Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

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

AND

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

AND

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

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONSEQUENCES

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

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

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

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

PRIVACY POLICY

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

SUBSCRIPTIONS

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

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

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

  • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    Everybody Has To Pay This New Obamacare Tax




    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/09/ev...#ixzz3iQh4DNd5

    [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
    Many families avoid the doctor because the premium sucks up all available cash. This leaves many going to the emergency room because they often wait too long and the illness becomes uncontrollable without medical attention. So much for keeping people healthier. Our office was displeased with the premium hike in 2015. No raises and more taken out of paychecks. Especially the young unmarried people. Income is going down for all of us. Now this anticipate raise of cost in premium, many more people will avoid doctor visits as it hits the next income level creating unaffordability more. And can't imagine what will happen to people struggling already. Society continues to work harder for less.

    The only good news is the hike in cost will come before the presidential election and perhaps get more people on board opposing ACA. Unless of course Obama finds a way to use executive action and somehow slow down the final unaffordable result until after the election. As he did by exempting big business from the ACA to slow down the impact. Ya know, ease people into poverty so they don't realize what's happening until it's too late. The public isn't getting that the claims were for big businesses and the wealthy to pay out more, yet they were the ones exempt? Hello, McFly!

    And while Obama and the Dems. constantly talk about CEO's and business' making too much money, where has the attempt been made to regulate by law the amount insurance companies are allowed to charge for premiums? How come the administration regulates what doctors can charge for services yet no outcry or attempt to regulate what insurance companies can charge for their product? Why do the insurance companies get to fly without being challenged? What's that all about? Of course I know these answers, but why aren't other people asking these questions?

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Originally posted by msc View Post
      Many families avoid the doctor because the premium sucks up all available cash. This leaves many going to the emergency room because they often wait too long and the illness becomes uncontrollable without medical attention. So much for keeping people healthier. Our office was displeased with the premium hike in 2015. No raises and more taken out of paychecks. Especially the young unmarried people. Income is going down for all of us. Now this anticipate raise of cost in premium, many more people will avoid doctor visits as it hits the next income level creating unaffordability more. And can't imagine what will happen to people struggling already. Society continues to work harder for less.

      The only good news is the hike in cost will come before the presidential election and perhaps get more people on board opposing ACA. Unless of course Obama finds a way to use executive action and somehow slow down the final unaffordable result until after the election. As he did by exempting big business from the ACA to slow down the impact. Ya know, ease people into poverty so they don't realize what's happening until it's too late. The public isn't getting that the claims were for big businesses and the wealthy to pay out more, yet they were the ones exempt? Hello, McFly!

      And while Obama and the Dems. constantly talk about CEO's and business' making too much money, where has the attempt been made to regulate by law the amount insurance companies are allowed to charge for premiums? How come the administration regulates what doctors can charge for services yet no outcry or attempt to regulate what insurance companies can charge for their product? Why do the insurance companies get to fly without being challenged? What's that all about? Of course I know these answers, but why aren't other people asking these questions?

      This is a tax. It will be seen as a premium increase but the fact is, the money is going to Congress to spend.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


        This is a tax. It will be seen as a premium increase but the fact is, the money is going to Congress to spend.
        It gets worse and worse, doesn't it? The plan is unaffordable as it stands. It's frustrating that the news stations and papers are not all over this. It's just so sickening that media has lost all of it's integrity and no longer informs the public of the facts. I can't imagine anyone wanting to keep Obama care going if they knew this information. And no one held accountable to the intentional deceit that this plan was delivered to the voters with. Even as each thing unfolds, people refuse to believe what's happening to them. I wasn't aware of this tax, but I'm not surprised.

        Let's see which, if any republican candidate brings this up during the debates. Being our media doesn't broadcast, the debate is the largest forum. Slip this in and speak about how they'll fight against it. Something that every American will be suffering if that candidate is not elected.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • The Health Consumer Alliance filed a blistering letter just before Covered California’s Board meeting on Thursday accusing the state’s Obamacare exchange of failing to resolve member issues promptly, including blocked access to care and the inability for individual members to finalize their tax returns.
          http://www.breitbart.com/california/...tive-collapse/

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
            If Obama was the CEO of a company, he would have been ousted years ago. So the republicans can't come up with anything better? Clearly our entire gov't is incompetent. They don't know what the hell they're doing. You've got to make sure the ride is safe before you allow people to get on it. Here they've built a piece of garbage and try to fix each problem as it arises without forethought. People falling to their death and simply considered collateral damage.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • 22% OF OBAMACARE ENROLLEES DROPPED COVERAGE THIS YEAR

              http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...age-this-year/

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                22% OF OBAMACARE ENROLLEES DROPPED COVERAGE THIS YEAR

                http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...age-this-year/
                If they file fed income taxes, the way I understand it, with each passing year the penalty grows to become unaffordable for the working class.

                If we had any sense, we would drop aca and institute a single payer medicare for all, with a private insurance option for the more well to do people who could then get the finest care money can buy. But we would have to revamp the medicare system, and make it work efficiently with the lowest overhead costs possible. I know conservatives say the gov't cannot run anything, but by George used to run some gov't programs quite well. All it takes is the will, intelligence, and good software. With an investigative branch that rides over the crooks in the private sector that seek to rip off the taxpayers. And then fund this branch enough so they can do their jobs. We could get creative with an 800 number to turn in the crooks, with any conviction of said crooks involving a reward for the snitch, or rather, the honest American with integrity. There is no excuse for the per capita dollars we spend on healthcare under the old and even the current system which will never address costs for it was written by big insurance to make sure they made even more profits than the old system.

                That's right my conservative forum members. Healthcare should be a human right in any modern, civilized society, especially the richest one the world has ever known. You should have the right for our military protecting your life and your freedoms, and the right to protect the body from injury, illnesses and disease, by instituting a collective effort at providing this right. Surely that is what a moral modern society does. That is, if the society places the upmost value on human life. And if a society does not place a great value on it, it is an immoral society, with the wrong value system. Our value system seems to be only in regards to mammon, and how much profit can be squeeze out for the rich, even if it involves the exploitation of other human lives When money is more important than human lives, you have an immoral society based upon the sin of selfishness.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                  If they file fed income taxes, the way I understand it, with each passing year the penalty grows to become unaffordable for the working class.

                  If we had any sense, we would drop aca and institute a single payer medicare for all, with a private insurance option for the more well to do people who could then get the finest care money can buy. But we would have to revamp the medicare system, and make it work efficiently with the lowest overhead costs possible. I know conservatives say the gov't cannot run anything, but by George used to run some gov't programs quite well. All it takes is the will, intelligence, and good software. With an investigative branch that rides over the crooks in the private sector that seek to rip off the taxpayers. And then fund this branch enough so they can do their jobs. We could get creative with an 800 number to turn in the crooks, with any conviction of said crooks involving a reward for the snitch, or rather, the honest American with integrity. There is no excuse for the per capita dollars we spend on healthcare under the old and even the current system which will never address costs for it was written by big insurance to make sure they made even more profits than the old system.

                  That's right my conservative forum members. Healthcare should be a human right in any modern, civilized society, especially the richest one the world has ever known. You should have the right for our military protecting your life and your freedoms, and the right to protect the body from injury, illnesses and disease, by instituting a collective effort at providing this right. Surely that is what a moral modern society does. That is, if the society places the upmost value on human life. And if a society does not place a great value on it, it is an immoral society, with the wrong value system. Our value system seems to be only in regards to mammon, and how much profit can be squeeze out for the rich, even if it involves the exploitation of other human lives When money is more important than human lives, you have an immoral society based upon the sin of selfishness.
                  Where in the US Constitution does this right to healthcare exist? Cite it. Cite it without contortions and rationalizations.

                  If you really believe that it is a right, and it appears that you do, then please, amend the constitution to secure that right.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post

                    Where in the US Constitution does this right to healthcare exist? Cite it. Cite it without contortions and rationalizations.

                    If you really believe that it is a right, and it appears that you do, then please, amend the constitution to secure that right.
                    Given that "general welfare" is not specific, but a term that could be used as the reality of America changed, with time, one could say that it was in the interest of the general welfare of americans, which of course it would be.

                    Where in the constitution is the right given to invade other nations, who have not attacked the US, and to take out their leaders and occupy their nation? Our constitution is there to protect the people from an oppressive, sociopathic gov't created by madmen. Rationally if we have a military to protect the lives of our citizens, it is not irrational to also protect their very health and lives, by a collective effort at healthcare, with the people contributing in as in SS. We do not run a military based upon profits, we do not have gov't soldier of fortune, and this would be along those same lines. A nation that protects the life, of its citizens, could very well include healthcare. And we have talked about this since FDR. Not like its new.

                    The general welfare of a People of course will change as the nature of our reality changes. So promote the general welfare is in the constitution, and it is not specifically detailed or defined to allow it to be used to meet a changing America.

                    The trouble we have is in congress trampling all over given rights, whenever they can use fear to justify it. They take away rights, instead of giving rights. For instance, one could buy over the counter drugs, like pot, cocaine, heroin, for most of our history, and that right was not listed in the constitution, specifically. Yet it was accepted, that we could put into our bodies, what we wanted, and gov't could not say no, or throw you in prison for doing it. Then, what was accepted as a basic right, was taken away. So, our rulers take away rights, and do not like personal freedom at all. But I have drifted here....

                    So I can see why some do not want healthcare to be a right, even if it could fall under the general welfare clause. Why give americans more rights? The less rights, the better.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                      Given that "general welfare" is not specific, but a term that could be used as the reality of America changed, with time, one could say that it was in the interest of the general welfare of americans, which of course it would be.

                      Where in the constitution is the right given to invade other nations, who have not attacked the US, and to take out their leaders and occupy their nation? Our constitution is there to protect the people from an oppressive, sociopathic gov't created by madmen. Rationally if we have a military to protect the lives of our citizens, it is not irrational to also protect their very health and lives, by a collective effort at healthcare, with the people contributing in as in SS. We do not run a military based upon profits, we do not have gov't soldier of fortune, and this would be along those same lines. A nation that protects the life, of its citizens, could very well include healthcare. And we have talked about this since FDR. Not like its new.

                      The general welfare of a People of course will change as the nature of our reality changes. So promote the general welfare is in the constitution, and it is not specifically detailed or defined to allow it to be used to meet a changing America.

                      The trouble we have is in congress trampling all over given rights, whenever they can use fear to justify it. They take away rights, instead of giving rights. For instance, one could buy over the counter drugs, like pot, cocaine, heroin, for most of our history, and that right was not listed in the constitution, specifically. Yet it was accepted, that we could put into our bodies, what we wanted, and gov't could not say no, or throw you in prison for doing it. Then, what was accepted as a basic right, was taken away. So, our rulers take away rights, and do not like personal freedom at all. But I have drifted here....

                      So I can see why some do not want healthcare to be a right, even if it could fall under the general welfare clause. Why give americans more rights? The less rights, the better.

                      The general welfare clause is for the General Welfare of the United States, not the general welfare of specific individuals as the expense of other specific individuals.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Consumers: Obamacare's High Deductibles Makes it 'Impossible' to Go to the Doctor

                        http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortney...octor-n2081590

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Obama finally gets to veto legislation that would free his legacy from at least one millstone.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


                            The general welfare clause is for the General Welfare of the United States, not the general welfare of specific individuals as the expense of other specific individuals.
                            I wasn't aware he suggested a law that benefits specific individuals by name. As for benefiting some individuals at the expense of others, the US government does this quite a bit with patents and licenses. The rich of this country (such as doctors, lawyers, and patent owners) derive the most benefit from these aspects of the US, but I don't see you railing against these far greater government-made inequalities. The right wingers/"conservatives" generally only emerge to bash the policies that help the common worker (I'm not talking about ACA here, btw). They're MIA when it comes to the big corporations and the worthless rich layabouts that benefit so much from government-created inequalities.

                            Granted, the ACA is a disaster and doesn't help the working class very much at all. The real problem is out-of-control doctor and pharmacist salaries, but the anti-competitive government policies that allow them to get rich at the expense of others (sounds familiar?) are still in place.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Originally posted by Slon View Post

                              I wasn't aware he suggested a law that benefits specific individuals by name. As for benefiting some individuals at the expense of others, the US government does this quite a bit with patents and licenses. The rich of this country (such as doctors, lawyers, and patent owners) derive the most benefit from these aspects of the US, but I don't see you railing against these far greater government-made inequalities. The right wingers/"conservatives" generally only emerge to bash the policies that help the common worker (I'm not talking about ACA here, btw). They're MIA when it comes to the big corporations and the worthless rich layabouts that benefit so much from government-created inequalities.

                              Granted, the ACA is a disaster and doesn't help the working class very much at all. The real problem is out-of-control doctor and pharmacist salaries, but the anti-competitive government policies that allow them to get rich at the expense of others (sounds familiar?) are still in place.

                              Just what do patents and licenses have to do with the general welfare clause? You are clueless about doctor salaries. I have known many doctors over the years who made less than me and that wasn't millionaire status. They have big incomes but huge expenses.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


                                Just what do patents and licenses have to do with the general welfare clause? You are clueless about doctor salaries. I have known many doctors over the years who made less than me and that wasn't millionaire status. They have big incomes but huge expenses.
                                I know every single doctor here where I live, and I know where they live. All are upper middle class. I remember doctors from my childhood too. The country doctors who were well to do, probably barely above middle, middle class. But above the general population here, at that time as most of us were working poor, back in the 50s.until we finally benefitted from what helped to create out middle class, industry, making what we consumed. The only recipe for a middle class that is not a sliver of the economy.

                                ACA is Oligarchy healthcare, and the GOP would have embraced it, if not for it being picked up by the corporate owned dems, for it was a GOP think tank plan before the dems embraced it, cutting out a public option which was of course not there in the GOP think tank plan. The original idea came from Nelson Rockefeller, a rich elite years ago, but not a FDR progressive.

                                Why would the GOP not embrace a plan that orginated in a right wing think tank, as an alternative to hillarycare? The incoherence here, just cannot be looked over, discounted, nor ignored.

                                Of course, it could be that the GOP did not want any tax money to subsidize those who could not afford the oligarchy plan. But mandatory? Sure, just like the mandatory car insurance here in my state that it took the GOP to get passed.
                                Last edited by Blue Doggy; 12-04-2015, 10:54 AM.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X