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

  • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

    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.
    You imagine yourself to be clever and wise here but all you are displaying is you have no clue about the structure of businesses in health insurance and you have no idea how non-profit firms opperate.

    ?


    • Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post

      You imagine yourself to be clever and wise here but all you are displaying is you have no clue about the structure of businesses in health insurance and you have no idea how non-profit firms opperate.
      My wife was a nurse, her mother was a nurse, her sister was a nurse, her three brothers were all nurses, two of them are still nurse anesthetists. Her Dad and I were the only two who could carry on a decent dinner table conversation. They all worked together at one time at a Non-profit county hospital in Longview, Texas. The fact is, non-profits can work, it's just that they have to have sound business practices. Obamacare required coverage that was not practical in the real world and none of the non-profits survived even after being given heavy subsidies up front to get started. I would be happy to have a nationwide nonprofit organization run our healthcare system as long as the government stayed out of the way and let them operate on sound business principles.

      ?


      • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

        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
        It isn't a scam without gov't intervention. In the free market health insurance is an asset to the public. But can't forget that it's a business, not an entitlement. An OPTION to use the services of the business.

        Free market COMPETITION!!! We had insurance companies going beyond the catastrophic coverage offering plans that pays 80% of your health care costs to compete with other insurance companies. Both the Insurance companies/private businesses and consumers were benefitting. If Insurance companies were not offering to consumers a product that consumers were happy with, they'd voluntarily CHOOSE not to buy it and the Insurance companies would go out of business. If insurance companies weren't going out of business, it's because they were satisfied with the profit margin that made it worthwhile. IT WAS WORKING and benefitting both the consumer and the business. Millions of people CHOSE to buy the product and were pleased with it according to their needs and desires, and the insurance companies clearly satisfied enough with their profit margin to continue providing the product.

        Health insurance is not a scam, it's a business. A product. People buy it if they like it. That's the way the free market works. Can't call health insurance a scam if the consumer is buying the product by choice because they find value in it. All business work for profit. On the premise of a scam, you'd have to call ALL business making a profit, a scam. Prospering beyond any other individual would be a scam. Capitalism would be a scam. America would be a scam. If people are happy with the product they are voluntarily choosing to purchase, it's a good deal for both parties. I have a company, I offer this. PERIOD! If I like your product because I benefit from it, whether it be from services or peace of mind, I'll keep buying it.

        Healthcare is a completely separate issue. Should the Federal gov't and does the Federal gov't have the authority to collect dollars from all taxpaying citizens, to pay for health services of the people who can not afford to pay for it? Not for people who can't afford to buy a health insurance product, but people who can not afford to pay for a needed health services, (AS NEEDED). This is an entirely different discussion. Health insurance should not be part of it.

        ?


        • Originally posted by msc View Post
          It isn't a scam without gov't intervention. In the free market health insurance is an asset to the public. But can't forget that it's a business, not an entitlement. An OPTION to use the services of the business.

          Free market COMPETITION!!! We had insurance companies going beyond the catastrophic coverage offering plans that pays 80% of your health care costs to compete with other insurance companies. Both the Insurance companies/private businesses and consumers were benefitting. If Insurance companies were not offering to consumers a product that consumers were happy with, they'd voluntarily CHOOSE not to buy it and the Insurance companies would go out of business. If insurance companies weren't going out of business, it's because they were satisfied with the profit margin that made it worthwhile. IT WAS WORKING and benefitting both the consumer and the business. Millions of people CHOSE to buy the product and were pleased with it according to their needs and desires, and the insurance companies clearly satisfied enough with their profit margin to continue providing the product.

          Health insurance is not a scam, it's a business. A product. People buy it if they like it. That's the way the free market works. Can't call health insurance a scam if the consumer is buying the product by choice because they find value in it. All business work for profit. On the premise of a scam, you'd have to call ALL business making a profit, a scam. Prospering beyond any other individual would be a scam. Capitalism would be a scam. America would be a scam. If people are happy with the product they are voluntarily choosing to purchase, it's a good deal for both parties. I have a company, I offer this. PERIOD! If I like your product because I benefit from it, whether it be from services or peace of mind, I'll keep buying it.

          Healthcare is a completely separate issue. Should the Federal gov't and does the Federal gov't have the authority to collect dollars from all taxpaying citizens, to pay for health services of the people who can not afford to pay for it? Not for people who can't afford to buy a health insurance product, but people who can not afford to pay for a needed health services, (AS NEEDED). This is an entirely different discussion. Health insurance should not be part of it.
          The concept of insurance seems shady.

          Both parties, buyer and seller, are hoping it's a product the buyer never needs to make use of.

          Insurance companies carefully craft policies that cover this, don't cover that, cover these things IF that, don't cover those things IF this etc etc. Consumers pull tricks like burning their homes down, murdering a "loved one" for a "life insurance" payout etc etc... just a couple of examples.

          So people pay and pay and pay and pay . . . just in case, when they COULD save & save and save and save .... just in case.

          It's an industry based on peoples lack of self control and inability to think & plan ahead FOR THEMSELVES . . . which certainly isn't being helped or improved by creating companies collecting our money from us FOR us . . . just in case.

          There are arguments for & against it I know. My main problem - which we agree on - is that getting the government involved in this business is only beneficial to THE GOVERNMENT, certainly not to any of us citizens.

          Insurance companies aren't poor or anything, they craft their policies much like casinos craft THEIR policies - to make money ! Perhaps "scam" is the incorrect term to use, it's a form of gambling.

          Government involvement in it is asking to make it even more of a gamble. Even LESS in our favor !

          ?


          • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
            My wife was a nurse, her mother was a nurse, her sister was a nurse, her three brothers were all nurses, two of them are still nurse anesthetists. Her Dad and I were the only two who could carry on a decent dinner table conversation. They all worked together at one time at a Non-profit county hospital in Longview, Texas. The fact is, non-profits can work, it's just that they have to have sound business practices. Obamacare required coverage that was not practical in the real world and none of the non-profits survived even after being given heavy subsidies up front to get started. I would be happy to have a nationwide nonprofit organization run our healthcare system as long as the government stayed out of the way and let them operate on sound business principles.
            The clinic I volunteered at as an MA recently closed because of obama's abomination. The patients they covered were about as pleased as the staff.

            ?


            • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

              My wife was a nurse, her mother was a nurse, her sister was a nurse, her three brothers were all nurses, two of them are still nurse anesthetists. Her Dad and I were the only two who could carry on a decent dinner table conversation. They all worked together at one time at a Non-profit county hospital in Longview, Texas. The fact is, non-profits can work, it's just that they have to have sound business practices. Obamacare required coverage that was not practical in the real world and none of the non-profits survived even after being given heavy subsidies up front to get started. I would be happy to have a nationwide nonprofit organization run our healthcare system as long as the government stayed out of the way and let them operate on sound business principles.
              Sounds like a good idea. The GOP won't go for it. Neither will the Dems. They won't try it on a statewide basis, nor a regional basis, to see if a core group of non-profit providers can properly compete or specialize for the citizens of that region.

              The for-profit sector won't let that happen and will spend large amounts of money lobbying both parties to block that idea. The Dems internal administration will block the idea because they want to maintain a quid pro quo. Your vote for your health care.

              Too bad, really. Both parties could have set up an audit and regulatory structure (yes, it is needed. And yes, it can help rather than hinder the conduct of good business). The expense to gov't., outside the Medicaid system, would be minimized without sacrificing transparency. That is what is lacking in the for-profit sector; they need to be accused before they can be audited and have their records made public. A non-profit is basically required to execute the business end as an open book all the time -it's transparent.

              Maybe the closest thing we could get to a non-profit model replacing both gummint and for profit dominant, is a California system cooperating with Oregon and WA state. Dems will struggle mightily to prevent the very idea of non-profits replacing gummint health care. The next possible thing that might happen is the for-profit medical insurance companies suffering a collective nervous breakdown, then telling the nation the truth; they are very good at providing platinum policies to the very wealthy, and they really aren't much interested in trying to coordinate care -that isn't restricted and heavily subsidized- for the unwashed masses. I won't hold my breath waiting for either scenario.

              You don't want gummint involved in health care. I understand that. But politicians will need to ease the way for a transparent system to replace the mess we've had for decades. Those same politicians will need to get a backbone, and tell the nation's citizens (aka, patients) that the less-wealthy aren't going to get all the shiny new treatments that the wealthy get. The transparency part can be done, I even see both parties cooperating to get something efficient in place. The 2nd part -telling us we are restricted in our health care- is going to become apparent only by deed. I see no politician in DC who will stick his neck out and risk stating that much truth.

              ?


              • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                My wife was a nurse, her mother was a nurse, her sister was a nurse, her three brothers were all nurses, two of them are still nurse anesthetists. Her Dad and I were the only two who could carry on a decent dinner table conversation. They all worked together at one time at a Non-profit county hospital in Longview, Texas. The fact is, non-profits can work, it's just that they have to have sound business practices. Obamacare required coverage that was not practical in the real world and none of the non-profits survived even after being given heavy subsidies up front to get started. I would be happy to have a nationwide nonprofit organization run our healthcare system as long as the government stayed out of the way and let them operate on sound business principles.
                Helath Care and Health Insurace aren't the same thing. There have been nonprofits in the health care business since the concept came up and in the health insurance business for decades.
                What did in that handful of start-up non profits was(in part) the low rate of compensation from the government for a sizeable number of plans. The government only paid something like 15% of the gap in some claasses of coverage when many thought the governmnet was going to cover much of it.

                ?


                • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                  Sounds like a good idea. The GOP won't go for it. Neither will the Dems. They won't try it on a statewide basis, nor a regional basis, to see if a core group of non-profit providers can properly compete or specialize for the citizens of that region.

                  The for-profit sector won't let that happen and will spend large amounts of money lobbying both parties to block that idea. The Dems internal administration will block the idea because they want to maintain a quid pro quo. Your vote for your health care.

                  Too bad, really. Both parties could have set up an audit and regulatory structure (yes, it is needed. And yes, it can help rather than hinder the conduct of good business). The expense to gov't., outside the Medicaid system, would be minimized without sacrificing transparency. That is what is lacking in the for-profit sector; they need to be accused before they can be audited and have their records made public. A non-profit is basically required to execute the business end as an open book all the time -it's transparent.

                  Maybe the closest thing we could get to a non-profit model replacing both gummint and for profit dominant, is a California system cooperating with Oregon and WA state. Dems will struggle mightily to prevent the very idea of non-profits replacing gummint health care. The next possible thing that might happen is the for-profit medical insurance companies suffering a collective nervous breakdown, then telling the nation the truth; they are very good at providing platinum policies to the very wealthy, and they really aren't much interested in trying to coordinate care -that isn't restricted and heavily subsidized- for the unwashed masses. I won't hold my breath waiting for either scenario.

                  You don't want gummint involved in health care. I understand that. But politicians will need to ease the way for a transparent system to replace the mess we've had for decades. Those same politicians will need to get a backbone, and tell the nation's citizens (aka, patients) that the less-wealthy aren't going to get all the shiny new treatments that the wealthy get. The transparency part can be done, I even see both parties cooperating to get something efficient in place. The 2nd part -telling us we are restricted in our health care- is going to become apparent only by deed. I see no politician in DC who will stick his neck out and risk stating that much truth.
                  Let's try to imagine what happens when:

                  .... politicians ... get a backbone, and tell the nation's citizens (aka, patients) that the less-wealthy aren't going to get all the shiny new treatments that the wealthy get.

                  Should all living humans be treated as if their lives are above & beyond a monetary value or . . . . ???

                  That's just a start.

                  Do we see what truth & honesty does to this ?

                  When truth & honesty have to be avoided, there is a fundamental problem with the entire subject.

                  Politicians . . . the insurance industry, nothing good can possibly come from it.

                  ?


                  • Is it too late ? Has obama won ? Has he "fundamentally transformed" America ?

                    Very likely, especially if you look at what is going on.

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

                    Were living in a post-constitutional America. The good news is that with your help and diligence we can reclaim the nation our founders intended.

                    Meanwhile, we must be willing to admit the truth: President Obama is winning despite our unexpected GOP victory last November. Like it or not, his presidency was successful. We need look no further than the current health-care debate in D.C. to realize it. Thanks to President Trumps election victory, well be able to scale back most, if not all of Obamas executive orders. What will be difficult to get rid of is Americans expectations of their government.

                    The political center has shifted to the left, and those of us on the right moved with it. America as a whole has become much more dependent upon government.


                    [ exactly what we didn't want !! ]

                    Dont get me wrong! Theres no doubt Trumpcare will be demonstrably better than Obamacare on all counts. I understand there will never be a perfect bill that makes everyone happy. The individual mandate will be gone, and voters will be spared at least a trillion dollars in tax penalties. However, that still misses the larger point. Just 18 months ago the Republican Party was an opposition party. We were talking about how to repeal Obamacare and get the federal government out of our health-care decisions altogether. Somewhere along the line the argument morphed into the words repeal and replace. It didnt take long for conservatives to accept the lefts premise that the federal government should play a role in our health-care decisions.

                    [ They do not belong there. In any respect ! ]

                    At one point the left had us on the ropes when Obamacare passed. This time it appears we have them on the ropes. Nonetheless, I cant help question whether were just playing favorites when it comes to our political parties instead of considering the tough question: What impact will a federally devised health-care plan have on my freedom?

                    Let me be clear: Whether or not Trumpcare is better than Obamacare is not my argument. It is. My concern is that as Americans perhaps weve grown so dependent upon government help on both sides of the aisle that were no longer capable of discerning freedom.


                    [ That is the question; Are we or aren't we ? ]

                    I dont have all of the answers for the 22 million victims that currently receive subsidized health-care coverage from Obamacare, but I do have some suggestions:

                    First off, stop vilifying doctors and wealth in the public square so that more young people are inclined to become doctors. As it stands right now, we have a shortage of doctors in America. Secondly, speed up the process for FDA approval of medicines and allow alternative medicines into the market place. Thirdly, we need to curtail the ability of perpetual victims to sue doctors frivolously. Some doctors dont need to be doctors and should be sued out of the profession, but most perform a good service. Lastly, open up competition across state lines! I believe most people will be inclined to patronage local insurance businesses. However, wouldnt it be nice to know that you have the upper-hand with insurance giants for a change?

                    In short, heres my solution: Why dont we repeal Obamacare and replace it with freedom?


                    [ Or have we been taught to fear freedom so much we just won't tolerate it ? ]

                    "Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants." - Benjamin Franklin

                    http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/obama-won...ill-proves-it/

                    ?


                    • You are claiming that the inefficiency of the current insurance and medical care system is at about 40%, if you claim that citizens could afford to buy it without substantial subsidy. Just get gummint (and employers) out of it, expand for-profit insurance across state lines, and we (the less wealthy) will be able to buy good policies on our own. That is your hypothesis?

                      We could do that -maybe- if we went for 2nd-class care (that's already being done) for one. Second, we'd need to buy catastrophic insurance only, regardless of age (that takes care of the price of monthly premiums). Third, allow non-profits into the interstate mix. Probably another step or two needs to be included, like allowing bankruptcy after medical bills exceed 5 times one's yearly income (or similar multiple). One can already do this under the table, by paying "what one can afford". After 10 years of $50 monthly payments to the hospital, most will write off the rest as a loss. That "Lifetime Limit" goes back to a gov't. subsidy, in effect, so we'll probably keep that write-off (white lie) rather than actually make bankruptcy a legit option under the GOP.

                      There's lots of other options to add in, which could keep costs down. Like $5 semester fees for medical school, as long as the student pays back the real value of his education by working in the non-profit sector (gummint or private hospital system) for 10 years after internship. I don't know just how much medical malpractice lawsuits add to the cost of patient care; basically all we get are anecdotal accounts of frivolous lawsuits with big payoffs. -Another piece of honest reporting that is lacking on this issue -what that cost really is. The other piece of the lawsuit puzzle is actually removing bad doctors who skew malpractice premiums for good doctors. Ego, greed or whatever, it seems like too many of those docs won't change their profession even after they lost big because they caused great harm in their practice. Since his insurance absorbed much of his loss, he has an incentive to keep doing harm.

                      Lots of room for debate, and I'd like to see structural solutions rather than gov't. laws. But there is no way to get gov't. out of it altogether, as the bankruptcy (lifetime limit), lawsuit/medical license control, and other issues demonstrate.

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                        You are claiming that the inefficiency of the current insurance and medical care system is at about 40%, if you claim that citizens could afford to buy it without substantial subsidy. Just get gummint (and employers) out of it, expand for-profit insurance across state lines, and we (the less wealthy) will be able to buy good policies on our own. That is your hypothesis?

                        We could do that -maybe- if we went for 2nd-class care (that's already being done) for one. Second, we'd need to buy catastrophic insurance only, regardless of age (that takes care of the price of monthly premiums). Third, allow non-profits into the interstate mix. Probably another step or two needs to be included, like allowing bankruptcy after medical bills exceed 5 times one's yearly income (or similar multiple). One can already do this under the table, by paying "what one can afford". After 10 years of $50 monthly payments to the hospital, most will write off the rest as a loss. That "Lifetime Limit" goes back to a gov't. subsidy, in effect, so we'll probably keep that write-off (white lie) rather than actually make bankruptcy a legit option under the GOP.

                        There's lots of other options to add in, which could keep costs down. Like $5 semester fees for medical school, as long as the student pays back the real value of his education by working in the non-profit sector (gummint or private hospital system) for 10 years after internship. I don't know just how much medical malpractice lawsuits add to the cost of patient care; basically all we get are anecdotal accounts of frivolous lawsuits with big payoffs. -Another piece of honest reporting that is lacking on this issue -what that cost really is. The other piece of the lawsuit puzzle is actually removing bad doctors who skew malpractice premiums for good doctors. Ego, greed or whatever, it seems like too many of those docs won't change their profession even after they lost big because they caused great harm in their practice. Since his insurance absorbed much of his loss, he has an incentive to keep doing harm.

                        Lots of room for debate, and I'd like to see structural solutions rather than gov't. laws. But there is no way to get gov't. out of it altogether, as the bankruptcy (lifetime limit), lawsuit/medical license control, and other issues demonstrate.
                        You seem to be under the assumption that non-profits are not allowed into the system today and that is not true. Start you up a non-profit insurance company and go for it.

                        ?


                        • Former HHS Secretary: Yes, There Is A Point In Saying That Obamacare Is Killing Rural America

                          Former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius agreed to two points made by NBCs Chuck Todd: a) Americans in rural America are getting financially killed by Obamacare. Bill Clinton was not incorrect in saying that the law is the craziest thing in the world; and b) health care choice is a rare event outside of the cities. Remember during the 2016 election, where the former president ripped Obamacare, saying that middle class families cant afford it because their level of income does not allow them to accept the subsidies under the bill.
                          https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...erica-n2297970

                          And she worked for Obama.

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                            You seem to be under the assumption that non-profits are not allowed into the system today and that is not true. Start you up a non-profit insurance company and go for it.
                            Non-profits are not allowed to compete across state lines. If they are allowed to compete under the same conditions as the for-profits, which would include similar conditions in operating their business, then apples could be compared, rather than apples and oranges.

                            I stated it more than once, but if I need to give detail, here goes: Both major parties will not allow non-profits to compete across state lines, unless they are providing charity. Both major parties will impose regulations and other conditions on non-profits, in order to make it more difficult for them to compete, as we can easily observe in the financial services sector. Compare Banks with Credit Unions. This is why we will not see a non-profit providing medical or medical insurance services on a regional or national basis; there is real fear of the non-profit option within most of the federal government.

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by radcentr View Post

                              Non-profits are not allowed to compete across state lines. If they are allowed to compete under the same conditions as the for-profits, which would include similar conditions in operating their business, then apples could be compared, rather than apples and oranges.

                              I stated it more than once, but if I need to give detail, here goes: Both major parties will not allow non-profits to compete across state lines, unless they are providing charity. Both major parties will impose regulations and other conditions on non-profits, in order to make it more difficult for them to compete, as we can easily observe in the financial services sector. Compare Banks with Credit Unions. This is why we will not see a non-profit providing medical or medical insurance services on a regional or national basis; there is real fear of the non-profit option within most of the federal government.
                              For profits are not allowed to compete across state lines either.

                              ?


                              • Obamacare Victims Tell Their Horror Stories at The White House

                                https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...ctims-n2298136

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X