All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Who would do a better job of running the USA?
10/1/2013 7:05 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 7:02:00 PM (view original):
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).
If a law is passed that says that you have to either shave your head bald or get kicked in the nuts every hour on the hour until you do, would you argue that the law doesn't force you to shave your head?
10/1/2013 7:06 PM
Bullshit.

The law says you have to have insurance. If your employer gave it to you before the law required it, why would they stop now that it is required?
10/1/2013 7:19 PM
The benefit of an enticement is diminished, because you don't need a job to get affordable health coverage. Why pay more to continue to provide a diminished enticement when there is a cheaper option (pay the penalty). That makes no sense.
10/1/2013 7:51 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 7:19:00 PM (view original):
The benefit of an enticement is diminished, because you don't need a job to get affordable health coverage. Why pay more to continue to provide a diminished enticement when there is a cheaper option (pay the penalty). That makes no sense.
What the ****???

Last year there was a cheaper option for employers...not providing health care. Up until the ACA was passed all employers were free to not provide health benefits. And, yet, a lot of employers did anyway.

Why would an employer choose to stop now that there is a penalty? Why not just continue to do what they have always done?
10/1/2013 8:10 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 7:01:00 PM (view original):
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?

Bullshit.  Whenever you have a "fact" that you feel backs your argument, it's posted with all sorts of references and cross references.  But if a fact works against your argument, then you somehow "don't know"?  Bullshit.

Back to point . . . of course the ACA subsidizes a corrupt system.  The expected cost of healthcare in the U.S. for 2013 is around $2.8 trillion dollars.  Compared to other developed nations, adjusted for relative income and cost of living, healthcare in the U.S. is over 33% more expensive.  Hospitals, and in particular (and ironically) "not-for-profit" hospitals have among the highest profit margins for any industry in the U.S.

Obamacare does nothing to address this.  Instead of trying to figure out a way to address and restrain (or, GASP, reduce!) rising healthcare costs, it just throws more money at an already bloated and broken system.

You ask: would repealing the ACA address this?  No, it wouldn't.  But my fear is that once the ACA is fully implemented and entrenched as "our universal healthcare system", that people will erroneously settle for thinking that "we fixed healthcare, because everybody has access to it now".  There will be little to no incentive to actually address the real problems with the healthcare system in this country, which is the underlying costs.  In fact, the lobbyists will be even MORE committed to keeping the current system in place, since more money and profits are flowing through the system via taxpayer money.

10/1/2013 8:41 PM
If you think the answer to #2 is yes, cite a source. I don't know and don't have a reason to go hunting for answer for your argument.

The ACA is an incremental step designed to address the huge amount of uninsured people and provide a low cost government option for people who qualify.

No, it doesn't fix the entire system but oh well. Insisting that it be repealed because it doesn't fix runaway costs set by private businesses is like insisting that public education be abolished because college tuition has skyrocketed.
10/1/2013 8:58 PM
The source is the ACA itself.  Read it and prove me wrong.

The ACA, as "an incremental step", is ill-conceived and completely ignores the real problem with healthcare in the U.S.  It is on that basis that it should be repealed.

It is utterly retarded to demand, or even accept, that the federal government subsidize "private businesses with runaways costs".

If you're going to fix the problem, fix it the ******* right way.  Identify and address the root cause, not the symptom.  That's "Problem Solving 101".
10/1/2013 9:59 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 8:58:00 PM (view original):
The source is the ACA itself.  Read it and prove me wrong.

The ACA, as "an incremental step", is ill-conceived and completely ignores the real problem with healthcare in the U.S.  It is on that basis that it should be repealed.

It is utterly retarded to demand, or even accept, that the federal government subsidize "private businesses with runaways costs".

If you're going to fix the problem, fix it the ******* right way.  Identify and address the root cause, not the symptom.  That's "Problem Solving 101".
Ok bis. If you think the ACA does or doesn't do something, make an argument.

What subsidy?
10/1/2013 10:07 PM
You're joking, right?

ACA Subsidies
10/1/2013 10:43 PM (edited)
It's subsidizing low income people so they can buy insurance. It's not a subsidy to hospitals.
10/1/2013 10:23 PM
And where does the money eventually end up?
10/1/2013 10:42 PM
It's not a subsidy to hospitals, though. At least not more than your health insurance is a subsidy to the "price gouging corrupt system." You pay for a necessary service. Is that service a cog in the wheel of an inefficient, corrupt, bloated system? Sure. But it's still necessary. The ACA is designed to allow more people to access that necessary service.
10/1/2013 11:08 PM
What's a better way to make healthcare more affordable?

A) Cut out the economic inefficiencies in the system, including systemic price gouging, and let costs fall naturally.  Lower costs = more affordable.

B) Have the federal government subsidize a broken, bloated, corrupt and economically inefficient system.
10/1/2013 11:16 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 11:08:00 PM (view original):
What's a better way to make healthcare more affordable?

A) Cut out the economic inefficiencies in the system, including systemic price gouging, and let costs fall naturally.  Lower costs = more affordable.

B) Have the federal government subsidize a broken, bloated, corrupt and economically inefficient system.
Let costs fall naturally? We've had a free market health care system forever. Have prices ever fallen?

The Feds aren't subsidizing a system. The ACA is granting people access to a system. I'm waiting for you to volunteer to cancel your health insurance so that you aren't paying into the inefficient system.
10/1/2013 11:30 PM (edited)
Have the inefficiencies been addressed?  Has the price gouging been curtailed?

The two highest spending industries for political lobbies over the past 15 years have been (1) pharmaceuticals / health products, and (2) insurance.

So why do you think healthcare costs have not fallen?

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=a&indexType=i
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.