All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Who would do a better job of running the USA?
10/1/2013 1:43 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 10/1/2013 1:40:00 PM (view original):
Obama winning an election is "spin". LOL.
No.  Calling Obama's reelection a de-facto affirmation of the ACA is spin.
10/1/2013 1:43 PM
Website is crashing because so many people want cheap healthcare. What a failure.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/1/2013 1:51 PM
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 1:52 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 1:54 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 2:01 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 2:06 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 2:07 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?
I'm agreeing that it is ridiculous that we don't have universal health care in the US.
10/1/2013 2:17 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 2:34 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.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/1/2013 4:15 PM
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.
of 57
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Who would do a better job of running the USA?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 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.