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 ericams2786 View Post
    Having said that, we don't have a free market in this country so how the hell do you KNOW for CERTAIN that a free market WOULDN'T work better than government regulation and interference. How do you actually KNOW, objectively. In fact, once again, PROVE IT. Prove the free market is the problem.
    Unfortunately we are not permitted to run perfect experiments in real life. So we are left with comparing different approaches to a problem. The US approach relies more on the free market than any other among the developed nations. And we have shitty results. Gold-plated prices, middlin health, and 50 million left uninsured (by the way, relying on hospital emergency room visits for your primary care is one of the reasons we have such middlin results).

    You're hiding beind the fact that we can't run pure experiments as an excuse to avoid the obvious conclusion.

    I wonder how the free market solves the problem of people who need insurance but have an expensive pre-existing condition? Oh wait, we already know, don't we? THEY REFUSE TO COVER THEM.

    Yeah, the magical free market. What glory. :rolleyes:
    Last edited by jpn; 06-29-2012, 06:27 PM.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


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

      Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
      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.
      Yes, let's go with the Republican alternative. Which is to ignore the 50 million citizens without health insurance and engage in a tax-cutting frenzy instead. Priorities, right?
      If the conservatives here don't respond, I'll understand. Tonight is a church night, right? :rolleyes:

      מה מכילות החדשות?


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

        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
        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.
        Keep in mind that a significant portion of those who are against (roughly 1/4) are against because the plan is not liberal enough and if you poll the individual components of the ACA (i.e. insurers not being allowed to deny coverage because of preexisting conditions or drop you from coverage if you get sick) almost all of them are popular... except for the individual mandate, the thing that pays for it all (of course).

        I think that the conundrum this presents for Republicans is under-appreciated. For instance, if they said, "Hey, everybody! We're going to make sure that, if you have a pre-existing condition, health insurers will be able to deny you coverage!" how do you think that would go over? Or what about, "We are also going to make sure that if you get sick, health insurers can drop you like a hot rock!" You think that will play?

        But if they keep those provisions in place and repeal the individual mandate, guess what? They will bankrupt insurance companies.

        Tricky.

        Also, what "better" solution are you referring to?

        מה מכילות החדשות?


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

          Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
          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.
          It would assure many more Americans would be able to have and maintain Health Insurance THUS CARE in virtually any situation and income status.

          Health Insurance companies can handle the paper work.

          The present system bankrupts the citizen. Take your choice !

          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.

            You can rest assured that his promise to "repeal and replace" Obamacare will amount to exactly jack shit nothing.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


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

              Originally posted by jpn View Post
              Unfortunately we are not permitted to run perfect experiments in real life. So we are left with comparing different approaches to a problem. The US approach relies more on the free market than any other among the developed nations. And we have shitty results. Gold-plated prices, middlin health, and 50 million left uninsured (by the way, relying on hospital emergency room visits for your primary care is one of the reasons we have such middlin results).

              You're hiding beind the fact that we can't run pure experiments as an excuse to avoid the obvious conclusion.

              I wonder how the free market solves the problem of people who need insurance but have an expensive pre-existing condition? Oh wait, we already know, don't we? THEY REFUSE TO COVER THEM.

              Yeah, the magical free market. What glory. :rolleyes:
              1. You Progressives do nothing but run "little experiments" in real life. That is actually what Progressive "pragmatism" during the 1920's and 30's was all about. What the hell do you think all these damn liberal programs we keep getting are? Experiments to see "what fixes the problem". Unfortunately no amount of tinkering and coming up with expensive government programs will fix the problem. I mean look at Medicare and Medicaid. That was supposed to fix the problem just like LBJ's "War on Poverty" was supposed to end poverty. How's that working for you?

              2. The PPACA is not in any sense of the word a free market approach. It is a huge set of regulations lobbied for and WRITTEN by big health insurance and big pharma, specifically for their monopolistic benefit...as you will see when it is too late...because prices will continue to sky rocket in medicine and health care/insurance DESPITE all this new "free healthcare/regulation/woo hoo Obama you rock" legislation.

              3. You're hiding behind the fact that your side (and hell half the time "the Right") does nothing but little experiments THAT NEVER FUCKING WORK, EVER. None of these damn programs work. Ironically you like to attack me for thinking the free market is a "utopia" and "perfect" (though I never said such a thing), yet YOU and others on the LEFT are the one's who think they can create a utopian, perfect society of perfect equals with no poor or rich people by getting "just the right amount of government control and regulation". That is the fucking fallacy, not the empirical evidence from numerous countries that OPENING and FREEING markets creates the greatest amount of wealth and social mobility for the MOST number of people, not totalitarian societies. Want an example? Take the barely free market (and I mean barely) South Korea and compare it to the complete and utter totalitarian "the government controls EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING" North Korea. Now, just in a country with just a LITTLE free market and one that is completely controlled by the government supposedly in a Communist country that exists to "level the playing field and end the evil Capitalist's reign", which one has more poor people? More starving people? Better quality of life? Which one?

              4. The health insurance companies that refuse to treat those with pre-existing conditions DO NOT EXIST IN A FREE MARKET. THEY EXIST IN A MARKET ALREADY COMPLETELY CONTROLLED AND DOMINATED BY GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE AND REGULATIONS. You can, once again thank the government for the ridiculous prices in healthcare, not the nonexistent free market.

              5. Yeah the magical all powerful State that controls every aspect of the economy through codes and regulations created by "experts" that HAS FAILED EVERY SINGLE TIME IN HISTORY THAT IT HAS EVER BEEN TRIED, LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE TIME, THE THOUSANDS OF TIMES IT HAS BEEN TRIED, IT HAS NEVER WORKED. Yet, fuck let's do it again, surely you Statist experts will "get it right" this time, right?

              You know what's ancient old fucking history? Totalitarianism. Despotism. Socialism, Command and Controlled economies. Kings. Emperors. Dictators. All forms of Statism that I just mentioned, everyone of them, in one form or the other is THOUSANDS of years old. You know what isn't? The free market and individual liberty. Yes, that shit's only been tried about 2 decades out of the US's entire existence, and even then tenuously because we generally had some form of a Central Bank, even at those times. I'd say the decade of 1880-1890 is the CLOSEST we've ever gotten to an actual free market. You can talk about magic all you want, but you are the one looking for a magical government solution to a problem that can be solved in a much easier way and a much better way for the MAXIMUM number of people.

              I'm sick of hearing how I don't care about "50 million people uninsured". I am one of those fucking 50 million people, as I explained already. I have no health insurance....I can't afford it...I also "make too much money" to get on the glorious government program Medicaid, though it supposedly existed in the first place to "save" everyone in the 60's who had no "healthcare"...in addition, though I only make 30,000 a year, I now get to give up at least 2,000 dollars of that to pay a tax that I cannot afford (because I already can't afford health insurance) or my ass (which goes to work everyday and actually takes care of my kids and pays my taxes as a productive member of society) gets to go to fucking jail. Wow, that sounds like a winning proposition for a low income guy like myself. Notice how this fucked up problem isn't created by a utopian free market, but instead by a Leftist utopian view of "free healthcare for all to fix all our healthcare problems" that is anything but.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                You can rest assured that his promise to "repeal and replace" Obamacare will amount to exactly jack shit nothing.
                You have proof of that or is that you opinion?

                מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                  Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
                  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.
                  I thought we already knew this. Why are you acting like its a smoking gun? Romney flips, Obama flops. Breaking news.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                    Originally posted by jviehe View Post
                    I thought we already knew this. Why are you acting like its a smoking gun? Romney flips, Obama flops. Breaking news.
                    The new, post-SCOTUS line of attack by the GOP — including Romney — against Obamacare is that it is a tax hike, thus making Romney's specific claim that as governor he enforced the individual mandate through a [I]tax penalty[/quote] salient to the discussion. It's not something new, so much as newly relevant.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                      Originally posted by thanatos144 View Post
                      You have proof of that or is that you opinion?
                      A little thing called his voting record. It's not much to be certain but it is very telling.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                        Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                        You can rest assured that his promise to "repeal and replace" Obamacare will amount to exactly jack shit nothing.
                        IF Romney wins, and IF the Repubs take control of the Senate, then they will repeal the ACA. Count on it. They won't need 60 votes because they can pass it via the process that avoids fillibusters.

                        As for the "replace" part, not so much. Republicans obviously just don't give a shit that 50 million Americans have no health insurance.
                        What's their plan? Repeal. Period.
                        Last edited by jpn; 06-30-2012, 07:45 AM.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                          Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                          1. You Progressives do nothing but run "little experiments" in real life. That is actually what Progressive "pragmatism" during the 1920's and 30's was all about. What the hell do you think all these damn liberal programs we keep getting are? Experiments to see "what fixes the problem". Unfortunately no amount of tinkering and coming up with expensive government programs will fix the problem. I mean look at Medicare and Medicaid. That was supposed to fix the problem just like LBJ's "War on Poverty" was supposed to end poverty. How's that working for you?

                          2. The PPACA is not in any sense of the word a free market approach. It is a huge set of regulations lobbied for and WRITTEN by big health insurance and big pharma, specifically for their monopolistic benefit...as you will see when it is too late...because prices will continue to sky rocket in medicine and health care/insurance DESPITE all this new "free healthcare/regulation/woo hoo Obama you rock" legislation.

                          3. You're hiding behind the fact that your side (and hell half the time "the Right") does nothing but little experiments THAT NEVER FUCKING WORK, EVER. None of these damn programs work. Ironically you like to attack me for thinking the free market is a "utopia" and "perfect" (though I never said such a thing), yet YOU and others on the LEFT are the one's who think they can create a utopian, perfect society of perfect equals with no poor or rich people by getting "just the right amount of government control and regulation". That is the fucking fallacy, not the empirical evidence from numerous countries that OPENING and FREEING markets creates the greatest amount of wealth and social mobility for the MOST number of people, not totalitarian societies. Want an example? Take the barely free market (and I mean barely) South Korea and compare it to the complete and utter totalitarian "the government controls EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING" North Korea. Now, just in a country with just a LITTLE free market and one that is completely controlled by the government supposedly in a Communist country that exists to "level the playing field and end the evil Capitalist's reign", which one has more poor people? More starving people? Better quality of life? Which one?

                          4. The health insurance companies that refuse to treat those with pre-existing conditions DO NOT EXIST IN A FREE MARKET. THEY EXIST IN A MARKET ALREADY COMPLETELY CONTROLLED AND DOMINATED BY GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE AND REGULATIONS. You can, once again thank the government for the ridiculous prices in healthcare, not the nonexistent free market.

                          5. Yeah the magical all powerful State that controls every aspect of the economy through codes and regulations created by "experts" that HAS FAILED EVERY SINGLE TIME IN HISTORY THAT IT HAS EVER BEEN TRIED, LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE TIME, THE THOUSANDS OF TIMES IT HAS BEEN TRIED, IT HAS NEVER WORKED. Yet, fuck let's do it again, surely you Statist experts will "get it right" this time, right?

                          You know what's ancient old fucking history? Totalitarianism. Despotism. Socialism, Command and Controlled economies. Kings. Emperors. Dictators. All forms of Statism that I just mentioned, everyone of them, in one form or the other is THOUSANDS of years old. You know what isn't? The free market and individual liberty. Yes, that shit's only been tried about 2 decades out of the US's entire existence, and even then tenuously because we generally had some form of a Central Bank, even at those times. I'd say the decade of 1880-1890 is the CLOSEST we've ever gotten to an actual free market. You can talk about magic all you want, but you are the one looking for a magical government solution to a problem that can be solved in a much easier way and a much better way for the MAXIMUM number of people.

                          I'm sick of hearing how I don't care about "50 million people uninsured". I am one of those fucking 50 million people, as I explained already. I have no health insurance....I can't afford it...I also "make too much money" to get on the glorious government program Medicaid, though it supposedly existed in the first place to "save" everyone in the 60's who had no "healthcare"...in addition, though I only make 30,000 a year, I now get to give up at least 2,000 dollars of that to pay a tax that I cannot afford (because I already can't afford health insurance) or my ass (which goes to work everyday and actually takes care of my kids and pays my taxes as a productive member of society) gets to go to fucking jail. Wow, that sounds like a winning proposition for a low income guy like myself. Notice how this fucked up problem isn't created by a utopian free market, but instead by a Leftist utopian view of "free healthcare for all to fix all our healthcare problems" that is anything but.
                          I can see where you have a legitimate gripe about the problems you have and the fact the government has failed to solve them. However you should keep in mind the only real efforts to do so are by the "Democrats".

                          IMO that you mention the $ 30,000 income and that you have children is the key presuming you also have an auto payment and a mortgage to take care of.

                          You just don't make enough to pay all the bills, and you are in the same position of many that are in or heading in that direction. Our present system will simply not support us to the degree it did in the past because of rising populations and diminishing resources and the ways we have solved the dilemma in the past.

                          The concept of "Fuck Your Buddy Before He Fucks You" has played out. We each have a responsibility for support of ourselves and our families but can't if the game is "fixed" ! and fixed it is ! You and many others need more government help not less to smooth out the wrinkles.

                          I am a widower and live alone without car or mortgage payment budgeting for $ 30,000 per year and living an austere life but run short each month due primarily to domestic help required. If I had a family I could never make it !

                          Obama is"trying" to take us in the right direction (the only one that will work in the future) Obama has had a taste of the other side Romney has not. Don't give up the ship!

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                            Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
                            The new, post-SCOTUS line of attack by the GOP — including Romney — against Obamacare is that it is a tax hike, thus making Romney's specific claim that as governor he enforced the individual mandate through a [I]tax penalty
                            salient to the discussion. It's not something new, so much as newly relevant.[/QUOTE]

                            Its a penalty, not a tax. It was wrong when the federal govt did it, and wrong for Romney to imply for the federal govt to do it. Romney wont do it at the federal level though, so its moot. Whether he wants it or not, he recognizes the voters dont. Something Obama doesnt.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                              Originally posted by jpn View Post
                              IF Romney wins, and IF the Repubs take control of the Senate, then they will repeal the ACA. Count on it. They won't need 60 votes because they can pass it via the process that avoids fillibusters.

                              As for the "replace" part, not so much. Republicans obviously just don't give a shit that 50 million Americans have no health insurance.
                              What's their plan? Repeal. Period.

                              Why do people think it's the governments job to solve all their problems? The government's job is really limited to just a handful of protections and such. Everything else is up to us including healthcare. The more control we give the government the more the country deteriates. I just astounds me that in spite of all the evidence around them that people just don't see the destructive nature of government.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                                Originally posted by jviehe View Post
                                Its a penalty, not a tax.
                                That's what the Obama administration said; the Supreme Court disagreed. Personally, I never got hung up on the distinction.

                                It was wrong when the federal govt did it, and wrong for Romney to imply for the federal govt to do it. Romney wont do it at the federal level though, so its moot. Whether he wants it or not, he recognizes the voters dont. Something Obama doesnt.
                                Romney, as usual, is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, he has vowed to keep in place some popular provisions of the ACA. For instance, he said that we've "got to make sure that those people who have pre-existing conditions know that they will be able to be insured and they will not lose their insurance." But on the other hand, he wants to get rid of the individual mandate, which is what pays for the popular provisions of the ACA (such as making sure people with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage). My assumption is that he is hoping voters won't notice the contradiction until after the election and he'll cross that bridge then.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X