All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports >

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

10/15/2013 4:21 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 10/15/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/15/2013 3:17:00 PM (view original):
We're allowed to vote.   If people would vote out the incumbents, a message can be sent.    But it won't happen because 80%, I imagine, are pressing one side of the poll regardless of the name attached to it.
Yep.  The only cure is to get the money out of politics.  And the politicians won't vote for that because the money lines their pockets and keeps them in power.
Agreed. Fund campaigns publicly and outlaw bribery...I mean, "campaign contributions."
10/15/2013 4:40 PM
This is how broken the system is:  The group of us, who are representative of the country as a whole in that we're never in consensus on anything, all agree on this issue - yet nothing gets done about it.
10/15/2013 9:07 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/15/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/15/2013 3:17:00 PM (view original):
We're allowed to vote.   If people would vote out the incumbents, a message can be sent.    But it won't happen because 80%, I imagine, are pressing one side of the poll regardless of the name attached to it.
When was the last time you voted for a Democrat for president or congress?
2012.   I voted for one incumbent.    He was a minority, Republican and young. 
10/15/2013 10:16 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/15/2013 9:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/15/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/15/2013 3:17:00 PM (view original):
We're allowed to vote.   If people would vote out the incumbents, a message can be sent.    But it won't happen because 80%, I imagine, are pressing one side of the poll regardless of the name attached to it.
When was the last time you voted for a Democrat for president or congress?
2012.   I voted for one incumbent.    He was a minority, Republican and young. 
He was a Republican. When was the last time you voted for a Democrat?
10/16/2013 1:14 AM
Another real life experience.

Just had our benefit briefing today. Our rates are increasing a bit, and our coverage is not going to be as good as it is now. Win/Win...

Something I was made aware of today, in that meeting. There is a so-called "Cadillac Tax", where if you have really great insurance coverage like I do, or did I guess, the government will hit the company with a 40% tax.

So basically the government is saying "That coverage is too good. If you want to keep providing insurance of that high quality it's going to cost you an additional 40%."

WTF?

What good can that possibly do for anybody?
10/16/2013 7:47 AM

The tax seeks to slow the growth rate of health costs and finance health coverage expansion.

Proponents say high-cost plans are bloated, shield workers from the true cost of care and encourage unnecessary tests and hospital visits.

Labor unions, which are pushing to have the tax eliminated or the threshold raised, fear workers will unfairly feel the brunt of the tax and take issue with the “Cadillac” reference.

“It’s extremely misleading,” said Anders Lindall, AFSCME Council 31 spokesman in Chicago. “Far from being excessive, our plans are reliable, strong and safe.

“The tax punishes workers who have made sacrifices in pay to trade off for health security for their families. We shouldn’t impose a negative incentive against strong health plans.”

“Proponents assert people are overinsured, and that to control health spending the thing to do is increase peoples’ deductibles and copays, and that will get people to tell their doctors they don’t need as much health care,” said Tom Leibfried, national AFL-CIO legislative representative. “But there’s not a lot of evidence that increasing what people pay out of pocket slows health spending.”

Here is the entire article that I quoted this from: http://www.suntimes.com/news/22686154-418/employers-shifting-costs-to-avoid-obamacare-cadillac-tax.html

Would it sounds like is President Robin Hood is punishing those who have excellent health care by taxing them in order to help finance health care for his minions.

10/16/2013 8:31 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2013 7:47:00 AM (view original):

The tax seeks to slow the growth rate of health costs and finance health coverage expansion.

Proponents say high-cost plans are bloated, shield workers from the true cost of care and encourage unnecessary tests and hospital visits.

Labor unions, which are pushing to have the tax eliminated or the threshold raised, fear workers will unfairly feel the brunt of the tax and take issue with the “Cadillac” reference.

“It’s extremely misleading,” said Anders Lindall, AFSCME Council 31 spokesman in Chicago. “Far from being excessive, our plans are reliable, strong and safe.

“The tax punishes workers who have made sacrifices in pay to trade off for health security for their families. We shouldn’t impose a negative incentive against strong health plans.”

“Proponents assert people are overinsured, and that to control health spending the thing to do is increase peoples’ deductibles and copays, and that will get people to tell their doctors they don’t need as much health care,” said Tom Leibfried, national AFL-CIO legislative representative. “But there’s not a lot of evidence that increasing what people pay out of pocket slows health spending.”

Here is the entire article that I quoted this from: http://www.suntimes.com/news/22686154-418/employers-shifting-costs-to-avoid-obamacare-cadillac-tax.html

Would it sounds like is President Robin Hood is punishing those who have excellent health care by taxing them in order to help finance health care for his minions.

Isn't that awesome. 

Especially fond of the "to control health spending the thing to do is increase peoples’ deductibles and copays, and that will get people to tell their doctors they don’t need as much health care"

Because, as everyone knows, one of the biggest difficulties we face with the health care crisis, is people getting too much health care. All of this preventative testing and early diagnosing, THAT's what really has caused this crisis that we're in now.
10/16/2013 8:36 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/15/2013 10:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/15/2013 9:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/15/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/15/2013 3:17:00 PM (view original):
We're allowed to vote.   If people would vote out the incumbents, a message can be sent.    But it won't happen because 80%, I imagine, are pressing one side of the poll regardless of the name attached to it.
When was the last time you voted for a Democrat for president or congress?
2012.   I voted for one incumbent.    He was a minority, Republican and young. 
He was a Republican. When was the last time you voted for a Democrat?
2012.   Read the goddam post.   I voted for ONE incumbent.    ****.
10/16/2013 8:51 AM
MY PRESIDENTIAL VOTES:

72- MCGOVERN
76- FORD
80- REAGEN
84- MONDALE
88- PAPA BUSH
92- CLINTON
96- CLINTON
00- GORE
04- KERRY
08- CLINTON(NEVADA PRIMARY) OBAMA
12- OBAMA
10/16/2013 8:53 AM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/16/2013 8:31:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2013 7:47:00 AM (view original):

The tax seeks to slow the growth rate of health costs and finance health coverage expansion.

Proponents say high-cost plans are bloated, shield workers from the true cost of care and encourage unnecessary tests and hospital visits.

Labor unions, which are pushing to have the tax eliminated or the threshold raised, fear workers will unfairly feel the brunt of the tax and take issue with the “Cadillac” reference.

“It’s extremely misleading,” said Anders Lindall, AFSCME Council 31 spokesman in Chicago. “Far from being excessive, our plans are reliable, strong and safe.

“The tax punishes workers who have made sacrifices in pay to trade off for health security for their families. We shouldn’t impose a negative incentive against strong health plans.”

“Proponents assert people are overinsured, and that to control health spending the thing to do is increase peoples’ deductibles and copays, and that will get people to tell their doctors they don’t need as much health care,” said Tom Leibfried, national AFL-CIO legislative representative. “But there’s not a lot of evidence that increasing what people pay out of pocket slows health spending.”

Here is the entire article that I quoted this from: http://www.suntimes.com/news/22686154-418/employers-shifting-costs-to-avoid-obamacare-cadillac-tax.html

Would it sounds like is President Robin Hood is punishing those who have excellent health care by taxing them in order to help finance health care for his minions.

Isn't that awesome. 

Especially fond of the "to control health spending the thing to do is increase peoples’ deductibles and copays, and that will get people to tell their doctors they don’t need as much health care"

Because, as everyone knows, one of the biggest difficulties we face with the health care crisis, is people getting too much health care. All of this preventative testing and early diagnosing, THAT's what really has caused this crisis that we're in now.
Weird.   Because I thought the big selling point of Obamacare was that it would pay for itself over time because more people would get preventative care and early diagnosis.
10/16/2013 9:16 AM
Wrong. The big selling point was "We'll provide healthcare to those who don't yet have it, on the backs of those who have contributed the most for many years now".

As is most liberal robin hood plans.

Unions are really pi$$ed about this, because, remember how they all supported Obama, and now they realize that the great HC plans they had negotiated for are getting trimmed down quite a bit. Maybe they should have hired someone to read the 3000+ pages of garbage before throwing their support to the jacka$$.
10/16/2013 9:21 AM
10/16/2013 9:26 AM
Posted by antoncresten on 10/16/2013 8:51:00 AM (view original):
MY PRESIDENTIAL VOTES:

72- MCGOVERN
76- FORD
80- REAGEN
84- MONDALE
88- PAPA BUSH
92- CLINTON
96- CLINTON
00- GORE
04- KERRY
08- CLINTON(NEVADA PRIMARY) OBAMA
12- OBAMA
ANTON HATES HIM SOME JIMMY CARTER
10/16/2013 9:28 AM
Unrelated, but interesting view of how people who are given free stuff (paid for by us) appreciate the help they receive.

Anyone see the story of the EBT malfunction over the weekend? Mass chaos ensuing, because many welfare recipients had a "no limit" on their EBT card. Surprisingly #sarcasm#, many of these people who receive our money for doing nothing every month, actually took advantage of the situation, and went on mad shopping sprees.

When the glitch was corrected the stores had tons of carts abandoned in the aisles just over flowing. One lady had $700 worth of merchandise in her cart but the glitch was corrected before she got away with it, and her balance was only .49 cents. 


Full story with pics:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chaos-la-walmart-stores-ebt-cards-dump-spending-limits-article-1.1484953
10/16/2013 9:38 AM
If you think that's bad, you should see how Wall Street execs act when they get chances to do stuff like get involved with insider trading, create Ponzi schemes, or create false values on stocks for their own profit.

Don't pretend that it's just the "freeloaders" who are ready to cheat the system. Drop in the bucket compared to bankers.

After all corporations are people too.
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.