Off Topic Thread 3.0

Bazzo · 12-01-2017 02:48PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not bad. Nearly every other first world country has it. For it to have worked well though it needed a state run insurer that would have pulled premiums back. Obamacare passed but this aspect of it didn't so while people got insurance (because insurers could no longer prejudice) they just hiked the prices and made it unpopular for people who already had insurance.

The reason by the way that the state run insurer wasn't included was because republicans blocked it.

So Obamacare is a good thing, but without creating competition in a market that runs like a cartel the cost for existing policy holders went up.

It will go back to the way it was or they will bring in a new act that was what the original affordable care act was meant to be. Having a state run business though that acts as a competitor to reduce the profits of other corporations wouldn't fit the republican ideology so it's hard to know.

I try to see both sides of things and be fair and critical in my thinking of things, but the Republicans really are a despicable and fairly hateful crowd.

It'll definitely go back to the way it was, because everybody was content with the status quo of 26,000 American dying every year because they couldn't afford health insurance.

bilston · 12-01-2017 02:51PM

Bazzo wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not bad. Nearly every other first world country has it. For it to have worked well though it needed a state run insurer that would have pulled premiums back. Obamacare passed but this aspect of it didn't so while people got insurance (because insurers could no longer prejudice) they just hiked the prices and made it unpopular for people who already had insurance.

The reason by the way that the state run insurer wasn't included was because republicans blocked it.

So Obamacare is a good thing, but without creating competition in a market that runs like a cartel the cost for existing policy holders went up.

It will go back to the way it was or they will bring in a new act that was what the original affordable care act was meant to be. Having a state run business though that acts as a competitor to reduce the profits of other corporations wouldn't fit the republican ideology so it's hard to know.

I try to see both sides of things and be fair and critical in my thinking of things, but the Republicans really are a despicable and fairly hateful crowd.

It'll definitely go back to the way it was, because everybody was content with the status quo of 26,000 American dying every year because they couldn't afford health insurance.

Yeah just like they are content with 100000 Americans dying in 10 years as a result of gun crime...but hey it wouldn't be right for other people to tell them how to run their country...who would do that...

Glad to finally hear the coherent arguments against Obamacare, or at least the reasons why it maybe isn't as strong as it could be.

awec · 12-01-2017 02:53PM

It also forced everyone to have health insurance too and republicans had a field day with that.

It actually forced people to have insurance so that everyone would be paying into the system rather than people just taking out insurance when they got sick.

sullivlo · 12-01-2017 02:54PM

Bazzo wrote: »

Fox defending CNN is huge. I find it hilariously ironic that Donald ****ing Trump is losing his **** over unsubstantiated rumours being spread about him.

Imagine how the world would have reacted had Obama lost the plot in the way that Trump did last night, when Trump made the #FakeNews up about him not even being American...

Podge_irl · 12-01-2017 02:56PM

awec wrote: »

It also forced everyone to have health insurance too and republicans had a field day with that.

It actually forced people to have insurance so that everyone would be paying into the system rather than people just taking out insurance when they got sick.

Unfortunately a lot of people are paying the fines instead of paying for health care.

It's a ridiculously cobbled together system - what they really needed was a complete gutting of the whole healthcare system there and rebuilding it. The set up they have is absurd with expensive healthcare plans linked to employment and the government legally forbidden from negotiating on drug prices.

irishbucsfan · 12-01-2017 02:58PM

awec wrote: »

It also forced everyone to have health insurance too and republicans had a field day with that.

It actually forced people to have insurance so that everyone would be paying into the system rather than people just taking out insurance when they got sick.

Not actually true

awec · 12-01-2017 03:19PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

Unfortunately a lot of people are paying the fines instead of paying for health care.

It's a ridiculously cobbled together system - what they really needed was a complete gutting of the whole healthcare system there and rebuilding it. The set up they have is absurd with expensive healthcare plans linked to employment and the government legally forbidden from negotiating on drug prices.

Healthcare and drug company lobbyists would never allow it.

It's all about the $$$.

Podge_irl · 12-01-2017 03:22PM

awec wrote: »

Healthcare and drug company lobbyists would never allow it.

It's all about the $$$.

Or more to the point the legislators who receive obscene sums of money from them and are incapable or unwilling to take them on in the media would never allow it.

How the whole medicare not being able to negotiate thing ever came to pass is beyond me. How on earth is it spun as a good thing when being put in law?

errlloyd · 12-01-2017 03:26PM

Off topic thread discussing US domestic healthcare policy is probably the pinnacle. Fair play gents, we're obviously a well informed bunch.

CMOTDibbler · 12-01-2017 03:27PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

How the whole medicare not being able to negotiate thing ever came to pass is beyond me. How on earth is it spun as a good thing when being put in law?

Very easy really. "Big Government, blah, blah..", "Unfair competition, blah, blah...", "Socialist policy, blah, blah...".

How hard is that for a Republican dominated legislature to sell?

irishbucsfan · 12-01-2017 04:10PM

So the San Diego Chargers are moving to LA.

Hard luck there San Diego fans. Maybe the Padres care about you.

Buer · 12-01-2017 04:20PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So the San Diego Chargers are moving to LA.

Hard luck there San Diego fans. Maybe the Padres care about you.

I'm sure they're massively p*ssed and understandably so, the fact of the matter is that the locals will still live about as close to the Chargers as most people do to their local teams in other states.

The whole franchise element where a team can up and off to the other side of the country is a horrible situation.

thomond2006 · 12-01-2017 04:45PM

The voters there rejected funding from the city for a new stadium. It's interesting how these things work. Imagine if the government here needed a popular vote to fund ventures like the Aviva or the Croke Park redevelopment. I wonder how the local economy will suffer with no NFL team. When I was in Chicago in November the Cubs winning the World Series must have been worth millions upon millions for local businneses etc.

awec · 12-01-2017 04:47PM

thomond2006 wrote: »

The voters there rejected funding from the city for a new stadium. It's interesting how these things work. Imagine if the government here needed a popular vote to fund ventures like the Aviva or the Croke Park redevelopment. I wonder how the local economy will suffer with no NFL team. When I was in Chicago in November the Cubs winning the World Series must have been worth millions upon millions for local businneses etc.

yea but in this case it would be taxpayers paying for a stadium for a multi-billionaire.

thomond2006 · 12-01-2017 04:48PM

awec wrote: »

yea but in this case it would be taxpayers paying for a stadium for a multi-billionaire.

You could definitely spin it as a form of blackmail: "Give me your money or goodbye"

How it is going to work in LA with two teams? How do you decide who to support? I assume the Giants and Jets in New York was based on geography at one stage (like the Cubs and White Sox in Chicago).

irishbucsfan · 12-01-2017 04:53PM

awec wrote: »

yea but in this case it would be taxpayers paying for a stadium for a multi-billionaire.

Malcolm Glazer in particular was completely ruthless in getting the city of Tampa to build a brand new stadium.

At least when the Wasps turned their back on the home counties the owner had the decency to invest in a stadium.

awec · 12-01-2017 04:56PM

I can't get my head around how it all works in the US, seems just outright weird. Teams moving, people changing who they support, all a load of oul bollocks if you ask awec.

thomond2006 · 12-01-2017 05:04PM

awec wrote: »

I can't get my head around how it all works in the US, seems just outright weird. Teams moving, people changing who they support, all a load of oul bollocks if you ask awec.

Imagine if Ulster Rugby left Belfast and were replaced by Belfast Saracens.

Stheno · 12-01-2017 05:06PM

thomond2006 wrote: »

Imagine if Ulster Rugby left Belfast and were replaced by Belfast Saracens.

Heresy! :pac:

Last year when Sarries were in Belfast they visited the company I was working in for a few hours. They were very nice

Buer · 12-01-2017 05:10PM

thomond2006 wrote: »

I assume the Giants and Jets in New York was based on geography at one stage (like the Cubs and White Sox in Chicago).

Nope. They're both NYC based and have shared stadiums for the majority of their history.

The Jets were founded as part of the AFL. The NFL was already in existence and the AFL operated in competition with it. Both teams have had the Polo Grounds, Shea Stadium, Giants Stadium and MetLife as their home ground with a large amount of that being concurrent.

molloyjh · 12-01-2017 05:22PM

thomond2006 wrote: »

Imagine if Ulster Rugby left Belfast and were replaced by Belfast Saracens.

I thought that was already happening with all the Saffers they are bringing in, no? :cool:

Dave_The_Sheep · 12-01-2017 05:28PM

I think awec might have just ruptured something.

DGRulz · 12-01-2017 07:34PM

Snowing in my part of Dublin atm.

Stheno · 12-01-2017 07:36PM

DGRulz wrote: »

Snowing in my part of Dublin atm.

Same here

pickarooney · 12-01-2017 08:22PM

thomond2006 wrote: »

You could definitely spin it as a form of blackmail: "Give me your money or goodbye"

How it is going to work in LA with two teams? How do you decide who to support? I assume the Giants and Jets in New York was based on geography at one stage (like the Cubs and White Sox in Chicago).

LA had two teams in the 80s when the raiders and rams were both based there. That was probably the last time I watched an American football match (go wan Myles Dungan!). Then they went to 0 teams for 20 years and now back to 2. It's maybe a better strategy to have two than one, encouraging intra city rivalry. I can't really think of an example in other sports where the local derby aspect is not a positive economic force for the game.

thomond2006 · 12-01-2017 08:25PM

pickarooney wrote: »

LA had two teams in the 80s when the raiders and rams were both based there. That was probably the last time I watched an American football match (go wan Myles Dungan!). Then they went to 0 teams for 20 years and now back to 2. It's maybe a better strategy to have two than one, encouraging intra city rivalry. I can't really think of an example in other sports where the local derby aspect is not a positive economic force for the game.

I'm not sure how much of a local rivalry there will be as the Rams and Chargers are in different conferences. They might only play each other a few times in a decade.

pickarooney · 12-01-2017 08:31PM

How can they be in different conferences? Is that not an Easy/West thing?

thomond2006 · 12-01-2017 08:41PM

pickarooney wrote: »

How can they be in different conferences? Is that not an Easy/West thing?

Rams are in the NFC West with San Francisco, Seattle and Arizona. Chargers are in the AFC West with Denver, Oakland and Kansas City. As Buer mentions the conferences date back to when there were two professional leagues.

Podge_irl · 12-01-2017 10:33PM

They'll play each other once every 4 years. Just like the Raiders and the 9ers do despite being neighbours.

There are 4 divisions per conference (so 8 divisions of 4 teams total). You play everyone in your division twice a season. You play everyone in another division in your conference on a 3 year rotation and every team in a division in another conference on a 4 year rotation (plus another couple games within your conference that aren't worth going into). So teams in different conferences play each other only once every 4 years or in the Superbowl.

CatFromHue · 13-01-2017 12:08AM

I'm not sure if Michael Conlon is really from Norn Iron:eek:

C1zG3EnXEAEKlSN.jpg:large

Off Topic Thread 3.0

Comments