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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
awec wrote: » Healthcare and drug company lobbyists would never allow it. It's all about the $$$.
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?
irishbucsfan wrote: » So the San Diego Chargers are moving to LA. Hard luck there San Diego fans. Maybe the Padres care about you.
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.
awec wrote: » yea but in this case it would be taxpayers paying for a stadium for a multi-billionaire.
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.
thomond2006 wrote: » Imagine if Ulster Rugby left Belfast and were replaced by Belfast Saracens.
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).
DGRulz wrote: » Snowing in my part of Dublin atm.
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).
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.
pickarooney wrote: » How can they be in different conferences? Is that not an Easy/West thing?
