HeloDude

Bait and switch...the Air Force way.

Read what I wrote. I said (or definitely implied) that of course you react in a true emergency situation...but you bill the parents/guardians afterwards. If they can't pay then you garnish their wages, repossess their property, or have the courts decide if they can truly care for that child as children are the repsonbilty of the parents/guardians and not the State. And I'm surprised you're not smart enough to realize (given the intelligent writing you show in your posts...hell, my posts aren't the best but at least they're mostly coherent), that there are plenty of charities who help with bills in situations such as these. Should I stop voluntarily giving my property to charities? And why are you bitching about answering your question? You have failed to answer ours.

By far the best news I have heard all day. Illinois went 'Shall Issue' and it appears as CA will have to do the same. This could be the start of requiring every State to be 'Shall Issue'.

I think you started drinking a little too early tonight...then again, you may be pretty far east of me. Children are the responsibility of their parents/guardians. If the local government decides they want to pay for the kid, then that's fine...I'm not an anarchist. But you're comparing a freak situation with routine care and food stamps? Same with the ER. Do I think the parents should be billed after all of this is done...bet your ass I do. And if they can't take care of their children, then they're negligent and should be dealt with via the courts. There's an incentive for people to have kids who can't afford them or take care of them properly...one reason the out of wedlock birthrate is pretty damn high, especially amongst the poorest. Or are you going to tell me that everything is just great? You're also forgetting that there are charities who help people in cases such as this scenario, in terms of covering bills, etc. Or am I lying and that there are no charities that help other people in times of need? If so, then I've been giving my money (voluntarily) away to fake organizations. I have no problems paying local taxes as well as having a federal tax system...like I said, I'm not an anarchist, and I believe in government, just limited, especially at the federal level. I can choose to live in a certain municipality or not...I can choose to live in a certain State...or not. When it comes to the federal government...see what I'm getting at? Oh, and we had hospitals before we had an income tax, we had roads before an income tax, we had prisons, police, firefighters, etc. Now another question for you--do you disagree that we have a wealth redistribution system in the US, especially at the federal level? If you want to voluntarily give your wealth away to certain groups, then go for it! Stop bitching and help people if you truly believe they need help. Government is pretty damn inefficient and takes money with the threat of force...in case you haven't learned.

So why didn't you, your family, and your community that you belong to (especially those who are liberal) take up a collection and pay for the medical bills? This is a serious question. If my brother needs help because things are out of his control and are negatively impacting his life, then my parents, and the rest of his siblings are the ones to help him out. You never commented on what I also said earlier--why didn't all those who support Obamacare take up a collection, or develop their own insurance company for high risk people to take care of the people you mention? Why do you fault a business for acting within the terms agreed upon by the both parties (the buyer and the seller)? I'm sure the insurance company was not in breach of the fine print, else, you could easily take them to court. You either are ducking this point, or you truly don't understand how the system works if you think other people are not going to be paying for these 'reduced costs' and/or 'available coverage' for your family member. I have backlash against theft...call me crazy. If a thug on the side of the road robs me at gun-point and then gives my property to some 'well deserving people', then I'm sure those said people will be helped in a good way and will definitely think the person who gave them the money. Again, you and your family, as well as whatever friends you all have, could have taken care of your family member's high medical bills...but you didn't, or at least you fail to do so now because she is 'getting help' from the government. This is all just another handout by the government funded by the taking of property from others. But I'm glad you feel good about it.

Haha! You're so old that it took you a while to get the joke! Nothing but love for my elders...and besides, I'm probably not that far behind. "Yo mama so fat..."

Dude, I get it...honestly, I do. I don't envy anybody who has health problems or has family members with health problems. But seriously...why is it the government's job to force a business to give said family member something and then force taxpayers to cover the difference in cost? It comes down to what you think the government should be and should do. If all these people want to 'help other people', then why didn't they just do it of their own free will? The 40-45% of the population who support Obamacare could have raised millions (potentially billions) of dollars in order to help the less fortunate and they could have done so without forcing people to pay for someone else's misfortune. I know, I know...I'm 'heartless' or 'mean'. In reality, I hate forced charity, whereas politicians are very charitable with other people's money. If a church (or any other organization, religious or not, that people want to voluntarily belong to) that I voluntarily decide to go to has a member who is truly needing help, then the leadership of that organization can request money from its members to help pay for what needs to be done. What we have now is a bunch of politicians (on both sides) that campaign on how they will take money from those who have it in order to give to those who do not have it...in exchange for votes, because if they can't get elected, then they can't perform the wealth redistribution. Politicians want you to rely on the State, not to rely on each other.

Dude, I pointed out how a Kirtland AETC training wing does not follow this policy, and Vance was listed as another. So I don't see this as being 'very rare' as you described when it comes to a 'no-mileage' restriction in AETC. Others can chime in with the other AETC units if they'd like. As for Goodfellow, I have yet to comment on what they do as I haven't got a clue. I don't doubt the shenanigans you mention are true, but it's not some massive AETC conspiracy with how they treat everybody in a training course and their pass policy. Hell, even Gravedigger disagreed with you with his experience of the AETC Spaceworld. As for the 29B's...sorry man, we've all had to deal with them as they've been around at least since the early 2000's (and probably earlier). Have you taught in AETC or just been a student? I used to brief the new students on the AETC no-tobacco policy during duty hours and told them to be smart about it. Now you're on to something...much better than 'It is an AETC thing' and 'very rare'. There are young guys who read these posts and there's no point in throwing up things that aren't true. And for the record man, it does suck that the guys at Goodfellow are being a bunch of tools. As I used to tell my students back when I was in AETC, to put it in their critiques and remember the things they didn't like when they're sitting in the instructor chair one day. This too will pass. Bendy--I wanted to add a pic of 2 half-naked chicks pulling each other's hair, but I didn't want to be the one making the thread NSFW. So here you go!

I don't doubt that what you said is something very similar to the goal of the far left...but the actuality of it happening, hmm, I don't see the likelihood of it anytime in the nearer future (the likelihood of going to a single-payer, not the likelihood of Obamacare failing, which I think it will). Obamacare barely got passed when the Dems has large majorities in both houses, though these days, I think the Dems would have gone the nuclear-option (as they already have with appointments) if they had not been able to get the 60 votes in the Senate at the beginning. I don't see the votes being there anytime soon (5-10 years) to get to a single-payer system, even if things go south. I think what will happen is that Hillary will in 2016 and Obamacare continues to stay...unless...Obamacare fails horribly by early/mid 2016 and/or we have another massive recession and someone like Rand Paul wins in 2016 and has a GOP majority, and even then, who knows. Bad policy rarely gets rolled back when it's an entitlement issue. Usually it is increased, even by the Republicans. The left is now saying that it is good that people will be able to quit their jobs and keep their healthcare (not they didn't say anything about continuing to be able to pay for their healthcare).

Kirtland 58 SOW units had the same thing. This is nothing cosmic as it's in the leave AFI (ie no distance restriction on a pass). I'm not trying to bust your balls on purpose each time, but you throw out a lot of information in which your assumptions turn out to not be accurate. Notice how I never comment on what Goodfellow does because I have never been there. Hopefully there is some learning going on here.

This. The equivalence would be people expecting their car insurance to cover a new battery, tire rotation, oil changes, car washes, etc...but to not cost more than they're already paying (actually they want it to cost less). Oh, and while they're at it...Obamacare would allow the equivalent of you being able to not have collision insurance, you then wreck your car into a tree, and then you can call and get an insurance program after the fact that replaces your vehicle. This is not how insurance works. The only way Obamacare could even 'somewhat' work would be to raise everybody's rates (because you don't have a choice now) to cover the increased risk pool/procedures that the insurance must cover and to raise taxes/fees to pay for the subsidies of poor people when their rates increase as well. I also love how the insurance companies will get a federal bailout if they don't make a certain profit.

We will all politely now back up, and get off of your lawn.

Officers are more likely to text while driving https://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140211/NEWS/302110023/Officers-more-likely-text-while-driving I call BS...I'm sure a lot more than 51% of O's at least 'read' (more than likely also send) texts when driving...and I definitely don't buy the 41% of E's either. This poll encompasses more liars than those who deny that they masturbate.

Since when is it the government's job to make sure a citizen gets proper healthcare? Obamacare is just wealth redistribution all in the name of 'fairness' and 'the right thing to do'. It's easy for people to support theft from their neighbor when they're not the one being robbed and they are also not the one having to do the stealing. People will stay on the sinking ship as long as they're still serving free drinks.

White House delays health insurance mandate for medium-sized employers until 2016 The joke continues.

Still 'no'. I have rarely ever seen enlisted get harassed just to get harassed while spending quite a bit of time (as well as being an IP) over the years at Kirtland and my fixed-wing buds there said the same. Now was it haze for the A1C's (first term enlisted/non-crossflow), yes...because it's their tech school, just the way it is. Though I'm sure our first term airmen had it a lot better than tech school for mx or security forces. So again, either something has drastically changed at 'all' the AETC bases/training units, or this is focused on certain career fields and bases.

No. Unless AETC has changed that much in the last year. There are enough people on here at AETC bases (UPT and school houses) that can comment whether or not their bases/organizations have as much buffoonery as what you're describing.

They offer tours?

He's an idiot, a racist and a bigot...but IMO, that's his choice. And it's my choice to not spend my money there. Let the 'free' market figure this out. I'm all for people spreading the news on this guy, protesting or whatever. As for Vance...I wouldn't be surprised if the Wing/CC sends out a policy that forbids military members from going to this place due to security concerns.

Didn't they sell it to you as an 'opportunity'? Forgot to add: "Have I got a deal for you!"

You should have asker her to demonstrate the '2 fingers technique'. ...oh, and then afterwards she should have demonstrated how to wear the flight cap too. ZING!

Unless I'm mistaken, those are the missileers, right? Interesting...

4 Star?

Where's Liquid or Chang when you need them? I was actually giving some credit to the AF for doing better on this VSP/RIF (with the matrices and all)....but now it looks like it's all just smoke and mirrors.