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

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.




10/1/2013 1:51 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):
The Democrats are doubling down on their own stupidity for passing this ill-conceived law in the first place by refusing to budge.
Why should they budge on the ACA? The bill was passed legally and upheld as constitutional by SCOTUS.
Yes, it was passed legally.  And yes, it was upheld as constitutional by SCOTUS.

Do both of those things together make it a good law?

Because it's not.  It fails to address the basic and most fundamental problem with healthcare in the United States, which is a broken and obscenely bloated cost structure.  Instead, it just legislates who's going to pay for it.

You don't solve problems by merely throwing money at it.

Shutting down the government doesn't seem like a rational response to a law you don't agree with, even if you think it's a bad law.


10/1/2013 1:52 PM
if fed govt is shut down it should mean 1. no one pays federal taxes until its not shut down anymore 2. ppl in congress don't get paid until its not shut down anymore

somehow I think it would not be shut down long then

10/1/2013 1:54 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 1:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):
The Democrats are doubling down on their own stupidity for passing this ill-conceived law in the first place by refusing to budge.
Why should they budge on the ACA? The bill was passed legally and upheld as constitutional by SCOTUS.
Yes, it was passed legally.  And yes, it was upheld as constitutional by SCOTUS.

Do both of those things together make it a good law?

Because it's not.  It fails to address the basic and most fundamental problem with healthcare in the United States, which is a broken and obscenely bloated cost structure.  Instead, it just legislates who's going to pay for it.

You don't solve problems by merely throwing money at it.

Shutting down the government doesn't seem like a rational response to a law you don't agree with, even if you think it's a bad law.


Where and when did I say that shutting down the government over Obamacare was a good idea?
10/1/2013 2:01 PM
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?
10/1/2013 2:06 PM
You didn't. "You" in my post was referring to house republicans. Sorry I wasn't more clear. 
10/1/2013 2:06 PM
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.
10/1/2013 2:07 PM
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?
yes that is what I'm saying and its the plain and simple god's honest truth of the matter. seriously everyone benefits from universal health care but rich ppl, who get none of the benefits and suddenly become like other ppl. no one has to worry about huge bills - rich ppl already don't care. everyone gets health care - rich ppl already do. everyone gets EQUAL health care - poor and middle class ppl get better or stay where they are for most part, but rich ppl drop down to same lvl as everyone else. face it only rich have a reason to oppose it.
10/1/2013 2:17 PM
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.
10/1/2013 2:34 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
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.
10/1/2013 4:15 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
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?
10/1/2013 5:00 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 1:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 10/1/2013 1:23:00 PM (view original):
I don't really 100% understand why the President and Senate Democrats are choosing to take a strong stand on this at the moment, frankly.  People don't like Obamacare.  Opinion polls have nearly universally demonstrated the truth of that statement.  That doesn't mean, as a Democrat, you have to give up on it.  But if you vote to delay it, you haven't even voted on any meaningful change to the law.  Just give yourself more time to do a better job of explaining it and trying to convince the more gullible members of society that it's actually a good idea.  Of course if you're heavily invested in the law you don't want to see full implementation pushed back.  But right now you certainly aren't doing anything to increase its popularity with Republicans or the general public.  I don't think fighting for implementation on the original timetable is good for the long-term viability of the bill.  I think the wiser move would be to allow the delay, start running a lot of public service ads on TV and in print to explain the law to the people, and gear up for a big battle over whether Obamacare stays or goes further on down the line.
"People don't like Obamacare.  Opinion polls have nearly universally demonstrated the truth of that statement."

I think the poll, at least the one I've seen, shows that 1/3 don't like it, 1/3 like it, and 1/3 wish it went further (more liberal). 2/3 are in favor of Obamacare or more liberal health care reform.
So if this is the logic used to defend Obamacare, doesn't the same logic apply across the board.  As in "2/3 of Americans are in favor of existing gun control laws or more liberal gun control laws.  Therefore 2/3 of Americans support existing gun control laws."

It's just another way of saying "we have to fix the laws we have."  Obamacare included.
10/1/2013 5:12 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4...57 Next ▸
Who would do a better job of running the USA? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2016 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.