All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Who would do a better job of running the USA?
10/1/2013 5:53 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 5:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 5:00:00 PM (view original):
Weren't the two provisions attached to the CR that:
 
1) there be the same one year delay on the implementation of the ACA (and individual mandates that come with it) that was granted by the administration to corporations in regards to their penalties, and

2) members of Congress participate in the exchanges without government subsidy

If so, why do Democrats care about corporations more than they do about individuals?  And why are the exchanges a great idea for America, but a bad idea for them?
RE #2:

Prior to the ACA, the government subsidized 72% of the cost of private insurance for members of congress (and their staffs). Requiring congress and staff members to participate in the exchanges without any subsidy is effectively cutting the pay of members of congress and their staffs.

Maybe you think they deserve to get their pay cut, but don't pretend like the ACA is is giving them something extra.
Nobody is saying that the ACA is giving them something extra.  What I'm asking is why are the exchanges from the ACA fantastic for America, but not good enough for them?  And, if it's not good enough for them, why would they villify others for whom it's not good enough?
10/1/2013 5:54 PM
What do you mean? Congress is required to participate in the exchanges. The exchanges are good enough.
10/1/2013 6:05 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 4:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 2:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 2:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shawnfucious on 10/1/2013 1:46:00 PM (view original):
USA is one of few developed countries which are backward when it comes to health care. most have universal health care in some form. no reason USA shouldn't. it just makes sense -  unless you are a rich person bc it would prolly prevent you from buying better health care than others. that why it doesn't exist, bc rich ppl don't want it too. no other reason.
****, tec.

Look what you did.

You made me agree with bis on something.




I'm not sure what's dumber . . . what shawn said, or you agreeing with it.

Shawn seems to be saying  . . . rich people don't want poor people to have affordable healthcare because they (the rich people) want to be assured that they'll have better healthcare than poor people.

THAT'S what you're agreeing with?
I'm agreeing that it is ridiculous that we don't have universal health care in the US.
Do you think that the current healthcare system in the U.S. is cost efficient? 

I'm not talking about the cost of healthcare insurance.  I'm talking about the cost of healthcare service itself.
No, I don't think it is.

OK.

Do you think that if the current healthcare system in the U.S. was made more cost efficient, that the cost of healthcare may come down?

10/1/2013 6:10 PM
If my company chooses to pay the penalty and dump me on the exchange, do I get the same subsidy Congress gets?
10/1/2013 6:32 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:10:00 PM (view original):
If my company chooses to pay the penalty and dump me on the exchange, do I get the same subsidy Congress gets?
No. Congress and staff get the subsidy as a term of their employment.
10/1/2013 6:34 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 6:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 4:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 2:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 2:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shawnfucious on 10/1/2013 1:46:00 PM (view original):
USA is one of few developed countries which are backward when it comes to health care. most have universal health care in some form. no reason USA shouldn't. it just makes sense -  unless you are a rich person bc it would prolly prevent you from buying better health care than others. that why it doesn't exist, bc rich ppl don't want it too. no other reason.
****, tec.

Look what you did.

You made me agree with bis on something.




I'm not sure what's dumber . . . what shawn said, or you agreeing with it.

Shawn seems to be saying  . . . rich people don't want poor people to have affordable healthcare because they (the rich people) want to be assured that they'll have better healthcare than poor people.

THAT'S what you're agreeing with?
I'm agreeing that it is ridiculous that we don't have universal health care in the US.
Do you think that the current healthcare system in the U.S. is cost efficient? 

I'm not talking about the cost of healthcare insurance.  I'm talking about the cost of healthcare service itself.
No, I don't think it is.

OK.

Do you think that if the current healthcare system in the U.S. was made more cost efficient, that the cost of healthcare may come down?

I don't know.

Hospitals charge $16 for advil because they want to charge $16 for advil. Not because they have to.
10/1/2013 6:38 PM
Do you see a problem with hospitals charging $16 for Advil?

Does the ACA do anything about hospitals charging $16 for Advil?

Are you fully on-board with the U.S. government essentially subsidizing a system that is corrupt with price gouging?  Is that good for America?
10/1/2013 6:38 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 5:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 10/1/2013 5:20:00 PM (view original):
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html
Yes.  The old "Listen to what I (say I) mean (after having time to get together with my spin doctors), not what I say" defense.
This is what she said, "You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. 

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."


But what's the fun in that. Might as well snip whatever you want to make someone look bad. Just like the "You didn't build that" snippet of President Obama that dumbasses at the RNC talked about the whole first day of their convention.
10/1/2013 6:47 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 6:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:10:00 PM (view original):
If my company chooses to pay the penalty and dump me on the exchange, do I get the same subsidy Congress gets?
No. Congress and staff get the subsidy as a term of their employment.
As voted on by Congress.  So, again, what's good enough for the America is not good enough for them.
10/1/2013 6:50 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 6:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:10:00 PM (view original):
If my company chooses to pay the penalty and dump me on the exchange, do I get the same subsidy Congress gets?
No. Congress and staff get the subsidy as a term of their employment.
As voted on by Congress.  So, again, what's good enough for the America is not good enough for them.
Congress is required to be in the exchanges. Are you arguing that they shouldn't get a subsidy or that the exchanges aren't good enough for everyone else?
10/1/2013 6:50 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 10/1/2013 6:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 5:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 10/1/2013 5:20:00 PM (view original):
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html
Yes.  The old "Listen to what I (say I) mean (after having time to get together with my spin doctors), not what I say" defense.
This is what she said, "You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. 

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."


But what's the fun in that. Might as well snip whatever you want to make someone look bad. Just like the "You didn't build that" snippet of President Obama that dumbasses at the RNC talked about the whole first day of their convention.
So she made a bunch of extemely generalized statements that apply more to an ideal than the actual law, then gave "the quote".

I'm not seeing how this undercuts the context in which it is being used against her.
10/1/2013 6:53 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 6:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 6:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:10:00 PM (view original):
If my company chooses to pay the penalty and dump me on the exchange, do I get the same subsidy Congress gets?
No. Congress and staff get the subsidy as a term of their employment.
As voted on by Congress.  So, again, what's good enough for the America is not good enough for them.
Congress is required to be in the exchanges. Are you arguing that they shouldn't get a subsidy or that the exchanges aren't good enough for everyone else?
The two go hand-in-hand.  The law was written by proponents of a single-payer healthcare system and was designed to ultimately produce something very close to it.  The penalties to employers are low enough that it makes much more sound, fiscal sense to pay the penalty and move on.

So, in other words, if putting Americans with strong, employer-subsidized health plans on the exchanges without subsidy is a good solution, why isn't it good enough for them?
10/1/2013 7:01 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 6:38:00 PM (view original):
Do you see a problem with hospitals charging $16 for Advil?

Does the ACA do anything about hospitals charging $16 for Advil?

Are you fully on-board with the U.S. government essentially subsidizing a system that is corrupt with price gouging?  Is that good for America?
1) Yes.

2) I don't know.

3) When did you stop beating your wife? You're basing your conclusion on a premise that needs to be proven as much or more so than the conclusion.

I'm not on board with the government subsidizing a corrupt system. But does the ACA actually subsidize a corrupt system? And, if it does, would repealing it eliminate the subsidizing of the corrupt system? Would repealing the ACA address any of the cost problems that you are worried about? Are you on board with Medicare if the US government is essentially subsidizing a system that is corrupt with price gouging?

10/1/2013 7:02 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 6:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 6:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:10:00 PM (view original):
If my company chooses to pay the penalty and dump me on the exchange, do I get the same subsidy Congress gets?
No. Congress and staff get the subsidy as a term of their employment.
As voted on by Congress.  So, again, what's good enough for the America is not good enough for them.
Congress is required to be in the exchanges. Are you arguing that they shouldn't get a subsidy or that the exchanges aren't good enough for everyone else?
The two go hand-in-hand.  The law was written by proponents of a single-payer healthcare system and was designed to ultimately produce something very close to it.  The penalties to employers are low enough that it makes much more sound, fiscal sense to pay the penalty and move on.

So, in other words, if putting Americans with strong, employer-subsidized health plans on the exchanges without subsidy is a good solution, why isn't it good enough for them?
This law doesn't put Americans with strong, employer-subsidized health plans into the exchanges (other than congress and their staff).
10/1/2013 7:03 PM
Here's the only thing anyone needs to know about the ACA:

Those morons who just shut the government down are in charge of its implementation and execution.
of 57
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Who would do a better job of running the USA?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.