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 Captain Trips View Post
    They'll blame obamacares failing on president trump ! Even though it was Mr. obama who caused it's failure.. but they'll ask us to close our eyes to that.

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

    The latest nonsense from the left is that President Trump forced the collapse of Obamacare. In fact, the iceberg hit this ship called the Affordable Health Care Act years ago

    ...............


    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...le_of_law.html
    And I'm sure the GOP will return medical care to it's former glory of affordability and modern technology. If they can't do that, they will convince the private, for profit sector to provide insurance and care at reasonable rates. Just in case the for-profit sector is unable to convince health care professionals, pharmacy companies and public hospitals to lower their fees, the for profit sector may find a way to deliver health care with unheard-of efficiency, lowering costs in some other way we haven't yet imagined.

    Oh wait, I know. If we just let the free market deliver health care, it will somehow become affordable for all, even if the scenarios above don't materialize. Don't get sick, but if you do, die fast.

    ?


    • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
      And I'm sure the GOP will return medical care to it's former glory of affordability and modern technology. If they can't do that, they will convince the private, for profit sector to provide insurance and care at reasonable rates. Just in case the for-profit sector is unable to convince health care professionals, pharmacy companies and public hospitals to lower their fees, the for profit sector may find a way to deliver health care with unheard-of efficiency, lowering costs in some other way we haven't yet imagined.

      Oh wait, I know. If we just let the free market deliver health care, it will somehow become affordable for all, even if the scenarios above don't materialize. Don't get sick, but if you do, die fast.
      Now that the government is involved in yet another money making scheme to enrich themselves, separating them from it will take direct action from God.

      Think you'll get the govt. out of ANY of the things that make them money ? Even the new ones like legal pot ?

      Dream on

      ?


      • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

        Now that the government is involved in yet another money making scheme to enrich themselves, separating them from it will take direct action from God.

        Think you'll get the govt. out of ANY of the things that make them money ? Even the new ones like legal pot ?

        Dream on
        There is another option, besides the "classic two" (gov't. or for profit). The non-profit. Attach a yearly audit from a gov't. agency, divide up the country into 5 or 6 regions, each region administered by a non-profit. Mix 'n match health care insurance with actual health care, see what happens. If one regional insurance administration fails, a neighboring regional organization can take over.

        Sure, this is also a dream, since the business lobbyists (aka, for profits) have no place to get their foot in the door with this plan (other than health care for the wealthy). Add to this, your observation that gummint officials can't make a buck off of this, nor can the short-sighted politician pitch the "vote for me, I'll save you" scam. Easy to see DC establishment joining ranks with the for-profit health care sector, to bury the non-profit monster before it replaces both as a functional solution for health care cost management.

        ?


        • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
          There is another option, besides the "classic two" (gov't. or for profit). The non-profit. Attach a yearly audit from a gov't. agency, divide up the country into 5 or 6 regions, each region administered by a non-profit. Mix 'n match health care insurance with actual health care, see what happens. If one regional insurance administration fails, a neighboring regional organization can take over.

          Sure, this is also a dream, since the business lobbyists (aka, for profits) have no place to get their foot in the door with this plan (other than health care for the wealthy). Add to this, your observation that gummint officials can't make a buck off of this, nor can the short-sighted politician pitch the "vote for me, I'll save you" scam. Easy to see DC establishment joining ranks with the for-profit health care sector, to bury the non-profit monster before it replaces both as a functional solution for health care cost management.
          Yeah LOL What's that saying ? Money is the root of all evil - today we see this right out in front of us. I'm always reminded of the gambling industry when "insurance" is the subject - probably because they run on the very same principles.

          But insurance sells well, even though

          The "odds" are never in your favor.

          BUT...


          What IF ????

          And IF, there's some fine print that you didn't read closely enough, that exempts them from paying out for THIS particular "IF" that you're experiencing.


          "We're very sorry, but we have to follow policy."

          ....and you realize you've been funneling money to those bastards all these years for nothing !!!

          Easy to see why "
          the government" is so attracted to involvement in the insurance market isn't it ?

          ?


          • ... and we don't see them in any hurry to get their octopus tentacles out of it..

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

            ...

            You see, government needs to get completely out of the Individual Market; Congress needs to let the Individual Market be totally private.

            But what weve seen with the various Republican repeal and replace plans is that they retain government involvement in the Individual Market. Continuing the governments involvement in the Individual Market with the individual mandate and subsidies is the Republicans Big Mistake in their replacement plans.

            ..a question that should be asked of all congressional Republicans: Will you vote to repeal the individual mandate? Any GOP congressman who is for the repeal of the individual mandate cannot also be for the federal governments continued involvement in the Individual Market, because that market depends on that mandate. In their repeal and replace plans, Republicans are sabotaging themselves by being for contradictory things.

            If people dont have the funds to pay the full price for health insurance premiums, deductibles and copays, then they need to be put into Medicaid. Congress should especially be putting ACA subsidy recipients with pre-existing conditions into Medicaid. All taxpayers should be helping to pay for those very sick poor people, rather than having a disproportionate amount of it paid by those in the Individual Market.

            Besides being incoherent, the Supreme Court decision to uphold the individual mandate was a rewrite of the ACA. The Court did not defer to Congress when it saved Obamacare, it legislated. Congress should resent the Courts usurpation of its power to write law. If the high court will not strike down bad law, then it is left to Congress to do so.


            http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...ent_plans.html

            ?


            • Originally posted by radcentr View Post

              There is another option, besides the "classic two" (gov't. or for profit). The non-profit. Attach a yearly audit from a gov't. agency, divide up the country into 5 or 6 regions, each region administered by a non-profit. Mix 'n match health care insurance with actual health care, see what happens. If one regional insurance administration fails, a neighboring regional organization can take over.

              Sure, this is also a dream, since the business lobbyists (aka, for profits) have no place to get their foot in the door with this plan (other than health care for the wealthy). Add to this, your observation that gummint officials can't make a buck off of this, nor can the short-sighted politician pitch the "vote for me, I'll save you" scam. Easy to see DC establishment joining ranks with the for-profit health care sector, to bury the non-profit monster before it replaces both as a functional solution for health care cost management.
              I thought we discussed how all of those non=profits failed when the government cut their funding.

              ?


              • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                I thought we discussed how all of those non=profits failed when the government cut their funding.
                What insurance sector survived the gummint plan, once subsidies were cut? The answer -everybody goes in widespread implosion. There are more than a few non-profit health care providers who have survived decades, well before ACA came on the scene. If or when legislation handles a few conditions outside their control, solutions can be found. Deal with these conditions, OMD:
                -There are restrictions on what the for-profit industry can do for non-wealthy patients. If it can't be sold on volume or subsidized by gummint, the non-wealthy force for-profits to the sidelines. Neither political party will deal with this issue.
                -The mirror image of this condition -non wealthy cannot pay for most of the "cutting edge" technology, or even some older medical procedures, without subsidies from somewhere. The GOP proposed a voucher program that allows them to ignore the complexity in medical insurance & care. The Dems have chosen one and only one alternative -subsidies from the gummint.
                -If the GOP (or their Dem pals) paid more than lip service to supply and demand, they would have had a scholarship program in place 40 years ago, to ensure non-wealthy, competent students were graduating medical/nursing schools with less than $10,000 in academic debt. The GOP would have cobbled together state, federal and private sector resources to get there, while the Dems probably would have done the Big Fed approach as usual. Instead, both parties ignored the issue and caved in to the financial sector's desire to push private loans.
                -Both parties ignored drafting proposals from every sector (private for/non-profit, gov't hospitals, medicare/medicaid) providing insurance and health care. If we knew costs were going to spiral out of control starting 30 years ago, the condition of ignorance by legislators had to be accepted first. Then humbly ask the entire health care sector (not just for profits, not just public hospitals) to make proposals. Debate that first, make that drive legislation, instead of trying to "beat down" health care costs from a lawmaker's position of ignorance. If a proposal wasn't affordable, send it back or take it off the table. By now, we would have had a decent replacement for the uncontrolled health care costs we suffer today.

                ?


                • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                  ... and we don't see them in any hurry to get their octopus tentacles out of it..

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

                  ...

                  You see, government needs to get completely out of the Individual Market; Congress needs to let the Individual Market be totally private.

                  But what weve seen with the various Republican repeal and replace plans is that they retain government involvement in the Individual Market. Continuing the governments involvement in the Individual Market with the individual mandate and subsidies is the Republicans Big Mistake in their replacement plans.

                  ..a question that should be asked of all congressional Republicans: Will you vote to repeal the individual mandate? Any GOP congressman who is for the repeal of the individual mandate cannot also be for the federal governments continued involvement in the Individual Market, because that market depends on that mandate. In their repeal and replace plans, Republicans are sabotaging themselves by being for contradictory things.

                  If people dont have the funds to pay the full price for health insurance premiums, deductibles and copays, then they need to be put into Medicaid. Congress should especially be putting ACA subsidy recipients with pre-existing conditions into Medicaid. All taxpayers should be helping to pay for those very sick poor people, rather than having a disproportionate amount of it paid by those in the Individual Market.

                  Besides being incoherent, the Supreme Court decision to uphold the individual mandate was a rewrite of the ACA. The Court did not defer to Congress when it saved Obamacare, it legislated. Congress should resent the Courts usurpation of its power to write law. If the high court will not strike down bad law, then it is left to Congress to do so.


                  http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...ent_plans.html
                  The private insurance market won't be completely private when it comes to health care costs. Why? Because it's health care, which is not an option like driving a car. HC insurance is (1) ignored by the individual, then paid by the taxpayer when (not if) the individual must use expensive health care. Or (2) HC insurance will be subsidized by an organization(s) up to a point where the individual can afford to pay the remainder of the costs. However, (3) it is completely private for the wealthy, who can afford strict 2-party contracts (just the patient and the insurance company). Everyone is subsidizing health care through gov't. loss. The employer subsidizes employees' health care costs, and passes on theft and other waste (by insurance and health care providers) to the taxpayer, in the form of payroll discounts on taxes they pay. If we want to minimize insurance costs, we can require regular audits. Making medical insurance optional is just kicking the can (full of huge medical bills) down the road. In short, the private health insurance industry might be affordable, but only if it includes non-profits in the mix, and is subject to regular audits by an independent agency.

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    The private insurance market won't be completely private when it comes to health care costs. Why? Because it's health care, which is not an option like driving a car. HC insurance is (1) ignored by the individual, then paid by the taxpayer when (not if) the individual must use expensive health care. Or (2) HC insurance will be subsidized by an organization(s) up to a point where the individual can afford to pay the remainder of the costs. However, (3) it is completely private for the wealthy, who can afford strict 2-party contracts (just the patient and the insurance company). Everyone is subsidizing health care through gov't. loss. The employer subsidizes employees' health care costs, and passes on theft and other waste (by insurance and health care providers) to the taxpayer, in the form of payroll discounts on taxes they pay. If we want to minimize insurance costs, we can require regular audits. Making medical insurance optional is just kicking the can (full of huge medical bills) down the road. In short, the private health insurance industry might be affordable, but only if it includes non-profits in the mix, and is subject to regular audits by an independent agency.
                    Getting even MORE bureaucrats involved .. that will help bring down costs LOL

                    I don't know, it doesn't sound good. The more people you get involved, the more expensive things will GET.

                    ... or are most of them working for free ?

                    ?



                    • We'll see what happens with this.

                      =======================

                      Judge: Trump Doesn't Have to Resume Obamacare Subsidies

                      A U.S. judge ruled Wednesday that the government does not have to immediately resume paying "Obamacare" health care subsidies that President Donald Trump cut off.

                      U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco said the Trump administration had the "stronger legal argument" and the emergency relief sought by the states would be "counterproductive" since they had devised workarounds to the lost subsidies that give millions of lower-income people better health care options.

                      The Trump administration had announced earlier this month that it will cut off cost-sharing reduction payments, which aim to reduce out-of-pocket costs for lower-income people.

                      Trump has said Obama's law is imploding and has criticized the subsidies as insurance company bailouts. The White House says the government cannot legally continue paying the subsidies because there is no formal authorization from Congress.

                      Chhabria peppered an attorney for California with questions about why he should force the administration to resume payments when the states had devised a workaround that would benefit many consumers.

                      "The state of California is standing on the courthouse steps denouncing the president for taking away people's health care, when the truth is that California has come up with a solution to that issue that is going to result in better health care for a lot of people," Chhabria said.

                      Gregory Brown, who represented California at the hearing, said the loss of the subsidies was creating "uncertainty and chaos" that could lead insurance companies to opt out of the health law.

                      The states argue that the Trump administration violated a law requiring government agencies to obey existing statutes and follow orderly and transparent procedures.

                      Democratic attorneys general have pushed back against Trump's agenda in the federal courts, looking to block the president's attempts to roll back Obama's policies on the environment, health care and immigration.

                      The states joining California in the lawsuit are: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, along with the District of Columbia.


                      http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-.../25/id/822115/

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                        Getting even MORE bureaucrats involved .. that will help bring down costs LOL

                        I don't know, it doesn't sound good. The more people you get involved, the more expensive things will GET.

                        ... or are most of them working for free ?
                        Publicly traded companies use audits on a regular basis. They use them to pitch their company as well as determining whether objectives and corrections are satisfied. It would be nice to avoid bureaucracy, but it is nearly impossible for larger organizations in both private and public sectors. Good to maximize audit efficiency (good return on investment), but the large org can't get away with no audits.

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                          Publicly traded companies use audits on a regular basis. They use them to pitch their company as well as determining whether objectives and corrections are satisfied. It would be nice to avoid bureaucracy, but it is nearly impossible for larger organizations in both private and public sectors. Good to maximize audit efficiency (good return on investment), but the large org can't get away with no audits.
                          True.

                          But, I don't know if you've noticed, but the larger a healthcare entity gets, the less efficient and more costly they become. That's been my observation.

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                            True.

                            But, I don't know if you've noticed, but the larger a healthcare entity gets, the less efficient and more costly they become. That's been my observation.
                            Couldn't agree more: "Bigger" is not always better. That's why I'd feel more comfortable with regional -not national- organizations to administer health care. Having a monster waiting in the closet,

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by radcentr View Post

                              Couldn't agree more: "Bigger" is not always better. That's why I'd feel more comfortable with regional -not national- organizations to administer health care. Having a monster waiting in the closet,
                              Exactly.

                              Bigger gets you; "We're sorry, but it's not our policy to treat these things until we get a referral from _______.

                              Or; "You're Dr. isn't in our network, I'm sorry but we can't help you."

                              and 500 other ridiculous excuses you'll be blessed with, as you seek to find out what's wrong with you.


                              This is the kind of sh^t that is considered medical care in our age.

                              It's sick & wrong and the result of too much money and too much government involvement. Government is not the solution, it's the problem.

                              ?


                              • Patients are statistics to the gov't. No one individual matters.

                                Large practices see so many people that they spend less time with the patient. Form no personal connection. The more personal the connection, the more you care about the person and understand their individual medical needs. And in large practices you often see different doctors, again reducing the person connection.

                                Referrals do nothing but increase doctor visits where nothing or less is accomplished. This is in addition to the blanket policy, where doctors will not get paid if they provide two or more services or treatments for the patient in one day, even if it's for completely separate issues.

                                And capitated payments encourage doctors to have patients come back, so they can get paid for another visit because they get paid so little for many more costly services.

                                The bigger the organization, the more removed the decision makers get from the patient and their illness.

                                There is so much waste being paid for with managed care, while necessary treatments are being short paid or denied. A completely inefficient system that forces inefficiency on providers.

                                Socialized medicine sucks. Tax payers forced generosity pays for medicaid and managed care is reasonable to keep costs down, but the working sector should not have to be subject to strangers calling the shots for medical care that they're paying for.

                                ACA is nothing but medicaid expansion. Instead of raising taxes to pay for more welfare, gov't infiltrated the medical insurance business to get the working class to pay for it directly through insurance payments.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X