[andi*pandi]

The park ranger is working unpaid, and not letting anyone in, except actual veterans. She shouldn't be letting anyone in at all, but you know, VETERANS.

[subego]

Usually when you have something like this, there's a detail missing which takes the gas out of the sensational headline.

I ain't seeing it here.

[The Final Dakar]

That doesn't strike me as that sensational. Sensational is the "got the park ranger to apologize for shutdown" headline.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

The park ranger is working unpaid, and not letting anyone in, except actual veterans. She shouldn't be letting anyone in at all, but you know, VETERANS.

Normally I'd say what's good for the goose is good for the veterans, but if they're WWII veterans, it's probably their last chance.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That doesn't strike me as that sensational. Sensational is the "got the park ranger to apologize for shutdown" headline.

Sensational in the sense what's in the headline usually didn't really happen that way.

This actually seems like it happened that way.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sensational in the sense what's in the headline usually didn't really happen that way.

This actually seems like it happened that way.

If I mention that he's part of the tea party caucus, does it become more or less surprising?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If I mention that he's part of the tea party caucus, does it become more or less surprising?

Less surprising, but only in the sense Tea Partiers don't seem to care about getting reelected and can thus afford to miss out on important subtleties.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Less surprising, but only in the sense Tea Partiers don't seem to care about getting reelected.

I think its less surprising because they tend to be angry about a lot of stuff.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yep, the markets have rebounded and are looking good. Apparently not a f*ck is given.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I for one am glad the government shut down.

Would you tell that to the face of somebody who is out of work right now?

[Hawkeye_a]

I don't know a whole lot about the political/economic system in the US, so bear with me....

This is my interpretation of whats going on(correct me if i'm wrong):
The administration has a budget and a debt ceiling. It was elected and those are the parameters it needs to operate within. It does not require the endorsement from Congress, except for the debt ceiling, which requires both houses to approve?

Promises(ACA) were made without the appropriate economic and fiscal management to see if they were actually possible to be accomplished within the parameters (debt ceiling, etc). And in order to fulfill it's election promises it can either reduce funding to other programs and divert funds to the ACA, or to abandon/reduce the ACA, or try and fund it by raising the debt ceiling(again).

But in order to fund everything that was promised the debt ceiling has to be raised beyond $16,999,000,000,000. And that requires the approval of Congress (which is controlled by the opposition). So, had the administration operated within the debt ceiling parameter, the opposition would have never been in the picture and the current gridlock would have never come to pass?

Questions:
The media seems to be portraying this as the fault of the 'opposition'. How so?isn't it the point of the opposition to oppose? instead of just rolling over and providing a blank vote/check to the administration?

On a related matter..... on top of the promises, and with $16.999T in debt, why is it that 'non-essential' programs were fully funded until the funds dried up?

[Brien]

So who thinks this will go on long enough for the debt ceiling to come into play? Oct. 17th at thw latest.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Would you tell that to the face of somebody who is out of work right now?

Yes.

What would you say to my father, who five years later has lost one of his two businesses and the other is only "back up" to 30% of the revenue he was doing? Hate to break it to you buddy, but the economy (at least in the housing market0 hasn't recovered and it's pretty apparent that under Obama's plans this is the new normal. (One business as an independent housing developer and the other in home remodeling)


I can live with people who've otherwise been extremely gainfully employed for the last 5 years, on my dime, to feel the effects of Our Dear Leader for once, so long as something good comes from it. Excuse me, seems the IRS is at my door for speaking poorly about the president. Gotta run!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Yes.

What would you say to my father, who five years later has lost one of his two businesses and the other is only "back up" to 30% of the revenue he was doing? Hate to break it to you buddy, but the economy (at least in the housing market0 hasn't recovered and it's pretty apparent that under Obama's plans this is the new normal. (One business as an independent housing developer and the other in home remodeling)


I can live with people who've otherwise been extremely gainfully employed for the last 5 years, on my dime, to feel the effects of Our Dear Leader for once, so long as something good comes from it. Excuse me, seems the IRS is at my door for speaking poorly about the president. Gotta run!

We're clearly not going to come to terms on your feelings towards Obama and the economy, but I will say that you have pretty big balls if you are serious about saying this to people who are out of work right now. I certainly couldn't do that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I don't know a whole lot about the political/economic system in the US, so bear with me....

This is my interpretation of whats going on(correct me if i'm wrong):
The administration has a budget and a debt ceiling. It was elected and those are the parameters it needs to operate within. It does not require the endorsement from Congress, except for the debt ceiling, which requires both houses to approve?

Promises(ACA) were made without the appropriate economic and fiscal management to see if they were actually possible to be accomplished within the parameters (debt ceiling, etc). And in order to fulfill it's election promises it can either reduce funding to other programs and divert funds to the ACA, or to abandon/reduce the ACA, or try and fund it by raising the debt ceiling(again).

But in order to fund everything that was promised the debt ceiling has to be raised beyond $16,999,000,000,000. And that requires the approval of Congress (which is controlled by the opposition). So, had the administration operated within the debt ceiling parameter, the opposition would have never been in the picture and the current gridlock would have never come to pass?

Questions:
The media seems to be portraying this as the fault of the 'opposition'. How so?isn't it the point of the opposition to oppose? instead of just rolling over and providing a blank vote/check to the administration?

On a related matter..... on top of the promises, and with $16.999T in debt, why is it that 'non-essential' programs were fully funded until the funds dried up?

You've pretty much nailed it, Hawkeye. We have a Budget and Appropriations process.

First the Legislative branch of the US govt (Congress) is comprised of two chambers; a House and Senate. Our present Congressional makeup is a Democrat-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled House, but it doesn't always end up that way depending on election results. That's just how it happens to be today. In the Budget process, the President must submit his/her budget to Congress. (supposed to be by February) The House committee takes that budget, modifies it to their liking, and the Senate committee modifies the budget to their liking (budget resolutions) and then the House and Senate are supposed to submit their budgets generally by April. From this, "allocations" are set that go into the Appropriations process to identify priorities and funding levels. Of late, there are often irreconcilable differences in the two chambers' allocations which would ultimately lead to a government shutdown. To solve this, these differences are then addressed through CRs or continuing resolutions that are basically short-term spending bills. One of the things that's laughable to me about all the cries against the Republican-led House for abusing the Budget process is that our current President has only submitted his budget (step 1 of the Budget Process) within the required deadline once since taking office in 2009. In each case the House has modified the budget to their liking and passed their resolution, but March of this year; 2013 constitutes the first time the Senate has actually followed through on their obligation and produced their budget.

It should be noted that there are generally two types of spending considered; discretionary spending and non-discretionary spending. Approximately 2/3rds of federal spending is "non-discretionary" meaning the levels have already been set by law and are not part of the Budget and Appropriations process. This spending covers programs like Social Security, Medicare, and the ACA or "Obamacare". As you can see, we not only have an entirely broken Budget and Appropriations process, but we still can't talk about the lion's share of Federal spending because it's off-limits in the process. Annual deficits continue contributing to the overall national debt which continues to butt up against its statutory limit (debt ceiling) and must be increased to cover all expenditures including the 2/3rds of it we can't discuss.

I've asked my friends on the left when it wouldn't be considered hostage-taking to discuss the $17T debt and am still waiting to hear back.

*As an aside; The arguments for the individual mandate and its necessity concern me and I'm not sure how folks get around the provisions of the ACA that have already been delayed in their reasoning, but unfortunately -- solvency just doesn't matter either way. The numbers are simply too intangible for most. So I'll just settle on something more agreeable. I'm against the government shutdown. I'm old school in that when something you don't appreciate is failing miserably, shut up and get outta the way. In this case, the ACA. Its architects using terms like "train wreck", union / democrat split... just shut up and get outta the way. The problem is, you have to be kind of heartless to divorce yourself of the implications, regardless of whatever "side" of the debate you're on.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Would you tell that to the face of somebody who is out of work right now?

Interesting you bring this up: today I was at a get-together; about 4 furloughed government employees were there. I told them "there should be no such thing as paid leave. Days you don't work, you shouldn't get paid." I said "you liberals have gotten too spoiled by the unnaturally stable American lifestyle. You should have lived within your means and had at least a years worth saved up so this wouldn't have affected you. People in other countries would scratch their heads and think 'what are you complaining about? You're out of work a couple days and that's the biggest problem in your life? That happens to us every couple weeks, and we thought we had it good' ".

The government employees I was talking to make between 50k-90k /Yr; and I've been in much worse situations in life than they ever have so it's hard for me to understand what their whining about. I said all that in response to them realizing today that they WILL in fact get paid for their furlough days (which I don't think is right); yes that's right, for many, maybe all the government employees, this will have been a PAID vacation where their paycheck is delayed at worst. Unfortunately due to how soft and pathetic our society has become, many people do actually think this government gridlock is biggest problem since the depression. It's sad how dependent and unappreciative people have become when it comes to their government job/pay. You'd think they'd be happy to have essentially landed the jackpot of welfare pay for producing little of economic value.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by subego 

Usually when you have something like this, there's a detail missing which takes the gas out of the sensational headline.

I ain't seeing it here.

My guess is it's just the atmosphere of the situation. From where Im sitting I see a mob of people protesting the republicans, pretending to be bipartisan as everyone does. Something disparaging was probably said (more like guaranteed to have been said) to the congressman before the camera footage we are seeing and he responded.
His response makes sense if we think of it in light of him and many others not agreeing with the way the administration "shut" the government down, who can work, who can't, telling people they may not show up to work or volunteer; in which case many would prefer people protest the administration by continuing to show up to work, hence let people see the monument, rather than let the administration try to cause as much ruckus as they can then blame it all on the republicans.

In this case many people are saying it's an open air monument and don't know why it's "shut down" other than the dems trying to put on show that inconveniences as many people as possible; then blame the republicans.

[Shaddim]

I've developed a routine now, I go on my bike ride in the morning, before dawn, raise the park gates and check the bathrooms to make sure they're lock-free (cut them off if needed). Then the two man crew we hired goes in and polices the area, keeping it clean for visitors, we have quite a few each day, and then at dusk they lower the gates, after checking the lots to make sure everyone is gone. So far I've had to destroy 5 locks, but I make sure and leave money in the park donation box for them to buy more (the envelopes are labeled "lock replenishment fund"). All in all, it's been going smoothly, except for vacationing, angst-ridden park officials calling the po-po to have us arrested. Geez.

[andi*pandi]

The last time there was a govt shutdown, I recall it being a free for all where you were going in the parks at your own risk. The signs said so: no lifeguards, no rangers to help if you get stranded. Aside from preventing vandalism, I see no reason why that can't still be the policy at outdoor venues.

The folks in Salem are doing volunteer tourist work and have hired portapotties since the visitor center is closed. October is their biggest month and they can't afford to lose a day.

[Shaddim]

It's the whole "they're our toys and you can't play with them unless we say so", kind of thing. Screw that noise, it's public property.

[el chupacabra]

^^ Exactly, most the parks don't need "running". It's just national park free week. Government wanted us to think a ghost-busters dark cloud would appear over the nation's cities if they shut down; instead the only thing most will notice is how much they're not getting in everyone's way. We find they're having to go the extra mile to inconvenience us in order to remind us how important they are.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

^^ Exactly, most the parks don't need "running". It's just national park free week. Government wanted us to think a ghost-busters dark cloud would appear over the nation's cities if they shut down; instead the only thing most will notice is how much they're not getting in everyone's way. We find they're having to go the extra mile to inconvenience us in order to remind us how important they are.

Exactamundo. The longer this goes on, the more they're going to look for ways to turn the screws to make themselves look more indispensable. Buckle up, we're in for a bumpy ride.

Watch, everyone, this is your government. Pathetic, isn't it? I hope this continues, right through the debt ceiling debate, on until the next election, unless Obama swallows his pride and decides to do what's best for someone besides himself. How favorably will history look upon a president who is so incompetent that he won't even meet with congress to discuss a budget? Combine that with all the NSA gaffs and plots, and the unprecedented erosion of civil liberties, and you have possibly the greatest failure in the history of the office.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What are the Democrats being offered right now?

For that matter, what are Republicans being offered and why the notion that there is an obligation to offer something to a political party? Otherwise, what the Democrats have been offered are opportunities to fund the aspects of government upon which there is across-the-board agreement. This is supposedly very important to them and a solution to the problem exists. If two sides come to a head, it's generally wise to work on that which there is some agreement. Unless of course you're operating under something other than the will of the people and compromise.

Democrats are overplaying their hand as they appreciated the shutdown for its damage to the Republican party in the court of public opinion. The problem is, the longer this goes on with the President on some bizarro campaign trail indicting a single party for the country's woes and for lacking compromise and the more we hear the batshit crazy Dems like Reid and Pelosi deride Republicans for the tea party, hostage-taking, Taliban-esque techniques, etc... the more people are beginning to realize -- wait a minute, what are the President and the Senate compromising on and how are they any better than the "Taliban" in this? It takes folks a while to be sure, but they're coming around.

[el chupacabra]

I probably should have added to one of my other posts, not all government employees are irresponsible liberal pay check to pay check types. This furlough thing has been talked about for over a year now... or is it two years...? There is a huge number who understand time is more valuable than money and were really looking forward to some extra vacation, or time with the fam, or just catching up on things. They were trying to plan for when this would happen and set up something where they could volunteer to take other people's furlough days, so that the pay-check to pay-check types wouldn't be furloughed at all. But with the government overlords no proposal that doesn't put on chaotic political theater is considered.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

For that matter, what are Republicans being offered and why the notion that there is an obligation to offer something to a political party? Otherwise, what the Democrats have been offered are opportunities to fund the aspects of government upon which there is across-the-board agreement. This is supposedly very important to them and a solution to the problem exists. If two sides come to a head, it's generally wise to work on that which there is some agreement. Unless of course you're operating under something other than the will of the people and compromise.

Democrats are overplaying their hand as they appreciated the shutdown for its damage to the Republican party in the court of public opinion. The problem is, the longer this goes on with the President on some bizarro campaign trail indicting a single party for the country's woes and for lacking compromise and the more we hear the batshit crazy Dems like Reid and Pelosi deride Republicans for the tea party, hostage-taking, Taliban-esque techniques, etc... the more people are beginning to realize -- wait a minute, what are the President and the Senate compromising on and how are they any better than the "Taliban" in this? It takes folks a while to be sure, but they're coming around.

If part of your argument is that Obamacare should be nullified because of the shady nature it was passed, what about the will of the people, does that matter for anything? If the general public is as fervently against Obamacare as many ideological Republicans, wouldn't Obama have not been re-elected?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If part of your argument is that Obamacare should be nullified because of the shady nature it was passed, what about the will of the people, does that matter for anything? If the general public is as fervently against Obamacare as many ideological Republicans, wouldn't Obama have not been re-elected?

And would the Dems have received a million more votes than GOP in the 2012 Congressional election?

Our good friends on the right love to tout polls that show a majority opposed to Obamacare. What they either fail to realize or conveniently fail to mention is that nearly as many "oppose" it because they don't think it went far enough. The people who wanted a single payer "Medicare for all" approach are certainly not clamoring for its repeal, defunding, etc. If the GOP thinks it will be a disaster then freaking let it collapse under its own weight and rack up the vote in the next election accordingly. But to shut down the government (or possibly default on the national debt) because a law you don't like legitimately made it through the legislative, judicial, AND electoral process is far beyond short bus thinking. It's certifiably INSANE.

OAW

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not sure how this relates. If this average 24 year old is making what an average 24 year old makes in a month, with the subsidies his insurance will quite likely cost him less than $50/month, which as I pointed is less than what he pays for his cellphone and internet service.

What is the penalty on that person if they decide to NOT pay for insurance at all? Isn't it going to be cheaper for them to just go ahead and do that? Remember, if you don't pay the penalty or buy insurance the IRS will attach your assets or garnishee your wages. It's pretty certain that the penalty won't fluctuate with market prices, either.

Last I heard it was like $95 per year or something for someone in that age range. Seems like they would just go ahead and pay it.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I probably should have added to one of my other posts, not all government employees are irresponsible liberal pay check to pay check types.

No, not all of them. Just enough to slow all of the rest down.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If part of your argument is that Obamacare should be nullified because of the shady nature it was passed, what about the will of the people, does that matter for anything? If the general public is as fervently against Obamacare as many ideological Republicans, wouldn't Obama have not been re-elected?

Can any good thing come from deceit or corruption? Personally I'm not that altruistic, I've done things that weren't "good" because they either; needed to be done or it was the most efficient (easier) way. I've come to the conclusion that the former is personally acceptable, but the latter isn't, YMMV. However, the hard truth is, don't do the crime if you can't do the time (it's #3 of my personal axioms). IOW, don't do shady shit if you can't handle the possibility that it could explode in your face. If it does go sour, don't cry like a little bitch, pointing fingers and blaming someone else, screaming that "it isn't fair". Stand up like an adult, lift your head up, and accept the consequences.

It isn't congress' job to rubber stamp every budget that comes along, anyway.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And would the Dems have received a million more votes than GOP in the 2012 Congressional election?

Our good friends on the right love to tout polls that show a majority opposed to Obamacare. What they either fail to realize or conveniently fail to mention is that nearly as many "oppose" it because they don't think it went far enough. The people who wanted a single payer "Medicare for all" approach are certainly not clamoring for its repeal, defunding, etc. If the GOP thinks it will be a disaster then freaking let it collapse under its own weight and rack up the vote in the next election accordingly. But to shut down the government (or possibly default on the national debt) because a law you don't like legitimately made it through the legislative, judicial, AND electoral process is far beyond short bus thinking. It's certifiably INSANE.

No, what's "insane" is you and the media believe that congress only exists to approve whatever the emperor wants. Either he can come forward and have a discussion on the budget, or the Feds can sit in neutral for the next year. His call.

[Chongo]

Nice, real nice.

Shutdown Impacts Chapel Services

There is a chronic shortage of active duty Catholic chaplains. While roughly 25% of the military is Catholic, Catholic priests make up only about 8% of the chaplain corps. That means approximately 275,000 men and women in uniform, and their families, are served by only 234 active-duty priests. The temporary solution to this shortage is to provide GS and contract priests. These men are employed by the government to ensure that a priest is available when an active duty Catholic Chaplain is not present. With the government shutdown, many GS and contract priests who minister to Catholics on military bases worldwide are not permitted to work – not even to volunteer. During the shutdown, it is illegal for them to minister on base and they risk being arrested if they attempt to do so.

I hope one brave contract priest defies this order and gets arrested.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But to shut down the government (or possibly default on the national debt) because a law you don't like legitimately made it through the legislative, judicial, AND electoral process is far beyond short bus thinking. It's certifiably INSANE.

OAW

Relax, your democrat buddies don't seem so worried, as you can see from this
baby crying comedy they're not taking this too seriously.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And would the Dems have received a million more votes than GOP in the 2012 Congressional election?

Our good friends on the right love to tout polls that show a majority opposed to Obamacare. What they either fail to realize or conveniently fail to mention is that nearly as many "oppose" it because they don't think it went far enough. The people who wanted a single payer "Medicare for all" approach are certainly not clamoring for its repeal, defunding, etc. If the GOP thinks it will be a disaster then freaking let it collapse under its own weight and rack up the vote in the next election accordingly. But to shut down the government (or possibly default on the national debt) because a law you don't like legitimately made it through the legislative, judicial, AND electoral process is far beyond short bus thinking. It's certifiably INSANE.

OAW

And many people that oppose it today don't even know what it is, they've just been exposed to a campaign of BS: death panels, hyperbole about the death of America, blah blah. It's a wonder that anybody is in favor of it based on all of these efforts put forth to defeat it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by finboy 

What is the penalty on that person if they decide to NOT pay for insurance at all? Isn't it going to be cheaper for them to just go ahead and do that? Remember, if you don't pay the penalty or buy insurance the IRS will attach your assets or garnishee your wages. It's pretty certain that the penalty won't fluctuate with market prices, either.

Last I heard it was like $95 per year or something for someone in that age range. Seems like they would just go ahead and pay it.

There are some weird loopholes like this, to be sure, but if some significant percentage of these people get themselves insurance, it's at least a step forward towards cost control.

[shifuimam]

What's really shitty IMO is that feds have the cushiest jobs on the planet, make way more than they should, and are now approved to get back pay.

Meanwhile, the thousands of federal contractors sitting at home are going to be completely ****ed up the ass. They don't get back pay. Hell, they don't even get health benefits if the shutdown lasts long enough.

I have far more sympathy for contracts than feds. They get the short end of the stick to an extreme.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If part of your argument is that Obamacare should be nullified because of the shady nature it was passed, what about the will of the people, does that matter for anything? If the general public is as fervently against Obamacare as many ideological Republicans, wouldn't Obama have not been re-elected?

I don't think you seem to understand the difference with the current situation....

Let's assume that the mandate for the ACA exists. I'll agree with you on that. The current administration formulated it, and got reelected based on it as one of their signature policies.

So, given the budget limitation (the debt ceiling, etc), wasn't it up to the administration to find the funds whether through saving from other programs, etc...to deliver it? Why is it that in order to deliver their promises there has to be yet another raise in an already absurd debt ceiling? And why is it up to the opposition to agree with that? I mean did the administration assume that they would just be handed the extra debt to fund their spending promises?

Just because someone gets a popular mandate for a policy that does not entitle them to a blank check to the nation's coffers. (At least that's how i think it is).

Irrespective of idealogical differences, if the current administration could have pulled it off given the budgetary limitations that's all well and good. But to blame the fact that there is in fact a 'debt ceiling' and that the process involves requiring both houses to vote in favor of raising it is hardly the fault of the opposition.

EDIT>> I guess my point is: Why is it the fault of the opposition(which is not in power) that the debt ceiling is about to be breached yet again, isn't it the administration which allocates spending and funds to different programs? And isnt it upto them to operate within the limitation of the debt ceiling?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I don't think you seem to understand the difference with the current situation....

Let's assume that the mandate for the ACA exists. I'll agree with you on that. The current administration formulated it, and got reelected based on it as one of their signature policies.

So, given the budget limitation (the debt ceiling, etc), wasn't it up to the administration to find the funds whether through saving from other programs, etc...to deliver it? Why is it that in order to deliver their promises there has to be yet another raise in an already absurd debt ceiling? And why is it up to the opposition to agree with that? I mean did the administration assume that they would just be handed the extra debt to fund their spending promises?

Just because someone gets a popular mandate for a policy that does not entitle them to a blank check to the nation's coffers. (At least that's how i think it is).

Irrespective of idealogical differences, if the current administration could have pulled it off given the budgetary limitations that's all well and good. But to blame the fact that there is in fact a 'debt ceiling' and that the process involves requiring both houses to vote in favor of raising it is hardly the fault of the opposition.

EDIT>> I guess my point is: Why is it the fault of the opposition(which is not in power) that the debt ceiling is about to be breached yet again, isn't it the administration which allocates spending and funds to different programs? And isnt it upto them to operate within the limitation of the debt ceiling?

The debt ceiling increase being needed to pay for future expenses to Obamacare is not a given:

Will Health Care Reform Increase the Deficit and National Debt? - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Since Obamacare hasn't fully started yet, it seems reasonable to believe that the debt ceiling increase is to pay for debt already accrued.

[besson3c]

As far as Obamacare being passed in a sketchy manner, do you guys on the right honestly thing that there was any sort of health care related bill Obama could have passed that would have gotten through the House?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As far as Obamacare being passed in a sketchy manner, do you guys on the right honestly thing that there was any sort of health care related bill Obama could have passed that would have gotten through the House?

Yes.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes.

-t

What would it have looked like?

[besson3c]

Caveat to my question: a bill that Obama could pass that would have significant positive impact.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If part of your argument is that Obamacare should be nullified because of the shady nature it was passed, what about the will of the people, does that matter for anything? If the general public is as fervently against Obamacare as many ideological Republicans, wouldn't Obama have not been re-elected?

No because first, people aren't single-issue voters. Second, contrary to what I keep hearing from the left about the election and "winners & losers -- deal with it", it seems the American people have produced a House and Senate at odds politically. The office of the Presidency is not a dictatorship. Until our system succumbs entirely to mob-rules, there is a House and Senate at odds and the Democrat Senate will have to come to the table of compromise with the Republican House. The will of the American people was, as is often the case, for checks and balances.

When can we talk about spending?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Caveat to my question: a bill that Obama could pass that would have significant positive impact.

Aside from the fact that's it's laughable to conclude the ACA was the only way to have had a significant, positive impact or that it even will over the current, significant negative impacts; for increased access and affordability, he could've passed a bill to open the insurance market across state lines, allowing people the opportunity to select from more than 3400 insurers nationwide instead of 2-3 insurers available to the average consumer under the state-by-state monopolies. This bill could include "charter states" with states competing for charter status and insurers competing for charter states to make their wares more available and allow for greater pooling of risk. For cost-controls, the bill could include HSAs and compatible plans that place the consumer directly in the purchase decision forcing providers to lower costs and schedule fees for services while also moving toward a decoupling of health care from employment. You could've performed these basic steps without overturning 1/6th the US economy to cover 1/3rd the uninsured.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And would the Dems have received a million more votes than GOP in the 2012 Congressional election?

And yet Republicans maintained most of the House seats they gained in a 2010 election that handed the Dems their walking papers. Yes there are winners and losers and all the spoils that go with it, just as there are votes for checks and balances; a maintained Republican House and all the checks and balances that come with it.

Our good friends on the right love to tout polls that show a majority opposed to Obamacare. What they either fail to realize or conveniently fail to mention is that nearly as many "oppose" it because they don't think it went far enough.

Most people don't think it goes far enough because it does absolutely nothing for controlling the skyrocketing costs of healthcare and because after overturning a sixth the US economy, will only cover a third of the presently uninsured. Why would it be inconvenient and what is "nearly as many" in your view? A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey as of March of this year finds that 38% of Likely Voters favor a single-payer health care system, while 46% oppose such a system. 8% among likely voters is pretty significant as you know.

The people who wanted a single payer "Medicare for all" approach are certainly not clamoring for its repeal, defunding, etc. If the GOP thinks it will be a disaster then freaking let it collapse under its own weight and rack up the vote in the next election accordingly.

I generally agree with the political tactic, but "let it freaking collapse under its own weight" will cause substantial problems for your kids who've just entered the job market and/or need a health care system intact. i.e. Yes, there is a political calculation, but to divorce yourself entirely from the real-world implications is simply too heartless and cold for many to endure, they feel fighting it at every opportunity they have now is most important.

But to shut down the government (or possibly default on the national debt) because a law you don't like legitimately made it through the legislative, judicial, AND electoral process is far beyond short bus thinking. It's certifiably INSANE.
OAW

I love this DNC talking point; it's the LAW of the LAND! The current iteration of Obamacare did not make it through the legislative, judicial, AND electoral process. Had it been set up as it is currently been implemented, it wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell of passage at any of the branches mentioned above. The large print giveth, the small print taketh away. I'll break it down again in case you didn't see it the first time in response to someone else; (flowery rhetoric removed as it does not apply to you)

This iteration of the Affordable Care Act is not the LAW that was voted on and approved by Congress, found Constitutional by the Supreme Court, and signed by the President.

1. Congress, the White House, and related staff were all supposed to be included in the LAW voted on and approved by Congress and signed by the President. Obama unilaterally decided they would not.
2. There was no one year delay of the Employer mandate in the LAW voted on and approved by Congress and signed by the President. Obama unilaterally determined that this was too politically untenable to occur in 2014, pushed now to 2015 while leaving the mandate for you and me.
3. The 1099 tax reporting requirement removal was not written into the LAW voted on and approved by Congress, and signed by the President.
4. Self-reporting eligibility for ACA was not written into the LAW voted on and approved by Congress and signed by the President.
5. A waiver of consumer protections for lifetime out-of-pocket expenses to a handful of insurers was not written into the LAW voted on and approved by Congress, passed by SCOTUS, and signed by the President. There were no MLR waivers for mini-med plans in the LAW voted on and approved by Congress and signed by the President. There were no Union waivers in the LAW voted on and approved by Congress and signed by the President. There were no waivers or preferential treatment for States in the LAW voted on and approved by Congress and signed by the President.

Keep your eyes peeled to the HHS website where you'll see more, otherwise unannounced changes to the LAW of the LAND and be sure to cache what you see today as it is all subject to change tomorrow. Because everyone knows that's how the LAWS of the LAND work under this Administration.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No because first, people aren't single-issue voters. Second, contrary to what I keep hearing from the left about the election and "winners & losers -- deal with it", it seems the American people have produced a House and Senate at odds politically. The office of the Presidency is not a dictatorship. Until our system succumbs entirely to mob-rules, there is a House and Senate at odds and the Democrat Senate will have to come to the table of compromise with the Republican House. The will of the American people was, as is often the case, for checks and balances.

When can we talk about spending?

People aren't single issue voters, but the election was largely about Obamacare. This is all fair to say, but I hope you weren't one of those people that said things like the anti-gay marriage law in California should be upheld because of their election on that issue, back when this occurred.

You always talk about spending, nobody is stopping you from doing so.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Aside from the fact that's it's laughable to conclude the ACA was the only way to have had a significant, positive impact or that it even will over the current, significant negative impacts; for increased access and affordability, he could've passed a bill to open the insurance market across state lines, allowing people the opportunity to select from more than 3400 insurers nationwide instead of 2-3 insurers available to the average consumer under the state-by-state monopolies. This bill could include "charter states" with states competing for charter status and insurers competing for charter states to make their wares more available and allow for greater pooling of risk. For cost-controls, the bill could include HSAs and compatible plans that place the consumer directly in the purchase decision forcing providers to lower costs and schedule fees for services while also moving toward a decoupling of health care from employment. You could've performed these basic steps without overturning 1/6th the US economy to cover 1/3rd the uninsured.

I was expecting somebody to bring up the competing across state lines thing. I've been thinking about that, and I don't think this makes sense.

The thing is, it is not a given that any business would *want* to expand across state lines if they are doing exceedingly well operating within a smaller geographic area. Expansion like this carries risk in falling under the company's own weight in a number of ways. If every company's desired M.O. was to expand to be as big as possible, every successful local franchise would aspire to nationalize (e.g. In N' Out Burger).

Some businesses may feel that they operate best at a capped size/scope, some may feel like the same opportunity doesn't exist elsewhere because of competition elsewhere, some may simply feel little incentive if they are doing exceedingly well financially. You're right though, some may opt to nationalize, I'm not against that, my point is simply that it is far from a given that these companies would want to.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

And yet Republicans maintained most of the House seats they gained in a 2010 election that handed the Dems their walking papers.

I think, if you are being intellectually honest, you will admit this had more to do with gerrymandering than the will of the people.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, what's "insane" is you and the media believe that congress only exists to approve whatever the emperor wants. Either he can come forward and have a discussion on the budget, or the Feds can sit in neutral for the next year. His call.

The point is that the GOP is not asking for anything BUDGET related. This government shutdown is only because the GOP is not getting its way when it comes to defunding or delaying the implementation of Obamacare. Congress passed Obamacare. The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality. And the 2012 election where Obamacare was a major issue resulted in Pres. Obama being reelected. As I said Obamacare has made it through the legislative, judicial, and electoral process. If the GOP is still having a hissy fit about it then perhaps they should win enough elections so they can repeal it. IJS

OAW

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As far as Obamacare being passed in a sketchy manner, do you guys on the right honestly thing that there was any sort of health care related bill Obama could have passed that would have gotten through the House?
...............
What would it have looked like?

Yes. Mandated HSA or FSA for every citizen starting at birth. Anyone who shows up for medical service without any means to pay, cash, debit, or insurance, or can't prove they're legally here can be refused medical. If you can't pay, you better be able to prove you're a legal USR/C and set up a payment plan that is non-dischargeable like a student loan.

Bam I think I just solved our immigration problem and lowered your medical bills by 80% (although honestly I'm probably shooting low there).

Mandate that FSAs are rollover. Your god damn government currently drives up costs by prohibiting roll over. An FSA is nontaxable income you can save for 1 year and spend on any medical expense or doctor of your choosing without referrals.

An HSA is non-taxable income you can save over your life for various medical expenses; the g.d. government has laws requiring high deductible plans in order to qualify; which drives up costs. Wouldn't have been hard for Obama to change these simple things but then again he's not trying to lower costs. In fact he and the dems did everything they could to discourage us from saving for medical and destroy HSAs and FSAs.

I sincerely hope for your sake you never have to experience Obamacare. The education many of its supporters are getting from government published cartoons and websites is like reading the brochures that insurance companies give you bragging about all their services, while failing to read the fine print. Meanwhile the fine print is all the company goes by. Everything that was wrong with our medical system now, Obama has taken those parts and amplified them. I don't even think calling it "socialist" is extreme enough to describe the monster that Obamacare is. If you thought our medical system was broken now, just wait till you see the real dark ages of medicine; and it wont just be the US it will take the world with it since places like Europe and Canada are dependent on the US medical system for their current state of survival. We can't all be socialist, errr obamaist, there has to be at least one partially capitalist nation to innovate in the world...

Gone are the days of medical privacy, gone are the days of getting a second opinion. Hello to the days of government telling doctors what disease you have and how to treat them. And the new Obamacare minimum plan is just going to become the new broke. Medical professionals will still have the right to turn you away in the same ways they were doing in the past. The only difference is you'll be paying for it regardless.

The irony is this will affect its supporters more than anything. As Shaddin mentioned this will drive all who can afford, to using all cash doctors; which is what my primary specialist is now.

Obamacare strikes gain: New limits on Flexible Spending Accounts coming Jan. 1

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

...If you thought our medical system was broken now, just wait till you see the real dark ages of medicine; and it wont just be the US it will take the world with it since places like Europe and Canada are dependent on the US medical system for their current state of survival. We can't all be socialist, errr obamaist, there has to be at least one partially capitalist nation to innovate in the world...

Gone are the days of medical privacy, gone are the days of getting a second opinion. Hello to the days of government telling doctors what disease you have and how to treat them.

What over-reactionary FUD....