All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports >

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

10/10/2013 2:21 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/10/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):
And we all know how valid and credible his assumptions are. 

Such as when he insisted how corporations will not drop benefits because of the ACA, but when presented with proof that corporations are indeed doing so, he dismisses it as "no big deal".
Corporations didn't cut FSA accounts, that's a government rule. Companies are not dropping benefits because of the ACA.

But way to completely ignore everything I said.
10/10/2013 2:21 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/10/2013 2:10:00 PM (view original):
That's making a lot of assumptions for the future of health care, don't you think?
I'm not the one who insisted that the ACA would destroy the health care system.
10/10/2013 2:25 PM

Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing.  The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.

10/10/2013 2:28 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 10/10/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing.  The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.

Please explain further.
10/10/2013 2:33 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/10/2013 2:10:00 PM (view original):
That's making a lot of assumptions for the future of health care, don't you think?
I'm not the one who insisted that the ACA would destroy the health care system.
To be fair, I haven't read very much of this thread.

Did someone make that claim or did they claim the ACA did nothing to resolve the real issues with healthcare costs?
10/10/2013 2:42 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2013 2:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/10/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing.  The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.

Please explain further.
Sure.  It would stand to reason that people who are dependent on liberal social programs for income/services are less likely to vote against the liberal agenda (don't bite the hand that feeds).  It would seem to logically follow that the more people that can be made dependent on those programs, the less people that would vote against said agenda.
10/10/2013 2:47 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/10/2013 2:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/10/2013 2:10:00 PM (view original):
That's making a lot of assumptions for the future of health care, don't you think?
I'm not the one who insisted that the ACA would destroy the health care system.
To be fair, I haven't read very much of this thread.

Did someone make that claim or did they claim the ACA did nothing to resolve the real issues with healthcare costs?
I said the latter.  I don't remember anybody insisting "that the ACA would destroy the health care system."
10/10/2013 3:35 PM
10/10/2013 4:19 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/10/2013 3:35:00 PM (view original):
bad_luck = Daniel Seaver

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/
So this makes you Alex Crawford. Awesome.
10/10/2013 4:23 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 10/10/2013 2:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2013 2:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/10/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing.  The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.

Please explain further.
Sure.  It would stand to reason that people who are dependent on liberal social programs for income/services are less likely to vote against the liberal agenda (don't bite the hand that feeds).  It would seem to logically follow that the more people that can be made dependent on those programs, the less people that would vote against said agenda.
That doesn't make much sense. The ACA isn't really a social program like food stamps or unemployment. There is no benefit paid to anyone using it. And someone who had health coverage before isn't going to be happy if they have to move into a higher cost or lower coverage health plan. So they probably wouldn't vote liberal if that happened.

Now, if the ACA is a fantastic law that helps a lot of people and makes them happy, there's a chance they will vote for the party responsible for passing the law.
10/10/2013 4:47 PM
If it's subsidized by the government, it's more like food stamps or unemployment than it's not.

Is ACA subsidized?
10/10/2013 4:57 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/10/2013 3:35:00 PM (view original):
bad_luck = Daniel Seaver

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/
So this makes you Alex Crawford. Awesome.
Well no, not at all.

My arguments are quite different from "Alex Crawford's" argument.  I'm not arguing against the merits of the bill.  I'm arguing the overall inability of the bill to address the root cause of the problem it supposedly addresses.

"Daniel Seaver's" argument looks like it could have been lifted verbatim from your posts in this thread.

10/10/2013 5:00 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2013 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/10/2013 2:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2013 2:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/10/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing.  The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.

Please explain further.
Sure.  It would stand to reason that people who are dependent on liberal social programs for income/services are less likely to vote against the liberal agenda (don't bite the hand that feeds).  It would seem to logically follow that the more people that can be made dependent on those programs, the less people that would vote against said agenda.
That doesn't make much sense. The ACA isn't really a social program like food stamps or unemployment. There is no benefit paid to anyone using it. And someone who had health coverage before isn't going to be happy if they have to move into a higher cost or lower coverage health plan. So they probably wouldn't vote liberal if that happened.

Now, if the ACA is a fantastic law that helps a lot of people and makes them happy, there's a chance they will vote for the party responsible for passing the law.
"There is no benefit paid to anyone using it".

Holy ****, did you really just say that?  Haven't you been saying all along that the entire justification of the ACA is that it provides healthcare to people who didn't have access to it before.  Is that not a benefit to those who use it?
10/10/2013 5:08 PM (edited)
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/10/2013 4:47:00 PM (view original):
If it's subsidized by the government, it's more like food stamps or unemployment than it's not.

Is ACA subsidized?
Only if your income is near the poverty level. In that case, you're either already voting Democrat or you're so dumb you're going to vote Republican no matter what.
10/10/2013 5:06 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/10/2013 4:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/10/2013 3:35:00 PM (view original):
bad_luck = Daniel Seaver

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/
So this makes you Alex Crawford. Awesome.
Well no, not at all.

My arguments are quite different from "Alex Crawford's" argument.  I'm not arguing against the merits of the bill.  I'm arguing the overall inability of the bill to address the root cause of the problem it supposedly addresses.

"Daniel Seaver's" argument looks like it could have been lifted verbatim from your posts in this thread.

IT DOESN'T SUPPOSEDLY ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP
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.