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 chassisman View Post
    Of all that ramble, I am most puzzled by a "Hill-Burton Hospital"............WTF is THAT???
    Hill-Burton hospitals received federal funding and were, because of that, required to provide a certain amount of free care to the community.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


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

      Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
      I am not sure what argument you are making. The ACA has been ruled Constitutional and, as I demonstrated above, Romney is on record saying that tax penalties should be used on a federal level. Romney is arguing against ideas that he himself championed... and is hoping that nobody notices (which, to be fair, may very well be what happens).
      Yep. Romney is most certainly the Founding Father of Obamneycare and the Mandate Messiah who passionately and ultimately effectively argued that it should be federalised, which has now been done. Heck, Obama originally opposed the idea of going the mandate route in his presidential primary with HRC and resistant to it during the sausage process in Congress and relented to the Romneycare model once he realised that his preferred means (public option setup) wasn't going to be passed. As a result, we now have Obamneycare as a national framework.

      Mitt Robot -- Mitt Romney flip-flops on healthcare reform - YouTube
      Health Care: Mitt Romney flip-flops on Health Care - WhichMitt.com - YouTube
      Mitt Romney Likes Mandates - YouTube
      Mitt Romney defends individual mandate as "fundamentally a conservative principle" - YouTube (including saying "he would never change his positions by virtue of being in a Presidential campaign" and flip flop on it)
      See Mitt Romney Promote an Individual Mandate - YouTube (trying to get Obama to go to his mandate plan during the Congressional debates process calling the resulting Romneycare (now Obamacare) "the ultimate conservative plan")
      Mitt Romney: Against Individual Mandates Except When He's For Them - YouTube
      Leaked Mitt Romney Emails Confirm He Supported Individual Mandate - YouTube
      Romney - National Health Insurance Mandate - YouTube

      And now it's federalised as he wanted.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


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

        Originally posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
        Yep. Romney is most certainly the Founding Father of Obamneycare and the Mandate Messiah who passionately and ultimately effectively argued that it should be federalised, which has now been done. Heck, Obama originally opposed the idea of going the mandate route in his presidential primary with HRC and resistant to it during the sausage process in Congress and relented to the Romneycare model once he realised that his preferred means (public option setup) wasn't going to be passed. As a result, we now have Obamneycare as a national framework.

        Mitt Robot -- Mitt Romney flip-flops on healthcare reform - YouTube
        Health Care: Mitt Romney flip-flops on Health Care - WhichMitt.com - YouTube
        Mitt Romney Likes Mandates - YouTube
        Mitt Romney defends individual mandate as "fundamentally a conservative principle" - YouTube (including saying "he would never change his positions by virtue of being in a Presidential campaign" and flip flop on it)
        See Mitt Romney Promote an Individual Mandate - YouTube (trying to get Obama to go to his mandate plan during the Congressional debates process calling the resulting Romneycare (now Obamacare) "the ultimate conservative plan")
        Mitt Romney: Against Individual Mandates Except When He's For Them - YouTube
        Leaked Mitt Romney Emails Confirm He Supported Individual Mandate - YouTube
        Romney - National Health Insurance Mandate - YouTube

        And now it's federalised as he wanted.
        What I liked best about Romney's response yesterday was his promise to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. He didn't go into much detail so I can only imagine what that "replace" will amount to.

        With this ruling he's toast and, once again, the GOP have managed to back themselves into a corner with a disastrous candidate who has managed to put himself into an untenable situation.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


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

          Originally posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
          Yep. Romney is most certainly the Founding Father of Obamneycare and the Mandate Messiah who passionately and ultimately effectively argued that it should be federalised, which has now been done. Heck, Obama originally opposed the idea of going the mandate route in his presidential primary with HRC and resistant to it during the sausage process in Congress and relented to the Romneycare model once he realised that his preferred means (public option setup) wasn't going to be passed. As a result, we now have Obamneycare as a national framework.

          And now it's federalised as he wanted.
          Yup. Truly, this is one of the weirdest things I've seen in politics. I mean, flip-flopping is nothing new, but Romney has taken it to a whole new level.

          It does make one wonder what Romney actually believes... other than that rich people and corporations should have more money... and that he should be president

          מה מכילות החדשות?


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

            Originally posted by lutherf View Post
            What I liked best about Romney's response yesterday was his promise to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. He didn't go into much detail so I can only imagine what that "replace" will amount to.

            With this ruling he's toast and, once again, the GOP have managed to back themselves into a corner with a disastrous candidate who has managed to put himself into an untenable situation.
            Yep. He's the worst the GOP could have put up, not just on the chameleon nature of him, but also in how he shape shifts at the expense of the conservatives and ultimately at the nation's expense.

            His present shapeshifting move is claiming he supports all the many benefits of Obamneycare insofar as its entitlements--essentially keeping Obamneycare--except abandoning the manner of paying for it via what he formerly called the lack of "personal responsibility" concerning the "freeloaders" who would manipulate the system by not getting insurance except when they get sick or crash hospital emergency rooms, etc, with the costs transferred to rate payers.

            So now, his pander is that you can get all you want for its entitlements and not be required to pay for it. Hmmm...I wonder how that approach got the conservative movement--and the country--grounded on the shoals. And he's doubling down on it.
            Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 06-29-2012, 02:13 PM.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


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

              Originally posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
              Yep. He's the worst the GOP could have put up, not just on the chameleon nature of him, but also in how he shape shifts at the expense of the conservatives and ultimately at the nation's expense.

              His present shapeshifting move is claiming he supports all the many benefits of Obamneycare insofar as its entitlements--essentially keeping Obamneycare--except abandoning the manner of paying for it via what he formerly called the lack of "personal responsibility" concerning the "freeloaders" who would manipulate the system by not getting insurance except when they get sick or crash hospital emergency rooms, etc, with the costs transferred to rate payers.

              So now, his pander is that you can get all you want for its entitlements and not be required to pay for it. Hmmm...I wonder how that approach got the conservative movement--and the country--grounded on the shoals. And he's doubling down on it.
              Perhaps Romney's plan is to hire every unemployed American onto his payroll and provide them with insurance.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                Originally posted by USCitizen View Post
                Perhaps Romney's plan is to hire every unemployed American onto his payroll and provide them with insurance.
                Your sarcasm is noted to be as distinct as your victim hood.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                  Originally posted by dnsmith View Post
                  Your sarcasm is noted to be as distinct as your victim hood.
                  Is our current Heath Care system a Free Market?

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                    Originally posted by USCitizen View Post
                    Is our current Heath Care system a Free Market?
                    Mostly no. The majority of the health care market is dictated by the government in the various government owed, or controlled or financed systems. Medicaid is controlled by the Fed and State governments. Medicare, Tricare, and Veterans Affairs are all government run. Most private insurance plans loosely follow one or several of the government systems. I doubt we ever see a health care system run primarily by the private sector. The more pity for it.

                    There we so many ways the government could have created a system to take care of all the indigent people, make it unattractive for those who could afford to buy insurance to fail to do it; and it could be done with a lot less complex laws and regulations.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                      Originally posted by tsquare View Post
                      Both sides here are wrong. Neither of you have looked into just what this ruling means. Not the least of which is the Medicaid funding provision and the state op out of exchanges.

                      While Obama and the ACA 'won' yesterday, if just the states (28 total) that joined in the suit to stop the ACA refuse to both expand Medicaid in their state (forcing the Feds to pay for the expansion 100%) and to set up a state run exchange, (forcing the Feds to do so, and to subsidize it) this law is or will be shortly, both unmanageable and unsustainable.

                      Plus there is now little the feds can do over it all due to the “Medicaid coercion” ruling from yesterday.

                      Add to all that... now that the mandate is a tax, it can be voted out of the Senate with 51 votes... not 60, through the budget reconciliation process.
                      Some states NEEDED to be coerced into expanding Medicaid. Take Texas. In Texas they say you can afford to pay for your own medical care if you are making $2900 a year. You can't even put a fucking roof over your head if you're only making $2900 a year. The federal government will pick up 100% of the tab for the first three years, and 90% of the tab thereafter. It's stupidity at it's finest to continue to make your citizenry pay the TOTAL costs of indigent care out of pocket when those costs could be spread out so much more effectively.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                        Originally posted by dnsmith View Post
                        Mostly no. The majority of the health care market is dictated by the government in the various government owed, or controlled or financed systems. Medicaid is controlled by the Fed and State governments. Medicare, Tricare, and Veterans Affairs are all government run. Most private insurance plans loosely follow one or several of the government systems. I doubt we ever see a health care system run primarily by the private sector. The more pity for it.

                        There we so many ways the government could have created a system to take care of all the indigent people, make it unattractive for those who could afford to buy insurance to fail to do it; and it could be done with a lot less complex laws and regulations.
                        Any Health Care system will require thousands of pages to describe its existence and there will always be a segment of society that will be unhappy with the final result, either in part or entirety.

                        The problem with health care is that its infrastructure is expensive and has a width and breadth of specialization that prevents it from being affordable.
                        Physicians, medication, machines, devices, biologists, chemists, etc...
                        The only answer is either most people can't afford it or health care professionals must be willing to engage in the profession without payback.

                        It's the only major monthly expense where people pay more to get less.
                        Except, of course, for the ever shrinking can of tuna fish.

                        - - - Updated - - -

                        Originally posted by Unique POV View Post
                        Some states NEEDED to be coerced into expanding Medicaid. Take Texas. In Texas they say you can afford to pay for your own medical care if you are making $2900 a year. You can't even put a fucking roof over your head if you're only making $2900 a year. The federal government will pick up 100% of the tab for the first three years, and 90% of the tab thereafter. It's stupidity at it's finest to continue to make your citizenry pay the TOTAL costs of indigent care out of pocket when those costs could be spread out so much more effectively.
                        Texans say a lot of things and some of them are actually occasionally accurate.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                          Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
                          So... um... Romney wrote an op-ed in 2009 giving Obama advice on how to make his health care plan work (USATODAY.com). Quoth Rommey:
                          "Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others." — Mitt Romney, op-ed in USA Today, 2009



                          We'll add this to the ever-growing list of things that Romney claims that Obama shouldn't have done as president, but Romney himself did as governor.
                          I dont see your point. Romneys advice is different than what Obama did. Lower cost, focused on the uninsured, less govt control. If you agree with the contrast, this is an advertisement for Romney.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                            Originally posted by jviehe View Post
                            I dont see your point. Romneys advice is different than what Obama did. Lower cost, focused on the uninsured, less govt control. If you agree with the contrast, this is an advertisement for Romney.
                            Overall, "Obamacare" is pretty damned similar to "Romneycare," but I was specifically addressing the use of an individual mandate enforced by tax penalties, something which Romney championed and now decries for, I'm sure, totally non-cynical reasons.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                              Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
                              Honestly, I do not understand why being forced to buy into a government program like Medicare is fine, but being forced to buy your own health insurance is tyranny. I agree, however, that single payer would have been preferable (essentially, just expanding Medicare to cover everybody) especially since the framework for that is already in place... but I believe that was politically untenable at this stage. I suspect that, over time, that is what the ACA will evolve into. But in the very near future, 30+ million Americans will have health insurance who did not have it previously, people cannot be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions and cannot be dropped from their insurance because they are sick, and I think that is a very worthwhile accomplishment.

                              As to Romney, he is not going to repeal the ACA... because, basically, he can't (or, at least, it'll be very difficult) and if you listened to what he said, he wants to keep all the popular parts of the ACA and while he claims he'll get rid of the individual mandate (which he previously championed) he'll need to keep it to fund the stuff that people want.
                              As suggested the only road IMO leading to single payer health insurance is the one Obama has taken. Install the concept and system let the people get used to it and simply then totally move the control to the government and leave the paper work to the low bidding Insurance company!

                              In respect to legislators a change in vote usually means nothing more the a changed face.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                                Originally posted by skeptic1 View Post
                                As suggested the only road IMO leading to single payer health insurance is the one Obama has taken. Install the concept and system let the people get used to it and simply then totally move the control to the government and leave the paper work to the low bidding Insurance company!

                                In respect to legislators a change in vote usually means nothing more the a changed face.
                                This is exactly what many are fearing. Latest polls show 48% against, and only 34% for the ACA. It's going to be hard to continue to implement the law with that low level of popularity, especially if there is a better / different solution proposed.

                                Why would a government controlled, single payer system be so much superior? So much more cost effective? Render so much better patient care? I just don't see it.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X