Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    Originally posted by tsquare View Post
    I won't be so hard on Roberts, at least right away...

    In choosing to write this opinion, Roberts insured that the focus remained very limited in scope. He also forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue.

    Next, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is such a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. The importance of this cannot be overstated. In doing this, he also affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases.

    On the other side, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government. This is or will be huge as time goes on.

    In forcing the nation to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. This mandate remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.

    The decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare. Any of you Ron Paul types still going to 'sit this one out'?

    I also draw your attention to the point that now that the mandate is a tax it can be removed in the House... and then the Senate via the reconciliation process... a simple majority, not 60 votes.

    I also think that this ruling will be seen as 'classic Roberts' in that like Kelo, Roberts says that while you CAN do this,you don't need to do this. With Kelo Roberts threw the problem back to the political process... where lower governments could decide for themselves if and how to limit the use of Eminent domain. The same now applies to the ACA... the states get to decide.

    How all very interesting...
    I will be hard on Roberts seeing as he showed he was really a progressive.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


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

      Originally posted by lutherf View Post
      I'm going to hope and pray that in 2014 somebody chooses to take up issue with this aspect of the ruling as I find it incomprehensible that one section of the Constitution can supersede another section.
      This is the new America: big business wins (again) and government can tell you what to buy.

      We inch closer to war.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


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

        Originally posted by Danny View Post
        Sure no problem. Here are two examples:

        If you get sick your insurance company can tell you to go screw yourself. That is because there is nobody telling them that that is wrong.

        If you have a history of Cancer, all insurance companies can tell you thanks but no thanks. Go and die. That is because there is nobody telling them that that is wrong.

        Why are you advocating for these kind of egregious practices?
        All the insurance company is telling you in those situations is that they don't want to do business with you.

        But they're not preventing you from getting healthcare because when you get right down to it they don't provide healthcare.

        It's the doctors and nurses who provide healthcare.

        If everyone has some kind of God given right to healthcare then we should be forcing the doctors and nurses to provide free healthcare to anyone who can't afford to pay them.

        But why stop with doctors and nurses?

        Shouldn't everyone be able to have anything that they want?

        Shouldn't everyone, regardless of what they do for a living, provide it free of charge?

        Since most people don't own their own business and aren't in business for themselves they provide labor.

        Ultimately your argument is that people, everywhere and everyone, should be providing free labor.

        Paradoxically, and based on other discussions you've participated in, I happen to know that you're a supporter of unions and organized labor.

        How do those two beliefs mesh?

        On the one hand you argue that people should be required to provide their labor for free, while on the other hand you advocate for laborers organizing and fighting managment for more and more of a company's profits?

        מה מכילות החדשות?


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

          Originally posted by soot View Post
          All the insurance company is telling you in those situations is that they don't want to do business with you.

          But they're not preventing you from getting healthcare because when you get right down to it they don't provide healthcare.

          It's the doctors and nurses who provide healthcare.

          If everyone has some kind of God given right to healthcare then we should be forcing the doctors and nurses to provide free healthcare to anyone who can't afford to pay them.

          But why stop with doctors and nurses?

          Shouldn't everyone be able to have anything that they want?

          Shouldn't everyone, regardless of what they do for a living, provide it free of charge?

          Since most people don't own their own business and aren't in business for themselves they provide labor.

          Ultimately your argument is that people, everywhere and everyone, should be providing free labor.

          Paradoxically, and based on other discussions you've participated in, I happen to know that you're a supporter of unions and organized labor.

          How do those two beliefs mesh?

          On the one hand you argue that people should be required to provide their labor for free, while on the other hand you advocate for laborers organizing and fighting managment for more and more of a company's profits?
          Very good points. I can't wait for the explanation of this from Danny, that is if he chooses to respond.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


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

            Originally posted by ThorHammer View Post
            This is the new America: big business wins (again) and government can tell you what to buy.

            We inch closer to war.
            I dont see how its a win for big business. The cost of providing healthcare outweighs any new customers they might get.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


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

              Well, it looks like we have the market's response to the SCOTUS ACA decision:

              U.S. stocks sag on healthcare rule, euro dips | Reuters

              This decision may very well turn back the modest economic recovery gains that we've made to date.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                Originally posted by jviehe View Post
                I dont see how its a win for big business. The cost of providing healthcare outweighs any new customers they might get.
                Does it? The insurance companies are already maintaining a profit off existing customers (not saying them making a profit is a bad thing). This law is forcing citizens who don't have insurance to do business with them.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                  Originally posted by ThorHammer View Post
                  Does it? The insurance companies are already maintaining a profit off existing customers (not saying them making a profit is a bad thing). This law is forcing citizens who don't have insurance to do business with them.
                  The purpose of the ACA was to make healthcare more afforable, which means less profit for business. Requiring insurers to cover high risk people at low cost is obviously bad business. Thus a person who pays $1000 a month for insurance who will knowingly cost the insurer $1500 a month in medical costs is bad for the insurer. Same as requiring them to cover a 26 yr old under a parents insurance.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                    Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
                    You're smoking crack or something. Please don't eat anyone's face off. Insurance has gone up a large amount since the passage of Obamacare.
                    Obamacare was never designed to make the cost of insurance go down. It was designed to slow the increase (presumably until you guys get your act together and pass single payer which will make costs go down).

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                      Originally posted by jviehe View Post
                      The purpose of the ACA was to make healthcare more afforable, which means less profit for business. Requiring insurers to cover high risk people at low cost is obviously bad business. Thus a person who pays $1000 a month for insurance who will knowingly cost the insurer $1500 a month in medical costs is bad for the insurer. Same as requiring them to cover a 26 yr old under a parents insurance.
                      right, and not all the uninsured are that way because of medical conditions. Some are uninsured because, well, they choose not to buy insurance. Those people are now being forced to buy a product or face a penalty, oops, I mean tax.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                        Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                        Quit changing the subject...I'm not advocating for any practice, particularly big corporatism and corporate welfare...that would be you, since that is the end result of all reguation and programs like Obamacare, hence why the companies that supposedly will be hurt by them, lobby enthusiastically for them.

                        Your little examples did not prove we have a lack of regulation, not one bit. I mean show me we have no regulation, or at the very least "not enough". In fact, what is the cut off for "enough regulation", what is the bar for "not enough regulation", please explain this to me, because I PROMISE I can prove we have more than enough regulation and that we have NO FREE MARKET in healthcare, I can prove it. Can you prove your assertion? I guess not.

                        As for your little examples: WHY IS IT THAT THESE COMPANIES ARE SO "BIG" THAT THEY CAN JUST TELL YOU TO "DIE AND GET OUT" IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING LIKE CANCER?

                        Please answer this. I mean you liberals always make the same claims but NEVER answer the most obvious and basic question:

                        HOW do "big insurance" and "big pharma" and "big banks" BECOME "big businesses" that make outrageous profits and can dictate and do whatever they want? HOW DO THEY BECOME SO BIG AND "TOO BIG TO FAIL" IN THE FIRST PLACE?

                        Is it because as you claim "greed and the free market"? If so, prove to me there is a "free market" and a "lack of reguation". Furthermore, tell me how much regulation is "enough" in your all knowing opinion, then tell me how much isn't "enough".

                        OR is it as I claim, the government and its interference in the first place that CREATES THESE GIANT COMPANIES WITH THEIR CORPORATE WELFARE AND OUTRAGEOUS PROFITS. If you actually look at the history of regulation, you will VERY clearly see that the ONLY reason regulations were sought after by those in power was to create a controlled economy...and to do so by creating monopolies. That's it, plain and simple. Look at the reasons behind and the real world impact of ANY regulation or welfare program and what do you get? MONOPOLIES in stead of competition and a free market. Government backed and created monopolies. That is HOW big business becomes big business in the first place.

                        AND once business becomes "big business", it is MUCH easier to control the economy through these few puppets in each industry through the use of a tax code and regulatory scheme that not only benefits the "big companies" (they drive out ALL smaller competitors, thereby increasing their profits and market share - monopoly), but also benefits the government because it "controls" the economy AND makes A LOT more money from corporate taxes on there HUGE corporate profits than they otherwise would if 20 different companies competed for business, but overall made less profit than a giant like Goldman Sachs.

                        Seriously, all you liberals bitch about "big banks" and "fat cats" and fail to understand the immutable, obvious "duh" truth:

                        IT IS THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS INTERFENCE WITH REGULATIONS, TAXES, AND OTHER PROGRAMS THAT CAUSE THESE BIG COMPANIES AND THESE OUTRAGEOUS PROFITS TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.

                        Don't believe me? Cool, I didn't think so, I'll back it up in my next post. In the mean time, look up the history of Wal-mart, specifically with regard to lobbyists. There was a time when Wally world had no lobbyists in Washington, then all the sudden over several years they became one of the biggest lobbying companies. Why? Look it up and you'll see what I am saying. Then look on Wikipedia and look at Wal-mart's profit (gross). Then look at how much they pay in taxes. Then look at net profit. What you will see very clearly is that Wal-mart lobbies for all kinds of regulations on itself. And pays out the ass, yet still makes huge profits, even more than BEFORE they started lobbying their asses off. Why? BECAUSE IT IS THE REGULATIONS THAT HELP THEM MAKE THE PROFITS!!!!!!!!!

                        They lobby, Congress makes new regulations, Wal-mart pays more, but drives out smaller businesses and markets, eating up their market share and profits on a local level (the regulations having driven up costs to small businesses so much, they had to close shop), there by giving Wal-mart even more of a monopoly, and increasing their profits (and therefore increasing government's profit from the taxes they get from Wal-mart's gross income). Oh, and they then control more of the economy too through a puppet-lackey that will do what they want. Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. That's all ANY regulation is, Obamacare, Bush's Medicare Part D, doesn't matter, they are all the same and have the same result.
                        You appear to be libertarian. There is a lot of what you say that many liberals and myself would agree with with regard to ending corporate welfare. I think I proved my point about the lack of regulation though. If crazy shit happens its because there is no law against it. You can't trust people to "do the right thing" because greed and power just corrupts. This is the whole problem with libertarians. People don't have anyone's best interest in mind but themselves.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                          Originally posted by Danny View Post
                          Obamacare was never designed to make the cost of insurance go down. It was designed to slow the increase (presumably until you guys get your act together and pass single payer which will make costs go down).
                          That might be what you want to believe, but that isn't what the American people where told.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                            Originally posted by jviehe View Post
                            I dont see how its a win for big business. The cost of providing healthcare outweighs any new customers they might get.
                            No sir, because if that were the case, this bill would not have been written as it was.

                            When my state passed the mandatory car insurance law, it was a helluva boom for insurance here. We probably had the most uninsured motorists in the nation, since this state of mine is so damn poor. We were promised time and time again that passing this law would make my insurance go down. I never saw it decrease by one red cent!

                            Anytime people are forced in droves to buy what they were not buying, the seller of those goods or services will benefit. My money says that many of this new pool of people will be younger people and not older people who are already losing their good health. Most of these older folks are already in the system under medicare, medicaid, etc. The people paying now, will be healthy, and that will offset any pre existing conditions. More than offset it, IMO.

                            No way in hell would the insurance lobby allow this ACA to pass if they did not see more gold in it for em. Hell, the insurance people wrote the bill for god's sake!

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                              Originally posted by Danny View Post
                              You appear to be libertarian. There is a lot of what you say that many liberals and myself would agree with with regard to ending corporate welfare. I think I proved my point about the lack of regulation though. If crazy shit happens its because there is no law against it. You can't trust people to "do the right thing" because greed and power just corrupts. This is the whole problem with libertarians. People don't have anyone's best interest in mind but themselves.
                              You actually didn't prove anything...because you provided no proof for anything. I asked your for EMPIRICAL PROOF, actual DATA to back up your assertions...all you did was give me two cute examples of something that is simply your opinion. For instance you:

                              NEVER proved there is "no regulation" or "not enough regulation" in the health insurance industry.

                              NEVER proved that government regulations actually LOWER the cost of healtcare

                              NEVER proved there is actually a "free market" in healthcare, you know the same "free market" you blame for everything.

                              And you can't prove any of those things; all you will do is retort with rhetoric.

                              I love your assumption that "crazy shit will happen unless there is a law to stop it". So you are saying that nothing bad happens as long as there exists a law to stop it? In other words, murder never occurs because murder is outlawed. Drug use never occurs because we have laws against it? Really Danny? So, we have healthcare regulations, FDA regulations, etc., yet every year nearly 100,000 people die from FDA APPROVED MEDICATION in this country. Well now, how can that be? Sure the FDA stops ALL instances of bad drugs, right? Surely it doesn't exist just to give big pharma a monopoly on drug creation. No, surely not. Also, abuses in healthcare/insurance continue to happen everyday, despite THOUSANDS OF REGULATIONS on the health/insurance industry. So, how is that? If we have to have government come save the day, why is it that people still die and bad things still happend despite regulations and laws? Is it perhaps, because you CANNOT LEGISLATE SAFETY AND LEGISLATE AWAY BASIC HUMAN NATURE? You just simply can't do it. You cannot and will not EVER legislate away "greed" or "wealthy" or "don't shoot up with a needle" or anything moralistic like that, you just CAN'T DO IT!

                              Now, since you will not even attempt to prove your point, I'll prove mine, more to come of course if you really want it:

                              Regulations on the health/food/health insurance industry:

                              Regulations

                              ^^^Seems like a pretty comprehensive list of the THOUSANDS of regulations on this particular industry. And there are literally thousands of codes.

                              Effects of regulation:

                              http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs371tot.pdf

                              ^^^Study by the SBA on the impact of regulation not only on small, medium, and large businesses, but the effect (and cost) carried by the individual and households. The number is something like 1.75 TRILLION dollars in costs overall for individual households because of ALL Federal regulations. Note: this is not corporate greed, this is government greed.

                              A Study on Regulation and Monopoly:

                              http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/vi...0monopolies%22

                              "Recently the Justice department has begun investigations into alleged anti-trust violations by Monsanto.
                              This has helped fuel a lot of already hyped discontent with one of the world’s leaders in innovative
                              solutions for sustainable agriculture. But why are people so anti-Monsanto and are these concerns
                              unfounded? What makes Monsanto so powerful and so threatening in critics’ minds?

                              Despite the numerous amounts of research attesting to the safety of consuming Biotech foods many people
                              still seek bans or increased regulation. Biotechnology largely represents the intersection of technology and
                              capitalism. Since Monsanto is a leader in the biotech industry, it makes a great target for luddites and critics
                              of market forces in general.

                              Now, truthfully, Monsanto did not come to be in a perfectly competitive purely capitalistic free market
                              economy. No industry or corporation can make that claim in today’s heavily interventionist world, replete
                              with regulations and public- private partnerships and the influence of special interests.

                              What is ironic is that many of the people cheering on the justice department’s investigation of Monsanto
                              are the same people that want increased regulation and control of the economy in general, and especially
                              the biotech industry. Why is this ironic? Because, these very proposals are what lead to ever more
                              concentration and consolidation. Again Miller and Conko make an excellent point:

                              'In the end, EPA and the USDA regulatory policies place federal bureaucrats in the middle of virtually all
                              field trials of gene-spliced plants, spelling disaster for small businesses and academic institutions whose
                              scientists lack the resources to comply with burdensome, expensive, unnecessary regulation. The cost of
                              field-testing gene-spliced plants is as much as 20-fold higher than for virtually identical plants crafted
                              with older, less precise genetic techniques.' -Regulation, Summer 2003


                              Specifically, the mergers and acquisitions and increased concentration that we have seen in the ag biotech
                              industry are largely the result of attempts to take advantage of economies of scale. Increased regulatory
                              costs increase up front sunk costs. According to basic microeconomic theory, and Fulton and Giannakas
                              (2001) research, these increased sunk costs create the possibilities of economies of scope and scale and
                              increased industry consolidation in the biotech sector. Ollinger and Fernandez-Cornejo (1998) found that in
                              the chemical pesticide industry that regulatory costs fell heavier on smaller firms and led to more
                              concentration and fewer firms.

                              Those crying the loudest about more regulation have to accept that with it comes increased concentration
                              and less competition. [i.e. ALL THE LIBERALS ON THE BOARD WHO WANT MORE REGULATION OF EVERYTHING
                              "

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                                Originally posted by ThorHammer View Post
                                right, and not all the uninsured are that way because of medical conditions. Some are uninsured because, well, they choose not to buy insurance. Those people are now being forced to buy a product or face a penalty, oops, I mean tax.
                                And those few people will by no means offset the increase in cost created by the rest of the ACA. Not to mention the people that drop coverage because the tax is cheaper than buying insurance.

                                - - - Updated - - -

                                Originally posted by Danny View Post
                                You appear to be libertarian. There is a lot of what you say that many liberals and myself would agree with with regard to ending corporate welfare. I think I proved my point about the lack of regulation though. If crazy shit happens its because there is no law against it. You can't trust people to "do the right thing" because greed and power just corrupts. This is the whole problem with libertarians. People don't have anyone's best interest in mind but themselves.
                                I dont see how thats a problem. Its in my interest for you not to kill me or steal my stuff, which is why libertarians are not anarchists.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X