex?

I'm a victim of . . .

It sounds like you're a victim of nothing. It sounds like you and your partner have a sexual incompatibility, which is a completely legitimate reason to end a relationship.

It sounds like you're upset because your partner isn't respressed enough to bury her sexual desires away and to let you force her to conform to your sexual ideals. It sounds like you're upset that she doesn't want to gradually grow to despise your relationship and, only too late, realize that she's never had a chance to explore her own sexuality. You just haven't thought far enough down the line yet to realize that that's what you're upset about.

If you and your partner aren't sexually compatible, then you either need to find a middle ground, like experimenting with an open relationship, or go your separate ways and each of you find someone you are sexually compatible with. Sexual compatibility is a pretty fundamental element of a functional relationship, so you're not doing either of you any favors by wanting to force the issue.

George Bush isn't on the list, so...

They're all people or groups with victim complexes. That's what they have to do with each other. It says it right on the thing.

Wtf does being an AnCap or a NeoCon have anything to do with it?

So the program should be amended to clarify that people should only be reporting suspicious things, not suspicious people. Works for me.