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

Posted by The Taint on 10/5/2013 10:52:00 AM (view original):
“This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles,” Boehner said.
Isn't that EXACTLY what Obama is saying now?
10/5/2013 10:54 AM
Posted by The Taint on 10/5/2013 10:51:00 AM (view original):
What do you get out of this statement?  I don't hear anything about the good of the American citizenry in there.


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

That's a three year old statement.  What relevance does it have now?

Are they trying to guarantee that Obama will not be a three-term President?
10/5/2013 10:56 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/5/2013 10:53:00 AM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 10/5/2013 10:43:00 AM (view original):
What will it say when he's actually able to get something done with them....but not with Republicans? 

That's a losing GOP talking point.
Riddle me this, Batman.

How can you get something done with somebody when you refuse to talk?
The talking is done.  The American political system, for good or bad, has been followed and the GOP lost.  If they want to repeal/defund the ACA, win the next election.  It's how it works in this country. 

Why is the constitution and laws of the land not to be followed now?  It's a hostage situation, and we don't deal with hostage takers. 

We can go round and round on this, just like BL and Biz, but I think we're smarter than that.  We're just going to have to agree to disagree. 

I don't see either of our minds being changed.
10/5/2013 11:04 AM
I can certainly agree to disagree.  BL can't, though.  He'll argue a point forever.  Case in point: the "age of the earth" argument with Biz.
10/5/2013 4:24 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2013 10:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2013 8:38:00 AM (view original):
I'm in a giving mood, dumb_luck.

The shutdown is about taxes/budgeting/deficit.    The ACA is a ***** to fund(admittedly it may be cheaper in the future) so it's sort of taken certain stage but the problem is much bigger than that.   I don't think anyone objects to universal healthcare for all.  But you can't fund everything for everybody.  That's the message the GOP is trying to get across. 

You fashion yourself as some critical, free-thinker.   You're just a parrot for whatever liberal piece you read a few minutes ago.   Your next original thought will be your first.    You're funny.   In a sad way.
You realize that the ACA isn't universal health care, right?
Semantics, dumbass.

Do you still think the shutdown is about the ACA?
10/6/2013 2:00 PM
Not the target audience, but are you trying to claim the ACA DIDN'T play a major role in leading to the shutdown?
10/6/2013 5:20 PM
Do you not understand what "so it's sort of taken certain stage" means?

Which one of those words confuses you?
10/6/2013 7:48 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/6/2013 2:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2013 10:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2013 8:38:00 AM (view original):
I'm in a giving mood, dumb_luck.

The shutdown is about taxes/budgeting/deficit.    The ACA is a ***** to fund(admittedly it may be cheaper in the future) so it's sort of taken certain stage but the problem is much bigger than that.   I don't think anyone objects to universal healthcare for all.  But you can't fund everything for everybody.  That's the message the GOP is trying to get across. 

You fashion yourself as some critical, free-thinker.   You're just a parrot for whatever liberal piece you read a few minutes ago.   Your next original thought will be your first.    You're funny.   In a sad way.
You realize that the ACA isn't universal health care, right?
Semantics, dumbass.

Do you still think the shutdown is about the ACA?
You mean "center" stage???

I thought it was a typo but then you repeated it.

The ACA has taken center stage because that's what this is about.
10/6/2013 8:44 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/6/2013 7:48:00 PM (view original):
Do you not understand what "so it's sort of taken certain stage" means?

Which one of those words confuses you?
Lol
10/6/2013 8:45 PM
If you want to say that the ACA has taken center stage because it's Obama's signature legislation and the shut down is actually about the GOP trying to live up to their collective pledge to make sure they obstruct Obama as often as possible, that would be fair.
10/6/2013 8:49 PM
Regardless of the context of the original post, you asked:
Do you still think the shutdown is about the ACA?
Best I can tell, almost everyone on earth who cares thinks the answer to that question is yes...
10/7/2013 12:51 AM
It isn't.   I guess those who care aren't bothering to think.  

Why do you think the GOP is attempting to re-open specific sections of the gov't?
10/7/2013 8:20 AM
Wasn't easy to find but here's a lefty site that agrees with me(I assume a right wing site would be met with "Phhhttt. Righty site nonsense."


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/01/shutdown-government-real-reason/

10/7/2013 8:36 AM

TEABAGGER TERRORISTS

10/7/2013 9:11 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 7:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 6:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 6:32:00 PM (view original):
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.
As voted on by Congress.  So, again, what's good enough for the America is not good enough for them.
Congress is required to be in the exchanges. Are you arguing that they shouldn't get a subsidy or that the exchanges aren't good enough for everyone else?
The two go hand-in-hand.  The law was written by proponents of a single-payer healthcare system and was designed to ultimately produce something very close to it.  The penalties to employers are low enough that it makes much more sound, fiscal sense to pay the penalty and move on.

So, in other words, if putting Americans with strong, employer-subsidized health plans on the exchanges without subsidy is a good solution, why isn't it good enough for them?
This law doesn't put Americans with strong, employer-subsidized health plans into the exchanges (other than congress and their staff).
Maybe not directly, but certainly indirectly.

We received the standard email from our H.R. department this morning notifying us that open enrollment for 2014 benefits will be starting in a couple of weeks.

Two things jumped out at me as I read the document that was attached to the email:

1)  "In 2014, plan premiums are scheduled to increase 8% to 9% due to a number of factors, including health care reform fees . . . :

2)  "Beginning in 2014, we are implementing a $900 annual surcharge for spousal coverage if your spouse or same-sex domestic partner has coverage available through another employer sponsored medical plan and remains in the <my company> medical plan."

So I look at this $900 "spousal surchage" thing and say "WTF!" and start Googling.  Apparently, this has been around for a couple of years, but with the implementation of the ACA now upon us, companies implementing a "spousal surcharge" is becoming much more prevalent as they look for ways to cut their expenses with respect to healthcare benefits BECAUSE of the impositions of the ACA.  Some companies, such as UPS, has dropped spousal coverage altogether from their healthcare plans.

So if you work for a company such as UPS, and your wife is not employed or is employed by somebody who does NOT offer healthcare benefits, he or she has no choice but to be FORCED into the exchanges.

Or . . . if you're in a double-income household where you have a choice of "his employers benefits" or "her employers benefits", you may now have to make a choice of staying in one plan (and paying a surcharge, commonly around $100 a month, or $1200 annually), or splitting between the two plans (which most likely would be more expensive than a single family plan if it weren't for the surcharge).  Either way . . . your healthcare insurance costs have increased BECAUSE of the ACA.

So, please tell me again . . . how is this good for America?
10/8/2013 12:18 PM (edited)
◂ Prev 1...20|21|22|23|24...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.