Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

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

AND

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

AND

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

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONSEQUENCES

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

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

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

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

PRIVACY POLICY

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

SUBSCRIPTIONS

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

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

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

  • Originally posted by 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?
    Yes I do see what you're driving at, And yes, the indemnity plan did seem unaffordable to some at the time, but we can use that old saying here, "The grass is always greener on the other side". Now that were on the other side we really see what unaffordable is.

    And indemnity plans are now so high, (yes, part of it is the natural cost of inflation), but the fact that it is unaffordably high is the chain of events that gov't regulations, HMO's, and now ACA has has implemented. Implemented, IMO, to gain gov't control in the end, but accepted by the people because of their desire for perfection. Perfection that was never and is never going to be a reality. Every plan will be unaffordable to some. Every plan! Now it's a matter of who the gov't decides who the, "SOME, should be. And while accommodating their decided, "some", an additional financial burden is put on "others" even more so then before, because the gov't is also taking a piece of the financial pie. An additional fee to be paid to the governmental bottomless pit and including mass administrative employee's to redirect the healthcare.

    So as I say, I do understand how you're looking at it, but do you understand what I see as well?

    ?


    • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


      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.
      Haven't we all played the, "Monopoly"? The gov't is sitting at the board, and on the way to winning the game.

      ?


      • Originally posted by msc View Post
        Yes I do see what you're driving at, And yes, the indemnity plan did seem unaffordable to some at the time, but we can use that old saying here, "The grass is always greener on the other side". Now that were on the other side we really see what unaffordable is.

        And indemnity plans are now so high, (yes, part of it is the natural cost of inflation), but the fact that it is unaffordably high is the chain of events that gov't regulations, HMO's, and now ACA has has implemented. Implemented, IMO, to gain gov't control in the end, but accepted by the people because of their desire for perfection. Perfection that was never and is never going to be a reality. Every plan will be unaffordable to some. Every plan! Now it's a matter of who the gov't decides who the, "SOME, should be. And while accommodating their decided, "some", an additional financial burden is put on "others" even more so then before, because the gov't is also taking a piece of the financial pie. An additional fee to be paid to the governmental bottomless pit and including mass administrative employee's to redirect the healthcare.

        So as I say, I do understand how you're looking at it, but do you understand what I see as well?
        And that is why, we will eventually have to move to a single payer healthcare, and get the profit completely out of it, by getting rid of the for profit middlemen. And make no mistake about it, a single payer, something like medicare is inevitable, for that is the only way we could ever get the costs down, but it would require a total overhaul of the existing gov't system, which would require some hard science to be brought into the system, with its logic, rationality and reason to be used in order to eliminate most of the corruption, the graft, the criminals who con the system. Just removing the profits of the middlemen would decrease costs, for it is a part of the equation in regards to healthcare costs.

        To say that gov't cannot manage healthcare, just isn't true. If we can manage a huge military, to defend this nation, by demanding responsible people to be in important positions, and using modern computer tech in order to do it, gov't certainly is capable of running medicare for all. But we would need to totally revamp it, for currently it is not efficient, nor is intelligence being uses near enough.

        ?


        • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

          And that is why, we will eventually have to move to a single payer healthcare, and get the profit completely out of it, by getting rid of the for profit middlemen. And make no mistake about it, a single payer, something like medicare is inevitable, for that is the only way we could ever get the costs down, but it would require a total overhaul of the existing gov't system, which would require some hard science to be brought into the system, with its logic, rationality and reason to be used in order to eliminate most of the corruption, the graft, the criminals who con the system. Just removing the profits of the middlemen would decrease costs, for it is a part of the equation in regards to healthcare costs.

          To say that gov't cannot manage healthcare, just isn't true. If we can manage a huge military, to defend this nation, by demanding responsible people to be in important positions, and using modern computer tech in order to do it, gov't certainly is capable of running medicare for all. But we would need to totally revamp it, for currently it is not efficient, nor is intelligence being uses near enough.
          But BD, your ignoring the FACT, the we can never end corruption. It will always exist. We can not count on an uncorrupted gov't. Look what's happened already when with our gov't. Regardless of whether it is in the private sector or within the gov't. When people gain power, there will ALWAYS be some that will seek more power and use that power to manipulate and create a corrupted entity. If an uncorrupted gov't were a reality, it would not have gotten to the point of corruption that it is today. The laws of our country rightfully allows freedom. But in the private sector, supply and demand plays a part, coupled with competition in the market place . But when healthcare is in the hands of the corruption within the gov't, there are no longer the natural checks and balances that free market encompasses, that will keep the healthcare costs down. By having the gov't run healthcare, you are still putting the middleman in the cinerio. To believe that this gov't has the ability to exclude the corruption which will gain profit from being the middle man, is quite unrealistic. The private sector does not have the power to drive up healthcare costs, the way the gov't does. And does not have the ability to make decisions of who is or is not entitled to affordable healthcare. It was the individuals that decided whether or not it was in their best interest to purchase healthcare insurance. Many did not because it was not affordable, but like I said, that hasn't changed with the current plan or will ever change with any plan. But it was the individuals that made the choice to purchase this medical insurance, therefore being the ones who allowed the middle man to exist in the first place. So here we see that the individual citizens will ALWAYS allow a middle man to profit.

          So forget a completely uncorrupted entity controlling healthcare. It ain't gonna happen. And forget this dream of no middle man making a profit, cause that ain't gonna happen either. Everyone is in it to make a buck, even you and I. But when the ones who want to make more bucks,not caring who is stepped on in their path, coupled with, ultimate power, without the checks and balances of free market, that middle man is the largest threat to all citizens and health care.

          This is why you can not forget, that gov't is made up of people. Not exempt from corruption any more than any other human being. This is why it is so important to follow our constitution, which was so adamant about not allowing any one person or group of people to gain too much, specifically our federal gov't. It was carefully designed with the superior incite of human nature, that a gov't with unrestricted, or excessive power WILL corrupt itself. Not MIGHT, WILL! This is why we must most importantly follow the restrictions our constitutions have put on our Federal gov't, without exception. When the constitution dictates that power is restricted in any branch, we must never interpret it, in favor of giving more power, if authority is in question. The constitution will not corrupt itself by the greed of power that humans possess, but man WILL. We can only trust in our constitution the way no man can be trusted.
          Last edited by msc; 03-07-2015, 08:22 AM.

          ?


          • Yes, the world will come apart at the seams !!!


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

            Did you realize that if the Supreme Court decides that Obamacare subsidies can only be paid via state exchanges (as the laws text demands), the entire country will fall apart? Dana Milbank, the increasingly hysterical left wing columnist at the Washington Post, does.

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

            ..the nations social fabric will be torn part, there will be social upheaval, and there will be no place to hide from the national conflagration that follows.




            http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...v_burwell.html


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

            ... And here we have

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


            Assume that the Supreme Court decides that the law does matter and breaks this component of Obamacare. What then? Will the Republicans in the House and Senate suddenly grow a party-collective spine and defend the newly created hill that the Supremes will have made for them? Put another way, does anybody at this point believe that there is any issue, any hill the Republicans are willing to die on?

            Step one will be the Democrats and their mouthpiece, the mainstream media, villainizing the Supremes decision as right-wing Tea Party activism by the Roberts Court. If past is prologue, the media will certainly not miss the opportunity to clarify the Democrat-pejorative aspect of the George Bush appointed Chief Justice Roberts. Wash, rinse, repeat the message ad nauseam until every void of the mainstream media is filled with the story. As icing on this cake, trot out every possible sad health care case to pull at the heartstrings of the unwashed masses. How cruel the right wing and Tea Party Republicans are! Little Jessica is dying because of this Tea Party Republican play on words.


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


            http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...t_nothing.html

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

            We are stuck with Mr. Obama's "health care law" out of a Crackerjack box, until it ITSELF causes the hell described above in the first peice.

            Between corrupt and lying politicians, corrupt and lying media and an ignorant population, no one will know what to do UNTIL it has become such a problem that it HAS to be dealt with.

            You asked for it America. You got it.

            Enjoy.

            ?


            • Originally posted by msc View Post
              .......................

              This is why you can not forget, that gov't is made up of people. Not exempt from corruption any more than any other human being. This is why it is so important to follow our constitution, which was so adamant about not allowing any one person or group of people to gain too much, specifically our federal gov't. It was carefully designed with the superior incite of human nature, that a gov't with unrestricted, or excessive power WILL corrupt itself. Not MIGHT, WILL! This is why we must most importantly follow the restrictions our constitutions have put on our Federal gov't, without exception. When the constitution dictates that power is restricted in any branch, we must never interpret it, in favor of giving more power, if authority is in question. The constitution will not corrupt itself by the greed of power that humans possess, but man WILL. We can only trust in our constitution the way no man can be trusted.
              Yet these things have to be forgotten, ignored or dismissed in order for ANY of these liberal or "progressive" arguments to hold even a DROP of water.

              .... unfortunately, the things you mention ARE successfully ignored, lied about and/or dismissed by the media and our system of "education" in America.

              This has created fertile ground for overturning and "reforming" completely our system of Government.

              We're watching it happen.

              ?


              • Originally posted by msc View Post
                Yes I do see what you're driving at, And yes, the indemnity plan did seem unaffordable to some at the time, but we can use that old saying here, "The grass is always greener on the other side". Now that were on the other side we really see what unaffordable is.

                And indemnity plans are now so high, (yes, part of it is the natural cost of inflation), but the fact that it is unaffordably high is the chain of events that gov't regulations, HMO's, and now ACA has has implemented. Implemented, IMO, to gain gov't control in the end, but accepted by the people because of their desire for perfection. Perfection that was never and is never going to be a reality. Every plan will be unaffordable to some. Every plan! Now it's a matter of who the gov't decides who the, "SOME, should be. And while accommodating their decided, "some", an additional financial burden is put on "others" even more so then before, because the gov't is also taking a piece of the financial pie. An additional fee to be paid to the governmental bottomless pit and including mass administrative employee's to redirect the healthcare.

                So as I say, I do understand how you're looking at it, but do you understand what I see as well?
                I certainly do understand what you see. My proposed solution isn't single-payer, either. We seem to agree that the objective will be a mixture of providers -insurance and health care. My frustration is the right's insistence on private, for-profit sector for everyone, despite history proving that solution is wrong for lower income groups.

                Your frustration with the left is (most of us) insist on single-payer, read "gov't administration", of insurance/HC. I don't care for single-payer, since it requires a monopoly provision of HC for low income groups. Even if wealthier individuals are able to use any market rather than single-payer, that still forces low income people to deal with a monopoly.

                That's why my centrist proposal is so radical: open up non-profits to compete across state lines, pay medical school costs for public university students in exchange for suppressed compensation to new MD's (10 years), canceling incompetent MD"s license to practice instead of driving up malpractice claims, and (most important) a 2 tier system made formal instead of pretending it doesn't exist. The traditional left and standard-issue right haven't proposed solutions to a broken system; they just put band-aids on it or criticize their opposition as a substitute for a solution.

                ?


                • Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner (R) said hes utterly appalled by the Colorado Division of Insurance decision to cancel 190,000 health plans that dont comply with Obamacare regulations even though they have the authority to continue the old plans for another year under grandfathering rules announced last year.
                  Colorado insurance commissioner Marguerite Salazar told 9News that by delaying it, it doesnt give us a good pathway into full implementation of the ACA.

                  I feel like we gave people that year, we have a great robust market in terms of health insurance in Colorado, she said.
                  But Gardner said that after all of the glitches, the increased costs and premiums, and the plan cancellations that Coloradans have already endured, the idea that the Division of Insurance would choose to cancel the healthcare plans of hundreds of thousands more people is unconscionable.


                  Read more: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/13...#ixzz3UNOtAWKX

                  ?


                  • What we can look forward to.
                    NHS ALMOST KILLED ME, SAYS FARAGE

                    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015...e-says-farage/

                    ?


                    • And it also saves tens of thousands of lives a year as well.

                      Just as with any medical set-up anywhere in the world sometimes things go wrong.
                      I recently had an operation on my eye by the NHS and I didn't die even a little bit how amazing is that as surely a socialized health service can't get anything right?

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                        And it also saves tens of thousands of lives a year as well.

                        ...as did insurance before the federal gov't decided to screw things up.

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                          And it also saves tens of thousands of lives a year as well.

                          Just as with any medical set-up anywhere in the world sometimes things go wrong.
                          I recently had an operation on my eye by the NHS and I didn't die even a little bit how amazing is that as surely a socialized health service can't get anything right?
                          Well you just said it. "And it also saved tens of thousands of lives each year as well." So it is agreed that ACA takes lives and grants lives. Perhaps we in agreement here. It is understood that the result in both is people dying.

                          Where we differ is those who support Obama care, support the gov't deciding, who has more of an entitlement to live. While in free market the people are in charge of their own lives, and have the opportunity to control their own outcome. Free people can decide who to treat, how much to treat, how much they choose to sacrifice to treat, through compassion for our fellow man. While others can choose a path to get treatment that they need. Socialized medicine allows the gov't to choose the individuals path. Takes individual power, control, and responsibility from the individual citizen. ACA removes the freedom from the providers and patients alike. Allows some to live by the hands of the gov't and takes away the opportunity for others to live.

                          I do not believe the gov't should have the right to determine man kinds means to survival. And it appears that you do.
                          Last edited by msc; 03-15-2015, 07:19 AM.

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                            What we can look forward to.
                            NHS ALMOST KILLED ME, SAYS FARAGE

                            http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015...e-says-farage/
                            I guess some think it is fair and free to take away the opportunity for one to live and give it to another. That's pretty much it in a nut shell!

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by msc View Post
                              I guess some think it is fair and free to take away the opportunity for one to live and give it to another. That's pretty much it in a nut shell!

                              How do you come to that conclusion from this case? The NHS sees millions of patients a year and the vast majority get good care I have personal experience of this with family members getting good care for cancer and my Nan getting good care for the ailments she has.

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post


                                How do you come to that conclusion from this case? The NHS sees millions of patients a year and the vast majority get good care I have personal experience of this with family members getting good care for cancer and my Nan getting good care for the ailments she has.
                                Well, I see people not going to doctors, when they used to, because they can not afford the co-pay on top of the premium. Insurance in name only. I see my friend not getting preventive breast cancer exams, because she has dense breast tissue and a sonogram that only could detect it, is not covered. I know a fellow with teeth rotting out of his mouth due to gum disease, while he can not afford dental care. Can not afford it because the premium so high that he has to pay for his medical. Money which would have been in his pocket to spend on dental care. While medicate recipients get dental with this money that is put into the system. My father gained 7 more precious years of life to meet three more grand children and influence the others with his love and existence. The kind of insurance he possessed does not exist in ACA. Or it would not be affordable to him. The life saving measures taken are not available any longer and in this current system he surely would have died. I've said this and much more before. I'm glad that your Nan got the care she needed. From the bottom of my heart. I would never wish less to prove a point. But I work in the medical field and see people suffering every day. I have personal experiences with them as well as family and friends. And it is those of middle income that I hear cries from because the care they need is not rationed their way. Limits are put on care that prevent pain, leaving many to suffer out the remaining years of their life. Whether they have 30, 20, 10 or even 1 year left. Treatment's exist for these people, but many can not afford the treatments needed to live a less painful life. The rich can afford. The middle class can not.

                                You also can not ignore that many of the people that are insured through Obama Care, had insurance previously, most getting superior health CARE. Many if not most of the people in the system are there because the regulations and costs of this act, have forced them to be there. Some may experience similar or same health care, but many do NOT.

                                Perhaps socialized healthcare in different countries are configured differently than the ACA, and does not harm the way the ACA does, but we have the ACA. And it is harming.

                                In addition those who were born into a socialized system have never experience the superior health care that a free market system brings. Therefore not knowing any better.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X