One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Socialist health care in the US?
Jul 7, 2019 23:48:51   #
EmilyD
 
I was just talking to a relative of mine who lives in the UK. She is 72 and her husband 75. She fractured her hip and went to the doctor to ask how to get it fixed. He told her she did not qualify for that kind of medical health treatment (surgery) because of her age, and to just "take it easy" and let her hip heal itself. It did not heal the right way, and now she can barely walk. They have socialist "health care" there which, apparently, doesn't include people who are over 65. This is what we are in for if we allow "Medicare for all" to happen here. The government will decide who is and is not "eligible" for treatment. Is that what we want here?

So babies won't have a voice (which they never did have) and seniors won't have a voice if we elect a Socialist president?

V**e Republican!

Reply
Jul 7, 2019 23:57:51   #
Larai Loc: Fallon, NV
 
EmilyD wrote:
I was just talking to a relative of mine who lives in the UK. She is 72 and her husband 75. She fractured her hip and went to the doctor to ask how to get it fixed. He told her she did not qualify for that kind of medical health treatment (surgery) because of her age, and to just "take it easy" and let her hip heal itself. It did not heal the right way, and now she can barely walk. They have socialist "health care" there which, apparently, doesn't include people who are over 65. This is what we are in for if we allow "Medicare for all" to happen here. The government will decide who is and is not "eligible" for treatment. Is that what we want here?

So babies won't have a voice (which they never did have) and seniors won't have a voice if we elect a Socialist president?

V**e Republican!
I was just talking to a relative of mine who lives... (show quote)


Yup.. I've talked to quite a number of canadians on this as well.. I guess the mind set is that if you are not a contributing member of society you get put on fatal stall..unless you can afford your own insurance which most can not over there.. SO Yes V**e Republican Because we don't want that Here!

Reply
Jul 8, 2019 00:03:52   #
Seth
 
EmilyD wrote:
I was just talking to a relative of mine who lives in the UK. She is 72 and her husband 75. She fractured her hip and went to the doctor to ask how to get it fixed. He told her she did not qualify for that kind of medical health treatment (surgery) because of her age, and to just "take it easy" and let her hip heal itself. It did not heal the right way, and now she can barely walk. They have socialist "health care" there which, apparently, doesn't include people who are over 65. This is what we are in for if we allow "Medicare for all" to happen here. The government will decide who is and is not "eligible" for treatment. Is that what we want here?

So babies won't have a voice and seniors won't have a voice if we elect a Socialist president?

V**e Republican!
I was just talking to a relative of mine who lives... (show quote)


I've read similar stories about Canada's socialized medical system as well, ranging from a woman who couldn't get maternity space in a hospital up there to have her twins to a man who needed timely brain surgery -- both of them ended up coming to the U.S. and obtaining what they needed without delay -- to the "antiquated" healthcare system we had before the Democrats propagandized it into a non-existent "crisis" and foisted the ACA failure on us.

Reply
 
 
Jul 8, 2019 00:09:12   #
EmilyD
 
Larai wrote:
Yup.. I've talked to quite a number of Canadians on this as well.. I guess the mind set is that if you are not a contributing member of society you get put on fatal stall..unless you can afford your own insurance which most can not over there.. SO Yes V**e Republican Because we don't want that Here!

I don't understand the "Medicare for all" lobby by the socialists. I paid into Medicare when I began working when I was 20....we all did. Medicare is our "bank" that now owes us back pay for what we "deposited" into it. How can Dems demand that everyone get this? I******s certainly didn't contribute to Medicare. The amount that is distributed depends on how many years we contributed via paycheck. How can someone benefit from Medicare without contributing to it? I know it's been depleted by politicians over the years and we have to accept that although we "contributed" to it, we now have to accept about 1/3 of what we invested in it, but how, exactly, can our Government enact a program called "Medicare for All" without anyone contributing to it? Taxpayers can only do so much.

Reply
Jul 8, 2019 00:10:22   #
Larai Loc: Fallon, NV
 
Seth wrote:
I've read similar stories about Canada's socialized medical system as well, ranging from a woman who couldn't get maternity space in a hospital up there to have her twins to a man who needed timely brain surgery -- both of them ended up coming to the U.S. and obtaining what they needed without delay -- to the "antiquated" healthcare system we had before the Democrats propagandized it into a non-existent "crisis" and foisted the ACA failure on us.


Obama care as we know was a train wreck! From Day one!!..or what is also called the ACA.. He straight up lied about keeping our current insurance and many wound up paying double for somethings they didn't even need.. take me for instance.. I can't have children, so no need for maternity anything, and Now 57 years old so definetly do not need maternity coverage, but yet it was foisted upon us.. some actually lost the insurance they had bc of insurance companies didn't want anything to do with the ACA.. so NOW we are on the brink of socialized medicine.. as a cancer patient that scares the s**t outta me!.. so...I'll take a gander at Trump's plan..see what's what!

Reply
Jul 8, 2019 00:15:20   #
EmilyD
 
Larai wrote:
Obama care as we know was a train wreck! From Day one!!..or what is also called the ACA.. He straight up lied about keeping our current insurance and many wound up paying double for somethings they didn't even need.. take me for instance.. I can't have children, so no need for maternity anything, and Now 57 years old so definetly do not need maternity coverage, but yet it was foisted upon us.. some actually lost the insurance they had bc of insurance companies didn't want anything to do with the ACA.. so NOW we are on the brink of socialized medicine.. as a cancer patient that scares the s**t outta me!.. so...I'll take a gander at Trump's plan..see what's what!
Obama care as we know was a train wreck! From Day ... (show quote)

And now they're advocating a******n rights for t*********r females. Things are getting really crazy.

Reply
Jul 8, 2019 00:15:26   #
Larai Loc: Fallon, NV
 
EmilyD wrote:
I don't understand the "Medicare for all" lobby by the socialists. I paid into Medicare when I began working when I was 20....we all did. Medicare is our "bank" that now owes us back pay for what we "deposited" into it. How can Dems demand that everyone get this? I******s certainly didn't contribute to Medicare. The amount that is distributed depends on how many years we contributed via paycheck. How can someone benefit from Medicare without contributing to it? I know it's been depleted by politicians over the years and we have to accept that although we "contributed" to it, we now have to accept about 1/3 of what we invested in it, but how, exactly, can our Government enact a program called "Medicare for All" without anyone contributing to it? Taxpayers can only do so much.
I don't understand the "Medicare for all"... (show quote)


Exactly Thank you!.. I've paid into it since I got my first real paycheck for a job at 16, before that I mowed lawns and baby sat.. I've been paying into it my entire working life and I'm 57 now.. so yea I don't get how they can do that either

Reply
 
 
Jul 8, 2019 00:19:49   #
Larai Loc: Fallon, NV
 
EmilyD wrote:
And now they're advocating a******n rights for t*********r females. Things are getting really crazy.


Tax payers should Not have to pay for a******ns period..much less on a t*********r person.. We as tax payers shouldn't have to pay for a Life Choice!!

Reply
Jul 8, 2019 00:33:40   #
EmilyD
 
Larai wrote:
Tax payers should Not have to pay for a******ns period..much less on a t*********r person.. We as tax payers shouldn't have to pay for a Life Choice!!


Roe v Wade was the worst disaster the Supreme Court could have imposed on our land. It made a******n - k*****g babies - ok to do! Look how it has blossomed!! Farming for baby parts! And now some states are saying we can k**l babies after they are born if the mother doesn't want little her or little him to begin their lives. This makes me sad, but I think God won't allow this to go on much longer. I hope he doesn't.

Reply
Jul 8, 2019 00:37:00   #
Larai Loc: Fallon, NV
 
EmilyD wrote:
Roe v Wade was the worst disaster the Supreme Court could have imposed on our land. It made a******n - k*****g babies - ok to do! Look how it has blossomed!! Farming for baby parts! And now some states are saying we can k**l babies after they are born if the mother doesn't want little her or little him to begin their lives. This makes me sad, but I think God won't allow this to go on much longer. I hope he doesn't.


Sadly, I guess that is why he gave us free will.. here's what I don't get... How is it that the law will take a criminal that has k**led a pregnant woman.. he gets charged with double homicide.. but it's ok to k**l a baby even after born.. what part of cold blooded murder do they Not understand.. I think the whole process is heinous!!.. dispicable!!

Reply
Jul 8, 2019 00:55:25   #
maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee
 
EmilyD wrote:
I was just talking to a relative of mine who lives in the UK. She is 72 and her husband 75. She fractured her hip and went to the doctor to ask how to get it fixed. He told her she did not qualify for that kind of medical health treatment (surgery) because of her age, and to just "take it easy" and let her hip heal itself. It did not heal the right way, and now she can barely walk. They have socialist "health care" there which, apparently, doesn't include people who are over 65. This is what we are in for if we allow "Medicare for all" to happen here. The government will decide who is and is not "eligible" for treatment. Is that what we want here?

So babies won't have a voice (which they never did have) and seniors won't have a voice if we elect a Socialist president?

V**e Republican!
I was just talking to a relative of mine who lives... (show quote)




I posted this on another thread. My wife has a rare genetic disease, Alpha 1, which is terminal. She gets 2 infusions per week for a total of $23,000 for ONE month just to stay alive! Here in America, she gets the assistance she needs to pay for these drugs which control the disease and she may get to live out a normal lifetime. She did some research on the UK ( socialized healthcare), and people there with Alpha 1 are denied these life saving drugs and within 1 or 2 years, they are dead. There's your healthcare for all!

Reply
 
 
Jul 8, 2019 01:11:11   #
Seth
 
EmilyD wrote:
And now they're advocating a******n rights for t*********r females. Things are getting really crazy.


When "progressives" say "rights," it means the taxpayer will be footing the bill.

Reply
Jul 8, 2019 06:09:23   #
crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
 
EmilyD wrote:
Roe v Wade was the worst disaster the Supreme Court could have imposed on our land. It made a******n - k*****g babies - ok to do! Look how it has blossomed!! Farming for baby parts! And now some states are saying we can k**l babies after they are born if the mother doesn't want little her or little him to begin their lives. This makes me sad, but I think God won't allow this to go on much longer. I hope he doesn't.



A Harvard law professor, who favored legalized a******n, was appalled at the reasoning in that decision. Everyone interested in the issue should read Roe vs. Wade. It's readily available on line.

Reply
Jul 8, 2019 11:59:58   #
virginiabeef
 
EmilyD wrote:
I was just talking to a relative of mine who lives in the UK. She is 72 and her husband 75. She fractured her hip and went to the doctor to ask how to get it fixed. He told her she did not qualify for that kind of medical health treatment (surgery) because of her age, and to just "take it easy" and let her hip heal itself. It did not heal the right way, and now she can barely walk. They have socialist "health care" there which, apparently, doesn't include people who are over 65. This is what we are in for if we allow "Medicare for all" to happen here. The government will decide who is and is not "eligible" for treatment. Is that what we want here?

So babies won't have a voice (which they never did have) and seniors won't have a voice if we elect a Socialist president?

V**e Republican!
I was just talking to a relative of mine who lives... (show quote)


And, just as a reminder that in addition to paying into Medicare our entire working life, those of us who have retired still continue to pay our monthly Medicare health care premiums. Medicare For All is not a right, it is forced charity.

Reply
Jul 9, 2019 03:43:42   #
DogLover99
 
When have you ever seen any government agency ran successfully and on budget and they want to take over our health care? What a joke!!

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.