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.
    Re read. Makes perfect sense. Your talking about spending. I'm talking about cost. The growth rate of spending may have gone down because the cost of the product has and is rapidly going up, so people do not have the money to spend on the healthcare. So people are not getting the healthcare they need. Poorer, less, to no healthcare. Isn't that the whole point. More affordable healthcare so people can get more and better healthcare?

    If you're not talking about health CARE. and AFFORDABLE COST for consumers/patients . Then who gives a crap about any other stats. They mean NOTHING!

    ?


    • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


      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.
      Charitable groups crashed with the rest of the economy by 1932, even though many survived. I would agree with the argument that non-profit, non-gov't. groups should pick up the slack while gov't. eases out of the charity business, but we have a problem with your hypothesis that charity hospitals have somehow recovered and can now pick up the slack for health care.
      In 2007, for example, the minority staff of the Senate Finance Committee proposed that nonprofit hospitals, as a condition of their federal tax exemption, be required to devote at least 5 percent of their expenditures to charity care, narrowly defined to exclude other types of charitable activities, as well as bad debt.1 Although it has attracted little support, this proposal came after several years of critical scrutiny of nonprofit hospitals charitability by that committee, as well as by other congressional committees and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and multiple expressions of frustration about hospitals charitable performance by then Finance Committee chair Charles Grassley (R-IA).
      http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/28/5/w809.full
      In short, there is nothing close to an office of the general auditor to ride herd on the tendency of non-profits to "bend the rules".

      The right depends heavily on the charity hypothesis. The left depends heavily on a single-provider (usually gov't. monopoly) hypothesis. As already stated, political science is failing to deal with this issue, whether policy is directed by the right or left. While it is feasible to provide some health care (like) high blood pressure medicine and preventive care to the working lower income groups, they will not get cancer treatment or other pricey care without subsidies from one source or another.

      ?


      • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
        Charitable groups crashed with the rest of the economy by 1932, even though many survived. I would agree with the argument that non-profit, non-gov't. groups should pick up the slack while gov't. eases out of the charity business, but we have a problem with your hypothesis that charity hospitals have somehow recovered and can now pick up the slack for health care.

        http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/28/5/w809.full
        In short, there is nothing close to an office of the general auditor to ride herd on the tendency of non-profits to "bend the rules".

        The right depends heavily on the charity hypothesis. The left depends heavily on a single-provider (usually gov't. monopoly) hypothesis. As already stated, political science is failing to deal with this issue, whether policy is directed by the right or left. While it is feasible to provide some health care (like) high blood pressure medicine and preventive care to the working lower income groups, they will not get cancer treatment or other pricey care without subsidies from one source or another.
        Subsidies come from the Tax payer or charities. Those are the only two sources.

        ?


        • One of the big problems is that when Liberals refer to the "Government" they are referring to some other tax payer, not themselves. They love to give away someone else's money.

          ?


          • Originally posted by Danny View Post

            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.
            But that is not what I'm saying. I used "putting all Americans on Medicare" as an example of what COULD HAVE BEEN DONE if "insuring all Americans" was the point. But Insuring all Americans has never been the point. Obama needed a legacy and decided this was his hook. Obama has always favored Federal Government owning and operating ... well, everything ... and this ACA met that requirement. Obama had to show those upstart conservatives he wouldn't be pushed around and felt this was a great ax to swing at them knowing his underlings (Hairless Reid and Queen Pelosi) would lie, cheat, and steal to get it through for him.

            Now, you do rightly point out (if indeed this was your point) that Obama really wanted a single-payer system. But his handlers knew that would never fly so they trashed every other (reasonable) proposal and developed this 3200 page monstrosity, the end result of which is BARELY more are now insured than were insured before its birth, and the prices for the product have increased substantially in terms of spendable capital per family.

            ?


            • Originally posted by msc View Post
              Subsidies come from the Tax payer or charities. Those are the only two sources.
              That's right. And charities are almost always non-profit organizations. My point, to lower cost, would be a federal auditor for every non-profit providing large-scale service. That would minimize "charities' that are a scam, while giving the public an accurate picture of just how much service they provide. As for cries of "too much gummint", the federal auditor would be attached to large scale NP's that replace services formerly provided by a federal agency, perhaps as a contractor. That could be a condition, that total cost (for NP provider) would be 80% of current cost by gov't agency. Haven't seen conservatives propose anything like this, even though it would both cut costs and reduce the size of gov't. I understand why standard-issue lefties don't like this idea (less influence thru federal channels, more work required at the local level). But why do righties propose working class health care be foisted on the for-profit sector, when they have proven they can only provide affordable health care to the more wealthy?

              That is akin to requiring the Ferrari Corp to provide affordable transportation to the poor. It isn't what that company is designed for; it is unfair to both the customer or the company. It only greases the palms of company executives and certain gov't. officials.

              ?


              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                That's right. And charities are almost always non-profit organizations. My point, to lower cost, would be a federal auditor for every non-profit providing large-scale service. That would minimize "charities' that are a scam, while giving the public an accurate picture of just how much service they provide. As for cries of "too much gummint", the federal auditor would be attached to large scale NP's that replace services formerly provided by a federal agency, perhaps as a contractor. That could be a condition, that total cost (for NP provider) would be 80% of current cost by gov't agency. Haven't seen conservatives propose anything like this, even though it would both cut costs and reduce the size of gov't. I understand why standard-issue lefties don't like this idea (less influence thru federal channels, more work required at the local level). But why do righties propose working class health care be foisted on the for-profit sector, when they have proven they can only provide affordable health care to the more wealthy?

                That is akin to requiring the Ferrari Corp to provide affordable transportation to the poor. It isn't what that company is designed for; it is unfair to both the customer or the company. It only greases the palms of company executives and certain gov't. officials.
                Look, if we had a gov't that did what they were supposed to do, many of the proposals would not be such a bad idea, but we don't have a gov't for the people. It's actually a large business. One corporation getting rich to support the elites. This corporation/business prays on the poor and misguided people to get votes supporting their corporation to get richer. Wanting the gov't to have controlling authority, (in these days), is the as voting any large corporation in to police the country and other corporations.

                Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz again outed the gov't corruption and attitude. Of course many of us already know it, but they said Republicans in congress were happy with the gay marriage ruling so the issue was off the table and they didn't have to deal with it anymore. With Obamacare many in the congress were pleased, because they didn't have to come up with a better plan. These are not representatives of the people willing to do the job they were charged to do. None of our branches are doing what they were charged to do.

                The regulations placed on insurance companies, (which they are not suffering from), has cost the working class unreasonable amounts of monies. Families are not getting the care they used to, waiting longer for care, and not able to afford care. This is with the insurance that is offered. Tell me, what has ACA done FOR the working class? We talk about the advantages for people who get subsidies under this plan, but what about the working class, that has reached a level that they can afford to get by and maybe have some luxuries in life, while before paying a reasonable amount for healthcare. Where do people think the money comes from that give subsidies. Taxes, and redistribution of healthcare. No secret that ACA was supposed to have the younger healthier paying for the elderly and ill and poorer people. No option for these younger healthier people to get minimal health insurance. It was meant for them to get screwed. Does anyone seriously think that if the ACA was presented in whole as it was going to be that many of the on board who favored it would have favored it. Slowly rope them in with lies, then explain away why each thing that is different and harmful of what they expected is happening.

                Fact is that Obama Care does not work. Fact is that the Supreme court added, (and Federal Gov't) to the law. Fact is that they have no authority to do so. Fact is that the Congress is not doing the job they are supposed to do when supreme court judges overstep their bounds out side of what they are only allowed to do. Fact is that people are too stupid to know that the Supreme court has acted as they are not allowed to do. Fact is that too many people don't understand that big gov't is a large corporation looking out for the employee's of their company. Fact is our gov't does not think they are servants of the people, but bosses of the people.

                It's all screwed up and the only salvation our country will have is to elect an anti-establishment candidate who will reduce gov't authority to what the constitution allows. Ted Cruz is the man that can do this. He means what he says. He says what he means, and He does what he says. Chuckle, belly laugh, or disagree. Okay with me. But anyone who wants a better country for themselves, their children, the poor, and working class, should get on board.

                ?


                • Don't expect people to be enthusiastic with Ted C's alternative to ACA, which also ignores the non-profit sector. Well before ACA was being cooked up in a back room, I was placed on a waiting list for surgery, my first request was rejected so it went long (about 2 years). It was private insurance, subsidized by my employer, and I was told that was typical for that procedure. My share of premiums were also going up -well above the general rate of inflation- well before health care hit the fan with Obamacare.

                  People don't believe either party is interested in a practical -affordable- solution for the working class. While there isn't much enthusiasm for ACA, most citizens who were paying employment-subsidized insurance for a few decades realized this even before W got into office. The only thing that changed since then was the realization by politicians that employers were going to hit the financial wall paying the lion's share of employee HC premiums. So they came up with plans that would not offend the for-profit insurance & health care providers.

                  One cannot provide affordable health care to lower income classes without offending the for-profit providers, with one exception (the famous catastrophic policies for young adults). I suppose if policies that excluded high-cost care were made available (like cancer treatment, organ transplants, etc.), then for-profits could offer affordable plans. Think that would be popular?

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    Don't expect people to be enthusiastic with Ted C's alternative to ACA, which also ignores the non-profit sector. Well before ACA was being cooked up in a back room, I was placed on a waiting list for surgery, my first request was rejected so it went long (about 2 years). It was private insurance, subsidized by my employer, and I was told that was typical for that procedure. My share of premiums were also going up -well above the general rate of inflation- well before health care hit the fan with Obamacare.

                    People don't believe either party is interested in a practical -affordable- solution for the working class. While there isn't much enthusiasm for ACA, most citizens who were paying employment-subsidized insurance for a few decades realized this even before W got into office. The only thing that changed since then was the realization by politicians that employers were going to hit the financial wall paying the lion's share of employee HC premiums. So they came up with plans that would not offend the for-profit insurance & health care providers.

                    One cannot provide affordable health care to lower income classes without offending the for-profit providers, with one exception (the famous catastrophic policies for young adults). I suppose if policies that excluded high-cost care were made available (like cancer treatment, organ transplants, etc.), then for-profits could offer affordable plans. Think that would be popular?

                    Well the ACA is not a plan that doesn't offend health care providers. Health care providers were doing much better with the old almost fazed out indemnity plans. And the working class as well. The 80/20 plan of course wasn't perfect, but it's when HMO's came into play that everything went haywire. When 20% was coming out of the patients pocket, they didn't abuse medical care for little things that could be handled at home or over the counter. But after the HMO's problems were getting worse the ACA jumps in and was supposed to fix it. But made it much worse for the providers and the working class. Especially the middle income families.

                    Don't like Christi or much of what he say's. Not a constitutional person. But he actually said one thing that made sense last night on Hannity. He said he was for common core, but they tried it and it wasn't working, so it makes no sense to continue with a failing plan. He said; The parents and teachers are not on board, and if they aren't on board it's not going to work. Again, not supporting Christi in any way shape or form, but what he said was one of the most reasonable stands on the subject.

                    Point is, if the people are not on board, not only is it not going to work, they have the right to be listened to. Again, if ACA was presented as it is, would the people have supported it? I believe not. So it's just the governmental corporation lying to citizens to implement something that America does not believe is fair and something the country doesn't want, well knowing the people wouldn't want it, or there would be no need to lie. Changing the country, not by the desires of the people, but a few elites at the top who believe the country should be something other than what it is,other than what the US citizens want. Many people who supported ACA believed it would help them, or help the poor and not effect them, but they didn't know the cost they would have to pay. Had they known the cost, I guarantee most would have never supported ACA in the first place.

                    Federal Gov't was designed to represent the needs and desires of the states, collectively coming together to compromise and address these needs in unity, and to defend against foreign enemies. It wasn't designed to control the states and make them all alike. "Equal" doesn't mean "The Same".

                    Reality is that life has joy and hardship. Life and death. That's the way it is and will always be. It is nothing but wrong for an entity to decide who has joy and who has hardship. Who lives and who dies. Who is responsible and who is not. We are responsible for ourselves. My grandparents had hardships much more than many and less than others. People will suffer and die, regardless of how healthcare is manipulated. The only thing our gov't is doing is trying to control nature and redistribute the amount of hardship that exists in life, to different people. They are not decreasing hardship for the country and or death.

                    Our gov't is broken down, from the presidency to the congress and is realized by the final nail in the coffin, with a few and the last two recent rulings in our Federal Supreme court. They make the rules as they go, paying no heed to the constitution or the law. Checks and balances out the window. And anyone who votes in an establishment candidate, one who does not reveal the inappropriate actions and criminal behavior of gov't officials, while promising to address it foremost, while proving they are actually addressing it, is not choosing someone worthy of the office of president. And it is endorsing corruption while favoring the destruction of our constitution.

                    And as time changes and people live longer, we have to do something about archiving some of these justices. Especially the ones napping during events that they are obligated to attend in mind, not just in body.

                    ?

                    Working...
                    X