Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

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

AND

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

AND

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

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONSEQUENCES

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

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

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

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

PRIVACY POLICY

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

SUBSCRIPTIONS

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

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

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

  • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    Get stuck with local health care bills that go unpaid, then. You could allow people to use a catastrophic insurance plan, that pays only after out of pocket of 5 or 10 thousand is reached. Barring the mandate, one advantage of no coverage is less expense for those who go without, until they need expensive health care.
    Unless and until ".. they need expensive health care."

    Not everyone needs "expensive" medical care...

    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    While the Dems claim a monopoly provider will do well, some of the GOP have claimed no coverage for pre-existing conditions or no mandate will lower costs. No coverage for pre-existing conditions is a deal breaker (arguably reason #1 why people want insurance). No mandate will push the catastrophic health care bills down to the local level for payment, or break public hospitals after awhile. One thing I've heard on right wing radio -suggesting people don't use insurance, instead going to emergency rooms for treatment. In addition to eliminating preventive treatment, emergency rooms will instead rack up very large bills for consequences of no preventive treatment. (fe) The emergency room treats heart attacks, rather than prescribe statin drugs to prevent or lower the frequency of heart attacks. Penny wise, pound foolish. Someone has to pay those bills, if the public hospitals continue to exist.
    None of this supports giving the government power to force a cookie cutter medical insurance mandate onto the American citizenry.

    They simply have no authority to do so.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Then you would accept the gov't. forcing the few adults who need expensive health care, but had no insurance to pay for it, into a lifetime mortgage to pay a larger portion than they do now? That would satisfy your desire to permit individual adults to not buy insurance.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
        Then you would accept the gov't. forcing the few adults who need expensive health care, but had no insurance to pay for it, into a lifetime mortgage to pay a larger portion than they do now? That would satisfy your desire to permit individual adults to not buy insurance.
        There's no good reason for government "authority" in peoples medical care and finances related to it. I have no "desire" to satisfy, other than the fact that America is a country of free people, able to decide and take their own path through life.

        "The government" hasn't the authority to force people to buy things.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

          There's no good reason for government "authority" in peoples medical care and finances related to it. I have no "desire" to satisfy, other than the fact that America is a country of free people, able to decide and take their own path through life.

          "The government" hasn't the authority to force people to buy things.
          Of course not. What I proposed is that gov't. is used to force people to pay their bills. Why yes, gov't. sanctions and regs exist right now, and that practice is supported by almost all conservatives.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
            Then you would accept the gov't. forcing the few adults who need expensive health care, but had no insurance to pay for it, into a lifetime mortgage to pay a larger portion than they do now? That would satisfy your desire to permit individual adults to not buy insurance.
            If the government hadn't gotten involved in medical care in the first place, there would not be all of these huge costs for medical procedures.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

              If the government hadn't gotten involved in medical care in the first place, there would not be all of these huge costs for medical procedures.
              If all those medical advances that cost money to develop and administer didn't happen, medical costs would be lower. If patients had used hunger strike campaigns to pressure all parties (medical staff, companies developing medicines and tech, for-profit insurance companies and gov't.), there would not be all of these huge costs for medical procedures. Oh wait, you were claiming gov't. is responsible for all inflation in the medical field over the last several decades. Why don't you explain how the other parties I mentioned are not responsible for any of that inflation.

              In the meantime, let's see how CT answers the question in post 1834.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                If all those medical advances that cost money to develop and administer didn't happen, medical costs would be lower. If patients had used hunger strike campaigns to pressure all parties (medical staff, companies developing medicines and tech, for-profit insurance companies and gov't.), there would not be all of these huge costs for medical procedures. Oh wait, you were claiming gov't. is responsible for all inflation in the medical field over the last several decades. Why don't you explain how the other parties I mentioned are not responsible for any of that inflation.

                In the meantime, let's see how CT answers the question in post 1834.
                We had massive medical advances earlier in the century without massive increases in costs. When deep pockets government stepped in, the costs soared just like they have done with college education.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                  Get stuck with local health care bills that go unpaid, then. You could allow people to use a catastrophic insurance plan, that pays only after out of pocket of 5 or 10 thousand is reached. Barring the mandate, one advantage of no coverage is less expense for those who go without, until they need expensive health care.
                  Medical care

                  You still haven't shown how involving government in peoples medical care and financial decisions relating to it, will improve it or make it less costly.

                  ... Oh, we want "everybody to continually pay into a giant fund" to socialize our medical care ?

                  And what corrupt fools will you decide to trust to manage that ?

                  Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                  While the Dems claim a monopoly provider will do well, some of the GOP have claimed no coverage for pre-existing conditions or no mandate will lower costs. No coverage for pre-existing conditions is a deal breaker (arguably reason #1 why people want insurance). No mandate will push the catastrophic health care bills down to the local level for payment, or break public hospitals after awhile. One thing I've heard on right wing radio -suggesting people don't use insurance, instead going to emergency rooms for treatment. In addition to eliminating preventive treatment, emergency rooms will instead rack up very large bills for consequences of no preventive treatment. (fe) The emergency room treats heart attacks, rather than prescribe statin drugs to prevent or lower the frequency of heart attacks. Penny wise, pound foolish. Someone has to pay those bills, if the public hospitals continue to exist.
                  Those bills that have grown exponentially since government has gotten involved in it.

                  Government will never make peoples medical cares better, cheaper or easier to get.

                  It is fantasy to believe it will.

                  Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                  We had massive medical advances earlier in the century without massive increases in costs. When deep pockets government stepped in, the costs soared just like they have done with college education.
                  Which hurt medical costs even more ! How costly and crazy it is for licenses, insurance etc.. AND EDUCATION for medical providers !

                  .. who have to pay for that education.... somehow !!

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                    Medical care

                    You still haven't shown how involving government in peoples medical care and financial decisions relating to it, will improve it or make it less costly.

                    ... Oh, we want "everybody to continually pay into a giant fund" to socialize our medical care ?

                    And what corrupt fools will you decide to trust to manage that ?



                    Those bills that have grown exponentially since government has gotten involved in it.

                    Government will never make peoples medical cares better, cheaper or easier to get.

                    It is fantasy to believe it will.



                    Which hurt medical costs even more ! How costly and crazy it is for licenses, insurance etc.. AND EDUCATION for medical providers !

                    .. who have to pay for that education.... somehow !!
                    Here is what one author from the CATO Institute has to say about gov't. participation in health care inflation:
                    Mandated health benefits and excessive health services regulation at the state and federal levels unquestionably boost health care costs - estimates might range from a conservative 10 percent to as much as 25 percent, on average ...
                    https://www.cato.org/publications/co...n-health-plans
                    Not the overwhelming juggernaut causing all inflation, but still, 25% on regs and administration is too much. Nor have I claimed Gov't. single-payer is the best option. I want a regional setup, perhaps 5 different non-profit, non gov't. organizations offering administration in as many regions. The major role played by gummint? A regular audit of their finances and operations.

                    Could you clarify your position on gummint forcing more payment of medical bills, when uninsured adults run up a "Big One"? This isn't about gummint forcing people to buy something; it is forcing people to pay bills. This concept is already supported in practice by libs and conservatives alike, if one looks at the criminal/civil code. What has to get paid by the one who Bought Something varies by detail over time, but the concept is strongly supported by almost everyone: If you buy something, you are almost always legally obligated to pay for it.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      Here is what one author from the CATO Institute has to say about gov't. participation in health care inflation:
                      https://www.cato.org/publications/co...n-health-plans
                      Not the overwhelming juggernaut causing all inflation, but still, 25% on regs and administration is too much. Nor have I claimed Gov't. single-payer is the best option. I want a regional setup, perhaps 5 different non-profit, non gov't. organizations offering administration in as many regions.
                      That may be possible. Many forces will be against such things. Forces of greedy people who wish to keep $ flowing into their accounts. That's a powerful motivator, so it will be a seriously uphill battle.

                      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      The major role played by gummint? A regular audit of their finances and operations.
                      This will not have a positive effect on cost savings. Govt. involvement doesn't have that effect.

                      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      Could you clarify your position on gummint forcing more payment of medical bills, when uninsured adults run up a "Big One"? This isn't about gummint forcing people to buy something; it is forcing people to pay bills.
                      It's also about a philosophy and what our rights to life are. If a teenager from a poor family gets in an auto accident and has to have an immediate cranial surgery - removal of a hematoma - which can cost up to $100,000.oo, should "the government" force him and his family into years of forced slave labor to pay it off ?

                      Maybe the hospital, or even surgeon would provide the service free of cost, done for the sole purpose of saving a life - because we value lives.

                      Or perhaps the community will willingly donate funds to assist them - this kind of thing happens quite regularly with no forces of "government" necessary.

                      People regularly donate blood to save other peoples lives. People DO give, to help others, as they will likely need help eventually too.

                      The argument is over whether or not it's wise to get the government involved.

                      It is definitely NOT.

                      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      This concept is already supported in practice by libs and conservatives alike, if one looks at the criminal/civil code. What has to get paid by the one who Bought Something varies by detail over time, but the concept is strongly supported by almost everyone: If you buy something, you are almost always legally obligated to pay for it.
                      Yes, you're obligated to pay for something you willingly purchased.

                      Did that teenager I was talking about above, willingly purchase the removal of a cranial hematoma, so he could live ?

                      He didn't.

                      Should he get a bill in the mail for $ 83,465.00 when he's recovered ? Perhaps. Perhaps not... That people will step up and assist, with no use of threats or force, is something we do see.

                      We value life, so tend to want to help save it.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                        That may be possible. Many forces will be against such things. Forces of greedy people who wish to keep $ flowing into their accounts. That's a powerful motivator, so it will be a seriously uphill battle.



                        This will not have a positive effect on cost savings. Govt. involvement doesn't have that effect.



                        It's also about a philosophy and what our rights to life are. If a teenager from a poor family gets in an auto accident and has to have an immediate cranial surgery - removal of a hematoma - which can cost up to $100,000.oo, should "the government" force him and his family into years of forced slave labor to pay it off ?

                        Maybe the hospital, or even surgeon would provide the service free of cost, done for the sole purpose of saving a life - because we value lives.

                        Or perhaps the community will willingly donate funds to assist them - this kind of thing happens quite regularly with no forces of "government" necessary.

                        People regularly donate blood to save other peoples lives. People DO give, to help others, as they will likely need help eventually too.

                        The argument is over whether or not it's wise to get the government involved.

                        It is definitely NOT.



                        Yes, you're obligated to pay for something you willingly purchased.

                        Did that teenager I was talking about above, willingly purchase the removal of a cranial hematoma, so he could live ?

                        He didn't.

                        Should he get a bill in the mail for $ 83,465.00 when he's recovered ? Perhaps. Perhaps not... That people will step up and assist, with no use of threats or force, is something we do see.

                        We value life, so tend to want to help save it.
                        Before Obamacare and to some extent now, hospitals wrote off those costs as indigent claims. The person in the car wreck was treated, he was billed but if he didn't or couldn't pay the bill, the hospital absorbed the cost and their total costs were reflected in the insurance rates paid by the rest of us.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                          Before Obamacare and to some extent now, hospitals wrote off those costs as indigent claims. The person in the car wreck was treated, he was billed but if he didn't or couldn't pay the bill, the hospital absorbed the cost and their total costs were reflected in the insurance rates paid by the rest of us.
                          So why do we need government involvement in this again ? They're going to make it cheaper and easier to get ? HOW ???

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                            Before Obamacare and to some extent now, hospitals wrote off those costs as indigent claims. The person in the car wreck was treated, he was billed but if he didn't or couldn't pay the bill, the hospital absorbed the cost and their total costs were reflected in the insurance rates paid by the rest of us.
                            The cost is either absorbed by insurance rates or taxes paid by the rest of us, which support the nearest public hospital. The hematoma example is a fine one; I'm sure lots of local folks will pony up, the rest won't mind paying extra taxes or premium costs for these unforeseen events.

                            As for the adult whose family history makes it clear he will need regular treatment for liver problems, maybe a transplant before he reaches 40 years of age? How about the young adult who always admitted he was way too enthusiastic about his skills at downhill skiing? People are going to balk at paying up in these circumstances. Less because of fault (neither case is much different than the cause behind a hematoma), rather because of predictability. Both young adults knew they should have at least catastrophic coverage due to their circumstances, but chose to go without. I don't want to pay the bill for a young adult who chooses to buy a car he can't afford. Therefore, it is just as reasonable for me to expect the same enforcement of the civil obligation to pay for anticipated expenses, whether that be thru a guaranteed acceptance into a cheap, catastrophic HC insurance, or a lifetime mortgage.

                            CT's compassion for adults who lack concern for their fellow taxpayer's wallets aside, I'm not proposing a lifetime of crushing debt for medical bills, even if they could have been avoided. I'm proposing a lifetime of uncomfortable debt, only for those adults who should have foreseen their risk of behavior or health conditions, and blew off taking on so much as a cheap, catastrophic policy. That is one example of where an audit comes in handy. Failing to investigate circumstances that place a significant burden on insurance customers or taxpayers is a placing a needless burden on others. The insurance company applies audits to control for extra risky behaviors by their customers, there is good reason for the gov't. to do the same to minimize impact on taxpayers.

                            Ain't rocket science. If I knew I needed coverage for an essential service needed by everyone, and didn't get it despite my risk factors, I need to pay an uncomfortable portion of a large debt. Maybe I won't pay off the whole thing anyway, and gov't./customers will foot part of the bill. But if I pay nothing, it encourages others to defraud us with this costly, bad behavior.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                              The cost is either absorbed by insurance rates or taxes paid by the rest of us, which support the nearest public hospital. The hematoma example is a fine one; I'm sure lots of local folks will pony up, the rest won't mind paying extra taxes or premium costs for these unforeseen events.

                              As for the adult whose family history makes it clear he will need regular treatment for liver problems, maybe a transplant before he reaches 40 years of age? How about the young adult who always admitted he was way too enthusiastic about his skills at downhill skiing? People are going to balk at paying up in these circumstances. Less because of fault (neither case is much different than the cause behind a hematoma), rather because of predictability. Both young adults knew they should have at least catastrophic coverage due to their circumstances, but chose to go without. I don't want to pay the bill for a young adult who chooses to buy a car he can't afford. Therefore, it is just as reasonable for me to expect the same enforcement of the civil obligation to pay for anticipated expenses, whether that be thru a guaranteed acceptance into a cheap, catastrophic HC insurance, or a lifetime mortgage.

                              CT's compassion for adults who lack concern for their fellow taxpayer's wallets aside, I'm not proposing a lifetime of crushing debt for medical bills, even if they could have been avoided. I'm proposing a lifetime of uncomfortable debt, only for those adults who should have foreseen their risk of behavior or health conditions, and blew off taking on so much as a cheap, catastrophic policy. That is one example of where an audit comes in handy. Failing to investigate circumstances that place a significant burden on insurance customers or taxpayers is a placing a needless burden on others. The insurance company applies audits to control for extra risky behaviors by their customers, there is good reason for the gov't. to do the same to minimize impact on taxpayers.

                              Ain't rocket science. If I knew I needed coverage for an essential service needed by everyone, and didn't get it despite my risk factors, I need to pay an uncomfortable portion of a large debt. Maybe I won't pay off the whole thing anyway, and gov't./customers will foot part of the bill. But if I pay nothing, it encourages others to defraud us with this costly, bad behavior.
                              Obamacare took away the option of a cheap catastrophic policy. Those were available and frequently bought prior to government intervention into the system.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                                Obamacare took away the option of a cheap catastrophic policy. Those were available and frequently bought prior to government intervention into the system.
                                And the conservatives could make those cheap policies possible again. Make people responsible for expensive medical decisions (or lack thereof) thru a lifetime medical mortgage, and we have a winner. A one-two option for people to keep themselves from drowning themselves in medical debt, at a low monthly cost. Low cost catastrophic is the carrot, lifetime medical mortgage is the stick.

                                People don't have to behave responsibly with taxpayer's money, but it should be less expensive for everyone to do so.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X