Why didn't they tell us that before

Never had an ambuance Bill but it would not shock me if it was $1,000.

Edit: google says if it's not paid by city taxes it can range from 400 to 1200 plus milage.
 
The front of my bike fell off once and my face hit some asphalt and I blacked out. An ambulance was called and I woke up in the hospital with a bandaged up bloody face a whole bunch of hours later, opening my eyes to smiling family members and a nurse.

It was a crazy experience and I had to take off a month from work because my brain just couldn't function, I was always getting tired. I almost got fired but was eventually able to return to work and resume my duties and all was good..

So anyway, a couple weeks later I got a bill in the mail for $40 for the ambulance that took me to the hospital. I have never seen this ambulance in my life and I never asked for it, and so I marched down to the hospital and was like "wtf, $40 for an ambulance ride?"

If only I had known that there was an automatic $40 ambulance fee I would have never been riding my bike and potentially getting injured


When I got an ambulance ride, it was $600.
 
Did they lock up all the German-Canadians in WWII? If so, that's been kept out of the history books, and doesn't mesh with things my grandfather told me.

I'm trying, and failing, to think of any possible reason Canada and Ireland could have to be at war.


The first camps were created to lock up some 358 individuals of questionable loyalty living in Canada and rounded up by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police soon after war was declared in 1939. But as the invasion of Britain loomed in June 1940, the Churchill government asked Canada to accept 7,000 enemy aliens and PoWs from British camps. That was followed by a thousand Luftwaffe PoWs in January 1941 and several thousand soldiers captured in the North Africa campaign.

https://legionmagazine.com/en/2012/03/the-happiest-prisoners/

So Canada locked up at least some German residents of Canada at the start of WWII. Didn't treat them badly, comparatively. But still.
 
The ambulance ride after my car accident a few years ago was $1100, and that's in Canada. Happily though, my insurance covered it. Here, if they come and get you from your house, the ride is free, but from elsewhere there is a charge.
 
I thought Canada had the "death panels" socialised medicine model?
 
What's a "death panel?"
 
Oh yes, then they rightfully do now, since Parliament has come to its senses.
 
What's a "death panel?"

Death panels are a form of triage where a group of doctors pick and choose who gets life saving medical procedures based mostly on cost vs. number of years a life can be extended.
This is a great way to save money, but is considered somewhat immoral unless the doctors' goal is to prevent prolonged suffering and not just save $$$.
Christians are not allowed to self terminate, and doctors hate watching people suffer pointlessly for years, so this is kind of a gray area.

A true death panel is a group of shadowy bureaucrats who decide which people will get government funding for life saving medical procedures and which won't.
The cost savings would be even greater than a death panel of doctors because No's could be given to political enemies, personal enemies, people who smoke, people who eat salt, poor people, and minorities.

The group of shadowy bureaucrats could in theory be replaced by an AI running cost/benefit ratio calculations for a more distilled evil.
Robots place 0 value on human life and appeals would take 58 microseconds to process, so the cost savings would be enormous!

Finally, death panels could be discarded entirely and savings brought to infinity if we adopted the Logan's Run technique of throwing anyone over the age of 30 into an incinerator.
Medical spending would drop from 25% of GDP down to 3%.

Looking at any population pyramid in countries around the world, people start dying off in droves at age 50, half are gone by 75, and all the rest are done by 100.
But most medical spending occurs in the last little bit of a person's life usually.
(Also kind of neat how God makes extra boys at the start, but they die doing stupid stuff and match the # of girls around age 40)
 
Last edited:
But curiously enough, countries with "death panels" take proper care of a far larger share of their population than the US, which will let everyone who's poor suffer and wither away...

And even then, the US spend more money on their health care than we do.
 
A conservative dog whistle term for assisted suicide and removal of life-sustaining equipment in terminal cases.

Actually, "removal of life-sustaining equipment in terminal cases" sounds like a euphemism for a panel of people tasked with overriding family wishes when they think it's an efficient time for somebody to die.

But yes, this game is fun. Whee.
 
I thought Canada had the "death panels" socialised medicine model?
Based on what?

Non-Canadians have the notion that health care is free here, but it actually isn't. Just because I don't have to pay when I go to a clinic, lab, or hospital doesn't mean that it's not paid for somehow.

Prescriptions are an entirely different matter. People can and do die because they can't afford prescriptions that aren't covered by their insurers or the province. I predict this will be an election issue next year.

What's a "death panel?"
Sarah Palin did a lot of yapping about them some years ago when she was running for vice-president.

Christians are not allowed to self terminate, and doctors hate watching people suffer pointlessly for years, so this is kind of a gray area.
Christian doctors and faith-based hospitals are allowed to refuse assisted death to a patient who asks for it (the patient has to fulfill several eligibility requirements and nobody can make that request other than the patient him/herself). Some of them think they should also be exempted from having to make a referral to another doctor/facility. Ditto Christian pharmacists who think it's their right to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or abortion drugs.

Finally, death panels could be discarded entirely and savings brought to infinity if we adopted the Logan's Run technique of throwing anyone over the age of 30 into an incinerator.
It was 21 in the original novel. People on Lastday had 24 hours in which to make whatever arrangements they felt necessary, have whatever last experiences they wanted (food, parties, travel, drugs, sex), and before their crystals turned black they were to report to a Deep Sleep facility where they would be euthanized and their remains cremated.

In the novel Logan decides to run for his own sake, not because he was assigned to infiltrate the Sanctuary network. He meets Jessica at the New You shop, where she's just had a face change prior to making her own run (in the novel she's on Lastday and is a few hours older than Logan; in the movie she's a few years younger).

Like I said, a conservative dog whistle term.
There have been news articles in which families have lost in court, when they wanted to keep the life support on. I realize that it's really hard to accept when brain death occurs and there's no chance at all of recovery, but I do see the other side - when there's no chance for any kind of recovery and the person is gone, leaving just a body... what's the point of keeping life support going? Those resources are needed for people who still might have a chance.
 
Like I said, a conservative dog whistle term.

Mostly what I'm going to take away from this is that your contribution, and people who agree with your wording, imply I'm a b!tch, as as in the literal animal, or the metaphorical Klan member, if I don't agree with your value equation. It's a valuable take away, at any rate.

Moderator Action: Please do not evade the autocensor. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, it's just that only conservatives seriously use the term, and their use of it always comes with deprecation or some other form of negative judgment. It is a charged term meant to elicit negative response in the reader. Which is the point, as conservatives want to talk about death panels in the worst light possible so that they can bolster support in resisting medical oversight they disagree with.
 
I will, with now some degree of trepidation at trying to be literal, rather than insulting, point out some degree of death panel is always necessary for intestate(it's not intestate, but the thing where somebody has no power of attourney, so mostly intestate people. So, usually the people who get the stuff* as it stands. It's a cynical angle, but it's a necessary one) individuals at least, and to determine when care cannot be provided by an institution... the real objection to death panels is extending thier power to pursue death adversarially, in pursuit of justice. That power should stay where we're slowly sending capital punishment.
Either way, a dog is a dog and a death panel is going to be understood to be a death panel.

*Often a variety of loan and lien holders, one would guess.
 
Last edited:
No, it's just that only conservatives seriously use the term, and their use of it always comes with deprecation or some other form of negative judgment. It is a charged term meant to elicit negative response in the reader. Which is the point, as conservatives want to talk about death panels in the worst light possible so that they can bolster support in resisting medical oversight they disagree with.

It should invoke a negative response, its why I wouldn't ban private health care but I'd go with 'medicare for all' and pay for it with large cuts in the war machine. Nobody pulls the plug on you, nobody says your insurance limit was hit, and nobody tells you how to live your life. If you insist on being a bat out of hell you're still covered.
 
Based on what?

Non-Canadians have the notion that health care is free here, but it actually isn't. Just because I don't have to pay when I go to a clinic, lab, or hospital doesn't mean that it's not paid for somehow.

Prescriptions are an entirely different matter. People can and do die because they can't afford prescriptions that aren't covered by their insurers or the province. I predict this will be an election

Well... based on me thinking that was the case. Nothing more. I just thought you had a system akin to ours, but it's not something I've ever particularly looked into, hence why I was incorrect.
 
Top Bottom