Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You missed the post about the change of plans from another thread. Yes, I have the land. But at this point, I don't even know whether I will even go there. I may well sell it. Just depends. Either way, it will be back to a similar lifestyle from years past. Let's just call it a shade of "simple living." The goal is still sufficiency to a point, but coming at it from a different angle. More of an economic angle. Minimizing costs and minimizing income. As for food... right now I have at least five years worth. I can extend that out to supplies for the rest of my life if that's the way I want to solve the food problem.
To answer most of your questions (and we've been through all of this before), the answer is yes for many of them. I lived a good chunk of my childhood and teen years on a farm, down a gravel/dirt road, where we didn't see a government snowplow but maybe once a month, if even that. My father had to pack the snow down with the tractor to get up to the main paved road. Yes, we had all those cute little farm animals you reference. And, no, as a dumbass kid, I did not enjoy caring for them. But I did it. I do not like horses because they do not like me--I've been thrown way too many times. No more for me. Haven't tried riding a jackass though. That's probably more my speed.
How will the election affect any of the above?
The debt-free part. I'm debt-free now. But I won't be in two years. I will be charged a non-compliance fee (unless I can get my income below the cut-off point by then) that I will not pay. Thus I will have that debt.
Sir, are you implying that I'm a misanthrope? I'm offended. And are you implying that I'm prone to hyperbole? Well... I've never! (insert Harriet Oleson's face from Little House on the Prairie here)
On a more general note, we may not be as different as you think. We may only disagree on the methods used to the end. I argue as much with staunch, overbearing conservatives as I do with you staunch, overbearing liberal folks...
Hey!
I still believe in a firm hand-shake that seals the deal. I live by a simple moral code, I don't owe people anything and I never impose. I wish things could be simpler. However, life is life. I didn't sue the pants out of everyone and everything for the past 100+ years and I certainly do believe in term limits, banning lobbying and no contributions from corporations. These three alone will make this country million times better than any petty arguments about how much I am paying into something that someone else will end up using. However, it will be a cold day in hell before we see senators and congressmen go home after one or two terms and it will be an even colder day in hell before we see the army of D.C. and state capital lawyers and lobbyists actually have to do some work for a living instead of lining the pockets of the rent-a-politicians in exchange for a whisper in the ear.
Finally, it will never be the day when we see corporations NOT be persons.
All of the above lead me to believe that the interests of real flesh and blood people are at the bottom of the list.
Did the machine gun kill the people, or did the person pulling the trigger kill the people? If someone really wanted to kill thirty people, he could do it with a butter knife, given the time. The machine gun just makes it easier. But... was the machine gun evil... or was the person holding it evil?
We look at our existence on this planet very differently. You probably see this life as being "it." I see it as a phase. Yeah, I want to live the same as the next guy. But, when it's time to die, I don't see that as the end. So, I'm not quite so rabid to find the fountain of youth as everybody else is these days.
Also, I don't really believe in much of our modern western medicine. I've seen too many people suffer for too long in the name of "life." And their lives ended up being hell on earth for years... take for instance my mother, who died from lung cancer which ended up spreading and becoming brain cancer. Yeah, she had insurance. She had the "best" care our system could offer her. You know what happened after five years of a miserable hell of an existence? She died. She suffered for five years, in pain or drugged-up nearly the whole time, basically bed-ridden. Is that the kind of medical care you think is so wonderful? The humane thing to do would have been to let that cancer run its course as quickly as possible (with the same pain killers they gave her anyway). She would have died within a couple of months. It would have been better for all concerned, especially her.
So, when you see me spouting off here about my refusing medical care, THAT is what I'm talking about. I get something like that, give me some morphine and let me go. I'd even prefer that you give me a bullet to the head. Don't make me go through hell. I've never been referring to pneumonia or a broken leg or a gash that needs stitches or any of those sorts of things. Of course I'm going to seek care for that sort of thing. I'll let my body handle itself as much as possible and use alternate treatment as much as possible, but if all I need is a bottle of anti-biotic to live, sure, I'll see a doctor.
But, beyond that I do not believe in the sort of thing my mother or my aunt went through. And I do not wish to fund it for anyone, because that is making me responsible for what boils down to torture in the name of science.
What I've written in this post is the main reason my "preparations" do not include major medical insurance, and the main reason I don't want it even if your precious obamacare gives it to me for free. I can afford a bottle of Ampicillin, Tylenol 3, or having a gash stitched. Beyond that, I don't want it. So, if you want this obamacare so badly, why not be a bit more "fair" about it (you guys are always talking about being fair, right?). If all I'll ever require are antibiotics, painkillers, stitches, and a couple other things, why not grab your risk tables, compute that out, and charge me based on a group of individuals in the same risk pool, rather than rabid "survivalists" who want to live for the longest time possible, even if they are on life-support, suffering immensely, and drugged out of their mind. I don't want MY money paying for that. But I'm perfectly willing to pitch in to fund your daughter's bone setting after she fell out of the tree in your front yard.
An emergency appendectomy runs in the ballpark of 20 grand, assuming no complications. You're planning on dying from appendicitis? Or are you going to run a tab for it?
And the rest of us are stuck paying for it either as taxpayers, or the insured who get stuck with higher premiums because doctors/hospitals had to hike their prices for non-payments.
Right, funny how the simplicity of this escapes so many. It gets paid for one way or another - and more expensively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
And this, folks is what the rest of us are up against.
Let me ask you this: whose fault is it when you get sick? I agree that it's not necessarily yours. But who exactly is it?
------------------------------------
Okay, with the above information, I ask that you give me a logical reason for my paying for your medical care. NO EMOTION. I would like a logical, well-thought-out reason that your medical bill should be sent to me. If you can give me one, I’ll agree with your post.
Because I am also paying for your medical care. Your medical bills are also sent to me. It's a two-way street.
It's insurance, like any other. The premiums paid by the many go for medical bills of the few, thus lowering costs for the individual. In the republican world, your for-profit insurance company can do as it pleases - collect premiums for years, then drop you on a whim. It can charge anything it wants, reject anyone from coverage for any reason, hide from the customer what it will or will not cover.
A sick or crippled person just lives with their affliction - for life. This scenario is just repugnant to most people, even though it may "make sense" to you.
Civilized societies don't allow their citizens to die in the street as throwaways - sorry if that's too "emotional" for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
I can. It's called a "fee for services rendered" model. Until the usury industry we call insurance came into being, it worked for centuries.
Truthfully, the main reason I'm so dead set against Obamacare (other than it's ridiculous complexity) is that it is basically requiring me to do business with what boils down to the mafia. A protection racket. It's not even the medical care part of it that gets me so riled up. There should be no such thing as an "insurance industry." It's usury. Find another way.
* The reason it's a mandate is because people will opt out, then demand treatment in the ultra-expensive emergency room, thus spreading the cost to others anyway.
* Obamacare is an imperfect compromise with the republican base, the insurance industry, which is loving it. It mandates a larger percentage of premiums going for services in exchange for more customers, so they still make a nice profit.
* Yes, no insurance industry but define "another way" which doesn't involve government. Those are our two choices. We must be a little pragmatic about this.
* The "other way" is a regulated single-payer system. Insurance companies would exist to provide extra services like medicare supplementary does today.
Yeah, and it will be imperfect, but, first, it will be much cheaper without its billionaire CEOs and investors scraping money off the top.
Second, the people polled in other countries who have it now, though they complain, say they would in no way switch their system for ours. It's been around long enough so that I trust their opinion.
Okay, so we're stuck with four more years of Obama... which, to me as an aspiring self-sufficient man, really only boils down to one thing: OBAMACARE. I have yet to figure out exactly how I'm going to handle this... especially since my aspiration is to get to the point where my family can live very comfortably beneath the income tax threshold such that we will not be subject to income tax at all.
Except for posting about it... how far have you gotten? Have you bought the land yet? Taken any courses yet in agriculture?
Quote:
Being of such limited means isn't really a bad thing, but it could become much harder to pull off if I'm forced to buy health insurance at several hundred dollars a month or even several tens of dollars a month.
Why not have to buy your own health Ins? Who do you want to pay your bills if one of you gets injured or sick? Society? That's your financial responsibility, not the tax payers.
Quote:
Does the election result change how any of y'all are going to live, or do your preparations for whatever self-sufficient life you envision? If no, say why. If yes, say what and why. I'm interested to hear you.
I'll start.
I had been considering New England states as a good place to locate, for self-sufficiency... including Maine.
Have you any idea how much firewood you will go through just to survive no less have any level of comfort in a Maine winter? Who will cut, split and stack it all? Your growing season for food will be very short. Your costs for insulation alone for the house and barns will be staggering, just to get on the land.
Quote:
Then Maine went dramatically blue, not that that's a surprise... and also became the first state where a gay marriage proposal was voted into law by the populace. (Every time since yesterday, when it's been on the ballot in any state, it's been voted down by the people... even in California.) Don't hate on me because I oppose gay marriage. God says that homosexuality is perversion and a sin, so I'm just God's follower. If you want to take that up with God, that's up to you... but I don't want to hear it right now because it's irrelevant to this thread. I mentioned it because it's a condition of an area I'd considered for self-sufficiency, which makes me not want to consider it anymore.
Whether gays marry or not is none of anyone's business but their own. That should have nothing to do with you or where you live. God also said rapists should marry their victims, now fallen non-virgin women, do you want to practice that also?
Quote:
I'd been considering West Virginia and the western tip of Virginia... not sure if I'm going to be looking there anymore. Virginia went "blue" again, much to their shame in my mind... and West Virginia, though a solidly red state for the presidential election, chose a Democratic governor and some Democratic congresspeople. That makes it seem like WV is on the skids, where I'm concerned... it's known to be a very poor state, which isn't so bad, but when poor people start falling under the spell of Democratic principles, they never extricate themselves.
I believe this political rhetoric belongs on the Political Forum so.... snip!
When you're trying to keep warm on a cold night and the firewood box is empty, you wont care if your neighbor is a Rep' or Dem'.
One thing about obamacare, if you are not making much money, it is free, right? Everybody else is supposed to pay for your healthcare, so if you are planning to live with no real income to list, you should be fine.
Which means the rest of us will be picking up his tab. Is that fair?
An emergency appendectomy runs in the ballpark of 20 grand, assuming no complications. You're planning on dying from appendicitis? Or are you going to run a tab for it?
Let me turn that question around. How about if we find a way to not have that procedure cost 20 grand? How much do you get paid for a couple of hours of work?
Right, funny how the simplicity of this escapes so many. It gets paid for one way or another - and more expensively.
Because I am also paying for your medical care. Your medical bills are also sent to me. It's a two-way street.
It's insurance, like any other. The premiums paid by the many go for medical bills of the few, thus lowering costs for the individual. In the republican world, your for-profit insurance company can do as it pleases - collect premiums for years, then drop you on a whim. It can charge anything it wants, reject anyone from coverage for any reason, hide from the customer what it will or will not cover.
A sick or crippled person just lives with their affliction - for life. This scenario is just repugnant to most people, even though it may "make sense" to you.
Civilized societies don't allow their citizens to die in the street as throwaways - sorry if that's too "emotional" for you.
* The reason it's a mandate is because people will opt out, then demand treatment in the ultra-expensive emergency room, thus spreading the cost to others anyway.
* Obamacare is an imperfect compromise with the republican base, the insurance industry, which is loving it. It mandates a larger percentage of premiums going for services in exchange for more customers, so they still make a nice profit.
* Yes, no insurance industry but define "another way" which doesn't involve government. Those are our two choices. We must be a little pragmatic about this.
* The "other way" is a regulated single-payer system. Insurance companies would exist to provide extra services like medicare supplementary does today.
Yeah, and it will be imperfect, but, first, it will be much cheaper without its billionaire CEOs and investors scraping money off the top.
Second, the people polled in other countries who have it now, though they complain, say they would in no way switch their system for ours. It's been around long enough so that I trust their opinion.
No, you don't pay for my medical bills. I don't have any. I haven't had any that I haven't paid for on the spot. The five times I've been to the doctor over the past 30 years, I've paid for in a "fee for services rendered" manner. Yeah, I'm lucky. I know that. But then again, you are luckier than I am in other ways. You'll never hear me whining about that, though.
In my opinion, my health is better because I HAVEN'T been submitting to doctors. I've had a very few health issues over the years (some actually kind of scary), but by sticking it out without going to a doctor, I've not allowed myself to become addicted to what that medical industry wants me to become addicted to. It's like a car salesman; they are trying to sell you something: unnecessary drugs, unnecessary treatments, unnecessary tests, unnecessary specialists, unnecessary red tape, and unnecessary expenses. They want your money. They couldn't give a damn about your health. As with any other big corporate business, you are simply a nameless statistic and a source of revenue. The "machine" is there to care for you as a corporate cattle yard cares for the cattle.
I think I'd sooner go to a Pah-Ute shaman.
Who WOULD switch their medical care system to ours? We have the mob/mafia (insurance companies) driving up costs. We have an industrialized medical system that profits by keeping you sick, rather than curing you. And we have a government that is forcing you to pay protection money to that mafia. Nearly any system would be better than that. I think I'd rather trust my health to the neighbor kid playing doctor.
So again, I ask why your scheme to provide everyone with medical care is any more "fair" than some other system. Rather than following the herd with socialization, why not try to come up with a better way? Because I'll tell you what is going to happen as it always does: you are going to be responsible for everyone else's health. You are then going to insist that, since you are responsible for their health, you should have a say in their lifestyle and behavior. Soon, you will be crying bloody murder when your neighbor lady has a shot of whiskey before bed on the odd Tuesday. You are going to demand that legislation be passed so that the neighbor lady's deviant lifestyle doesn't cost you so much money in health care costs. And then it will go on from there until everyone is in a living hell with absolutely no "enjoyment" other than what the state tells them they are allowed to enjoy, which won't be much. I already hear that kind of crap all the time. What will it be like when government gets its fat nose in there?
We need to find a way so that everyone has their precious medical care (should they so desire it), but at the same time, my lifestyle is not dictated be your pocketbook.
Let me turn that question around. How about if we find a way to not have that procedure cost 20 grand? How much do you get paid for a couple of hours of work?
Sure. Convince your insurance industry lobbyists, pharma industry lobbyists and CEOs, the shareholders of all medically related businesses, the hospital administrators and managerial/admin staff (yes, the guy who drives the BMW home for administering a place where sick come to be healed) etc. etc. Then convince the Republican senators and congressmen to go against the very corporations that paid for their campaigns. And don't forget the army of vulture-laywers waiting to be fed form malpractice lawsuits. Finally, when you have brought all these folks to the table we can ask them why does a bottle of Aspirin cost $80 in a hospital when I can bring one by myself for $3.99. Finally tell the doctors they can't make $400K/year and tell all the mothers that their daughters now shouldn't marry said doctors!
Then call the President and tell him you figured it out.
In my opinion, my health is better because I HAVEN'T been submitting to doctors. I've had a very few health issues over the years (some actually kind of scary), but by sticking it out without going to a doctor, I've not allowed myself to become addicted to what that medical industry wants me to become addicted to. It's like a car salesman; they are trying to sell you something: unnecessary drugs, unnecessary treatments, unnecessary tests, unnecessary specialists, unnecessary red tape, and unnecessary expenses. They want your money. They couldn't give a damn about your health. As with any other big corporate business, you are simply a nameless statistic and a source of revenue. The "machine" is there to care for you as a corporate cattle yard cares for the cattle.
The Earth is 10,000 years old. No it's not! Yes it is! No it's not - we have fossils and carbon dated things to show it is much older. No it's not, the Bible says so!
The Earth is flat. No it's not. Yes it is! Not it's not, we have photos of it from above. Nah, that's God playing with our cameras...
This is what your answer above and ensuing discussion sounds like.
OD
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And are you implying that I'm prone to hyperbole? Well... I've never! (insert Harriet Oleson's face from Little House on the Prairie here) 
Right, funny how the simplicity of this escapes so many. It gets paid for one way or another - and more expensively.
