Poppa Boner: Pussy.

NO YOU.

jackmalice: I'm an estate planning attorney who does Medi-Cal (California Medicaid) work, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.


Nice post, Jack. Thanks. As someone who's nearing 50, I imagine I should have already done some estate planning. I'll make a point of contacting one of your colleagues in Arizona.

DaShredda: I busted my ass my entire life trying hard in school, reading, studying, etc etc etc.

I didn't party hard, I didn't fark around, and I spent my youth trying to work towards greatness.

The government gives some hick a gun, tells him to pull the trigger, and he's supposed to be taken care of for life?fark that shiat!

Soldiers are peons.

People who cure cancer are heroes.

We've been working at it for awhile now. If we ever
succeed there will be lots of us in line for the
medal ceremony saying we were glad to do it, no need
to call us heroes. In the meantime, STFU.

Retort: Sum Dum Gai: olddinosaur: That is why all my property is tied up in a living trust, where I have "sold" it to various people for $10o cash in hand and "other good and valuable considerations," but while I am alive I have full use of the property--as well as the right to cancel the sale at any time, upon refund of $10, and the buyer has no recourse.

Thus when I croak, other people get all my property instantly, there are no wills, no courts, no lawyers--nothing.

If you sue, $10 is all you collect.

If the guy didn't have his stuff in order, it was all his own fault.

A revocable living trust doesn't help at all if you or your estate gets sued by creditors, in fact it actually works against your interests; with probate, the creditor has a limited time in which to sue the estate, and since a living trust bypasses probate, it bypasses that as well.

An irrevocable living trust can protect some of your assets, but a) this transfer of assets counts against your eligibility for Medicaid in the first place, and b) you lose all control of the assets except as specified by the terms of the trust; you can't modify the terms of the trust or anything. Creditors can only take those assets that your fund gives you.

It seems to me that it's just a better idea to gift or sell on the cheap everything to your heirs when you know your time is coming and in return ask for a stipend from their income, banked against the value of your assets when you die. If you trust your kids, do it when you retire.

That worked so well for King Lear.

Queensowntalia: Gilligan13: Don't get me wrong, I truly appreciate the job our soldiers do and respect those who serve greatly. If you were injured in the line of duty, or if it is a condition brought on by the same, then by all rights the military should pay for it for the rest of your life (and I have no problems with my tax dollars being put towards that end instead of welfare and medicaid), otherwise don't ask me, and the rest of the country, to pay you for an injury sustained outside of the military.

So you dont feel veterans deserve extra benefits for being willing to put their lives on the line for their country.

Eh its just a life, right? fark em?

(minor troll. While I'm a fan of financial responsibilty, I also firmly believe in taking care of the people who have served the country, whether or not their medical needs came from servature or otherwise).

In my anecdotal experience most of them do it because they don't have a plethora of better options in life. The reward is in the opportunities that open up to many of them due to the training and experience they received. IF they are injured while they serve then I agree, take care of them for life. If they are injured a decade later on the job and were not insured then what makes them any different than any other uninsured worker?

Poppa Boner: I'm sure all the "Support our Troops" magnets got him into heaven though.

So the guy gets hurt working a private job, then goes to the VA for treatment. Now the VA wants some of their moeny back.

If the guy would have gone to a hospital/rehab/nursing home, they would have asked for money back too.

Not to hard to understand

apiarist: olddinosaur: Pretty much hogwash.

When you die, what you have stands good for what you owe. If there is a surplus, your heirs inherit, but if there's a shortfall, your creditors lose.

That is why all my property is tied up in a living trust, where I have "sold" it to various people for $10o cash in hand and "other good and valuable considerations," but while I am alive I have full use of the property--as well as the right to cancel the sale at any time, upon refund of $10, and the buyer has no recourse.

Thus when I croak, other people get all my property instantly, there are no wills, no courts, no lawyers--nothing.

If you sue, $10 is all you collect.

If the guy didn't have his stuff in order, it was all his own fault.

I certainly hope you didn't pay too much for that trust. It won't work that way in any jurisdiction with which I'm familiar. You can't transfer money from your left pocket to your right pocket and claim "This is no longer mine, although I can still use it freely. No creditor can claim it because I say so."

Laughable that anyone thinks that would be successful.

This makes me feel a little better. I've always been jealous of the people whose parents tried to actually leave them an estate. Most days it feels like my mother specifically set up her affairs to screw me over.

I am responsible enough for her to reside in my home for over a year. I am responsible enough to make her health care decisions and write the checks for her bills, yet in the wild event that she leaves an estate (won't happen) her will states that I have to first submit any request for money in writing to my boomer-aged cousin. He can reject or accept my request.

Ennuipoet: In Rome, during the late Republic, the Veterans would come home from the wars to find all they had was taken in taxes and sold to the rich. Their lands were tilled by slaves and they were left penniless and broken to fend for themselves as best they could. These men were promised land and rewards for their service and paid with poverty. Men trained by the State in the art and science of war are dangerous tools, without hope they may be wielded by dangerous men. The Republic fell in the small part to this kind of behavior when Caesar and subsequent Emperors provided for the welfare of the Veterans to curry support.

I'm just saying, you know, history is pretty interesting.

Difference is this guy was retired, it was a medicare program that normally gets reimbursed and the state didn't come for the assets during his life time. This goes on with non-vets as well. Its SOP when the state picked up his tab for years before he died.

Now if the voted away his pension and VA benis before he kicked then you would have a case

veteran

lilplatinum:

Thats a lot of money for an entry level job that requires a GED at best, even with hazard pay. Is there an economic advantage to pay grunts that much when you can get some to do it at half price?

You have a point, but what I was getting at is that if you didn't assume that soldiers was a socialized profession, and treated it more like contractor work, then no, that doesn't seem that outrageous.

You're probably right about the amount though, around $40,000-60,000 sounds closer to correct, at least to start. Compared with what you'd have to pay skilled mercenaries, that isn't so unreasonable.

The problem is, in regards to the military, the government wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want to run the military like a socialized service, where everyone gives all the effort they can, and they receive their basic needs in return, but the moment the soldiers leave the service, the government wants to treat them as if they were normal citizens in a capitalist society. They have services and benefits for veterans, of course, but they're never nearly enough, not when you factor in the sacrifice the soldiers have made, for almost nothing in return.

If the government just paid them upfront, with a reasonable wage in exchange for their highly specialized knowledge, personal sacrifices, and tremendous risks they're taking, then treating them like normal citizens when they're old and/or wounded wouldn't seem so bad.

I mean, you don't feel bad for truck drivers that work for the government, do you? There's a lot of risk, and many of them suffer from psychological and physical problems relating to their work, but we all know this, and they're compensated upfront for these risks and sacrifices.

Now imagine truck drivers getting paid nearly nothing, recruited through aggressive and deceptive means, and then abandoned in their old age, leaving them nearly penniless. It'd seem rather ridiculous, wouldn't it?

ANOTHER SIDE NOTE

As someone else mentioned, the problem with Roman soldiers not getting paid, or losing everything when they return home, first happened long before the fall of Rome. That happened near the beginning, when the senate still was in charge, and the result was that the soldiers revolted, and a representative of the people was added to the senate, called the Tribune (I believe, it's a little early in the day to be certain of exact names), with veto power.

The same thing probably happened again later, but as many have mentioned, this wasn't the reason that Rome fell. Overall, it's because the system became so corrupt and bureaucratic that they couldn't raise an effective army, and as a result, German invaders simply washed over the country.

famousp: Medical care is a service which must be paid for with money.

For some reason, when someone receives a large hospital bill for the huge number of complicated procedures performed on their bodies, they throw a fit.

You don't stiff your plumber for fixing your pipes.

You don't stiff your mechanic for fixing your car.

Why stiff your doctor for fixing your body?

olddinosaur: Pretty much hogwash.


If the guy didn't have his stuff in order, it was all his own fault.

citizen905: Mewling liberals, they think someone else should have to pay for their medical care. A veteran is man enough to die for his country when he is young, so he should be willing when he is old and destitute. It's disgraceful that so many of them turn into socialists when they get old.

A human being and his family get wiped out by simply becoming ill and you can even think this sort of shiat?

What the fark is wrong with you people?

Cheesus: I did not know this. I sincerely doubt my grandmother knows this. Well, so much for her house I guess. The hospital sends her bills all the time and she rips them up saying "Medicare is supposed to pay for it all". I'd kill for a $32 bill for a trip to the emergency room.

Move to Canada. I pay $5 in parking for a trip to the emergency room.

Robin_G: A human being and his family get wiped out by simply becoming ill and you can even think this sort of shiat?

What the fark is wrong with you people?

He didn't just become ill. He was injured in a welding accident and was apparently uninsured.

It isn't even close to the same thing.

Cheesus: I did not know this. I sincerely doubt my grandmother knows this. Well, so much for her house I guess. The hospital sends her bills all the time and she rips them up saying "Medicare is supposed to pay for it all". I'd kill for a $32 bill for a trip to the emergency room.

Old people have no concept what the rest of us pay for medical care. My mother went through a stage where she called me every day and criticized me for "not having Blue Cross and Blue Shield" as if I just chose to be uninsured to piss her off. When she became totally debilitated with Alzheimer's, I figured out why she refused to believe what the monthly premiums would be for me.

As part of her retirement package, she gets BCBS for something ridiculous, like $100 a month. At 81. She'd shiat if she knew how much her nursing home costs, and that it's coming out of her bank account because she did not purchase any sort of long term care insurance.

Retirement package? Pension? Might as well say 23 skiddoo to me, it has as much generational relevance.

/off to work

Sorry I assed up the italics.

Robin_G: Cheesus: I did not know this. I sincerely doubt my grandmother knows this. Well, so much for her house I guess. The hospital sends her bills all the time and she rips them up saying "Medicare is supposed to pay for it all". I'd kill for a $32 bill for a trip to the emergency room.

Move to Canada. I pay $5 in parking for a trip and fork over half my paycheckto the emergency room.

FTFY....assuming you earn a paycheck that amounts to anything, of course

Move to Canada. I pay $5 in parking and fork over half my paycheck for a trip to the emergency room.

whoops

jst3p: Robin_G: A human being and his family get wiped out by simply becoming ill and you can even think this sort of shiat?

What the fark is wrong with you people?

He didn't just become ill. He was injured in a welding accident and was apparently uninsured.

It isn't even close to the same thing.

Would it have been any different if he had gotten cancer? No.

Same thing = same thing.

Robin_G: jst3p: Robin_G: A human being and his family get wiped out by simply becoming ill and you can even think this sort of shiat?

What the fark is wrong with you people?

He didn't just become ill. He was injured in a welding accident and was apparently uninsured.

It isn't even close to the same thing.

Would it have been any different if he had gotten cancer? No.

Same thing = same thing.

Did he get cancer?
One situation is 100% avoidable. They aren't the same thing.

Torch the property first.

simpsonfan: Torch the property first.

At least take out all the copper.

japlemon: Robin_G: Cheesus: I did not know this. I sincerely doubt my grandmother knows this. Well, so much for her house I guess. The hospital sends her bills all the time and she rips them up saying "Medicare is supposed to pay for it all". I'd kill for a $32 bill for a trip to the emergency room.

Move to Canada. I pay $5 in parking for a trip and fork over half my paycheckto the emergency room.

FTFY....assuming you earn a paycheck that amounts to anything, of course

Popular myth.

There's a really good article on it here: http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427

Truth is though, I'd happily pay a pretty sizable chunk of (my pretty sizable) paycheck every month to help ensure that everyone in my country has health care. The idea that a person has to pay to be healthy is insane. What's the expression? If you don't have your health you don't have anything? I guess you folks want to make that one a reality.

Sad. Really, really sad.

jst3p: Robin_G: jst3p: Robin_G: A human being and his family get wiped out by simply becoming ill and you can even think this sort of shiat?

What the fark is wrong with you people?

He didn't just become ill. He was injured in a welding accident and was apparently uninsured.

It isn't even close to the same thing.

Would it have been any different if he had gotten cancer? No.

Same thing = same thing.

Did he get cancer?
One situation is 100% avoidable. They aren't the same thing.

I'm not sure you entirely understand the meaning of the word "accident".

Dictionary.com defines it as:

ac⋅ci⋅dent
/ˈæksɪdənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ak-si-duhnt] Show IPA
Use accident in a Sentence
-noun
1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.
2. Law. such a happening resulting in injury that is in no way the fault of the injured person for which compensation or indemnity is legally sought.
3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.

Seems to me that 'accidents' are, by definition, unavoidable.

Now, if the point you are trying to make is that he did something stupid, got hurt and should now pay for it, well, that's something else altogether, but I didn't see anything in the article that suggested he was a screwup, only that he was injured in an explosion. He may not have even been the guy who caused the explosion. Hardly his fault then was it?

famousp
Medical care is a service which must be paid for with money.

For some reason, when someone receives a large hospital bill for the huge number of complicated procedures performed on their bodies, they throw a fit.

You don't stiff your plumber for fixing your pipes.

You don't stiff your mechanic for fixing your car.

Why stiff your doctor for fixing your body?

That is because my plumber and mechanic don't charge me the equivalent of $5 for a single Q-tip or $1000 a day to lay in a bed. If health care was not so over priced, I would not have a problem with paying. But since a single operation can cost more than most people make in a year, sometimes 5 or 10 years, there is a huge problem.

I had the flu (type A) for a couple days, then I got pneumonia. I was sick! Went to the hospital because I could barely breath. Oxygen saturation was 83%, breaths per minute at 100.

They put me in a room, put me on meds, and kept me overnight. I felt like a different person the next day and I go home. They did a great job.

Several weeks later I receive the bill. $4871.00 for a single day in the hospital to fix pneumonia. The health care costs in this country are out of control. I am still paying that damn bill.

Ennuipoet: In Rome, during the late Republic, the Veterans would come home from the wars to find all they had was taken in taxes and sold to the rich. Their lands were tilled by slaves and they were left penniless and broken to fend for themselves as best they could. These men were promised land and rewards for their service and paid with poverty. Men trained by the State in the art and science of war are dangerous tools, without hope they may be wielded by dangerous men. The Republic fell in the small part to this kind of behavior when Caesar and subsequent Emperors provided for the welfare of the Veterans to curry support.

I'm just saying, you know, history is pretty interesting.

I hope you like reruns.

Robin_G: Seems to me that 'accidents' are, by definition, unavoidable.

Now, if the point you are trying to make is that he did something stupid, got hurt and should now pay for it, well, that's something else altogether, but I didn't see anything in the article that suggested he was a screwup, only that he was injured in an explosion. He may not have even been the guy who caused the explosion. Hardly his fault then was it?


If he were not the guy who caused the explosion then sure I will concede your point. But I find that to be a stretch.

If he were welding in his garage and had no insurance, then the situation was in fact avoidable.

I can not say with 100% certainty that I will not be involved in an accident today. I can say with 100% certainty that I will not be involved in a hang-gliding accident while not insured.

jst3p: If he were not the guy who caused the explosion then sure I will concede your point. But I find that to be a stretch.

I'm not sure why you find that to be a stretch, but I think we could agree that not all accidents are the cause, directly or indirectly, of the person who was in them. Certainly very, very few cases of disease are the direct cause of the person who gets sick. Yet, if the person who is injured or sick is unable to afford appropriate coverage, he may well be faced with the possibility that he cannot afford to fix whatever health problem he is now afflicted with. Despite the fact that he did nothing whatsoever to cause his current condition he now faces death, suffering, or at the very least, bankruptcy.

So, the question remains. Why on Earth would you turn a blind eye to people who have, through no fault of their own, been less fortunate than you - to the extent that they will die, or have the quality of their lives severely diminished, when you could contribute a modest amount of your paycheck to help ensure it doesn't happen like that?

(The question is, of course, rhetorical. We both know why some people don't want to pay for those less fortunate to have health care.)

Robin_G: (The question is, of course, rhetorical. We both know why some people don't want to pay for those less fortunate to have health care.)

If only people who were less fortunate than I lacked health care you would have a point. There are a great many people who find themselves in this situation and know the steps that need to be taken in order to remedy this. I used to be one of them. I don't owe my position today to luck.

And "bankruptcy" is really not that bad of a way out for someone who is pretty low on the economic ladder to begin with, in fact it is a pretty good safety net.

jst3p: Robin_G: (The question is, of course, rhetorical. We both know why some people don't want to pay for those less fortunate to have health care.)

If only people who were less fortunate than I lacked health care you would have a point. There are a great many people who find themselves in this situation and know the steps that need to be taken in order to remedy this. I used to be one of them. I don't owe my position today to luck.

And "bankruptcy" is really not that bad of a way out for someone who is pretty low on the economic ladder to begin with, in fact it is a pretty good safety net.

I'm sorry, but I think that's a pretty naive statement on both parts. Yes, there are people who deliberately don't take the proper steps to remedy their situation. But a good number simply can't. I would say that most who are not covered simply can't afford it. (Perhaps that's naive on my part, but that's how I see it). I'll skip the luck bit. Luck always plays a part - but let's not go there.

As to bankruptcy being a good option, I think you may be referring to a time in the recent past when such things didn't mean much. Personally, I wouldn't want to be in this economy with a bankruptcy on my credit report. And that's for a relatively young person.

Can you imagine, you are 53, recently 'downsized', under insured and get cancer? You're screwed. You get the treatments you have to by selling everything you have, including your home. Six months later, you're healthy again, but still owe a quarter million. You declare bankruptcy and start over. At 53.

Can this end any way other than 'work until you die, you unlucky bastard'. (Sure it can, but is it likely to? No.)

And this doesn't even touch the screwing around insurance companies do to try to cheat their claimants out of what they have paid for.

I guess I look at it this way. Moving past the idea of should taxpayers be responsible for each others' health, I am more concerned about a system that seeks to profit from the health care system. Insurance companies are there to make money. Nothing else. If they don't, they do something to make sure that they do. That thought alone should be enough to scare you silly. :)

I busted my ass my entire life trying hard in school, reading, studying, etc etc etc.

I didn't party hard, I didn't fark around, and I spent my youth trying to work towards greatness.

The government gives some hick a gun, tells him to pull the trigger, and he's supposed to be taken care of for life?fark that shiat!

Soldiers are peons.

People who cure cancer are heroes.




Good for you that you studied. You aren't great, though. Great people don't call themselves great. Great people have humility, along with whatever else they have that makes them great.

"Not partying" does not equal "good person."

Not all soldiers are hicks. Some are, but not everyone who works hard and studies is smart, either.

Him pulling a trigger has nothing to do with what benefits he's entitled to.



Just because you don't like something, it doesn't make it wrong.

But you're probably trolling, so it doesn't really matter.

Tommy Moo: onebadgungan: Either you're a troll or an ignorant farktard.

God you are a lazy fark. I at least presented a case. You're the troll. You can't just walk by and snipe someone. Make an argument, dumbass.

OK.

I was in the military. Yes, much of what they do there is make-work. But it is to keep combat-ready.

They don't get paid that much until much later in their careers. The medical care is not too good if you have anything worse than a hangnail, and the benefits barely pay for a decent college education. You have to buy your own uniforms and work clothes, like everywhere else. It's not welfare, it's a job, a low-paying one, and until garbage collectors are killed at a rate equaling soldiers it's a much more dangerous job than almost anything, barring fireman and cops.

So, as I said before, you are either a troll or an ignorant ass.

Robin_G: Can you imagine, you are 53, recently 'downsized', under insured and get cancer? You're screwed. You get the treatments you have to by selling everything you have, including your home. Six months later, you're healthy again, but still owe a quarter million. You declare bankruptcy and start over. At 53.

If you aren't in good enough shape to handle a bankruptcy at 53 you have already failed.

I support Vetrans.

1: VA care for service related injury or illness.

2: reduced income tax rates equal to the years of service

3: reduced fees for school

4: reduced property taxes equal to the years of service

5: if you die in combat your spouse pays no taxes ... ever

jst3p: Robin_G: Can you imagine, you are 53, recently 'downsized', under insured and get cancer? You're screwed. You get the treatments you have to by selling everything you have, including your home. Six months later, you're healthy again, but still owe a quarter million. You declare bankruptcy and start over. At 53.

If you aren't in good enough shape to handle a bankruptcy at 53 you have already failed.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Whatever financial shape you were in before you got sick and declared bankruptcy is pretty meaningless. Come out the other side, you've got nothing. No savings, no home, no credit.

So now, at 53, you're looking at living in an apartment (can't get a mortgage) and starting with zero savings toward retirement. If you're lucky you still have a job to go back to now that you are healthy again.

And 12 years left until (normal age) retirement. I would suggest that most people would have no hope to save up enough for retirement in twelve years. And let's not forget, in most cases we're not talking about people who earn $100K a year. We're talking about normal folks earning an average wage.

Maybe I've missed something here, but what would you do to prepare for a bankruptcy? (Keep it legal and without the use of a crystal ball please...) :)

Robin_G: jst3p: Robin_G: Can you imagine, you are 53, recently 'downsized', under insured and get cancer? You're screwed. You get the treatments you have to by selling everything you have, including your home. Six months later, you're healthy again, but still owe a quarter million. You declare bankruptcy and start over. At 53.

If you aren't in good enough shape to handle a bankruptcy at 53 you have already failed.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Whatever financial shape you were in before you got sick and declared bankruptcy is pretty meaningless. Come out the other side, you've got nothing. No savings, no home, no credit.

So now, at 53, you're looking at living in an apartment (can't get a mortgage) and starting with zero savings toward retirement. If you're lucky you still have a job to go back to now that you are healthy again.

And 12 years left until (normal age) retirement. I would suggest that most people would have no hope to save up enough for retirement in twelve years. And let's not forget, in most cases we're not talking about people who earn $100K a year. We're talking about normal folks earning an average wage.

Maybe I've missed something here, but what would you do to prepare for a bankruptcy? (Keep it legal and without the use of a crystal ball please...) :)

Perhaps I am wrong but I am pretty sure you can protect a house, a car and some amount of other assets in bankruptcy. Declaring bankruptcy does not leave you destitute, unless you were destitute before.

jst3p: Perhaps I am wrong but I am pretty sure you can protect a house, a car and some amount of other assets in bankruptcy. Declaring bankruptcy does not leave you destitute, unless you were destitute before.

Ah, but we're not talking about bankruptcy due to outstanding bills. We're talking about a special kind of fun. Illness that leads to bankruptcy.

Most hospitals now want a good part of the money up front for treatment. If you don't have it, you don't get treated. To that end, many people with expensive illnesses end up selling the house, car and anything else they own in order to get treated. If they're lucky, the illness is cured before they run out of money and/or stuff to sell. If not, then they declare bankruptcy.

Under normal circumstances, you'd be right. You can often protect your home and a car when you file bankruptcy, but with an illness or injury bankruptcy, you tend not to have those things anymore at the time of filing.

It's just a horrible mess when this happens to someone and if you are without insurance, or under insured, you're pretty screwed. I'm not even sure that people who are in the insurance industry or are 'Con socialized medicine' would argue that one. I think the big argument is whether or not you should have to pick up the tab for your neighbour's hardship if he gets sick or hurt. I say yes, the 'Con' folks say no.

onebadgungan: Tommy Moo: onebadgungan: Either you're a troll or an ignorant farktard.

God you are a lazy fark. I at least presented a case. You're the troll. You can't just walk by and snipe someone. Make an argument, dumbass.

OK.

I was in the military. Yes, much of what they do there is make-work. But it is to keep combat-ready.

They don't get paid that much until much later in their careers. The medical care is not too good if you have anything worse than a hangnail, and the benefits barely pay for a decent college education. You have to buy your own uniforms and work clothes, like everywhere else. It's not welfare, it's a job, a low-paying one, and until garbage collectors are killed at a rate equaling soldiers it's a much more dangerous job than almost anything, barring fireman and cops.

So, as I said before, you are either a troll or an ignorant ass.

Or wants you benefits or is pissed off that the slice of the pie he is getting isn't bigger because you are getting yours. Count noses there are more and more like him. Eventually he'll be in the majority and then it gets interesting. Voters cutting veterans off vs pissed off vets with guns I wonder how that is going to turn out.

veteran former enlisted trigger man. And yes I have a degree and a job. Got out & got mine before it gets voted away.

Robin_G: It's just a horrible mess when this happens to someone and if you are without insurance, or under insured, you're pretty screwed. I'm not even sure that people who are in the insurance industry or are 'Con socialized medicine' would argue that one. I think the big argument is whether or not you should have to pick up the tab for your neighbour's hardship if he gets sick or hurt. I say yes, the 'Con' folks say no.


I agree we are talking about different scenarios but even in today's system we all pay for our neighbour's hardships.

jst3p: I agree we are talking about different scenarios but even in today's system we all pay for our neighbour's hardships

Agreed.

But in this case, it seems as though the system in Canada (and other socialized health care countries) works to a reasonable degree, but in the US it seems broken. It could only seem that way, but when I hear stories about people losing their homes because they got cancer or had a heart attack, I can't help but see it as broken.

japlemon: Move to Canada. I pay $5 in parking and fork over half my paycheck for a trip to the emergency room.

Wow, really? Sounds like a good deal to me. I mean, right now I fork over around 35% and get nothing.

Robin_G: jst3p: I agree we are talking about different scenarios but even in today's system we all pay for our neighbour's hardships

Agreed.

But in this case, it seems as though the system in Canada (and other socialized health care countries) works to a reasonable degree, but in the US it seems broken. It could only seem that way, but when I hear stories about people losing their homes because they got cancer or had a heart attack, I can't help but see it as broken.

I am no expert and I honestly don't have a side in the nationalized healthcare debate (I am waiting till I know more before making a stand) and while I see the merit in your arguments it just seems to me that the system in Canada can be considered broken as well, just in vastly different ways. The more I read about it the more I am convinced that there is no right answer. Like so many controversial issues if there were a silver bullet we would have found it by now.

jst3p: I am no expert and I honestly don't have a side in the nationalized healthcare debate (I am waiting till I know more before making a stand) and while I see the merit in your arguments it just seems to me that the system in Canada can be considered broken as well, just in vastly different ways. The more I read about it the more I am convinced that there is no right answer. Like so many controversial issues if there were a silver bullet we would have found it by now.

But someone has to find it first, don't they? Often times the US is the leader in new technology or methods of government. Maybe this time Canada/UK has found it first, and the US must play catch up this time? :)

Kidding aside, I'm sure both systems have room for improvement. And you're likely right, until we achieve some sort of ideal world where everything is free and beer flows like water from the faucet, there probably won't be a silver bullet.

That said, I've experienced the Canadian health care system first hand (more than once) and I'm pretty happy with it. And money didn't play a part in it at all. Now. How many things can you say that about? :)

onebadgungan: Tommy Moo: onebadgungan: Either you're a troll or an ignorant farktard.

God you are a lazy fark. I at least presented a case. You're the troll. You can't just walk by and snipe someone. Make an argument, dumbass.

OK.

I was in the military. Yes, much of what they do there is make-work. But it is to keep combat-ready.

They don't get paid that much until much later in their careers. The medical care is not too good if you have anything worse than a hangnail, and the benefits barely pay for a decent college education. You have to buy your own uniforms and work clothes, like everywhere else. It's not welfare, it's a job, a low-paying one, and until garbage collectors are killed at a rate equaling soldiers it's a much more dangerous job than almost anything, barring fireman and cops.

So, as I said before, you are either a troll or an ignorant ass.


And you're either a liar, or ... a liar.

Check your LES sometime, champ. At the time I retired, we were paid over $900 a year in uniform allowance.

At the time I retired as an E-8 (over 24), I made in excess of $72,000 a year, of which over $30,000 was tax-free (BAS, BAH, Etc.) Get sent to the desert and it's all tax free, even if you're in Qatar or Kuwait, where the most dangerous thing that's likely to happen is missing a stroke in your bunk.

If by "Barely paid for a decent college education" you mean they pay for 100% of your tuition while on active duty, then I guess you're right. Once you seperate, the Post 9/11 GI Bill pays 100% of your tuition, plus $1000 a year for books, plus a $1200/month housing allowance. Yeah, our education benefits suck.

Don't get me wrong. I support veteran's rights, and think the VA is doing a disservice to many with combat-related issues. But to see some jackass outright lie about the state of affairs in the military does no one any good.

I'm sure you're just a troll, and I bit the hook. If you really are, or were in uniform, please go fark yourself. Being a goddamn liar reflects poorly on yourself, and your service.

japlemon: Move to Canada. I pay $5 in parking and fork over half my paycheck for a trip to the emergency room.

The per-capita healthcare spending by the Canadian government is less than the per-capita healthcare spending of the US government (source). This counts federal, state/provincial, and local levels.

And Canada manages to cover 70% of total healthcare expenses with that money, while the US covers 45%.

If you don't have regular health insurance, and your health problems are not related to war injuries, I have no problem with the gov't billing your estate upon your death. In this case, the injury was a welding accident, I assume caused by a lack of proper safety precautions by the vet in question, so my sympathy meter is reading neutral. It's not like his legs got blown off by an IED or something.

j0ndas: If you don't have regular health insurance, and your health problems are not related to war injuries, I have no problem with the gov't billing your estate upon your death. In this case, the injury was a welding accident, I assume caused by a lack of proper safety precautions by the vet in question, so my sympathy meter is reading neutral. It's not like his legs got blown off by an IED or something.

Yeah. This is the kind of depraved indifference to human life that makes me want to puke.