Bluedogs

Talk about recent Raine Dog comics.
User avatar
Foxchild
Posts:2334
Joined:Thu Oct 16, 2003 4:09 pm
Location:Herndon, VA - USA

Postby Foxchild » Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:28 am

If I may;

don't you dare pantsless say I don't understand that predicament, and you don't dare say that I'm accusing you or your family of being complacent with simply just accepting a position with inadequate health insurance. I have dealt with such for quite a long while.

BUT take a look at the public health care in Canada. I have a friend who, ON THE JOB, broke his arm in a COMPLEX FRACTURE. Those who don't know what that means, in laymen terms is NOT HAPPY.

He proceeded to wait in the E.R. for 9 hours only to be told that HE HAD TO SEE HIS LOCAL PHYSICIAN, meaning, over 10 hours was spent durning a CRUCIAL TIME FOR FRACTURE HEALING to be told that he was WAISTING HIS TIME because the GENERAL HEALTH CARE COULD NOT PROVIDE SUCH SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC!!!!!!!!

Pardon me, but WHAT THE F***!!!

Aside from that, I never said that insufficient coverage was the fault of the individual, but COMPLACENCY WITH SAID COVERAGE, frankly, IS. You want the truth, Complacency in general irks me. The entire idea of being happy where you are while your family is inconvenienced, OR WORSE, is unfathomable to me. Hence, despite poor pay and poorer coverage, I seek to help my extended family beyond what my coverage entails with MY PERSONAL MONEY.


BUT

I already pay over %40 in taxes to state, federal, and local government, plus the added SS, and Medicare/Medicade funds. I should be making more thatn $2000 a paycheck, yet I am BARELY ABLE TO COVER THE BILLS. NOBODY can tell me that a government run health care system will be more efficient than a private run system. I work in the government, I see, from the inside, where things pants UP.

What I have merely pointed out is that in each situation, there is a CLEAR WAY OUT. It is at points more difficult than it should be, however, IT EXISTS in even this current incarnation!

What I hate most, above ALL else, is when someone tries to claim that they 'DESERVE' something from NOTHING that took me YEARS to earn, though works, deeds, trust, and logic, that WITHOUT such, I would be a worse off person, and expect to receive it without one iota of effort towards such admirable goals.

___________________________________________________________

As Dr. Dos points out, there is no reason to deny someone access to NEEDED health care. Frankly, if I had the finances to fund a case-by-case "loan" for necessary health care, funded by ads and grants from supporting corporations and organizations, I would, in a heart beat, and advertise over the entire god damned internet. But I am without funds to finance such an organization. Yet, hospitals are willing to negotiate both price and payment plans for major events beyond an individuals capabilities (it is in their interest to garner some money over none and expend court costs to gain nothing). If a surgery is needed or anything along those lines, I've yet to run across a hospital that won't work something out.

Regardless, I won't deny our current system couldn't use some revamping. What I will say is that government run health care is the wrong idea. We will wind up with even worse care, paying for people abusing the system, and end up worse for the wear from this proposed system. I can get access to the proposed system if requested, it's not "restricted" knowledge, though it's being treated as such.
If you've done things right, people won't be sure if you've done anything at all.

User avatar
MuffinSticks
Posts:2865
Joined:Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:16 am
Location:Vancouver, Washington

Postby MuffinSticks » Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:58 am

ARGH 0_0
КТО ТРОГАЛ МОЯ ПУШКА

<Muninn> Too furry for saneville, too girly for boystown
see, how far raine dog got placed in the background? take that you blue bitch

User avatar
nickspoon
Moderator (retired)
Posts:4057
Joined:Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:22 pm
Location:Essex, UK
Contact:

Postby nickspoon » Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:33 pm

The majority of European countries have compulsory medical insurance, which is essentially funded by taxation. Your contribution to the healthcare fund is determined by your income, and your actual healthcare needs are provided by private institutions which are funded by the government. In countries where there are private healthcare insurers (e.g. the Netherlands), it is illegal to refuse anyone healthcare insurance on any grounds, and premiums are fixed at the same price for everyone.

This seems to work extremely well. Even in the UK, where we have a government-run health service, the overall standard of healthcare is very high, and nobody is excluded from that. Despite all the horror stories the Daily Mail loves so much, for most people the NHS is a good, fair system.
If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. (Revelation 2:5, NIV)
Josh Woodward, Ohio Singer/Songwriter, offers his songs for free. Give him a listen.

User avatar
Bocaj Claw
Posts:8523
Joined:Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:31 am
Location:Not Stetson University
Contact:

Postby Bocaj Claw » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:59 am

I can't help but notice that all the politicians saying that government run health care would be terrible don't seem to have given up their government provided health benefits.

Also, dolphins apparently symbolize California.
That which does not kill me, cripples me for life.

Image

My deviantART account

User avatar
Feefers
Posts:120
Joined:Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:13 am
Location:Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Contact:

Postby Feefers » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:32 pm

He proceeded to wait in the E.R. for 9 hours only to be told that HE HAD TO SEE HIS LOCAL PHYSICIAN, meaning, over 10 hours was spent durning a CRUCIAL TIME FOR FRACTURE HEALING to be told that he was WAISTING HIS TIME because the GENERAL HEALTH CARE COULD NOT PROVIDE SUCH SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC!!!!!!!!
Was he in a critical state of injury?

Was he at risk of death?

Did he visit at a "high traffic" time because if you visit Canada or the UK, don't get hurt on a Saturday evening, E.R becomes really busy with idiots.

Fact is he doesn't know (or you don't include) what else was happening during those 10 hours, if the E.R looked quiet it was probably because all the doctors were working really hard on stopping people from getting dead.

You won't get dead from a fractured hand, it'll hurt a whole lot sure but ultimately it's not permanent, not fatal and the only thing E.R will do about it is maybe give you some drugs if you scream loud enogth.

I personally have no problem in paying quite high taxes for a nationalised health serivce, I have no qualms about funding treatment for people that can't afford it, I have no issues that the money i'm giving the goverment might be saving lives.

So why do you have an issue with that?

User avatar
sad jazz cantaloupe
Posts:666
Joined:Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:41 pm

Postby sad jazz cantaloupe » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:08 pm

lol at people who take life too seriously


Nickspoon, the reason why even liberal progressives in the USA don't approve of the health care bill that's trying to get passed, is because it's definitely not following the methods that other countries with social health care use, even though if you examine them, you see that they actually work.
Apologies to everyone. Except Fritz.
First of all, Fritz, do yourself a favor and research your own answers before you post.

Dr. Dos
Posts:1329
Joined:Fri Oct 31, 2003 11:14 pm
Location:Scabsboro
Contact:

Postby Dr. Dos » Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:40 am

I already pay over %40 in taxes to state, federal, and local government, plus the added SS, and Medicare/Medicade funds. I should be making more thatn $2000 a paycheck, yet I am BARELY ABLE TO COVER THE BILLS.
Pro tip: Income tax is progressive so people who are paying 39% in taxes still have less money than you!

You are still making more than $1000/week. Maybe you should bootstrap yourself up a bit and learn how to manage your money.
Anami: Sex with a giant, black scorpion seems fun.

<SteveThePocket> Geez. I want more of this stuff now. Now I know how a horny guy on an imageboard feels.

User avatar
sad jazz cantaloupe
Posts:666
Joined:Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:41 pm

Postby sad jazz cantaloupe » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:16 am

I had to junk my old Amiga because I broke the bootstrap loader T_T
Apologies to everyone. Except Fritz.
First of all, Fritz, do yourself a favor and research your own answers before you post.

User avatar
Foxchild
Posts:2334
Joined:Thu Oct 16, 2003 4:09 pm
Location:Herndon, VA - USA

Postby Foxchild » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:09 pm

Pro tip: Income tax is progressive so people who are paying 39% in taxes still have less money than you!

You are still making more than $1000/week. Maybe you should bootstrap yourself up a bit and learn how to manage your money.
Eeeehhh.. I've actually had an instance where OT brought my paychecks above a certain income level, therefore I was taxed higher, and my paycheck wound up becoming smaller than it was previously (it was maybe 3 hours of OT and my wages were borderline at the time). If I made the extra $50-$60 bucks a paycheck, though, it would still have been consistently lower.

In these cases, I got the money back at the end of the tax year, but in the interim, I did not. If I had been making that little bit more consistently, as I said earlier..

Personally, I wish we could find a way to have a flat rate tax across all levels, though that is definitely an "ideal, and not wholly achievable, though it is frankly the most fair(assuming, of course, a minimum income level to be taxed in general).
If you've done things right, people won't be sure if you've done anything at all.

User avatar
sad jazz cantaloupe
Posts:666
Joined:Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:41 pm

Postby sad jazz cantaloupe » Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:43 pm

I don't think it's fair to not tax rich people at excessively high rates. In fact, I think that we should start doing that.
Apologies to everyone. Except Fritz.
First of all, Fritz, do yourself a favor and research your own answers before you post.

User avatar
Foxchild
Posts:2334
Joined:Thu Oct 16, 2003 4:09 pm
Location:Herndon, VA - USA

Postby Foxchild » Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:54 pm

I don't think it's fair to not tax rich people at excessively high rates. In fact, I think that we should start doing that.
while I look up the rates at which they are already taxed, 1st, what do you qualify as excessively rich? Obama qualifies it as a household income over 100k/year. Secondly, why do you feel that the rich should be taxed extra? (looking for serious response, not attacking)

*(EDIT: in 2008, if you had a salary of $357,700.00, you would only net $128,713.25 before state and local taxes, meaning a federal tax rate of %64 and are then still subject to further taxing by your state. If you only made $357,699, you net $199,606. Looking at that.... tiered taxing is silly.)*
If you've done things right, people won't be sure if you've done anything at all.

User avatar
nickspoon
Moderator (retired)
Posts:4057
Joined:Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:22 pm
Location:Essex, UK
Contact:

Postby nickspoon » Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:36 pm

Poorer people require a greater proportion of their income than the rich do to survive. It is better, I would think, that one CEO cannot afford a second yacht than a hundred cashiers being unable to afford their rent. It makes sense that, if you need $x, you take as much as you can from those for whom 50% of income is disposable, rather than from those for whom 10% is. And $100k a year is most certainly a high income.

(And yes, fringe cases are quite silly, but that can be worked around by not paying your employees slightly above the boundary.)
If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. (Revelation 2:5, NIV)
Josh Woodward, Ohio Singer/Songwriter, offers his songs for free. Give him a listen.

User avatar
Foxchild
Posts:2334
Joined:Thu Oct 16, 2003 4:09 pm
Location:Herndon, VA - USA

Postby Foxchild » Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:40 pm

But I'm betting you'd be irked if someone whos making "10,000" less than you actually nets "70,000" more. Likely, that also means you've been doing your job in a career setting for a -very- long time. Likely, also, you're very good at what you do. You should go out and earn as much as you can, strive for better, in everything. I just loathe seeing things that are put in place, mandatory by the government, that promote an individual settling for complacency rather than excellence.
If you've done things right, people won't be sure if you've done anything at all.

User avatar
sad jazz cantaloupe
Posts:666
Joined:Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:41 pm

Postby sad jazz cantaloupe » Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:36 pm

Foxchild, just because you don't want middle class people that are on the edge of rich people to get taxed, doesn't mean that rich people AREN'T assholes and deserve to get their hard-earned sweatshop money taken away from them to be handed out in briefcases to homeless people.
Apologies to everyone. Except Fritz.
First of all, Fritz, do yourself a favor and research your own answers before you post.

Marc Jacobs

Postby Marc Jacobs » Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:33 pm

*(EDIT: in 2008, if you had a salary of $357,700.00, you would only net $128,713.25 before state and local taxes, meaning a federal tax rate of %64
I dunno what planet you're living on because the that's way impossible considering the top tax bracket is only 35 percent


Return to “Raine Dog Strips”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests