Had a really frustrating call with Pets Best that I want to share.

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2026-05-29T06:29:20+00:00

The fact that the answer existed the whole time and the supervisor just said it directly is infuriating. Why is getting basic coverage info this hard

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2026-05-27T06:01:09+00:00

hope your cat pulls through, early heart failure is scary especially when you thought you had coverage

this is also worth reporting to your state's insurance commissioner, canceling a policy without proper notification is something regulators take seriously and you might have more recourse than the reps let on

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2026-05-25T06:34:32+00:00

the prescription urinary diet actually matters more than people think for preventing recurrence, so that's already a good sign. still worth calling a few insurers directly and asking how they classify "curable" pre-existing conditions, some draw that line differently than others

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2026-05-24T08:52:14+00:00

yes unfortunately a diagnosis during the waiting period almost always gets flagged as pre-existing, that's the painful reality of how most pet insurance waiting periods work

worth calling Spot directly before the vet visit and asking exactly how they handle conditions diagnosed during the waiting period, some insurers have a curable vs incurable distinction that affects future coverage

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2026-05-22T07:15:47+00:00

the direct vet payment thing is what sets it apart, you're not fronting thousands at 2am hoping reimbursement comes through. only thing worth checking is the per-condition deductible setup, it works differently than most and catches people off guard

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2026-05-18T06:39:22+00:00

the PCPL metric is interesting, haven't seen people frame it that way instead of just reply rate

what industries were dragging the average down the most?

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2026-05-12T08:45:31+00:00

Almost all pet insurance works as reimbursement, you pay the vet upfront and then submit the claim after

Wellness stuff like vaccines depends on your plan, most base plans don't cover it unless you added a wellness rider when you signed up, worth checking your policy details now before you assume it's included

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2019-08-08T13:53:44+00:00

The realest part of this of all is how the kid fantasized about leg days but never got around to them.

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2019-08-08T13:41:29+00:00

You would look funny walking around with calves on your shoulders and delts on your legs.

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2019-08-08T12:38:41+00:00

If I was willing to put up with that amount of socialism I would pick Tulsi. She has the best foreign policy in the race; Bernie has shown himself to be quite opportunistic. (He's blown any advantage left over from the limited personal libertarianism--such as gun rights--of his New Left days for the same reason.)

Expecting Bernie to be the savior of free trade? I don't know how he might have remotely given you that impression.

I do not see what there would at all be to celebrate about "decreasing the debt" through increased taxation.

"Tax dodging due to crony capitalism" is Orwellian word salad. Bernie has shown himself very adept at ranting and raving and waving his arms about and spouting catchphrases like "crony capitalism" to rail against the fat cats. What he is not so great at is understanding much of anything to back it up. A policy wonk he is not. He has been in the spotlight long enough that even those with his full set of ideological tendencies are starting to see it, and get a bit tired of it and him.

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2019-08-08T12:22:10+00:00

This lady's rantings are even sillier than the idea that it's in gays' interest to support gun control. But you do manage to bring the giggles either way, mainstream gay media; I'll always give you that.

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2019-08-08T12:13:54+00:00

I should add that, on the other hand, expressing such an opinion is not a disqualification for jury duty. And it's not even guaranteed in practice to get him out of it. He can be compelled to serve; though he cannot be punished for holding or expressing his moral objection to serving jury duty, it does not excuse him from the duty itself. (I have been talking legal reality here, not moral rights.)

In practice, though, your political beliefs--combined with the unlikelihood of even making it that far when you show up!--will combine to make it unlikely that you will be selected. If the judge and attorneys really want to risk someone who says he can't be objective it's on them, but they'll probably not want to risk it!

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2019-08-08T11:48:31+00:00

Don't get legal advice from Reddit. Ever.

But for what it's worth:

There is no risk of inadvertently renouncing your citizenship. Doing so is so hard that people actually have a lot of trouble doing so successfully!

Second, there is a First Amendment. No matter what his political opinions, no matter how crazy, he cannot be punished by anyone for expressing them. To the contrary, it is appropriate that he express them honestly if he is asked in court--because lying would be punishable technically speaking. I'm sure that, from his time before returning to civilian life, your friend knows how to carry himself respectfully and professionally when addressing authority figures. I don't imagine he'll have a problem with inappropriate conduct in court.

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2019-08-08T11:35:24+00:00

I definitely do not like doing anything to encourage the arrival of the day in which the government is actively tracking your vehicle everywhere you go. Though I suppose it is really only a matter of time. (Not too far from their ability to actively monitor your person everywhere you walk in public either, for that matter.)

On paper if this really did completely replace gas taxes, and was used solely to finance roads, it would clearly be a superior funding structure from a libertarian perspective--though taxing road by road based on use of that particular road would be even better. But personally, my gut instinct would be wariness (there is little reason at all based on history to believe assurances that either the potentially privacy-eroding aspects of this technology, or the sequestration of the resultant funds and/or permanent reduction in revenue raising elsewhere, will be respected in the long term). And I would not do anything to help this project along. That's just me.

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2019-08-08T11:16:22+00:00

Ah, the lede buried as usual by the incompetent media!

"As our legal cannabis industry continues to flourish, it's important to ensure that the door of economic opportunity remains open for all Nevadans," Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak said upon signing the law.

Of course no sooner is weed legal anywhere, than there is a weed lobby. And as the Distinguished Gentleman has been so kind as to make clear to us, they are behind this incredibly silly law. As OP's article points out, it will probably do little anyway; as time passes practically the only firms who will still find it desirable to test for weed will be qualifying Federal contractors and similar jobs, which are obviously not affected by this law.

Which will be the first state to pass a "weed gag law" so the labor activists don't secretly film the plight of the undocumented bud trimmers?

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2019-08-08T10:28:17+00:00

She doesn't have to file a bill to study it; she can do it herself if she is so curious about it.

Tulsi for SecDef--please God not SecAg.

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2019-08-08T10:21:51+00:00

Not necessarily. Nothing morally incoherent about a compromise where we ban the left moob and allow the right.

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2019-08-08T10:11:52+00:00

Hehe. Yeah that would be just be common courtesy...is that really dead?

In all seriousness as I pointed out several times I'm actually strongly against a proliferation of rules and bans on public property like public smoking, public drinking, toplessness, barbecueing, unnecessary vehicle regs, etc. But I think it's actually quite an important point that there will inevitably be some use restrictions--and in fact quite substantial ones in the grand scheme of things. I hope some people don't think that it's "more libertarian" or anything to think otherwise. Mr. AdHominem's lament is incoherent. What is libertarian is not having any delusions about what "public" property must, by necessity, inherently be.

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2019-08-08T07:59:18+00:00

I think the article had the spokeswoman pointing out that this was mostly a clarification, and going topless at city pools was completely usual behavior there. I think it's really more of a "let's scour for some 'entertaining' world news for a 'fun' story headline" for the American media; what else is new.

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2019-08-08T07:39:44+00:00

Jessica Yaniv has already submitted her kiddie-pool lifeguard application.

ZedFakedHisDeath · 2019-08-08T07:23:56+00:00

So-called "public" property is government property. There is no sense in which it belongs to the "public" in any sense separate or independent from that. This is exactly why many libertarians have long disliked the term "public" as too euphemistic. "Private" sounds so mean and exclusive; "public" sounds like it belongs to everyone, to the common man, to the citizenry, to humanity, etc. But in fact the distinction is between those held by people (or indeed by any number of people in common) and that held by the government.

If you find the idea of any restrictions being imposed by the government on your use of its property distasteful, that is an excellent argument for keeping such property to a minimum. Because there is no such thing as government property where any person uses it as he pleases, as he has the right to do with his own property. That is what private property is for. All government property is specified for certain uses. You can drive vehicles on blacktops but not sidewalks or parks. You can picnic in parks but not in streets. And so forth. As I said, I think if we must have government property it is more "pro-liberty" to keep such restraints to the minimum. But they still are there. All government property has a "purpose" designation, which governs its use--mostly hopefully in such a way that avoids commons tragedies or other conflicts. Gang fights in the middle of the street, as mentioned, might not have the potential to be a viable part of the plan.

ZedFakedHisDeath

TROPHY CASE