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

Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/2/2013 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Because the ACA all but eliminates the downside for the companies.  Rather than taking away healthcare altogether (catastrohic in employees' minds), they are simply changing they terms by which their employees receive it.  Negatively, in almost all cases, but as companies follow suit there is no ramification.  There is no leverage for the employee when none of the other companies in their chosen field are offering healthcare.
Before the ACA, company-provided or company-subsidized healthcare insurance was a valued benefit.  But when you now have another avenue to get it at a discount outside of your employer, it's value as a benefit is greatly dimished.
its value is only diminished for those who have an option for healthcare already. if you dont have an affordable option then the value of the ACA provided one is immense.
You're absolutely correct.  The problem is that the ACA is being sold as "This only helps those without healthcare.  Those who currently receive it from their employers will see no change."  That is a blatant lie.  Bad luck said he'd be in favor of repealing the ACA in order to implement a single-payer program.  So would the people who wrote the ACA.  It is designed to, ultimately, create as close to a single-payer program as possible.  Once everyone (all but the uber-rich who can afford their own coverage out-of-pocket) is on the exchange, that's what it becomes.

But you can't sell a single-payer program in America today.  So you disguise it as "not affecting those with employee-provided healthcare," then create a program that all but encourages those employers to stop providing healthcare.  If they wanted employers to continue to provide healthcare, the penalty for not doing so would be at least the cost of providing it, would it not? 
10/2/2013 2:35 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Plus, in your quoted article, where does it address hospitals charging $16 for an Advil, or $65 for a box of gauze bandages?  How is it reducing those costs?
So you want the federal government to step in and control/regulate how private hospitals price their goods and services?
That should be an option on the table, yes.
That's basically what it does through medicare.

Why not cut out the middle man and just go single payer? Government pays X for Y service. Hospitals have to find a way to make it work or go out of business.

Full disclosure, I'd be down for repealing the ACA if this was a realistic option. Judging by the "OMFG TEH DEATH PANELS!!1!!!" reaction to the ACA, I don't think it's realistic.
The biggest problem with this is federal regulation.  I don't trust the fed to wipe their own ***** correctly without eventually smearing **** in their hair.  Giving them oversight over regulating the cost of health services frightens me to no end.

As I said, it should be an option on the table.  I'm just not sure if it's the best option, or what the better option would be.  It sure isn't the ACA.
10/2/2013 2:37 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.
My insurance cost is going to increase substantially for 2014.

Why isn't my "pay cut" being subsidized?
10/2/2013 2:40 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 10/2/2013 2:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/2/2013 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Because the ACA all but eliminates the downside for the companies.  Rather than taking away healthcare altogether (catastrohic in employees' minds), they are simply changing they terms by which their employees receive it.  Negatively, in almost all cases, but as companies follow suit there is no ramification.  There is no leverage for the employee when none of the other companies in their chosen field are offering healthcare.
Before the ACA, company-provided or company-subsidized healthcare insurance was a valued benefit.  But when you now have another avenue to get it at a discount outside of your employer, it's value as a benefit is greatly dimished.
its value is only diminished for those who have an option for healthcare already. if you dont have an affordable option then the value of the ACA provided one is immense.
You're absolutely correct.  The problem is that the ACA is being sold as "This only helps those without healthcare.  Those who currently receive it from their employers will see no change."  That is a blatant lie.  Bad luck said he'd be in favor of repealing the ACA in order to implement a single-payer program.  So would the people who wrote the ACA.  It is designed to, ultimately, create as close to a single-payer program as possible.  Once everyone (all but the uber-rich who can afford their own coverage out-of-pocket) is on the exchange, that's what it becomes.

But you can't sell a single-payer program in America today.  So you disguise it as "not affecting those with employee-provided healthcare," then create a program that all but encourages those employers to stop providing healthcare.  If they wanted employers to continue to provide healthcare, the penalty for not doing so would be at least the cost of providing it, would it not? 
you are right when you say the penalty for not providing it should be the same as the cost of providing it and then there is no benefit to cutting it. still I like the ACA bc it moves USA closer to universal health care and that is what should happen.
10/2/2013 2:41 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Plus, in your quoted article, where does it address hospitals charging $16 for an Advil, or $65 for a box of gauze bandages?  How is it reducing those costs?
So you want the federal government to step in and control/regulate how private hospitals price their goods and services?
That should be an option on the table, yes.
That's basically what it does through medicare.

Why not cut out the middle man and just go single payer? Government pays X for Y service. Hospitals have to find a way to make it work or go out of business.

Full disclosure, I'd be down for repealing the ACA if this was a realistic option. Judging by the "OMFG TEH DEATH PANELS!!1!!!" reaction to the ACA, I don't think it's realistic.
The biggest problem with this is federal regulation.  I don't trust the fed to wipe their own ***** correctly without eventually smearing **** in their hair.  Giving them oversight over regulating the cost of health services frightens me to no end.

As I said, it should be an option on the table.  I'm just not sure if it's the best option, or what the better option would be.  It sure isn't the ACA.
How many times do I have to say it? The ACA isn't trying to solve the problems you are presenting. It's designed to solve other problems.

Repealing the law eliminates its benefits (improved health care access for millions of people) without addressing any of your concerns.
10/2/2013 2:43 PM
In regards to pushing everyone towards the exchange it is already happening in a "backdoor" type of way.

A company a friend of mine works in HR, says that the increase for insurance will be pretty high, and either they can eat the cost, pass the cost onto their employees, or choose a third option offered by Obama, join the exchange and receive a tax credit...

Obama definitely wants everyone on the exchange as part of his grand scheme.
10/2/2013 2:43 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/2/2013 2:40:00 PM (view original):
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.
My insurance cost is going to increase substantially for 2014.

Why isn't my "pay cut" being subsidized?
Talk to your employer.
10/2/2013 2:44 PM
too bad I can't  simply vote myself a subsidy with taxpayer money...
10/2/2013 2:45 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/2/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):
too bad I can't  simply vote myself a subsidy with taxpayer money...
Dumbshit. Congress and staff already had their benefits paid for by their employer.

In a ruling issued on Wednesday, U.S. lawmakers and their staffs will continue to receive a federal contribution toward the health insurance that they must purchase through soon-to-open exchanges created by President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law.

The decision by the Office of Personnel Management, with Obama's blessing, will prevent the largely unintended loss of healthcare benefits for 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives and thousands of Capitol Hill staff.

When Congress passed the health reform law known as Obamacare in 2010, an amendment required that lawmakers and their staff members purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created. They would lose generous coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

The amendment's author, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, argued that if Obamacare plans were good enough for the American public, they were good enough for Congress. Democrats, eager to pass the reforms, went along with it.

But it soon became apparent the provision contained no language that allowed federal contributions toward their health plans that cover about 75 percent of the premium costs.

This caused fears that staff would suddenly face sharply higher healthcare costs and leave federal service, causing a "brain drain" on Capitol Hill.

But Wednesday's proposed rule from the OPM, the federal government's human resources agency, means that Congress will escape the most onerous impact of law as it was written.

The OPM said the federal contributions will be allowed to continue for exchange-purchased plans for lawmakers and their staffs, ensuring that those working on Capitol Hill will effectively get the same health contributions as millions of other federal workers who keep their current plan.
10/2/2013 2:48 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Plus, in your quoted article, where does it address hospitals charging $16 for an Advil, or $65 for a box of gauze bandages?  How is it reducing those costs?
So you want the federal government to step in and control/regulate how private hospitals price their goods and services?
That should be an option on the table, yes.
That's basically what it does through medicare.

Why not cut out the middle man and just go single payer? Government pays X for Y service. Hospitals have to find a way to make it work or go out of business.

Full disclosure, I'd be down for repealing the ACA if this was a realistic option. Judging by the "OMFG TEH DEATH PANELS!!1!!!" reaction to the ACA, I don't think it's realistic.
The biggest problem with this is federal regulation.  I don't trust the fed to wipe their own ***** correctly without eventually smearing **** in their hair.  Giving them oversight over regulating the cost of health services frightens me to no end.

As I said, it should be an option on the table.  I'm just not sure if it's the best option, or what the better option would be.  It sure isn't the ACA.
How many times do I have to say it? The ACA isn't trying to solve the problems you are presenting. It's designed to solve other problems.

Repealing the law eliminates its benefits (improved health care access for millions of people) without addressing any of your concerns.
badluck I am shocked for once you are making sense and not just telling everyone they are wrong bc you say so.
10/2/2013 2:54 PM
Thank God their employer isn't taking away their subsidized healthcare.  That benefit is clearly attracting the best of the best to that workforce.
10/2/2013 2:55 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Plus, in your quoted article, where does it address hospitals charging $16 for an Advil, or $65 for a box of gauze bandages?  How is it reducing those costs?
So you want the federal government to step in and control/regulate how private hospitals price their goods and services?
That should be an option on the table, yes.
That's basically what it does through medicare.

Why not cut out the middle man and just go single payer? Government pays X for Y service. Hospitals have to find a way to make it work or go out of business.

Full disclosure, I'd be down for repealing the ACA if this was a realistic option. Judging by the "OMFG TEH DEATH PANELS!!1!!!" reaction to the ACA, I don't think it's realistic.
The biggest problem with this is federal regulation.  I don't trust the fed to wipe their own ***** correctly without eventually smearing **** in their hair.  Giving them oversight over regulating the cost of health services frightens me to no end.

As I said, it should be an option on the table.  I'm just not sure if it's the best option, or what the better option would be.  It sure isn't the ACA.
How many times do I have to say it? The ACA isn't trying to solve the problems you are presenting. It's designed to solve other problems.

Repealing the law eliminates its benefits (improved health care access for millions of people) without addressing any of your concerns.
And how many times do I have to say it?  Americans are dumb (source: the Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012).  Many see Obamacare as "WE FIXED HEALTHCARE!!!" and will think that the job is done.

We haven't fixed ****.

Repeal the law, and then fix healthcare the right way.  Costs will come down, affordable healthcare is now available to millions of people.

Problem solved.  Correctly.
10/2/2013 2:56 PM
Why does the ACA need to be repealed? Can't another law be introduced alongside it?
10/2/2013 3:02 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Plus, in your quoted article, where does it address hospitals charging $16 for an Advil, or $65 for a box of gauze bandages?  How is it reducing those costs?
So you want the federal government to step in and control/regulate how private hospitals price their goods and services?
That should be an option on the table, yes.
That's basically what it does through medicare.

Why not cut out the middle man and just go single payer? Government pays X for Y service. Hospitals have to find a way to make it work or go out of business.

Full disclosure, I'd be down for repealing the ACA if this was a realistic option. Judging by the "OMFG TEH DEATH PANELS!!1!!!" reaction to the ACA, I don't think it's realistic.
The biggest problem with this is federal regulation.  I don't trust the fed to wipe their own ***** correctly without eventually smearing **** in their hair.  Giving them oversight over regulating the cost of health services frightens me to no end.

As I said, it should be an option on the table.  I'm just not sure if it's the best option, or what the better option would be.  It sure isn't the ACA.
How many times do I have to say it? The ACA isn't trying to solve the problems you are presenting. It's designed to solve other problems.

Repealing the law eliminates its benefits (improved health care access for millions of people) without addressing any of your concerns.
And how many times do I have to say it?  Americans are dumb (source: the Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012).  Many see Obamacare as "WE FIXED HEALTHCARE!!!" and will think that the job is done.

We haven't fixed ****.

Repeal the law, and then fix healthcare the right way.  Costs will come down, affordable healthcare is now available to millions of people.

Problem solved.  Correctly.
so if they repealed the ACA and replaced it with universal health care, would you consider that fixing it the right way? bc I certainly would. but if that doesn't happen the ACA is at least a step in the right direction
10/2/2013 3:03 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
◂ Prev 1...9|10|11|12|13...57 Next ▸
Who would do a better job of running the USA? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.