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 shouldnt 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

  • Originally posted by Danny View Post

    Do you know what slowed the growth means? It doesn't mean costs are going down, it means they are increasing slower. Go back and read your statement again and ask yourself if it makes sense.

    Some lost soul on Twitter tried to convince me that more people have lost insurance because of the ACA. When I showed him the Gallup data he resorted to "because freedom" nonsense. This is what conservatives do. You show them evidence that something works but because it doesn't jive with how they "feel" they just resort to "freedom" which is a very selfish and stupid mindset.

    I'm going to post some data here to inform the FOX News viewers of what's really going on in their own country. This graph will never be shown on that network because it doesn't fit their propaganda machine. This is just the data collected by Gallup (a Republican leaning organisation btw).

    You can spout that all you want Danny, but the reality is quite the opposite. For the year of 2011, the first year to after the ACA was passed, my health insurance went up 30%. This year (with a different provider), my health insurance went up by a full third. And that policy will not qualify next year, because the government has deemed it not "health carey" enough.

    ?


    • Originally posted by Danny View Post

      Do you know what slowed the growth means? It doesn't mean costs are going down, it means they are increasing slower. Go back and read your statement again and ask yourself if it makes sense.

      Some lost soul on Twitter tried to convince me that more people have lost insurance because of the ACA. When I showed him the Gallup data he resorted to "because freedom" nonsense. This is what conservatives do. You show them evidence that something works but because it doesn't jive with how they "feel" they just resort to "freedom" which is a very selfish and stupid mindset.

      I'm going to post some data here to inform the FOX News viewers of what's really going on in their own country. This graph will never be shown on that network because it doesn't fit their propaganda machine. This is just the data collected by Gallup (a Republican leaning organisation btw).


      So, you base your theory on a Gallup Poll. That's real scientific. And, just because you have government mandated health insurance, it doesn't mean it's worth anything. If you have a $6000 deductible, you may as well not have insurance at all. All you are doing is paying for someone else. So, it's either pay for someone else or pay a penalty tax. You need to talk to some Americans who are affected by this terrible law and see how well they like it. BTW, a bill has been proposed to put the Supreme Court Justices under Obamacare so they will have a clue.

      ?


      • Originally posted by Danny View Post

        Do you know what slowed the growth means? It doesn't mean costs are going down, it means they are increasing slower. Go back and read your statement again and ask yourself if it makes sense.

        Some lost soul on Twitter tried to convince me that more people have lost insurance because of the ACA. When I showed him the Gallup data he resorted to "because freedom" nonsense. This is what conservatives do. You show them evidence that something works but because it doesn't jive with how they "feel" they just resort to "freedom" which is a very selfish and stupid mindset.

        I'm going to post some data here to inform the FOX News viewers of what's really going on in their own country. This graph will never be shown on that network because it doesn't fit their propaganda machine. This is just the data collected by Gallup (a Republican leaning organisation btw).

        Since you are and have been clearly incapable of understanding, I will tell you: ACA was NEVER about insuring Americans. IF you would take time to actually, you know, read up on it for yourself instead of ingesting that pabulum crap spouted by the ardent, zealous left talking heads, you would readily see (assuming you are sentient and rational) ACA was always about the government taking over the healthcare insurance industry. It was always about socializing medicine (of which the insurance industry was only a part).

        There were and always have been (at least for a very long time) ample proposals for covering most or all Americans. Heck, if that was the point, we could have simply put all Americans on Medicare (or even just those who couldn't afford group insurance)... or form all Americans into specific groups so they could get group rates. All insurance is simply pooling risks so that the cost of treatment is spread across a larger group. That's it: You don't need an ACA to accomplish that.

        BUT I'm certain of two things: 1) You won't do your own research and won't even listen to anything anyone tells you; and 2) You will continue to spout your socialist, liberal nonsense in here, convinced you actually know what you're talking about.

        Carry on.

        ?


        • The cheapest way is either a full on private health insurance for everyone with zero government involvement or a full public option like the UK NHS but Obamacare is neither and as such is an odd combination that just ends up costing a lot more.
          It's why you spend more than other countries but get worse results for many members of society.

          ?


          • The cheapest way is for people to just go to a doctor. Middle men, government or otherwise, add nothing but misery to the process.

            ?


            • Mercy Health announced Thursday it will fire 347 workers due to increasing challenges to our reimbursement structure as we adjust to reductions mandated by the Affordable Care Act, the company said in a statement.

              President and CEO of the Mercy system, Lynn Britton, said the Obamacare-induced layoffs are taking a toll on workers and their families.
              Changes such as these are difficult and distressing for everyone involved, said Britton. While our decisions support Mercys ability to stay strong and relevant in the face of challenges impacting all health care providers, today our thoughts and prayers are with those co-workers who are affected.
              Mercy Healths firings will take place across the four states in which the health system operates, which includes Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas.
              Nationally, Obamacare remains deeply unpopular. The RealClearPolitics average of polls finds that just 43% of Americans support Obamas signature legislative achievement.
              Obamacare will cost U.S. taxpayers $2.6 trillion over its first 10 years


              http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-to-obamacare/

              ?


              • Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                The cheapest way is either a full on private health insurance for everyone with zero government involvement or a full public option like the UK NHS but Obamacare is neither and as such is an odd combination that just ends up costing a lot more.
                It's why you spend more than other countries but get worse results for many members of society.
                It was designed to enrich the insurance companies, as our other neoliberal policies are.

                Many of these insurance friendly policies have 6000 dollar deductibles, which means people will pay in the premiums, but then pay out of pocket for their general illnesses. This doesn't get people better healthcare, for when they get sick, the cannot afford to go and pay the doctors. If they have a big illness, than after they pay the first 6 grand, the insurance is useful.

                We need medicare for all, get the insurance profits out of it, and have real healthcare for our people. The richest nation on earth, in history, which does not provide healthcare is just socially irresponsible. Of course, the problem is, that great wealth is not spread out, but concentrated in a few hands at the top. The way the old monarchies worked, or communistic dictatorships. And now, Capitalism, but its not the capitalism as envisioned by its founder. It is just used to concentrate wealth, at the top. The legacy of Ronny Raygun.

                ?


                • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                  It was designed to enrich the insurance companies, as our other neoliberal policies are.

                  Many of these insurance friendly policies have 6000 dollar deductibles, which means people will pay in the premiums, but then pay out of pocket for their general illnesses. This doesn't get people better healthcare, for when they get sick, the cannot afford to go and pay the doctors. If they have a big illness, than after they pay the first 6 grand, the insurance is useful.

                  We need medicare for all, get the insurance profits out of it, and have real healthcare for our people. The richest nation on earth, in history, which does not provide healthcare is just socially irresponsible. Of course, the problem is, that great wealth is not spread out, but concentrated in a few hands at the top. The way the old monarchies worked, or communistic dictatorships. And now, Capitalism, but its not the capitalism as envisioned by its founder. It is just used to concentrate wealth, at the top. The legacy of Ronny Raygun.

                  Just what in the world makes you believe that the government should tax people to pay for someone else's health care? Why shouldn't I tax you to provide me a car to get back and forth to work or clothes to wear to work or any of a number of other things that were once your own personal responsibility to provide for yourself? This whole concept of the government should take care of me from cradle to grave is completely foreign to the foundation of this country.

                  Government paid health care is not free. It costs someone, and often one much more than another. This country is trillions in debt today and soon the interst on the national debt will be crippling. We can't keep giving things away without paying for them.

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by Good1 View Post

                    There were and always have been (at least for a very long time) ample proposals for covering most or all Americans. Heck, if that was the point, we could have simply put all Americans on Medicare (or even just those who couldn't afford group insurance)... or form all Americans into specific groups so they could get group rates. All insurance is simply pooling risks so that the cost of treatment is spread across a larger group. That's it: You don't need an ACA to accomplish that.
                    I agree with you! But it sounds like you are arguing that the ACA isn't liberal enough for your liking. Simply putting everyone on Medicare would be so vastly superior in terms of cost and covering people but that plan was too liberal to ever get passed. The only thing Obama could do was pass the conservative ACA which (I also agree with you) serves to enrich corporations and special interests while telling people to be personally responsible for their actions. Despite the conservative nature of the ACA, it remains far superior to the old status quo. It's nowhere near the single payer proposals which should be your goal but it's halfway there. I'm hoping for the USA's sake that a fix can be passed to start a public option and then eventually have everyone on that. Baby steps, Good1, baby steps.

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                      Why shouldn't I tax you to provide me a car to get back and forth to work or clothes to wear to work or any of a number of other things that were once your own personal responsibility to provide for yourself? This whole concept of the government should take care of me from cradle to grave is completely foreign to the foundation of this country.
                      Because someone's health is not a material thing? You treat it like access to a doctor is some kind of luxury item. That's so wrong it's almost offensive. You have the ability to save peoples lives..and not just a few either.

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by Danny View Post

                        Because someone's health is not a material thing? You treat it like access to a doctor is some kind of luxury item. That's so wrong it's almost offensive. You have the ability to save peoples lives..and not just a few either.

                        Health care is a material thing. You would force me to purchase a new hip or a physical or an antibiotic for someone else. It is just like forcing me to purchase them a meal or something to drink. You are also forcing a doctor to sell his services at a price you dictate. How would you like it if you were forced to sell your labor and knowledge for a price dictated by the government?

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                          Health care is a material thing. You would force me to purchase a new hip or a physical or an antibiotic for someone else. It is just like forcing me to purchase them a meal or something to drink. You are also forcing a doctor to sell his services at a price you dictate. How would you like it if you were forced to sell your labor and knowledge for a price dictated by the government?
                          This foolishness won't last, nor will the fool with his name attached to it.


                          Obama and his 'care' will self destruct. Be patient.


                          The American people - regardless of the lies and omissions of the "media" - will not accept it.


                          They can't, it is a lie and a grand theft drafted by criminals who get (for a time) to tell us it is a "LAW."


                          Thieves and liars - no matter how high they've climbed into positions of power - are always, eventually lowered to their correct positions, . . and their ideas are always abandoned for the nonsense that they were from the outset. Be patient.

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


                            Health care is a material thing. You would force me to purchase a new hip or a physical or an antibiotic for someone else. It is just like forcing me to purchase them a meal or something to drink. You are also forcing a doctor to sell his services at a price you dictate. How would you like it if you were forced to sell your labor and knowledge for a price dictated by the government?
                            The genetic background on healthcare (bear with me for a moment):
                            -In hunter gatherer and farming communities (almost all of our past, therefore a "genetic" part of us) adults had to pull their own weight. That weight included working to get their share of food, clothing and shelter. They worked in family groups, sharing work loads to get the basic 3 needs.
                            -Other needs, such as education and some health care, were often provided by extended family members (grandparent telling tribal history, providing basic first aid). For more difficult tasks, the individual usually had to rely on someone outside the family circle. That would include a warrior leader or a shaman. The shaman had a more extensive knowledge of medicine and could treat more difficult ailments. HG and farming groups were more egalitarian, but let's face it: Some people were better able to compensate the shaman or use their influence to get more medicine, so they got better care. But everyone who pulled their weight in the group got basic care from the shaman. You worked, you got health care.

                            See where this goes? Top tier health care for the wealthy dates back to the top hunter getting the best health care in exchange for more pelts and artifacts. That's the "genetic" conservative position.
                            However, everyone who worked got a basic level of health care from the tribal shaman- because it was a considered a right. If a person works, yet cannot get health care, that is a violation of a natural right. That is the "genetic" liberal position.

                            Since we are a larger society, anonymous to each other when compared with our tribal ancestors, the control between conservative and liberal positions on healthcare is lost. IOW, the tribe's best hunter is no longer controlled by lesser hunters in his group. The lesser hunters cannot claim their right to health care because the shaman (doctor) is also removed from the tribe. The doctor is in the same category as the best hunter.

                            Hence we get morons on right claiming that the working poor can get decent health care from emergency rooms. Or delusions on the left that doctors will accept the modest fees that can be afforded by the working poor. Once the wealthy and powerful remember that there is a genetic, or natural right, to healthcare for all who work, we can make progress. Of course, the working class has to accept the fact that almost all doctors are no longer going to accept half a wild pig as payment for services rendered. That is also critical for the debate to succeed.

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                              The genetic background on healthcare (bear with me for a moment):
                              -In hunter gatherer and farming communities (almost all of our past, therefore a "genetic" part of us) adults had to pull their own weight. That weight included working to get their share of food, clothing and shelter. They worked in family groups, sharing work loads to get the basic 3 needs.
                              -Other needs, such as education and some health care, were often provided by extended family members (grandparent telling tribal history, providing basic first aid). For more difficult tasks, the individual usually had to rely on someone outside the family circle. That would include a warrior leader or a shaman. The shaman had a more extensive knowledge of medicine and could treat more difficult ailments. HG and farming groups were more egalitarian, but let's face it: Some people were better able to compensate the shaman or use their influence to get more medicine, so they got better care. But everyone who pulled their weight in the group got basic care from the shaman. You worked, you got health care.

                              See where this goes? Top tier health care for the wealthy dates back to the top hunter getting the best health care in exchange for more pelts and artifacts. That's the "genetic" conservative position.
                              However, everyone who worked got a basic level of health care from the tribal shaman- because it was a considered a right. If a person works, yet cannot get health care, that is a violation of a natural right. That is the "genetic" liberal position.

                              Since we are a larger society, anonymous to each other when compared with our tribal ancestors, the control between conservative and liberal positions on healthcare is lost. IOW, the tribe's best hunter is no longer controlled by lesser hunters in his group. The lesser hunters cannot claim their right to health care because the shaman (doctor) is also removed from the tribe. The doctor is in the same category as the best hunter.

                              Hence we get morons on right claiming that the working poor can get decent health care from emergency rooms. Or delusions on the left that doctors will accept the modest fees that can be afforded by the working poor. Once the wealthy and powerful remember that there is a genetic, or natural right, to healthcare for all who work, we can make progress. Of course, the working class has to accept the fact that almost all doctors are no longer going to accept half a wild pig as payment for services rendered. That is also critical for the debate to succeed.

                              The difference between our country and the rest of the world was that you get what you work for here. No work, no eat. That's what made our country great. It's what made us the leader of the world in a short 100 years. Those who were unable to work were taken care of by various charity groups. When Democrats under FDR found they could buy the votes of those who will not work with federal benefits, things went to hell. There is no governmental [bold]right[/bold] to medical care. There might be some human right outside of government but just like food and water, those should not be provided by government through legalized theft. If I have a hungry neighbor, I do my very best to feed him. And this belief that medical care for the poor is only through emergency rooms is nonsense. We have all sorts of hospitals in this country that operate on tax dollars. They are called charity hospitals and my wife worked at several of them. Many were funded by church groups.

                              This country is $18 trillion in debt and as soon as interest rates start to rise, the interest on that debt will be staggering. The country has to start living within its means or it will simply go the way of Zimbabwe.

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


                                Health care is a material thing. You would force me to purchase a new hip or a physical or an antibiotic for someone else. It is just like forcing me to purchase them a meal or something to drink. You are also forcing a doctor to sell his services at a price you dictate. How would you like it if you were forced to sell your labor and knowledge for a price dictated by the government?

                                Every civil servant in the world has to work to a wage and conditions set by government and there seems to be an awful lot of civil servants who are fine with that situation.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X