All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports >

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

10/1/2013 5:15 PM
Look, the Republicans are morons.  That's well documented.  What isn't as well documented is that Democrats are absolutely no better.  Pelosi's platform for pasing the ACA was "we have to pass the law to know what's in the law."  That was the rationale.  That's why the labor unions that rallied to support the law are now scrambling to find ways to exempt themselves from it.  That's why the very members of Congress who passed the law don't want to participate in the healthcare it provides.  The reason the Dems don't want a one year delay is that they don't want people figuring out what's in the law before it's implemented.
10/1/2013 5:19 PM
I think it's idiotic that the Republicans allowed a shutdown over this.  But don't think for a second that the Democrats didn't want this.  Reid wanted to go to committee at the beginning of negotiations.  He's voted down committee now because he wants the shutdown, so he can highlight the Republicans role in this for political gain.  There are no good guys here.  None of those idiots are looking out for the American people.
10/1/2013 5:28 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 10/1/2013 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Dems have been trying to get to committee since ******* March! They've tried 18 times since then and it gets blocked by the Repubs. Now when it's convenient the Repubs pretend they want a committee.
I agree that Repubs should have gone to committee.  So should Dems now.  It would be best for the country.  Instead, everyone is looking for a win.  And we all lose.
10/1/2013 5:30 PM
And I believe it's actually "conference" - I know you were just following suit on my f*ck up.
10/1/2013 5:38 PM
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.
10/1/2013 5:46 PM
Obviously neither party is trying to do what's best for the American people right now, they're trying to do what's best for their parties.  That's almost always the case.  More often than not it works well enough because if your party is seen as helping people it's generally favorable.  But in major battles the trend is always to value the win and the party above protecting the public.  That's an inevitable consequence of a bipartisan political landscape.
10/1/2013 5:47 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 10/1/2013 5:14:00 PM (view original):
#1 is poison pill. They tried to defund, now delay.

#2 is just a way to have a talking point. It's like having a bill saying that we're going to throw toxic waste into the drinking water and also attaching a violence against kittens act. Then when people vote against it and they say they don't want toxic waste in the drinking water the others scream, "WHY ARE SUPPORTING KITTEN VIOLENCE!"
You mean like this:

"This Republican shutdown did not have to happen. But I want every American to understand why it did happen," Obama said during remarks in the Rose Garden. "They've shut down the government over an ideological crusade to deny affordable health insurance to millions of Americans." (NBC News)

Are we really supposed to think that Republicans hate poor people so much that they will block any effort to give health insurance to the poor?  If that's what the Dems are selling, and there's a legitimate chance that the American poeple are buying it, we need to scrap the healthcare law and pour all of that money into education immediately.
10/1/2013 5:48 PM
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.
10/1/2013 5:49 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 10/1/2013 5:46:00 PM (view original):
Obviously neither party is trying to do what's best for the American people right now, they're trying to do what's best for their parties.  That's almost always the case.  More often than not it works well enough because if your party is seen as helping people it's generally favorable.  But in major battles the trend is always to value the win and the party above protecting the public.  That's an inevitable consequence of a bipartisan political landscape.
This is absolutely true.  It's frustrating as hell, and it's true.  The more frustrating thing to me is when a narrative takes hold where it's only true for one party but not the other.
10/1/2013 5:53 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.
Nobody is saying that the ACA is giving them something extra.  What I'm asking is why are the exchanges from the ACA fantastic for America, but not good enough for them?  And, if it's not good enough for them, why would they villify others for whom it's not good enough?
10/1/2013 5:54 PM
What do you mean? Congress is required to participate in the exchanges. The exchanges are good enough.
10/1/2013 6:05 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 4:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 2:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 2:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shawnfucious on 10/1/2013 1:46:00 PM (view original):
USA is one of few developed countries which are backward when it comes to health care. most have universal health care in some form. no reason USA shouldn't. it just makes sense -  unless you are a rich person bc it would prolly prevent you from buying better health care than others. that why it doesn't exist, bc rich ppl don't want it too. no other reason.
****, tec.

Look what you did.

You made me agree with bis on something.




I'm not sure what's dumber . . . what shawn said, or you agreeing with it.

Shawn seems to be saying  . . . rich people don't want poor people to have affordable healthcare because they (the rich people) want to be assured that they'll have better healthcare than poor people.

THAT'S what you're agreeing with?
I'm agreeing that it is ridiculous that we don't have universal health care in the US.
Do you think that the current healthcare system in the U.S. is cost efficient? 

I'm not talking about the cost of healthcare insurance.  I'm talking about the cost of healthcare service itself.
No, I don't think it is.

OK.

Do you think that if the current healthcare system in the U.S. was made more cost efficient, that the cost of healthcare may come down?

10/1/2013 6:10 PM
If my company chooses to pay the penalty and dump me on the exchange, do I get the same subsidy Congress gets?
10/1/2013 6:32 PM
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.
10/1/2013 6:34 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 6:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 4:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 2:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 2:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shawnfucious on 10/1/2013 1:46:00 PM (view original):
USA is one of few developed countries which are backward when it comes to health care. most have universal health care in some form. no reason USA shouldn't. it just makes sense -  unless you are a rich person bc it would prolly prevent you from buying better health care than others. that why it doesn't exist, bc rich ppl don't want it too. no other reason.
****, tec.

Look what you did.

You made me agree with bis on something.




I'm not sure what's dumber . . . what shawn said, or you agreeing with it.

Shawn seems to be saying  . . . rich people don't want poor people to have affordable healthcare because they (the rich people) want to be assured that they'll have better healthcare than poor people.

THAT'S what you're agreeing with?
I'm agreeing that it is ridiculous that we don't have universal health care in the US.
Do you think that the current healthcare system in the U.S. is cost efficient? 

I'm not talking about the cost of healthcare insurance.  I'm talking about the cost of healthcare service itself.
No, I don't think it is.

OK.

Do you think that if the current healthcare system in the U.S. was made more cost efficient, that the cost of healthcare may come down?

I don't know.

Hospitals charge $16 for advil because they want to charge $16 for advil. Not because they have to.
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.