WhiteWonder

Add me. I’m your nemesis

This is great

I briefly considered joining this but at the end of the day I felt like it was really long for a topic that spans all of cinematic time and i've got nothing for pre 80's movies. I was more interested when I saw some chatter about NFL or MLB draft. But I do find this interesting so i've been following along. Hope you don't mind some early analysis I would have had a hard time not picking Indiana Jones in round 1 for hero but thats my bias. Of heroes I think Jerry made the right pick with Bond. I just think I lean toward a character who CAN be associated with just one actor even though it's not an actor draft. Makes me more invested in the pick. Vader was a great round 1 pick for villian, I would definitely have him over Montana Probably have Joker #2 villian As much as I love Jaws and Quint, that was the obvious pick that didn't belong in round 1 (jmho) if I were Jerry, I pass on Lecter and go with the HeroHero strat with Bond and Jones. Auto win of the category. Sports seemed early in round 1 but Biff made it work by snatching McClain for hero in round 2 (Dirty Harry would have also worked) The dude is a reach General observations There are a few characters I am interested to see not only where they go but what category they get used for I don't understand the punchable face category. Seems too subjective Overall, sports feels like one to wait. when this is over and everyone has their 28 character roster, depending on how depleted the pool is and how many of the characters I have in mind are gone, I may try to make a 28 character roster based on leftovers and see how it stacks up (which won't be well because the heaviest hitters will be gone, but just for fun)

you asked how it was different, not how it was specifically more affordable. Guess you are trying to move the goalposts because someone gave you an example and you didn't think anyone would. as far as i'm concerned, giving more options to people who currently need ACA is a good thing, and the plans they don't currently have access to, do in fact become more affordable.

if you want APTC, you are forced to pick a plan from a provider that participates in ACA. If APTC was effectively paid directly to you, you could then use it for any plan from any insurance provider you want. It expands your options. I've explained this repeatedly. How is giving more choices to those who qualify for APTC not a good thing? How is it not different than the current structure? you tried to act like paying the people is no different because they just have to turn around and pay the insurance company anyway... but you forgot that the people receiving government aid have limited choices and that government aid only goes to insurance providers that participate.

You asked someone to explain to you how paying the people is different than paying the insurance companies. I gave you an example. The end. We get it, you hate Trump. Have you provided any information that shows rich people who can already afford to buy whatever health insurance plan they want will be receiving direct payments to use on healthcare? If that is the case, then I would not be in favor of that.... but that was not your question.

no we do not agree. It would help people who can only afford ACA plans BECAUSE IT LETS THEM SPEND THE MONEY DIRECTLY ON A PLAN WITH WHATEVER INSURANCE PROVIDER THEY WANT, NOT JUST THE ONES WHO PARTICIPATE IN ACA your stupidity is honestly astonishing

Maybe an example will help 2025: Person A buys plan from ACA (the only way they are getting subsidies). Cost = 2,000/mo. Subsidies drop it to $1,000/mo Person B buys plan from whatever insurer they want. Cost = $3,000/mo. No subsidies (because the insurer is not part of ACA or because they wouldn't qualify for any through ACA anyway) so cost is $3000/mo 2026: Trump plan, pay the subsidies to the person Person A who qualifies for subsidies through ACA buys a plan wherever they want. Cost = $3,000/mo. They get $1,000/mo directly for health insurance, final cost is $2000/mo Person B still doesn't qualify and buys a plan wherever they want. Cost is $3000/mo. They get $0/mo directly for health insurance, final cost is $3000/mo. Get it? The benefit is for the person who doesn't want one of the few plans they are allowed to pick under ACA and now have the ability to use their "credit" anywhere they want. ACA is not an insurance company. It has participating companies that offer watered down plans. I never said it makes ACA plans cheaper. I said it gives more options to people who feel forced to pick a plan under ACA because that's how they get their APTCs. So it would be allowing them to get a non ACA member plan for cheaper.

One of the main (possibly only) reasons to buy your healthcare through ACA is to qualify for APTC and cost sharing reductions. It's financial aid for healthcare. If you need APTC to reduce your monthly premiums, chances are you will remain with ACA and choose the best plan you can from the participating providers. How is this helping people who are more well off? Why would more well off people be receiving money to spend on their coverage? If you can show me where this is the plan, I would be against it. Bottom line is you asked for someone (a maga, sorry they didn't respond) to explain how giving government aid directly to the people instead of to the insurance companies was any different. I gave you a reason. Imagine qualifying for financial aid for your health insurance through ACA and instead of the government sending it directly to the 3-4 companies who participate in obamacare, they send it directly to you to use with whatever company YOU want. How are you not seeing the difference there?

Not true If someone on ACA isn't thrilled with the slim options they are offered, they have no choice because they obviously need APTC. Instead of the government sending those APTCs directly to the few participating providers and the individual reconciling it at tax time, if the APTCs are given directly to the person they can use them to help purchase a plan from any provider they want. How is that not a benefit? or how is that not different? You are expanding the options for people who need to be on ACA. People who can afford premium programs bought privately are not people who would qualify for APTC through ACA. So how is this screwing the lower and middle class? If you have something that shows this idea is meant to give government funds (equally) to all Americans regardless of income level to use to buy healthcare, then sure... i'll agree. It seemed to me that this was more just a different concept to current ACA.

I am aware that joining ACA is a choice. It sounded like your question was asking how is giving the money directly to people different from the government giving it to the insurance companies, so it sounded like you were talking about ACA and people who use it. If you need/want advanced tax credits from the government to help reduce your premiums, you're going through obamacare. Obamacare limits your choices for providers and plans. You can choose to buy whatever insurance you want, but not if you want APTC. For example, I know people who get their insurance through the NJ marketplace and Aetna is not an option. There are maybe 3-4 insurance companies that participate with limited plans offered. I assume that those options shrink further when you take into consideration if the persons preferred doctors are in network or not. So again, one difference between the government giving $ to the insurance companies or giving it to the person who will then give it to the insurance companies is that the person gets to pick whatever insurance company and plan they want and essentially apply the APTC they are receiving directly.

then stop constantly mentioning it

if he doesn't want to be mocked he could have "been better" himself . I don't see anyone wishing him anything bad. Just usual GC stuff

I am not an expert on the topic (neither are you, I assume) but as I understand it, people on ACA are limited in their choice of provider/plan. So all of the advanced tax credits that go from the government directly to those providers could theoretically go to the consumer instead, which would allow them to choose any provider or plan they want rather than just the ones offered to them when they apply. That is one big difference off the top of my head.

Maybe, maybe not. You do realize that a lot of what we see, in all areas, can be attributed to administrations decisions from a decade+ ago, right? Sometimes it's because of an action or policy of the current but sometimes there is cause and effect going back many years. sometimes its negative and sometimes it's positive. In this case, ACA is probably the biggest healthcare related event in quite some time, so someone bringing up Obama is perfectly understandable. learn to think objectively and not so much with feelings.