The effects to the common man.

RetiredToker76

Well-Known Member
Where did you get this information? The health care bill is in it's infant stages, so I didn't think they made any decisions like this about coverage of specific procedures. Are you speaking theoretically? Because I'm quite sure that under any kind of health care system we implement, you can get almost any necessary and preventative procedure paid for if recommended by your PCP.
Where do I get my information? From a co-worker who is in a similar bind but is already feeling the heat. We had the exact same health care until his state switched to being a universal health care provider, I think it was Mass. He sent me the insurance information on his 'new' 'free' health care. His property taxes increased 14% to cover it and his state income taxes increased almost 20% to cover it. We both require the same procedure for different ailments.

The result of the change to 'universal' health care was that he had to sell his house because of the property tax increase, he went from living within his means to being forced outside them because of the tax, he'd lived in his house for 15 years. He rented an apartment 1/3 the size of his house because it was all he could afford after paying both the income taxes and his new private insurance prices which are 300% what the prices on his old insurance was.

After reviewing his new 'state provided' policy I found that it plainly states that the 'scope' used for the procedure we need is classified as 'experimental' and therefore is not covered by the plan. Throw in the fact that we're both under 40 and the state won't cover using a scope with a lower resolution to try and find the polyps either.

Serrated Adenoma polyps can only be seen with this specific 'experimental' scope. Regular scopes can see Serrated Adenoma TUMORS, but not the polyps. Once it's a tumor survivability of Serrated Adenoma Colon Cancer is 1%. The average life span once it's gone cancerous is less than 3 years. Since this new scope just discovered that the polyps can be found doctors realizing that many men develop the condition long before their first colonoscopy at age 40, usually the polyp forms around around age 35, this is not recognized by the AMA yet because it's all still 'trial' and 'experimental.' Therefore the procedure not covered under my co-workers state provided health care because he and I are under age 40. In my case I'd be dead. It was a dumb bacterial infection that saved my life last year and they used the specific scope on me because it was the one that could see the bacterial infection and fully diagnose it instead of throwing penicillin at it. Luckily my doctor did that and found the serrated adenoma polyp thereby saving my life, ironically the bacterial infection has cleared itself up when I got in for the procedure.

The 'infant' federal 'free' health care system is currently greatly based on what my co-workers state free health care is. That's my data. Someone with a similar situation who has lost his house, and over 40% of his income to 'free' health care so he can stay alive. If the plan isn't modified GREATLY from what his state is doing then I too will lose my house, probably my car, have to work 60+ hours a week, and THEN I will be able to keep my life. I could be wrong about his state because the computer with all the information on it is currently crashed, but I think his state is Mass, but I'm not 100% sure.

If that doesn't sound like government health CONTROL, I don't know what does. The government exists to provide roads and national security. That's IT! Congress over the last 100 years has take more and more control of our lives and our money, our grandparents sat through it with the new deal, our parents sat through it with Reganomics, and now we're 'gladly' accepting more congressional control of our lives with the credit card regulation, the purchase of GM by the feds, and finally this POS idea of 'free health care for all.'

Someone mention Darwinism earlier, while I would gladly go out on a limb to help someone survive if it were within my means it is NOT the job of the federal government to decide who lives and who dies based on how desperate they are. Under the state plan that the feds are basing their plan on I will be removed from the category of self sufficient to being dependent upon them for my health, and they are currently not interested in my well being in the direction they are headed. So the fact that I went to school for 20 years, clawed my way into being moderately successful, and continue to strive for 'better living' has made me target of the federal government, and as of today their intent us to kill me. I fall under 'abnormal circumstances' that the plan doesn't expect to cover, ever.

If this bill passes I will be revoking my citizenship and relocating to a nation where the people are expected to provide for themselves and not hang off the tit of mother government.

Since I have no children and much to my disappointment it is looking like fertility testing is going to show that my wife and I cannot conceive why do I have to pay ad valorum taxes on my property to pay for the local schools? It's looking highly unlikely I will ever have my genetic code darkening the doors of an academic institution ever again, yet I have to pay for it? Then there's this new 'plan' that is almost certainly going to drive me into either poverty or death, and those are my only two choices and I have to pay for that TOO?

This nation was founded my people of independence. They were people who fought, bled, and died in order to NOT be controlled. So far I see the government controlling the economy by buying up faulty corporations, controlling the economy by regulating how lending institutions punish people who violate a signed contract, and then by controlling us personally by regulating how we are allowed to receive our health care.

We already pay taxes to cover free health care. If you're not dealing weed on the streets look at your paystub, there's Medicare and Medicaid taxes built into your W4 witholdings, since those systems are failing we'll have to pay for BOTH the medicare and medicaid programs AND this new program as well, since there is no talk of removing those two free health care programs.

IMO if you work your ass off to attain a station in life, you deserve the be able to care for yourself better than someone who hasn't put effort into succeeding. Next thing you know there will be government issued Fillet Mignon's given to the homeless while those of us with salary jobs can only afford ramen, and we won't get the government issued Fillet's because we have enough money to buy ramen. That makes SO MUCH sense.

We need to let nature work its course and let those who can, survive and those who refuse to try, perish. Sure it's cold hearted, but all society will fall if we punish the successful for being successful wand reward the worthless for being worthless.

GM should have simply died, another investor would have purchased it and turned it around. Credit Card companies should be allowed to fine and penalize those who do not make their monthly payments. Finally, Doctors who spring $17M for a camera to shove up the ass of their patients should be allowed to charge the necessary fees required to cover the costs of that camera. The people who can afford these services on their merit should be able to chose to purchase them, not lose the ability to purchase them so a damned homeless drunk can get free dialysis so he can live to drink some more. If he's a drunk who can afford dialysis fine let him have it, but if he destroyed his liver instead of working or going to school, let him die!

-RT76
 

RetiredToker76

Well-Known Member
There are several, they are small and 'under developed' by our standards, but they do exist. I'll have to do serious research to find a country that fits most of my demands technologically, economically, and socially. When I find one that fits I'll be leaving.

-RT76
 

RetiredToker76

Well-Known Member
Oh if anyone is unsure about socialized health-care being health control, look at education... The government has had education control for a VERY long time.

My wife and I bought a house after saving for 10 years. One of our requirements was that it be in a good school district since we had intended to have children, epic fail. So we bought our house in an area that has an A+ rated school since we are both college educated and wanted the same for our potential children. In our metropolitan area that requirement reduced the areas we searched to 4 neighborhoods out of some 500. We then looked at other factors of the area, crime, average age, median income, etc to make sure that we would be a 'social fit' in the area while also able to economically sustain ourselves.

We purchased our house, ran the books, and found that while we can afford to live here we will be required to put any child we may conceive into day car in order to maintain employment to pay our mortgage. Our house isn't ostentatious nor luxurious, but it's 'okay.' It was the lowest end house we could buy that was in the school district we wanted our children to attend school in.

Without this health care crap we had a plan that would have worked for providing for our family, not ideal, but it would 'work.' With potential infertility on my wife's end being an issue we could now relocate to a nicer neighborhood that would cost a little less simply because the schools aren't as high quality, which is something we are willing to do if the tests come back with her as infertile.

For most people having a child is a very important, big decision that several other factors are of great influence. You don't put a kid in a crappy school if you can avoid it. So due to socialized education we were required to purchase a house in a neighborhood we didn't particularly 100% like, we may be required to work extra to cover day care costs in order to maintain employment so we can afford the day care AND the house in the correct school district.

Socialized education determined where I was going to live, how long and hard I have to work, how far my wife's commute is, and to social circles we are able to travel in. All of that determined by the government funding of schools. All this educational control and we have one of the worse educational systems in the 'developed world.' Hmm they screwed up education, how will the do with health care?

So where are they going to put the best hospitals? Right now under self sufficiency the best doctors with the best equipment and the best staff are located close to the best schools because that's where they can get salaries commiserate with their skills due to the higher amount of money the residents have. This is what's left of middle class suburbia.

Where will the money go once it's all in the hands of the feds? Once doctors can no longer chose the type of care they provide for patients they have no incentive to strive to be the best or have the best equipment because competition for the best locations will be virtually nonexistent as the pay may be government controlled. That ALONE lowers the quality of care doctors are willing to provide. Throw that in with the restrictions and 'rules' of care come up by government (people NOT MEDICALLY TRAINED) determining how doctors are allowed to diagnose diseases.

People opting to carry private insurance will be hit with insane premiums because of the taxation on the 'Cadillac' insurance programs. Last I read the feds were hitting BOTH insurance carriers and citizens who intend to use private insurance. So if you require specialized care you are required to pay both the insurance companies taxes and federal taxes for buying that insurance to get said care. That doesn't account for premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. My co-workers premiums have increased to almost $650 a month and show no sign of slowing down or reversing.

I feel for parents who have children who were born with ailments such as down syndrome or autism. If they have set themselves up to self sufficient as I have it is unlikely that they will be able to afford to provide care for their children under socialized medicine.

There's also a possibility that socialized health care will require the chipping of new born children. Supposedly the chips will only contain pertinent medical information, however parents will not be issued a reader for said chip with their child. These chips will likely be government programmed so they can put any data they want to associate with that chip in the database. I have no evidence that this WILL happen, however I do know it has been discussed in senatorial committee and not completely 'shot down' but more 'tabled' for the time being.

How much do we want them to control our lives. They've been determining where we live, where our children get educated, and how much we have to make for over 50 years. Now we're going to let them determine what happens to our children when they're born, that childs care all through life, as well as ours? I have no idea why people are opposed to this. I can't fathom the thought that the health control the self and offspring being completely determined by federal committee could possibly upset someone.

The only people who want this to pass are those who are either unable or unwilling to provide for their own care. Or they're so bleeding heart they'll sacrifice their freedom in favor of letting the government make all their decissions to help the 'poor and down trodden' boo hoo.

I once was a liberal ... I once aruged the conservative agenda by saying a liberal goes out with you in the woods and you fall down and break your leg. The liberal picks you up, carries you to the car, and takes you to the hospital. Do the same with a conservative and the conservative just keeps walking saying, "not my problem."

I would like to re-analogize that. Now the liberal picks you up, carries you to the car, and takes you the hospital of THEIR choice. Along the way they have their hand in your pocket taking every last dime you have to cover the costs of the hospital they chose, which may or may not be to your likeing.

Give me the conservative who leaves you to your own devices any day. I'd rather crawl on my hands and one leg to willing pay for a service I chose than be forced to a singular decission and being robbed at the same time.

The conservative position is far from ideal, but it's a hell of a lot better than theft and sujectification. Remember the US has citizens, it's England that has subjects and that's why we left!

-RT76
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Everywhere I go, I see JRH has been here.....swinging at windmills....:lol:

It's a horrid bill, and a horrid idea. We don't need it, we don't want it.
 

jrh72582

Well-Known Member
Everywhere I go, I see JRH has been here.....swinging at windmills....:lol:

It's a horrid bill, and a horrid idea. We don't need it, we don't want it.
Define 'we' because I certainly want it. And this is coming from someone with great private health insurance. I want it for those without. I'll even take worse coverage if it means more get covered. At heart, I believe in deontology, but in some instances, Bentham was right - what's best for the most is the way to go.
 

what... huh?

Active Member
What is best for the most is worst for all.


When you remove a capitalist incentive, people will die. Not just here, all over the world. People will not be saved by your altruism. People will be saved because of human nature... personal incentive in conjunction with a moral imperative.
 

Operation 420

Well-Known Member
What is best for the most is worst for all.


When you remove a capitalist incentive, people will die. Not just here, all over the world. People will not be saved by your altruism. People will be saved because of human nature... personal incentive in conjunction with a moral imperative.
Well said sir :clap: I thoroughly agree.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Define 'we' because I certainly want it. And this is coming from someone with great private health insurance. I want it for those without. I'll even take worse coverage if it means more get covered. At heart, I believe in deontology, but in some instances, Bentham was right - what's best for the most is the way to go.
The latest polls have 85% of Americans very satisfied with their health care.

Even if they weren't....having the Govt. get involved is NO solution.
 

jrh72582

Well-Known Member
What is best for the most is worst for all.


When you remove a capitalist incentive, people will die. Not just here, all over the world. People will not be saved by your altruism. People will be saved because of human nature... personal incentive in conjunction with a moral imperative.
Go tell that to Denmark, Sweden, Italy, France, England, Iceland, Germany, Spain, etc...........

These countries have flourished for thousands of years under a utilitarian, socialist system. Personal incentive is not the paradigm in these countries. Collective community is the paradigm and it works. After all, they have stood the test of time. Personal incentive leads to a battle of egos and a battle of egos leads to destruction. It's quite simple. Human nature has shown over and over that personal incentive is dangerous - it causes people to cheat, steal, and plunder. Capitalism encourages these 'virtues' and the outcomes are wholly unhealthy. Collective community allows for longevity and purpose.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Go tell it to who in Europe? They have a declining population.... socialized health care. Europe as we know it will be a thing of the past in the not too distant future.
 

jrh72582

Well-Known Member
The latest polls have 85% of Americans very satisfied with their health care.

Even if they weren't....having the Govt. get involved is NO solution.
85% of those who HAVE health care. What about the other 50-80 million?:shock:

Government HAS to intervene. Our system is predatory and corrupt. With no regulation and the possibility of HUGE profits, our system has gone off the deep end. We cannot leave it unchecked. There MUST be regulation. We cannot allow insurance companies to fuck over Americans any longer. Even those who are happy with the system may be unaware of how they're plundered. Ignorance is bliss - it's you that stated this platitude many times on this forum.
 

jrh72582

Well-Known Member
Go tell it to who in Europe? They have a declining population.... socialized health care. Europe as we know it will be a thing of the past in the not too distant future.
They don't have a declining population because of HEALTH CARE!!!! Are you kidding me? Take Italy, for example. They used to have negative growth, but the elderly were living for a very long time. Why the negative growth? Because most Italians don't have kids. If they do, they only have one. That's why Europe has a declining population. Not because the old are dying too fast to be replaced by the young. It's because they've moved away from a child-focused society. Most Europeans don't want kids. How is health care to blame? Especially seeing as how the EU has GREAT benefits for pregnant mothers and to-be fathers.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Define 'we' because I certainly want it. And this is coming from someone with great private health insurance. I want it for those without. I'll even take worse coverage if it means more get covered. At heart, I believe in deontology, but in some instances, Bentham was right - what's best for the most is the way to go.
Have you thought about asking the doctors what THEY want? Are you willing to enslave doctors to the government machine, through force at the point of a gun if necessary, to get what YOU want?

Vi
 

what... huh?

Active Member
The US has better coverage for pregnant women and babies than the EU. I also do not accept at face value the notion that "Europeans don't want kids" or that they are not having them.

I have posted hundreds of credible sources on the negative effects of socialized care in Europe and Canada. I understand that it is a seemingly insurmountable amount of data... but feel free to pick and choose.

Look at this while you are at it.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/index.html?siteSect=105&sid=4059652
 

purplekitty7772008

Well-Known Member
No, YOU don't understand child. You don't. Get some experience, travel a bit, and educate yourself beyond what you learn here on this right wing propaganda machine.

We are forced to pay for all kinds of useless shit (of which health care is not) - it's reality. And I don't mind helping 'illegals' as you call them. I've seen where most of these illegals come from and I don't blame them for coming here. I have compassion for the poor and the forgotten. Social injustice is what keeps me going and health care is a huge step to bridge that divide. So go complain about another $2.50 on your taxes to someone else. Poor you - you have to pay more taxes. WAAAHHHH!!!!! You have a lot to see and a lot to learn kid.
It is useless to pay for something I already have and don't need.
And its useless to pay for damn illegals.

If we didn't have to pay for poor people and illegals, there would be
no extra taxes.

I'm done with you jhr. When and IF this bill passes, and when the country
gets even more in debt, I will laugh at you because you will think

its whats best.
 

jrh72582

Well-Known Member
The US has better coverage for pregnant women and babies than the EU. I also do not accept at face value the notion that "Europeans don't want kids" or that they are not having them.

I have posted hundreds of credible sources on the negative effects of socialized care in Europe and Canada. I understand that it is a seemingly insurmountable amount of data... but feel free to pick and choose.

Look at this while you are at it.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/index.html?siteSect=105&sid=4059652
Nice article, and yes, your sources are comprehensive and vast. Like I said, I understand the strains on these systems, but I think ideally, they are better than what we have. I always leave open the possibility that I may be wrong, but I abhor health insurance companies and pharmaceutical giants. They have been left unchecked for WAY too long and need restructuring. That's my problem with this whole economy. We let people make as much money as they want, even if it means they take advantage of hard working Americans, but they don't let companies fail when they deserve to. It's so frustrating.

And as for pregnancy coverage, the EU has a 3 months for both the mother and father, with up to 9 months at 85% pay for problematic pregnancies. It's better than my wife had, that's for sure. She had 3 months at 60% pay and nothing more (plus, her pregnancies were problematic).

And Europeans have very few children (which varies by country). This summer, I was all over Europe staying with various friends and we discussed this very topic one night. In Italy (where I stayed for a while), couple usually have one kid after the age of 40. Many couples try and cannot have kids and many simply don't want them. France is similar. So I cannot speak for all EU countries, but Italy has a neutral population rate because of few births and NOT because of untimely deaths. That's a fact.
 

jrh72582

Well-Known Member
It is useless to pay for something I already have and don't need.
And its useless to pay for damn illegals.

If we didn't have to pay for poor people and illegals, there would be
no extra taxes.

I'm done with you jhr. When and IF this bill passes, and when the country
gets even more in debt, I will laugh at you because you will think

its whats best.
Laugh away. Apparently the entertainment is reciprocated. I get a good laugh every time I hear you bitch about your free rent and every time you show off your body in a sick attempt to get attention from online personalities. So it's a give and take.

And can you define 'damn illegals'? Aren't we all 'damn illegals'? Explain the term and who fits under the umbrage. I think you will be surprised.
 

what... huh?

Active Member
I believe that this is a short sighted view, considering our contributions to medicine... which I contend are motivated by capitalism.

Your wife's coverage was probably not government provided then.

I wasn't exactly disagreeing with European view... I was saying I don't take it at face value or on anecdotal evidence is all.
 

jrh72582

Well-Known Member
I believe that this is a short sighted view, considering our contributions to medicine... which I contend are motivated by capitalism.


I wasn't exactly disagreeing with European view... I was saying I don't take it at face value or on anecdotal evidence is all.
You are right about one thing. I do believe one virtue of capitalism is that it encourages invention and contribution. But the scales still tip.
 
Top