All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Who would do a better job of running the USA?
10/2/2013 12:16 PM
I think this is BL's new tactic when he doesn't know how to respond . . . . pretend he doesn't know something, or that he doesn't understand what you are saying.

Either way, he still comes across as a dumbass.
10/2/2013 12:18 PM
He's always done that.    It was just too obvious this time. 
10/2/2013 12:19 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 8:46:00 AM (view original):
I'd like to believe that the government will reject the $16 Advil charge and work on that problem but does anyone think that will happen?   If it does, it will likely be akin to the current system where insurance companies direct you to "in network" facilities to control costs.    If you choose "out of network", the excessive costs are your responsibility.   

How do the ACA supporters see this playing out?
I'd like to see someone answer this.
10/2/2013 12:30 PM
Here's something else:

More people having access to healthcare seems like a good idea.  The right thing to do.    And I have to admit I have a hard time objecting to it.   However, the dirty underside is that people will live longer and require more medical care to maintain life.   Isn't that going to escalate the cost of subsidized healthcare?

I only donate to animal charities and that's a question I ask myself from time to time.    Of course I get the emailed newsletters detailing how they saved a dog that was near death.   Right thing to do.   However, in the next paragraph, they'll ask for foster homes because the facility if overrun with animals needing homes.   They just went to great lengths to save a dog that had hours to live to add to their overpopulated/underfunded facility.     Is that where ACA is headed?
10/2/2013 12:40 PM
Explain how your thinly disguised euthanasia proposal would work, LogansRunT23
10/2/2013 12:41 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 10:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 9:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 9:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 8:37:00 AM (view original):
1.  You must buy our product
2.  You must use our product at a place we do not regulate
3.  If you cannot fully afford our product, we will help you pay for it


So what is being subsidized?   The kids at the AT&T roundtable can answer this one.

Your pronoun usage is confusing. Maybe intentionally since I doubt you really understand who is doing what.
Maybe you don't understand because you're a dumbfuck?

Yeah, that's it.   Good day.
I see that you didn't clarify who "we" and "our" are. Shocking.
Is it really necessary?

Seriously?

I just assumed you were being an *******.    Do you really not understand?   And that's not me being an *******, it's a serious question.
****, I don't think you do.

You:  US citizens required to participate in ACA
We:  US gov't providing insurance and subsidizing it
Our:  Insurance provided by ACA

Wow.
The US government is providing insurance? So your "our" in all three lines is the federal government?

Yikes.
10/2/2013 12:50 PM
Posted by deathinahole on 10/2/2013 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Explain how your thinly disguised euthanasia proposal would work, LogansRunT23
I said it was a "dirty underside".  

I'm touched when the pound saves a dog from near death after a rough life.   I'm the ******* who's clouding up and writing another check.   But the logical side of me thinks "Does that help the situation?"   
10/2/2013 12:53 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 10:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 9:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 9:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 8:37:00 AM (view original):
1.  You must buy our product
2.  You must use our product at a place we do not regulate
3.  If you cannot fully afford our product, we will help you pay for it


So what is being subsidized?   The kids at the AT&T roundtable can answer this one.

Your pronoun usage is confusing. Maybe intentionally since I doubt you really understand who is doing what.
Maybe you don't understand because you're a dumbfuck?

Yeah, that's it.   Good day.
I see that you didn't clarify who "we" and "our" are. Shocking.
Is it really necessary?

Seriously?

I just assumed you were being an *******.    Do you really not understand?   And that's not me being an *******, it's a serious question.
****, I don't think you do.

You:  US citizens required to participate in ACA
We:  US gov't providing insurance and subsidizing it
Our:  Insurance provided by ACA

Wow.
The US government is providing insurance? So your "our" in all three lines is the federal government?

Yikes.
Is it required by the US government?

Dress it up anyway you want.   It's government mandated, and subsidized, healthcare insurance.  

Do you disagree?
10/2/2013 12:55 PM
Posted by deathinahole on 10/2/2013 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Explain how your thinly disguised euthanasia proposal would work, LogansRunT23
POTY!!!

Run, Runner!!


10/2/2013 1:00 PM
Let me see if I understand this price gouging argument.

You say ACA doesn't solve the problem, so it needs to be repealed in favor of another system that doesn't solve the problem.

Wow.
10/2/2013 1:02 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 10:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 9:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 9:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 8:37:00 AM (view original):
1.  You must buy our product
2.  You must use our product at a place we do not regulate
3.  If you cannot fully afford our product, we will help you pay for it


So what is being subsidized?   The kids at the AT&T roundtable can answer this one.

Your pronoun usage is confusing. Maybe intentionally since I doubt you really understand who is doing what.
Maybe you don't understand because you're a dumbfuck?

Yeah, that's it.   Good day.
I see that you didn't clarify who "we" and "our" are. Shocking.
Is it really necessary?

Seriously?

I just assumed you were being an *******.    Do you really not understand?   And that's not me being an *******, it's a serious question.
****, I don't think you do.

You:  US citizens required to participate in ACA
We:  US gov't providing insurance and subsidizing it
Our:  Insurance provided by ACA

Wow.
The US government is providing insurance? So your "our" in all three lines is the federal government?

Yikes.
Is it required by the US government?

Dress it up anyway you want.   It's government mandated, and subsidized, healthcare insurance.  

Do you disagree?
That's not what you said. You said the government is requiring us to by their product. Which is false.

Based on your history and the content of your last few posts, I'd say that your understanding of this subject (and really anything related to how the government works) is extremely poor.
10/2/2013 1:03 PM
Posted by genghisxcon on 10/2/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):
Let me see if I understand this price gouging argument.

You say ACA doesn't solve the problem, so it needs to be repealed in favor of another system that doesn't solve the problem.

Wow.
That's what he's saying.

Repeal it because it doesn't solve a problem it's not designed to solve so that we can continue not solving the problem.
10/2/2013 1:07 PM
Semantics.    We are required to purchase a government mandated product(or have proof of similar product) and use said product at facilities where costs are not regulated.    But congrats on playing the game in a way that allows you to skirt around any issue.
10/2/2013 1:08 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 10/2/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):
Let me see if I understand this price gouging argument.

You say ACA doesn't solve the problem, so it needs to be repealed in favor of another system that doesn't solve the problem.

Wow.
That's what he's saying.

Repeal it because it doesn't solve a problem it's not designed to solve so that we can continue not solving the problem.
Yeah, it's crazy when people think that solving a problem actually requires solving a problem.
10/2/2013 1:09 PM
My God, you guys are dumb.

Repeal the ACA, and spend the time and money to address/fix the root cause of why healthcare is so much more expensive in the U.S. than in other developed parts of the world.

If healthcare costs are brought under control, the price of healthcare comes down.  If the price of healthcare comes down, then it is more affordable.  Which is the problem that, theoretically, is attempting to be solved.

Shoudl I use smaller words? 
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.