All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Who would do a better job of running the USA?
10/8/2013 3:39 PM
For the "some problems" that it solves, does it offer the best solution?

If not, is it more likely that (a) a better solution will be pursued, or (b) there will be a sense of "meh, good enough"?
10/8/2013 4:02 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/8/2013 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2013 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/7/2013 8:36:00 AM (view original):
Wasn't easy to find but here's a lefty site that agrees with me(I assume a right wing site would be met with "Phhhttt. Righty site nonsense."


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/01/shutdown-government-real-reason/

Link a lefty side that disagrees with him, STFU badluck up.

Neat trick. 

Do you want to keep that argument going, because it seemed pointless. You always accuse me of not letting things go...what exactly do you want here?
Perhaps admit it's very simplistic to say "The shutdown is over Obamacare."

Of course, that would be you saying "Yeah, I wasn't exactly right" and we know that's not going to happen.

But I do find it funny, as soon as the topic changed, you were back in full post mode.
10/8/2013 4:24 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/8/2013 3:39:00 PM (view original):
For the "some problems" that it solves, does it offer the best solution?

If not, is it more likely that (a) a better solution will be pursued, or (b) there will be a sense of "meh, good enough"?
No. The best solution would be universal health care. But that's not viable right now.

It's more likely that a better solution will be worked out if we leave the ACA in place. Incremental improvements happen in steps. Repealing the ACA makes it less likely that an ideal solution will be put into place.
10/8/2013 4:26 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2013 4:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/8/2013 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2013 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/7/2013 8:36:00 AM (view original):
Wasn't easy to find but here's a lefty site that agrees with me(I assume a right wing site would be met with "Phhhttt. Righty site nonsense."


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/01/shutdown-government-real-reason/

Link a lefty side that disagrees with him, STFU badluck up.

Neat trick. 

Do you want to keep that argument going, because it seemed pointless. You always accuse me of not letting things go...what exactly do you want here?
Perhaps admit it's very simplistic to say "The shutdown is over Obamacare."

Of course, that would be you saying "Yeah, I wasn't exactly right" and we know that's not going to happen.

But I do find it funny, as soon as the topic changed, you were back in full post mode.
The reasoning given by the GOP for the shutdown is Obamacare. The Tea Party Republicans always want to cut spending. So, ok, big picture, they are doing this because they want the government shut down. So what? It's still a terrible idea.


I was in meetings all day yesterday, it had nothing to do with the topic changing.
10/8/2013 4:32 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/8/2013 4:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/8/2013 3:39:00 PM (view original):
For the "some problems" that it solves, does it offer the best solution?

If not, is it more likely that (a) a better solution will be pursued, or (b) there will be a sense of "meh, good enough"?
No. The best solution would be universal health care. But that's not viable right now.

It's more likely that a better solution will be worked out if we leave the ACA in place. Incremental improvements happen in steps. Repealing the ACA makes it less likely that an ideal solution will be put into place.
Let me ask you this, regardless of whether you're willing to acknowledge it can or will happen:

If, three years from now, millions of Americans have lost their employee-subsidized healthcare and end up on the exchanges with higher out-of-pocket costs and less benefits, will you think it was good that the ACA was left in place?
10/8/2013 4:42 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 10/8/2013 4:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/8/2013 4:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/8/2013 3:39:00 PM (view original):
For the "some problems" that it solves, does it offer the best solution?

If not, is it more likely that (a) a better solution will be pursued, or (b) there will be a sense of "meh, good enough"?
No. The best solution would be universal health care. But that's not viable right now.

It's more likely that a better solution will be worked out if we leave the ACA in place. Incremental improvements happen in steps. Repealing the ACA makes it less likely that an ideal solution will be put into place.
Let me ask you this, regardless of whether you're willing to acknowledge it can or will happen:

If, three years from now, millions of Americans have lost their employee-subsidized healthcare and end up on the exchanges with higher out-of-pocket costs and less benefits, will you think it was good that the ACA was left in place?
If that happens, it will be bad. It will mean that most health insurance companies have gone out of business.

I doubt it will though. The exchanges will force health insurance companies to put pressure on hospitals and doctors to reduce costs.
10/8/2013 4:42 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/8/2013 2:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/8/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Awesome.  I feel much better.  As long as the pre-eminent provider of specialized children's healthcare only has to sue the government to be able to provide its services to the masses, the ACA is a rousing success.
The hospital is still available in two plans on the exchange.

Did your employer drop your coverage?
You didn't answer this.
10/8/2013 4:58 PM
No they haven't.  We also aren't at open enrollment, when most changes in health plans and coverage occur.  Would it matter to you if they had?  Somehow I doubt it.
10/8/2013 5:40 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 10/8/2013 4:58:00 PM (view original):
No they haven't.  We also aren't at open enrollment, when most changes in health plans and coverage occur.  Would it matter to you if they had?  Somehow I doubt it.
Do you think they will drop coverage for all of their employees at open enrollment?
10/8/2013 5:47 PM
I think the possibility exists, with a much larger likelihood than it did before.  I think that, if I were running the company, I would seriously consider it.  As for what someone other than me will decide to do, I can't tell you that.  We'll see.
10/8/2013 6:17 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 10/8/2013 5:47:00 PM (view original):
I think the possibility exists, with a much larger likelihood than it did before.  I think that, if I were running the company, I would seriously consider it.  As for what someone other than me will decide to do, I can't tell you that.  We'll see.
So, in this hypothetical, you're running the company. Last year, without penalty, you could have dropped coverage for your employees but didn't. This year there is a penalty if you do. And now you're more likely to drop benefits? That makes no sense.

If you do, your good employees will leave. Most companies are not dropping benefits for their employees.

 
10/8/2013 6:21 PM
Many companies are certainly reducing benefits for their employees.

Because of the ACA.

Stop denying reality.
10/8/2013 6:21 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/8/2013 6:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/8/2013 5:47:00 PM (view original):
I think the possibility exists, with a much larger likelihood than it did before.  I think that, if I were running the company, I would seriously consider it.  As for what someone other than me will decide to do, I can't tell you that.  We'll see.
So, in this hypothetical, you're running the company. Last year, without penalty, you could have dropped coverage for your employees but didn't. This year there is a penalty if you do. And now you're more likely to drop benefits? That makes no sense.

If you do, your good employees will leave. Most companies are not dropping benefits for their employees.

 
most companies are dropping benefits for their employees of some kind - if not healthcare then its something else.
10/8/2013 6:26 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/8/2013 6:21:00 PM (view original):
Many companies are certainly reducing benefits for their employees.

Because of the ACA.

Stop denying reality.
Some companies are cutting the hours of employees that were already part time so that they don't have to give them benefits. Very few companies are cutting off the benefits of employees who already had benefits.
10/8/2013 6:27 PM
Posted by moy23 on 10/8/2013 6:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/8/2013 6:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/8/2013 5:47:00 PM (view original):
I think the possibility exists, with a much larger likelihood than it did before.  I think that, if I were running the company, I would seriously consider it.  As for what someone other than me will decide to do, I can't tell you that.  We'll see.
So, in this hypothetical, you're running the company. Last year, without penalty, you could have dropped coverage for your employees but didn't. This year there is a penalty if you do. And now you're more likely to drop benefits? That makes no sense.

If you do, your good employees will leave. Most companies are not dropping benefits for their employees.

 
most companies are dropping benefits for their employees of some kind - if not healthcare then its something else.
If not healthcare it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Source on the healthcare drops?
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.