On that same note, why are these workers staying with these employers.
After the first check is missed, they should be "Out the door"

I've been there where my employer's check bounced. when I got a replacement check. the bank phoned it in before cashing it it, only to find out there were insufficient funds to cover that check as well. The company had to have their accountant come and pay me out of their petty cash.

When I handed them my notice right after that (because I couldn't continue to work for an unstable company) I was taken into the office and brow beaten. I was told that dedication was part of the job and by not being part of the solution for the company, I was part of the problem. Then they invited me back and told me they would excuse my indiscretion of deciding to quit if I put in extra hours to help turn the company around. In fact, I was unwilling to quite my other job which was a guaranteed full time position and was told, my lack of dedication was an issue. This from a company who couldn't afford to pay their employees. (I wasn't the only one). On top of that. The guy running the company on investors money was living in the richest hotel penthouse in town and was always away on guiding hunting trips with his wife, the secretary of the company. Spending the investor's money on himself, instead of the business overhead. (It was an internet design company and we weren't even allowed to have internet access at our desks and wereexpected to bring in or own computer equipment from home.)

Ya right, needless to say, I was out the door.

>> ^omnistegan:
I had some pretty ridiculous fees about a year back. It was on an Internet purchase and when PayPal reached for the money from my account, PayPal was declined and even though no money left my account, I was charged an overdraft. PayPal automatically retried the transaction 3 more times and each one incurred a charge. I believe each charge was $30 CDN.
Needless to say, I was unimpressed. I was living at home at the time so my father went into the bank and threatened to pull his saving account if they didn't reverse the charge.


Holy shit, I've had something like this happen to me as well...a purchase wasn't actually processed until over TWO WEEKS after I ordered something, and then a more recent purchase was turned down due to insufficient funds a day later because of the other purchase not processing for whatever reason. This gave me an overdraft, and then a few days later the system automatically tried again and I got ANOTHER fee. My next paycheck disappeared almost completely as soon as I got it, I was unbelievably pissed but didn't know of anything I could do about it. I tried complaining to the bank and they just said "well that's how it works, we're really sorry for the inconvenience, blah blah blah."

Shit happened in Spring semester too, and money's always really tight then, so it was a huge pain in the ass.

If you are that worried about overdraft charges, maybe use a credit card? or use online billpay to write checks? Using a debt card is just stupid if you are bordering on insufficient funds, especially when many credit cards give 1-3% cash back on purchases.

>> ^poolcleaner:
Did this come before or after the Dane Cook insufficient funds gag?


You can safely answer any question like that about Dane Cook with the same answer:

No, Dane stole the joke.

This happened to me. The crooks stole $0.46 before my account was flagged with "insufficient funds". Fuckers cost me $33.46

Did this come before or after the Dane Cook insufficient funds gag?

McCain isn't really desperate, if anything going by polls (which may or may not actually mean anything in terms of reflecting people's binding decisions). He's been silently creeping up in general election one-to-one match-offs with both Obama and Clinton, despite wavering and about-turning on potential independent and traditional democrat positions such as aligning himself with Christian fundamentalists, voting for a bill that would allow interrogators to go beyond standard field manual interrogation techniques - something that he previously advocated against. Not to mention he also went against the Bush tax cuts as purely benefiting the wealthy, and reverted his position on this issue as well, but that was some time ago.

With this whole fiasco, I guess it will depend on how people take being told harsh truths.

As for Clinton being desperate, of course. In primaries time and time again she has been shown to be unable to overcome his message through the strength of her campaign, potentially due to anything from staff incompetence to insufficient fund raising, to simply not being able to deliver the same captivation. So no doubt she sees the nomination as his to lose.

Also Cafferty's a college drop out? Wow.

Canadians are not prohibited from seeking and paying for for-profit health care in other countries where ever it is offered. Except in a very few rare insances Canada does not fund for-profit healthcare with public money.

Here is some information on the Canada Health Act: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/overview-apercu/index_e.html

The Romanow Report: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/romanow/hcc0086.html

As to your question re a funding adequacy-level, I'm not an analyst but it's reasonable to assume that the funds which were removed need to be replaced, funding levels need to be returned to pre-1993 levels, adjusted for inflation, and additional funds may be required to ameliorate damages to the delivery system and infrastructure due to the past fifteen years which saw insufficient funding for health care.

Regarding budgets, debt and deficits I recommend going to your public library and checking out Linda McQuaig's "Shooting the Hippo".

review: http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/96-1/issue4/hippo.html