Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

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

AND

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

AND

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

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONSEQUENCES

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

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

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

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

PRIVACY POLICY

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

SUBSCRIPTIONS

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

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

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

  • So now we all hold our breath to see how the supreme court is going to rule on the meaning of four words in obamas "care"

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/insur...rds/ar-BBi8Iz4

    The statute says people qualify for credits when they buy insurance on an exchange “established by the state.” Those four words matter because only about one-third of the states have set up exchanges, with the rest relying on the federal healthcare.gov system.

    Seems pretty clear to me how they're going to "rule."

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
      My wife was a nurse and we socialized with a lot of medical professionals. Most doctors here today will tell you that half of their income goes to paying for malpractice insurance and paperwork required by the government. More is required to pay for offices, equipment, nursing staff, etc. Many doctors have given up private practice as it is no longer affordable. They are now employed by a major hospital who simply pays them a salary and provides all of the other costs.

      I too socialize with many medical professionals. I know a small Orthopedist group of 3 that had to sell out to a large one for the very same reasons. And now while under the rule of the large medical organization, they are not allowed to be generous with their services. One Doc used to treat about 30 patients a day, with one PA taking on some patients. Now the company gave him a second PA and he treats between 60-70 patients a day. He has to in order to meet the company standards. Patients do not get the attention they need.

      I also know a Chiropractor that treats patients loosing thousands of dollars a month, because he continues to treat patients when services are denied. He's a good man, but the pain management, and Orthopedist are carrying the practice. He's pretty much breaking even. The only reason he is doing well is because he's a partner in the business.

      A large hospital in NY with an exemplary reputation was not making a sufficient profit in the last 4 to 5 years. At a last stitch effort, they hired a non medical business firm to reorganize the hospital. One result was superior skilled doctors that did not operate within the time frame allowed, that was based on financial income, were fired. The hospital now attends to the financial needs above attending to the patient's needs. Staff was also cut down to the lowest standard that gov't allows. And by the way, Joan Rivers died in this hospital. I'm sure if she had the insider information that I received from a person affiliated with hospital, she would have went elsewhere. Don't know if there was negligence or not in her situation, but the hospital is not operating to the standard that gave them their excellent reputation. Doc's are under much pressure to produce. Produce money. And staff that was deemed excess was no longer there, putting more pressure on the ones left to pick up the slack. No extra bodies available when needed in situations that don't occur often enough. This all plays a part.

      It's so ridiculous when there are people who support Obama care because of what they've heard or stats given, yet have no clue of how actual patients and providers are being effected. And I question the intelligence of those who think Health Insurance coverage equals health care.

      It further baffles me that some can not put together the fact that this plan is taxing people to exist. Every American has to pay a tax from Birth to death, just for being alive. Here's an example. I know a young girl. She was on the exchange and had to pay approx. $500 a month for med. insurance. She complained that NONE of her Doc's accepted it and it was a struggle to find a doctor within her area who did. When she went to the closest one, it was like a factory. She signed up for the company insurance as soon as she could and was lucky enough that the company paid a percentage. But the gross fee for that insurance is $627 a month. So basically a person has to pay a fee of $7,500 a year just for the luxury of being alive. And because many are deemed indigent by gov't standards that fee for being alive encompassed paying for the existence of others. Who in their right mind believes that it is righteous to force people to pay a fee just to exist. Not only is it unconstitutional, it's uncivilized by any standard. What human being or group of human beings have the right to charge another person for the right to live? And any person who believes it is fair to have to pay for there life, not life that was given to them by the gov't, but life that was given to them by God or Nature, are simply Jackasses.
      Last edited by msc; 03-03-2015, 04:36 AM.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Originally posted by msc View Post
        I too socialize with many medical professionals. I know a small Orthopedist group of 3 that had to sell out to a large one for the very same reasons. And now while under the rule of the large medical organization, they are not allowed to be generous with their services. One Doc used to treat about 30 patients a day, with one PA taking on some patients. Now the company gave him a second PA and he treats between 60-70 patients a day. He has to in order to meet the company standards. Patients do not get the attention they need.

        I also know a Chiropractor that treats patients loosing thousands of dollars a month, because he continues to treat patients when services are denied. He's a good man, but the pain management, and Orthopedist are carrying the practice. He's pretty much breaking even. The only reason he is doing well is because he's a partner in the business.

        A large hospital in NY with an exemplary reputation was not making a sufficient profit in the last 4 to 5 years. At a last stitch effort, they hired a non medical business firm to reorganize the hospital. One result was superior skilled doctors that did not operate within the time frame allowed, that was based on financial income, were fired. The hospital now attends to the financial needs above attending to the patient's needs. Staff was also cut down to the lowest standard that gov't allows. And by the way, Joan Rivers died in this hospital. I'm sure if she had the insider information that I received from a person affiliated with hospital, she would have went elsewhere. Don't know if there was negligence or not in her situation, but the hospital is not operating to the standard that gave them their excellent reputation. Doc's are under much pressure to produce. Produce money. And staff that was deemed excess was no longer there, putting more pressure on the ones left to pick up the slack. No extra bodies available when needed in situations that don't occur often enough. This all plays a part.

        It's so ridiculous when there are people who support Obama care because of what they've heard or stats given, yet have no clue of how actual patients and providers are being effected. And I question the intelligence of those who think Health Insurance coverage equals health care.

        It further baffles me that some can not put together the fact that this plan is taxing people to exist. Every American has to pay a tax from Birth to death, just for being alive. Here's an example. I know a young girl. She was on the exchange and had to pay approx. $500 a month for med. insurance. She complained that NONE of her Doc's accepted it and it was a struggle to find a doctor within her area who did. When she went to the closest one, it was like a factory. She signed up for the company insurance as soon as she could and was lucky enough that the company paid a percentage. But the gross fee for that insurance is $627 a month. So basically a person has to pay a fee of $7,500 a year just for the luxury of being alive. And because many are deemed indigent by gov't standards that fee for being alive encompassed paying for the existence of others. Who in their right mind believes that it is righteous to force people to pay a fee just to exist. Not only is it unconstitutional, it's uncivilized by any standard. What human being or group of human beings have the right to charge another person for the right to live? And any person who believes it is fair to have to pay for there life, not life that was given to them by the gov't, but life that was given to them by God or Nature, are simply Jackasses.
        It is communist policy pure and simple. The "everybody does their equal part for the 'common good'" fantasy has finally overtaken what was once a nation of free people. Taking over healthcare was just the start, the NECESSARY beginning !

        We have willingly shackled ourselves, because we let ourselves become lazy and ignorant.

        Government involvement results in patients having to be treated as "product" rather than people. That's not surprising of course. Doctors simply won't be able to take the time to have a real patient/Dr. relationship. Eventually everyone will become aware of the evil we have brought upon ourselves. It will take a lot of time. Will it matter ? I don't think it will, why would it ?

        After all, the criminals "running" America get paid plenty well, get REAL good healthcare and WE willingly pay them to do this to us, to sell us this regular show of "politics" and "votes" that keeps us docile and still believing we're free.



        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • So you would call the NHS a communist idea then?

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
            So you would call the NHS a communist idea then?
            From each according to his ability to each according to his needs. Karl Marx

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Funny how the mainstream media busies itself lying for King Obama still. Lie for the liar.

              Truly disgusting.

              Now they're carrying on about how "people will lose their insurance" if the supreme court rules in favor of Constitutional law, good sense AND the clear wording of the law (the ACA) itself.

              Never mind how many people lost their insurance AND jobs because of this foolishness. No, they won't mention that ...

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

              We HAVE all joined them, we were forced to.
              ...

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

              The reality of Obamacare is frightening. Maybe I should join Brekhus and Dionne in their happy but imaginary world. Maybe we all should join them.

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


              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Originally posted by msc View Post


                .....
                It further baffles me that some can not put together the fact that this plan is taxing people to exist. Every American has to pay a tax from Birth to death, just for being alive. Here's an example. I know a young girl. She was on the exchange and had to pay approx. $500 a month for med. insurance. She complained that NONE of her Doc's accepted it and it was a struggle to find a doctor within her area who did. When she went to the closest one, it was like a factory. She signed up for the company insurance as soon as she could and was lucky enough that the company paid a percentage. But the gross fee for that insurance is $627 a month. So basically a person has to pay a fee of $7,500 a year just for the luxury of being alive. And because many are deemed indigent by gov't standards that fee for being alive encompassed paying for the existence of others. Who in their right mind believes that it is righteous to force people to pay a fee just to exist. Not only is it unconstitutional, it's uncivilized by any standard. What human being or group of human beings have the right to charge another person for the right to live? And any person who believes it is fair to have to pay for there life, not life that was given to them by the gov't, but life that was given to them by God or Nature, are simply Jackasses.
                If one did not pay a fee to the gov't. for existing, one will have to settle for anarchy. Some will survive under anarchy, some will not.

                Now, if you want to debate the efficiency or direction of how gov't. spends that "existence" tax, we can get back on track. Because I strongly suspect you are not an anarchist, hyperbole aside.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                  If one did not pay a fee to the gov't. for existing, one will have to settle for anarchy. Some will survive under anarchy, some will not.

                  Now, if you want to debate the efficiency or direction of how gov't. spends that "existence" tax, we can get back on track. Because I strongly suspect you are not an anarchist, hyperbole aside.
                  Well thank you for that. I am not an anarchist. And I do not believe anarchy will arise if people are not forced to pay the price of gov't impose health care. Or a fee if they don't buy it. There are other taxes that are imposed at an unfair rate, but I endorse paying an appropriate amount of taxes. This health care fee, is the first and so far only fee that has been imposed on a human for being born. You can argue that other taxes and fee's end up doing the say thing, but those taxes say, you can't get this, if you don't pay, this fee that ACA imposes say, from the minute you are born into the world, you owe a fee to the gov't. Not a fee, for the things you want to, choose to, or need to get to survive, but a fee just for breathing air.

                  Have to put this out as it happened yesterday. I spoke with a woman yesterday. Her back story is that her husband passed from a disease about 7 years ago. She has one son, now 19 years old. She cares for her 84 year old mother with alzheimers. She could not afford to pay for insurance for her son, she gets her own through her job. She just found out, that her son had to pay the fee to the gov't because he did not have med. Insurance in 2014. She is outraged. Not an unintelligent woman, but with all that she knew about ACA, as the typical citizen she is, she wasn't aware of this penalty/tax/fee. (I guess she doesn't watch FOX). So the substance of this story is that; the gov't believes that this young man, that has no financial support from his family, trying to make his way in the world, and couldn't afford Med. Insurance, owes the gov't a fee because his is struggling. Perhaps had he not gotten a job, he wouldn't owe the gov't that fee and would qualify free healthcare. Can't you see what's wrong with this picture?

                  This IS reality of what people are suffering. This IS what the rules of the ACA force. This IS unjust. I have offered so many true life stories of actual human beings that are being harmed by the ACA. I'm waiting for stories from some on the forum that support the ACA, that share all the wonderful things that ACA has done for them or people they know. Still waiting.

                  And when these multiple stores are present about the wonders of ACA, I will expect that it will be about who you know, not heard about. AND when thinking about the wonders that those people enjoy of ACA, ask yourself, how much have these people contributed to society?
                  Last edited by msc; 03-05-2015, 04:21 AM.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • I just can't wrap my mind around the insanity of those who believe the ACA will be delivering more, and better healthcare to our civilization. Not one stat supports it.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Originally posted by msc View Post
                      I just can't wrap my mind around the insanity of those who believe the ACA will be delivering more, and better healthcare to our civilization. Not one stat supports it.
                      I can't either.

                      But socialist fantasies seem to arise pretty regularly throughout history. Mr. Obama took the opportunity he had to force HIS version of it upon us.

                      Now he rules as King;

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

                      We should all just be happy that we live in the time of Barack the Magnificent. A failure to acknowledge the greatness he has brought to this humble nation, or disagreeing with anything he does will result in sanctions and penalties, consequences and repercussions.

                      Of course, as always, we will still be free to do as we are told.

                      King Barry he's generous that way.



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

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                        I can't either.

                        But socialist fantasies seem to arise pretty regularly throughout history. Mr. Obama took the opportunity he had to force HIS version of it upon us.

                        Now he rules as King;

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

                        We should all just be happy that we live in the time of Barack the Magnificent. A failure to acknowledge the greatness he has brought to this humble nation, or disagreeing with anything he does will result in sanctions and penalties, consequences and repercussions.

                        Of course, as always, we will still be free to do as we are told.

                        King Barry he's generous that way.



                        http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...ing_barry.html
                        Yup. Seeing other threads on other places where the benefits <cough> of ObamaCare are lauded as smashing successes.

                        Obamacare's Michigan Tale: Small Drop in Uninsured While Families Pay More
                        Four things about Obamacare in Michigan
                        By Jack McHugh and Naomi Lopez-Bauman | March 4, 2015
                        http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/21063
                        The Affordable Care Act is failing to deliver on its promises to provide health care access and affordability. While some people now have new coverage, it has come at the expense of families who lost the health care coverage and doctor that they liked, or are now without insurance because they can no longer afford it.
                        Here are four things to know about Obamacare in Michigan:
                        1. Contrary to popular belief, Obamacare was never designed to dramatically expand private health care coverage; it has always been a massive Medicaid expansion scheme. In Michigan, federal figures show 303,000 residents were added to Medicaid rolls between the third quarter of 2013 and the end of 2014, compared to federal claims of 311,000 health insurance exchange enrollments. (Those claims may even be inflated; evidence from last year suggests the real exchange enrollment is closer to 250,000).
                        2. Instead of seeing a dramatic reduction, Michigan's uninsured population dropped by just 1.7 percentage points after the first exchange enrollment period – from 12.5 percent in 2013 to 10.8 percent in 2014. In fact, for every person who signed up for private coverage, another was thrown into an already-strained Medicaid program.
                        3. If you like your health insurance, you can’t necessarily keep it. Bureaucrats in the Obama administration wrote regulations that deemed millions of policies substandard. These regulations have thrown millions off the private coverage they had and into the ACA exchanges.
                        4. Rather than save the average family $2,500 in premiums every year as the president repeatedly promised, many have seen their premiums skyrocket. In Michigan, the average family of four is now paying 12 percent more as a result of the ACA, and for many individuals the cost has more than doubled.

                        Naomi Lopez Bauman is the director of health policy for the Illinois Policy Institute, and Jack McHugh is senior legislative analyst for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
                        I guess it all depends on where you are, your situation, and if you can afford your newly increased rates.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • I've seen few lefties defend ACA, either, after we get past the extra number of people who are insured, that would not have been insured under the old system. Rates go up now, and did under the old system. Lots of people just can't afford the cost of insurance under ACA, nor could they under the old system (unless they had a high out of pocket deductible -catastrophic policy).

                          And we're going on 90+ pages with no solution in sight in this thread. The old system only lurched along for people who worked for an employer who subsidized their insurance/medical costs, or independently for people who could fork over the $500 (or more) monthly premium if they didn't have a pre-existing condition -which disqualified them for affordable policies.

                          There are arguments that bark up the wrong tree, and there are arguments that seem to bark at nothing at all. IMO, almost all the arguments here fall into the latter category. The new system sucks, the old system sucked as well. Because they suck in different ways doesn't lend strength to criticism of the new system. A viable alternative to both systems is required.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            I've seen few lefties defend ACA, either, after we get past the extra number of people who are insured, that would not have been insured under the old system. Rates go up now, and did under the old system. Lots of people just can't afford the cost of insurance under ACA, nor could they under the old system (unless they had a high out of pocket deductible -catastrophic policy).

                            And we're going on 90+ pages with no solution in sight in this thread. The old system only lurched along for people who worked for an employer who subsidized their insurance/medical costs, or independently for people who could fork over the $500 (or more) monthly premium if they didn't have a pre-existing condition -which disqualified them for affordable policies.

                            There are arguments that bark up the wrong tree, and there are arguments that seem to bark at nothing at all. IMO, almost all the arguments here fall into the latter category. The new system sucks, the old system sucked as well. Because they suck in different ways doesn't lend strength to criticism of the new system. A viable alternative to both systems is required.
                            If you believe the system before Obama care was bad, it may be so, but Obama care is worse, not just different. And the system right before Obama Care was Hillary's brain storm that got us into this trouble, ruining the healthcare system in the first place. The best and viable solution is to go back to the indemnity plans that existed before Hillary dipped her grubby little hands in and persuaded lawmakers to believe it would be good for healthcare, when that never was her goal. The indemnity system may be far from perfect, but no plan is or could EVER be perfect. The closest we can get to perfect is the indemnity plan. It was a decent plan, and only when some believed perfection could be real, is when it was tampered with, redistributing healthcare according to how some believe it should be distributed. If one can't acknowledge the lack of healthcare, coupled with financial hardship that most suffer under this plan while giving only a specific financial income group benefits, then yes, there is no point in continuing a conversation. Only arguments based on reality are fruitful.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Originally posted by msc View Post

                              If you believe the system before Obama care was bad, it may be so, but Obama care is worse, not just different. And the system right before Obama Care was Hillary's brain storm that got us into this trouble, ruining the healthcare system in the first place. The best and viable solution is to go back to the indemnity plans that existed before Hillary dipped her grubby little hands in and persuaded lawmakers to believe it would be good for healthcare, when that never was her goal. The indemnity system may be far from perfect, but no plan is or could EVER be perfect. The closest we can get to perfect is the indemnity plan. It was a decent plan, and only when some believed perfection could be real, is when it was tampered with, redistributing healthcare according to how some believe it should be distributed. If one can't acknowledge the lack of healthcare, coupled with financial hardship that most suffer under this plan while giving only a specific financial income group benefits, then yes, there is no point in continuing a conversation. Only arguments based on reality are fruitful.
                              Indemnity plans are less popular now because they are more expensive. Whether the entity subsidizing the individual's plan is an employer or the gov't, that is why they drifted toward "managed" care. Add to that pressure, the upward creep in monthly premiums, and we have the reason behind indemnity plans losing popularity. Employers and employees alike were drifting away from indemnity care before Hillary came along, and it was obvious that managed care costs were also rising out of control well before ACA.

                              Not to defend pseudo-socialists propping up the for-profit insurance/health care industry, either. Just stating obvious trends which indicate that the income earners in the middle class were unable to afford to pay full freight on medical care, and that drop-out started with for-profits. Seems very odd that we insist on propping up that sector (Dem or GOP plans), rather than dropping the working class into the non-profit insurance/HC sector.

                              That way we don't have to choose between the bad GOP plan or the worse Dem plan. There are options that are at least mediocre. See what I'm driving at?

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                                Indemnity plans are less popular now because they are more expensive. Whether the entity subsidizing the individual's plan is an employer or the gov't, that is why they drifted toward "managed" care. Add to that pressure, the upward creep in monthly premiums, and we have the reason behind indemnity plans losing popularity. Employers and employees alike were drifting away from indemnity care before Hillary came along, and it was obvious that managed care costs were also rising out of control well before ACA.

                                Not to defend pseudo-socialists propping up the for-profit insurance/health care industry, either. Just stating obvious trends which indicate that the income earners in the middle class were unable to afford to pay full freight on medical care, and that drop-out started with for-profits. Seems very odd that we insist on propping up that sector (Dem or GOP plans), rather than dropping the working class into the non-profit insurance/HC sector.

                                That way we don't have to choose between the bad GOP plan or the worse Dem plan. There are options that are at least mediocre. See what I'm driving at?

                                In a free market system, medical costs could only rise at the level of the ability of those treated to pay. The meteoric rise in costs were the result of government intervention into health care. Government has unlimited resources to pay and so the prices go up exponentially. Before insurance and government intervention, costs could only go up based on the ability of people to pay.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X