XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 7/3/2015 5:30 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On 7/3/2015 7:51 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >> On 7/3/2015 4:42 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>>>>>> That's not true.  For example, you can't collect spousal Social   
   >>>>>>> Security benefits if you are not married.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Then modify the law to have the person name a beneficiary.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> There are over 1000 federal laws that would have to be changed.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No, just one.   
   >>>   
   >>> Huh?  I gave one example (Social Security).   
   >>   
   >> And in that one example, one law has to be changed.   
   >>   
   >> Next.   
   >   
   > And over 1000 laws have to be changed in order for your solution to be   
   > implemented (Social Security was merely an *example*).   
      
   Sticking with your example, what is the justification for having   
   /spousal/ SS benefits, as opposed to named beneficiary?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)