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

SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

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

  • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

    Originally posted by jpn View Post
    Oh, be honest, you're just pissed because the US will no longer have one in six of its citizens without health insurance. Boo-hoo.

    As for the "tax" thing, it's just a penalty imposed on those who choose to be free-riders, which the rest of us otherwise would have to pay for. What's the matter, don't you believe in personal responsibility?
    Yes, every conservative wants there to be uninsured and people to die on the street.


    Guess what, I'm one of those "40 million uninsured" because I can't afford 400 dollars a month to buy insurance through my job (the total cost is 1600 per month - job pays for 75% of it). I don't want anyone dying or uninsured, but you are simply uninformed on the reasons why this shit costs so much to begin with and it isn't your generic "corporate greed, fat cats" argument you liberals love to shoot out at everything. Greed exists just as much in government as it does in private business and you WILL NEVER GET RID OF IT. It is human nature. You are greedy, I am greedy, we all are. Period. The question is: What is the best and most humanitarian way to insure the MOST access and BEST access and CHEAPEST access to healthcare and health insurance for the MOST people possible? I answer that with a TRUE free market (not the corporate fascism we have). You answer that with a government program that redistributes wealth and ensures free healthcare for all.

    That doesn't mean I hate people anymore than you or that you hate people anymore than me. My different take on the issue does not mean that I am unsympathetic to poor people (like me) who can't afford health insurance (like me). I just believe a true free market with true competition is far more humane than a government which can giveth and taketh at will. Quit filling this debate with emotional straw man garbage. No one is seriously advocating for 50 million dead people because we hate them and don't want them to have health insurance/care.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Originally posted by USCitizen View Post
    You are correct in that regarding Health Insurance there is no true Free Market except it's because the HC Lobby has strangled their customer base.
    Where did the HC lobby come from in the first place? Why did it come about and what was its purpose? What is it lobbying for? Answer this, and you will see why the government is the problem, not the mythical free market that doesn't even exist.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

      Originally posted by USCitizen View Post
      You are correct in that regarding Health Insurance there is no true Free Market except it's because the HC Lobby has strangled their customer base.
      Yeah, the health care lobby is a biggie. Why do you think that is? Could it possibly be because of the intense regulation of absolutely everything involving medical care? Could it be because insurance reimbursements are tied at the hip to medicare?

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

        Originally posted by lutherf View Post
        Yeah, the health care lobby is a biggie. Why do you think that is? Could it possibly be because of the intense regulation of absolutely everything involving medical care? Could it be because insurance reimbursements are tied at the hip to medicare?
        Why is every MD in my town living in a mansion with 3 brand new SUVs and going on 3 vacations a year to Europe?
        Most of the MDs in town say they work about 10 hours more a week to make what they made before Obama took office.

        I make $15.00/hour and I'd be more than happy to hire a staff at $7.00/hour to deal with my annual 700K income.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

          Originally posted by USCitizen View Post
          Why is every MD in my town living in a mansion with 3 brand new SUVs and going on 3 vacations a year to Europe?
          Most of the MDs in town say they work about 10 hours more a week to make what they made before Obama took office.

          I make $15.00/hour and I'd be more than happy to hire a staff at $7.00/hour to deal with my annual 700K income.
          That would be because of inflation in the healthcare industry..not just with the currency in general (through the Federal Reserve), but also through the government because of Medicare/Medicaid. ANYTIME the government pumps a bunch of money into a sector of the economy that normally wouldn't be there (housing, education, health, etc), the prices rise steeply, every single time. Why? Because the process of doing that distorts the market, especially prices AND backs certain companies while not backing others (hence lobbying and regulations). In a true free market where you DIDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH A THIRD PARTY INSURANCE COMPANY, you could deal straight with your doctor and have a payment plan of any kind and the doctor could set his price. A doctor cannot do that and you HAVE to go through insurance according to most State laws. SO...the reason doctors make to much damn money is that after they get paid about 10% of what they are supposed to by Medicare/Medicaid, they pass those costs on to you and me who don't have those things and we pay the resulting gap. Also, since it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a doctor in this HIGHLY REGULATED FIELD (see how regulations raise the bar so high that it takes a 300,000 dollar education just to be a doctor - of course all that debt has to be paid off). When you add in the fact doctors are not going to go through 10 years of school and 300,000 dollars in debt just to work for free, you get what you get.

          It wasn't always like this and healthcare/insurance wasn't always this expensive.

          So, why is it now?

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

            eric,
            I built a Private Medical Health system in 2003-2004 and one of the methods of payment was Self-Pay.
            It even included Liens against property and assets.

            People don't pay because they can't afford the charges.
            Would an Ear, Nose and Throat doctor charge less than $350.00 for a 15 minute appointment.
            They would if they didn't have to pay back loans or support their practice and home life.
            In your world only the children of wealthy parents would be able to become doctors.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

              Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
              Yes, every conservative wants there to be uninsured and people to die on the street.


              Guess what, I'm one of those "40 million uninsured" because I can't afford 400 dollars a month to buy insurance through my job (the total cost is 1600 per month - job pays for 75% of it). I don't want anyone dying or uninsured, but you are simply uninformed on the reasons why this shit costs so much to begin with and it isn't your generic "corporate greed, fat cats" argument you liberals love to shoot out at everything. Greed exists just as much in government as it does in private business and you WILL NEVER GET RID OF IT. It is human nature. You are greedy, I am greedy, we all are. Period. The question is: What is the best and most humanitarian way to insure the MOST access and BEST access and CHEAPEST access to healthcare and health insurance for the MOST people possible? I answer that with a TRUE free market (not the corporate fascism we have). You answer that with a government program that redistributes wealth and ensures free healthcare for all.

              That doesn't mean I hate people anymore than you or that you hate people anymore than me. My different take on the issue does not mean that I am unsympathetic to poor people (like me) who can't afford health insurance (like me). I just believe a true free market with true competition is far more humane than a government which can giveth and taketh at will. Quit filling this debate with emotional straw man garbage. No one is seriously advocating for 50 million dead people because we hate them and don't want them to have health insurance/care.

              - - - Updated - - -



              Where did the HC lobby come from in the first place? Why did it come about and what was its purpose? What is it lobbying for? Answer this, and you will see why the government is the problem, not the mythical free market that doesn't even exist.
              Agreed. No one wants anyone to die in the streets, despite of what some keep asserting without any substantiation.

              What happened between the 50's, when we as a people, a society, and at a personal level, accepted that people, even our loved ones, die for all kinds of reasons in all kinds of situations that the medial capabilities at the time couldn't prevent. And now? What is the difference now?

              Medical technologies, and to some extent the medical miracles the medical profession are now able to perform, hence, expectations are set all the higher, perhaps to the point where nothing appears impossible, and the impossible is expected. Who's going to cut off the money flow for these expensive medical technologies? The expensive treatment and medications, even in medically hopeless situations? You? The Dr? The Family? The ultimate payer of the bills, the (shudder) government?

              Someone is going have to if we keep going down this road. Someone somewhere is going to have to foot the bill, and if it's through government subsidies, that means the government.

              There was a very clear measure before all this came up: "if you could afford it. If you were successful enough to afford it. If you provided enough 'value add' in your occupation, and the foresight to set some aside some for a rainy day, you could afford it. Darwinism via personal and occupational success and conscious forethought (ant and grasshopper anyone?)

              Now, it seems, everyone is entitled to the same level of treatment, regardless of expense, and force everyone else to pay for it, and frankly, the model doesn't hold up. The financials don't seem to make sense and to achieve some sort of balance, regardless of how much we want them to make sense.

              We all want to save grandma, regardless of the expense, especially the case if it's to everyone else, and not ourselves. But frankly, that's not how the world works. Well, the world of reality anyway. The world of hard facts and costs and numbers, and expenses, and who's stuck with the bill, doesn't work that way, regardless of how much we want it to work some other way. It just doesn't.

              Yea, I know, you are going to say that those that didn't pay before still used the emergency room and cost the rest of of anyway, and you'd be right. That is how it works. But at least somewhere in the emergency room there was a spending control, someplace. Not just every drug abuser that walked in off the streets would get the kidney transplant that they needed (side thought, just how much IS that drug abuser going to be 'taxed' for his miss-deeds and self-inflicted medical problems? eh?)

              With that control gone, our drug abuser is going to walk in off of the streets, demand the kidney transplant, get it (he may perhaps have to sue to get it, but he will), and the rest of us will end up paying for it, and have to plant grandma because there wasn't a kidney available, and frankly, that doesn't make one dam bit of common sense to me.

              When A gives B's money way for C's benefit, there surely is something rotten in Denmark. Que Bono? (Who benefits? - beyond the obvious please)

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                I'm not even going to say that the increases in health insurance that you see from year to year isn't a "collusion of healthcare/insurance providers", but I refuse to believe that such a thing, at least as we see it in today's world, could occur in a true free market; it simply could not, the companies in question would go out of business if they did such a thing. The collusion that occurs is that these very few insurance companies get together and lobby the government for protection from competition, er I mean "regulation" so they can increase prices at will. They do after all have a monopoly, hence why they can do that. I understand where liberals are coming from on this whole health insurance/health care cost stuff, in fact on the surface you guys almost sound correct...until you actually look at the history of the issue and cold hard facts. They you discover that health insurance and health care have sky-rocketed...because of government interference. The problem is, you guys attack the symptom, not the disease. You always go after costs and outrageous "profits" while ignoring WHY the costs are so high and WHY the "outrageous" profits and "big [insert industry here] business" comes from in the first place - and I can assure you it does not come from TRUE Capitalism with ACTUAL competition and a free market. It is a result of "State Capitalism" or more accurately - Fascism.
                The symptom is imposing a free market, profit-maximizing system on health insurance. It doesn't work. You end up like the United States: paying solid gold prices for middlin' results and one in six citizens with no insurance at all, some of whom would love to pay for it but can't because they have preexisting conditions. What a fucking nightmare.

                It must be such hard work denying such an obvious reality...

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                  Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                  Why is it that healthcare/insurance costs are so high to begin with? Why is it that health insurance used to actually be used only for emergencies/catastrophes AND was actually affordable, and now it is not? What changed between say 1950 and 2012?
                  1) Profit margin. That adds 10 to 20 percent to costs right off the top.
                  2) Fee-for-service. We pay for services even if they aren't really necessary. Profits, you know.
                  3) Doctors are paid more here than elsewhere. The free market strikes again.
                  4) Technology. MRIs are more expensive than poking and guessing.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                    Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                    Yes, every conservative wants there to be uninsured and people to die on the street.
                    I judge by actions, not words. By that measure, your statement, although meant to be sarcastic, is in fact quite accurate. Please, show me where I'm wrong--remember, actions. Not words.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                      Originally posted by USCitizen View Post
                      Why is every MD in my town living in a mansion with 3 brand new SUVs and going on 3 vacations a year to Europe?
                      Most of the MDs in town say they work about 10 hours more a week to make what they made before Obama took office.

                      I make $15.00/hour and I'd be more than happy to hire a staff at $7.00/hour to deal with my annual 700K income.
                      I know several doctors making more than $1M/yr. It's a good living but there is a reason for that income too....see, they have a level of expertise that most others do not and they take on a level of responsibility that most people don't want to. Their service is valuable to others and so they rate that higher income.

                      Yeah, they have nice houses and take killer vacations but they also put all of that on the line every time they cut someone open. See, if they fuck up and somebody dies then they may never be able to get insured again. If that happens then their practice is screwed and the car goes away and the vacations go away and there's a damned good bet that the wife goes away along with half of everything that's left.

                      Now, when I talk to my GP (who makes a good living but not the same as various specialists) he mentions the fact that he has to see 6 or 7 patients an hour in order to stay profitable. This GP is also the guy that 99% of the population consider "their doctor". This is the guy that we all see all the time and expect our copay to never go beyond $25. Well, if we just paid this guy $100 or $125 for our office call and prescription we'd all be doing just fine and he'd probably be making more money! Instead, what's happening is that we're paying $200 a month for cheap insurance so that we can pay our GP $25 and, if the shit hits the fan, pay some specialist a couple of grand. But that's not all, since we're only paying $25 we also "need" the MRI and a whole battery of other tests just so we can be really, really sure that those chronic headaches are due to allergies or that the whole reason we have to piss 6 times a night is because we weigh 350# and never met a doughnut we didn't like.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                        Originally posted by lutherf View Post
                        Yeah, the health care lobby is a biggie. Why do you think that is? Could it possibly be because of the intense regulation of absolutely everything involving medical care? Could it be because insurance reimbursements are tied at the hip to medicare?
                        The bleat of the desperate conservative. When the free market fails, it's all the fault of that dern govmint.

                        When the financial industry blew up, it wasn't because greedy and incompetent private actors turned the industry into a casino, no, it was due to too much of that dern govmint regulation.

                        So I guess the reason that the European countries are able to provide as good or better care to ALL their citizens is because they are much less regulated. Right?

                        Geeze, you guys can't even begin to make a convincing argument.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                          Originally posted by USCitizen View Post
                          eric,
                          I built a Private Medical Health system in 2003-2004 and one of the methods of payment was Self-Pay.
                          It even included Liens against property and assets.

                          People don't pay because they can't afford the charges.
                          Would an Ear, Nose and Throat doctor charge less than $350.00 for a 15 minute appointment.
                          They would if they didn't have to pay back loans or support their practice and home life.
                          In your world only the children of wealthy parents would be able to become doctors.
                          There is no way in a free market with doctors and health insurance companies actually COMPETING that a doctor's visit would be 350 dollars for 15 minutes...they'd simply go out of business as no one would do business with them IF there were other options. If however there are no options, no competition, and only a few health insurance companies to choose from who can set whatever price they want, you will get things like 350 dollars for a 15 minute visit. That is not the product of multiple companies/practices competing for business...that is a product of government interference at ALL levels...State and Federal. Do you think an individual can set up a payment plan with a doctor? In most states, no because the State will not allow it. They will stop that shit real quick. Look at the doctor who in NY who tried that a couple of years back. The NY state gov't gave the guy a cease and desist order because they said he HAD to go through third party insurance companies to get paid...the customer was not allowed to pay him in cash in any kind of plan. This is what the problem is (or part of it) on a smaller scale. One thing I notice is that you rail against doctors with mansions but ignore all the Congresscritters with mansions. In fact all of them live just as well if not better than the corporate "fat cats". Shit look at Romney's house or Obama's pre-presidency. Look at Pelosi's monster of a mansion. This isn't by coincidence. These "big businesses" scratch the government's back and it scratches theirs.

                          Remember, back in the day, doctor's actually giving free services to the poor was quite common as was charitable giving in general at all levels...once the welfare state started however, charitable giving and "pro-bono" services have declined drastically. After all, why should I give to charity when I already pay taxes for government welfare services that serve those who would normally rely on charitable giving/pro-bono services. I don't have to be generous with what I have because the government already takes my property and redistributes it.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                            Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                            Agreed. No one wants anyone to die in the streets, despite of what some keep asserting without any substantiation.
                            So..."substantiate" how I'm wrong.

                            "Substance" means "substantial." As in actions, not words.

                            Waiting...

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                              Originally posted by jpn View Post
                              The symptom is imposing a free market, profit-maximizing system on health insurance. It doesn't work. You end up like the United States: paying solid gold prices for middlin' results and one in six citizens with no insurance at all, some of whom would love to pay for it but can't because they have preexisting conditions. What a fucking nightmare.

                              It must be such hard work denying such an obvious reality...
                              There never was a free market imposed on the health insurance industry. It might have been close 5 decades ago, but even then we had quite the regulatory scheme. Now days it's unbelievable. Once again there is no free market. Why are 1/6 people uninsured with Medicare/Medicaid around? Wasn't the Great Society supposed to end poverty forever? So what happened? Why are MORE people uninsured NOW than in the 1950's/60's BEFORE significant government intervention? Why?

                              And as before, prove to me there is a "free market" for healthcare in the US. Show me where it is and show me there aren't any regulations on the market. Show me.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                                Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                                There is no way in a free market with doctors and health insurance companies actually COMPETING that a doctor's visit would be 350 dollars for 15 minutes...they'd simply go out of business as no one would do business with them IF there were other options.
                                Yeah, the free market is so perfect and magical that if it isn't working in some area of the economy, then it must be due to some exterior influence, like that dern govmint.
                                Sheesh. :rolleyes:

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X