Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

    [B]Porras[/B
    ]That would be awesome. Banning health insurance companies from operating within the United States would tank the costs of healthcare pretty quickly.
    Take a moment to think about how stupid that statement is, then ask yourself this. Would banning auto insurance make the cost of auto repairs more affordable to the average person? Would banning homeowner's insurance make the cost of rebuilding your home after a fire more affordable to the average person?

    No, what would make healthcare more affordable would be to eliminate the various market distorting policies imposed by the government on the industry, starting with first and foremost, the tax discrepancy between direct cash compensation and non-cash compensation like health insurance premiums paid for you by your employer.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #17
      Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

      Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
      People who aren't very strategic or particularly deep in their thinking look at the genesis and relative support for the " individual mandate" seem to think that it is hypocrisy, rather than more the case of at any given moment taking the position that will reflect the most viable route to the preferred (or least undesirable) outcome.

      In an ideal world, conservatives would prefer to leave healthcare to the free market, which would undoubtedly result in the most effective delivery of goods and services to the most people, for the widest level of satisfaction. However, largely since the ill-conceived (by liberals) price controls of WWII let to the tremendous rise of third-party payment for not just healthcare, but health insurance, the market has been incredibly distorted by idiotic government policies.

      In rational world, people would have no incentive to receive their compensation in any form but monetary, and then you would purchse those other things for yourself.

      Comprehensive health insurance simply would not exist in a rational marketplace. It is the equivalent of buying auto insurance that covers every time you fill up your tank, get your oil changed, or change your tires. It is not the purpose of insurance (which is the pooling of risk). If you know that, on average, everyone should expect to spend X amount on healthcare in their lifetimes, than insurance covereage should BEGIN for coverage of out-of pocket expenses ABOVE that amount, or for unbudgetable spikes in costs. It used to be called "Major Medical".

      In addition to all of this, we also have laws requiring people to get treated, and in many instances laws that prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for various (otherwise rational reasons) which conservatives oppose as well. It is in THAT context, proposals that would enable destroy the insurance industry by allowing people to wait until they have become sick to purchase insurance, and then force insureres to not only accept them as customers, but provide for goods and services that they have never truly paid for in any rational economic sense to anyone who understands the underlying principle of insurance. It would be like allowing homeowners to call and get fire insurance the day AFTER their home burned down and force the insurance company to not only take their business, but pay for the rebuilding of the house that has already burned down.

      So, if we are going to have such an assinine requirement imposed, the only rational thing to do is to require that people buy insurance up front to avoid the ridiculously obvious consequences thereof.
      It is really hard to tell you 'Marketists' from Marxists. But both 'religions' garner the same outcomes. Almost every other industrialized country knows that healthcare should NEVER be left to the free market. It does not fit a market solution because the patient will never have leverage in the transaction. The patient's stakes are his very life, not a TV or automobile. If a patient is denied coverage for cancer, what is his leverage...take his business elsewhere ...IN ANOTHER LIFE???

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #18
        Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

        Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
        Yea, conservatives changed their minds...personal responsibility is just something they SAY as a defense against liberals, but they don't really mean it should ever apply to them.

        Do you seriously believe no one paid for your hospital visit or no one pays for people who show up or are brought into the emergency room? Do you even know who pays for it?
        You really don't know what personal responsibility is do you? It is not me having to pay for the laziness and unwillingness of another it is accepting responsibility for my actions. Where as liberals want the government to force me to pay for someone else.

        As for paying my hospital bill. I know it get paid by taxpayers. From age 17 when I left home to age 30 when I got my first insurance through a job, I cost the taxpayers $135 for one hospital visit. One in which the doctor told me if I had not come in I could have died. It is not like these people who go in for every little sniffle and stubbed toe. It also doesn't help when you call your primary care doctor and they tell you GO to the ER.

        Personal Responsibility... tell you here is personal responsibility, take care of your self and your problems without taking from me. That is personal responsibility.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #19
          Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

          Bfgrn
          It is really hard to tell you 'Marketists' from Marxists. But both 'religions' garner the same outcomes. Almost every other industrialized country knows that healthcare should NEVER be left to the free market. It does not fit a market solution because the patient will never have leverage in the transaction. The patient's stakes are his very life, not a TV or automobile. If a patient is denied coverage for cancer, what is his leverage...take his business elsewhere ...IN ANOTHER LIFE???
          There is no country, anywhere in the world that provides, or has ever provided, all healthcare that everyone wants, when they want it. All those nations you cite, people often die or suffer through substantially longer waiting periods for treatments that are far more quickly available to the average patient in this country. Their healthcare costs aren't lower, they are just artificially hidden in non-monetary ways.

          Here is a question for you, is it a moral obligation for society to provide healthcare to every individual? If so, what LEVEL of healthcare is everyone morally entitled to, in your opinion?

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #20
            Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

            Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
            Take a moment to think about how stupid that statement is, then ask yourself this. Would banning auto insurance make the cost of auto repairs more affordable to the average person? Would banning homeowner's insurance make the cost of rebuilding your home after a fire more affordable to the average person?

            No, what would make healthcare more affordable would be to eliminate the various market distorting policies imposed by the government on the industry, starting with first and foremost, the tax discrepancy between direct cash compensation and non-cash compensation like health insurance premiums paid for you by your employer.
            It's not stupid at all. Most healthcare procedures have vastly inflated prices. Whenever the temperature drops (along with myriad arthritic problems I have) I'll sudden pain in my hand. Feels like it's broken. The reason for this? Back when it was broken, I didn't have the $400 to have it properly immobilized. Beyond that, I was billed $1200 for the 2 second procedure of having the bone set in the first place. Plus another $1300 for x-ray, ER visit, doctor fee, and the inadequate splint I got at the ER.

            There's no reason for that kind of expense for such a simple problem. They can charge it, because insurance companies can pay it. If the individual had to pay, it would be a different matter.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #21
              Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

              Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
              Take a moment to think about how stupid that statement is, then ask yourself this. Would banning auto insurance make the cost of auto repairs more affordable to the average person?
              Auto insurance isn't mandatory in my state and it's cheaper then in the adjacent state to the south where it's mandatory, the average repair cost is also 14% lower...I wonder why that is?
              Last edited by JDJarvis; 01-29-2012, 03:29 PM.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #22
                Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

                Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
                You really don't know what personal responsibility is do you? It is not me having to pay for the laziness and unwillingness of another it is accepting responsibility for my actions. Where as liberals want the government to force me to pay for someone else.

                As for paying my hospital bill. I know it get paid by taxpayers. From age 17 when I left home to age 30 when I got my first insurance through a job, I cost the taxpayers $135 for one hospital visit. One in which the doctor told me if I had not come in I could have died. It is not like these people who go in for every little sniffle and stubbed toe. It also doesn't help when you call your primary care doctor and they tell you GO to the ER.

                Personal Responsibility... tell you here is personal responsibility, take care of your self and your problems without taking from me. That is personal responsibility.
                OH...I see. Because your 'laziness and unwillingness of accepting responsibility for your actions' only cost taxpayers $135, it is OK for you. But not for others.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #23
                  Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

                  Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
                  There is no country, anywhere in the world that provides, or has ever provided, all healthcare that everyone wants, when they want it. All those nations you cite, people often die or suffer through substantially longer waiting periods for treatments that are far more quickly available to the average patient in this country. Their healthcare costs aren't lower, they are just artificially hidden in non-monetary ways.

                  Here is a question for you, is it a moral obligation for society to provide healthcare to every individual? If so, what LEVEL of healthcare is everyone morally entitled to, in your opinion?
                  What I'm hearing is the propaganda 'Marketists' are fed by the very corporations that put profits before people. It is a well funded PR campaign insurance corporations have created to disseminate through the media, and the right wing echo chamber. But even though it is false, to you it is simply 'the truth'...

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #24
                    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

                    Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
                    What I'm hearing is the propaganda 'Marketists' are fed by the very corporations that put profits before people. It is a well funded PR campaign insurance corporations have created to disseminate through the media, and the right wing echo chamber. But even though it is false, to you it is simply 'the truth'...
                    You can't really being be accusing those of us opposed to the mandate of falling for insurance industry propaganda, can you? Seriously, that's ripe!

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #25
                      Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

                      Originally posted by dblack View Post
                      You can't really being be accusing those of us opposed to the mandate of falling for insurance industry propaganda, can you? Seriously, that's ripe!
                      My preference is single payer, which would pretty much put the private insurance cartels out of business. BUT (big but), that is not what we got. Instead of the liberal/progressive solution, we got a conservative/Republican health care bill. But now conservatives refuse to own up...

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #26
                        Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

                        Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
                        My preference is single payer, which would pretty much put the private insurance cartels out of business. BUT (big but), that is not what we got. Instead of the liberal/progressive solution, we got a conservative/Republican health care bill. But now conservatives refuse to own up...
                        The only people who should "own up" to PPACA are the reps who voted for it. And the president who signed it into law.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #27
                          Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

                          Originally posted by dblack View Post
                          The only people who should "own up" to PPACA are the reps who voted for it. And the president who signed it into law.
                          Like it or not, it IS the 'market based' solution to health care. But keep in mind, there is no such thing as a 'free' market. All markets are constructed, have rules and are regulated.

                          The individual mandate is an absolutely essential rule for it to have any chance of working. Is it really that hard to get your mind around that FACT? Without a mandate, people could avoid buying health insurance until they had a serious illness. They would make one premium payment and expect a million dollars in treatment. Conservatives live in a world of know-nothingisms and some belief that there really is a utopia.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #28
                            Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

                            Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
                            Like it or not, it IS the 'market based' solution to health care. But keep in mind, there is no such thing as a 'free' market. All markets are constructed, have rules and are regulated.

                            The individual mandate is an absolutely essential rule for it to have any chance of working. Is it really that hard to get your mind around that FACT? Without a mandate, people could avoid buying health insurance until they had a serious illness. They would make one premium payment and expect a million dollars in treatment. Conservatives live in a world of know-nothingisms and some belief that there really is a utopia.
                            No, I get it. The mandate is critical to PPACA working. But I don't want it to "work", because I don't agree with what it is trying to do. I consider corporatism the most dangerous trend in US government and PPACA advances that cause by an order of magnitude.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #29
                              Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

                              Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
                              OH...I see. Because your 'laziness and unwillingness of accepting responsibility for your actions' only cost taxpayers $135, it is OK for you. But not for others.
                              How much do you think I have paid in taxes over almost 35 years of working? I am pretty sure my forced payment of taxes outstrips my one lone run to the ER as taxpayer expense. As normal from the usual suspects, deflection noted.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #30
                                Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

                                Porras
                                It's not stupid at all. Most healthcare procedures have vastly inflated prices. Whenever the temperature drops (along with myriad arthritic problems I have) I'll sudden pain in my hand. Feels like it's broken. The reason for this? Back when it was broken, I didn't have the $400 to have it properly immobilized. Beyond that, I was billed $1200 for the 2 second procedure of having the bone set in the first place. Plus another $1300 for x-ray, ER visit, doctor fee, and the inadequate splint I got at the ER.
                                If you didn't have the $400 dollars to pay to have it properly immobilized, how was it you managed to afford the $2,500+ for the rest of it?

                                BTW, you're attributing those costs to MARKETS is proof that you don't understand enough about what your writing about to realize that the healthcare/insurance industries in this country are second only to education as being as far removed from being free markets as just about anything in this nation.

                                Third party payer is what DRIVES costs higher. Costs for most procedures would be far less if we had a system where people budgeted, planned, and paid for themselves the cost of routine and minor medical care and rather than paying for "comprehensive coverage" instead bought far less expensive Major Medical/Catastrophic care insurance packages.

                                Ever wonder why you'll spend less time waiting to see a neurosurgeon if you have cancer than to see a plastic surgeon of you want to get a face lift? Guess which one is more likely to be paid for by insurance. Also, guess which field has seen prices go DOWN for procedures over time in relation to the other. And, guess which one of those is more reflecting of a free market, more relatively free of interference by the government (either through direct subsidy or indirect market manupulation through the tax code).

                                If the government forced all medical insurance to start covering elective cosmetic surgery several things would happen. First, health care premiums would skyrocket. Second, more people (who might othewise never have even considered going for plastic surgery if they were paying the full cost would suddenly see the value in it for them) would demand plastic surgery. Third, the cost of plastic surgery would skyrocket. Forth, the same fools in government, oblivious to the fact that it was their own actions which were causing the skyrocketing costs in the first place, would start trying to find other ways to force the costs down, which would do nothing but hide the costs (longer waits or government impossed rationing, for example).

                                Bfrgn
                                My preference is single payer
                                First of all, to refer to it as a "single payer" system is a sign of sheer economic ignorance. It is NOT a single payer, it is everyone pays (in proportion to how much of total taxes they pay). There has never been any "single payer" system in the world that has not resulted in increased demand from those it supposedly serves, without any market incentives to increase supply. The end result, shortages (longer waits, more death). My aunt had breast cancer two years ago. If she had lived in Great Britain, she would probably be dead today instead of in remission. Her's was a fast growing cancer, and the difference in wait times she would have faced to get into see the oncologist would likely have made it too late.

                                What you really propose is nothing more than a system that takes healthcare choice and resource away from some, and gives it to others, while reducing the aggregate level of healthcare resources for all in the long-run. You just don't have the basic economic literacy to understand the consequences of what you support. Either that or you're one of the ones who will be a net beneficiary at the expense of others, in which case you are all too aware of the economics of it and simply are supporting the use of force by government to selfishly have something taken away from other people so you (and others) who have not earned it can have it instead.

                                Bfgrn
                                Like it or not, it IS the 'market based' solution to health care. But keep in mind, there is no such thing as a 'free' market. All markets are constructed, have rules and are regulated.
                                No, not all markets are "constructed", nor are all markets regulated, with rules. There is a fundamental difference between an environment with RULE OF LAW (including enforcement of mutually agreed upon contracts) and respect for individual rights (including property rights), which FOSTER properly functioning markets, and regulation designed to determine or influence OUTCOME of markets.

                                And for those who argue that 'healthcare is different' because it is 'life or death'. Well, not all healthcare spending is life or death, hundreds of billions are spent as a result of perfectly avoidable consequences of other every-day lifestyle choices. Also, the overwhelming majority of us have shelter, food, and clothing being far more pressing life-or-death needs on a daily basis. Would we be better off with a single-payer systme to provide our food, housing, and clothing?

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X