All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports >

Who would do a better job of running the USA? Topic

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 6:47 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.
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".
of 57
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Who would do a better job of running the USA? Topic

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999- 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.