# What is happening ?!?!?!?!?



## hoggie (Feb 11, 2007)

Admittedly I have been pretty busy recently, and haven't had much time for waching the news or the net.

But I am getting the impression from this board and another I go to occasionally, that over there you are all expecting problems. Apart from the ongoing, swept under the carpet, economic problems, what else is kicking off that I am not seeing? 

Sorry to be dense - it may be that it is something that only relates to the US, but maybe not........

Can anyone enlarge for me please?

Thanks

hoggie


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Fire season. I gotta get off this computer and get ready for work.


----------



## hoggie (Feb 11, 2007)

? ay ?


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Our wildfire season has kicked off early this spring. Our helicopter will be here Thursday, so I'm getting the base up and running. I hope MN doesn't have drought like a couple years ago. We fought fire through September. Not a good year financially for the state to have that happen.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Hoggie - Sunday night, after much negoitions and other rather shady looking meetings - a "Health Care" bill passed the House of Reps with a follow on bill with changes. This was a VERY close vote. It has MANDATORY health insurance, blocks some limitations on the health insurance industry, changes Medicare/Medicaid and adds some extra taxes on the over $200,000 income folks. This is something that many want the benefits and do not care how they are implemented, and many think the benefits are great but not being forced and fined if a person does not have insurance (unless they meet certain criteria for help or exemption).

Tonight the 2nd part will be voted on. There are Rules in Congress that make it impossible to allow it to happen as it is, if the Senate does not change the rules going into this vote.

I'm on the side of this being a LARGE overstep of the Government in our life. There are many here on HT and in the USA that think the means justify the end and do not mind the extra government intrusion in our life to make it happen.

So, there are a LOT of very HIGH emotions on this one. That is what you are seeing. You are likely to see it much more, as 11 states are having their Attorney Generals to sue the government, and 26 more are setting up to sue as many think this is Unconstitutional.

I think that explains it. But please know, I write this with my own point of view, and trying to present it neutrally.

Angie


----------



## hoggie (Feb 11, 2007)

bowdonkey - sounds like you have a busy time ahead - good luck with it 

Angie - thank you. That makes a lot of sense of what I am seeing/reading. I knew there was a health care bill "out there" but didn't realise that it was that close, OR that feelings ran quite that high over it.

I will be reading and watching with interest.

hoggie


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Not only that, but they are putting the IRS in charge of "enforcing health" care.
They ordered tactical style shotguns for them to help us love love love our new benefits.
I heard this morning that we will be required to have any vaccinations the government sees fit to give us.
Hoggie, what you are seeing is the death of America, the death of Liberty.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

And the Gov. is takeing over Loans for Education. Who wants the Gov. to decide weather you get $$$ for the career you chose. You might want to be a Teacher,but the Gov. might need Drs.


----------



## Canning Girl (Jan 13, 2010)

And many of us see this as perhaps the straw that will break our financial back. The US is headed for bankruptcy, and the healthcare bill will hasten that eventuality. If the US falls economically, many other countries, including the UK, probably will as well. That is why my family and I are preparing to live independent, self-sustaining lives. I would advise everyone everywhere to do the same.


----------



## Scott in Florida Panhandl (May 10, 2002)

*There has never been a point in our history where the federal government has been given the authority to require citizens to buy goods or services.â *

People can only take so much.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Hoggie, is health insurance mandatory in the UK? From my limited research, it seems only France has mandatory insurance for all citizens. Is that correct?


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

The UK has universal coverage paid for by National Insurance which is similar to SS/medicare tax in the US.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Cornhusker said:


> Not only that, but they are putting the IRS in charge of "enforcing health" care.
> They ordered tactical style shotguns for them to help us love love love our new benefits.
> I heard this morning that we will be required to have any vaccinations the government sees fit to give us.
> Hoggie, what you are seeing is the death of America, the death of Liberty.



But certainly not the death of hyperbole.


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 8, 2009)

Let's see. 
Massive takeover of health care, which is not only 1/6 of the U.S. economy, but imposes taxes upon taxes and takes away a significant amount of our freedoms and will bankrupt the country.
The coming amnesty for millions of illegals who will, no doubt, vote for more of the above. 
Essentially the nationalization of the majority of auto makers. 
Numerous bank failures.
Nationalization of the student loan program.
Bailouts of numerous companies that should have been allowed to fail, but instead were artificially propped up with taxpayer dollars.

And this is just the beginning. Sooner or later, something has got to give, and yes, those of us who pay attention to what goes on here and around the world are expecting far, far worse.


----------



## Sweetsurrender (Jan 14, 2009)

Canada has nationalized health care and it is horrible. The US gov kept using it as an example and I think it is laughable. I was a Canadian for 37 years before I moved here. I know what I'm talking about. There are new private clinics opening every week up there. Why do you think? Because the system failed.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Sweetsurrender said:


> Canada has nationalized health care and it is horrible. The US gov kept using it as an example and I think it is laughable. I was a Canadian for 37 years before I moved here. I know what I'm talking about. There are new private clinics opening every week up there. Why do you think? Because the system failed.


Canada does not have nationalized health care. The majority of care is provided by private entities. Canada has a single payer system. The government is the insurance company


----------



## Lydia (Dec 1, 2009)

So what would happen if we refused to get vaccinations they wanted us all to have? I'm not thrilled about having to take pills for things like a headache, so the idea of being forced to get a "vaccination" that I'm not willing to get scares me. And let's not even think about what they'll force us to give to the children. 

This particular show of power by the US government is making me SERIOUSLY look into moving out of the country.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Lydia said:


> So what would happen if we refused to get vaccinations they wanted us all to have? I'm not thrilled about having to take pills for things like a headache, so the idea of being forced to get a "vaccination" that I'm not willing to get scares me. And let's not even think about what they'll force us to give to the children.
> 
> This particular show of power by the US government is making me SERIOUSLY look into moving out of the country.


Lydia, you must remember.....you ARE the government. The people ARE the government. We've carelessly relinquished our control. It's time to take it back. 

The day of reckoning is coming. If not now, then for your children and grandchildren. Not just here but around the world. You're not going to find a safe place to wait this out because.......who is going to come to our defense?? Who will be the countries who liberate us from tyranny? Who, but Americans, are standing for liberty?


----------



## Native87 (Jan 21, 2010)

+100 Txsteader


----------



## hoggie (Feb 11, 2007)

Txsteader said:


> Hoggie, is health insurance mandatory in the UK? From my limited research, it seems only France has mandatory insurance for all citizens. Is that correct?


The UK has the NHS which is paid for out of Social Security. Everyone pays a % out of their income at source (I think the emplouer also pays a contribution). Everyone is entitled to health care/dentistry, but are also free to have private insurance is they wish to. 

Here where I live it is a little different. We all pay Social Security employees pay a % and employers also pay a contribution. If you are self-employed you get crucified  But we never used to get any health care provision in that. A few years ago they changed the system - they increased the payments by 1%. In return for that 1% we now have insurance cover for all specialist treatments. So if I go to my Dr's surgery I have to pay cash - that is not covered. If he decided I need to go to a specialist/have an operation etc, then from then on I am covered by the insurance. Dentistry is not covered. Ambulance is not covered - I pay seperately for that cover. Medevac flights are covered. Prescription charges are not covered (but aren't terribly expensive - nothing like as expensive as paying for the meds would really cost)

Overall, I think our system works OK - not sure about the UK mainland - I know roughtly what their system entails, but have never experienced it first hand.


----------



## Sweetsurrender (Jan 14, 2009)

Deacon Mike said:


> Canada does not have nationalized health care. The majority of care is provided by private entities. Canada has a single payer system. The government is the insurance company



I'm sorry I misspoke when I said the word "nationalized". ok, the gov does not own the hospitals. It sets the price of treatments, which treatments it will allow or not...there is a gov agency that issues recommendations for the treatment of various diseases etc. There are private hospitals and clinics that do not receive payment from the gov and only from patients. Only the province of Quebec has recently allowed private clinics to accept payments from the federal gov and patients. This has created a 2-speed health care system and isn't this what they US is trying to move away from? The insured and the uninsured? People that can pay V. people that can't afford it. Anyone who has ever worked in Canada and has received a paycheck and seen the deductions would realize the cost of all this. And anyone that has received treatment in a Canadian hospital and seen the equipment would understand what I am talking about. I've seen and been treated in both systems it is not even comparable. I've made appointments with specialists in Canada and have gotten an appt. 3 months later. The gov. even decides how many hours an MD can work a month. Cancer patients in Quebec get bused into Vermont to receive treatment because of lack of resource near home. It's a pitiful, sick system. But you are right, it is not technically nationalized.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Quick question..

if it is nothing like what the UK has, then why do we have all the comparisons and 'stories" in regards to it being like the UK? If it is nothing like the UK, then the UK's health care and situation would not apply to ours would it, yet we read the comparisons to the UK and Canada and so on.....


----------



## Riverrat (Oct 14, 2008)

If it is anything like ours, get ready for long waits.....for everything. Surgery can be very long waits. We still have to pay for dentist, medications and eye check ups. We do get to see the doctor for free (pay through our taxes) and surgeries are free, for the most part, but long waits to get in. We still have insurance to help with what the gov does not pay for.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

RiverRat - supplemental insurance to the taxed to be provided by government 'insurance/medical care"? That's the way I read it.

You are being higher taxed for the Government care, and then have to spend more to get the coverage for routine, usual, timely stuff?

Angie


----------



## o&itw (Dec 19, 2008)

mistletoad said:


> The UK has universal coverage paid for by National Insurance which is similar to SS/medicare tax in the US.


True, and they are in worse economic shape than Greece. Maybe we should do this too...spread our working classes money around untill the whole country goes broke... but till then, you can wait 2 months for a doctor's appointment. Not so bad if you have a cold, you will probably be over it my then, but with melanoma...maybe not so good.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

hoggie said:


> The UK has the NHS which is paid for out of Social Security. Everyone pays a % out of their income at source (I think the emplouer also pays a contribution). Everyone is entitled to health care/dentistry, but are also free to have private insurance is they wish to.
> 
> Here where I live it is a little different. We all pay Social Security employees pay a % and employers also pay a contribution. If you are self-employed you get crucified  But we never used to get any health care provision in that. A few years ago they changed the system - they increased the payments by 1%. In return for that 1% we now have insurance cover for all specialist treatments. So if I go to my Dr's surgery I have to pay cash - that is not covered. If he decided I need to go to a specialist/have an operation etc, then from then on I am covered by the insurance. Dentistry is not covered. Ambulance is not covered - I pay seperately for that cover. Medevac flights are covered. Prescription charges are not covered (but aren't terribly expensive - nothing like as expensive as paying for the meds would really cost)
> 
> Overall, I think our system works OK - not sure about the UK mainland - I know roughtly what their system entails, but have never experienced it first hand.


So, with the tax, everyone if entitled to 'basic' coverage, but you're not _mandated_ to purchase an insurance policy, is that correct? Are there different tax % that would offer different (more) coverage or people would simply buy private insurance if they wanted more coverage?

Thanks so much for helping me understand.


rose2005 said:


> I dont want to get into the politics here, but there is a LOT of unrest.
> 
> Rose


Rose, are you referring to here or the UK?


----------



## o&itw (Dec 19, 2008)

AngieM2 said:


> Hoggie - Sunday night, after much negoitions and other rather shady looking meetings - a "Health Care" bill passed the House of Reps with a follow on bill with changes. This was a VERY close vote. It has MANDATORY health insurance, blocks some limitations on the health insurance industry, changes Medicare/Medicaid and adds some extra taxes on the over $200,000 income folks. This is something that many want the benefits and do not care how they are implemented, and many think the benefits are great but not being forced and fined if a person does not have insurance (unless they meet certain criteria for help or exemption).
> 
> Tonight the 2nd part will be voted on. There are Rules in Congress that make it impossible to allow it to happen as it is, if the Senate does not change the rules going into this vote.
> 
> ...


Well put, Angie.

When you add this to the added frustrations about similar things that have been happening over the past few decades, it is bring the country to a boiling point. Many of us are retirement age, or close to it and have been (supposedly) been putting money into a trust fund for our retirement called Social Security. In the late 60's, that money was stolen from it's contributors by the federal government, and used for any social program they saw fit (the people at that time wouldn't stand for higher taxes for these programs). For those of you that are younger that don't remember how Social Security was instituted, think of it this way. You have a retirement account at a local bank which you and a number of other people are contributing to, whose principal and dividends are to be shared by the lot of you when you retire. You then get a notice from the bank that they have absconded with you account and are going to distribute it to charity. "But" they say, "where will be plenty left over for you". A few years later the say "oops the money is all gone.... don't worry.. we will start taking money from you kids savings accounts to make up for it" A few years later, they say "oops, what we are taking from your kids isn't enough either. so we are going to have to write some new rules, and btw, we no longer have money for expensive operations so we are going to start rationing the amount of health care we forced you to sign up and pay for".... Then, a few years latter...."oops" you are over 70 so it would be a waste of money for us to give you that life saving operation." If you think this is exaggerating, you are wrong, it is happening right now. 

My FIL was just denied an operation for his shoulder, that his doctor told him he would need over three years ago. The reason: "it is not cost effective for a person of your age"

These are simply the larger issues.... they go on and on with a county that is terrifically in debt, and can not pay, period. So they can either default on their debt, in which case the government would probably collapse, or they can inflate the economy to such extent that the debt will be payable, in which case any savings one has, is worth very little. For those people.... the big entertainment and sports stars, the very wealthy and connected like some of the rich political figures and businessmen, they will be able to escape the disaster. We can't run, we can't hide, and we will all suffer...those who are receiving needed benefits from the government because they are disabled, will sooner or later end up loosing this help just like the lazy who are playing the "welfare game" Do you not think all those people will be angry when they loose their support? So unless God steps in,
this country could end up down the road being another Croatia or Bosnia....

None of us wants this for ourselves or our children. Some people say, "yes, this may happen, but it will be years away" To those of you believe that, I ask you....from start to finish how long did it take the Berlin wall to fall when the Communist block got into financial trouble? Two years maybe? 

Others here think that what is happening is a good way to provide a better life for all US (and possibly world) citizens. I do not agree with them, but one can see the polarization of this thing, and the potential for radical change to come rapidly to this country. More US citizens lost their lives in the Civil War than any other war in US history. There are some who advocate anarchy, there are some who advocate socialism, no matter, this country is apparently coming to a critical period which may mean a great change for us all.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Deacon Mike said:


> But certainly not the death of hyperbole.


Or blind subservience.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Guys - with the hyperbole and blind subservience - cut it out, or this thread will get a lot of pruning. I know one of you cannot join the fun in GC/P, but don't even try it here - please.

Thanks, Angie


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

hoggie said:


> The UK has the NHS which is paid for out of Social Security. Everyone pays a % out of their income at source (I think the emplouer also pays a contribution). Everyone is entitled to health care/dentistry, but are also free to have private insurance is they wish to.
> 
> Here where I live it is a little different. We all pay Social Security employees pay a % and employers also pay a contribution. If you are self-employed you get crucified  But we never used to get any health care provision in that. A few years ago they changed the system - they increased the payments by 1%. In return for that 1% we now have insurance cover for all specialist treatments. So if I go to my Dr's surgery I have to pay cash - that is not covered. If he decided I need to go to a specialist/have an operation etc, then from then on I am covered by the insurance. Dentistry is not covered. Ambulance is not covered - I pay seperately for that cover. Medevac flights are covered. Prescription charges are not covered (but aren't terribly expensive - nothing like as expensive as paying for the meds would really cost)
> 
> Overall, I think our system works OK - not sure about the UK mainland - I know roughtly what their system entails, but have never experienced it first hand.


Hoggie
Which government agency in the UK is in charge of "enforcing" your health care?
Here it's going to be the IRS, the tax man.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AngieM2 said:


> Guys - with the hyperbole and blind subservience - cut it out, or this thread will get a lot of pruning. I know one of you cannot join the fun in GC/P, but don't even try it here - please.
> 
> Thanks, Angie


Sorry, got carried away.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Please be aware, that this forum is for people expecting to be taking care of themselves and are preparing to do so. Not to let others be their source of living.


Oh heck. Forget PC - this forum is for those that are not wanting others to take care of them and worried on how we're going to take care of ourselves and loved ones. 
Regardless of your point of view - this latest Bill signing - "Health Care Bill" - will effect our taking care of ourselves and our $$ to make provisions for the future.


----------



## rebelfarmer (Nov 8, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> So, with the tax, everyone if entitled to 'basic' coverage, but you're not _mandated_ to purchase an insurance policy, is that correct? Are there different tax % that would offer different (more) coverage or people would simply buy private insurance if they wanted more coverage?
> no we are not entitled to basic coverage we will be forced to buy insurance if we want it or not
> in 2013 the medicare payroll tax will be increased
> and by 2014 most employers and most people will be required to buy health insurance
> and in 2018 a 40% excise tax on some of the insurance polices:shrug:


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Hoggie
We're in the beginning stages of a variety of several calamities...

One, could be the opening stages of the second civil war. We have a class of people in this country that do nothing, but consume... they produce nothing. Sunday, they decided they'd take even more out of the pockets of those people who produce things. The bill passed Sunday wasn't about healthcare, it was about access to "health insurance". Adding ~30 million people to the system, when the system can't handle it's current clientele is a recipe for disaster, or as they do in Britain, rationing.

If not civil war, we're going to soon be in the same boat as Greece... bankrupt... we owe more than we make, and our govt has decided since our new leader took office, to add trillions to our debt... and at some point, people buying the debt are going to realize we're not going to be able to pay it back... they call in their loans, and we're doomed... in a few days our total economic system could collapse... people who thought they were rich will realize they own nothing but what they can physically touch... all pensions, stocks, bonds, savings, etc. will be inflated to zero... When the average schmucks realize they're destitute, there'll be trouble. When the presidents support base (entitlementees) don't get their welfare money, when social security checks are worthless, their'll be blood on the streets.

I heard the leader say after they'd pass the Kill the Health Insurance Industry Bill, that now they can go on to kill off other industries, such as energy (nationalize all oil and gas), and the environment (carbon tax us for breathing).

The mood amongst the producer's is not good. The mood of the consume only is jubilant... Obama's giving them more, out of his 'stash'.

Dark days are ahead.


----------



## hoggie (Feb 11, 2007)

Txsteader said:


> So, with the tax, everyone if entitled to 'basic' coverage, but you're not _mandated_ to purchase an insurance policy, is that correct? Are there different tax % that would offer different (more) coverage or people would simply buy private insurance if they wanted more coverage?
> 
> Thanks so much for helping me understand.
> 
> ...



Yes, everyone is entitled to coverage through paying their SS payments. No-one has to pay out for an insurance policy on otp of that. Basically, you can choose NHS or private - if you are mega rich you don't even have to have insurance to go private - if you can afford it, then it is up to you. Anyone who wants to pay for insurance can do so.

Within the SS system, there are no different % rates. You pay the set rate out of your wages at source. I don't know if there are different rates for married/single etc like with tax - there aren't here. If you are employed you are employed.

hoggie


----------



## hoggie (Feb 11, 2007)

Cornhusker said:


> Hoggie
> Which government agency in the UK is in charge of "enforcing" your health care?
> Here it's going to be the IRS, the tax man.


Social security dept takes the money - Health services administer it. I think that is similar to the UK mainland.


----------



## hoggie (Feb 11, 2007)

Angie - I am sorry if I have opened a can of worms here - I think I may have walked into a hornet's nest LOL


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Hoggie - well this can of worms is EVERYWHERE these days. And as much as I try to keep this forum not political, to be ready for what is coming/changing - it was bound to end up here some. Don't worry about bringing it up. 

And I find it interesting that your British health care is available for everyone, but you can add to it, or not have it at all if you have the money or just don't want it. That appears to be a difference than what has been signed here, (if I am reading and hearing correctly).

Now that this has been signed, it will apply to us trying to Survive the changes. and if massively changed, or just one or two changes - we have to adapt, or appear to adapt to the change in the game of Health care.

So I imagine many topics on ordering medicines, learning to do for ourselves, and then how to manage more or less cash flow.


Angie


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

AngieM2 said:


> Hoggie - well this can of worms is EVERYWHERE these days. And as much as I try to keep this forum not political, to be ready for what is coming/changing - it was bound to end up here some. Don't worry about bringing it up.
> 
> And I find it interesting that your British health care is available for everyone, but you can add to it, or not have it at all if you have the money or just don't want it. That appears to be a difference than what has been signed here, (if I am reading and hearing correctly).
> 
> ...


And I thank you, Angie. Like you said, the conversation is going to pop up everywhere. I guess my point was to highlight the fact that, even in the UK, they're not _forced_ to purchase anything, aside from paying their taxes. IMO, that's an indication of how far off-track we are as a nation and will maybe give us some ideas how to prepare for what's coming.

And thank you, Hoggie, for your answers.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Thanks Rose for the clarification. And the double billing for a few years, is a concern to anyone that watches the bottom line carefully.

My best advice, 
Quietly learn all you can of these new 'rules'.
Don't say too much. (I think I've probably already said too much)
and get yourself ready the best you can, for what you think the new rules will mean to your life and family's life.

For some, this might be considered 'The End Of The World As We Knew It" cause, I know for me, it's not something I ever knew.

Angie


----------



## hoggie (Feb 11, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> Hoggie - well this can of worms is EVERYWHERE these days. And as much as I try to keep this forum not political, to be ready for what is coming/changing - it was bound to end up here some. Don't worry about bringing it up.
> 
> And I find it interesting that your British health care is available for everyone, but you can add to it, or not have it at all if you have the money or just don't want it. That appears to be a difference than what has been signed here, (if I am reading and hearing correctly).
> 
> ...


Sorry Angie - I am not typing terribly coherrently today LOL. It is the private option that is totally optional. You don't have to have insurance to go private - if you can afford to pay for private health care without insurance you are allowed to do it. But for most if they want private they take out private health insurance. But that doesn't exempt them from paying their SS contribution - I am ot sure what that is on the mainland. Here my SS contribution is 6% which pays my pension, benefit entitlements, specialist health care as I outlined earlier, social services (I htink). But I don't know what the UK SS % is

Don't know if that has clarified or muddied it 

hoggie


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Thanks for educating me on the differences. 

Angie


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

As I briefly discussed in the "? for Ernie" thread. I believe they set the system up to fail. If your against the system you can make efforts to trash it. Encourage others to do the same.

This is the free persons solution to crash "national health care". Pay the proposed tax to the IRS. What is it 600 a year. This is great!!! Then if you ever need coverage for anything. Buy insurance for the procedure. Cancel immediately afterwards. Here is suggestion of how you could do it for child birth.

No insurance for the first two trimesters. You pay out of pocket for the first doctor visits. Then you get the insurance for the following months. So say it's 800 or so a month for 3 months you pay 2400 get the remainder of your gestation and hospital bills covered.

Total cost is less than 3000 total cost to the system will be around 10 grand. If 30% of the people do this the system ends in miserable failure. :bouncy:


----------



## bee (May 12, 2002)

well if it is true that "everybody will have to chip in" to pay for health care for the havenot/want not folks with no medical insurance..then this is another tax for services I will not benefit from. I pay a lot of taxes for schools that I being childless have never used(My parents paid for me in another state 50 years ago). My tax dollars go to support all the folks who have made poor choices like children while unwed, drugs and crime. My money goes for the dodgers who could work but won't and yes some of my money goes to those on hard times thru no fault of their own; like abandoned families, laid off workers and catastrophic disasters. My money supports our wonderful military( worth every penny and deserving of MORE). Unfortunately, my money also supports a government I no longer believe in. A true pity that my money is not buying more commom sense!!!

I and the company I work for are paying for my health care, thankyou Mr Obama, but NO THANKS! When I can't pay and the medicare system(which I have paid taxes for all my working life) has been wrecked then I guess I will hunt up a quiet tree to lean against and watch the sun go down......


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

So, Angie..did you give yourself any demerits? :lookout: 




> Old Yesterday, 07:56 PM
> AngieM2
> This message has been deleted by AngieM2. Reason: not GC


----------



## chuckie (Feb 4, 2010)

Angie:bow::bow: Learning more respect for you daily.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Tiempo said:


> So, Angie..did you give yourself any demerits? :lookout:


Just a PM telling me to behave and remember where I'm posting..


----------



## Kimmie Quilts (Mar 14, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> Not only that, but they are putting the IRS in charge of "enforcing health" care.
> They ordered tactical style shotguns for them to help us love love love our new benefits.
> I heard this morning that we will be required to have any vaccinations the government sees fit to give us.
> Hoggie, what you are seeing is the death of America, the death of Liberty.


Yep. What Cornhusker said.


----------



## Kimmie Quilts (Mar 14, 2010)

What frightens me is the mentality exhibited by one man in Florida. He said (paraphrasing) that it is 'going to be like Christmas. We'll just pay our premiums and won't have to worry about any other bills.' 

He is painfully mistaken. Even if this operates exactly as regular insurance does, he could still face a lot bills than just for the premium.


----------



## Calico Katie (Sep 12, 2003)

rose2005 said:


> Hoggie, what is the media saying about this in the UK?
> 
> For those in America, is this affecting your prepping plans at all?
> 
> Rose


Yes. I've worked for the same place for 20 years. I'm eligible to retire but planned to work for several more years so that my monthly pension would be higher. My employer matches my retirement something like 2 to 1. I'm now seriously considering retiring and taking all the money I've put in during the past 20 years. I would be able to pay off what outstanding debt I have and move. I'd have enough to buy a couple of acres and put a mobile home on it. My personal living expenses aren't that much and I believe I'd be able to make it since I would have no debt. Believe me, I can live _cheap_. 

I wouldn't have that monthly income and I'd lose what my employer would be matching but quite honestly, I have no faith that that money would be there for me anyway in another few years. If the SS I've paid in for the past decades is there in another three years, I'll see what I can get there.

Not making any quick decisions on this but I'm going to be watching very carefully for a few months and see what happens.


----------



## hoggie (Feb 11, 2007)

rose2005 said:


> Hoggie, what is the media saying about this in the UK?
> 
> For those in America, is this affecting your prepping plans at all?
> 
> Rose


Rose - virtually nothing really. I didn't see the news over the weekend, so it is possible that I missed the coverage if this kicked off on Sunday. But tonight on the news there was nothing - they are full of the budget, and the possibility of a general election in a few weeks. Just to be sure I wasn't being stupid I checked outo the BBC website - they ahve the US/Israel story, a US/Pakistan story. They ran articles on the health care bill at the weekend, and (I think) Monday which did talk about a certain difference of opinion on the subject. 

But it didn't really give the impression of the heat and depth of feeling that I am getting on here. i suppose that is why it took me by surprise a bit.

hoggie


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

Lydia said:


> So what would happen if we refused to get vaccinations they wanted us all to have? I'm not thrilled about having to take pills for things like a headache, so the idea of being forced to get a "vaccination" that I'm not willing to get scares me. And let's not even think about what they'll force us to give to the children.
> 
> This particular show of power by the US government is making me SERIOUSLY look into moving out of the country.


If you don't get the vaccinations they want you to have, they threaten to refuse you any health care under their wonderful system. 

For preppers this whole health care bill brings our country one step closer to full blown Marxism/Socialism, it makes the Constitution that much weaker and further destroys what is left of our economy. In the long run I expect it, or other similar things soon coming, to completely destroy the economy and this country. I expect to have to pay for insurance I don't want and can't use (because I don't care for vaccinations myself), or to become illegal because I won't pay for it and possibly lose our home via the IRS. Lots there to consider prepping for, eh? 

I won't say any other country will be "better" politically or in the sense that the gov't will run the citizens life through tyranny... however, it may be that a collapse of this gov't will bring about some pretty horrific living conditions, where the middle class is done for and we will have the very rich and the poor, like most of the world. In the process of that change, it could be very dark indeed and one might well consider leaving the country for one that is more stable, if already Socialist or Marxist. 

Seems to me that whoever is in charge of running this country (and you can be sure its not the President, doesn't matter who we vote for, they are all already in the running because they've agreed at some level to be a puppet), wants to ruin us and its going to happen. Get ready preppers!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

rose2005 said:


> Hoggie, what is the media saying about this in the UK?
> 
> For those in America, is this affecting your prepping plans at all?
> 
> Rose


I'm not sure what sort of news organization it is, but Reese posted a thread up in Politics called 'EU Times says' you might want to look at.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

that EU link said almost exactly the same type of thing as the RU did.


----------



## Rainy (Jan 21, 2010)

Oh don't worry about what is happening, in a month the government will be doing something else that will have everybody freaking out again... You would think they had announced we got the plague or something... What is Happening? Nothing ! It's another beautiful day that our Lord has created.


----------



## Firethorn (Nov 1, 2004)

Scott in Florida Panhandl said:


> *There has never been a point in our history where the federal government has been given the authority to require citizens to buy goods or services.â *
> 
> People can only take so much.


Very well said. BUT one thing comes to mind. Auto insurance. They force that. Although I dont see it as all that bad AND its state/local (I think) Not Federal.


----------



## Firethorn (Nov 1, 2004)

Rainy said:


> Oh don't worry about what is happening, in a month the government will be doing something else that will have everybody freaking out again... You would think they had announced we got the plague or something... What is Happening? Nothing ! It's another beautiful day that our Lord has created.


Sounds like the birds head is in the sand.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Firethorn said:


> Very well said. BUT one thing comes to mind. Auto insurance. They force that. Although I dont see it as all that bad AND its state/local (I think) Not Federal.


Firethorn - I keep seeing the auto insurance requirement to DRIVE. But, do you have to have it to walk? To ride a horse, to sit on your tush? I know if I do not have a car- I don't buy auto insurance.

Therefore - if you don't breathe you will not need to pay the fee for not having insurance or you will have insurance, or have insurance subsidized by some method by the government.

At least this is the way I see that car insurance comparison.


----------



## mellowguy (Jul 8, 2009)

Sweetsurrender said:


> Canada has nationalized health care and it is horrible. The US gov kept using it as an example and I think it is laughable. I was a Canadian for 37 years before I moved here. I know what I'm talking about. There are new private clinics opening every week up there. Why do you think? Because the system failed.


I don't want to start a debate on health care, but if you've indeed lived in Canada for 37 years, you'd know that for every Canadian horror story shown on US news, there are thousands of personal US horror stories of bankrupt uninsured americans or of insured americans with pre-existing conditions.

If you asked the average Canadian, the average British, the average French, the average Indian, the average Scandinavian and even the average Mexican, they much prefer their system to the mess that exists in the US. Now don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely not suggesting that the Obama bill is your solution (it's not IMHO), or even a step in the right direction (it's doubtful: it will just increase premium costs). What I'm saying is that you can't believe everything that gets publicized in your media.


----------



## 36376 (Jan 24, 2009)

The auto insurance is mandated by state governments, not the federal government. The states have the constitutional right to do so. You are driving a vehicle that may damage another person or others property. The federal government has no constitutional right to do what they are doing. The interstate commerce clause does not apply because we are not allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines. The federal government does not have the constitutional right to "regulate" INTRAstate commerce.


----------



## Rainy (Jan 21, 2010)

No my head is not in the sand. I am very aware of what is going on, I just choose to live my life and not freak out over it. What good does it do? 
You know this healthcare thing is bidding people against people, do you not see that?
You have the right to how feel, i have the right to feel about this how i feel it's called Freedom. You also have the right to speak how you feel and so do I, why can't we do that on this issue and people not get mad,and say rude things... you know respect one another's opinion's... Just a thought.. 
Hate the sand, and don't like my feet in it..


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Rainy - this is Survival - and usually people that want to be free from being taken care of frequent this area. The ones that want others to take care of them usually only come down here to call us paranoid, and wearing tin foil hats.

So, if you find the group here not quite so laid back, it's cause most of us do think our laws have been broken, and that this is forcing a nanny state onto everyone.

You may not find this as other places in HT where the arguing is a high lever free for all, this is the only political thread in here, and it's more of how we are going to deal with what is done.

If you are okay with it, that's cool. Just don't expect it to be a fit for this forum. 

So, what are you doing to be prepared? Do you have extra's handy so if weather comes around and knocks out your power, or if you have bills that keep you from getting to the store for awhile?

Angie


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Auto insurance is a state requirement, not a Federal Requirement.


----------



## Firethorn (Nov 1, 2004)

mellowguy said:


> I don't want to start a debate on health care, but if you've indeed lived in Canada for 37 years, you'd know that for every Canadian horror story shown on US news, there are thousands of personal US horror stories of bankrupt uninsured americans or of insured americans with pre-existing conditions.
> 
> If you asked the average Canadian, the average British, the average French, the average Indian, the average Scandinavian and even the average Mexican, they much prefer their system to the mess that exists in the US. Now don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely not suggesting that the Obama bill is your solution (it's not IMHO), or even a step in the right direction (it's doubtful: it will just increase premium costs). What I'm saying is that you can't believe everything that gets publicized in your media.


Is that so? Is that why so many Illeagals come here to go to our free hospitals. Saw a story about a hospital called Parkland in TX somewhere. You can start there if you thing Im bluffing. Or Canadians that come to the US for major medical? 
No, I dont think they are as happy as you claim.


----------



## Firethorn (Nov 1, 2004)

Rainy said:


> No my head is not in the sand. I am very aware of what is going on, I just choose to live my life and not freak out over it. What good does it do?
> You know this healthcare thing is bidding people against people, do you not see that?
> You have the right to how feel, i have the right to feel about this how i feel it's called Freedom. You also have the right to speak how you feel and so do I, why can't we do that on this issue and people not get mad,and say rude things... you know respect one another's opinion's... Just a thought..
> Hate the sand, and don't like my feet in it..


You just said "what is happening? Nothing!" I responded to that. I think indeed something is happening. I agree, you have the right to live and feel the way you want UNTIL it hurts someone else. I think that because so many Americans have lived their lives for them self, not wanting to give up their feelings of "all is well" that it has indeed hurt America. We are rapidly seeing the long term effects of you do your thing Ill do mine. We are falling apart because we wont look and see and act accordingly. 

(all this said in a calm tone. LOL No bashing intended..just stating how I see things)


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

when i lived in washington state (20+ years ago), i recall that proof of financial responsibility for any damage you may cause was required to drive, not specifically auto insurance. at that time, posting a $20k bond was sufficient to prove financial responsiblity in case you we at fault in an accident. of course, showing an auto policy with the right level of coverage was also proof of financial responsibility too. (no bond for me, i just bought insurance. but being nervous about getting my first drivers licence, i actually read the drivers manual, and recall the bond being a quirky rule that somehow stuck in my head.)

--sgl


----------



## Rainy (Jan 21, 2010)

Angie, I have never fit into anything... and that don't bother me one bit.. do i prep??
Yes i do... I have enough food for over a year, I can shoot a gun, i can fish, I walk most places, i have a generator and enough gas for a year. I grow one heck of a garden, i can even milk a cow. I have been into survival for along time.
I was raised dirt poor and my Grandparents who raised me taught me to survive. They taught me that everyone has an opinion too. So I shared mine... i like this forum just fine. Thank you for taking the time to ask . nice to meet you


----------



## Rainy (Jan 21, 2010)

Oh Angie, the people in my neighbor they call me very strange and weird. I like paranoid alot better.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Hoggie and Rose - the extra insurance policies in England and the Channel Isles -
And for anyone that has similar outside the USA. -

1. There has been reference to additional insurance policies.
2. They sound a bit like our insurances as of March 22, 2010 (before)
3. So your SS takes the percentage and you/every you/ gets basic health care
if you have extra funds, you can get a better coverage for $$
4. If you do not have extra funds, you are having just what is offered by Gov via SS $'s
5. Are the extra insurance companies controlled in the same manner as the SS $ funded general health care or are they more regulated but not necessarily part of that SS $ paid for care? 
6. Now, the way I think I read the newly signed bill, all of our insurance companies must be in the pool, and can only sell to compliant citizens not to just ones that would rather pay the finds and get their own insurance.
7. Or, we chose one of three plans, get taxed way much 2014 and after for the top level plan, but still do not get to purchase what extra we want - independent of gov't controlled ins. companies. 

I think this puts together what I've read about British type of coverage and what I'm getting from the various posts for/against this new bill and what I've read leading up to it.

So, Rose and Hoggie - can you tell me where I'm correct and incorrect pertaining to British stuff, and anyone else - are my conclusions on the coverage for USA 3/23/10 and after about what I've posted?

Thanks, 
Angie

PS. Knowing the rules leads to doing what you want within the set up, or at least closer it it.


----------



## mellowguy (Jul 8, 2009)

Firethorn said:


> Is that so? Is that why so many Illeagals come here to go to our free hospitals. Saw a story about a hospital called Parkland in TX somewhere. You can start there if you thing Im bluffing. Or Canadians that come to the US for major medical?


Like I said, don't listen to highly publicized news reports on the idiot tube, because they only report what they want you to hear. Did you know that there are more Americans that get medical care in (oh! the horror!) Mexico than there are Canadians seeking treatment in the USA?
Read this article, it's even from a Fox associate: 
http://kdka.com/national/health.care.mexico.2.668437.html

How about Americans that can't get proper health care in the US, and are forced to seek health care in Canada? Like Sarah Palin's family for example:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/a...ire-admits-family-sought-healthcare-in-canada
...and it's not just people in remote states like Alaska...Americans that don't want to declare bankruptcy regularly get treated in Canada:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/americans-whove-used-cana_b_215256.html (I know, that's from the Huffington Post, but I got lazy with googling).

And why do Americans feel compelled to buy their prescription drugs in Canada:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=americans+buy+drugs+in+canada

You've got to seek your news coverage from more than one source in order to reach a balanced judgment. US health care is great if you are (very) affluent or insured without a pre-existing condition. For everyone else though...


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

mellowguy - since your profile says you are in Ontario - please tell us about the health insurance coverage you have and how it helps you to Survive and be ready for Emergencies?

Do you have the ability to buy additional insurance? Is extra insurance part of the general insurance companies?

Tell us more about that.

And the two going tit for tat about people coming and going into each country - lay off, and try to survive this new set of rules, or learn how other countries address these issues. And lay off the insults, either way.. That's for other forums, maybe -


----------



## Rainy (Jan 21, 2010)

Firethorn i think that we have fallen apart quite awhile back,that is why I prep. like there is no tomorrow.There is going to come a time, and i see it coming quite soon, that we will not even know what in the world happen to our America. We should have stood up along time for what we believed. Yep, that includes me too.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Thanks Rose - sorry about your head. maybe tomorrow I can learn a bit more.

But it is sounding as the percentage out of paycheck is similar to our SS and FICA - 
But, you have to pay, but you have options to purchase other insurance.

What happens if you don't work and do not pay SS?

Answer tomorrow or something if you feel up to it. And thanks for the information.

Angie


----------



## mellowguy (Jul 8, 2009)

Angie, I didn't think I was insulting anyone. If I did, I apologize (we're known to do that a lot, eh?). I was trying to dispell a myth that keeps getting brought up.



AngieM2 said:


> mellowguy - since your profile says you are in Ontario - please tell us about the health insurance coverage you have and how it helps you to Survive and be ready for Emergencies?


Medical care is free to all residents:
- Visit to a doctor because you have the sniffles: $0.00
- Quadruple bypass and hospital stay: $0.00
- Visit to emergency room after accident, and 6-month hospital stay: $0.00
- Removing a cancerous tumour, followed by radiation treatment, etc.: $0.00
- etc.

Some health care such as dental, chiropractic, homecare, etc. are not covered, but affordable. Ambulance transportation is not covered. Drug prescriptions are not covered but much more affordable than in the US (less than 50%). Drugs administered at the hospital or clinic are covered. All prescription drugs for seniors are usually covered by all provinces (although they may have small deductibles).

Physiotherapy is odd: if you need it after a medical procedure: free. If you need it after an accident: not free (~$20/visit is typical).

Some provinces have catastrophic government coverage for the services not covered. Ontario, for example, has a prescription drug program for those that spend more than 3% of their income on prescription drugs (deductible = 3% of income). Eye tests for children and seniors is government-funded.

Getting bankrupted over medical bills is unheard of here.



> Do you have the ability to buy additional insurance? Is extra insurance part of the general insurance companies?


Many employers (most large ones) will provide coverage for all the non-covered services above, as well as things like short-term disability, long-term disability, out-of-country insurance, vision care (glasses + ophtalmologist), life insurance, etc. Small deductibles and limits are more typical than "co-pay".

Those that don't have coverage with their employer for these services can sometimes obtain it affordably through professional organizations. If not, they can buy their own coverage, but it's usually unaffordable (people who seek insurance for these services are most likely to want/need to use them)

As I contemplate leaving the corporate life to homestead/semi-retire, I feel pretty good making the jump without my employer's coverage, knowing that medical care is free, catastrophic drug coverage is available, and the non-covered services may cost a few hundred/year.

What we can't buy (in the way of insurance coverage) is insurance coverage for medical care that are free from the government (i.e. we can't buy private insurance allowing us to be treated in a private clinic).

Decisions about care is 100% decided by the doctor. The hospital administration is not involved in the decision. No government or insurance company bureaucrat decide what tests or procedures are covered vs non-covered. We don't have "death panels", never heard of them until it was brought up in the US debate.

Serious emergency treatment is fast. a dislocated shoulder got me in immediately, and fixed within an hour. When my father-in-law had a heart attack, he was seen immediately at our small hospital, put in an ambulance (free if going from an hospital to another), sent to a metro hospital 30 minutes away (we're in a small town), got treated, got an angio-plastie, got his shunt removed all within a total of about 4 hours. Total cost: $0.00.

An appointment with a family doctor usually happens next day. A visit to a walk-in clinic may require 1-hour wait. A broken leg may take you 3-4 hours by the time you leave with a (free) cast. However, visit to hospital emergency because you have the sniffles in January, and you may have to wait 4-5 hours.

Emergency surgery usually happens in a timely manner (same day if necessary), within days or 2-3 weeks if acceptable, etc. Elective surgery is what can take a long time and what typically result in the type of queues you may hear about. For example: an orthopedic surgery to prevent my shoulder from further dislocating events took me about 7-8 months (including the wait time for the MRI). Cost was $0.00 including 3 months of physiotherapy and follow-up visits. That's the kind of service for which Canadians sometimes seek private test clinics (private MRI = about $800 and no wait time) or treatment in the US: if you don't want to wait months for elective surgery and don't mind paying $10,000, $20,000 or $50,000, then the US is an option to skip the line.

I think Canada spends 10% of GDP on health care while USA spends about 15%. We should reasonably remove most of the horror stories from our health system if we just increased our spending to 11-12%. A GP may make $200K/yr while a specialist makes $300-400K (I think). Very little is spent on bureaucracy, insurance companies or administration compared to the USA.


----------



## mellowguy (Jul 8, 2009)

AngieM2 said:


> Thanks Rose - sorry about your head. maybe tomorrow I can learn a bit more.
> 
> But it is sounding as the percentage out of paycheck is similar to our SS and FICA -
> But, you have to pay, but you have options to purchase other insurance.
> ...


Rose is in Virginia, not Canada. If your question is still about comparative Canada/USA, than the answer is that we don't have health premiums. Medical coverage is free whether you are employed, unemployed or retired. However, In their inifinite wisdom our provincial governments started to find more ways to tax us. Here, in Ontario, a graduated "health tax" was introduced as an income tax measure. It's $300/yr if you earn $20K up to $900 if you make $200K. We don't look at it as a health premium, but just another way our government found to tax our income without "raising income tax".


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

mellowguy - 1st - apology accepted.. you were coming on a bit strong - but
wow the rest of this information is good dialog and information.

What type of percentage is taken out of your gross paycheck to apply to this medical coverage? And once you are not bringing in an income from a paycheck, what will the changes to your coverage be? Also, have you always been on this coverage?
Did anyone have to pay for a few years before getting the coverage?

And - since you're pretty new, have you been reading the pro/con threads in other forums to get the different sides' points of view?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

mellowguy - Rose is originally British and became American after marrying Deaconjim and moving around in USA and settling in VA. That's why what she can tell me about Britian holds water. She lost her first husband due to some of the slowness of her area of British's health care.

Since that's public knowledge I don't feel as if I'm betraying any confidences explaining why her knowledge is credible.

Angie


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

MG - thanks for the additional information on even your government finding another way into your pocket.

That must be a UNIVERSAL government pasttime!


----------



## jtjf_1 (Nov 7, 2009)

I don't know about percentages that go to health care. But I do know level of service is the same for all people. No matter your wage or lack of wage you get the same level of service.

For all my trips to the doctor and hospital I have never had a complaint. Sometimes we have problems with crowded hospitals due to a lack of funding from the government but mostly these are rare occasions. 

I feel the Canadian systems works very well there are some draw backs but all in all it get the job done professionally and in reasonable time.

One thing you will hear is long wait times for elective surgery. If the surgery you are having effects your ability to work (ie you can;t work till its done) the government will compensate you for wages missed. This compensation varies between provinces.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

jtjf-1 - I see you are in Indonesia - how do they handle health care over there?

And from your knowledge of Canada health care, you must have spent time there or be from there. Would that be Ontario or a different provience? (pardon my spelling please).

Angie


----------



## mellowguy (Jul 8, 2009)

AngieM2 said:


> What type of percentage is taken out of your gross paycheck to apply to this medical coverage?


If you're talking about the government medical coverage, it's paid from our income taxes. Here in Ontario: 0% under $10-12K, ~20% from $10K-$40K, ~31% from $40K-80K, ~43% from $80K-130K and ~46% above $130K. A bunch of deductions and credits apply. It's a bit higher than what most Americans pay, but for someone earning an average salary, it's probably on par with (and possibly below) your combination of federal tax + most state taxes + health care premium.

If you're talking about the employer coverage (dental, chiropractician, out-of-country coverage, drugs, wheelchair rental, ambulance transportation, etc.), then in my case, it's entirely paid by my employer. Some people have to pay 50%, but I don't think that this coverage cost much more than $1,000/yr (for 50%) in their case. I may be wrong, but not by much. Life insurance, long-term disability and short-term disability are also paid by the employer in my case, but I wouldn't consider that "health care".



> And once you are not bringing in an income from a paycheck, what will the changes to your coverage be? Also, have you always been on this coverage? Did anyone have to pay for a few years before getting the coverage?


The government coverage (pure medical stuff) is offered from birth to death, no matter whether one is employed or not. New immigrants get it after 6 months of residency. There is no pre-existing condition exclusions. The list of inclusions/exclusions will change from time to time depending on the government whim, but that's usually for the more minor stuff. For example, eye tests stopped being covered 3-4 years ago to save money in Ontario (except for children and seniors).

Employer coverage (prescription drugs, physio, eye tests, etc.) is provided by most companies (except mom-and-pop places), but the coverage, deductibles and limits may change from employer to employer. There is typically a waiting period (~3 months) and coverage usually continues a very short while after termination (typically for 2-3 months, at least where I work). No pre-existing conditions exclusions here either.

The difference for me once I quit my job will probably be a reasonable expectation that I'll have to fork out a few hundreds of dollars of extra expenses for dentist checkups and a few small prescriptions per year (antibiotics, etc.). If things get real ugly (chronic disease requiring constant prescription drugs), I may be out of pocket a couple of thousands per year. 



> And - since you're pretty new, have you been reading the pro/con threads in other forums to get the different sides' points of view?


Not really, because it's not something that will impact me directly. I know our system well, I know your system reasonably well, I know the issues each country faces, but I tend to see the pros and cons presented by both parties as being political posturing, and lobbyists' points-of-view. I quickly read what's in this week's health bill, and my first thought was that it is going to increase everyone's premiums rather than being a silver-bullet that fixes the system. To me, cost containment appears to be the US issue, and this bill proposes nothing to fix it (I honestly don't think there is a way to reduce costs substantially in your health system. It's an artificial economy that the US can't afford to lose).


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

for those who understand the canadian system:
how does the canadian system set the payment schedule for particular services? is that set by the gov't? (eg, who decides that an angioplasty pays the doc $5k or $20k or whatever? does that payment vary between provices? between urban/rural?) 

(in my limited understanding, i think i read that the gov't sets the pay rates for each procedure, but i'm quite possibly wrong. also, i'm curious what happens if the payment for a particular procedure is set way to low, or too high, or if there's any political influence on how those payments are changed over time.)

--sgl


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I will chime in here and say that Mellowguy's explanation for how it is in Ontario is the same as it is here in British Columbia.

.


----------



## mellowguy (Jul 8, 2009)

sgl ... each provincial government sets the rates. I'm not sure how the process works, but the prices have to be high enough to:

- attract students into the profession
- prevent a brain-drain to another province
- prevent a brain-drain to the US (young Canadians specialists used to seek US practices where income could sometimes be twice as high)
- attract doctors from abroad

Doctors are generally extremely well respected here. Canadians very rarely object to income earned by them.

Google led me to that list of fees: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/ohip/sob/physserv/physserv_mn.html

I can't make sense of the cardiology schedule for your angio sample (i.e. it's probably a combination of a dozen+ procedures).

Also...
Keep in mind that it's a single-payer system (government pays), but not a government-ran system.
Most services are partially or fully delivered by self-employed doctors or private companies (i.e. doctors are not civil servants).
Doctors are usually self-employed (typically incorporated for tax purpose).
Doctors usually consult in their private office (or in private clinic where multiple doctors are partners)
Doctors have to pay their private office expenses (including assistants, etc.)
Surgeons would typically get operating room time from hospitals. I don't believe they pay for that or for the operating room nurses (i.e. it's built into the fee schedule that they don't pay for it (or vice-versa if I'm wrong).
Hospitals are publicly owned and government funded (i.e. it's pretty much the only governmentally ran entities). Hospital administrators pretty much deal with administration and admitted patients, but not the specialist areas (clinics, surgeries, etc.) 
Doctors/Surgeons sometimes have their offices in a clinic attached to the hospital (I assume they pay a rental fee).
I believe most doctors dedicate some of their time to hospital ERs, where they either get a fee based on a similar fee schedule, or a salary (probably a fee based on the procedure)
Private clinics and doctor's offices typically have small diagnostic devices such as X-ray machines. MRI or Catscan are done at hospitals
Hospitals and large private clinics have their own labs (for tests). Small clinics use private labs for tests. 
A similar fee schedule exists for lab tests (which are also paid by our government, with maybe a few elective exceptions)


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Mellowguy, kudos to you. :thumb: 

In your posts here you have managed to explain the Canadian health care system more concisely and correctly than anyone else on the board has ever managed to do in the past 4 years of discussions here about the subject.

Sir, hats off to you, you rock. :goodjob: :rock: 

.


----------



## Firethorn (Nov 1, 2004)

If this was said already I apologize. 
I keep seeing the word "free" when discussing Canada's medical coverage. 
and "the Gov" covers it. 
In fact. it does not. The people pay for that service. All working people. And I think I remember the taxes being pretty darn high in Canada. 
I dont understand why it does not bother Canadians that they loose a good percentage of their income to pay for medical for people unwilling to work. Im not referring to retire folk, or disabled folk but the masses that wont work. That are comfortable living off the hard work of others. 
We are now facing this. And not just this but many other problems. The health care program our stupid handlers have set in motion is not mirroring the Canadian system. Its a whole other beast and the American people (majority by large) did NOT want it. Yet here we are.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Firethorn said:


> I dont understand why it does not bother Canadians that they loose a good percentage of their income to pay for medical for people unwilling to work. Im not referring to retire folk, or disabled folk but the masses that wont work. That are comfortable living off the hard work of others.


On a per capita basis we don't actually have the masses of unemployed people unwilling to work that you (apparently) do. Also, on a per capita basis, we don't have the huge numbers of illegal immigrants or all the welfare moms with huge families that America (apparently) has. Let me clarify, I say _apparently_ based on all the things I read other people on this forum writing about the situation in America. 

Different country, different population, different government and tax systems, _somewhat_ different lifestyles and work ethic, and maybe it's even a different mind-set and attitude with regard to all citizens caring and looking out for each other, even strangers. 

I personally don't know anybody who minds having a percentage of their income be taxed to go towards medical care for the 'whole'. We all do, or will, need the medical care at some point, and it's very heartening to know it is there for everybody and that there is no insurance and co-pays and limitations on pre-existing conditions or private payments for it to bankrupt us or leave us poverty-stricken.

Heh heh. Maybe it's a Canadian _bee-hive_ attitude - all for one and one for all, for the benefit of all. I believe some of you folks might call that socialism. 

.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

naturelover said:


> On a per capita basis we don't actually have the masses of unemployed people unwilling to work that you (apparently) do. Also, on a per capita basis, we don't have the huge numbers of illegal immigrants or all the welfare moms with huge families that America (apparently) has. Let me clarify, I say _apparently_ based on all the things I read other people on this forum writing about the situation in America.
> 
> Different country, different population, different government and tax systems, _somewhat_ different lifestyles and work ethic, and maybe it's even a different mind-set and attitude with regard to all citizens caring and looking out for each other, even strangers.
> 
> ...


The issue as I see it in the US is we have lost our way. 

A comparison to our Canadian neighbors to the north misses the mark. One point is your population is tiny to ours. For instance there is close to five times the population within 200 miles of me when compared to the entire population of all of Canada. All politics being local. IMHO A federal system wont work here. To little representation. What we should have here is state based systems. Where if people choose they can have the state they live in decide what is best for the people of the state. Then competition and varying approaches will bare fruit. What is actually best will stand out. This would be acceptable as far as the constitution is concerned and would meet with the intent of the foundation of this nation. That is the beauty of our system it was designed to be flexible, accountable, and local.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

mellowguy and naturelover - thank you for your explanations about Canadian health care.

The issue of the illegal immigrants - your country seems to be controlling that much better than ours. It's one of our major issues - I wish USA would be a bit more discerning as I hear Canada is.

Also, I do not hear of the 'professional welfare' people when Canadians talk. We do have a portion of the population here that are of the "leach" mentality and life style. Most workers that have worked to object to what we consider robbed to give to those that will not work. We usually have no objections to truly disabled, ones down on hard times but still striving, and the old.

This one payer system you describe would be infinitely better than what has just been signed into law. (my opinion from what is described here)

And please understand. The people that love the USA as the land of the free, do believe this is an abomination of special interests being taken care of and I for one, am trying to figure it out and hope the states can kill the bill. Health care here would be much better financially, if we just started with giving aide to illegals when they need it - then ship them back to their origin location.

What does Canada (or other country) do with illegal aliens and health care?

Thank you for all this information. It's the sanest thing I've seen recently.

Angie


----------



## MelTX (Aug 25, 2009)

Cornhusker said:


> Or blind subservience.


Amen!


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

AngieM2 said:


> mellowguy and naturelover - thank you for your explanations about Canadian health care.
> 
> The issue of the illegal immigrants - your country seems to be controlling that much better than ours. It's one of our major issues - I wish USA would be a bit more discerning as I hear Canada is.
> 
> ...


Wow, Angie. I didn't want to touch that one. Tho I do have an opinion. I'll keep my mouth shut. :grit:

You must know how hard it is for me.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

stanb999 said:


> The issue as I see it in the US is we have lost our way.
> 
> A comparison to our Canadian neighbors to the north misses the mark. *One point is your population is tiny to ours.* For instance there is close to five times the population within 200 miles of me when compared to the entire population of all of Canada. All politics being local. IMHO A federal system wont work here. To little representation. *What we should have here is state based systems. Where if people choose they can have the state they live in decide what is best for the people of the state.* Then competition and varying approaches will bare fruit. What is actually best will stand out. This would be acceptable as far as the constitution is concerned and would meet with the intent of the foundation of this nation. That is the beauty of our system it was designed to be flexible, accountable, and local.


What I highlighted above - those are good points and I agree with you that it would probably work better for you set up that way. Those are a couple of reasons why it works well for us. Our national population is 1/10th of yours - and each province/territory governs it's own health care system - although I do believe the fee schedules are pretty much standard right across the board for the whole nation - and I know that people travelling from one province to another needing healthcare would have it paid for the same as it would be in their home province.

.


----------



## Sweetsurrender (Jan 14, 2009)

mellowguy said:


> I don't want to start a debate on health care, but if you've indeed lived in Canada for 37 years, you'd know that for every Canadian horror story shown on US news, there are thousands of personal US horror stories of bankrupt uninsured americans or of insured americans with pre-existing conditions.
> 
> If you asked the average Canadian, the average British, the average French, the average Indian, the average Scandinavian and even the average Mexican, they much prefer their system to the mess that exists in the US. Now don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely not suggesting that the Obama bill is your solution (it's not IMHO), or even a step in the right direction (it's doubtful: it will just increase premium costs). What I'm saying is that you can't believe everything that gets publicized in your media.


I find your wording: *if you've indeed lived in Canada for 37 years* frankly a little insulting. You think I'm making it up? I immigrated to the US when I was 37 and married my husband, I will soon be 43. I am still Canadian. Since I have moved here I have birthed 2 children, had one total thyroidectomy, a child in the NICU at birth for 9 days. I have had ample opportunity to see the US health care system at work. *Before moving to the US, I too believe the Canadian health care system was better than the one in the US, it was "free" after all, who can beat "free"?* I fully understand there are under insured and uninsured in the US but the level of care here is so much superior and that can be counted in lives saved. I would just hate to see the US health care system go the way the Canadian one did.

Being hospitalized in Canada and ending up in a bed in a hallway is common. Does anyone know this? Whole wings in hospitals are closed due to lack of staff and funding and so what is open is crowded. Hospitals cannot afford the latest technologies and again that translates into lost lives. If anyone is interested in seeing what a hospital looks like in Canada I invite them to watch the first 2 minutes of the movie The Barbarian Invasions (French: Les Invasions barbares) which won an Oscar for best foreign film in 2004. Although it is fiction, the first 2 minutes might as well be a documentary because it is so realistic. From 42 seconds until the end.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R2YIbUP9J4&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

stanb999 said:


> Wow, Angie. I didn't want to touch that one. Tho I do have an opinion. I'll keep my mouth shut. :grit:
> 
> You must know how hard it is for me.


Send me a PM and tell me.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

AngieM2 said:


> What does Canada (or other country) do with illegal aliens and health care?


I can't speak for all other provinces or federal regulations in general, can only give some examples from first hand knowledge of what's happened here in BC. First of all we really don't get many illegal immigrants just because of our northern location, and the majority of those who do get in come in seeking refugee status and are in very desperate straits. 

So for example here in BC there have been some occassion when ships (rusting hulks that will be sunk once they reach our shore and unload their passengers on isolated shorelines) have crossed the Pacific Ocean in a nightmare trip, landing illegals seeking refuge in Canada. They are called "Boat People". They cram them into the ships like sardines and they arrive on our shores sick, lice-ridden, starving, skin and bones and having paid all their life-savings for passage across the Pacific. The coast guard discovers them, they get taken into custody and taken immediately to a holding center where the first priority is to provide much needed medical care and food and clothing (orange jumpers). 

And then they get processed, which can take many weeks. Most are granted refugee status because they've come from really horrible places and to send them back would be a death sentence, but some do get deported back to their places of origin. I don't know what that whole procedure is and how they determine who gets to stay and who gets deported. The ones who get to stay will be indoctrinated into Canadian ways, and to start them off will be "adopted" - assigned out to sponsor homes and communities who will take charge of them (usually people of same ethnic origin and language) spread out across the nation. They have to go to school, learn to speak English, that's #1 priority. I can't tell you all the details since I don't know the details, but I'd assume they qualify for full medical coverage after they've been in the country for 6 months, are set up in residence and going to school or working at jobs, depending on what their initial needs are. They have to become Canadian citizens of course, and fulfill the responsibilities of citizenship.

When I worked at Vancouver Community College in the 1970's we had an influx of Vietnamese boat people coming into the country at that time and one of my jobs was to conduct tests to assess boat people for language skills and education. (Wee little people, who, as adults only came up to my shoulder, and I'm only 5'2"). :grin: Each one would sit in my class with an interpreter at their side and be tested to find out what their educational level and working skill sets were. They were all sincere people who truly wanted to start a new life for themselves and were eager to learn our ways and become productive Canadian citizens. Most of them would put in twice as much effort as the natural born Canadian students.

.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

naturelover said:


> I can't speak for all other provinces or federal regulations in general, can only give some examples from first hand knowledge of what's happened here in BC. First of all we really don't get many illegal immigrants just because of our northern location, and the majority of those who do get in come in seeking refugee status and are in very desperate straits.
> 
> So for example here in BC there have been some occassion when ships (rusting hulks that will be sunk once they reach our shore and unload their passengers on isolated shorelines) have crossed the Pacific Ocean in a nightmare trip, landing illegals seeking refuge in Canada. They are called "Boat People". They cram them into the ships like sardines and they arrive on our shores sick, lice-ridden, starving, skin and bones and having paid all their life-savings for passage across the Pacific. The coast guard discovers them, they get taken into custody and taken immediately to a holding center where the first priority is to provide much needed medical care and food and clothing (orange jumpers).
> 
> ...


Your experience as a Canadian while valuable on some levels has no bearing on the US. For instance near 1 1/2 times as many people are moving to Florida than the entire Canadian immigration. To put things in perspective. over half of your total immigration moved to Atlanta, And don't try to tell them southerners that them Yankees aren't foreigners!


----------



## mellowguy (Jul 8, 2009)

AngieM2 said:


> The issue of the illegal immigrants - your country seems to be controlling that much better than ours. It's one of our major issues - I wish USA would be a bit more discerning as I hear Canada is.


As naturelover pointed out, it's a geographical advantage. We do have some issues with immigration, but not to the extent you do. There just isn't an easy and cheap way to access Canada from countries that could be a source of illegal immigration.



> Also, I do not hear of the 'professional welfare' people when Canadians talk. We do have a portion of the population here that are of the "leach" mentality and life style. Most workers that have worked to object to what we consider robbed to give to those that will not work. We usually have no objections to truly disabled, ones down on hard times but still striving, and the old.


There are some professional welfare people here. They get welfare payments from the provinces. Hard working people object most to the fact that they receive welfare payments, than to the fact that they don't contribute to the health cost with their taxes.



> This one payer system you describe would be infinitely better than what has just been signed into law. (my opinion from what is described here)


The one payer system is quite similar to your Medicare system. Just imagine extending Medicare to the entire population, and raising taxes instead of charging a premium. The problem with implementing the one-payer system in the USA (IMHO) is that there are too many layers of costs already embedded in your system, and it would be unaffordable. So much of your health cost goes into administration (army of bureaucrats working for insurance companies), profits, drugs (so much more expensive than what the same drugs sell for anywhere in the world, high income (a nurse here probably makes $60K at the height of her career, and a cardiologist probably makes $400-500K max), etc. There is a need to reduce your existing cost before implementing a "free-for-all" single payer system, and I can't think of how it could be accomplished. Then, there is the problem of perception as pointed out by many posters: giving something free to people that may or may not be working for it goes against many people's ideals.


----------



## mellowguy (Jul 8, 2009)

Sweetsurrender said:


> I find your wording: *if you've indeed lived in Canada for 37 years* frankly a little insulting.


sweetsurrender, I know I've come hard on that statement, and it was uncalled for. I'm sorry.



> Since I have moved here I have birthed 2 children, had one total thyroidectomy, a child in the NICU at birth for 9 days. I have had ample opportunity to see the US health care system at work. *Before moving to the US, I too believe the Canadian health care system was better than the one in the US, it was "free" after all, who can beat "free"?* I fully understand there are under insured and uninsured in the US but the level of care here is so much superior and that can be counted in lives saved. I would just hate to see the US health care system go the way the Canadian one did.


Let me start by saying that I do understand that the level of care is much better in the USA for anyone that is wealthy or anyone that has good insurance coverage and no pre-existing condition coverage. Better amenities, more equipment, better customer service, etc. 

The argument of more lives being saved in the USA because of a superior health system is often made, but appears anectodal to me. If you look at figures on life expectancy and rate of death at birth, you'll find that the US trails Canada, and pro-Canadian arguments often point to health care availability. I can find a link to these numbers if you want me to. I also remember reading academic reports showing that Canadians tend to have a higher rate of survival to heart attacks for the same reason.

I have no doubt that you are happy with the care you are getting. I assume you have good insurance coverage.



> Being hospitalized in Canada and ending up in a bed in a hallway is common. Does anyone know this? Whole wings in hospitals are closed due to lack of staff and funding and so what is open is crowded.


I've seen media coverage of what you describe too. I can't dispute that it happens. Like I said in a previous post, Canadian spending on health care is about 2/3 of what US spends. We need to spend more, but there is no political will to do so. Increasing health spending by 10-20% would probably resolve these issues and reduce queues for elective surgeries.


----------



## Sweetsurrender (Jan 14, 2009)

@ mellowguy

I accept your apology. I believe your numbers. I do think there are more factors involved. I would think that obesity which is much higher in the US has something to do with general health. I do believe Canadians take better care of themselves, there is less junk food, less convenience processed foods. I remember I was lost when I started grocery shopping here. There are BIG cultural differences between the 2 countries and I was not fully aware of them until I had moved here.

I do have excellent health care insurance and for that I am grateful. 

I also must mention that I am from the province of Quebec. I am sure care varies from province to province. I agree that not enough is spent on health care in Canada. I always thought too much is spent on arts and culture but that is a personal opinion. Also, because such high taxes are taken out of paychecks it encourages working under the table which in the end benefits no one.


----------



## mellowguy (Jul 8, 2009)

Firethorn said:


> If this was said already I apologize.
> I keep seeing the word "free" when discussing Canada's medical coverage.
> and "the Gov" covers it.
> In fact. it does not. The people pay for that service. All working people. And I think I remember the taxes being pretty darn high in Canada.


Income taxes are higher, but you need to keep in mind that:
1. we don't pay for health insurance coverage. For many americans, the combination of health premium + taxes exceeds what they'd pay in income tax in Canada. Seniors don't have to spend a large portion of their social security to acquire Medicare coverage.
2. Our government generally taxes enough for its spending. For the 10-12 years leading to 2008, our federal government did not have a budget deficit and even repaid our public debt. We ran a deficit in 2009 and will in 2010, but it will be smaller (per capita) than all other countries in the G7. I don't want to appear too abrasive here, but what I'm trying to say is that the US government's spending is out of control, and if taxes were collected to match all that spending, then income taxes would be much higher in the US.
3. In addition to health, there are more government programs and more generous government programs available (i.e we're more socialized). Being rather Libertarian in my political leaning (despite my health care views), I'd love to see the government spend less and tax less.


----------



## mellowguy (Jul 8, 2009)

Sweetsurrender, I was born and spent half my life in La Belle Province (Quebec City - I was a Quebecois pure-laine). My parents and brothers still live there. The level of care does vary from province to province, but I can't honestly tell you whether Quebec or Ontario has a better system. 

Quebec being "distinct", there are a lot of differences in government spending (much closer to European thinking on social program than the rest of Canada), and it would drive me nuts to go back to live there. Taxes (as you know) are also much higher there. Working under the table happens in other provinces, but it's not has prevalent as I remember it being 20 years ago in Quebec, where I remember 95% of renovation industry and 99% of babysitting (before subsidized day care) was under the table for example. Here, it happens, but I don't see it as much.


----------



## Firethorn (Nov 1, 2004)

naturelover said:


> On a per capita basis we don't actually have the masses of unemployed people unwilling to work that you (apparently) do. Also, on a per capita basis, we don't have the huge numbers of illegal immigrants or all the welfare moms with huge families that America (apparently) has. Let me clarify, I say _apparently_ based on all the things I read other people on this forum writing about the situation in America.
> 
> Different country, different population, different government and tax systems, _somewhat_ different lifestyles and work ethic, and maybe it's even a different mind-set and attitude with regard to all citizens caring and looking out for each other, even strangers.
> 
> ...


You know, it may very well be that the difference is Government. I honestly thing that if our Government took good care of its responsibilities and stopped screwing us at every turn we would welcome a good health care plan. And you know, I really doont think the American people mind careing for one another. The problem is that we are stretched so thin now and "they" are forcing us into a situation we KNOW we cant handle. We are going to break and THATS when people get angry and scared. We know there is only one way to fix this and it means a path we really dont WANT to take. If we could get rid of our corrupt Gov. I know the people would band together. There are of course the bad apples but they would be taken care of. Im sure.


----------



## jtjf_1 (Nov 7, 2009)

AngieM2 said:


> jtjf-1 - I see you are in Indonesia - how do they handle health care over there?
> 
> And from your knowledge of Canada health care, you must have spent time there or be from there. Would that be Ontario or a different provience? (pardon my spelling please).
> 
> Angie


HI Angie

Sorry to be late getting back on this

Well as for my knowledge of Canadian healthcare. I was born and raised in Canada and have been a missionary in Indonesia for the past 5 years.

As for health care in Indonesia. Money talks. Most people pay as you go. There is insurance here a big one is ASKIS which is a government health insurance free for those under the poverty line. Basically more than 50% of the population qualify but only a few apply due to the fact of corruption. Like needing to pay some official to get you poverty report. (This also leads to non poor buying poverty reports) As well there are many affordable (if on a western wage) insurance options here. 

Treatment is hit and miss you need to find a good doctor who you can literally trust your life with. Many doctors are also corrupt. For example prescribing drugs to get a commission, always choosing the priciest option (ie surgery), and the worst is scheduling a C-section because they make more money and they don't have to wait around.

As an example I had a motorcycle accident and broke my collar bone. I was taken to a local emergency where after an X-ray I was informed I would need emergency surgery to fix my collar bone and the cost was 2500USD. Knowing my 60 yr old Grandma had broke the same bone and been put in a sling I asked for my x-ray payed my emergency fees (20USD) and walked out the door. I went home and got the arm sling we have from my wife dislocating her elbow and strapped up my arm. Then I took my x-ray and faxed it home to my family doctor in Canada. My doctor said to leave it an sling and in 2 weeks get another x-ray. After 2 weeks i sent the x-ray and he said rest some more but all was good. Amazing how a 2500USD surgery was need immediately to save my arm, when in reality the sling did just fine for the 20USD emergency fee and another x-ray for 5 bucks.

But the point of the story is many of the people here believe whatever the doctors say and so it can be a gold mine for those willing to take advantage of a situation. 

So as the saying goes Caveat Emptor when dealing with the Indonesian system.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

thanks for the information jtjf_1. 
Sounds as if a charming place to have medical problems (insert a sarcastic smiley here).

Angie


----------



## Spinner (Jul 19, 2003)

rose2005 said:


> ...
> 
> For those in America, is this affecting your prepping plans at all?
> 
> Rose


It definitely is affecting my prep plan. I've cut every single thing that isn't absolutely necessary. Every penny I can find is going for seeds, tools and other items for total self sufficiency. I've totally cut chocolate out of my life, along with other little luxuries that I used to think were important. 

Every purchase I make is examined to be sure it's something that is really NEEDED, not simply something WANTED. I've done that for years, but now I've eliminated every tiny "waste" that slipped through the cracks. 

I've been adding more seeds to the preps and planning a larger garden. I've been buying every lid I can find, and looking for deals on more jars. I've also been adding more hand tools to replace the power tools (based on a "campaign promise" that cap & trade will make electric bills "necessarily skyrocket".) I've invested in a solar panel (and hoping to get a few more) along with a few lights that only use 15% of the power the old lights used (yep, those curly ones that make my skin look yellow!) I'm assuming that sometime in the future I will be off the grid either by choice or forced off by the skyrocketing cost. 

I've gotten very serious about building a brick oven for baking outside, also a fire pit and a solar oven (found a new one @ amazon for $20!) The greenhouse and the "free air conditioning" system are in the works instead of in the planning stage.

This has lit a fire in my gut, so I'm doing the things had been placed on the back burner. 

I'm no longer prepping to keep my modern lifestyle. I'm now prepping to adapt to the lifestyle of my ancestors with whatever modern amenities can be incorporated for comfort, safety, and convenience.


----------



## insocal (May 15, 2005)

7thswan said:


> And the Gov. is takeing over Loans for Education. Who wants the Gov. to decide weather you get $$$ for the career you chose. You might want to be a Teacher,but the Gov. might need Drs.


The federal government SHOULD be in charge of the FEDERAL STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM, IMHO, lol. For-profit corporations should never have been involved, skimming the cream off the top by taking their share for doing nothing of value.............

Now it's back to the way it was originally put forth. A wrong against the American people has been righted.


----------



## insocal (May 15, 2005)

Lydia said:


> So what would happen if we refused to get vaccinations they wanted us all to have? I'm not thrilled about having to take pills for things like a headache, so the idea of being forced to get a "vaccination" that I'm not willing to get scares me. And let's not even think about what they'll force us to give to the children.
> 
> This particular show of power by the US government is making me SERIOUSLY look into moving out of the country.


I am confused. I read most of that bill and saw noting about mandatory vaccinations. Can you perhaps provide a link to the portion of the bill as passes that specifically states this? I am very interested in public health issues.


----------



## insocal (May 15, 2005)

Lydia said:


> So what would happen if we refused to get vaccinations they wanted us all to have? I'm not thrilled about having to take pills for things like a headache, so the idea of being forced to get a "vaccination" that I'm not willing to get scares me. And let's not even think about what they'll force us to give to the children.
> 
> This particular show of power by the US government is making me SERIOUSLY look into moving out of the country.


You will probably have a hard time finding a country to live in that DOESN'T have either single payer healthcare (government as insurer) or national nealthcare (government employs all healthcare workers). Somalia and Nicaragua come to mind. Perhaps Mexico.


----------



## insocal (May 15, 2005)

Riverrat said:


> If it is anything like ours, get ready for long waits.....for everything. Surgery can be very long waits. We still have to pay for dentist, medications and eye check ups. We do get to see the doctor for free (pay through our taxes) and surgeries are free, for the most part, but long waits to get in. We still have insurance to help with what the gov does not pay for.


Here in the US, my assistant, who has an inherited disease that causes her diverse ongoing medical issues, has to wait 3 months for an appointment with her EXISTING cardiologist. She is an ESTABLISHED patient. 

Yeah, I'm sure glad nobody has to wait for medical care here in the US......


----------



## insocal (May 15, 2005)

stanb999 said:


> As I briefly discussed in the "? for Ernie" thread. I believe they set the system up to fail. If your against the system you can make efforts to trash it. Encourage others to do the same.
> 
> This is the free persons solution to crash "national health care". Pay the proposed tax to the IRS. What is it 600 a year. This is great!!! Then if you ever need coverage for anything. Buy insurance for the procedure. Cancel immediately afterwards. Here is suggestion of how you could do it for child birth.
> 
> ...


I actually like your idea. It will bankrupt the insurance companies, which are simply parasites on the healthcare system IMHO. Once they are gone, we can get Single Payer in place, and get a lot more actual medical care for our buck. I don't approve of anyone other than actual healthcare workers and their ancillary staff profiting from illness and injury. It just seems, well, WRONG for financial profiteering to be going on in this field.


----------



## insocal (May 15, 2005)

AngieM2 said:


> thanks for the information jtjf_1.
> Sounds as if a charming place to have medical problems (insert a sarcastic smiley here).
> 
> Angie


Yes, but you do have to admit the lack of government telling anyone what to do is wonderful..........(tongue-in-cheek smilie not available)


----------



## Freeholder (Jun 19, 2004)

You know, Canada may not have a problem with illegal immigration NOW, but if our government keeps trending the way it is, towards hard-core Marxism, you may have a problem in the future as Americans attempt to escape north. I wonder what Canada's response to that is likely to be?

Kathleen (who would head north, too, but all the way to Alaska where I'm from)


----------



## mellowguy (Jul 8, 2009)

BlueJuniperFarm said:


> You know, Canada may not have a problem with illegal immigration NOW, but if our government keeps trending the way it is, towards hard-core Marxism, you may have a problem in the future as Americans attempt to escape north. I wonder what Canada's response to that is likely to be?


It's very unlikely to become a problem. Someone becoming an illegal in the USA does so because they feel that even if they make less than minimum wage, have no access to benefits and live in a shanty-town, they'll still be far better off than staying at home. I think the USA has a verrry looong way down to go before Americans start feeling that way.

Also, the type of Americans that are most likely to become disatisfied with current US government policies are also most likely to view Canada in a negative way (gun control, public health care, higher taxes, etc.).


----------



## NamasteMama (Jul 24, 2009)

I think people are missing the forest through the trees. This health care bill is more than just health care.Its basically all the crap that they wanted but we refused rammed down out throats. Real Id, Veri Chips, I know I personally don't want the mark of the beast and this had got to be it. The peace keeping civillain SS corps. It is scary.


----------



## belladulcinea (Jun 21, 2006)

Only the government can take the simplest issue, add pork and waste to it, slip in stuff that has nothing to do with healthcare and do it in such a way that it will be a nightmare. Because, the lawyers and bureaucrats haven't gotten done with it. 

Personally I do not think the government should be doing all of the student loans, we didn't qualify for one of the Stafford gov. loans so we had to get a private student loan, so my dh was able to finish school. So if the gov. takes those over and if the guidelines don't change there will be lots of people who won't qualify for loans.


----------



## candyknitter (Apr 23, 2009)

rose2005 said:


> The UK differs from one region to another in their healthcare, some parts it is good, some parts are awful.
> 
> 
> Rose


Rose just to let you know that the system has changed here (one of the very few good things the current Labour goverment has brought in) and you can now choose what hospital you receive treatment in. My mother has secondary cancer and was being treated by our local hospital but wasn't happy there so she chose to switch to The Royal Marsden which is a hospital soley for cancer patients and they are very efficient so she is much happier being under their care.


----------



## NamasteMama (Jul 24, 2009)

This article fits in with this discussion http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/wolfe118.html


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I own a couple of Claire Wolfe's books. I wholeheartedly endorse them.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

BlueJuniperFarm said:


> You know, Canada may not have a problem with illegal immigration NOW, but if our government keeps trending the way it is, towards hard-core Marxism, you may have a problem in the future as Americans attempt to escape north. I wonder what Canada's response to that is likely to be?
> 
> Kathleen (who would head north, too, but all the way to Alaska where I'm from)


Canada's response would probably be the same as it is now. Illegal immigrants would get rounded up and deported back home. I agree with mellowguy that America would have a very long way to go downhill before US citizens started escaping as refugees to a place that already has much harsher living conditions. It would be rather like jumping out of a familiar pot into an unfamiliar fire. 

Where would they go, how would they survive without stealing or being a burden on Canadian citizens who already make lower wages and pay higher taxes? How would they make money to support themselves if they're illegal? There isn't anywhere with survivable geographical and climate conditions they could go to without quickly being brought to the attention of authorities. If they tried to push further north and 'go to ground' to live off the land hidden in the unsettled Canadian wilderness they would perish in the swamps. There's a reason why 90% of Canadian civilization lives close to the border and not spread out further to the north.

.


----------



## Freeholder (Jun 19, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Canada's response would probably be the same as it is now. Illegal immigrants would get rounded up and deported back home. I agree with mellowguy that America would have a very long way to go downhill before US citizens started escaping as refugees to a place that already has much harsher living conditions. It would be rather like jumping out of a familiar pot into an unfamiliar fire.
> 
> Where would they go, how would they survive without stealing or being a burden on Canadian citizens who already make lower wages and pay higher taxes? How would they make money to support themselves if they're illegal? There isn't anywhere with survivable geographical and climate conditions they could go to without quickly being brought to the attention of authorities. If they tried to push further north and 'go to ground' to live off the land hidden in the unsettled Canadian wilderness they would perish in the swamps. There's a reason why 90% of Canadian civilization lives close to the border and not spread out further to the north.
> 
> .


That makes sense, although Americans from Alaska might feel more comfortable trying it (going to ground in the remote Canadian wilderness). Although, there is still plenty of wilderness left in Alaska where some folks could hide out for a while.

I'm not too optimistic about what's going to happen here -- this current government is downright SCARY to anyone who has really investigated it.

Kathleen


----------

