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

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

    zoidberg_zps7cd8a59e.jpg Photo by georgiab2 | Photobucket

    How do you get the pic to post?

    ?


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

      Use the URL of the image itself: http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ps7cd8a59e.jpg

      ?


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

        So now Obama and his administration is demonizing the insurance companies. You would think they would respond to their customers by telling the truth of what is actually going on.

        I wonder why they aren't, don't you!

        Oh wait, maybe this has something to do with it, and guess where it is reported from........that liberal bastion of news, CNN CNN: White House Pressuring Insurance Companies To Not Criticize ObamaCare | NewsBusters

        Even they can no longer stomach his actions, and as we have seen throughout this fiasco, conservatives were correct; which tells you exactly why those on here who were/are the strongest supporters of this socialist policy have left the building.

        ?


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

          In one of the ACA threads, perhaps even this one, the sub-topic issue came up about Congress exempting themselves from Obamacare, and the counter was that this was disproved already. I went and dug around, and came up with this.

          The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?[4]
          . . . .
          Obamacare in Microcosm. Motivating any secret negotiations is a deepening concern among Members of Congress and congressional staff that they will be forced to pay more for their health care than they do today, along with the fear that the new law will impact the retention of valued employees. Those are precisely the concerns that animate millions of Americans today, especially business owners.

          The uncertainty surrounding the operation and effects of a small provision in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) affecting Members of Congress heretofore attracted little attention except among a few health policy experts.[5] But that small provision provides a powerful insight into a much larger reality. Members of Congress and their staffs are facing the same problems that confront millions of employers and employeestheir fellow citizensthroughout America. They will be unable to keep the health coverage they have today, and will instead be consigned to the government health exchanges, whether they like it or not. Presumably, Members and staff with other sources of coverage (such as through a spouses employer plan) could avoid the individual mandate penalty by enrolling in other coverage to which they have access, though they might find it less attractive than the coverage they have today. In short, Members of Congress will feel the effects of their own legislative handiwork directly.

          However, pay and benefits of public-sector workers are set in law. Thus, for a government to cash out its employees health coverage, the applicable statute governing pay rates must be amended to permit an equivalent increase in cash wages. In the case of Members of Congress and congressional staff subject to Section 1312(d)(3)(D), unless Congress otherwise acts to increase their cash wages, their total compensation will effectively be reduced by the amount of the lost FEHBP subsidyup to $4,966.80 per year for those with self-only coverage, or $10,048.76 per year for those with family coverage.
          Congress in the Obamacare Trap: No Easy Escape

          As the article continues, I've drawn the following conclusion:

          Should employers drop contributing for an employees health care without compensation, how is that any different in the slightest? So fundamentally, congress did cut itself and its staff a special deal, and it only applies to congress and their staff. The crux is the assumption on congress part that should private sector employee be in the same position, loss of employer contribution, that the employer would make up the difference in additional compensation to the employee. Should that not come to pass, then it would be congressional preferential treatment. Still raises the question:
          The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?[4]
          Lastly, an honest analysis and detailed coverage of the twisty turns this issue took through multiple amendments, some of which were adopted, and some of which were not, to the final issue raised and resolved by Obama, speaks well of The Heritage Foundation, in spite of other's detraction of the organization.

          Also what I learned from the very same article:

          The suit claiming that ACA is not constitutional as its a tax that didnt originate from the house is disposed of with:

          To circumvent the constitutional requirement that all revenue-raising bills originate in the House of Representatives, Senator Reid crafted his bill as an amendment to a House-passed bill, H.R. 3590. The House bill was a measure to modify the first-time-homebuyers credit for members of the Armed Forces. Senator Reids amendment replaced all the original House language with the Senate health care provisions and renamed the bill the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[13]
          So I don't think that there'll be a forthcoming ruling by SCOTUS that Obamacare was unconstitutionally initiated. Old Dirty Harry used what appears to be a commonly used bi-partisan Senate procedural trick to circumvent the limitation.

          ?


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

            And what if the Hospitals refuse to play?

            Top Hospitals Opt Out of Obamacare?

            The Obama Administration has been claiming that insurance companies will be competing for your dollars under the Affordable Care Act, but apparently they haven't surveyed the nation's top hospitals.

            Americans who sign up for Obamacare will be getting a big surprise if they expect to access premium health care that may have been previously covered under their personal policies. Most of the top hospitals will accept insurance from just one or two companies operating under Obamacare.

            Top Hospitals Opt Out of Obamacare - US News and World Report

            ?


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

              Imagine that. Ardent supporters of Obamacare face double digit cost increases.
              CNBCs morning anchors were troubled by the news that their own insurance plans will become more costly under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

              On Oct. 30s Squawk Box, CNBC Senior Correspondent Scott Cohn revealed details of NBCs open enrollment, brandishing an official fact book outlining the process. He quoted the document, revealing that the ACA would increase employee premiums.

              Cohn observed Some of these costs, when you look at this, are way up -- double digits.

              Aetna Chairman and CEO, Mark Bertolini explained that Aetna alone will pass through to its customers over a billion dollars of taxes and fees associated with the Affordable Care Act.

              Ironically, NBC has worked hard to promote Obamacare. In the week before the exchanges opened, NBC launched their own week-long campaign, to help Americans get the most out of the Affordable Care Act. NBC affiliate MSNBC was even more blatant in touting Obamacare.

              According to the new health plan, federally mandated health care changes will require Comcast-NBCUniversal to pay new fees and implement plan design changes that will contribute to the increased cost of our plans.

              These plan changes would also affect other NBCUniversal outlets like NBC and MSNBC.
              NBCUniversals Insurance Premiums to Rise Due to Obamacare

              You suppose that this will change these ideologue's support of Obamacare?

              ?


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

                More lies from zero and his minions. I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!

                Obamacare Enrollment Numbers Low In First Days, Released Documents Reveal

                ?


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

                  Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                  Imagine that. Ardent supporters of Obamacare face double digit cost increases.

                  NBCUniversal’s Insurance Premiums to Rise Due to Obamacare

                  You suppose that this will change these ideologue's support of Obamacare?
                  If my wallet wasn't in so much pain from all the thievery this would be hilarious. Like piss my pants because I just cannot stop laughing, o my dear sweet lord joker gas is real, hilarious.

                  ?


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

                    Interesting reading.
                    Washington (CNN) - Senate Democrats voted unanimously three years ago to support the Obamacare rule that is largely responsible for some of the health insurance cancellation letters that are going out.

                    In September 2010, Senate Republicans brought a resolution to the floor to block implementation of the grandfather rule, warning that it would result in canceled policies and violate President Barack Obamas promise that people could keep their insurance if they liked it.

                    The District of Columbia is an island surrounded by reality. Only in the District of Columbia could you get away with telling the people if you like what you have you can keep it, and then pass regulations six months later that do just the opposite and figure that people are going to ignore it. But common sense is eventually going to prevail in this town and common sense is going to have to prevail on this piece of legislation as well, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said at the time.

                    The administration's own regulations prove this is not the case. Under the grandfathering regulation, according to the White House's own economic impact analysis, as many as 69 percent of businesses will lose their grandfathered status by 2013 and be forced to buy government-approved plans, the Iowa Republican said.

                    On a party line vote, Democrats killed the resolution, which could come back to haunt vulnerable Democrats up for re-election this year.

                    Senate Democrats like Mary Landrieu, Jeanne Shaheen, Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan and Mark Begich all of whom voted against stopping the rule from going into effect and have since supported delaying parts of Obamacare.

                    The rule set up the criteria for what insurance plans would be grandfathered, or exempted, from the new Obamacare requirements. Democrats argued then that the rule was necessary to insure that insurance companies werent able to drastically change their plans and still remain exempt from Obamacare.

                    Republicans are saying that basically we will grandfather it in, but the insurance companies can change it however they want, and you are stuck with it, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said in 2010.

                    The rule essentially prevents insurance companies from keeping their grandfathered status if they make changes to their plans. In practice, insurance companies are loath to leave their plans unchanged so grandfathered plans are disappearing, and people are being forced to change their plans to meet Obamacares more robust coverage requirements.
                    Senate Democrats supported rule that led to insurance cancellations CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

                    Imagine that.

                    Those that voted to take all the plans that people liked so much they spent their own money to get them, were summarily taken away by the Democrats by party line vote.

                    And now, that they are starting to hear the outrage from the people, they want to vote for an implementation delay.

                    ?


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

                      Senate Democrats supported rule that led to insurance cancellations

                      Senate Democrats supported rule that led to insurance cancellations – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

                      ?


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

                        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                        And what if the Hospitals refuse to play?

                        Top Hospitals Opt Out of Obamacare?

                        The Obama Administration has been claiming that insurance companies will be competing for your dollars under the Affordable Care Act, but apparently they haven't surveyed the nation's top hospitals.

                        Americans who sign up for Obamacare will be getting a big surprise if they expect to access premium health care that may have been previously covered under their personal policies. Most of the top hospitals will accept insurance from just one or two companies operating under Obamacare.

                        Top Hospitals Opt Out of Obamacare - US News and World Report
                        Obamacare sucks, but so does this logic.

                        Chances are much better that the non-millionaire posters on USPO never had "premium health care insurance" that would get them into the best hospitals. In capitalist and mixed capitalist countries, only the wealthiest get into the best hospitals. In communist countries, only top party officials get into the best hospitals.

                        The only exceptions to this rule are very rare ailments that the best doctors want to treat, and well-loved relatives of the wealthy/politically powerful, or of those top-class doctors.

                        Slam Obamacare all you want, but please spare us the unadulterated BS that 90% of citizens could aspire to get top-tier treatment, if only the market were unregulated. That makes as much sense as getting platinum treatment in Cuba, just like Fidel gets.

                        Am I jealous of the wealthy? No. I realize and accept that I ain't gonna get 5 star treatment, because I can't afford it. I still get very good care, compared with most of the world.

                        ?


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

                          Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                          Obamacare sucks, but so does this logic.

                          Chances are much better that the non-millionaire posters on USPO never had "premium health care insurance" that would get them into the best hospitals. In capitalist and mixed capitalist countries, only the wealthiest get into the best hospitals. In communist countries, only top party officials get into the best hospitals.

                          The only exceptions to this rule are very rare ailments that the best doctors want to treat, and well-loved relatives of the wealthy/politically powerful, or of those top-class doctors.

                          Slam Obamacare all you want, but please spare us the unadulterated BS that 90% of citizens could aspire to get top-tier treatment, if only the market were unregulated. That makes as much sense as getting platinum treatment in Cuba, just like Fidel gets.

                          Am I jealous of the wealthy? No. I realize and accept that I ain't gonna get 5 star treatment, because I can't afford it. I still get very good care, compared with most of the world.
                          My next door neighbor is at the Mayo Clinic right now having a followup for spinal surgery she had there 6 months ago. My wife was treated at MD Anderson for breast cancer. Neither of us are wealthy.

                          Those hospitals take insurance plans that pay reasonable costs. Under Obamacare, they won't.

                          ?


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

                            On September 29, 2013, Senate Democrats voted unanimously against a resolution that would have allowed Americans to keep their insurance plans.
                            Every Democrat voted against it.

                            438x893xvote-democrats-ocare.jpg

                            So the Democrats planned this loss of insurance all along.

                            ?


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

                              Situational Ethics and Moral Relativity at its best:

                              ?


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

                                "Healthy Ho's"—The Government's Push to Enroll Prostitutes in Obamacare

                                Never fear, though, as the prostitutes in question are now "thrilled" that their risky, illegal careers are now being subsidized through tax payers.
                                "Healthy Ho&#39;s"

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X