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

Demise of the ACA Greatly Exaggerated

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

  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Demise of the ACA Greatly Exaggerated

    Covered California gave consumers' contact info to agents

    Raising concerns about consumer privacy, California's health exchange has given insurance agents the names and contact information for tens of thousands of people who went online to check out coverage but didn't ask to be contacted.

    The Covered California exchange said it started handing out this consumer information this week as part of a pilot program to help people enroll ahead of a Dec. 23 deadline to have health insurance in place by Jan. 1.

    State officials said they are only trying to help potential customers find insurance and sign up in time. But some insurance brokers and consumers who were contacted said they were astonished by the state's move.
    Covered California gave consumers' contact info to agents - latimes.com

    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
    C.S. Lewis

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Demise of the ACA Greatly Exaggerated

    If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. You just have to pay even more

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Demise of the ACA Greatly Exaggerated

    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
    They are completely different though so seperating the two on a CV is completely valid.
    Would you say the same of a Fireman who also worked in the civil service?

    Lastly why is working for the public sector seen as invalid and the private sector is seen as so great?
    Working in the public sector and academia require no responsibility. You can't fire a public servant or a tenured professor. They are never actually responsible for anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • FearandLoathing
    replied
    Re: Demise of the ACA Greatly Exaggerated

    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
    They are completely different though so seperating the two on a CV is completely valid.
    Would you say the same of a Fireman who also worked in the civil service?

    Lastly why is working for the public sector seen as invalid and the private sector is seen as so great?
    Well if you are correct then he fails on the basis of grammar and so do you.

    Since when are academia and public sector different? I know of no private sector "academia" positions, teaching yes, but not academia.

    and your example and the fireman and the civil service? Again some grammar schooling. where do you put the comma to get your intended result?

    Sorry, but I've been involved in the hiring of thousands of people from laborers to Television news managers and I know a padded CV when I see one. It'sreads more like a glorified resume' and reflects the academic understanding of an undergraduate...

    Now, shall I get into some specifics? The man is as much fraud as CGI, the OTHER White House friend who designed HealthCare.gov, a failed outfit that even incompetent Canadians had fired. There's not much difference here, I'm afraid and the fact yo9u have to split hairs about firemen and civil servants is kind of proof how fucking lame these bozos really are.

    The leading medical economists in the world are in France, Germany and Canada. Where were they on Obama's list? I guess Emanuel had no relatives there.

    Leave a comment:


  • eohrnberger
    replied
    Re: Demise of the ACA Greatly Exaggerated

    Originally posted by Texan View Post
    We don't have to look any further than our president. Either he is trying to ruin our economy or he has no idea how it works. He hires Chicago cronies or people he can blame and dismiss instead of looking for competence. (Emanual, Holder, Sibillius, Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett.......)
    Only problem with that is the only person that I heard Obama (or the administration) dismiss, or even reprimand, was one low or mid level guy who was criticizing the administration via an off named Twitter account. Other than that, no accountability at all demonstrated.

    Obama must be running things by the liberal / progressive management handbook which must state that 'never fire, and never reprimand anyone. It makes them feel bad'.

    Leave a comment:


  • Texan
    replied
    Re: Demise of the ACA Greatly Exaggerated

    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

    Lastly why is working for the public sector seen as invalid and the private sector is seen as so great?
    We don't have to look any further than our president. Either he is trying to ruin our economy or he has no idea how it works. He hires Chicago cronies or people he can blame and dismiss instead of looking for competence. (Emanual, Holder, Sibillius, Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett.......)

    Leave a comment:


  • PeterUK75
    replied
    Re: Demise of the ACA Greatly Exaggerated

    They are completely different though so seperating the two on a CV is completely valid.
    Would you say the same of a Fireman who also worked in the civil service?

    Lastly why is working for the public sector seen as invalid and the private sector is seen as so great?

    Leave a comment:


  • Commodore
    replied
    Re: Demise of the ACA Greatly Exaggerated

    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
    Saying he's got experience in academia and the public sector seems fine as they are completely different unless you also consider experience as a manager of a company the same as the cleaner because it's the same company.
    Neither academia nor the public sector are "companies".

    Leave a comment:


  • PeterUK75
    replied
    Re: Demise of the ACA Greatly Exaggerated

    Saying he's got experience in academia and the public sector seems fine as they are completely different unless you also consider experience as a manager of a company the same as the cleaner because it's the same company.

    Leave a comment:


  • FearandLoathing
    replied
    Re: Demise of the ACA Greatly Exaggerated

    Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Hey Fear, the 3 people below are responsible for the architecture of ObamaCare. These would be the 'geniuses' that you'd be looking for:

    Dr. David Cutler, Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied Economics, Harvard
    Dr. Ezekiel Emanual, bioethicist[1] and fellow at the nonprofit bioethics research institute The Hastings Center.[2], University of Pennsylvania
    Dr. Jonathan Gruber is a Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Yes, that would Rahm Emanual's brother. All theoretical academicians without any real world experience in anything, nor experience in health care. So no wonder ObamaCare is structured as poorly as it is.
    OK let's deal with Cutler: The first line of his CV:
    David Cutler has developed an impressive record of achievement in both academia and the public sector
    . Ah, Dr. Dave? Academia IS the public sector. FAIL

    Ezekiel Jonathan "Zeke" Emanuel is next on our list. While there is no law banning MRs. Emanuel from breeding, and Wiki says:
    (born 1957) is an American bioethicist[1] and fellow at the nonprofit bioethics research institute The Hastings Center.[2] He opposes legalized euthanasia,[3] and is a proponent of a voucher-based universal health care.
    Impressive credentials and favoring what I enjoy is cool, but none of this qualifies him for the role of medical economist. C -

    and Dr. Gruber certainly has the right credentials....

    but
    In January 2010, after news emerged that Gruber was under a $297,000 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services, while at the same time promoting the Obama administration's health care reform policies, many suggested a conflict of interest.
    Yeah, how unfair to suggest a conflict of interest. FAIL

    I guess I was a bit harsh with "geniuses", can I take that back? I would change it to slivering misfit, fuck off, gorging at the trough swine. It's more accurate.

    Leave a comment:


  • eohrnberger
    replied
    Re: Demise of the ACA Greatly Exaggerated

    Originally posted by FearandLoathing View Post
    That's taxing the rich! Way to go!


    What morons. Could their genius economists not see this coming?

    Wait, this is the Obama administration we're talking about
    Hey Fear, the 3 people below are responsible for the architecture of ObamaCare. These would be the 'geniuses' that you'd be looking for:

    Dr. David Cutler, Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied Economics, Harvard
    Dr. Ezekiel Emanual, bioethicist[1] and fellow at the nonprofit bioethics research institute The Hastings Center.[2], University of Pennsylvania
    Dr. Jonathan Gruber is a Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Yes, that would Rahm Emanual's brother. All theoretical academicians without any real world experience in anything, nor experience in health care. So no wonder ObamaCare is structured as poorly as it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • FearandLoathing
    replied
    Re: Demise of the ACA Greatly Exaggerated

    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    The University of Minnesota had to make its healthcare plans worse in order to avoid Obamacare-related penalties.



    Thanks, Obama! University must destroy health plans to stay compliant | The Daily Caller


    That's taxing the rich! Way to go!


    What morons. Could their genius economists not see this coming?

    Wait, this is the Obama administration we're talking about

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Demise of the ACA Greatly Exaggerated

    The University of Minnesota had to make its healthcare plans worse in order to avoid Obamacare-related penalties.

    The Affordable Care Act levels an excise tax on high-value health coverage plans, and UM would have to pay $48 million with its existing plans. Instead, the university is lowering the quality of its coverage.

    “The Office of Human Resources announced in a July email that it was making changes to the UPlan, the employee healthcare program, including adding a deductible and increasing copays for primary and specialty care,” according to the Minnesota Daily. “The email said the cost increases were necessary to help the University avoid a $48 million excise tax in 2018.”
    Thanks, Obama! University must destroy health plans to stay compliant | The Daily Caller

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Demise of the ACA Greatly Exaggerated

    All those Dems out there who thought that Obamacare was going to give them free medical care are going to be severely disappointed. Whether actually stated or not, there are a bunch of people who thought that they were going to have a free ride and now they find out that they are paying for a free ride for someone else. Unlike corporate taxes, where the Dems can allege they are screwing the evil corporations with taxes that are passed on to consumers, this tax is going to show up directly in people's paychecks. They won't be happy about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • eohrnberger
    replied
    Re: Demise of the ACA Greatly Exaggerated

    Originally posted by jpn View Post
    Oh, thanks for reminding me of another of the favorite alternate-reality world views! Oh yes, any policy that has a change in coverage in any way, or goes up in cost in any way, as they have been ever since insurance was invented, is now blamed on Obamacare! And the far vaster numbers of people who have gained otherwise unavailable health insurance are totally ignored! Wonderful example of an alternate-reality viewpoint! Thank you Commodore!
    JPN, you keep claiming that conservatives are living in an alternative reality. I'm more thinking that it's you and other liberal / progressive / Democrat extremists who are.

    It would seem that Obama's economic policies and ObamaCare is tanking the economy.

    Private sector has shrunk in 41 states under Obama | The Daily Caller

    So how long, exactly, are these wonder wins for oh so many going to be able to be paid for? Not long I'm thinking.

    ObamaCare, being little more than a massive wealth redistribution scheme, which many in the electorate don't support - check the polls you know this to be true, is already in the 'insurance death spiral', where there are not enough net contributors signing up to fund the net consumers. This is also known to be true.

    In fact, the one demographic burdened the most, the one on which ObamaCare's success is dependent, are turning away in droves.

    Millennials Abandon Obama and Obamacare - NationalJournal.com

    Less than 30% of millennials will sign up for Obamacare, survey says - Health Exchange - MarketWatch

    In the longer term perspective its not looking any better. When the employer mandate is enforced, it'll be between 17 and 20 times the amount of screaming and political pressure than there is now.

    Almost 80 million with employer health care plans could have coverage canceled, experts predict | Fox News




    So this alternative reality in which you and other liberals / Progressives / Democrats live, where ObamaCare is oh so good and oh so important and gives a means for health insurance to oh so many and needs to be kept in place, the numbers just don't add up.

    More are being forced off of their chosen plans, ones they selected as best for themselves (it doesn't matter if YOU think these plans were substandard or not, it matters what THEY think their plans are) to increase their cost exposure, and no one is happy about it. Quite rightly so.

    You've been a proponent that in order for the economy to recover, more demand needs to be nurtured. With all the additional expenses of ObamaCare, clearly people aren't going to have as much disposable income as they did before ObamaCare costs were needlessly thrust upon them. Demand is going to drop. This will have a negative economic impact. It's unavoidable.

    So I draw attention, once again, to this article, and how poorly the economy is really doing, and how much poorer it will be doing once employer mandate kicks everyone off of their current insurance, and makes them all spend more of their money on health insurance than they are now.

    Private sector has shrunk in 41 states under Obama | The Daily Caller

    All this economic populism from liberals / progressive / Democrats is going to screw themselves into a deep deep hole.

    The political problems of liberal populism are bad enough. Worse are the actual policies proposed by left-wing populists. The movement relies on a potent "we can have it all" fantasy that goes something like this: If we force the wealthy to pay higher taxes (there are 300,000 tax filers who earn more than $1 million), close a few corporate tax loopholes, and break up some big banks then—presto!—we can pay for, and even expand, existing entitlements. Meanwhile, we can invest more deeply in K-12 education, infrastructure, health research, clean energy and more.

    Social Security is exhibit A of this populist political and economic fantasy. A growing cascade of baby boomers will be retiring in the coming years, and the Social Security formula increases their initial benefits faster than inflation. The problem is that since 2010 Social Security payouts to seniors have exceeded payroll taxes collected from workers. This imbalance widens inexorably until it devours the entire Social Security Trust Fund in 2031, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At that point, benefits would have to be slashed by about 23%.

    Undeterred by this undebatable solvency crisis, Sen. Warren wants to increase benefits to all seniors, including billionaires, and to pay for them by increasing taxes on working people and their employers. Her approach requires a $750 billion tax hike over the next 10 years that hits mostly Millennials and Gen Xers, plus another $750 billion tax on the businesses that employ them.

    Even more reckless is the populists' staunch refusal to address the coming Medicare crisis. In 2030, a typical couple reaching the eligibility age of 65 will have paid $180,000 in lifetime Medicare taxes but will get back $664,000 in benefits. Given that this disparity will be completely unaffordable, Sen. Warren and her acolytes are irresponsibly pushing off budget decisions that will guarantee huge benefit cuts and further tax hikes for Gen Xers and Millennials in a few decades.

    As for the promise that unrestrained entitlements won't harm kids and public investments like infrastructure, public schools and college financial aid, haven't we seen this movie before? In the 1960s, the federal government spent $3 on such investments for every $1 on entitlements.

    Today, the ratio is flipped. In 10 years, we will spend $5 on the three major entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) for every $1 on public investments. And that is without the new expansion of entitlement benefits that the Warren wing of the Democratic Party is proposing. Liberal populists do not even attempt to address this collision course between the Great Society safety net and the New Frontier investments.
    Jon Cowan and Jim Kessler: Economic Populism Is a Dead End for Democrats - WSJ.com

    Yet, this is exactly the same message that's continuing to be pushed by Obama, the administration, and other liberals / progressive / Democrats. It's not going to fly. Flinging this shit around is not going to stick to the wall.

    Some are saying that this is the end to liberalism, the end of activist government.
    We can only hope so. I've not seen anything from this 'activist government', or any activist government, that has been any good, that has been well thought out, that was done on sound principals. Typically it costs everyone money they don't have and further restricts their liberty and their choices.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X