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

  • #91
    Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
    Calling it a tax is the right thing to do. This SC decision, IMO, just lost Obama the presidency. I think the poll numbers as this sinks in, will show this to be true. Let's watch the poll numbers, as Romney shouts he will get this repealed. This could finish off the dems in congress, and I expect the repubs to take the senate back. Over this single issue. Romney needs to drive this home, as he just got my vote with that ruling this morning. I am dead serious. I will not vote for ACA and the vote in Nov is a vote for it, or against it, IMO. Whether the republicans will actually get it repealed is highly questionable though. Afterall, at the end of the day, its the health insurance's wet dream to make people buy their insurance.

    But understand, I am a liberal, in the old sense, and I want single payer, period. I want the for profit insurance companies to go the way of the Do Do bird. This ACA is nothing more than a con think tank plan. But I have to take Romney at his word, and the repubs at their word, although I have a sneaking suspicion they are simply lying.

    Well you know, when the guy who came up with the individual mandate in the first place...and used it...and who's plan was the blue print for the one you are against at the national level is campaigning about ending it...I'd say that's probably a bunch of horse shit.

    But hey, I'm just an idiot.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #92
      Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

      32 million people will have health care who otherwise wouldn't. Tens of thousands of lives will be saved. Anyone railing against this has a very messed up set of priorities, especially since the ACA was the Republican and conservative position to fix health care for the better part of 20 years.

      This is what happened today. It seems to shallow to pick political winners and losers when:



      - - - Updated - - -

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #93
        Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

        Originally posted by chassisman View Post
        Me too, there isn't much left to love. people are living under a government they cannot trust for starters. Then you get to how our citizens are, for the most part, lazy, unpatriotic, hateful, apathetic, disrespectful, self absorbed, and brainwashed. If it wasn't for my wife, I'd go off the grid for the short period that is the rest of my life.
        Well yeah, although you and I would disagree on what "living under the gov't" entails. I think average people want living wage jobs and some damn dignity. You think they want free shit and sit on their asses, just "getting by" with no hope for a better future.

        I think the economy has been turned over to special interests and its destroying america, you think more should be turned over. You think the collateral damage of this should not be tempered with social safety nets, while I think the opposite, while never forgetting a living wage JOB is what our working people want instead of a social safety net that keep you poor for the rest of your life.

        But we probably agree on one thing. The longer you replace jobs with social safety nets you start to train the dogs to come to the food bowl. And that is the great danger here.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #94
          Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

          Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
          Well you know, when the guy who came up with the individual mandate in the first place...and used it...and who's plan was the blue print for the one you are against at the national level is campaigning about ending it...I'd say that's probably a bunch of horse shit.

          But hey, I'm just an idiot.
          Yes, and I voiced my reservations about the repubs apealing this. Many were for it, before they were against it. Iwant to see some new polls on what voting americans think about it. I think most may be against it, but will wait to see how this pans out.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #95
            Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

            Originally posted by chassisman View Post
            Me too, there isn't much left to love. people are living under a government they cannot trust for starters. Then you get to how our citizens are, for the most part, lazy, unpatriotic, hateful, apathetic, disrespectful, self absorbed, and brainwashed. If it wasn't for my wife, I'd go off the grid for the short period that is the rest of my life.
            Well I have no wife, no kids and no friends, don't want any, and going off the grid for me will be very easy to do. I just need to find a place that is as remote as can possibly be.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #96
              Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

              Originally posted by sailorman126 View Post
              congress does have the right to create taxes so there is no constitutional problem with that. but of course obama and the dems lied when they said it was not a tax. it did not become a tax until it was argued infront of hte ussc. htey knew it was the only way it would be constitutional. so for years they lied aboutit not being a tax when htey always knew it wold have ot be one
              Apparently there is a problem with that, given the following reactions. But yes, with just one unclear nuance in the opinion, Congress had that power since the eighteenth century.
              However, just a remark as a linguist. Technically it was a tax to begin with, the criticism existed way before States began suing, and the Court had to recognize it as such. But by common sense it's more accurately described as a penalty. Try to find popular definitions of "tax" and "penalty", and see which one describes better what will happen. For public purposes, "penalty" is (that's my analysis) more accurate. To simplify, "tax" and "tax", in the context of a Court and of a public speech, designate different objects.
              The criticism is still justified, and it would be virtuous - and unpopular - for the president and democrats to call it a tax, but they're also justified, pragmatically, not to do so. Not every citizen is a jurist.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #97
                Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                Originally posted by Danny View Post
                32 million people will have health care who otherwise wouldn't. Tens of thousands of lives will be saved. Anyone railing against this has a very messed up set of priorities, especially since the ACA was the Republican and conservative position to fix health care for the better part of 20 years.

                This is what happened today. It seems to shallow to pick political winners and losers when:



                - - - Updated - - -
                But it was one in the wrong way! Mandatory insurance,provided by for profit insurance companies! And we don't elect these people, and they can do to us as they will. And we can't kick em out. Don't throw the competition factor at me. That is an ideal, easily gotten around by a consensual agreement between the big boys.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #98
                  Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                  Originally posted by Danny View Post
                  32 million people will have health care who otherwise wouldn't. Tens of thousands of lives will be saved. Anyone railing against this has a very messed up set of priorities, especially since the ACA was the Republican and conservative position to fix health care for the better part of 20 years.

                  This is what happened today. It seems to shallow to pick political winners and losers when:



                  - - - Updated - - -
                  There won't be any healthcare to protect now. Only what the government defines as healthcare which will be a joke. And BTW there won't be anymore jobs either because over the next several months you'll see layoffs such as we have never seen before. Companies are not going to just this up the ass. The unemployment rate is going to go above 20%.
                  Last edited by Invisible-Bob; 06-28-2012, 10:14 AM.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #99
                    Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                    Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                    Ever wonder why the "big health insurance" companies lobbied for Obamacare?
                    They made a deal with Obama not to campaign against it because Obama agreed to their demands not to allow importation of cheap drugs form Canada among other things. Obama had to make a deal with the devil to get all the other stuff passed. The companies figured there would be either no public option or a weak one so they were ok with this watered down ACA. If the ACA were designed by progressives, the incurance companies would be freaking out because their raping of the American people would be coming to an end.
                    Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                    HEALTH CARE COSTS WOULD NOT BE THIS DAMN EXPENSIVE IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD GET THE HELL OUT OF IT, END THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMS, QUIT THROWING MONEY AT THE PROBLEM, THEREBY INFLATING THE PRICES, QUIT INFLATING THE CURRENCY IN GENERAL AND ACTUALLY ALLOW COMPETITION IN A TRUE FREE MARKET.
                    The lack of regulation is the reason why costs are out of control. CEO bonuses, admin costs, insurance companies teaming up to monopolize the marketplace etc. Are you suggesting that they should be allowed to jack premiums for no reason, charge more if your a woman, drop people who get sick, deny coverage if you have a pre-existing condition? Those are all a thing of the past when the ACA gets implemented. All those horrible things are by products of the free market. The free market isn't the magic wand you think it is.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Individual Mandate / Obamacare Stands as Tax

                      Well Justice Roberts saves Obamacare calling it a tax. Strange angle but it clears the way for the individual mandate.

                      Supreme Court upholds Obamacare individual mandate as a tax
                      Supreme Court upholds Obamacare individual mandate as a tax

                      In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court upheld his signature health care law's individual insurance mandate in a 5-4 decision, upending speculation after hostile-seeming oral arguments in March that the justices would overturn the law. The mandate has been upheld as a tax, with Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee, joining the liberal wing of the court to save the law.

                      "If an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes," Roberts writes. He adds that this means "the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income.

                      Justice Anthony Kennedy, usually the court's swing vote, dissented, reading from the bench that he and three conservative justices believe "the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety." In a 65-page dissent, he and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dismissed Roberts' arguments, writing that there is a "mountain of evidence" that the mandate is not a tax. "To say that the individual mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it," they wrote.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                        Calling it a tax is the right thing to do. This SC decision, IMO, just lost Obama the presidency. I think the poll numbers as this sinks in, will show this to be true. Let's watch the poll numbers, as Romney shouts he will get this repealed. This could finish off the dems in congress, and I expect the repubs to take the senate back. Over this single issue. Romney needs to drive this home, as he just got my vote with that ruling this morning. I am dead serious. I will not vote for ACA and the vote in Nov is a vote for it, or against it, IMO. Whether the republicans will actually get it repealed is highly questionable though. Afterall, at the end of the day, its the health insurance's wet dream to make people buy their insurance.

                        But understand, I am a liberal, in the old sense, and I want single payer, period. I want the for profit insurance companies to go the way of the Do Do bird. This ACA is nothing more than a con think tank plan. But I have to take Romney at his word, and the repubs at their word, although I have a sneaking suspicion they are simply lying.
                        And you expect that repealing the ACA will get you closer to having single payer? Either your think the voucher system is single payer, in which case why not, or you hope for republicans to make the entire situation worse so that single payer is eventually enacted, in which case your defiance of the ACA should indicate that it will do just that - or you just want single payer written over ten of thousands deaths, but I don't want to use a pathos argument.
                        Even conservatives describe the ACA as one step towards single payer... take them at their word...

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                          Originally posted by Jason Marcel View Post
                          I should have to participate though, because if I don't and I get in a car wreck and I'm in a coma and have no family or they don't have money, than YOU would have to participate in covering me.

                          Individual mandate=Individual responsibility.

                          Fairly conservative principle to me.
                          Sounds awesome in theory.

                          In actual practice folks who can't afford healthcare insurance now aren't going to be able to any better afford it tomorrow just because the gov decided they have to have it.

                          So the gov is now in the business of subsidizing health insurance for everyone.

                          Since you can't get blood from a stone that means that it's now open season for the government to turn on people who live responsible lives - and who have made good decisions - and who can actually affford to live in the modern world, and tax the shit out of them to gather up the money they need to subsidize the folks who can't afford to obey this law without government assistance.

                          There's nothing "individual" about this mess.

                          This is a tyrany of the majority and an abdication of Consitutional responsibilities across all three branches of federal government.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                            Originally posted by Danny View Post
                            They made a deal with Obama not to campaign against it because Obama agreed to their demands not to allow importation of cheap drugs form Canada among other things. Obama had to make a deal with the devil to get all the other stuff passed. The companies figured there would be either no public option or a weak one so they were ok with this watered down ACA. If the ACA were designed by progressives, the incurance companies would be freaking out because their raping of the American people would be coming to an end.


                            The lack of regulation is the reason why costs are out of control. CEO bonuses, admin costs, insurance companies teaming up to monopolize the marketplace etc. Are you suggesting that they should be allowed to jack premiums for no reason, charge more if your a woman, drop people who get sick, deny coverage if you have a pre-existing condition? Those are all a thing of the past when the ACA gets implemented. All those horrible things are by products of the free market. The free market isn't the magic wand you think it is.
                            Prove to me we have a "lack of regulation". Seriously, fucking show me. I hear this from liberals on here all the time, this lie that "the lack of regulation lead to this or that". No it didn't. We have thousands....hundreds of thousands of regulation on the health, health insurance and pharmacuetical industry. Thousands upon thousands of regulations. WE HAVE NO "FREE MARKET" IN HEALTHCARE AND HAVEN'T FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS.

                            How is having Medicare and Medicaid interfering in the industry "free market"?

                            How is having tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of regulations on the health industry and health insurance "free market"?

                            How is it that the profits of these companies and their CEO's continue to go up (and they continue to lobby for all these programs and regulations) after every new regulation or program?

                            Seriously?

                            PROVE to me, empirically that there is a "free market" in health care/insurance/pharma and PROVE to me we have a "lack of regulation"

                            Prove it.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                              Originally posted by Invisible-Bob View Post
                              Well I have no wife, no kids and no friends, don't want any, and going off the grid for me will be very easy to do. I just need to find a place that is as remote as can possibly be.
                              You're in LA, that shouldn't be too tough. If illegal aliens can be government invisible, there has to be hope for us too.

                              Here's what I see coming. If you don't buy the insurance, and don't pay the fines, the IRS will be the enforcement arm, and we all know what their tactics are...........frozen accounts, real estate liens, etc. Let's say they don't do those, buy then it's time for you to collect Social Security. ............minus the fines, interest, and penalties. This shit is going to ruin a lot of lives. How will young families will afford it when their employer takes the cheaper of the options, the fine/penalty for not providing a plan?

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                                Calling it a tax is the right thing to do. This SC decision, IMO, just lost Obama the presidency. I think the poll numbers as this sinks in, will show this to be true.
                                You could well be correct...

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X