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

  • It's ridiculous to believe that the government will take better care of people by rationing the pot of money. One would have to have no faith in society and their fellow man to believe that people will not step up and help their fellow man when not being forced by the government. Doctors, friends, family, and neighbors would be more generous if they were not being financially raped by the government. They'd have more money to be generous and they'd have more desire to be generous when they know government isn't going to cover the bills.

    I propose that only the lazy or selfish believe that government should be in charge of healthcare, as they believe all people are like themselves.

    ?


    • Originally posted by msc View Post
      It's ridiculous to believe that the government will take better care of people by rationing the pot of money. One would have to have no faith in society and their fellow man to believe that people will not step up and help their fellow man when not being forced by the government. Doctors, friends, family, and neighbors would be more generous if they were not being financially raped by the government. They'd have more money to be generous and they'd have more desire to be generous when they know government isn't going to cover the bills.

      I propose that only the lazy or selfish believe that government should be in charge of healthcare, as they believe all people are like themselves.
      In some cases, private charity can do a better job. In other cases, no. Link:
      Yet that should not lead us to the conclusion that government can do a better job than private charity. Indeed, Konczal and Hitzik avoid the fact that there is a huge apparatus of government-funded social programswhether job training, early childhood education, or foster carewhich have proven ineffective. In reality, there are all sorts of social services in which the state has shown that it cannot, effectively, replace charity. To understand whats wrong with the charity cant replace government argument, however, one must first understand whats right with it.

      The sheer provision of income in exigency is something government can do well. Government, in other words, can be very good at sending out checkswhether the program is social security, the earned income tax credit, food stamps or unemployment compensation. Although waste and fraud are serious problems, it does a (basically) good job paying those who provide health care services through Medicare and Medicaid. This is to say that to the extent that we decide, as a polity, to redistribute income for certain purposes, government can do so.
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardh.../#485ceb4979e2
      Gummint was given a failing grade by the Forbes article, as far as their ability to organize actual charitable services.

      One thing the conservatives could do, is bring back fewer restrictions on cooperatives or collectives. These used to be called "mutual aid societies" before the Big Socialist Age (initiated by FDR). Should they be able to scale up, compete in an interstate market with open membership, we might be able to get discounted (maybe even affordable) prices due to high volume and competition. This could be done at the same time conservatives (and enlightened liberals) deconstruct the inefficient "service sector" of gov't. charities, while leaving the "funding sector" largely intact. That would save big bucks, preserve what gov't. does well, and provide the environment for a big comeback from private, non profit mutual aid societies.

      As far as depending on fellow citizens to step up to help fellows in deep medical trouble, that is not a good plan in every case. The two examples I gave (family history of liver failure, downhill skier) are clear examples of abuse of public goodwill, when they pass up an opportunity to at least take on catastrophic health insurance. If catastrophic insurance isn't available, then make it so, but don't ask the public to be victims of people who refuse to protect themselves, when the need is obvious, the protection is both affordable and available.

      ?


      • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
        In some cases, private charity can do a better job. In other cases, no. Link:

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardh.../#485ceb4979e2
        Gummint was given a failing grade by the Forbes article, as far as their ability to organize actual charitable services.

        One thing the conservatives could do, is bring back fewer restrictions on cooperatives or collectives. These used to be called "mutual aid societies" before the Big Socialist Age (initiated by FDR). Should they be able to scale up, compete in an interstate market with open membership, we might be able to get discounted (maybe even affordable) prices due to high volume and competition. This could be done at the same time conservatives (and enlightened liberals) deconstruct the inefficient "service sector" of gov't. charities, while leaving the "funding sector" largely intact. That would save big bucks, preserve what gov't. does well, and provide the environment for a big comeback from private, non profit mutual aid societies.

        As far as depending on fellow citizens to step up to help fellows in deep medical trouble, that is not a good plan in every case. The two examples I gave (family history of liver failure, downhill skier) are clear examples of abuse of public goodwill, when they pass up an opportunity to at least take on catastrophic health insurance. If catastrophic insurance isn't available, then make it so, but don't ask the public to be victims of people who refuse to protect themselves, when the need is obvious, the protection is both affordable and available.
        I agree, catastrophic policies are important. But what I'm talking about is family taking care of family and other people they love.

        I guess I think of how I was raised..

        My Grandmother took care of her senile sister who had NO money, until she passed. She was not paid.

        My fathers family took care of my grandmother, keeping her in her home, paying all the bills, fixing things around the house. The grandchildren that lived close to her, went to her home to care for her needs, (did her hair, helped her bathe, etc.) People in the neighborhood stopped by to see if she needed anything from the grocery store. No one was paid.

        My brother, without being asked, used to voluntarily mow the lawn of an old lady down the street. He was not paid.

        When my father came back from the army, my Mom took her mother, who had Alzheimer's, out of the nursing home, who didn't care for her well, into her home to take care of her and so she could be with family. Wasn't easy and was costly, but she did it and they were not paid.

        Now my mom is 82 and can barely move around. She lives in my house and my siblings help me take care of her. It would be much easier to put her in a nursing home, but we take care of her because we love her. We do not get paid.

        I and many other people drove neighbors kids to school for working parents. We did not get paid.

        When I was a girl scout leader, we would by a Thanksgiving dinner for a family in need in our neighborhood. Some of the girls continued to bring them things voluntarily throughout the year.

        I think many people are like this. And I believe the more people are in need without help, the more people step up voluntarily. But we help more so, because we actually see who is in need opposed to the gov't who collects our money and time of our hard work, then wastes it on people who can do for themselves, but choose not to. We have little time and money left to help the people in need that we would want to and would help otherwise.

        ?


        • Originally posted by msc View Post
          It's ridiculous to believe that the government will take better care of people by rationing the pot of money. One would have to have no faith in society and their fellow man to believe that people will not step up and help their fellow man when not being forced by the government. Doctors, friends, family, and neighbors would be more generous if they were not being financially raped by the government. They'd have more money to be generous and they'd have more desire to be generous when they know government isn't going to cover the bills.

          I propose that only the lazy or selfish believe that government should be in charge of healthcare, as they believe all people are like themselves.
          That sums it up perfectly and what we see, WHO we see pushing this crap down our throats.

          Government is the problem NOT the solution.

          ?


          • Originally posted by msc View Post

            I agree, catastrophic policies are important. But what I'm talking about is family taking care of family and other people they love.

            I guess I think of how I was raised..

            My Grandmother took care of her senile sister who had NO money, until she passed. She was not paid.

            My fathers family took care of my grandmother, keeping her in her home, paying all the bills, fixing things around the house. The grandchildren that lived close to her, went to her home to care for her needs, (did her hair, helped her bathe, etc.) People in the neighborhood stopped by to see if she needed anything from the grocery store. No one was paid.

            My brother, without being asked, used to voluntarily mow the lawn of an old lady down the street. He was not paid.

            When my father came back from the army, my Mom took her mother, who had Alzheimer's, out of the nursing home, who didn't care for her well, into her home to take care of her and so she could be with family. Wasn't easy and was costly, but she did it and they were not paid.

            Now my mom is 82 and can barely move around. She lives in my house and my siblings help me take care of her. It would be much easier to put her in a nursing home, but we take care of her because we love her. We do not get paid.
            Too often, that's what we do to our elderly. Put them in "nursing homes."

            What's funny - or not so funny really - is that none of us gets to escape becoming elderly (unless of course we die young) ... yet we think that we're going to be treated well when we become elderly, after essentially throwing our relatives away ? .. and if you've ever lived in, or worked in one of these "nursing homes retirement communities" places, you know that that's what you're doing - throwing your loved one away. These places are disgusting - I don't care how expensive they are, or how great they seem to be, the people being cared for are numbers - products essentially - to be dealt with as quickly as possible and rushed onto the next "activity."

            They aren't treated with real love & care, and not a great deal of personal time is spent with them.

            Only a friend or relative can provide this.

            In today's America, we throw our kids away to public "schools," so we can "work," then turn around and throw our elders away .. so we can work.

            Yet wonder why things don't work LOL

            Originally posted by msc View Post
            I and many other people drove neighbors kids to school for working parents. We did not get paid.

            When I was a girl scout leader, we would by a Thanksgiving dinner for a family in need in our neighborhood. Some of the girls continued to bring them things voluntarily throughout the year.

            I think many people are like this. And I believe the more people are in need without help, the more people step up voluntarily. But we help more so, because we actually see who is in need opposed to the gov't who collects our money and time of our hard work, then wastes it on people who can do for themselves, but choose not to. We have little time and money left to help the people in need that we would want to and would help otherwise.
            Our time and currency has become so much devalued we're seeing the results.

            Yes, people do want to help. But how CAN they and still afford to pay their regular bills ? Where do we think all that value has gone ? Who gets it ?

            Our overbearing government and very well paid government personnel. I wonder ... do we think they would ever stop voting themselves raises, so they could see what life is like for the rest of us ?

            Do criminals ever give up their ill gotten gains ? I've never seen it happen.

            ?


            • Originally posted by msc View Post

              I agree, catastrophic policies are important. But what I'm talking about is family taking care of family and other people they love.

              I guess I think of how I was raised..

              My Grandmother took care of her senile sister who had NO money, until she passed. She was not paid.

              My fathers family took care of my grandmother, keeping her in her home, paying all the bills, fixing things around the house. The grandchildren that lived close to her, went to her home to care for her needs, (did her hair, helped her bathe, etc.) People in the neighborhood stopped by to see if she needed anything from the grocery store. No one was paid.

              My brother, without being asked, used to voluntarily mow the lawn of an old lady down the street. He was not paid.

              When my father came back from the army, my Mom took her mother, who had Alzheimer's, out of the nursing home, who didn't care for her well, into her home to take care of her and so she could be with family. Wasn't easy and was costly, but she did it and they were not paid.

              Now my mom is 82 and can barely move around. She lives in my house and my siblings help me take care of her. It would be much easier to put her in a nursing home, but we take care of her because we love her. We do not get paid.

              I and many other people drove neighbors kids to school for working parents. We did not get paid.

              When I was a girl scout leader, we would by a Thanksgiving dinner for a family in need in our neighborhood. Some of the girls continued to bring them things voluntarily throughout the year.

              I think many people are like this. And I believe the more people are in need without help, the more people step up voluntarily. But we help more so, because we actually see who is in need opposed to the gov't who collects our money and time of our hard work, then wastes it on people who can do for themselves, but choose not to. We have little time and money left to help the people in need that we would want to and would help otherwise.
              Agreed, it is much better to care for one's neighbors and family. The wife and I cared for her mother in our home, we didn't get paid. When we took her to see the pulmonologist, we would have been deep in debt if there hadn't been Medicaid to help pay the bills. At the end of her life, she spent one week in hospital intensive care before passing. Another huge bill on top of the grieving period, if it weren't for gov't picking up the lion's share of the cost. You see, her regular doctor didn't have the capacity to diagnose or treat her disease, so a specialist from the local public hospital (also part of state medical school) was required. She was happy to be a case study for the students going for their specialty, under the care of her skilled doctor. The expense could not be avoided, but it extended her life by several years, and I like to think she paid back what she could. Although she was poor, she provided a public service by volunteering her case (a rare lung disease) to educate a few students and a few experienced physicians, on proper diagnosis.

              ?


              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                Agreed, it is much better to care for one's neighbors and family. The wife and I cared for her mother in our home, we didn't get paid. When we took her to see the pulmonologist, we would have been deep in debt if there hadn't been Medicaid to help pay the bills. At the end of her life, she spent one week in hospital intensive care before passing. Another huge bill on top of the grieving period, if it weren't for gov't picking up the lion's share of the cost. You see, her regular doctor didn't have the capacity to diagnose or treat her disease, so a specialist from the local public hospital (also part of state medical school) was required. She was happy to be a case study for the students going for their specialty, under the care of her skilled doctor. The expense could not be avoided, but it extended her life by several years, and I like to think she paid back what she could. Although she was poor, she provided a public service by volunteering her case (a rare lung disease) to educate a few students and a few experienced physicians, on proper diagnosis.
                But you miss my point. Yes medicaid is needed now, but that's because the government has taken the ability to help away from those who would have been able to help had the government not taken all their time and money. Doctors can not afford to be generous with their services any longer.

                When I was young, my doctor came to my house once, when I was very sick, because he didn't want me to go out into the cold. My mother said that often he did not charge for a follow up visit. Now, rarely do doctors make home visits because that is time that they must otherwise spend getting paid if they want to maintain their income.

                And if the gov't didn't take so much away from citizens to pay for healthcare that is irresponsibly provided, you'd have more money to help your family member.

                See the government has orchestrated the healthcare system to the point where people can't fathom how they could receive help had it not been for the government. But it is the government an law that created the circumstances where people are not able to help each other. Through donated money and time from people who care and donated time from doctors.

                Awards from frivolous law suits have also forces doctors to pay astronomical amounts for malpractice insurance. Sure there is malpractice, but more often there isn't and all doctors are paying for it. Money that otherwise could be put into patient care. They have to charge more to be in practice with all the fee's they have.

                Now they even have to charge more because the government has decided that doctors have to spend half their time doing paperwork to explain why their patient needs treatment. And even then they are not guaranteed compensation. Again spending time answering to the government that could be applied to patient care.

                The first thing insurance companies, including medicare and medicaid say when you call to verify a patients benefits and even when you send them all the clinical's and get a pre-authorization/pre-approval for the service or item, is: This does not guarantee payment. Where else are you expected to do a job or provide an item not knowing if you'll have a paycheck at the end of the day? Would you accept a job that told you, you have to come to work but you're not guaranteed a paycheck? You'll find out after the day if we're going to pay for certain things you do, or not? And often you have to fight for payment even after you sent in all the paper work they asked for with all the justification and it was approved. And often you have to take the loss because you keep getting denied the payment and it is too costly to fight for it. The patient has been treated or received the brace or item and the company does not receive compensation. Outside of the medical field, people have no idea how much service and items doctors and practitioners provide and don't get paid for.

                So many unnecessary office visits, where nothing is accomplished, is forced on the doctors and patients, that is being paid for instead of treatments. Insurance, including and following medicare and medicaid guidelines won't pay for more than one treatment per day. Patient has to come back tomorrow, paying for another visit if you have and earache and your knee hurts, which all could have been treated in one visit.

                Did you know that it is illegal to not collect a patients co-pay or co-insurance? If you get audited and they find you didn't collect it, you have to have documented justification that they find sufficient or suffer huge fines.

                Government has made healthcare un-affordable. Then professed to be the savior for people who can not afford.
                Last edited by msc; 1 week ago.

                ?


                • Originally posted by msc View Post
                  But you miss my point. Yes medicaid is needed now, but that's because the government has taken the ability to help away from those who would have been able to help had the government not taken all their time and money. Doctors can not afford to be generous with their services any longer.

                  When I was young, my doctor came to my house once, when I was very sick, because he didn't want me to go out into the cold. My mother said that often he did not charge for a follow up visit. Now, rarely do doctors make home visits because that is time that they must otherwise spend getting paid if they want to maintain their income.

                  And if the gov't didn't take so much away from citizens to pay for healthcare that is irresponsibly provided, you'd have more money to help your family member.

                  See the government has orchestrated the healthcare system to the point where people can't fathom how they could receive help had it not been for the government. But it is the government an law that created the circumstances where people are not able to help each other. Through donated money and time from people who care and donated time from doctors.

                  Awards from frivolous law suits have also forces doctors to pay astronomical amounts for malpractice insurance. Sure there is malpractice, but more often there isn't and all doctors are paying for it. Money that otherwise could be put into patient care. They have to charge more to be in practice with all the fee's they have.

                  Now they even have to charge more because the government has decided that doctors have to spend half their time doing paperwork to explain why their patient needs treatment. And even then they are not guaranteed compensation. Again spending time answering to the government that could be applied to patient care.

                  The first thing insurance companies, including medicare and medicaid say when you call to verify a patients benefits and even when you send them all the clinical's and get a pre-authorization/pre-approval for the service or item, is: This does not guarantee payment. Where else are you expected to do a job or provide an item not knowing if you'll have a paycheck at the end of the day? Would you accept a job that told you, you have to come to work but you're not guaranteed a paycheck? You'll find out after the day if we're going to pay for certain things you do, or not? And often you have to fight for payment even after you sent in all the paper work they asked for with all the justification and it was approved. And often you have to take the loss because you keep getting denied the payment and it is too costly to fight for it. The patient has been treated or received the brace or item and the company does not receive compensation. Outside of the medical field, people have no idea how much service and items doctors and practitioners provide and don't get paid for.

                  So many unnecessary office visits, where nothing is accomplished, is forced on the doctors and patients, that is being paid for instead of treatments. Insurance, including and following medicare and medicaid guidelines won't pay for more than one treatment per day. Patient has to come back tomorrow, paying for another visit if you have and earache and your knee hurts, which all could have been treated in one visit.

                  Did you know that it is illegal to not collect a patients co-pay or co-insurance? If you get audited and they find you didn't collect it, you have to have documented justification that they find sufficient or suffer huge fines.

                  Government has made healthcare un-affordable. Then professed to be the savior for people who can not afford.
                  Well said.

                  Government has made things worse, not better.

                  That they've involved themselves in the insurance gamblescam, gives away their motive. Money.

                  Just like everything else they get involved with. If there's money, they come running right over and just HAVE to find a way to "help."

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by msc View Post

                    But you miss my point. Yes medicaid is needed now, but that's because the government has taken the ability to help away from those who would have been able to help had the government not taken all their time and money. Doctors can not afford to be generous with their services any longer.

                    When I was young, my doctor came to my house once, when I was very sick, because he didn't want me to go out into the cold. My mother said that often he did not charge for a follow up visit. Now, rarely do doctors make home visits because that is time that they must otherwise spend getting paid if they want to maintain their income.

                    And if the gov't didn't take so much away from citizens to pay for healthcare that is irresponsibly provided, you'd have more money to help your family member.

                    See the government has orchestrated the healthcare system to the point where people can't fathom how they could receive help had it not been for the government. But it is the government an law that created the circumstances where people are not able to help each other. Through donated money and time from people who care and donated time from doctors.

                    Awards from frivolous law suits have also forces doctors to pay astronomical amounts for malpractice insurance. Sure there is malpractice, but more often there isn't and all doctors are paying for it. Money that otherwise could be put into patient care. They have to charge more to be in practice with all the fee's they have.

                    Now they even have to charge more because the government has decided that doctors have to spend half their time doing paperwork to explain why their patient needs treatment. And even then they are not guaranteed compensation. Again spending time answering to the government that could be applied to patient care.

                    The first thing insurance companies, including medicare and medicaid say when you call to verify a patients benefits and even when you send them all the clinical's and get a pre-authorization/pre-approval for the service or item, is: This does not guarantee payment. Where else are you expected to do a job or provide an item not knowing if you'll have a paycheck at the end of the day? Would you accept a job that told you, you have to come to work but you're not guaranteed a paycheck? You'll find out after the day if we're going to pay for certain things you do, or not? And often you have to fight for payment even after you sent in all the paper work they asked for with all the justification and it was approved. And often you have to take the loss because you keep getting denied the payment and it is too costly to fight for it. The patient has been treated or received the brace or item and the company does not receive compensation. Outside of the medical field, people have no idea how much service and items doctors and practitioners provide and don't get paid for.

                    So many unnecessary office visits, where nothing is accomplished, is forced on the doctors and patients, that is being paid for instead of treatments. Insurance, including and following medicare and medicaid guidelines won't pay for more than one treatment per day. Patient has to come back tomorrow, paying for another visit if you have and earache and your knee hurts, which all could have been treated in one visit.

                    Did you know that it is illegal to not collect a patients co-pay or co-insurance? If you get audited and they find you didn't collect it, you have to have documented justification that they find sufficient or suffer huge fines.

                    Government has made healthcare un-affordable. Then professed to be the savior for people who can not afford.
                    When we were little, a pulmonologist (if the specialty existed back then) wouldn't have diagnosed my mother-in-law's condition. Most things you mention need fixing, since any large organization trying to fine tune procedures outside their field of expertise, is bound to add layers of expense and delay that just aren't necessary. OTOH, my wife's mother would have died about 5 years prior to her final passing, if it had not been for gov't. writing checks (back to the Forbes' article) to support smaller institutions who indeed know what they are doing. Gummint funds to public institutions like state university medical/hospital systems, who educate pulmonologists and other specialists who are best able to diagnose and treat some ailments. Funds to labs -in both public and private sectors- who research and develop treatments (mostly pharma) for what ails us.

                    All the things you and I mention, about helping others without pay, will lower our medical bills. More than anything else, taking care of ourselves (the 'ol "diet and exercise") will lower our medical bills. But all that won't necessarily lower the cost of R&D, education of medical professionals, lawsuits or the like. We might disagree about which solutions will work better; I like public hospital service to pay off medical school bills, instead of private loans that more resemble mortgages when it comes to the long haul of med school. I prefer pulling the medical licenses of the worst "X" percent to lower malpractice insurance costs first, then consider putting a lid on malpractice awards. We just might agree that the large majority of the population are not going to get the Buck Rogers' state of the art medical care, until costs come down 10 or 20 years from now. I can accept that, but it means a strong backbone by politicians and doctors alike, who need to break that news to our fellow citizens who still believe we get cutting edge star treatment, just like the wealthy.

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                      Well said.

                      Government has made things worse, not better.

                      That they've involved themselves in the insurance gamblescam, gives away their motive. Money.

                      Just like everything else they get involved with. If there's money, they come running right over and just HAVE to find a way to "help."
                      It's good to dive in, audit and come up with specific reasons why gummint fails, which adds cost to our health care. The same audit would also point out what gov't. does right about lowering costs (again, go back to the Forbes article as one example). Haven't seen that dialogue in DC, or the large insurance industry. Let's chalk that up to pride and self-interest, but they could be forced to act with humility and public service, if the voters pay attention.

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                        It's good to dive in, audit and come up with specific reasons why gummint fails, which adds cost to our health care. The same audit would also point out what gov't. does right about lowering costs (again, go back to the Forbes article as one example). Haven't seen that dialogue in DC, or the large insurance industry. Let's chalk that up to pride and self-interest, but they could be forced to act with humility and public service, if the voters pay attention.
                        That would be a very historic day ! Two things we must hope for !

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                          It's good to dive in, audit and come up with specific reasons why gummint fails, which adds cost to our health care. The same audit would also point out what gov't. does right about lowering costs (again, go back to the Forbes article as one example). Haven't seen that dialogue in DC, or the large insurance industry. Let's chalk that up to pride and self-interest, but they could be forced to act with humility and public service, if the voters pay attention.
                          I didn't see anything that showed how an audit pointed out what government does right about lowering costs.
                          AND
                          "they could be forced to act with humility and public service, if the voters pay attention"
                          Too many voters don't pay attention. And I don't see that changing any time soon in a large enough amount. Can't expect anything to go right based on the assumption that voters are paying attention. Might as well forget about it, if you need most of the voters to be paying attention to have it accomplished.

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by msc View Post
                            I didn't see anything that showed how an audit pointed out what government does right about lowering costs.
                            AND
                            "they could be forced to act with humility and public service, if the voters pay attention"
                            Too many voters don't pay attention. And I don't see that changing any time soon in a large enough amount. Can't expect anything to go right based on the assumption that voters are paying attention. Might as well forget about it, if you need most of the voters to be paying attention to have it accomplished.
                            Voters will pay attention under the right circumstances.

                            What's sad is that most of those circumstances are things we all want to avoid.

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                              Voters will pay attention under the right circumstances.

                              What's sad is that most of those circumstances are things we all want to avoid.
                              That's pretty much it, at least for US culture. Avoidance of disaster. Learn only after severe beatings. The health care issue should have been analyzed -without partisanship- decades ago. Answers to hard questions like, What can most citizens afford (not everything). How can some (not all) costs be controlled naturally (while avoiding price controls). What must individuals do to contain costs. What must the medical and insurance professions do to contain costs. What regulations are necessary, agreed upon by patients, providers and gummint alike.

                              Instead, we got hit with partisan bias on almost every question. "US medical science is the Best in the World, so our health care is the best". Or, "We can provide the best service to every person, if we just have the will to pay for it". That was the right and left biased answer to the question, "what can most citizens afford".

                              That's it: Decades of debate on health care, and the end result was usually BS, instead of honest answers.

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                                That's pretty much it, at least for US culture. Avoidance of disaster. Learn only after severe beatings. The health care issue should have been analyzed -without partisanship- decades ago. Answers to hard questions like, What can most citizens afford (not everything). How can some (not all) costs be controlled naturally (while avoiding price controls). What must individuals do to contain costs. What must the medical and insurance professions do to contain costs. What regulations are necessary, agreed upon by patients, providers and gummint alike.

                                Instead, we got hit with partisan bias on almost every question. "US medical science is the Best in the World, so our health care is the best". Or, "We can provide the best service to every person, if we just have the will to pay for it". That was the right and left biased answer to the question, "what can most citizens afford".

                                That's it: Decades of debate on health care, and the end result was usually BS, instead of honest answers.
                                Clearly. Because we have the wrong people involved. Government is not going to help make medical care better, cheaper or more easily accessible for anyone. It's always only going to succeed at gumming up the works and making everyone involved miserable.

                                You state; "What must the medical and insurance professions do to contain costs."

                                Insurance,
                                there's never been anything more "professional" about it than there is in managing and learning games of chance, gambling etc.

                                If it is to be called a "profession," it's as contemptible as the worlds oldest "profession" .. we all know what that is.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X