So What if an MRI Takes Longer in Canada?

Ah, sweet jeezus. He actually pulled an "Oh yeah? Well I'm more popular than you and my mom says I'm handsome!"

It may not be literal, but you're using it to make a literal argument. "This is what's going to happen - I just know it!!1!! It hasn't happened anywhere else, but I have so little faith in Americans that I just know we're going to fuck it up worse than any other extant system!!1"

Guess you still don't get that part, do you?

Because that's not what it means.

The part where that government is promising to fix itself? Yeah, I "get" it, but leaps of faith are not my department.

Oh, really? Care to nail down exactly where I go wrong with it?

All you've been doing here is leaping. "Something bad's gonna happen; I just know it!"

Because that's not what it means.[/QUOTE]

You're so good at imagining: What effect do you suppose posting the information about lag-times on a public website might have?

Giving the captive "customer base" something more specific to complain about while their benevolent overlords string them along with promises of new regs and resolutions that never quite materialize.

Despite the fact that the majority of Canadians (ditto Australians) are happy with the status quo, there is a way to change it: It's called voting.

If voting fixed anything, it would be illegal. I am not placated by replacing "Generic Scumbag A" with "Generic Scumbag B," but your mileage may vary.

Nice twist, but no. It actually had to do with earning the respect of people through being a good neighbour and getting involved in the community. Popularity doesn't enter into it. Trust and character, however...
I'm guessing you wouldn't be able to comprehend that?

Also guessing your mom thinks you're a douche. What, with that time you ratted her out for your stash and all...

Erm...you just proved that you brought it up...not me...like I said.

Whatever you say garamet.

Okay Sandbagger.

Is this one of those different reporting standards?

(Now let's see how many insults he can throw into the response without addressing the actual topic while attempting to ?)

No, that would be a tuberculosis outbreak originating with a bunch of homeless people they couldn't keep on their full series of meds. Not sure what it is you're thinking I should answer for in that.

You can just watch your insurer refuse to pay for your meds, cap your hospital costs, and raise your [employer's] premiums after one of them coughs on you and you develop symptoms. And since you'll have to be quarantined until the active phase is over, your fellow citizens will eat the hundreds of thousands of dollars you'll incur.

You'd rather be that kind of leech than allow for a public prevention program.

So you know for a fact that all of that will happen, do you?

Funny how you you compartmentalize a raise in premiums from Obamacare when it suits you.

I know for a fact that bacteria are no respecters of persons, and TB in particular has mutated into a very nasty drug-resistant strain.

Funny how you missed the part about your employer. Unless you're saying you work for Obama.

That said, you've inadvertently raised an interesting point, because once the full legislation is in place, your employer's insurer will no longer be able to raise rates arbitrarily.

Better avoid homeless people between now and then, though.

Because a smart person would think "Isn't there a more cost-effective method to control the spread of disease?"

But not you.

What I'm saying, and what you are already fully aware of, is that Obamacare will drive up my premiums, but somehow that's not a legitimate complaint in the "tuberculosis" argument.

Yes, you're the first person who has ever asked me anything like that, and it's the first time you have asked it of me.

Again, health insurers have been raising premiums again and again and again for decades. A fact of which you've been blissfully unaware because your employer has been carrying you. The only time you came out of your spliff-and-booze-induced fog to say was when you first heard the term "Obamacare."

Because the answer is: Prevention.

And your answer to that is "Not on my dime!"

Since that's your answer to most things, there's no point in asking you.

You mean they've been compensating me for my work. An exchange of actual value, rather than just handing me free shit because I exist. I know the distinction isn't convenient for you, but that doesn't negate it.

I'll deal with my own problems, and you attend to yours. See how that works? I doubt it.

Now you're just being coy... I knew there was a reason you cropped quotes.

Tell that to the mycobacteria.

Tax free, huh?

Still using the UHC, huh?

How can you call others "leeches" with a straight face?

This thread is quite amusing.

because I dont have to report it next year, and with the tax credits and short reporting year, I'll still wind up with a return?

Well, that and I'm still paying various consumption taxes, local rates via rent, etc. I've had a checkup in the last 3 mos, nothing pressing because of regular, preventative maintenance. I hear the Dr gets about $125 for my 15-30 minutes.

How much has the fed gov paid the union to pay the private,for profit insurer to pay the private,for profit hospital for you this year?

UA has it wrong. They're not Hondas. They're Yugos.

The Union doesn't pay for our health insurance, the company does. We pay our co-pays and my husband earns our benefits so I don't see what you're trying to pull here.

You were the one who claimed tax-free employment and can't blame me for how it sounded...especially considering all the time you spend ragging on UA.

Yeah dude, tax-free employment sounds fishy unless you explain it. Most people can't get tax-free employment.

It is a great example of how the healthcare debate goes in the US, and in Canada too most times.

Fucking hysterical. And sad.

It's easy. Claim exempt from withholding on your W-4 and then bounce from job to job before the government starts ordering your employer to garnish your wages.