Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Are there resources for the extremely poor to get those? Not trying to sound like a bleeding heart lib (can't stand entitlement culture) but it just seems like it could limit some people to always being ill. Am I missing something here? Not that familiar with your system. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Some people are just going to be piss poor even if they are working. What if they need insulin? What if there is an injury that requires therapy? Schizophrenia medicine? Are there not societal benefits to be derived from providing long term care? Again, the problem up here in Canada doesn't seem to be the long term care so much as the abuse (needless visits) and expectations of the kinds of things to be covered (neccessities vs niceties) My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

No. People being put in harms way on our behalf should have some spiritual comfort provided. You have hit me with a question here that is hard to specify a complete answer for since our soldiers do come from various religions and all deserve the same support. We may not be able to afford padres of all religions but I would suspect that we would need to ensure they are versed in all religions and open minded enough to provide neccessary religious support in any religion. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

"They" are the ones you refer to when you said "All I see is people who've accepted one form of government handout claiming that it's a handout when they got it, and it's a handout when someone less fortunate than themselves gets it, and that they don't want another form of government handout for themselves or for someone else." It seems implied that they agree with a service if it is one that they used. It implies to some extent that there is need. I don't. I was making a point which is that we cannot treat the issue of health care on the basis of whether or not "you" can afford it. It is a debate that can have societal ramifications. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

i am OK with that. No more chapels in the prison system. The bible shall be available in the prison library on the same rotational availability as witchcraft tomes. The crown shall cease supplying salary for chaplains/imams/rabbis. Precisely. If the catholic church wants to spread the word to convicts they are free to drop in and hand them out. I should not have to pay for it. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

So if they needed the handout then it is a valid handout and they accept others getting it but if they did not need it then it shouldn't happen? It has nothing to do with need. It has everything to do with where to draw the line and why. Right, and by your own wording they seem to be drawing the line at whether or not they used it (and thus needed it). Who decides where the line is drawn? Maybe if I am rich and can afford to send my kids to private school I can say that public school is not needed My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

People do not require artifacts to practice their religion. Otherwise catholics stranded on a desert island without a crucifix will go to hell. We do not need to fund/subsidize a convicts religion. His right, his problem. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

So if they needed the handout then it is a valid handout and they accept others getting it but if they did not need it then it shouldn't happen? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I was going for my B Cop when I went back to school and had to drop out of the sport temporarily. I intend to get back in. Anyway I can respect the view that ex-jumpers (like myself) may not have a valid reason for being here and that I guess is up to the moderators as to whether or not site access should be restricted to those who have current CSPA/USPA membership. The site is good for newbies or wannabes to learn something about the sport so you are hurting them by doing that but troll control might be more effective with limits. CSpenceFly did make a valid observation about ex jumpers giving advice in the skydive forums but again that is something that can be controlled simply by having other members tear the ass off of anyone giving advice they are not qualified to give (You can be the enforcer CSpenceFly). I like this sight but in fairness I mostly stick to SC and bonfire with little interaction in the skydive forums unless someone starts talking about making AAD's mandatory in which case I go thermonuclear. That's my 2 cents, but I abstained from voting because in fairness the actual current jumpers should be the ones deciding that. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I agree entirely, but I also think there should be some clause taht allows for a landed immigrant who has citizenship to have that citizenship revoked if they are not in compliance with certain implicit expectations (like living in Canada and/or doing their best to contribute), or if they are acting in a manner that clearly shows a conflict of interest. But yes tighter controls in the first place would be easier. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Well this is speakers corner after all My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Our personal healthcare decisions should be between us as individuals and our chosen health professionals, not politicians or gov't bureaucrats and regulators hamhandedly trying to 'control abuse', whatever that means. And you are free to do that if you seek private health insurance. Those who take the government version accept whatever rules apply to them. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Yeah, but, ya know -- I can really understand being irritated at someone who wants a pregnancy test done at the ER because that way they don't have to pay the $15. Then put restrictions on what is covered and how the service can be used. Health care does not have to be abused. You can have government run health care while controlling abuse. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Alternately some may argue that health care coverage may be something that could naturally be best served as a publicly run monopoly. If you want to avoid the abuse then put restrictions on how it is used. Nothing stopping people from buying private health care above and beyond. We have public and private schools. Society just needs the balls to know where to draw the line on how something is used (at the risk of incurring special interest backlash) rather than not have it because there is a slippery slope to abuse. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.