Obama is ready to fuck you in the ass.

Die breeders, FUCKING DIE....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5Oi_hYhtiOo&refer=worldwide

When Clinton offers her proposal next week to cover the 47 million Americans who lack insurance, she will probably stake out the middle ground, appearing bolder than Senator Obama of Illinois and more pragmatic than former Senator Edwards of North Carolina.

Obama, 46, has proposed mandating health-care coverage only for children. Clinton, 59, will likely make coverage mandatory for everyone, said a campaign aide who declined to offer details because he didn't want to pre-empt her speech, scheduled for Sept. 17 at a medical center in Des Moines, Iowa.

Edwards, 54, would go further and create a government-run system to compete with private insurance. Every American would have the option of signing up for a program similar to Medicare, the U.S. program for the elderly and disabled.

The details of Barack Obama's proposal to mandate health care coverage for chyldren haven't hit the papers yet, so this is conjecture. However, the idea presented here has been floated several times in Congress, and I think it will be something along these lines.

My hunch is that Obama is going to require that pahrents buy health coverage for their kyds, and those with lower incomes would still have the existing government programs. In other words, Obama might have in mind an individual mandate to buy insurance for the sprog. If you make too much money to qualify for the government help but not enough to afford to buy that mandated coverage, tough, you still have to buy it. This is the new Massachusetts system, but restricted to chyldren for now.

Instead of monkeying around the edges of the present American privatized health care debacle, we should look at single-payer. It appears better all the time, provided everybody is covered—including us childfree. There are problems with the British and Canadian single-payer systems, but I never hear anyone from those countries wish they had a system like ours. Mercurior, do you care to comment?

Despite all the fuss about rationing under single-payer, we have it in our system too: if you can't pay, you can't get anything but emergency room care, and then you go bankrupt over the billing. The rationing here entails not receiving medical care because you can't afford it—and that's evil.

argh i had a good post but i lost it argh..

ok the uk system of national health is open to a lot of abuse, whether its health tourism, as we have to provide a duty of care to everyone regardless. now this leads to people using the uk to pay for their health care.

we have more middle management more than we need, which takes the resources of money out of the nurses and doctors and medicines, since the nhs is run by middle management, they never get rid of their own.

is it better than the american insurance system, in some cases yes. in others no, the idea that its ok to let a person die, if they dont have money, or arent in need of care, to my mind is the worst kind of medicine. in the hippocratic oath theres a line that says first DO NO HARM, this insurance system ensures harm is done.

so while i can see the good and bad in both systems, i would say at the moment the uk system is better.(but that will change if cameron gets his way) the hospitals are run by accountants, and management, not thinking about the human cost.

my solution which isnt 100% either, but better than both. is have private medical services, but ran by a charitable organisation, so the profits of which there will be lots, will be spent to provide the most basic needs of health of the society.

when you can be refused medical help, for a so called unhealthy lifestyle choice, then thats when you start to do harm, which to my mind as an outsider is a step into the privitised medical system.

a man has a broken ankle, he is in severe pain, needs an operation to get himback to work, but he smokes, so he is denied treatment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=OXE3VZIOTSURFQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/09/14/nsmoker114.xml

so i can see the benefits and the pitfalls of both systems. but as i said at the moment the UK one is slightly better, and would still be the best so long as we get rid of the petty red tape and middle management.

(unfortunatly in the UK system we have had a lot of expense due to the hiv/aids coming into the country. a lot of immigrants from other parts of the world are overloading the medical system here. so thats the bad side to it.

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

Merc, as you know already we DO have socialized medicine here, and it's a top of the line, brand name, everything covered 100% system. All of us pay for it, yet only irresponsible breeder sows and their brats get to use it. ONLY if you act irresponsibly and make a "bad lifestyle choice" (the one bad lifestyle choice condoned and approved by the government) of having children you cannot afford to have, are you allowed to take advantage of this wonderful and fully featured health care plan, served to you on a silver platter.

Oh sure, we cover the disabled too. But no one gets the full on princess treatment like the breeder sows. If you are disabled, there is mountains of paperwork, lawyers and headaches before you can get any socialized healthcare. If you are a goddamned breedersow, as soon as that pregnancy test comes back positive you immediately qualify. We too have a serious problem with the mexican breeders crossing our borders just to give birth in our hospitals and get the free benefits, so yes, our system is open to lots of abuse like the UK. The difference though in my mind, while both systems are open for abuses, here the abuse is much mor egregious in my opinion because while Americans like myself must resort to self-diagnosis, self-medication as our medical plan, someone else can waltz across our borders with a pregnant belly and get 100% of the best of everything in healthcare.

One of the biggest bunch of bullshit they are trying to push now to "solve" the healthcare crisis is called "mandatory health coverage." What does this mean? Well, it means that a hell of a lot of childfree folks who are already pushed to the limit with taxes and expenses are going to be pushed even further over into the abyss. What "mandatory" health care means is that you are, by law, required to purchase private health coverage. If you cannot afford to do so, the state helps with subsidies. Here's the cincher of course -- they set a scale, just like they do for everything else here, a childfree/childless couple skating by on 30k a year is going to pay a shitload more than a couple with a few brats making even more per year. The childfree/childless will pay the full rates based on the "size of their fambly." So essentially, what the breeders will be able to get for $1000, the childfree or childless will have to shell out $5000. Now -- how do they plan to enforce these mandatory health schemes? If you don't buy a policy and get yourself covered YOU LOSE YOUR INDIVIDUAL TAX DEDUCTION.

Now we get to the really interesting part: Will losing your individual tax deduction cost you more in taxes than buying the mandatory insurance? Could be! And if at the end of the year you cannot afford to buy a policy and the government takes your individual tax deduction away, YOU STILL HAVE NO HEALTH CARE, EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT HAS JUST STOLEN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FROM YOU BY REVOKING YOUR INDIVIDUAL TAX DEDUCTION.

We are not going to be able to afford any "mandatory" health schemes they come up with. Sure, if it were $50 a month, or something really reasonable like that, that anyone could afford, but that's not how mandatory works, as I explained earlier. If mandatory is ever enacted and we are still struggling to pay our debts off like we are now, I suspect we will have to go into bankruptcy and lose our good credit rating.

nowhiggers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> One of the biggest bunch of bullshit they are
> trying to push now to "solve" the healthcare
> crisis is called "mandatory health coverage." What
> does this mean? Well, it means that a hell of a
> lot of childfree folks who are already pushed to
> the limit with taxes and expenses are going to be
> pushed even further over into the abyss. What
> "mandatory" health care means is that you are, by
> law, required to purchase private health coverage.
> If you cannot afford to do so, the state helps
> with subsidies. Here's the cincher of course --
> they set a scale, just like they do for everything
> else here, a childfree/childless couple skating by
> on 30k a year is going to pay a shitload more than
> a couple with a few brats making even more per
> year. The childfree/childless will pay the full
> rates based on the "size of their fambly." So
> essentially, what the breeders will be able to get
> for $1000, the childfree or childless will have to
> shell out $5000. Now -- how do they plan to
> enforce these mandatory health schemes? If you
> don't buy a policy and get yourself covered YOU
> LOSE YOUR INDIVIDUAL TAX DEDUCTION.

-------------------------------------------------------

You wrote an excellent summary of the new Massachusetts system!

I come from that state and went to their Health Connector web site (http://www.mahealthconnector.org). If I had a shriekling, I would qualify for fully-paid insurance; but since I am CF, I must pay about the same amount I pay at my work (which is not inexpensive). I read an article earlier this week that said the premiums will go up 10% next year--thanks, breeders and illegals!

Because illegal aliens--fuck the PC "undocumented immigrants"--don't pay taxes, they can still get it all paid by workers like me. They will still go to the emergency room with their paper cuts and to shit out their anchor babies, free of charge.

I understand that next year, the penalty will be more than the personal deduction. I'm not sure what it will be yet.

Yeah, it's all for the chillllllldren and the mooooooomies! Leeches, you make me wanna !

yes exactly nowhiggers, i do say everyone from zero to 120, should have the basic medical needs met. this doesnt mean ivf, or elective stuff. i am talking about the if you dont have it you will die or become a danger to yourself or others. if you want ivf you have to pay, if you have a child you will have to pay, its a choice you make, you dont decide oh i will have a heart attack today,

thats what i mean by total health, not the way it is in america now. (once again its a slight case of misreading due to cultural differences and no one is to blame).

and as i have said the uk may be slightly better than the american system, but that is changing.. every couple is now entitled to 2 or 3 free ivf goes. well i say free.. its paid for by everyone else.

my way it would nearly pay for itself, if you want ivf you pay and that pays for heart medicines, doctors and so on.. to my mind that would be fairer. but its still not 100%.

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

Merc, I could even go along with the breeder treatments like ivf if they leave me the hell alone about my smoking. As long as everyones lifestyle choices are respected, as much as I hate breeder treatments, I'll bitch a little amongst the childfree message boards , but I'll be satisfied with that.

And speaking of "lifestyle choices" -- check this out:

A relative of mine who did her breeder duty and had three children, who are all grown now, was a total health nut, non smoker, wine in moderation,
slender and a vigorous exerciser for 40 years or more. A few years back her insurance company had to shell out thousands for knee replacements from the years of heavy knee use due to her vigorous exercising.

This whole "lifestyle choice" thing is a real slippery slope, ain't it?

yes, its when they say what is risky or not, who decides. if a religious nutter goes to be in charge of the medical system .. he could say gay people take part in a risky lifestyle choice so no health for them.. smokers, drinkers, eaters, anything, people with the wrong eye colour..

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

Some figures I came up with from the Mandatory MA. Health Program http://www.mahealthconnector.org --

A middle aged childfree, childless or empty nest couple would pay the following:
If they made 41k a year BEFORE TAXES -- approx. $180 a month mandatory premium
If they make 42k a year BEFORE TAXES (or more) that jumps to $500 a month mandatory premium -- that is $6000 a year BEFORE you can even pay your taxes

Breeders on the other hand, with unlimited numbers of children (they do not count the number of children, all "families" are given the same rate:

So, breeders with 2 kids are the same as breeders with 10 or more. and it goes something like this:

71k a year BEFORE TAXES -- approx $180 a month mandatory premium

72k a year BEFORE TAXES -- approx $671 a month mandatory premium

For unlimited numbers of children the breeders will only pay around $100 more a month than a childfree, childless or even an empty nest couple.

These figures are all for the lowest insurance plans available, these plans DO NOT include prescription drug coverage.

nowhiggers read this blog, its very funny www.theangrypharmacist.com

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

nowhiggers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some figures I came up with from the Mandatory MA.
> Health Program http://www.mahealthconnector.org
> --
>
> A middle aged childfree, childless or empty nest
> couple would pay the following:
> If they made 41k a year BEFORE TAXES -- approx.
> $180 a month mandatory premium
> If they make 42k a year BEFORE TAXES (or more)
> that jumps to $500 a month mandatory premium --
> that is $6000 a year BEFORE you can even pay your
> taxes
>
> Breeders on the other hand, with unlimited numbers
> of children (they do not count the number of
> children, all "families" are given the same rate:
>
> So, breeders with 2 kids are the same as breeders
> with 10 or more. and it goes something like this:
>
> 71k a year BEFORE TAXES -- approx $180 a month
> mandatory premium
>
> 72k a year BEFORE TAXES -- approx $671 a month
> mandatory premium
>
> For unlimited numbers of children the breeders
> will only pay around $100 more a month than a
> childfree, childless or even an empty nest
> couple.
>
> These figures are all for the lowest insurance
> plans available, these plans DO NOT include
> prescription drug coverage.

-------------------------------------------------------

Maximum pre-tax income to qualify for a fully-subsidized plan:
A single person $30,636;
A family of two $41,075;
A family of four $61,955;
A family of eight $103,715.

The individual mandate/minimum coverage standards include prescription drug coverage, so I don't know why they include plans without prescription coverage.

The rates also vary according to age and industry you work in. Of course, if your "industry" is "welfare baby factory," you get coverage for free.

I see that the rates went up (or I used the wrong industry code) and am better off with the plan I get from work.

mercurior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nowhiggers read this blog, its very funny
> www.theangrypharmacist.com

Yeah I read that guy's site all the time! Funny stuff! He cracked me up one day when he wrote about how the "vicodin was dancing and the valium chirping" LMAO. According to this guy, 80% of what he dispenses is vicodin, soma and valium. lol.

Well, I say right here that we need to set up a fund to fight whatever anti-childfree health insurance bullshit the asshat we elect as president tries to shove up our collective asses. It's idiotic to think that the proposed UNFAIR TAXATION (which is what this is), would be constitutional. If I remember correctly from middle school civics, that is one of the reasons for the Revolutionary War...meaning if we do get "Hey you child free people have to pay 100% more in costs" then we also get to riot in the streets, burn cop cars and do whatever property damage we need to do to get the system to be fair across the board...or take it to the supreme court.