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

Obamacare, Otherwise Known as The Affordable Care Act (ACA)

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

  • Conservatives could allow cross-state competition of non-profit insurance and providers with regulation & conditions similar to the for-profit companies, but they won't. They could 'fess up and state that the unwashed masses are going to get 2nd class care as a general rule, but they won't.

    The catastrophic cheapo policy for young immortal citizens is a practical idea, so I applaud them for that; it does expand the pool, which is one requirement for a good consumer price.

    However, since the conservatives are as blind as the progressives, the pricing and provision of health care will continue to fail in the US. Both progressives and conservatives won't dare state that the worker bees get 2nd class care as a rule, because that tempts Death during Election. As for non-profits, that loads the diapers of both progressives and conservatives for different reasons. Conservatives seem unfamiliar with non-profits, beyond their local church doing a bake sale; it also sounds too communist-ish. Standard issue lefties take great care to ignore non-profits because it could steal their thunder-claim, that gummint can solve so many problems.

    ?


    • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
      Conservatives could allow cross-state competition of non-profit insurance and providers with regulation & conditions similar to the for-profit companies, but they won't. They could 'fess up and state that the unwashed masses are going to get 2nd class care as a general rule, but they won't.

      The catastrophic cheapo policy for young immortal citizens is a practical idea, so I applaud them for that; it does expand the pool, which is one requirement for a good consumer price.

      However, since the conservatives are as blind as the progressives, the pricing and provision of health care will continue to fail in the US. Both progressives and conservatives won't dare state that the worker bees get 2nd class care as a rule, because that tempts Death during Election. As for non-profits, that loads the diapers of both progressives and conservatives for different reasons. Conservatives seem unfamiliar with non-profits, beyond their local church doing a bake sale; it also sounds too communist-ish. Standard issue lefties take great care to ignore non-profits because it could steal their thunder-claim, that gummint can solve so many problems.
      All of the non-profit co-ops under Obamacare failed, even after heavy subsidies that were granted under Obamacare to get them started. Face it, no one works for nothing.

      ?


      • What it boils down to is that politicians are too stupid to be trusted with such a thing, the government has no business in this business.

        Not if we want a good product.

        Obama came along, forced his bad ideas on us, now it's a three ring circus of morons wanting to "fix" something they don't even know how it works.

        Let's hire some kids who work at Burger King to run all functions of NASA ....immediately - this is similar to what we're seeing.

        It's going to be scary, sad and funny all at the same time. Hopefully with less tragedy than is possible but . . . . .

        ?


        • Face it, the non-profits were not operating across state lines (no economy of scale), and they operate under different restrictions than their for-profit counterparts. Compare apples to apples, and a non-profit solution will be possible.

          Guaranteeing the CEO makes at least 2-figures in the millions each and every year, has absolutely nothing to do with a good price for service at the consumer level. Here is one example out of many:
          http://reportcard.opa.ca.gov/rc/prof...Entity=1041612

          Kaiser Permanente executives making under 10 million/year, yet their organization rated "good" to "excellent" in medical service. Go figure. They only get to buy one vacation home, but no condominium near their Swiss Bank of choice, yet patients still like them and the rest of their staff. -How did that happen?

          However that happened, I want that as part of my choice. Paying a "reasonable" $400 per month premium would be nice, but if such a plan requires I pay $6 thousand out of pocket before I'm paying 20% like the good old days, that wouldn't work. That isn't even pretending to work, if I'm paying it to a provider that pays the CEO over $10 million per year. I'll pay to a company that makes an excellent automobile, but paying to a high flying company that determines my health care options is downright creepy, if not suicidal.

          ?


          • He-ee-e--e-e-e-e-ere's Bernie !!!!

            Our poor old half-wit liberal president wannabe guy informs us, that he's our poor old half-wit liberal president wannabe guy ...

            ... saying nothing new really.

            Bernie sanders defending the dingalingalong agenda . . . confused again.

            Poor guy, doesn't he realize no one's interested in his ideas anymore ?

            ----------------------

            Sen. Bernie Sanders Thursday bashed the "disastrous so-called healthcare plan that the Republicans have brought forth" as nothing more than "Robin Hood proposal in reverse."

            "Essentially it should be seen for what it is: a massive tax break $275 billion for the top 2 percent,"

            "We're throwing 5 to 10 million people out of insurance. Raising premiums for lower- and working-class people. Redefining Planned Parenthood. Denying women the ability to get healthcare where they want.

            "But the good news: If you're in the top 2 percent, Republicans are for you, giving you a very significant tax break," he said.

            Sanders reiterated his support for Obamacare, but acknowledged: "Is the Affordable Care Act perfect? Far from it."

            He also noted that the United States has a "very dysfunctional" healthcare system.


            [ how about you dumb-ass politician people stay the hell away from trying to "fix" and meddle with everything you happen to be aware of at the moment !!! Do we need to baby-proof Washington D.C. ? All of America !?!?

            What the hell is the matter with you ? You can quit messing things up IF YOU JUST KEEP YOUR GRUBBY LITTLE HANDS OFF OF THINGS !!

            .... One can read further into the story at the below link and see our senile old half-wit go into a childish rant-o-rama about man caused global warming . . . or climate change . . . or whatever they decide to call it today]


            Comments below article -

            Up yours Bernie, get a colonoscopy! Healthcare is not a social experiment to redistribute wealth. That is why Obamacare failed . Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.

            "the United State's has a very dysfunctional healthcare system".......! Guess you're RIGHT about that, Bernie..!
            I have YET to hear from ANY Dem's on EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT MAKE's OBAMACARE SO GREAT...?! Mostly, they are complaining about what makes the American Healthcare Act so BAD..! Haven't the Dem's had PLENTY of time to fix Obama's mess, & didn't get it done..? The GOP got theirs out in a month or so..!
            And to think, at one point back quite a ways, I considered voting for you, Bernie!
            Glad that I saw the light...!!!


            ........

            http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/bern.../09/id/777929/

            ?


            • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
              "You can't stop giving the fat guy M&M's once you start giving them to him."

              Even if it's killing him . . you just can't stop !!!

              If you run out of M&M's ... better make some more.... you don't want to hear that fat guy scream for his free M&M's do you ??

              This is how we're viewed by these people.

              Herds of dumb, lazy dependents......"once you have provided something to the American people, to the public, through the government, it's very difficult if not impossible to pull that benefit back..."

              My message to this jerkovski hockstra is to stop insulting us and get rid of this obamacrap !!! We're not stupid cows.

              ------------------------------------------------

              "And so it's going to be a process of cobbling together a program that basically does repeal Obamacare and replaces it with something that is more market-based and hopefully something that will actually work."

              ...

              "You have to be ready to provide these people with an answer and say, you used to get healthcare insurance through this process, under the new plan, here's what you're looking at, here's what the costs are going to be and those kinds of things. I think you have to have a replacement at roughly the same time or you're dead politically."

              "I think the Republicans and every politician recognizes that once you have provided something to the American people, to the public, through the government, it's very difficult if not impossible to pull that benefit back," he said.

              "That's why with the entitlements, we've been talking about reforming Social Security for 20, 25 years, we've been talking about reforming Medicare, never happens.

              "And now why after seven years of Obamacare why it's going to be very, very difficult to pull back on some of the benefits, pull back from some of the people who now receive their insurance from the government."


              http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/pe.../07/id/777463/
              When implementing Obama care, no one seemed to care about pulling back the entitlement of healthcare for middle class working people, while raising premiums, co-pays, deductibles, making decent Healthcare or even any Healthcare unattainable.

              ?


              • I don't like the replacement plan. It doesn't add up to more affordable healthcare. It may start to help some, in phase 3, when healthcare can be purchased across state lines. Phase 1 and 2 is doing the right thing as far as repealing unfair financial requirements imposed on the working people, and some removal of regulation that prevented "SUBSTANDARD" health insurance, but doesn't solve the affordable healthcare problem. Competition is the best thing to reduce consumer cost. However, entitlements have to be paid for. We have to stop conflating health insurance with health care. And this replacement plan is not accomplishing that.

                Add competition, repeal the unreasonable mandatory requirements on Doctors, Consumers, and Insurance companies. This will make health insurance affordable for the lower middle class and even the high end of the lower class. More people will be covered.

                Then we have the rest of the lower class without. For them, they will remain without health INSURANCE. No luxury of a purchased safety net that gives them the advantage of paid insurance. They don't need health insurance any way. They need health CARE.

                A few well care visits for all based on needs according to sex and age. Work out paying for health care for Individuals as needed on an individual basis. Pay for actual illness that applies to the individual. Like MEDICAID. A reform in the Medicaid system, which is better organized to make sure the donated tax dollars are going to the actual need the services.

                These are the basics to better our health care system. The replacement plan not addressing all key components that will make it work. The two components: Reduce unreasonable mandatory requirements and competition in phase 3, but without taking the insurance business out of dealing with healthcare for the needy, IT WILL NOT WORK.

                ?


                • Originally posted by msc View Post
                  When implementing Obama care, no one seemed to care about pulling back the entitlement of healthcare for middle class working people, while raising premiums, co-pays, deductibles, making decent Healthcare or even any Healthcare unattainable.
                  Government idiots wouldn't.

                  They're like toddlers, dangerous and have to be looked after every second.

                  Like I said; Do we need to baby-proof Washington D.C. ? All of America !?!?

                  .. and should we really

                  .. trust a poll that claims 51 percent of Americans believe Trump should not repeal the Affordable Care Act. ???

                  "The polls said that Hillary was going to win the election," Horowitz said. "It's all in how you frame the question. I think there's a consensus that people with pre-existing conditions, for example, should be taken care of.

                  "The real issue is whether the government should be able to ram a plan down everybody's throats a one-size-fits-all plan and whether healthcare is a right. America is built on the notion that rights are individual rights."


                  ....

                  http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Bi.../09/id/777912/

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by msc View Post
                    I don't like the replacement plan. It doesn't add up to more affordable healthcare. It may start to help some, in phase 3, when healthcare can be purchased across state lines. Phase 1 and 2 is doing the right thing as far as repealing unfair financial requirements imposed on the working people, and some removal of regulation that prevented "SUBSTANDARD" health insurance, but doesn't solve the affordable healthcare problem. Competition is the best thing to reduce consumer cost. However, entitlements have to be paid for. We have to stop conflating health insurance with health care. And this replacement plan is not accomplishing that.

                    Add competition, repeal the unreasonable mandatory requirements on Doctors, Consumers, and Insurance companies. This will make health insurance affordable for the lower middle class and even the high end of the lower class. More people will be covered.

                    Then we have the rest of the lower class without. For them, they will remain without health INSURANCE. No luxury of a purchased safety net that gives them the advantage of paid insurance. They don't need health insurance any way. They need health CARE.

                    A few well care visits for all based on needs according to sex and age. Work out paying for health care for Individuals as needed on an individual basis. Pay for actual illness that applies to the individual. Like MEDICAID. A reform in the Medicaid system, which is better organized to make sure the donated tax dollars are going to the actual need the services.

                    These are the basics to better our health care system. The replacement plan not addressing all key components that will make it work. The two components: Reduce unreasonable mandatory requirements and competition in phase 3, but without taking the insurance business out of dealing with healthcare for the needy, IT WILL NOT WORK.
                    Seems like you're pointing out the scam that is "insurance."

                    Now the govt. wants in on it because of the income and control it will bring them.

                    Excellent points

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                      He-ee-e--e-e-e-e-ere's Bernie !!!!

                      Our poor old half-wit liberal president wannabe guy informs us, that he's our poor old half-wit liberal president wannabe guy ...

                      ... saying nothing new really.

                      Bernie sanders defending the dingalingalong agenda . . . confused again.

                      Poor guy, doesn't he realize no one's interested in his ideas anymore ?

                      ----------------------

                      [I]Sen. Bernie Sanders Thursday bashed the "disastrous so-called healthcare plan that the Republicans have brought forth" as nothing more than "Robin Hood proposal in reverse."
                      If Bernie had actually watched Robin Hood, he'd know that the government was the villain.

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                        I believe there are enough conservative representatives and senators to stop this current iteration. The gutless establishment Republicans don't want to do away with the contentious parts because they are claiming these parts can't be included in a budget reconciliation bill. A bunch of crap, they are just gutless.
                        Where there is a will there is a way....

                        Cruz: Let's overrule Senate officer to expand ObamaCare bill

                        Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), emerging as a key player in negotiations to repeal and replace ObamaCare, says Vice President Pence should exert his power over the Senate to significantly expand the scope of the House healthcare reform bill.
                        Cruz, who had dinner with President Trump on Wednesday evening, says that Pence, who by virtue of his office also serves as president of the Senate, should be prepared to overrule the chamber's parliamentarian to bulk up the controversial measure.

                        House Republicans left several reforms popular with conservatives out of their healthcare bill because the parliamentarian is likely to rule them outside the scope of special rules in the upper chamber that prevent a Democratic filibuster.
                        Cruz argues that Pence, as the person likely to preside over the chamber at the most important moments of the healthcare debate, can decide what is and what isnt eligible for the so-called reconciliation process. He says the Senate parliamentarians role is to advise, not to rule.

                        Under the Budget Act of 1974, which is what governs reconciliation, it is the presiding officer, the vice president of the United States, who rules on whats permissible on reconciliation and what is not, Cruz told reporters Thursday. Thats a conversation Ive been having with a number of my colleagues."

                        Republicans control only 52 seats in the Senate, where most controversial legislation needs 60 votes to overcome filibusters by the minority party.

                        Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) plans to circumvent the 60-vote threshold and pass the healthcare measure by using the budget reconciliation process.

                        But only legislation that has more than an incidental impact on federal spending or revenue can be protected from filibusters.

                        Cruz declined to say specifically whether he brought up his plan directly with Trump at dinner, only acknowledging, Ive been visiting with leaders throughout the administration.
                        This is the point where I have to remind everyone of last years primary, and say I told you so.

                        ?


                        • It will be republitards who get blamed for all the crap caused by barack obama !!!! They're making sure of this !!!

                          They're hell bent on out doing mr. O in the stupidity dept.

                          If what is written below is wrong ? How ?

                          --------------------------------------------------------

                          ...now we know why the GOP establishment kept their ObamaCare replacement package locked in a room where not even GOP senators could read it. Everyone naturally wondered what they were hiding, and now we know. They were hiding it because it is a horrible, no good, very bad piece of legislation.

                          If it repeals ObamaCare in any meaningful sense (and it doesnt), it only replaces it with something as bad if not worse. This is exactly the kind of bill you would expect to come from the swamp that so desperately needs to be drained.

                          This bill does not drain the swamp. It instead brings the swamp under the protection of the public policy equivalent of the EPA, guaranteeing that no one will be able to touch it, and ensuring that it will be an ugly and muck-ridden part of the American landscape in perpetuity.

                          And the problem here is that, if this bill passes, the Republicans will own this thing lock, stock, and barrel until the end of time. Their scapegoat - a socialistically-oriented president who shoved ObamaCare down our throats under cover of darkness - will be gone and his name wont be anywhere on or even near this thing. Every bad thing that will happen - escalating premiums, deductibles, copays, ever-more expensive entitlements, ballooning budget deficits - will quite rightly be laid at the feet of the GOP, 100% of it. The legacy of the GOP will be the final decimation of the greatest health care system in the world.

                          SwampCare keeps the ObamaCare mandate, by ordering private insurance companies to impose a 30% penalty on anyone who didnt purchase coverage for at least 300 days in the previous year. This is euphemistically labeled as an incentive. It sounds much more like communism, where the beatings will continue until morale improves. The 30% penalty means that the fine for many may wind up being stiffer than anything under ObamaCare. And its Republicans who are doing this to us!

                          Taxpayer subsidies doesnt even go to insurance companies in this misbegotten plan, they go directly to people under the guise of tax credits. These folks are supposed to use the subsidy to buy health insurance. What if they dont? What if they spend their new-found money on booze and cigarettes? This program is as ripe for waste, fraud, and abuse as the food stamp program.

                          The GOPs SwampCare preserves the pre-existing condition prohibition that prevents insurance companies from taking medical history into account in setting premiums. This is insanity, if your goal is to reduce the cost of health insurance for as many Americans as possible.

                          The ban on taking pre-existing conditions into account means that people dont have to buy insurance until after they get sick, which guarantees a sicker pool of patients who will have to be charged higher and higher premiums (since younger and healthier Americans will be making the common sense decision not to buy something until they need it) and pretty soon nobody will be able to afford it.

                          The GOPs SwampCare is just like ordering an auto insurance company to underwrite a driver who comes to them after he has wrapped his car around a tree, and forbidding it to charge him higher premiums than it charges careful drivers who havent had an accident in years. Its absurd. But thats what the GOP establishment is trying to do.

                          If you dont have to buy insurance until after you need it, and they have to give it to you, its not even insurance anymore. Its something else altogether. The whole point of insurance is to buy it before you need it, to buy it in case you need it, and to buy it even though you hope youll never need to use it.

                          The solution to ObamaCare is not to make it worse and grant it the government equivalent of eternal life. No, it is to get government out the health insurance business altogether and let insurance companies develop whatever plans Americans want and compete with each other for their insurance dollars. This will instantly lower costs and increase accessibility, which is the goal.

                          Bottom line: ObamaCare desperately needs to be repealed and replaced. Unfortunately, SwampCare does neither. Its a bad piece of business which ought to be buried at the bottom of the swamp instead of emerging from the swamp like the Creature from the Black Lagoon.



                          https://www.onenewsnow.com/perspecti...with-swampcare

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                            It will be republitards who get blamed for all the crap caused by barack obama !!!! They're making sure of this !!!
                            ....

                            The solution to ObamaCare is not to make it worse and grant it the government equivalent of eternal life. No, it is to get government out the health insurance business altogether and let insurance companies develop whatever plans Americans want and compete with each other for their insurance dollars. This will instantly lower costs and increase accessibility, which is the goal.
                            ...
                            This gets to the most naive part of the right-end of the medical insurance argument. What makes a person think the typical insurance company is interested in developing "whatever plans Americans want"? They can provide a plan for a young immortal: A premium for $100 per month, with an OOP (out of pocket) of $6,000 dollars to start. If or when the immortal one needs more than $6k of medical care, the insurance company will pay 80% of most (emphasize "most") costs. The kid is stuck for 20%, but if his bill goes over $1 million, the insurance company won't pay. Maybe the insurance industry will lobby for a federal law allowing people to declare bankruptcy and walk away from that sort of debt. And let's face it, most young people are going to not pay that bill if it goes north of $1 million, anyway.

                            OK, I've identified one plan that many insurance companies might provide and a few Americans might want. For the life of me, I can't identify any other categories (age groups) of Americans who could afford a medical policy that "most insurance companies would provide". Unless we're talking subsidies, lifetime caps (well under $1 million), a very high OOP applied to everyone, but most likely a combination of those 3 options. If we look at the number of citizens who have less than a recommended amount for an emergency fund, the very high OOP would be a very unpopular condition.

                            Sure, the progressives are naive to assume there is enuf money to give everyone top-notch medical care. But righties demonstrate willful ignorance when they claim that most insurance companies are interested in providing unsubsidized, affordable, comprehensive medical coverage to most Americans.

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                              This gets to the most naive part of the right-end of the medical insurance argument. What makes a person think the typical insurance company is interested in developing "whatever plans Americans want"? They can provide a plan for a young immortal: A premium for $100 per month, with an OOP (out of pocket) of $6,000 dollars to start. If or when the immortal one needs more than $6k of medical care, the insurance company will pay 80% of most (emphasize "most") costs. The kid is stuck for 20%, but if his bill goes over $1 million, the insurance company won't pay. Maybe the insurance industry will lobby for a federal law allowing people to declare bankruptcy and walk away from that sort of debt. And let's face it, most young people are going to not pay that bill if it goes north of $1 million, anyway.

                              OK, I've identified one plan that many insurance companies might provide and a few Americans might want. For the life of me, I can't identify any other categories (age groups) of Americans who could afford a medical policy that "most insurance companies would provide". Unless we're talking subsidies, lifetime caps (well under $1 million), a very high OOP applied to everyone, but most likely a combination of those 3 options. If we look at the number of citizens who have less than a recommended amount for an emergency fund, the very high OOP would be a very unpopular condition.

                              Sure, the progressives are naive to assume there is enuf money to give everyone top-notch medical care. But righties demonstrate willful ignorance when they claim that most insurance companies are interested in providing unsubsidized, affordable, comprehensive medical coverage to most Americans.
                              My thoughts on "insurance" have always been that it's a scam that sounds great to everyone, so we call it something other than a scam.

                              We call it "insurance."

                              Then we get people involved in selling this sc . . this "insurance" to other people... this "insurance," by it's very nature this beast is going to leave a lot of people unsatisfied and displeased with the product.

                              It's troublesome from the get-go.

                              Then we want to get the government involved ?

                              Better chance of good things happening when a bunch of drunks try to have a midnight Seance by candlelight in a fireworks stand ! LOL

                              Where is our money wasted, squandered, lost and stolen more than by our government ?? I can't possibly imagine any good argument to get govt. involved in this.

                              Not if we're talking about making things less expensive, more efficient, improved, more available.

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                                This gets to the most naive part of the right-end of the medical insurance argument. What makes a person think the typical insurance company is interested in developing "whatever plans Americans want"? They can provide a plan for a young immortal: A premium for $100 per month, with an OOP (out of pocket) of $6,000 dollars to start. If or when the immortal one needs more than $6k of medical care, the insurance company will pay 80% of most (emphasize "most") costs. The kid is stuck for 20%, but if his bill goes over $1 million, the insurance company won't pay. Maybe the insurance industry will lobby for a federal law allowing people to declare bankruptcy and walk away from that sort of debt. And let's face it, most young people are going to not pay that bill if it goes north of $1 million, anyway.

                                OK, I've identified one plan that many insurance companies might provide and a few Americans might want. For the life of me, I can't identify any other categories (age groups) of Americans who could afford a medical policy that "most insurance companies would provide". Unless we're talking subsidies, lifetime caps (well under $1 million), a very high OOP applied to everyone, but most likely a combination of those 3 options. If we look at the number of citizens who have less than a recommended amount for an emergency fund, the very high OOP would be a very unpopular condition.

                                Sure, the progressives are naive to assume there is enuf money to give everyone top-notch medical care. But righties demonstrate willful ignorance when they claim that most insurance companies are interested in providing unsubsidized, affordable, comprehensive medical coverage to most Americans.
                                You may not be able to think of anything else but we had it for years before Obamacare came along. Do you you buy homeowner's insurance because somebody may throw a ball through your kitchen window or do you buy it because your house may burn down? Health care should be primarily paid for by the consumer with catastrophic events covered by insurance just as done with your house. Give someone free health care and they will abuse the system. For the most part, it would cost me less to pay for my own doctor's visits than for what I pay for insurance. The same would be true for most people. Insurance today has done the same thing that government loans has done to the tuition market. It has taken away the free market aspect of supply and demand.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X