US Government Shutdown Ends

An anonymous reader writes "After more than two weeks of bickering that made the schoolyard appear civilized, Congress has finally passed a bill to reopen the U.S. Federal Government. 'The Senate passed the measure by a vote of 81 - 18, followed by approval in the House by a vote of 285 - 144. The bill now goes to the President, who will make remarks on Thursday regarding the reopening of the federal government. ... Earlier in the day, Speaker Boehner conceded that the House would not vote to stop the Senate-negotiated agreement. In a statement, the Speaker said that, after a fight with President Obama over his signature health care law, " . . . blocking the bipartisan agreement reached today by the members of the Senate will not be a tactic for us." The agreement will raise the debt limit until February 2014, fund the government through January 2014 and establish a joint House-Senate committee to make spending cut decisions.' CNN adds, 'Obama, for one, didn't seem in the mood Wednesday night for more of the same -- saying politicians in Washington have to "get out of the habit of governing by crisis." "Hopefully, next time, it will not be in the 11th hour," Obama told reporters, calling for both parties to work together on a budget, immigration reform and other issues. When asked as he left the podium whether he believed America would be going through all this political turmoil again in a few months, the President didn't waste words. "No."'"

Comments

Thank goodness

[MisterSquid]

Part of does wonder, though, whether this makes the ACA a "done deal" even though it is nowhere near as desirable as a single payer system.

Re:Thank goodness

[Rolpa]

Depends on your definition of "done deal".

Re:Thank goodness

[Black Parrot]

I suspect it will be massaged over the years to work out little wrinkles, with the end result being a single payer system.

Re:Thank goodness

[noh8rz10]

also, your definition of "desireable". it's interesting to hear that it falls short of your ideal. i haven't heard many people state that opinion.

Re:Thank goodness

[Black Parrot]

it's interesting to hear that it falls short of your ideal. i haven't heard many people state that opinion.

Its backers accepted a lot of compromises in order to get it out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. A lot of people think the original was somewhere between "substantially better" and "much better".

Re:Thank goodness

[MightyMartian]

That would be my assumption. So it isn't a done deal in the long term, but in the short and medium term, the Republicans won't get many, if any more chances to kill it. I'd say Obamacare, and whatever it ultimately morphs into, is now pretty much cemented into the landscape. Within a few election cycles, no one will be talking about repealing it.

Re:Thank goodness

[Black Parrot]

I dunno... some people are still trying to kill Social Security.

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

Part of does wonder, though, whether this makes the ACA a "done deal"

No, it doesn't, for a number of reasons. First, it is opposed by more people than favor it (there's a large enough group of people who are undecided to make a huge difference, though). That's why Republicans can get away with trying to shut down the government, especially when they come from districts full of people who favor their opposition. At least, some Republicans will think they can get away with it. Some of them are also insane.

The biggest threat to ACA is the ACA itself. If it works out, and most people have cheaper insurance, and healthcare generally gets better, then people will being to support it (all those undecideds). If it doesn't work out, if there are massive problems, if healthcare costs are perceived to go up, if healthcare generally gets worse, even if it's not entirely ACA's fault, then the opposition to ACA will grow.

That's where the (accidental?) genius of the Republican plan comes from.........if Obamacare turns out looking really bad before the next election, then Democrats are going to have difficulty maintaining their position.

So......do you think the ACA will end up being a good thing or not? That is the answer to the question of whether it is a done deal, and probably the answer to which party will be dominant for the next five years.

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

I'm not sure I believe this. but even if that was true, you would probably have to include 'faux news' viewers in that. ie, the gullible and most easily fooled.

I will tell you right now why they are gullible and easily fooled. It's because they are too lazy to go out and do research, and find out the data for themselves. These are the people who think we could balance the budget if only we got rid of "welfare queens." These are the people who think all we have to do to fix the deficit is cut back on military spending. They think these things because they are too lazy to go to Wikipedia and look at the facts. Then the go on forums and make wild, accusatory posts based on their ignorance.

In other words, people who say, "I'm not sure I believe this" are the gullible and easily fooled. Yes, I am saying you are one of those gullible people. Stop it, get some facts and we can have a real conversation.

Re:Thank goodness

[Technician]

Early reports of those trying to renew insurance or get into exchanges are finding rates near double or more of the previous rates. Guess that is the cost of adding pre-existing conditions to the covered. I expect this to be the new norm with a whole batch of subsidies that anyone earning a living will be unelegible for.

To keep health coverage.. lose the job and apply for assistance. The only casualty is the economy.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

I second his motion. I wanted a single payer system, not a crazy clone of Romneycare.

The fundamental problem is that the actual cost of healthcare is way too high, mostly because a healthy market cannot be established when the option is pay or die and many of the 'customers' come in unconscious. If insurance could fix it, it would have done so in the last several decades.

While Obamacare has addressed some of the issues like 'pre-existing conditions' and rescission, it falls far short of what we really need.

Re:Thank goodness

[gl4ss]

nothing is a done deal until they revamp the entire house/senate system.

Re:Thank goodness

[harks]

Health insurance company stocks are near all time highs. I don't think they're going out of business any time soon.

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

The ACA mostly hurts white men while benefitting most other groups.

This being a Democracy the ACA is a done deal unless white men suddenly go from being 30% of the population to 50+% of the population.

In other words, they're screwed forever and ever.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

The Republicans in the House are currently a few points less popular than a socialist revolution in the U.S. according to polls. The Dems shouldn't crow too much though, they're not doing much better.

Re:Thank goodness

[Qzukk]

If insurance could fix it

Nobody ever scared anyone with tales of $50 ER visits. Who'd buy insurance to cover cheap healthcare?

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither parent post nor grand-parent post indicated enough information to assume whether they did or did not look at facts or do a wikipedia post. Neither showed evidence for or against ignorance. Although only one is 'accusatory'. If you want the person you disagree with to 'get some facts' it helps to do so yourself first... and show you do so with some links and references. Otherwise it is more polite to assume they did look things up as you want us to assume you did until proven otherwise.

Disagreeing or doubting what another person stated as fact is actually the opposite of being gullible and easily fooled, at least according to any dictionary I've ever read.

Re: Thank goodness

[confused one]

Some of the same actors in the current crises are among those you refer to

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Australian, I've been protected by a national health scheme since 1975. I do not have to pay for ambulances because I live in Queensland. If I present at a hospital all I have to do is show my medicare card and I'll either be seen straight away or an appointment will be made. I've had my share of misfortune, and have had several surgeries for life threatening conditions. I've paid for them all when I was younger, and was paying tax.

Now I'm a pensioner. I pay $5.80 (I think) for most prescriptions. I saw my GP for about an hour today. I didn't have to pay a thing.

I'm going to hospital in a few weeks to investigate some growths. I won't have to pay a thing.

If I wanted to, I could pay and get faster, higher priority treatment. I have that choice.

What is the problem that so many Americans have with socialised medicine? A healthy community is a productive community and pays more taxes to get the job done. I just don't understand why you have a debate about it.

Re: Thank goodness

[confused one]

Not a problem. You only need for those same people to create a constitutional amendment, pass it, then submit it to the public for the states to approve.

Re:Thank goodness

[Vaphell]

Lol, insurance used to be very affordable before the govt included health care in tax deductions for employers but not for employees. That alone killed the transparency because there is no market for individuals. That means nobody in the whole system gives a fuck how much things cost. Healthcare user, as long as he has one, doesn't care because he doesn't see the bills, employer doesn't care because it's not his health, hospitals don't care either as it's in their best interest to inflate the costs, so who is supposed to put a downward pressure on prices?
Any 3rd party payment system based on spending someone else's money is prone to suffer from overuse and cost inflation. Yes, in theory it's employee's money because it's his compensation but the difference stems from the fact that the employee doesn't have to kiss the dollars in his possession goodbye. Out of sight, out of mind. If it all happens beyond the curtain, he doesn't feel the money was ever his.

Also insurance is about risk management, but in the current form it's far from that. Huge chunk of the cost is about trivial 'maintenance', yearly checkups, flu, etc. These things should be paid out of pocket and you insurance in the meaning of the word should cover only disasters. Recurring costs 100% certain to happen have nothing to do with risk management. Yes, for that reason insurance is a lousy model in case of preexisting conditions but trying to fit a square peg into a round hole as the ACA tries to do won't work and expect to see increases in prices across the board.

Re:Thank goodness

[shentino]

If an idea is going to piss off the special interests that got our congress critters elected, it's probably not going to fly.

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

Not approving can mean a lot of things. For your pleasure, I will reproduce what I saw in my Facebook feed this morning:

The more I hear John McCain speak, the more I think that he is a Democrat political operative........ There is no faith in the Republican party anymore to actually stick it out. And the longer they cede power to the Democrats the more they make themselves irrelevant.

This guy is upset that republicans aren't more combative. And you hear democrats saying the same thing.

Re:Thank goodness

[james.mcarthur]

Nobody ever scared anyone with tales of $50 ER visits. Who'd buy insurance to cover cheap healthcare?

Australians; we buy insurance to cover the free healthcare.

Re:Thank goodness

[houstonbofh]

Simple... Trust and experiance. We do not trust our government to get it right. This comes from a lot of experiance of them getting it wrong.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

Medicare/Medicaid consistently push prices down (for medicare/medicaid, not for anyone else). Make that the single payer and prices get pushed down across the board. If you try to bill Medicare $8 for a Tylenol you will get a big fat nothing (as it should be).

Doctors complain about getting squeezed but then fail to pass the squeeze on to their suppliers for some reason. Probably because the suppliers know someone is getting away with the $8 tylenol and they can pay the inflated prices.

Re:Thank goodness

[sumdumass]

I eish i wasn't replying on my phone as it eould be easier to post links and that grammar would be better. But the reason healthcare costs so much is because the government got involved in the first place. Not the market. There hasn't been a market since 1965-68.

In 65 when meficare was created, the government found out how ecpensive careing for seniors actually was. In 68, the government created the HMO in an attempt to control costs. Medicare was supposed to be ran like one but the idea was to pawn people not being treated for a chronic condition onto insurance companies. This didn't work to well so they made some changes again to create sort of a hybref system. Still being too expensive, thr government then divided the country into 5 economic zones and averaged the costs of treatments and only paid that amount. This means the rural doc who has little overhead recieved more the he would normally change and the urban doc who pays 5 times the rent snd deals with 30% more taxes gets less. So the urban doc has to charge more to raise the averages and get what he needs.

By this time, insurance companies where getting gouged so the government changed the way the average was calculated from the average of costs to average before discounts. They then devidef to discount themselves and only pay a percentage of the costs. So insurance companies get their discount, the government takes their discount, and the uninsured pay full price until it is obvious they won't pay the bill, then discounts are given under the guise of charity which aids the non-profit status of medical facilities, but more impotantly, will not lower the average cost formula.

So with all this manipulation going on, the incentive is to actually increase costs . Wash and repeat a few times- including the government changing the amount of imbursements for treatment and you have a healthcare system that is the most expensive in the world.

Again, sorry about the grammar. I'm on a cheap phone and it is dificult to post clean.

Re:Thank goodness

[Guppy06]

Nothing is a "done deal" with this Congress until January 2015. I fully expect this to happen every two months until then.

Re:Thank goodness

[Vaphell]

the problem with centrally planned price ceilings is that they tend to ignore economic reality and if they happen to be too low in at least some areas, you can expect shortages of things affected by them. The Hippocratic oath takes you only so far when the doctor has $200k to repay.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

What will they do next time when they control your healthcare?

Cave quickly when they get called child murderers if they interrupt healthcare.

You are aware that most of this crap was grandstanding and brinksmanship?

Re:Thank goodness

[R3d M3rcury]

Actually, from what I've read, it's true. More people dislike "Obamacare" than like it. On the other hand, the "Affordable Care Act" seems to have quite a bit of support--and this government shutdown has actually improved it's support especially among those who didn't know anything about it.

Re:Thank goodness

[ATMAvatar]

It's true. Here is the latest MSNBC poll. Check page 18 for the results on ACA.

Ironically, ACA got a boost in popularity, in spite of (or perhaps because of) the shutdown fiasco.

Re:Thank goodness

[meglon]

I'll at least give you credit for admitting that your ultimate goal is a single payer system. Most democrats wouldn't admit to this. I suspect the Obamacare bill as passed is just a way to get their foot in the door. They know that like virtually all government programs, this will just balloon over time.

....then you don't know most democrats. Democrats are the first ones to say we need single payer, or some version thereof. It works in all other industrialized countries..where the cost of medical care is lower to much lower than ours, with as good or better outcomes. Only an idiot would think that's not what we need. Sadly, we have too many in this country who want "gub'ment to keep its hands of their medicare," you know.... the true idiots.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

HMOs were not created by the government, and certainly not in the '60s.

The modern model of health insurance provided as a work benefit happened in the '50s as a way to attract talent when it was in short supply.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

They manage to deal with it in the rest of the 1st world. Even Mexico manages it better than the U.S. and that is not a rich country.

Re:Thank goodness

[Darinbob]

And many HMOs are much cheaper than the traditional insurance plans as well.

Re:Thank goodness

[meglon]

More people do oppose Obamacare than support it.... however, those people support the ACA more than they do Obamacare. In additional, ALL of the major parts of the ACA (AKA: Obamacare for anyone without their head shoved up their ideological ass) show a large majority support (some over 90%), other than the individual mandate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/17/1239587/-Obamacare-or-Affordable-Care-Act-Don-t-ask-GOP-to-choose

So...saying more people oppose it than support it is a Microsoft answer...technically correct, but bullshit. As soon as you change the question to do they support the ACA (instead of Obamacare), almost 60% of conservatives change their tune. The real answer is: more people don't know enough about it, or are ideologically incapable of agreeing with ANYTHING that has Obama's name on it.

Re:Thank goodness

[Darinbob]

And they've got plenty of money to spend to stop government from putting them out of business.

Re:Thank goodness

[Darinbob]

Cutting back on military won't fix the problem, but it will definitely help. Look at rate of US debt by each year and you'll see it flattening out when Clinton was in office and there was an attempt to balance the budget, then it zoomed way up once we started two expensive wars. It's a very large part of annual spending. But the military is a sacred cow, no one ones to trim it even a tiny bit (congress sometimes even passed a larger budget then the military leaders asked for ), same as no one wants to touch social security of medicaid. Instead congress goes after really tiny expenditures that won't make a difference but will get votes from people who like to see small things cut (voters, not mohels).

Re:Thank goodness

[Darinbob]

If you read news reports it seems they like to start off with story of a couple families whose rates went up, but if you keep reading then you also see stories about those whose rates went down. But the rates rising is the big story and that's what is in the headlines that sells copy, whereas rates dropping as predicted is a non-story and is hidden away.

Re:Thank goodness

[rs79]

Bingo.

Who ever believed a bunch of rich guys would make themselves less rich to prove a point. Some things are sacred.

The only really weird part was their last minute stall to try to make health care an out of pocket expense for lawmakers and their assistants.

Anybody have a theory as to what that was all about. Effectively they're voting themselves a pay cut ("unprecedented") and were willing to tank the global economy to get it. Why was it that important they vote themselves less money? How is this not a red flag?

Re:Thank goodness

[Darinbob]

Ya, democrats are bad too. I am a decline-to-state and I casually suggested at work that there was already a good compromise out there, that removed the medical device tax and a few coworkers immediately said "No, they should never back down!" Ie, they wanted a fight, they did not want compromise or to see the problem resolved, they were treating the whole damn thing like a sports game.

Re:Thank goodness

[rs79]

Balloon over time to something like the Canadian system, about 6X cheaper about 4X as good.

Look at infant mortality rates and cost. The USA gets the least value for it's medical care dollar than nearly anyone.

Maybe if there weren't so many middlemen? Do the math.

Re:Thank goodness

[philip.paradis]

Are you seriously using Mexican healthcare as an example to follow? The linked example is quite common across a broad spectrum of medical care issues in Mexico. You're uninformed, and you should stop while you're behind.

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadians too.

Re:Thank goodness

[rs79]

"Early reports of those trying to renew insurance or get into exchanges are finding rates near double or more of the previous rates."

Are you aware you can keep your current insurance?

Re:Thank goodness

[sumdumass]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973

It was created and developed in 68 to address the cost of medicare and signed into law in 73 by nixon. HMOs may have existed before, but not federally recognized like today nor for the purpose to limit government costs. My point is valid.

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

Please go do some research. A good place to start would be to find a graph of defense spending as a percentage of total outlays, but a graph of inflation adjusted military spending would be informative as well. Cutting military spending is basically how Clinton managed to balance the budget.

Re:Thank goodness

[seebs]

More people oppose Obamacare than oppose the Affordable Care Act. Go figure.

I know a number of people who are supporters because they have health care for the first time in their lives. This has made me dislike the law significantly less. (Not that I ever thought the kinds of idiocy going on to try to stop it were appropriate.)

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

Yeap, it's frustrating.

Re:Thank goodness

[bfandreas]

Germans do, too.

Re:Thank goodness

[riverat1]

I think when you say "it's opposed by more people than favor it" you need to distinguish between people who oppose it because they think "it's a government take over of health care" and people like me who oppose it because "it's not single payer". The latter group probably prefers having it over having nothing at all.

Re:Thank goodness

[Adult film producer]

Here are the words of Markos Moulitsas, the owner of Daily Kos.. before the ACA was passed

My take is that itâ(TM)s unconscionable to force people to buy a product from a private insurer that enjoys sanctioned monopoly statusâ¦.

Without any mechanisms to control costs, this is yet another bailout for yet another reviled industry. Subsidies? Insurance companies are free to raise their rates to absorb that cash. More money for subsidies? More rate increases, as well as more national debt. Donâ(TM)t expect Lieberman and his ilk to care. Theyâ(TM)re in it for their industry pals.

If you want a similar model, watch how universities increase tuition to absorb increased financial aid opportunities.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/15/814776/-Remove-mandate-or-kill-this-bill

Of course now he's the biggest champion of the ACA.

Re:Thank goodness

[riverat1]

Huh? Last I heard the VA health care system was one of the most cost effective around for the amount of health care it delivers.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

That was a response to already rising costs and so not the root cause. Like many politically expedient half measures it went pear shaped. It's biggest flaw was not going all the way to a single payer system in the first place.

Re:Thank goodness

[riverat1]

I think the idea behind the medical device tax was that because more people had coverage the makers of the devices would end up making more on the increased volume even after paying the tax.

Re:Thank goodness

[LandDolphin]

"better" is a matter of opinion.

For society as a whole, we single payer countries tend to see better results. But per person, the healthcare in the US is the best. Assuming you have a good health insurance plan.

Re:Thank goodness

[sumdumass]

What is the deductables on those plans? I'm hearing that in sone areas the cheap plans have a several thousand dollar deductable

Re:Thank goodness

[LandDolphin]

Not always. My job makes us re-select every year, when they have the option of changing plans.

Re: Thank goodness

[LandDolphin]

The States can bypass Congress if they really wanted an Amendment.

Re:Thank goodness

[drsmithy]

Australians; we buy insurance to cover the free healthcare.
Actually, we buy insurance to buy better healthcare than the free stuff.

Re:Thank goodness

[sumdumass]

It was only an already rising cost because seniors were just signing up for it and it was at that time, only rising for the government. Medical costs skyrocketed in the late 80's and all through the 90's.

I do agree with the single payer system being the flaw but the comment was about the costs and why. Not what would have avoided it.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

I said it was better than in the U.S., not that it was great. Even from the first paragraph though, it sounds like that situation is not being tolerated in Mexico.

Unlike some of the U.S. horror stories (one good anecdote deserves ac dozen others), nobody died.

So who is uninformed again?

Re:Thank goodness

[leenks]

Citing the Daily Mail? Really?

Re:Thank goodness

[philip.paradis]

Would you care to speak about comparative annual deaths rates from cancer, diabetes, general malnutrition, violent crime with deaths directly attributable to lack of ready access to competent medical care, etc? I'll do your homework for you if you're not competent enough.

Re:Thank goodness

[philip.paradis]

Heck, I'm feeling charitable tonight. It's certainly an aggregate affair, but have a look at average life expectancies. The World Health Organization stats rank the United States at 33, with Mexico trailing just a tad at 61. Then again, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.

Re:Thank goodness

[Electricity Likes Me]

The staffers being forced onto the ACA is functionally equivalent to being employed by an employed who doesn't provide health insurance. Staffers do not earn the big bucks, so they would normally qualify for the subsidy as well.

Some teaper later realized it would be kind of bad if they ended up saving money on this and it all worked out ok, and that couldn't be, so clearly they had to special exemption all the staffers from the ACA subsidies they would be entitled to at any other employer.

Re:Thank goodness

[DrXym]

Many countries offer broad, sometimes universal healthcare. It doesn't stop someone taking out a private health insurance policy on top. Often that means you get a private room, faster consultations, treatments etc. But everyone else still gets a good standard of service, but one obviously subject to budgetary and resource stresses.

It's still vastly preferable to the US system.

Re:Thank goodness

[philip.paradis]

About 300 other news outlets carried precisely the same story. Google happened to pop that link first. Are you unable to use a search engine?

You must be one of those people who believes in family names meaning something these days.

Re:Thank goodness

[evilviper]

This means the rural doc who has little overhead recieved more the he would normally change and the urban doc who pays 5 times the rent snd deals with 30% more taxes gets less. So the urban doc has to charge more to raise the averages and get what he needs.

OR the urban doctor could put a sign out front saying "Medicare NOT ACCEPTED". Problem solved!

Of course that doesn't work, because MEDICARE IS NOT THE PROBLEM. The phenomenon you mentioned is indeed true, but it's only the tiniest of issues the medical industry has against it.

Re:Thank goodness

[DrXym]

The Daily Mail is one of those newspapers where the default assumption should be that the entire story is a lie or so grossly distorted that the headline and the actual facts are in severe disagreement.

Re:Thank goodness

[Darinbob]

And what was wrong with Clinton balancing the budget that way?

Re:Thank goodness

[aaaaaaargh!]

First, it is opposed by more people than favor it (there's a large enough group of people who are undecided to make a huge difference, though).

Are you sure these people are not just against Obamacare?

Re:Thank goodness

[philip.paradis]

Refer to the other comment. I see you're also incapable of spending 30 seconds using a search engine to verify anything on your own, and instead depend on groupthink to guide you. Have a nice day, champ!

Re:Thank goodness

[bheading]

First, it is opposed by more people than favor it

That's a curious notion.

The GOP (and the Dems) turned the 2012 Presidential election into a referendum on Obamacare - and they lost.

If most people oppose the legislation why did they vote for the guy who made it his singular legislative achievement; and why did the guy who vowed to repeal it lose ?

Re:Thank goodness

[iserlohn]

This thing you call "maintenance" is actually called preventative care. It helps keep healthcare costs low by spotting issues before they develop into seriousness.

What is really killing the American healthcare system isn't that, but rather the prohibitive cost of major procedures and drugs, and the ever rising cost of administration due to the complex system there.

Re:Thank goodness

[iserlohn]

Actually, no. It's well known Markos has always wanted a single payer system. Which wasn't obtainable as congress did not have enough votes to pass one.

The left compromised to get the ACA signed into law. For them, it's not perfect, far from it. But they recognised that to govern, compromise is necessary. A useful lesson that would have saved taxpayers millions if only the Tea Party caucus took heed.

Re:Thank goodness

[Joining Yet Again]

The consensus in London once was that the doctors who couldn't hack it in the NHS went to Harley Street.

You might get quicker non-urgent and more hotel-style care privately in the UK, but you'll rarely if ever get better medical treatment. And why would you?

In almost all cases, your problem has been seen ten thousand times before, and a doctor is either competent to fix it or they are not; researchers and advanced specialists are treated well by the NHS and academia, and if they're going to go private, they're more likely to work for pharmaceutical companies, where private industry actually does something that the NHS is not equipped to do already.

The NHS shows that "to each according to his need", where each person is human and "need" can be well defined medically, is entirely workable.

Re:Thank goodness

[TheRaven64]

For society as a whole, we single payer countries tend to see better results. But per person, the healthcare in the US is the best. Assuming you have a good health insurance plan.

The last sentence here is the important one. And it means that, if you are either wealthy, or have a good job and no preexisting conditions (especially the kind that would stop you working for a bit) then you're better off in the USA. Or, to put it more cynically, US health insurance is a great deal, right up until the point where you need to make a claim.

Re:Thank goodness

[LandDolphin]

That's exactly it. That's why people with money come to the the US from all over the world for their medical care. But, if you can't afford a good plan, then it's a horrible system for you.

Re:Thank goodness

[Sockatume]

For the amount the US spends on medical care I'd expect hospitals to look like the sickbay from Star Trek.

Re:Thank goodness

[Arancaytar]

33?

Re:Thank goodness

[PeeAitchPee]

That's funny . . . while all of the 800K furloughed gov't workers were getting paid vacations because the idiots in Congress couldn't (and still can't) agree on anything, my (privately owned) small business hired two new folks and signed a multi-year lease to triple our square footage. We *worked* while they sat around and did squat. A huge chunk of our productivity is being siphoned off to pay for the decisions of these entitled, rich, elitist, sociopathic jerks -- not only the less innocuous ones like shutting down the gov't, but big ones like wars and domestic spying. So spare me with the "inept private business" bullshit -- we're not the ones that have had all consequences removed from our lives. If I don't work, I don't eat.

Re:Thank goodness

[Black Parrot]

What is the problem that so many Americans have with socialised medicine? A healthy community is a productive community and pays more taxes to get the job done. I just don't understand why you have a debate about it.

Because doing it your way would destroy the huge profits people are making off of doing it our way.

Democrats are reluctant to provide good government at the expense of someone's profits; for Republicans, it's completely out of the question.

Clinton era plan, Obama era plan, same thing.

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

Defence was 19% of federal spending in 2012. Why lowering it wouldn't help?

Re:Thank goodness

[garutnivore]

First, it is opposed by more people than favor it

"Opposed" is a weasel word. There are more people who are unhappy with the ACA than people who are happy with it. However, a substantial portion of those people are unhappy with it because it is a half-baked compromise that does not really fixes the problems of the health care system; that is, it does not go far enough in reforming the system. Unhappiness with the ACA does not entail approval of the Republican bullshit.

Re:Thank goodness

[Killjoy_NL]

The Netherlands is at 17th place, pretty darn good I think and our healthcare is more like the ACA, it's been like that for many years.

Watch some of these, it isn't perfect but we are doing a darn good job
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dutch+healthcare&oq=dutch+healthcare&gs_l=youtube.3..0.533.2156.0.2326.16.9.0.5.5.2.158.1050.3j6.9.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.68W4le48Zw0

I recommend this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHeZJS4K6J0

Re:Thank goodness

[Megaport]

Simple... Trust and experiance. We do not trust our government to get it right. This comes from a lot of experiance of them getting it wrong.

Whoa, let's get this right. You don't trust your government (which wa established under your sacred consitution) yet you accept that universal health care can work under other governments (in Australia's case, a monarchy) because we've worked out that actually, yeah, the failures in trust we see from health care are much less worse than what we'd see if we adopted the American system.

Did the tea-party just admit they they fought the wrong battle back in the day?

lol.

--D

Re:Thank goodness

[Vaphell]

doesn't matter, it should be paid out of pocket. You pay for it either way as your preventative care is included in the premium so you might as well drop the BS and see the price tag, black on white.
Paying via insurer with some sweet rebates thrown in the mix only left uninsured out in the cold and they face hundred of dollars in bills for most trivial things. It would have never happened if the insurers didn't have that much power in the market, but that's a consequence of using the insurance system to pay for every little BS. This is what happens when someone is allowed to act as an intermediary in almost every transaction, not unlike the banks who have the world by the balls because everybody has money parked in them.

sure, the system is byzantine but thousands of pages of govt regulations certainly don't help either, compliance costs too.

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn't. Private clinics can usually see you sooner than public hospitals for elective surgery or routine pocedures but the second something goes wrong you'll get transferred straight back over to the public hospital because it's better.

Private hospitals have very high intervention rates for births which is a great indication that things are going wrong there. In Canberra I've booked into the birth centre, which is completely free and government operated yet has the best statistics in the territory and is incredibly difficult to get into. I booked in at 5 weeks pregnant.

Australians sometimes buy private health insurance because they think expensive means better and haven't bothered to look at the statistics ... but for most of us, it's because the basic health insurance is cheaper than the extra tax you have to pay if you don't have any.

Re:Thank goodness

[drsmithy]

"Better" may not have been the right word. More convenient ? More expedient ? More choice ?

Private health covers gets you into elective procedures quicker, gets you niceties like private rooms, and the like.

I don't think the care in the private system is any better, though.

Re:Thank goodness

[Ken D]

Yes and No.

Drugmakers, Insurance Companies and Medical Device makers all are forgoing some of their profits (e.g. the medical device tax) in exchange for the larger volume of people with coverage.

It's just one of several mechanisms in the law to shift costs and benefits around in our broken health care 'market' via regulation.

Re:Thank goodness

[Ken D]

It's easy to find someone who had a plan that didn't actually cover anything (but it was cheap! oh so cheap! only $x a month in exchange for a nebulous nothing) and now can only find plans that meet the minimum coverage requirements and therefore costs more.

Re:Thank goodness

[Goose In Orbit]

Try doing some research before you spout crap (from here):
"Medicare is Australia's publicly funded universal health care system, operated by the government authority Medicare Australia. Medicare funds affordable primary health care treatment for all Australian citizens and for permanent residents, except for those on Norfolk Island. Residents with a Medicare card can receive subsidised treatment from medical practitioners, eligible midwives, nurse practitioners and allied health professionals who have been issued a Medicare provider number, and can also obtain free treatment in public hospitals. The program was introduced by the Whitlam Labor government in 1975 as Medibank, and was supplemented by a government-owned private health insurance fund (Medibank Private) in 1976. Medibank was renamed Medicare in 1984."

Do you have any figures to back up your "everyone comes to the US" claim?

Re:Thank goodness

[thegarbz]

The difference is that once you have medicare people can't imagine a life without it. The biggest problem we have is that every bureaucrat actually adds more and more to the healthcare system because it wins vote. No one is willing to commit political suicide by defunding the medicare system. They'd sooner defund schooling and universities or raise taxes.

As for forcibly paying for it, that's the thing about socialism, if everyone pays a small amount it is sustainable. If everyone pays their own way then the rich get to live and the poor get to die. Sure this is some people's view of "fairness" but the reality is that this has a negative effect overall. A poor person who can't afford to get treatment for some crippling ailment is a person who's not contributing to the GDP of the nation. Worse still they are likely to be getting your tax dollars spent on them anyway if they are in a position where they are unable to work, or so poor that they can't afford a house etc.

The other interesting effect happened to an American friend of ours who's a permanent resident here. He still has the concept of "doctors visit = very expensive" in his mind. When he was in a big car accident he walked it off. He looked a bit banged up but felt fine. I effectively forced him to call an ambulance and go to the doctor. End result: neck brace for 3 months to treat a fractured neck. He could have easily done some real permanent damage all because of the thought of "I don't feel THAT bad so I won't go to the doctor."

Re:Thank goodness

[Ken D]

"The biggest problem you're facing down the road is when some bureaucrat decides that keeping you alive is not cost-effective"

Can you clarify your position?
Are you saying that you believe in spending money in a non cost effective manner, i.e. wasting it on ineffective end-of-life care?
Or are you saying that not only should we spend money ineffectively on futile end of life care that actually makes dying people miserable and suffer by inflicting invasive care upon them that actually doesn't accomplish much except waste their last days on God's good earth, but also we should spend *every* dollar of medical expenses ineffectively by by wasting large amounts of each medical dollar on grossly inflated industry 'profits' that occur due to the huge market inefficiencies, the intrinsic in-elastic demand curve for urgent and emergency medicine, and the opaqueness of medical pricing (aka 'trade secrets')?

Re:Thank goodness

[deadweight]

You think we all just ran off and refused to work? WTF???? Try this: Send your employees home. Tell them they might be called back in one day or maybe a week or maybe a month or maybe never. Tell them they might get paid for their time off or they might not. Wait a couple weeks and ask them how much fun they are having on "vacation".

Re: Thank goodness

[confused one]

Yes they can. A supermajority of 2/3 of the States legislatures have to agree to call a convention for creation and forwarding of the Amendment before it is put up for approval. You think that's any more likely than 2/3 of the members of Congress, who come from the same states, and who are members of the same political parties, to create and put forth an Amendment?

Re:Thank goodness

[thegarbz]

Actually we buy insurance because it is still cost effective.

Private insurance doesn't only buy you a comfortable hospital bed. It also buys you extra discounts that aren't normally covered by medicare such as dentist visit (2 cleans / years completely covered, everything else subsidised) minor injury recovery (physiotherapy is free if you're recovering from surgery or a break, but otherwise it's a private medical issue), and voluntary stuff like chiropractics and therapeutic acupuncture if you're in to that sort of thing.

Combined with the fact that having private insurance reduces the cost of medicare by eliminating the surcharge for high income earners, some of us (myself for instance) buy private medical insurance because it's not only normally "free" but in many cases we can have a net gain for having it (2 dental trips, a few Chiro trips, and 1.2% tax break covered my insurance this year. Next year I need a dental implant and will be truly ahead).

Re:Thank goodness

[MightyYar]

I disagree, since most single payer systems have morphed into hybrid single-payer / private insurance systems.

Re:Thank goodness

[deadweight]

The best illustration of this is the protesters with signs saying "Keep the government away from my Medicare" LOL. Medicare IS government run single payer universal coverage and by all reports it works pretty well. You just have to be over 65 to get it. The TeaHadis have done a good job convincing people that somehow their own government is their mortal enemy. Their "low information" voters apparently don't know that Medicare IS the government (roll eyes).

Re:Thank goodness

[MightyYar]

It depends what you are looking for. Some things don't require fast change. Some things have considerations other than efficiency.

Also, I suspect some of the companies you consider "private industry" are probably a lot more like government than you think. No one likes their utility companies, which are heavily state regulated monopolies. It might very well be similar to having the state just run them directly.

Re:Thank goodness

[Noxal]

Of course it falls short. Single payer universal healthcare would have 100% of the costs going to healthcare and whatever overhead costs. No profit involved. With ACA only 85% go to healthcare and overhead. Health insurance companies get a baked-in 15% profit guaranteed off of nearly every American under the ACA.

Single payer would be cheaper (since we've lost that 15%) and better (since we've shifted the priority from making money to actually providing medical care)

Re:Thank goodness

[DarkOx]

Right cutting military spending to say what China spends on its military could easily take 1/5 of our deficit off the table (at least if you maintain the accounting fiction SS pays for itself). Does it solve the problem no, but no one thing will. Its been said to move a mountain you do it one shovel full at a time.

Lots people are going to now jump in and bitch about how SS does pay for itself. Fine taken as individual accounts that's true, the value of the fund and interest does cover the outlay, but its also true the money has been spent on other things, lent to the treasury. So now the money must come from general funds.

Re:Thank goodness

[PeeAitchPee]

As a gov't employee, you have the most ironic Slashdot username ever. :-)

Re:Thank goodness

[mjr167]

Normal employees quit and find a new job when their employers stop paying them...

Re:Thank goodness

[Pino Grigio]

Except you're ignoring the fact that the NHS is like a sausage machine that frequently covers up its pumping out dead bodies instead of cured, healthy ones. Frankly, I'm shocked that this isn't higher up in your consciousness. The NHS covered up increased mortality rates due the utter incompetence of the people running it, politicians (Labour) did everything they could to prevent reports on it seeing the light of day.

The NHS is a terrible model to recommend to the US. There are far better in Europe and elsewhere.

Re:Thank goodness

[misexistentialist]

You realize the name "Affordable Care Act" comes right out of Propaganda Naming Department and has less connection to reality than "Obamacare" does?

Re:Thank goodness

[danaris]

For society as a whole, we single payer countries tend to see better results. But per person, the healthcare in the US is the best. Assuming you have a good health insurance plan.

So...for the 1-5% who can afford platinum-level insurance plans, the US is the best healthcare system in the world!!!!!

But then there's the rest of us shlubs, who apparently just aren't worthy of being cared for.

(Here's a tip for you: the US, overall, has worse health care than other developed countries. For instance, the average life expectancy is about 1.3 years lower. And we pay vastly more. It is simply not possible for a system to both be worse for society as a whole, and better for all the individuals within that society.)

Dan Aris

Re:Thank goodness

[TrekkieGod]

That's why Republicans can get away with trying to shut down the government, especially when they come from districts full of people who favor their opposition. At least, some Republicans will think they can get away with it.

Think they can get away with it is right, but I personally don't think they can. The next election will tell, but I expect Democrats to take a ton of seats, for better or for worse, depending on your political beliefs.

Re:Thank goodness

[haruchai]

I'm astonished that Obama didn't simply try to promote a "Medicare for All" plan instead of the rehashed Nixoncare that's now the law of the land.
Still, it's better than nothing although some people will end up paying more than previously.

Re:Thank goodness

[Joining Yet Again]

Your comments:

"like a sausage machine"
"frequently"
"pumping out dead bodies"

My observations:

1) One scandal in one hospital managed by one Trust;

2) Based on applying private sector style compartmentalisation and management to public service;

3) Fully identified and admitted to by the service;

4) Resulting in widespread recommendations and a degree of return to pre-Thatcher management of the service as a whole, IOW with the ability to easily study mortality rates across the country rather than delegating essentially cooperative work to competing Trusts.

Having experienced Western continental European healthcare, the NHS is one of several fine models to recommend to the US - but then so is almost every first world model when contrasted with the US one. And if a US healthcare provider fails in its duty, it's just a failed business dealt with by "the market" - if any NHS subsystem fails, it's (rightly) regarded as a big deal by the whole country, and the whole country will learn lessons from it.

Re:Thank goodness

[ai4px]

One of the inelastic squeezes doctors have is malpractice insurance. Why not throw in a dose of tort reform with the ACA?

Re:Thank goodness

[madro]

Just like 'No Child Left Behind' and 'Mission Accomplished'

Re:Thank goodness

[haruchai]

The USA has to slim down - the huge ( sorry ) number of very overweight adults and children is a big ( sorry ) drain on the economy and will only makes things worse as the population gets older.

Re:Thank goodness

[madro]

Better example: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.

Re:Thank goodness

[cornjones]

The consensus in London once was that the doctors who couldn't hack it in the NHS went to Harley Street.

That hasn't been my experience, I would say it is more or less exactly opposite. When I first came over, i had US insurance and was able to go private for care (w/ little cost to mysefl). Generally, the private/Harley st doctors I saw were top class. In the NHS, i have largely seen newer doctors (either younger or immigrants) or less competent and older doctors.

Afaict, when you are starting out, you go w/ the NHS to repay schooling and build a client base. If you are any good, you eventually decide to make real money and start a private practice. So you have the chance of getting a really good younger doctor but the odds are against you. Now, our obstetrician was fantastic and she did work w/ the NHS once per fortnight. (I was never sure if that was out of altruism or an effort to maintain some sort of standing in the NHS). So there is a chance of getting a really good private doc when you go through NHS but the odds are a bit longer on that.

Now this was generally docs for pregnancy/infant care, minor illness and a few minor hospital visits. Maybe intensive/ER care is different, I (thankfully) cannot speak to that.

Don't get me wrong, i think the NHS is actually a great system but the private docs I have seen have been much better than the public ones.

Re:Thank goodness

[Ozymandias_KoK]

So, if you don't like their views, they don't count? Sure does make it easier to "win" an argument I suppose, but it's pretty poor logic.

Re:Thank goodness

[sociocapitalist]

Australians; we buy insurance to cover the free healthcare.
Actually, we buy insurance to buy better healthcare than the free stuff.

In France we buy insurance to cover the small co-pay.

Re:Thank goodness

[cornjones]

not the GP, but if you are willing to do the work... I would like to see "comparative annual deaths rates from cancer, diabetes, general malnutrition, violent crime with deaths directly attributable to lack of ready access to competent medical care, etc"

Re:Thank goodness

[ColdWetDog]

Sort of cheaper. 10-30% on average. Something, but hardly panaceas. That's the rub.

Re:Thank goodness

[amiga3D]

There are a lot of things wrong with the health care system in the US. It needed help and reworking. What it got was a cluster fuck. It went from bad to worse. So many special interest groups were involved in this messed up legislation and it got so twisted that even Pelosi didn't know what all was in it. The obscene rush to get it out at any cost left us with an expensive mess that will probably take decades to fix if it ever can be.

Re:Thank goodness

[amiga3D]

I can argue that the average life expectancy is more a matter of lifestyle than health care. A lot of Americans, myself included, are obese. We live a sedentary lifestyle with food that's bad for us. We're victims of high living.

Re:Thank goodness

[thomasw_lrd]

Then you don't live in the parts of the country where our health insurance rates are skyrocketing this year. Our teachers have had their insurance costs double. Our state legislature has been called back for a special session to try and figure out where to get the money to help offset the cost to only a 10% increase.

You don't have any friends that are self-employed that have just been informed their deductibles and rates have to go up because the current plan they've been on for years is too good according to the ACA.

And I guess you didn't read the comments earlier this week where the bronze plan in New York state is $14,000 out of pocket before they start to actually cover anything, and then it's only at 50% of the actual bill you rack up.

Where I live, I haven't heard of one person state they like it. Hell even my unemployed cousin still can't get insurance with the govt. subsidies.

Re:Thank goodness

[ColdWetDog]

If you think that the ACA is going to lead to a single payor system, you're a tad delusional (maybe you should see a doctor, or maybe you shouldn't). The ACA entrenches the insurance companies even further than before. That's it's big failing (and it's a big one).

That was the Faustian bargain that Obama created when it became clear what the ACA would look like (OK, sort of clear). With the insurance companies firmly entrenched (and newly profitable) anything resembling the current single payor systems in the rest of the world will never fly*.

* Modern single payer systems in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, GB, etc are actually 'single payer plus' systems with the option for additional, privately controlled insurance products. But the insurers do not carry anywhere near the clout they do in the US and they don't make nearly as much money.

Re:Thank goodness

[Joining Yet Again]

Any anecdote that you saw some good private doctors yet not-so-good NHS ones is plausible, especially if it's just for minor issues where people from the US tend to be surprised by the British, "Don't panic / Keep calm!" attitude.

It's also true that junior doctors will rarely be found in private practice, and that the common thing to find is more senior doctors working in both private and NHS practice, if they choose to work privately. A private practitioner is, after all, usually doing routine work for more money - rarely esoteric (if they are, it's often in NHS hospitals) and almost never emergency work - so would do better professionally to keep a foot in the NHS. And the NHS historically (dunno if this has changed recently) expected anyone doing NHS work to put in more than a token effort, IOW to do a certain number of hours if they want any NHS work at all.

Afaict, when you are starting out, you go w/ the NHS to repay schooling and build a client base.

A client base? What?

There are some rather unethical NHS doctors who set up private practice then offer to speed up work as long as the patient moves to their private list - the house I'm living in right now used to belong to a competent (but not particularly brilliant) neurologist who was well-known in local medical circles for doing this, and became rather more wealthy for doing so. So, if you mean that some use their NHS work to poach patients who may be profitable (i.e. low risk, elective procedures) - then, yes, some doctors do this. And other doctors despise them for it, and yet others speak out loudly about it.

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

... I just don't understand why you have a debate about it ...

I am not an American but they think:

- Government service == evil communism
- Government service displaces glorious entrepreneurs (aka big business)
- The 'invisible hand' makes private sector service cheaper and more efficient than government service

The truth is big business uses government to:

- prevent entry to the market by newcomers
- create and enforce price-gouging monopolies
- limit the costs of manufacturing

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

While Obamacare has addressed some of the issues like 'pre-existing conditions' and rescission, it falls far short of what we really need.

Which was to make it an actual punishable offense/crime to NOT be able to afford the "way too high" healthcare, and to force you to buy into what is truly a scam.
If a guy on the street came up to you and said

"Here's how it works, you pay me a fee every month, and I'll guarantee that if you get sick, have an accident, or require medical treatment, I'll hire a team of lawyers to assist me legally from honoring my contract with you; oh yeah you have to sign this contract, it's required by law" would you sign up?

That amounts to exactly the same thing that Obama said the Republicans did with the shutdown: hold people hostage with a gun to their head in order to get 100% of what they want. Oh but he did it for our own good right.

All the rich/powerful do is manipulate the "market" in order to make them richer.

Re:Thank goodness

[ColdWetDog]

As opposed to my expensive employer supported plan that has ... wait for it... a deductible of several thousand dollars a year?

Re:Thank goodness

[Sockatume]

Doesn't that show that adopting aspects of the private healthcare model - in this case by making NHS regions competing, pseudo-autonomous units - is a bad idea?

Re:Thank goodness

[ColdWetDog]

Must be the fluoride in the water.

Re:Thank goodness

[Joining Yet Again]

Bingo.

Re:Thank goodness

[45mm]

but even if that was true, you would probably have to include 'faux news' viewers in that. ie, the gullible and most easily fooled.

I'm going to assume that you meant Fox News. I'd like to point out that while their bias is clear, there is also clear bias in all of the other news outlets in the US (to varying degrees). Deny that, and you're showing your bias also.

My point is - the "gullible and easily fooled" don't just watch Fox News. That category spans the political spectrum, believe it or not. I wouldn't confuse "gullible" with "too lazy to do own research" either.

Re:Thank goodness

[ColdWetDog]

No, the idea behind the medical device tax is that the medical device manufacturers didn't give the politicians enough money last go around. You pay now, or you pay later - but you pay.

Re:Thank goodness

[Pino Grigio]

No, not one scandal from one hospital, multiple trusts under investigation and around 3,000 needless deaths that we know about. 3,000! FYI, under investigation:

Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust Medway NHS Foundation Trust North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust

Why be a fanboy about the NHS? It's crap. The reason it never gets better is because any politician who suggests it's too large and unwieldy gets flayed alive.

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

The last sentence in the GP post was the important one: 80+% of the people in the US HAD a good health insurance plan. Of the other 20%, 10% chose not to insure for some reason (many are eligible for Medicaid but never applied) and the last 10% you could truly make a case needed some help.

So for the 10% of Americans who truly needed help we fucked over the 90% who didn't. AND added a new unsustainable entitlement to our budget. AND created yet another reason for corrupt politicians to sell political favors in Washington, D.C.

Re:Thank goodness

[ColdWetDog]

No, not quite. Public / Private partnerships are the very best worst. See, for example, the Military Industrial Complex.

Re:Thank goodness

[RabidReindeer]

For society as a whole, we single payer countries tend to see better results. But per person, the healthcare in the US is the best. Assuming you have a good health insurance plan.

The last sentence here is the important one. And it means that, if you are either wealthy, or have a good job and no preexisting conditions (especially the kind that would stop you working for a bit) then you're better off in the USA. Or, to put it more cynically, US health insurance is a great deal, right up until the point where you need to make a claim.

You can delete the "no preexisting conditions" part of that. That evil Kenyan Socialist America-Hating Scum Obama already stole the right to refuse insurance for preexisting conditions as part of the earlier phases of ObamaCare.

A sure sign that the End Times are nigh. Or at least that's what certain congressthings were claiming this week.

Re:Thank goodness

[jittles]

You might get quicker non-urgent and more hotel-style care privately in the UK, but you'll rarely if ever get better medical treatment. And why would you?

In almost all cases, your problem has been seen ten thousand times before, and a doctor is either competent to fix it or they are not;

I had to have surgery on my jaw and I spent a lot of time (and eventually money) to have the procedure done by a specific doctor. I called dozens and dozens of doctors and, while all of them were capable of performing the procedure I needed, most only did 1 or 2 per year. The doctor that I went to did 5+ per week. Since there are major blood vessels that pass through the jaw, the surgery is, on average, more dangerous than your average procedure. When it comes to things like that I'd rather pay extra to see a doctor that specializes in that particular procedure. Now I am not saying that in the UK system that doctor would likely be outside of the NHS, but it's worth having a doctor with a lot of practical experience in the treatment you need. Even though tens of thousands of those cases were seen every year, only a handful of doctors in the US treated them. In fact, my doctor had patients flying in from Asia, Europe, and South America specifically to have him perform the surgery.

Re:Thank goodness

[deadweight]

I used to be a commercial freight pilot and the name comes from a book about flying cargo and smuggling in the Caribbean. Government does have some slackers and always has since ancient Egypt. So does every other large organization I have ever worked at. We had guys at Westinghouse that couldn't tell you why they were there if you put a gun to their heads.

Re:Thank goodness

[Joining Yet Again]

Ooh, an article from a Conservative rag about the NHS - I wonder whether that'll be biased!

1) Organisations involved in medical care are "under investigation" all the time, as well they should be - this doesn't imply any sort of guilt;

3) Even though the Torygraph has used the phrase "died needlessly" in quotes in the headline, it's actually quoting its own subheading ("may have died needlessly"), which is turn is merely its own misleading interpretation of the data;

3) Though the paper may argue that they used the phrasing "up to 3,000", which is strictly correct - being the propagandist's way of saying "between 0 and 3,000" - your "about 3,000" is deliberately intellectually dishonest.

What was actually revealed is almost 3,000 more deaths across ten Trusts "than would have been expected", IOW than would have been calculated if they'd had an average number of deaths per Trust, which is a statistic, not a revelation that these deaths were somehow avoidable. It is especially not evidence that these deaths happened due to something systematically wrong with the NHS.

To quote Keogh:

A higher than expected mortality rate does not in itself tell us that a hospital is unsafe, for example, units delivering highly complex and specialist care could legitimately have higher mortality rates.

Speaking as a mathematician, I ask you please to attend as many introductory statistics classes as possible before going into a numerate field.

Re:Thank goodness

[omnichad]

The death panels are a fact.

Furthermore, it already existed. It's called an insurance company approving or denying a procedure and it's done every day.

Re:Thank goodness

[cold fjord]

I suspect it will be massaged over the years to work out little wrinkles, with the end result being a single payer system.

Sen. Harry Reid: Obamacare 'Absolutely' A Step Toward A Single-Payer System

Why do you think the penalties are so weak for individuals that don't buy the required coverage while the act made policies so much more expensive? The same thing for businesses. The penalties for not providing coverage are less than the cost of insurance, which has also grown more expensive for them. That is why so many companies have been dumping health plans and cutting workers hours to avoid being responsible for workers health care. Massive incompetence or planned failure? How about some of both?

Re:Thank goodness

[Joining Yet Again]

Eh, I have mild neurological difficulties and the relevant academic team at the best research hospital in the UK sees people on an NHS and private basis. I've had all my appointments there on an NHS basis, waiting a few months for the first appointment, with others scheduled as needed.

All I had to do was to ask my NHS GP to make an NHS referral to this team.

Re:Thank goodness

[fldsofglry]

Was trying to decide whether to mod you as offtopic or just trying to troll. But I'll bite:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/27/top-5-falsehoods-about-health-care-law/

Admittedly, this is a from a year ago, don't know if much has changed.

Re:Thank goodness

[deadweight]

See previous post. "Dead Weight" is a book about flying in the islands back in the day which is what I used to do. You can sometimes find it on Amazon used. I love the libertarian fantasy land where you can just uproot your wife from her job, your kids from school, and instantly sell your house while the local economy just had their largest employer lay everyone off and just go wander off to find a new job no problem. It is like living in a 19th century town when the mill goes bankrupt - there ARE no other jobs to be had that didn't rely on the mill one way or the other.

Re:Thank goodness

[omnichad]

The individual mandate is one of two ways to make the ACA changes possible without skyrocketing rates. The other is single payer, which is the only one I deem acceptable.

Re:Thank goodness

[Joining Yet Again]

To reply to myself, there are of course very specialist procedures only done by specific doctors in specific countries, which means that nationals will be subject to the local system and foreigners must pay privately whatever. But these cases are in such a tiny minority, clouded by the fact that some people assume that their condition is much more special and complex than it really is (which makes sense - you've only one body and you want them to get it right the first time - and you assume that the most exclusive specialist is the best, and that might be so, but it might also make no difference at all).

For my condition, when it came to a recent medical trial at the same hospital, there was frustration that they couldn't get more than maybe ~30 people attending with relevant symptoms - yeah, it's partly because people don't like to travel regularly to one place (even if they're paid expenses) but partly because my issue isn't exactly common. But this particular researcher's work is publicly funded, and he was part of the same team above.

Put in business-speak: comprehensive public healthcare isn't just about delivering - it's about innovating.

Re:Thank goodness

[omnichad]

I'm in the latter group and don't prefer it over nothing at all. The individual mandate just shouldn't be possible under our Constitution and I'm afraid what comes next (in areas other than healthcare) now that the provision has been upheld.

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is partly due to FUD, partly due to bad math, and partly due to media hype. A quick google search turned up the Why Social Security Won't go Bankrupt and Social Security Reform. The former discusses the thoughts behind Social Security, saying that workers today are paying retirees today. The latter having some of the "truth" (if there is such a thing) of what that money is used for, i.e. Congress borrows and may or may not pay back from the SS fund.
  The former article doesn't go into much detail about how it works if the balance of retirees to workers starts tipping steeply toward retirees, but it does comment that some of that fund is from overtaxation of all the people. It's near impossible to know how many pennies each person should be taxed so we can have a zero balance sheet for the millions of people working and millions retired. This article doesn't have any solid evidence of anything, but it is more of a conceptualization of how things work than a hard-facts document. So the idea is perpetuated that Congress is smashing the social security piggy bank to fund some pet projects, or just because a couple members wanted a cookie.
  The second article starts in on the FUD, and doesn't give any hard evidence or supporting references (notice that?) for any of the claims they are making about how the pot of money is going to dry up. So they continue to spew out that Congressman so-and-so was short a couple mil for whatever reason, and got a few other senators to buy off that he really needed the money to put some spinners on his cadillac.

This all started with concern over the baby boomers (all those blue-hairs terrorizing the roads starting in around the turn of the century) vastly outnumbering their children. The concern, of course, being that there wasn't enough money to fund the retirement of those baby-boomers. Looking at the Social Security website, you'll see that the baby-boomers have nothing to worry about. For the most part, they aren't all relying on Social Security, and many have pensions and IRA's to bolster that income.

Still concerned?

Re:Thank goodness

[fldsofglry]

The poster never said it covered him from birth. In fact, he said he had to pay for some surgeries when he was younger.

Re:Thank goodness

[sumdumass]

No, they have been pretty clear in that they want the law as written followed. If they qualify for a subsidy within the framework of the law, there isn't a problem with it. The subsidy the wanted removed was the one worked out by congress and the administration that is outside the law.

As for the effect of working for an employer that doesn't provide coverage, yes that was exactly the point. The ACA was supposed to require everyone to get insurance who didn't already have coverage and the amendment was by desighn supposed to make congress be in that same catagory. Thd idea was that if congress had to live by the same rules, they would make sure it didn't stay sll screwed up.

Re:Thank goodness

[rtb61]

Don't forget Australians free stuff is still better than US pay for. The top up private in Australia is to get past the waiting lists but still at a full service public hospital with a private room. As it works single payer basically subsidises private health insurance for those than can afford it and creates that too layers of service, which Australian conservative are trying to turn into too little, too late for those that can not afford private health insurance and this at the behest of the US government and US insurance companies.

Re:Thank goodness

[omnichad]

The point is that if you opt not to do preventative care, that will cost more money to your insurance company in the long run compared to the cost of the preventative care itself. It's in the insurance company's best interest to give you whatever perks you need to make sure you stay healthy.

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

Medicare/Medicaid consistently push prices down (for medicare/medicaid, not for anyone else). ..... Doctors complain about getting squeezed but then fail to pass the squeeze on to their suppliers for some reason.

For some reason? lol, I love your brand of logic. You claim Medicare is doing something about prices when in reality all it's doing is shafting the people trying to pay high prices. The healthcare prices didn't change (nor were they pressured at all). Just the doctors got fucked. If it were actually doing something, we wouldn't say "it's not working for some reason"

Re:Thank goodness

[green is the enemy]

My theory is that the US is governed by very smart (and rich) conservatives that have mastered the art of brainwashing the masses into thinking that far right policies are good for them. As a result, the majority of the general public in the US genuinely does not want socialized health care... The level of brainwashing is comparable to that in Stalin's USSR or in North Korea.

There is some truth to the conservative's preachings. The extreme economic pressure does drive people to be more productive. However, I think it achieves this productivity at the expense of happiness. Of course, some small minority benefits tremendously from this productivity...

Re:Thank goodness

[Meeni]

BS. The death panel are sitting in the private insurance offices. They are the people that deny you coverage after you have paid your premiums for 20 years /wo any serious illness. They are not in Obamacare, that has no public insurer, remember.

Re:Thank goodness

[tbannist]

Lots people are going to now jump in and bitch about how SS does pay for itself. Fine taken as individual accounts that's true, the value of the fund and interest does cover the outlay, but its also true the money has been spent on other things, lent to the treasury. So now the money must come from general funds.

While true, that has nothing to do SS itself. The government is paying back the loan it issued to itself. The problem is that those loans should be on the books, not off the books like they are now.

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

I'd say Obamacare, and whatever it ultimately morphs into, is now pretty much cemented into the landscape.

Which is exactly why the Republicans were trying so hard to kill it. Now we're stuck with yet another cash cow entitlement that is a pisspoor attempt to solve a real problem that we'll never be able to reform or get rid of since it will be politically toxic to do so.

Re:Thank goodness

[cold fjord]

That would be my assumption. So it isn't a done deal in the long term, but in the short and medium term, the Republicans won't get many, if any more chances to kill it. I'd say Obamacare, and whatever it ultimately morphs into, is now pretty much cemented into the landscape. Within a few election cycles, no one will be talking about repealing it.

I wouldn't count on it. The law is still kicking in, and though not all of the expense and nasty effects are apparent yet, some certainly are. Many people are already shocked at how expensive their coverage is under the law, and the signup rate has been very low. Many people have already had cutbacks on their hours at work due to the law, and many of them lost health insurance in the process. That is ironic given the previous trend of more companies offering insurance for lower wage jobs. Many insurance companies dropped insurance for children due to the regulation changes, and many companies have forced people off their plans. Many unions are very unhappy with it, and their waivers will be gone shortly. Given the way the law was written, in its present form it will probably destroy the insurance companies over time - probably deliberate - but that will still disrupt the economy. It will end up being an expensive fiasco in its present state. Of course that is no guarantee that it will be repealed, or even changed. People love to point to so called "Romneycare" as the model without looking at the big problems that have been developing with it.

I have to wonder if there is any outcome bad enough from Obamacare that would cause you to reconsider your support for it? I'm not sure I can imagine it.

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

The biggest threat to ACA is the ACA itself. If it works out, and most people have cheaper insurance, and healthcare generally gets better, then people will being to support it (all those undecideds). If it doesn't work out, if there are massive problems, if healthcare costs are perceived to go up, if healthcare generally gets worse, even if it's not entirely ACA's fault, then the opposition to ACA will grow.

I disagree. People will support programs no matter how badly they fail as long as they hand out "free things" (just like Social Security/Medicare, two other programs that fail to adequately address real problems, but are "free money" people would never ever try to get rid of or reform). Sadly, we're stuck with ACA for life, and the healthcare cost conversation will likely never be held again (Dems think the only solution to the problem is to raise taxes, rather than control costs).

Re:Thank goodness

[cold fjord]

Profitability ultimately determines if they will be able to stay in business, not stock price.

Re:Thank goodness

[Pino Grigio]

Wow, you're resorting to an argument from authority, i.e. your own authority. The official report's statistics are wrong and as you're a mathematician, you obviously know better. Unfortunately for all of us mere thickos, Professor Sir Bruce Keogh's review into patient mortality that showed in excess of 14,000 needless deaths due to poor patient care didn't cross your lofty and self-regarding desk. I quote:

On February 6 2013, the Prime Minister announced that he had asked Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS Medical Director for England, to review the quality of care and treatment provided by those NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts that are persistent outliers on mortality indicators. A total of 14 hospital trusts were investigated as part of this review. After the reviews, 11 of the 14 trusts were placed into special measures by Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority.

Oh dear!

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

it is opposed by more people than favor it

I'm not sure I believe this. but even if that was true, you would probably have to include 'faux news' viewers in that ie, the gullible and most easily fooled.

How ironic, you're horribly misinformed and you mock the other gullible people. Obamacare is opposed by a majority. At it's creation, it was opposed by a significant majority. Since, it has gained some support, but is generally still unfavored. Some of the individual provisions of the bill on the other hand hold majority support: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/24/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE85N01M20120624

However, it's very disingenuous to claim that Americans like a ~4000 page bill just because they like 1 or 2 things in it.

Re:Thank goodness

[_Sharp'r_]

The modern model of health insurance provided as a work benefit happened in the '50s as a way to attract talent when it was in short supply.

What you're leaving out is that employer provided health insurance was a direct result of government wage controls.

Let's talk about some of the drivers of health care costs in the United States:
We have a limited supply of "Health Care Workers" as a result of government regulations. That causes an increase in costs.
We primarily get "insurance" through your employer because of government regulations. That third party purchaser and lack of competition causes an increase in costs.
We have an extremely limited choice of "insurance" plans overall because of government regulation. That lack of choice causes an increase in costs.
Health care is provided on-demand in ERs because of government regulation. That unfunded care causes an increase in costs.
People who don't pay their medical bills can't be dinged on their credit because of government regulation. That unpaid for care causes an increase in costs.
Insurance companies can't compete across State lines and can't compete on coverage because of government regulation. That lack of competition causes an increase in costs.
We have bureaucratically funded health care for many people (medicare/medicaid). That drives up costs as it distorts the market for health care.
The United States is much wealthier than other large countries around the world. So there is more demand for more expensive procedures and practices. That higher demand causes and increase in costs.

Those are the primary drivers of health care costs in the U.S. Only one of those is attributable to the "market". The others are directly a result of government regulations. Now, you can take the position that you like some of those regulations anyway and that's understandable, but you can't factually deny in an economics sense that the primary cause of high insurance and health care costs in the U.S. isn't government regulations of one sort or another.

Until this coming year, the States were differentiated enough in their State level insurance regulations that you could see very obvious correlations with health insurance costs and levels of regulation between states. The same basic insurance for the same people could be twice as much or more in NJ than UT, for example, even after adjusting for inflation.

Now the Feds have managed to make it all worse for everyone by making national regulations adopting all the worst state practices for inflating costs and making them mandatory in "insurance". Joy....

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

I will tell you right now why they are gullible and easily fooled. It's because they are too lazy to go out and do research, and find out the data for themselves.

Oh, the irony. Where's your research? Where's your data? Oh that's right, you're wrong in this particular case, so you have none. Stop it, get some facts and we can have a real conversation. Here's mine: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/24/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE85N01M20120624

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

Please go do some research. A good place to start would be to find a graph of defense spending as a percentage of total outlays, but a graph of inflation adjusted military spending would be informative as well. Cutting military spending is basically how Clinton managed to balance the budget.

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Defense_Spending_-_percent_to_Outlays.png

Now find a chart of social/Mandatory spending as a percentage of total outlays. Notice trends, notice total dollars, notice projected growth expectations.

I'll wait.

Re:Thank goodness

[Vaphell]

the problem is that the preventative care is not cheaper.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229356/preventive-care-myth/michael-fumento
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/us-preventive-economics-idUSBRE90S05M20130129

Re:Thank goodness

[Gadget27]

I don't think it's fair to equate the US's lower life expectancy to the quality of healthcare provided here. There are other factors involved, many which actively make the job of health care providers more difficult. Essentially it comes down to lifestyle. Many of us have very poor diets here, as there is no shortage of unhealthy options to choose from... often these options are the cheapest and most convenient as well. Unless you live in or around a major city center, you're likely getting in a car to do almost any task required outside of your house, so you're not getting around and walking much either. Having regular trips to various spots Europe over the last 10 years, those are two of the main things that I've learned that stand out for me... its unbelievable how better I eat and how much more exercise I get just doing day to day routine type stuff when in an environment that allows for it. Its seems, without any direct intention, I live a healthier life there than I do when I'm back home in the US. I can help but think that such factors significantly affect the life expectancy rate of a populous.

Re:Thank goodness

[cold fjord]

Or, to put it more cynically, US health insurance is a great deal, right up until the point where you need to make a claim.

Tell it to the people waiting in ambulances, dying of thirst, and the elderly. (And that is barely scratching the surface.)

Re:Thank goodness

[adamstew]

The biggest problem you're facing down the road is when some bureaucrat decides that keeping you alive is not cost-effective

I'd rather have a government bureaucrat, who (in theory) answers to the american voters, make the decision rather than an insurance company CEO, who answers to his shareholders and whose only job is to squeeze out the most profit.

Re:Thank goodness

[adamstew]

Er... I guess in his specific case, the Australian voters...But yeah, the bureaucrat is responsible to the voters.

Re:Thank goodness

[cold fjord]

Balloon over time to something like the Canadian system, about 6X cheaper about 4X as good. ... Do the math

If you are doing "math" the only function you seem to be using is hyperbole.

Re:Thank goodness

[Sloppy]

nothing is a done deal until they revamp the entire house/senate system.

Who is "they?"

Re:Thank goodness

[SleazyRidr]

Someone made a comment yesterday that all acts now have names to imply the opposite of what they are intended to achieve. The Affordable Care Act fits that quite well, but then again so does the "Obamacare" name.

Re:Thank goodness

[cold fjord]

Does the US get to pay its soldiers and buy its weapons at Chinese rates under your plan? (And won't that "improve" the quality of the armed forces?) A US corporal makes what a Chinese general makes.

Re:Thank goodness

[Joining Yet Again]

No, I was pointing out that 1) the article's headline was incorrectly using quote marks to quote its own language; and 2) that the subheading was misleading, as clarified by Keogh in the article proper. I was not giving any conclusion whatever, but showing that the journalist was engaging in non sequitur.

The final report did not indicate "in excess of 14,000 needless deaths" - instead, it identified where Trusts with above-average mortality rates also need extra supervision. Again, you are misinterpreting statistics, perhaps the same way the Telegraph did in its article. It did, however, identify various problems with patient care, and choose to apply stringent monitoring on 11 of the most outlying Trusts as far as mortality rate.

This is the review system working as it should, paying special attention to a small proportion of the many NHS Trusts, marching on despite the offensive difficulties created by Thatcher's competing Trusts system, even as things get worse with the advent of CCGs.

Re:Thank goodness

[interkin3tic]

I suspect the opposite, it will be chipped away at while we aren't looking until they break it completely. I don't fully understand the opposition to ACA, but I'm suspicious it doesn't have more to do with control and relative wealth than it does with small government values. People who are more concerned with their failing health, taking care of sick relatives, or paying outrageous medical bills are less likely to have time to pay attention to politics. They're less likely to demand their rights or question what they're being told. Keeping most Americans sick or in debt is a great way for certain rich elites to increase their own power. And I think they see Obamacare as standing in their way.

I don't know if Obamacare will actually be effective in preventing that, nor do I know what goes on in the Kochs' heads that makes them want to destroy Obamacare. Just that's what I'm paranoid about.

Re:Thank goodness

[TangoMargarine]

Unfortunately, their votes count the same as anybody else's, i.e., not much.

Re:Thank goodness

[dprimary]

That is not the norm. I only one that I have been in that I would call very nice is the Mayo clinic. I live with in a few miles of some of the best in country, and I design systems for hospitals from time to time, while they are no longer at the motel six level, they are far from even a Hampton Inn. Hospitals have always had things like chair rails and expensive fixtures just now architects have decide change from the 300 dollar fixture to the 300 dollar fixture that looks nice. The industrial plastic chair rail never did look nice.
Better finishes are not a major cost driver in hospitals. The equipment and systems are the real costs. Maintaining them is extremely costly, if you have open a wall or even pop ceiling tile in a sterile area, it a major and costly endeavor.

Re:Thank goodness

[daenris]

Oh, right, because travertine tile and free steak and lobster meals for non-patients is totally a good trade-off for how much we spend on healthcare.

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

Certainly. What part exactly would you like to discuss?

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

Yes, that is Ted Cruz's viewpoint.

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

Yeah, as someone who enjoys watching politics, the next election will be really interesting.

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

How many soldiers could we hire for what China spends on military?

Re:Thank goodness

[Elminster Aumar]

It's unreasonable to expect everyone to drop what they're doing to go scurry off to wherever they can go to research Kafkaesque concepts pertaining to political minutia. People have too much going on in order to do this, but even if they didn't, an outcome of research (like that which you elude to) would require hours upon hours of thorough filtering through vague and often downright untrue literature just to get to the pieces that both A.) make sense and B.) are true. Long story short, I agree with you in thinking that people need to do better research to determine who they should vote for despite it being an unreasonable request approximately 90% of the time, but what's the point really when both candidates are worthless and never for the people 100% of the time!? The political system in this country is broken. The only thing we can do now is hold on for dear life and hope that our "leaders" either don't send us to the poor house or get us into a war. They're all worthless.

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

If it makes the healthcare system worse, will you continue to favor it? Will anyone?

Re:Thank goodness

[tbannist]

Republicans can get away with shutting down the government because of gerrymandering. If more of them feared for their position, they'd be a lot more careful than this.

Actually, it's even worse than that. They do fear for their position, it's just the fear the opposite of what should happen in a democratic system. Those seats are safe for any Republican, so the thing they fear most is a challenge from a Tea Party backed conservative in the primary. The Tea Party is more motivated than the rank and file Republicans which makes it easier for these challengers to displace more moderate Republicans. In a fair election system, those challengers would be at a disadvantage in the general election, however, because of gerrymandering, those challengers can ride the popular support for the Repubican brand to victory even as they hate everything it stands for. The effect is to drag the whole party rightward because most of them need to worry more about Tea Party backed challengers than they do the general election. Effectively, the Republican party is now infested with political parasites*.

* Some people would say that's nothing new, but it seems the goal of the Tea Party is kill the Republican party and take it's place. Whether they have to do it from the inside or the outside.

Re:Thank goodness

[tbannist]

I'm amused that you are willing to sell your honor, integrity and self-respect for $30/mo.

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

It's unreasonable to expect everyone to drop what they're doing to go scurry off to wherever they can go to research Kafkaesque concepts pertaining to political minutia.

If you want to discuss it, you better do the research. Otherwise, you will draw stupid conclusions because of the huge glaring holes in your knowledge, and will be mocked as an ignoramus, appropriately.

Re:Thank goodness

[cHALiTO]

I have never heard of such a thing here, and I live in argentina, which is supposed to be a 3rd world country. A few years ago I considered the possibility to go live in the US (my girlfriend at the time had got a grant there so I was consider going with her), and the cost of healthcare was my biggest reason not to do it.

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

You think Obama won in 2012 because of Obamacare? You don't think it was because Romney is a racist, homophobic, rich old white dude who is out of touch with normal folks?

Re:Thank goodness

[quacking duck]

Many people have already had cutbacks on their hours at work due to the law, and many of them lost health insurance in the process.

On this specific point, Walmart (of all companies) is reversing the working hour cutbacks and rehiring 35,000 people as full-time workers, with ACA coverage.

Why? Funny enough, simple free-market principles: "While the company’s trend toward temporary employees has allowed the retailer to avoid its responsibilities under the Affordable Care Act [...] they’ve managed to tank their store sales in the process."

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

It's an interesting question worth looking into.

The problem with the movie in your link is, it doesn't address the things that people don't like about Obamacare. It asks about preconditions, but not forced purchasing of insurance, for example. Or death panels :)

I am certain I could make a similar video that asks the question differently and shows that people hate ACA more than Obamacare, but that wouldn't be very useful. So it would be interesting to see what a more careful survey came up with.

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

Nothing, I was addressing your point that military is a sacred cow.

Re:Thank goodness

[sycodon]

The problem with single payer and with Obamacare is that neither does anything about cost other than to spread it around.

Costs can and should be reduced. I suspect that will mean some fundamental re-evaluation of how healthcare works and the responsibility of all involved. And this does not mean rationing.

If we concede that the Federal Government should be involved in healthcare at all we can at the very least limit it to what it does best.

1. Large, capital intensive projects such as purchasing diagnostic equipment or building facilities.
2. Funding drug research, thereby making drugs more affordable (created with taxpayer dollars, then you can dictate max prices, etc.)
3. Training doctors and nurses...The quality of military doctors is often the subject of ridicule, but clearly they handle very difficult cases while saddled with a very oppressive organizational environment. So if a quality medical education can be had for less than half a million dollars, we'd all be better off.

All these things help reduce costs yet keep the feds out of the day to day healthcare process...as it should be.

Re:Thank goodness

[sycodon]

Nice...your anecdote is a dead link. I

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

Look at infant mortality rates and cost.

I strongly suggest you research why infant mortality rates are what they are, it will be eye-opening to you. But you won't, because you'd prefer just to feel good about your preconceived ideas.

Re:Thank goodness

[sumdumass]

The ACA has specific language in it that requires congress to get insurance via that same mechanism people who are not covered have to. You can argue what you thing is right or wrong all day long but that does not get around the fact that the law as passed and still sits on the books only allow subsidies for congress if their income qualifies for one like the rest of the subjects.

Also the large employer provision has currently been waved by the administration. It doesn't make a difference because congress was specifically exempted from it because of the mandate to play ball like the citizens are. About the only thing you got right is that this is not an ACA subsidy. It does however, defeat the entire purpose of pushing congress into the exchanges so they have to play by the same laws the rest of the subjects have to play by. Again, by executive decree, the administration has removed the largest incentive for the government to mske thr exchanges work by removing them from the effects of living under the same rules as everyone else.

Re:Thank goodness

[riverat1]

Well, you're complaining about one aspect of it. How about the mandate to insurance companies that they can't turn you away for preexisting conditions or drop you after you develop chronic conditions or you reach a lifetime cap on coverage?

Re:Thank goodness

[sumdumass]

Well, if you are saying shit insurance is fine because you had shit insurance in the past, im not sure why this law us needed. Please explain some of this.

Re:Thank goodness

[omnichad]

That's not why I'm opposed. While I'd abide a great many compromises to fix healthcare, that's just not one of them. Forcing a private industry purchase on every American? I pay taxes to the government to get public good. But I'm not going to pay taxes to a corporation. That's not just a compromise, it's a slippery slope.

Re:Thank goodness

[SeattleGameboy]

Then why do Medicare/Medicaid customers like their service so much?

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

Why would that comparison be interesting or relevant? I already indicated understanding that Mexico is not a rich country. The fact that they have a violent crime problem is well established but irrelevant.

The fact that a country with all those problems manages to provide health care but the United States can't seem to find it's checkbook should be deeply shaming to our congresscritters. Perhaps more shameful, Americans taking 'dental holidays' to Mexico is becoming a thing.

Some people (especially insurance pariahs) have found that coronary bypass is cheaper in Singapore even when factoring in a stay at a resort hotel and regular commuting by air for followup doctor visits than getting the procedure done in the U.S.

But since you seem to have all those figures, you might as well post them.

Re:Thank goodness

[Straif]

Infant mortality rates are one of the worst measures of health care success because the numbers are all highly adjusted.

The US is in fact one of the very few countries that counts infant moralities as suggest by the WHO (any child born alive, including from medical procedures, counts as an infant). Most other countries do not follow that standard and apply their own rules (which include NOT counting high risk births as infants until the child has survived a certain period of time).

Some countries also have systems where instead of providing care for higher risk pregnancies, doctor's are instructed to strongly push the abortion option.

As it stands, one of the leading causes of the current infant mortality rate of the US is that doctors there will try everything to help a child survive.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

Now look at 1-32 and note how many of them have socialized medicine.

And keep in mind that that less than stellar 33 is only for the portion of the U.S. population that can get healthcare. Those who can't do without.

I suspect if Mexico had the kind of bux the United States does, they'd be a lot higher on the list. It is notable that in spite of all of the limitations naturally associated with their economic condition its government at least makes an effort.

You seem to have missed my point.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

Then try US man dies in er waiting room.

Re:Thank goodness

[Straif]

You can only keep your current insurance IF it was already in full compliance with ACA regulations. A lot of people who opted for catastrophic coverage and chose to pay for regular expenses out of pocket could not keep their plan because they are now illegal under the ACA.

Even some the "current plans" are not quire the same as pre-ACA versions as in many cases the networks have drastically shrunk.

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if it wasnt for a cadre of representatives who have this same contempt for government that you display wasnt voted into the legislature by people who believe government cant work well in any circumstance the government would not have been shut down.

Your belief in government ineptitude is a self fulfilling attitude because you and others like you vote people into office who run on a platform that is explicit in its desire to cripple government.

You have only yourself to blame, thanks for ruining shit for everyone.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

One reason for wanting single payer is the way it shifts the political incentives around. Suddenly the outrageous medical bills become a headache for the government, and so stand a chance of being addressed.

Once it's all single payer and congress is looking with interest at an expanded VA hospital system, suddenly the private medical facilities will find a way to be more affordable.

Re:Thank goodness

[Straif]

The GOP may have tried to make it a referendum on Obamacare but if you look at the actual news stories there was more of a focus on Romney's taxes (not that there was ever anything found to be off about them) his bank accounts (which are housed in many of the same banks as half the administrations top players) and his wife's horse. Very few Democrats ran on an "I helped pass Obamacare" platform and most just pretended it didn't even exist.

It was very much like Obama's last press conference; some questions about the shutdown and a few odd questions about random subjects but NOT ONE QUESTION about the ACA launch failure or even a question about why open air parks, which were never closed before and generally never even patrolled, were now being gated off and in some case put under armed guard.

Re:Thank goodness

[tbannist]

The biggest problem you're facing down the road is when some bureaucrat decides that keeping you alive is not cost-effective.

Strangely enough, I keep hearing that is one of the many problems with the American system that Obamacare is supposed to fix? Oh I see, the guy who denies your private American insurance claims is intrinsically different from the guy you imagine in the Australian system.

Want to know the difference? The Austrlians guy doesn't exist.

The government isn't allowed to decide who gets health coverage on a case by case basis (which certain exceptions like prisoners) because that's a ridiculous stupid power to give to any government that is just asking for abuse. Besides, deciding who needs which treatments is something your doctor is supposed to be good at. So in every socialized system that I'm aware of, the doctors decide what treatments you will get and the government pays for them.

Now, the government does get to decide what treatments are covered, what it will pay for various treatments and what standards the doctors must meet to be certified. Of course, different governments have different answers to each of those questions. However, in the end, the government actually has less ability to decide that you are not cost-effective than any private insurance provider.

Re:Thank goodness

[Bite The Pillow]

Yes, but the point is that people change their support based on the name. Probably because they hear bad things about obamacare, and neutral or good about aca.

Re:Thank goodness

[DexterIsADog]

I would like to believe the ACA can evolve into single payer, but I don't think it will. The ACA is an expansion of the current commercial insurance model, and it would be a huge upheaval to turn that into single payer, a massive battle between good and evil.

I don't expect single payer in less than 20 years, but I'd be happy if I were wrong.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

Probably because the shitfest from the GOP would have dwarfed what we saw these last couple weeks.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

Because tort reform has failed everywhere it was tried (look at Texas). It turns out that the insurance is sky high and remains so no matter how much you reduce the liability.

Re:Thank goodness

[sycodon]

Government interested in reducing costs?

Really?

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

really, no. Many doctors have absolutely no idea what anything costs. They happily tick every box on the lab form without a care in the world for what it costs or that the patient's only complaint was an ingrown toenail. They prescribe the hyper inflated latest and greatest X without even considering if the generic (literally 1/100th the price) might be adequate. What's another $2000 eh? $10,000 for the equivalent of a Nintendo Wii with balance board, really? And it won't even play games.

I don't know why so many doctors can't seem to get that under control, so I said for some reason. If I handled money that way, I'd be going under too.

Re:Thank goodness

[sycodon]

ACA, all the oppression and control without all the imaginary benefits of single payer.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

Meanwhile the countries that just went ahead and implemented proper socialized medicine are getting much better results at half the cost. All the crazy contortions we're doing to avoid 'the s word' are sure expensive.

Re:Thank goodness

[sycodon]

Bureaucracy costs money.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

And that is one of the reasons I say Obamacare is not what we needed. We needed single payer.

Funny thing about Obamacare though, the Republicans loved it when it was Romneycare in Mass.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

Some costs. For example, the GOP seems deeply concerned about the cost of food stamps. Not so much about the cost of the DEA.

Re:Thank goodness

[T-Bucket]

The problem with the comparison to the canadian system is they don't have the MASSIVE underclass that the US does. Most of the country is gainfully employed. Not to mention that the whole system is like, 1/8th the size.

Re:Thank goodness

[Copid]

The ACA has specific language in it that requires congress to get insurance via that same mechanism people who are not covered have to. You can argue what you thing is right or wrong all day long but that does not get around the fact that the law as passed and still sits on the books only allow subsidies for congress if their income qualifies for one like the rest of the subjects.

Right, it was a poison pill put in by the Republicans because they thought the exchanges woud be too horrible to imagine. The Dems said "OK, fine," thinking that the exchagnes are no big deal, but not realizing that dumping health insurance is actually a massive effective wage cut for their employees. Normally, if you dump a huge benefit like that, you have to make up for it with some cash that people can use to purchase the benefit on their own.

The wrangling was to make sure that it remained a permanent pay cut, which is absurdly stupid for a lot of reasons. The first reason is that it doens't demonstrate what the Republicans wanted to demonstrate: that the exchanges are a painful fate worse than death. Having your wages massively cut is painful, but that doesn't really tell us anything about the exchanges.

Re:Thank goodness

[Copid]

Our bronze healthcare plan is going to cost $125 more a month than last year.

What? The cost of your health insurance went up? When has that happened in the past before the ACA? Never, right? String them up, I say!!

Re:Thank goodness

[Valdrax]

Nobody ever scared anyone with tales of $50 ER visits. Who'd buy insurance to cover cheap healthcare?

I keep wanting to respond to this, but I think I just don't actually know what you're trying to say. Could you explain in more detail what your statement is meant to imply? I have no clue.

Are you implying there already is a place with $50 ER visits? Are you implying this would be a bad thing? Are you suggesting this is possible without some sort of public or private insurance system?

(And who the hell modded this complete cipher "Insightful?")

Re:Thank goodness

[sycodon]

DEA budget 2013: $2 billion
Foodstamp program 2013: $80 billion.

For my money, the DEA could go away altogether (along with the ATF, Education department and HHS)

Re:Thank goodness

[AK Marc]

There is an intense class war on in the US. We try to hide it and pretend we are a melting pot, but we hate poor people. If they are poor, they deserve it, and the only "trick" is finding out what they did wrong, not that we care. Anything that benefits the poor is bad because they are, by definition, unworthy. *That* is the real American Way.

Re:Thank goodness

[Darinbob]

Are you implying that everyone who gets private insurance will get rates going up? Everyone who claims that theirs went down is either lying or confused?

Re:Thank goodness

[Darinbob]

This was supposed to be funny but some people seem to think it was a troll. Have you never worked in an inept private company? I've rarely been in one that did careful and thoughtful planning, they almost all were running full speed without looking where they were going. Rush to get the products out before funding runs out, with bugs being fixed later if the company survives; development being run and driven from the sales department; software being sold for half a million dollars that came with zero QA;and so forth.

And forget those engineering companies, what about when you show up at your hotel and they lost your reservation or double booked it? People get mad when that happens but then forget it quickly, but the government does something similar and someone will say "private business would never make a mistake like that!" Or how about your auto mechanic who just can never figure out the problem, but keeps charging you to try to figure it out. Auto makers who took over a decade to figure out how to adapt to foreign competition. And since this is all about health care, how about the inept insurance companies that will charge you a very large amount of money and deliver a substandard product?

Ineptness is nearly universal, it does not exist only in government.

Re:Thank goodness

[Valdrax]

Well, you're complaining about one aspect of it. How about the mandate to insurance companies that they can't turn you away for preexisting conditions or drop you after you develop chronic conditions or you reach a lifetime cap on coverage?

Unaffordable without either (a) the individual mandate, or (b) even more massive direct subsidies to private insurers.

Re:Thank goodness

[Darinbob]

Utilities used to be worse before regulation. As in continuing rising rates with no improvement in service (except to have more people being served). Electric utilities used to have no attention paid to reducing electricity usage and conservation, because it was not in their best interests to sell less of a product. We had a gas explosion in California, not because of regulation but because the company didn't do the inspections and falsified the paperwork (both before and after regulation was added).

Re:Thank goodness

[mythosaz]

While I agree in principle, checkups are the sort of thing that your insurer prefers to pay for because it costs less to insure you if you get regular care.

So, yeah, you're "insuring" against regular fees, but your insurer pays less if you do go -- and if you had to pay out of pocket, you probably wouldn't. ...because we're lazy.

Re:Thank goodness

[MightyYar]

Utilities used to be worse before regulation.

Well, sure - a monopoly. It's a bit of a tangent, but I see a utility monopoly as impossible without government regulation. Whether you agree or not, I think we can agree that a private monopoly is not very efficient.

We had a gas explosion in California, not because of regulation but because the company didn't do the inspections and falsified the paperwork (both before and after regulation was added).

And our government accidentally dropped nuclear weapons on North Carolina. I don't think either incident proves a point in isolation.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

But you have to look at the value we get for the money. I'll bet the public can more easily forego getting their crotch felt at the airport and their phone metadata captured than they can food. If they REALLY want their crotches felt by a stranger, there's probably people in the park who will do it for free.

ATF really should be a convenience store.

Re:Thank goodness

[betterprimate]

The difference is that once you have medicare people can't imagine a life without it.

Obviously. Because without it, they would be dead.

Re:Thank goodness

[DarthVain]

You realize that there is a difference between the political and the bureaucratic arms of the government right?

From what I understand, those 800K had no choice in the matter, were not on vacation nor got paid (that was why they shut down as it was unfunded), and would have much rather have been at work.

This was a political decision made by your political government. It really had nothing to do with your normal government worker.

Couldn't agree more on the whole Wars thing, but again political decisions. The domestic spying on the other hand, well that is probably bureaucratic supported politically, however they would probably argue that it is a cost savings. They would be basically downloading the cost of spying on the corporations that host services (google, apple, etc...) and the people who pay them rather than having some huge internal spying infrastructure to do so.

Re:Thank goodness

[cbhacking]

I don't know where you get "less connection to reality" from, but whatever. As for propaganda, I've yet to see anything else in recent American history that compares to the "USA PATRIOT" act, but propaganda is a fact of life. Learn to see through it if you want to participate in the political process.

Re:Thank goodness

[DarthVain]

Canadians; we have free healthcare but not everything is covered.

Basically Teeth and Eyeballs you still have to cover yourself.

Which I always found weird, if I punch you in the chops and break my hand it is covered, but your teeth are not...

The REAL reason for mouth guards and visors in the NHL... :)

Re:Thank goodness

[Ozeroc]

Interesting. The text under that graph states: "The bars in this diagram reflect budgeted amounts, which exclude spending for the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan (about $750 billion from 2001-2008), which were funded via supplemental appropriations. Further, it appears that homeland security spending is not entirely included in the budgeted amounts described as defense spending per the budget historical tables; these amounts are spread in other "buckets.""

Re:Thank goodness

[Valdrax]

That's funny . . . while all of the 800K furloughed gov't workers were getting paid vacations because the idiots in Congress couldn't (and still can't) agree on anything, my (privately owned) small business hired two new folks and signed a multi-year lease to triple our square footage. We *worked* while they sat around and did squat.

"Paid vacation?" Paid vacation is what happens when you voluntarily choose to block off a period of time to relax with work's permission. It's not how I would describe being told that (a) you can't come into work, (b) we won't pay you during this period, (c) you can be called back into work at any time, and (d) we *might* pay you later -- we hope your landlord, your utilities, and your other creditors are okay with that.

You must have no freaking clue what it's like to be yanked around by an employer like that. This is what people at the lower end have to deal with all the time. Ask someone who works retail what it's like to never know what their schedule is going to be too far in advance, because they are expected to be always available to cover someone else's shift. "Yeah, that guy got 4 days off last week? What's his problem?" You don't know what it's like to have a paycheck disappear when you're living paycheck to paycheck and the rent comes due. I've got friends in that boat, so screw you and your entitled perspective.

Re:Thank goodness

[charyou-tree]

It continues to astonish me to hear (presumably) smart people parrot this damn lie of statistics.

"The US has worse infant mortality than Cuba" and variations of that theme.

Never mind that a premature infant that dies within 24 hours in Cuba is marked in the "stillbirth" column. Never mind that a 25 week preemie who dies despite extraordinary NICU care in a US hospital is marked in the "infant death" column.

Yeah, our "infant mortality" is worse - because we count them as infants and not stillbirths!

Never mind reality. Never mind facts. Let's just parrot the same statistical LIE that advances whatever argument you emotionally favor.

Squaaawk! Infant mortality! Ssquaaak! Cuba! Squaaaaaaaaawk!

Re:Thank goodness

[haruchai]

Perhaps but what would they have said?
Death panels? Don't think that would have worked.
And that misguided invalid who yelled "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" would have to find something else to be angry about.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

I'm sure they would find something. They don't much care what they say as long as it keeps them in the news and convinces people to follow them to the looney bin.

Re:Thank goodness

[SecurityTheatre]

Strikes me that after half a decade in place in the state of Mass in exactly the same form, Insurance companies are doing better, health outcomes are better and more people are covered, with only marginally higher expense.

I think you're cherry picking anecdotes.

In fact, A July 2013 Gallup poll shows the number of uninsured in the US is down substantially over the last few years.

Can you cite any non-partisan surveys that show otherwise? Or are you relying on some CEO moaning and complaining for your "everyone is losing their insurance" quote?

Re:Thank goodness

[cbeaudry]

Actually,

Elective dental work isnt covered.

If you get into a car crash and your jaw is fubar, the surgery to fix your jaw, teeth etc... will be covered by the governement.

But if you want to have braces so your teeth are a little straighter... thats not covered.

Re:Thank goodness

[haruchai]

All the Democrats would have to say is that pre-existing mental problems are covered.

Re:Thank goodness

[Ken D]

No, I'm implying that the sensationalist stories are easy to find, but are comparing apples and bowling balls.

Re:Thank goodness

[danaris]

I can argue that the average life expectancy is more a matter of lifestyle than health care. A lot of Americans, myself included, are obese. We live a sedentary lifestyle with food that's bad for us. We're victims of high living.

And why does the rest of the developed world not have the same problem to the same degree?

It's not "high living." A vastly disproportionate share of the obese are from lower-income Americans, not the wealthy.

We're not victims of our own success: we're victims of, in part, the agribusiness lobby's success. (Though from what I've been seeing lately, recent studies suggest that only part of the obesity epidemic can be traced to changes in diet. Some of it is from environmental causes, too—but they're also, by and large, due to big companies trying to make/save an extra buck at everyone else's expense.)

Dan Aris

Re:Thank goodness

[amiga3D]

Wow. That's ultra liberal there. I like it. The fact that I'm fat is some corporation's fault! Twisted logic but beautifully done.

Re: Thank goodness

[LandDolphin]

Given the recent successes of Congress, yes.

Re:Thank goodness

[LandDolphin]

Better for SOME individuals within that society - not all individuals.

Re:Thank goodness

[LandDolphin]

Just an FYI: The Federal Government cannot constitutionally provide Healthcare. They can provide money for the States to provide healthcare (this is Medicare and Medicaid). But they cannot provide it themselves.

Re:Thank goodness

[LandDolphin]

Or it could work like Medicaid & Private insurance (Which is what it is!)

Re:Thank goodness

[danaris]

Better for SOME individuals within that society - not all individuals.

Right, and that I agreed with: it's better for those who can afford to buy extremely expensive, extremely high-quality health care.

For the rest of us, it's crap.

I don't think saying that "This system that we have is better for some people than the other systems, which show clearly better results on average for dramatically lower costs" is a particularly useful thing to do. It's like saying, "People like having more money," or, "Political systems that actively discourage corruption have less corruption."

Sure, it's true, but it's also painfully obvious, and not very helpful.

Dan Aris

Re:Thank goodness

[danaris]

Wow. That's ultra liberal there. I like it. The fact that I'm fat is some corporation's fault! Twisted logic but beautifully done.

I know it's in vogue to blame everything on the individual, especially on the right, but you're getting bitten by reality's liberal bias here. There's lots and lots of stuff that individuals can't actually do to prevent corporations from polluting their environment in ways that have profound effects on their health.

Furthermore, the sooner we recognize that it is pretty much impossible that the marked upswing in obesity not only in people in the entire developed world (other countries do have some of the same problem, just to much lesser degrees), but also in laboratory animals in the US, could be caused entirely by a mysterious mass drop in personal responsibility over the past 40 years, the sooner we can actually start addressing the causes of the problem. You know, instead of just blaming the victim and hoping it will all go away.

Dan Aris

Re:Thank goodness

[LandDolphin]

I was just making the point that when you make an argument, you need to clarify and not use terms like "better" without saying for whom. Because then you end up arguing in circles.

Re:Thank goodness

[LandDolphin]

It isn't just for the top 1-5%. I am FAR from that and I had an amazing plan when I worked for an Engineering Firm.

Re:Thank goodness

[houstonbofh]

If you read the constitution and the bill of rights, then you look at the laws and legal decisions handed down over the past 15 years, you will see the dissconnect. The concept was once sound, but it has been subverted.

Re:Thank goodness

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, GP is wrong. Obama won in 2012 because Romney was such an idiot. OTOH, Obama won in 2008 because of Obamacare.

Re:Thank goodness

[ATMAvatar]

That's what I get for posting at 2AM. I swear the 5 in 15 was an 8 when I wrote the post :)

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

I don't know, isn't Obamacare closer to the plan presented by his opponent in that election?

Re:Thank goodness

[shutdown -p now]

As I recall, McCain was pitching tax credits as the solution for people who couldn't otherwise afford health insurance, so not really.

Re:Thank goodness

[phantomfive]

I don't really want to go research it so I'll just trust you on this one.

Re:Thank goodness

[evilviper]

Meanwhile the countries that just went ahead and implemented proper socialized medicine are getting much better results at half the cost.

That's really not true. 1/3rd cheaper at best, and all the socialized medicine systems out there have some gaping flaws in them. Whether it's empty beds, long wait times for certain procedures, hospitals/doctors barely making any profit and going out of business, or more, they all do have some kinds of issues that we don't have to contend with in the market-based private US healthcare system. The US certainly does have worse health in many indicators, but the mandatory health insurance with subsidies *might* be an adequate solution to that glaring problem.

With the implementation, I see the benefits of a socialized system for the poor... They suddenly have a huge additional monthly bill that is mandatory, without any pay increase to cover it. They can't afford even the discounted insurance rates, and the penalties at the end of the year will be devastating.

Re:Thank goodness

[LordLimecat]

http://thequeue.gallup.com/2012/03/americans-on-individual-mandate-and.html
Monday, March 26, 2012-- 20% of americans think the individual mandate is constitutional (and only 37% of democrats), while 72% think it is unconstitutional. Without the individual mandate, the thing falls to pieces. Numbers and polls can be tricky, but I dont think theres anything misleading or "spin-y" about the term "individual mandate".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164078/americans-wary-not-familiar-health-law.aspx
Using the term "Affordable Care Act", 49% of americans disapprove, and 41% approve.
The majority also indicate that both in regard to their own families and the US at large, they believe (and have believed) that it will make things worse.

Worst of all from that poll,
Americans who say they are very or somewhat familiar with the law are more likely to disapprove (55%) than approve of it (42%). The picture is much more muddled among those who are not too or not at all familiar with the law: 36% approve, 39% disapprove, and 21% aren't sure.

Im not really sure how this meshes with "60% of conservatives changing their tune". Im actually not sure how anyone could be called conservative who approved of expanding the federal government into the healthcare sector, now that I think on it.

more people don't know enough about it, or are ideologically incapable of agreeing with ANYTHING that has Obama's name on it.

Doesnt really jive with what Gallup says, but if you want to go with DailyKos over Gallup I cant stop you. I would just point out that only one of those has anything resembling a non-partisan, non-biased record, and it aint DailyKos.

Re:Thank goodness

[Qzukk]

I just don't actually know what you're trying to say.

"Who'd buy insurance to cover cheap healthcare?" is a question, Leon. In answer to your query, I wrote it to make people think about whether insurance companies would "fix" the cost of healthcare to the point where nobody would need their services anymore.

Let's start from the top.

The fundamental problem is that the actual cost of healthcare is way too high, mostly because a healthy market cannot be established when the option is pay or die and many of the 'customers' come in unconscious. If insurance could fix it, it would have done so in the last several decades.

I responded to the statement that "insurance would have fixed it" by first attempting to have the reader conjure up the image of an America where it was fixed: "$50 ER visits" (compare to the average ER visit cost here, not counting the ambulance ride). Then I asked what the role of insurance companies would be in that America: "Who'd buy insurance to cover cheap healthcare?" (I add "America" here, because I noticed a lot of people replying live in other countries where these things aren't true. That's nice, but this is an article about American government, with a post about American healthcare, and my response should be assumed to be on topic). This question is addressed to the reader (for instance, you): If healthcare was this cheap, would you buy insurance for the purpose of paying for it? My personal opinion is "no", and through my personal fault of projection, I expect readers to answer the same way. They would not pay insurance companies every month to protect themselves from the occasional loss of the cost of a dinner for two. Based on that, I expected readers to then make the connection between their decision not to buy insurance, and the insurance companies not working to create a situation where they would put themselves out of business.

Re:Thank goodness

[sumdumass]

If you want to increase their wages then do it. The wrangling was about a specific subsidy that was created outside the law to skirt the effects of the law which the rest of the country does not get.

Stop trying to attatch shit that doesn't exist in reality in order to maintain some preconcieved notion you hold. The republican specifically said, if we cannot stop it, they want it enforced as passed into law. If the law was going to force the citizens to do something, congress and the people behind it should be forced to do the same.

Now, as for a pay cut. Every single citizenwho doesn't already have insurance or who's employer dumped it has had to take a pay cut by either buying insurance themselves or being fined a tax penalty for not having it. Congress and their staffers can just as well suffer the same experiences the rest of the subjects are forced to by law they created.

Why is it that you think congress and staffers are so privileged that they deserve a srparate set of rules compared to the rest of the citizens? We have businesses cutting employee hours, dumping spouses from family plans if the spouse works, and businesses refusing to hire and expand because the cost of dealing with the ACA is a burden. Why is all that perfectly fine and subjecting congress to the same shit not?

Re:Thank goodness

[riverat1]

When you consider the population that the VA covers, veterans who certainly have a higher percentage of disability and serious problems than the general population it's pretty impressive how they control the costs. I'd also like to point out that the VA system is like Great Britain's NHS where the government owns the hospitals and employs the doctors, nurses and other health care professionals so your point about the government running a single payer system is well taken.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

Actually, it is true. If you go by percentage of GDP it's even worse for the U.S.

Empty beds are largely irrelevant since that waste is already accounted for in the cost per capita that the U.S. loses so badly. In countries like the U.K. the doctors are employees and so don't go out of business. The hospitals are government operations and so aren't supposed to turn a profit. Doctors and hospitals in the U.S. face the same issues in spite of their outrageous fees.

Under socialized medicine, wait times for elective procedures can be longer than in the U.S. but citizens have the option of seeking private care if they don't want to wait. Even if they take the private option, their ability to just wait gives them a better bargaining position and so a better price.

Insurance can't make healthcare less expensive in the aggregate, it can only spread the cost evenly across the insured population.

Re:Thank goodness

[Copid]

The republican specifically said, if we cannot stop it, they want it enforced as passed into law. If the law was going to force the citizens to do something, congress and the people behind it should be forced to do the same.

"The same thing" everybody else is experiencing? Are you saying that the government went to your employer and said, "Cancel everybody's health insurance, and don't raise their wages to compensate?" That's bizarre. I don't think that happened anywhere else.

Look, the simple fact is that markets set wages. If your labor is worth $X per year, you either get $X in cash or $A in cash plus $B in something else, but $A + $B has to equal $X. The idea that you can dump the $B in healthcare and leave $A alone is just silly. Markets don't work that way. They'll figure that out if they get their way and try to run that experiment.

Re:Thank goodness

[evilviper]

Actually, it is true. If you go by percentage of GDP it's even worse for the U.S.

Even going by your source, and using your metric, the numbers still don't match your claim. Based on that OECD chart, as a percentage of GDP, no countries in Europe are paying only half as much for health care as the US...

In countries like the U.K. the doctors are employees and so don't go out of business.

And this is EXACTLY what happens in every discussion... Proponents pick and choose feature X from country Y, pass over the shortcomings, and combine them into a theoretical system that sounds great, but doesn't exist...

If you'd like to compare the US and UK, fine, but say so, and keep everything strictly confined to those two...

Insurance can't make healthcare less expensive in the aggregate, it can only spread the cost evenly across the insured population.

That's complete nonsense. Insurance companies negotiate prices with individual hospitals and private doctors, and can dictate to their customers which doctors they can and cannot visit. The prices for Kaiser Permanente are completely and totally different than for BlueShield, and the former was studied by the UK Health Service because they were lower-cost than the UK.

Under socialized medicine, wait times for elective procedures can be longer than in the U.S.

Let's grab a few quick numbers about the NHS:

"1 in 10 dentists having left the NHS totally."

"An NHS trust has spent more than £12,000 on private treatment for hospital staff because its own waiting times are too long."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jun/03/nhs-waiting-times-getting-longer-report

"The average wait before having a new knee fitted rose from 88.9 days to 99.2 days, while patients needing hernia surgery typically waited 78.3 days in 2011"

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/19/david-cameron-pressure-nhs-waiting-times

Even that's too fair to the NHS as the average doesn't mention the longest people have had to wait and suffer. Wait times are a way to ration health-care, just as much as increased prices are. It would be a hard sell to the US public that they can't get treated right when they need it, but need to wait months. And the competition between NHS and private insurance is just as much a reality when two private insurance companies must compete.

Re:Thank goodness

[evilviper]

It seems we've had the discussion just a bit too soon:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/10/17/2337204/british-nhs-may-soon-no-longer-offer-free-care

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

Not really. A careful read says they are concerned there might be a problem in 2020 if nothing is done in the next few years. Even if they do have to start charging, they're not talking about things being as bad as the U.S.

Re:Thank goodness

[LandDolphin]

Better way to put it is:

Republicans are concerned with the costs of food stamps; not so much about the costs of Farm Subsidies. Welfare for the poor? No. Corporate welfare? Yes.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

OECD, U.S. per capita: $8233, France: 3,978

By GDP on the WHO chart we have U.S.: 17.6, Luxembourg: 7.9.

Nice try at re-framing my claim though. Read again carefully. Where did I confine to the EU or the OECD? That's right, I didn't. Note that Luxembourg is in Europe.

Based on that OECD chart, as a percentage of GDP, no countries in Europe are paying only half as much for health care as the US...

Did you know that Poland is in Europe?

As for the rest, what's your point. Did I not state that elective procedures may have to wait longer but that private treatment is available if desired?

meanwhile in the U.S. if you are uninsured or the insurance company decides you don't actually need it, the wait time for an elective procedure is the rest of your life or when you win the big jackpot in the lottery, whichever comes first. The wait times in the U.K. for elective procedures may not be pleasant (though they are making efforts to address that), but it sure as hell beats never.

Re:Thank goodness

[sumdumass]

Yes, i am saying the government went and said everyone who doesn't have insurance has to get it or pay a fine and those with insurance who lose it because the laws add on made it to expensive or for whatever reason has to do the same.

I have also said that if you want to raise their wages, then fucking raise them instead of sneaking subsidies in to bypass the intent and spirit of the law. Why is it so damn dificult to follow the law without creating special exception and quasi coverages due to executive decree that violates the spirit of the law. I mean fuck, the provision was put into the law specifically to make the law makers subject to the same rules and processes the citizens they work for are subjected to.

As i said before, STOP making shit up to support your preconcieved notion and pay attention to ehat was said. I never said don't address the issue of lost pay which will not happen for the citizens who now have a huge expenditure, i said do it wiyhin the limits of the law. As you mentioned, labor is a market force and if congress and the staffers do not like the deal being handed to them by law, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. Plenty of qualified people will be more than happy to replace them and be within the confines of law.

This idea that laws are only for common folk and not the people who make them has to stop. We need a world where ehen a drunken senator crashes his car snd kills the prostitute in it, he gets a dui and manslaughter charges instead of 20 more years fucking healthcare up then claiming it needs fixed again and his brand of fixing is the only fixing that will work.

Re:Thank goodness

[evilviper]

Actually, the comments are more enlightening than the main story. For instance:

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4349525&cid=45160887

Re:Thank goodness

[iserlohn]

True, but it was the only thing politically achievable at that time. Now that Obama's grown a spine, there's still hope...

Re:Thank goodness

[iserlohn]

It's only not cheaper if it's done the US way. Especially because in the US the profit motive drives healthcare providers to order pointless tests. Everywhere else preventative care saves money.

Re:Thank goodness

[DrXym]

Let's see if you can read properly. If you are not satisfied with the standard of care offered from a universal public health system with regard to your made-up situation, then buy private health insurance. Companies like BUPA exist in the UK to supply this insurance and there are plenty of hospitals, doctors, health care clinics, etc which reside outside of the NHS to supply this market.

Re:Thank goodness

[Copid]

Yes, i am saying the government went and said everyone who doesn't have insurance has to get it or pay a fine and those with insurance who lose it because the laws add on made it to expensive or for whatever reason has to do the same.

"Having to buy insurance" is not analogous to "suddenly being paid less than market wage AND having to buy insurance."

I have also said that if you want to raise their wages, then fucking raise them instead of sneaking subsidies in to bypass the intent and spirit of the law.

All the law said was that they weren't to be on the federal health plan any more. It didn't specify what to do with the money they saved in the process. In private industry, most, if not all of that money will eventually end up being used to pay wages, so it makes perfect sense to do the same thing in this case. It's a pretty reasonable interpretation of the Republican claim a they want to mirror the private market experience.

I never said don't address the issue of lost pay...

So you're coming out against the Republican position, which says "We explicitly don't want to address the pay issue and are making it illegal to do so"?

As you mentioned, labor is a market force and if congress and the staffers do not like the deal being handed to them by law, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. Plenty of qualified people will be more than happy to replace them and be within the confines of law.

Supply curves slope up, demand curves slope down. Shift your demand curve left and you'll have fewer people in the same market. You don't get the same thing at the new lower price.

This isn't a major tragedy--lots of these staffers have serious careers ahead of them and are already taking a big pay cut to work with Congress to get on the corruption gravy train. Cut their wages too far and they'll leave, and Congress will simply have to adjust their pay back to return to equilibrium or accept the fact that they won't be able to hire from the same labor pool. That's why this is a stupid law. Not a criminally evil one, just an economically illiterate illogical mess. Par for the course.

What amazes me is that the Republican leadership are sociopathic enough to use their own staffs' wages as a tool for political grandstanding. Normally politicians only screw people they don't meet every day. This is a new one.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

Now see if you can find any negative stories in the news about U.S. healthcare. people dropping dead in the ER waiting room after 12 hours and such. I'll bet you can. You can even find stories about patients getting antibiotic resistant infections from doctors and nurses unwashed hands.

In the U.S. they add insult to injury by billing you or your surviving family for that 'care'.

Re:Thank goodness

[sumdumass]

"Having to buy insurance" is not analogous to "suddenly being paid less than market wage AND having to buy insurance."

But it is still a pay cut directly due to a law passed by congress and signed into law by the president. Either a penalty or the costs of insurance will have to come from earnings by law every year. Every single citizen in the US who did not have insurance had their market wage reduced by the requirement by law to spend part of those wages or have them removed by the federal government.

You cannot say it is not a pay cut for millions of citizens. I would say it is an even larger cut then what congress and their staffers would endue due to the fact that most of those effected make less money so the amounts now taken will have be a larger percentage of their income.

All the law said was that they weren't to be on the federal health plan any more. It didn't specify what to do with the money they saved in the process. In private industry, most, if not all of that money will eventually end up being used to pay wages, so it makes perfect sense to do the same thing in this case. It's a pretty reasonable interpretation of the Republican claim a they want to mirror the private market experience.

The law specifically said they had to go onto the exchanges. Any rational person not believing that there is one set of rules for the subjects of the crown and another for the crown's court would understand this to mean they had to participate in the exchanges just like the millions of other people who fall under the law. It's entire premise was to make congress be subjected to the same rules the public is in order to ensure they didn't fuck it up or create special provisions to better their positions while ignoring the rest of the country like what had happened since 1973.

So you're coming out against the Republican position, which says "We explicitly don't want to address the pay issue and are making it illegal to do so"?

First, why are you surprised that I hold a position I have stated several times now and the only person who has missed it was you? The entire idea of taking the luxury health care away from congress and putting them onto the exchanges is so that their medical care is directly impacted by their own works or the works of the DHHS. This means they won't ignore changes for the worse and for once in American history, if congress decides to make something better for themselves, it will automatically make it better for the rest of the country.

Second,what republican has ever said staffers couldn't get a raise? All of the ones I have seen have said that they didn't want the special subsidy because it defeated the purpose of placing them into the exchanges. I'm willing to bet that congress will listen to it's staffers a lot sooner then the people and if they fuck something around, we won't have to wait ten elections for someone to finally notice the peasants are rebelling. The only other republican wording I have seen on the issue if that they want the administration and top level advisers on the exchanges and subject to the same shit they forced on the rest of the country.

You put that in quotes like it was actually said, but a google search brings up nothing of the sort concerning health care or the exchanges. Perhaps you are being mislead by someone or your own desire to hate.

Supply curves slope up, demand curves slope down. Shift your demand curve left and you'll have fewer people in the same market. You don't get the same thing at the new lower price.

Perhaps we do not want the same thing. Perhaps some people think the same thing would just ignore the populous and do whatever their ideological leaders decided the night before in a smoked filled back room surrounded by lobbyist.

This isn't a major tragedy--lots of these staffers have serious careers ahead of them and are already

Re:Thank goodness

[philip.paradis]

You've completely missed the point. You made a patently and laughably false declaration that Mexico has superior medical care compared to the United States. When they're not busy refusing medical care to indigenous members of their society (which occurs with alarming frequency, it's a serious problem), they're busy cutting corners everywhere else. It's true that Mexico doesn't have as much money in terms of GDP as the United States, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you made a ridiculous statement and got called on it. You might be surprised to find that I'm keenly aware of the fact that being number 33 isn't a good thing, and that I'll readily recognize that our system needs serious work. Making false statements does nothing to solve those problems, and only serves to pollute the discourse. Think before you post next time.

Re:Thank goodness

[philip.paradis]

I'll readily agree that our system needs serious work, and being number 33 isn't good. The point is that the GP made a ridiculous assertion that medical care in Mexico is superior to that found in the United States. He got called on the lie, which is important in discussions about serious matters where false statements do nothing to solve problems.

Re:Thank goodness

[philip.paradis]

Why would that comparison be interesting or relevant? I already indicated understanding that Mexico is not a rich country. The fact that they have a violent crime problem is well established but irrelevant.

That comparison would prove exactly how bad your lie was about the comparative quality of medical care in Mexico versus the United States. However, the aggregate rankings provided by the WHO and other globally respected health-oriented organizations tells the story succinctly. With regard to violent crime, it's incredibly relevant, just as it's relevant in U.S. cities that have a long history of supplying a steady stream of grievously wounded people to emergency rooms every day. I'm from Atlanta; I know something about this. Reference Grady Memorial Hospital.

The fact that a country with all those problems manages to provide health care but the United States can't seem to find it's checkbook should be deeply shaming to our congresscritters. Perhaps more shameful, Americans taking 'dental holidays' to Mexico is becoming a thing.

The lie is still a lie. By your logic, healthcare consisting of Victorian-era bloodletting would be acceptable. In fiscal terms, our system is deeply flawed, as evidenced by the fact that we're at 33 instead of the top ten. That means we need to take greater care than ever to speak honestly about issues instead of drawing false comparisons.

Some people (especially insurance pariahs) have found that coronary bypass is cheaper in Singapore even when factoring in a stay at a resort hotel and regular commuting by air for followup doctor visits than getting the procedure done in the U.S.

As you so astutely mentioned, you can find anecdotes for anything. Those anecdotes don't reflect the broader picture of average medical care. I suspect you know this, and simply didn't care when you made your post. By the way, dental tourism is nothing new. People have been doing en masse since the 1970s, and it represents an area for improvement. That said, while dental problems can result in serious cardiac complications that can be life threatening, again, in the averages of rates of death due to cardiac concerns dental causation is a minimal factor.

But since you seem to have all those figures, you might as well post them.

I didn't say I had up to the minute figures in front of me. I said I'd do your homework for you if you weren't competent enough to do it yourself. So, make up your mind. Should I go ahead and do the comparative research on Mexico and the United States, or have you learned your lesson about telling lies and are willing to learn more on your own? Do you want to be spoonfed?

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

Actually, you missed the point. Mexico, a country with a great many problems and severely limited resources understands the need for universal health care and makes an actual effort to provide it (constrained by those severely limited resources and not a small amount of predjudice amongst it's population, nit unlike the way a black person would have been denied care in the U.S. at one time) while the United States refuses.

It is telling that a growing number of people in the U.S. go to Mexico for health care because they cannot afford it in the U.S. That says something, don't you think? In fact, Mexico does have good quality medical care. They have a poor life expectancy vs the U.S. due to rampant poverty and drug violence. Somehow, in spite of that they manage to have decent health care.

Have a look.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

That comparison would prove exactly how bad your lie was about the comparative quality of medical care in Mexico versus the United States.

Only if you can show that the violence is due to a failure of health care. It isn't, BTW we don't have a vaccine against that.

The lie is still a lie. By your logic, healthcare consisting of Victorian-era bloodletting would be acceptable.

How do you figure? The treatment Americans get when they get healthcare in Mexico is the same they would get here if they could afford it. That's why some insurers here insist that non-emergent healthcare be provided to their American customers in Mexico. They even arrange transportation and accommodations when needed.

Perhaps your figures are from a few decades ago. Go ahead and do your research. Explain why Americans are going to Mexico for healthcare now. You should have done that before claiming someone else is a liar. If you don't have that information, then you don't actually have any idea if I lied or not, now do you? The fact is it hurts your feelings so you'd rather assume I lied.

I can understand the hurt feelings. It is DEEPLY shameful that Americans have to go to a a much poorer country to get health care.

Re:Thank goodness

[Copid]

Every single citizen in the US who did not have insurance had their market wage reduced by the requirement by law to spend part of those wages or have them removed by the federal government.

Ah, so we're talking about people who don't have insurance already. OK. So that's a little different. Congressional staffers had insurance as part of their pay and then lost it, and the Republicans fought for the Vitter Amendment which prevents the OPM from making up that cut in dollars like it would in the regular market for people who have insurance as part of their pay package. They're creating a perverse situation that doesn't actually exist in the private markets which specifically screws the staffers.

People who don't have insurance fall into two categories. Either they can't afford it, in which case the exchanges should be a major boon to them, or they're mooching off the rest of us by making us bear their medical cost risks for them, and I don't have a lot of patience for whining over them having to pay into the system. Cry me a river.

The law specifically said they had to go onto the exchanges. Any rational person not believing that there is one set of rules for the subjects of the crown and another for the crown's court would understand this to mean they had to participate in the exchanges just like the millions of other people who fall under the law.

Nobody was keeping them off the exchanges. They were going to the exchanges. They're still going to the exchanges. The only question was whether the government would behave like a normal employer and pay the cash savings over to the employees so they could spend it on the exchanges or whether they'd take an arbitrary pay cut the likes of which doesn't happen to the rest of us if our employer drops coverage.

If you take a few deep breaths and calm down, maybe you'll see it more clearly. You seem pretty amped up on hate for congressional staffers. They didn't have a "special exemption" before the Grassley amendment. They just had employer health care like most of us do. They weren't getting special treatment before the Vitter amendment. The only problem comes from the fact that Congress is calling this a "subsidy" which is illegal, instead of what it really is: being paid their negotiated wage.

Second,what republican has ever said staffers couldn't get a raise?

David Vitter. But only in the sense that it can't be called a "subsidy." And it's not really a raise, but a "not cut." This whole thing is a weird parsing of the word "subsidy" versus "raise" versus "cut." The basic market outcome was broken by the Grassley amendment and the Vitter amendment was an attempt to keep it broken.

They'll eventually have to pass something entirely different to give the money back in a way that doesn't look like a "subsidy", but the Republicans are making a hard stand on it as though there's a meaningful principle at stake, probably because the voters are confused and really think that extra money is being shoveled into the pockets of staffers, and hating on those guys is playing really well in the media right now. "Here's the money we just took away from you" isn't a subsidy by any reasonable definition.

I don't see that as a terrible thing. Some claim the staffers have too much power and influence in government and constant changing of them would negate that so the representation of the people takes priority.

That's fine. If your position is that we're better off with an across the board pay cut of between $5,000 and $11,000 for congressional staffers who aren't exactly making bank, that's a perfectly valid place to be. But it doesn't have anything to do with "special treatment" for anybody.

And for the record, I'd like to see *everybody*

Re:Thank goodness

[evilviper]

Where did I confine to the EU or the OECD? That's right, I didn't.

Oh good! We're right back to the bait and switch... You talking about how nice and effective the UK's NHS is, in the same breath as saying how cheap Taiwan's public health care is. Sorry, but no.

The UK's NHS is okay, but it's not an example of massive savings or substantially better treatment. If you want to talk about massive savings, then you have to discuss the shortcomings IN THOSE COUNTRIES, because there are many.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

My only mention of the UK at all in this thread was:

In countries like the U.K. the doctors are employees and so don't go out of business.

Other than that, I answered your specific claim about the NHS. Read again to verify that and then I will accept your apology for accusing me of bait and switch.

But while we're on the subject, look at the per-capita expenditure for healthcare (OECD) for the UK and U.S.

Tell me, how do they compare?

For that matter, notice how many countries expenditure per capita is indeed half or less than the U.S. Some are like the UK in that the whole system is nationalized, some are more like Canada with a national insurance plan.

Re:Thank goodness

[sumdumass]

Ah, so we're talking about people who don't have insurance already. OK. So that's a little different. Congressional staffers had insurance as part of their pay and then lost it, and the Republicans fought for the Vitter Amendment which prevents the OPM from making up that cut in dollars like it would in the regular market for people who have insurance as part of their pay package. They're creating a perverse situation that doesn't actually exist in the private markets which specifically screws the staffers.

It was the law that was passed. It said that congress and it's staffers were to use the exchanges like everyone else without insurance. Of course we are talking about people without insurance already and the law specifically puts congress and it's staffers into that category so including them is more then appropriate.

People who don't have insurance fall into two categories. Either they can't afford it, in which case the exchanges should be a major boon to them, or they're mooching off the rest of us by making us bear their medical cost risks for them, and I don't have a lot of patience for whining over them having to pay into the system. Cry me a river.

Wrong. You have people who can't afford it, or do not incur medical costs and do not purchase insurance, and you have some who might be mooching off the rest of us by making us bear their medical cost. What you are missing is that the vast majority of uninsured either pay their own health care bills when needed or simply do not rack them up. No sound evidence has ever surfaced that shows 48 million people get medical treatment and do not pay for it. It is all inuendo and assumptions you people trot out. Well, here is a constructive alternative, instead of forcing everyone to get insurance, how about forcing people who don't pay their medical bills to get insurance. Most insurance requires a year waiting period before they will cover preexisting conditions so even tack on a year or two cost of the insurance as a penalty for not having it before hand. At least that would be more consistent with the American ideal of due process and being free to determine their own life.

Nobody was keeping them off the exchanges. They were going to the exchanges. They're still going to the exchanges. The only question was whether the government would behave like a normal employer and pay the cash savings over to the employees so they could spend it on the exchanges or whether they'd take an arbitrary pay cut the likes of which doesn't happen to the rest of us if our employer drops coverage.

The law blocks the government from playing a normal employer. FFS, the law was amended and passed for a reason, to subject congress and the staffers to the same process that they are subjecting the citizens without insurance to. If the intent was to subject them to the same process that large employers are subjected to, they would have kept their original government coverage.

What you are arguing here is the effect of making the amendment meaningless. It completely ignores the purpose and scope of the amendment which congress made into law.

If you take a few deep breaths and calm down, maybe you'll see it more clearly. You seem pretty amped up on hate for congressional staffers. They didn't have a "special exemption" before the Grassley amendment. They just had employer health care like most of us do. They weren't getting special treatment before the Vitter amendment. The only problem comes from the fact that Congress is calling this a "subsidy" which is illegal, instead of what it really is: being paid their negotiated wage.

I see it clear enough. The law uprooted what you would consider normal and purposely subjected these people to something else. The reason for doing so was to ensure all those people were subject to the same failings or successes the rest of the populace would be subjected to as a result

Re:Thank goodness

[Copid]

Of course we are talking about people without insurance already and the law specifically puts congress and it's staffers into that category so including them is more then appropriate.

OK, so we're moving them into an entirely different category of worker by grand fiat. I suppose the fact that hey get paid better than the average McDonald's worker is also "special treatment" and not just part of their normal compensation package for their skill sets. Somebody should pass a law cutting them to minimum wage so they really feel the pinch. Forget paying market wages for marketable skills, we have a point to make. In fact, let's test our welfare system by cutting their pay to $0. Surely that's not a stupid idea that will backfire as soon as it hits market realities.

You have people who can't afford it, or do not incur medical costs and do not purchase insurance, and you have some who might be mooching off the rest of us by making us bear their medical cost.

If you're walking around without insurance secure in the knowledge that you'll be treated in case of catastrophe, you're basically stealing catastrophic coverage from the rest of us. We pay more so you can do that. The fact that you never use it is a side issue. Risk has a price, and insulation from risk has a value. If everybody behaves that way, the system collapses.

Well, here is a constructive alternative, instead of forcing everyone to get insurance, how about forcing people who don't pay their medical bills to get insurance.

How, exactly, would that work mathematically? What you're describing is known as adverse selection. Again, if everybody behaves this way, the system collapses.

Insurance is pretty simple. Most people pay in more than they ever take out so that a small subset of people can take out way more than they put in. The only way it works is if the ratio of payers to redeemers is high enough. You can't create a system where everybody opts out of being a payer and then jumps into being a redeemer when they need it, even if you penalize them some small amount.

Re:Thank goodness

[sumdumass]

OK, so we're moving them into an entirely different category of worker by grand fiat. I suppose the fact that hey get paid better than the average McDonald's worker is also "special treatment" and not just part of their normal compensation package for their skill sets. Somebody should pass a law cutting them to minimum wage so they really feel the pinch. Forget paying market wages for marketable skills, we have a point to make. In fact, let's test our welfare system by cutting their pay to $0. Surely that's not a stupid idea that will backfire as soon as it hits market realities.

First, McDonald's is getting special treatment. they have received on the first waivers to the mandate that had been given out. I know that isn't what you tried to present but it is reality and not ad hoc bullshit.

No one is stopping them from making market wages. They can get raises or even go somewhere else and make more. The difference is that just like the rest of Americans who now have this huge expense they previously didn't, with a raise in pay, they are using after tax dollars and can only deduct what is in excess of 7.5% of their income just like every other American who goes through the exchanges. With the special subsidy, it is all pretax and doesn't count as income which again defeats the entire purpose of making congress and the staffers subject to the same rules the rest of America who was forced into this are subject to.

f you're walking around without insurance secure in the knowledge that you'll be treated in case of catastrophe, you're basically stealing catastrophic coverage from the rest of us. We pay more so you can do that. The fact that you never use it is a side issue. Risk has a price, and insulation from risk has a value. If everybody behaves that way, the system collapses.

Bullshit. Everything I do that is dangerous is already covered by insurance either through motor vehicle insurance or workers compensation or homeowners insurance. Outside of those, I do nothing that would create a catastrophe and many others are quite the same. Everyone had played that way and the system did not collapse before Obamacare became law. The difference is the people who got treated and couldn't pay ended up losing their homes and other things to pay the bills or were legitimately bankrupt from the lack of income due to the illness or injury. That is hardly secure in knowledge that everything will be honky dory.

How, exactly, would that work mathematically? What you're describing is known as adverse selection. Again, if everybody behaves this way, the system collapses.

It would be no different then if someone had purchased health insurance the week before having the injury or illness except they would actually pay more with a pre-existing injury penalty. The system had never collapsed before.

I like how you believe nothing would work except this one specific way and anything else will cause your car to stop, your wife to leave you, and your dog to stop waiting to go outside to poop.

Insurance is pretty simple. Most people pay in more than they ever take out so that a small subset of people can take out way more than they put in. The only way it works is if the ratio of payers to redeemers is high enough. You can't create a system where everybody opts out of being a payer and then jumps into being a redeemer when they need it, even if you penalize them some small amount.

That is not true. All you have to do is make the penalty for not being able to pay for your medical costs more. Most of the people who could not pay for their healthcare before Obamacare will now fall under one of the government programs anyways.

You are also missing the fact that even without the ACA, the vast majority of Americans were already enrolled in health insurance or had some sort of coverage. less then 20% of Americans are not covered in some way and of those

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

They happily tick every box on the lab form without a care in the world for what it costs or that the patient's only complaint was an ingrown toenail. They prescribe the hyper inflated latest and greatest X without even considering if the generic (literally 1/100th the price) might be adequate. What's another $2000 eh?

You understand why this is, right? Because they know they're gonna get paid! Because it's not a consumer they're dealing with who may or may not have the money to pay them. Rather, it's an insurance company or a government with deep pockets and no penchant to say "no thanks I don't want/need that". The point remains: Medicare does not lower costs. The doctor's behavior is the same with or without it. Therefore, all the program does is foist the ridiculously inefficient costs onto society, primarily onto the working class (since they're the ones that pay the bulk of Medicare taxes)

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

"The bars in this diagram reflect budgeted amounts, which exclude spending for the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan (about $750 billion from 2001-2008), which were funded via supplemental appropriations

A fair remark, but it wouldn't change the graph that much (An extra 100 billion per year from 2001 to 2008, measured against ~2.5 trillion in total outlays is an additional 4%). More importantly, it wouldn't change the current expense, since those wars have wound down at this point. So, people trying to cut defense spending now have no legs to stand on with regards to Iraq/Afghanistan spending.

Further, it appears that homeland security spending is not entirely included in the budgeted amounts described as defense spending per the budget historical tables; these amounts are spread in other "buckets.""

That's reaching. The vast majority of the Homeland Security duties don't involve the war machine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security#Consolidated_agencies

Ultimately, your former statement (that the period from 2001 - 2008 should be about 4 percentage points higher) is fair. But my reflection on current spending levels remains (~21-22% is historical lows, and projected costs show significant escalation in entitlements with mostly flat defense spending).

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

Actually, medicare will refuse to pay it and then the MAM will moan about how doctors are being squeezed out of the market.

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

Actually, medicare will refuse to pay it and then the MAM will moan about how doctors are being squeezed out of the market.

Still not a fix. The only options are "shaft the doctors" or "pay the exorbitant fees". Neither is good for a functioning healthcare system.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

Surely you didn't miss the obvious answer, doctors shouldn't tick every box on the lab form and prescribe $500 pills when a $0.50 pill will do the same thing. Is it really so hard for them to be professional?

Medicare sends them the notice "Yes, REALLY, you need to be professional about this and prescribe the most cost effective solution you can, like every other professional on the planet.

Once it becomes clear that there is no opt-out for this, I'll bet they can figure out what is and is not necessary.

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

Surely you didn't miss the obvious answer, doctors shouldn't tick every box on the lab form and prescribe $500 pills when a $0.50 pill will do the same thing. Is it really so hard for them to be professional?

I'd argue it's rarely that simple. Normally there's a $500 pill that's 90% effective and a $.50 pill that's ~75% effective. The doctors are just trying to avoid malpractice suits, so they probably go with whatever is the most effective. Neither situation is ideal. If I personally could afford the $500 pill, why should I get substandard care just because my doctor is trying to be cost effective? Which brings us inevitably back to the free market debate and why consumers should be in control of their own healthcare choices, not anybody else (I should be making that cost analysis decision, not somebody else).

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

You'd be surprised how often the evidence supporting the $500 pill over the $0.50 pill is non-existent. All that $500 pill had to do is prove it isn't inferior to the $0.50 pill. They're also supposed to be no more likely to kill the patient than the $0.50 pill, but that doesn't always work out.

In many cases the big difference is that the $0.50 pill causes a minor rash or similarly annoying but ultimately harmless problem in a small percentage of patients while the $500 pill is less likely to do so. But the bill for the $500 pill can certainly make you break out in hives.

Remember all those Niaspan commercials? It's a slow release version of over the counter niacin supplements. Some people get an unpleasant flushing effect from the OTC stuff but it's otherwise indistinguishable. Guess which one will break the bank?

If you are the sort of patient who can afford to have it served on a cracker with caviar, fine. Tell your doctor and he can give you the $500 pills. It is unconscionable to prescribe it for someone that will have to choose between food and pills yet it happens all the time. To top it off, the evidence that doses above RDA are medically useful is equivocal.

If the doctor would offer the patient both options and discuss the risks, that would make things much more affordable for all and would introduce a level of professionalism.

In other cases, there is little risk in trying the dirt cheap 75% effective pill first. The odds are strongly in favor of the patient getting better and being able to afford treatment. If it doesn't work, then try the expensive pill. Otherwise you have 75% of the patients throwing away thousands for no benefit and in many cases compromising their health more seriously by skimping on food and heating/cooling or perhaps only taking the pill half as often as they should. Or they just don't go to the doctor at all and hope they get better on their own because that's all they can afford to do.

If you took your car in for repair, would you sign off on the $100,000 water pump carved from ultra pure osmium or would you demand the $100 pump that matches OEM specs? Imagine if no mechanic anywhere in town even knew the price difference or that the $100,000 pump was only slightly less likely to fail.That's what I mean by lack of professionalism. They SHOULD know that and share it with the patient, but they don't.

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

If you are the sort of patient who can afford to have it served on a cracker with caviar, fine. Tell your doctor and he can give you the $500 pills. It is unconscionable to prescribe it for someone that will have to choose between food and pills yet it happens all the time.

Except our healthcare market (if you can even call it a market) doesn't work that way. Since everything is tied to insurance, anything bought outside of items that insurance companies give the nod to get an insane artificial markup. Namely that $500 pill is $500 if covered by insurance. If not covered by insurance, it's $5,000. So the system in place in fact removes my choice of the $500 pill, because I certainly can't afford $5,000. Basically, the insurance companies (or the government) are the ones determining in the end what will be affordable. If insurance companies weren't in the picture at all, the consumer would be able to decide between the $.50 pill or the $500 on their own.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

The government didn't mark the pill up. if you find $5000 too expensive, go for the $0.50 pill and watch as the price gouger discovers that it has sales countable on one hand for the year starts pricing things more reasonably. But that can only happen if you and your doctor actually look at the price and say, woah! That's not sane. If you do, then the $500 pill becomes the $50 pill or even the $15 pill.

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

The government didn't mark the pill up.

You're correct. The insurance system marked the pill up. All the government did was legally mandate that we're all required to use the insurance system for all our healthcare needs.

But that can only happen if you and your doctor actually look at the price and say, woah! That's not sane. If you do, then the $500 pill becomes the $50 pill or even the $15 pill.

This I agree with, except it's never going to happen under the current system because me and my doctor are never the ones talking price, by law in fact.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

The real question then is why would the insurance industry, the guys that have to pay for the pill want to mark it up? Surely they would rather collect the premiums and only buy the cheap pills.

Meanwhile, keep in mind that this is about what happens if Medicare or similar becomes the single payer. No more kooky insurance industry, just a single government entity that faces constant saber rattling about budget cuts.

I see no reason why the conversation couldn't happen with the doctor in that context. It would be about choosing a private option or using the public health system. In most countries with socialized medicine, you are permitted to seek a private option.

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

Meanwhile, keep in mind that this is about what happens if Medicare or similar becomes the single payer. No more kooky insurance industry, just a single government entity that faces constant saber rattling about budget cuts.

But you still have the same problem -- it's just a different entity doing the negotiating at that point. In the end, it's still some other guy artificially increasing the cost of some things while subsidizing/allowing the costs of others.

I see no reason why the conversation couldn't happen with the doctor in that context. It would be about choosing a private option or using the public health system.

Because like I said before, in a system where everyone gets all their healthcare through negotiated prices, non-negotiated prices get jacked (both in the government or the insurance industry negotiation case). The only time the "non-covered" item is allowed to float to a "market rate" is when all items in the system are treated the same (so nothing becomes preferential/favored). Basically, in the negotiated systems, it's not consumer demand/desire/need/want driving the cost, it's a bureaucrat/CEO making arbitrary decisions on what "will become cheap". It's the same as the in-network/out-of-network problem. The same service can be significantly marked up out-of-network (thus somewhat forcing people to use the in-network services). The negotiated prices become a self-fulfilling prophecy -- they end up destroying consumer choice/freedom by ceding cost control to somebody else and consequently eliminating options by pricing them out of the realm of possibility.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

You still haven't answered why in the world the insurance industry would want to inflate the costs of a pill.

Certainly Medicaid won't want to inflate that price. if they are about the only way something is going to get paid for at all, they price will be what they say it is.

The price of private medicine would have to come down since from the patient's perspective they're competing against free. They'd better be a hell of a lot better or practically free themselves.

Outrageously expensive anything depends on either people who can't do without or people who have a great deal of disposable income and well done PR to appeal to exclusivity and perceived benefits. When everyone has insurance, there's nobody who can't do without the uber expensive private offering. In a well informed market where buyers can leave the market, things tend towards their marginal cost of production.

Even a bunch of bureaucrats making the decision beats the current state of affairs where the cost decisions are made by doctors who don't even know what it costs and don't care.

Re:Thank goodness

[shentino]

The way to combat high costs is to put competitive pressure in the market.

If costs stay high in spite of good competition then chances are the service is inherently valuable, expensive, or both.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

In countries with socialized medicine, real costs are half of what they are in the U.S.

That tells us all we need to know about the inherent expense. In a healthy market, value has nothing to do with the price other than deciding if a thing will be produced at all or not. Cost is always driven to the marginal cost of production.

What is your proposal to create a healthy market in healthcare?

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

You still haven't answered why in the world the insurance industry would want to inflate the costs of a pill. Certainly Medicaid won't want to inflate that price.

The gods only know. I'm still trying to figure out why negotiated prices are the norm in the first place. How can the same service cost vastly amounts of money in two different locations? It doesn't make any sense.

If I had to wager a guess as to one possible reason non-negotiated prices skyrocket, it could be that they're gouging the people without Medicare to offset the artificially lower payments they're forced to accept from Medicare patients. Or perhaps it's that in a system that pre-determines price via arbitration, uninformed in-the-dark consumers make poor arbiters. Or perhaps it's just economies of scale. When they know 99% of their users will be selecting the same subset of goods, they produce less (or no) goods outside of that subset. So if one of the 1% goes seeking one of those goods, there's a high cost involved since the supply is low. I don't think it's a matter of wanting to inflate the price. It's a matter of dysfunctional market forces driving up the price because of various reasons (inefficiency, arbitrary price assignment, economies of scales, etc, etc). It's funny..."price fixing" is exactly what is occurring with Medicare. If a private company were to behave in that fashion, they'd be charged with anti-competitive behavior under the Sherman Antitrust Act. So we do we allow our government to tamper in the market in such a fashion?

Let me give you a hypothetical example (regarding economies of scale): let's say there's some drug out there that is primarily consumed by the elderly, like an anti-Alzheimer's treatment. Let's say it's supremely expensive. Now, we know that the elderly get the bulk of their healthcare dollars via Medicare, which means the purchasing power of the entire market for that particular drug is dictated by whether or not it's covered by the government. Namely, if they do cover it, it will be affordable enough to market, so the companies will produce it. If they don't cover it, the companies could very easily decide not to produce it at all, because the cost of research & production would outweigh the gains, as very few people would actually be able to afford it. Since that decision then limits the supply, the drug goes even higher in cost than it would have if it were merely "just expensive." The government, through its actions, has priced that drug out of the market.

Even a bunch of bureaucrats making the decision beats the current state of affairs where the cost decisions are made by doctors who don't even know what it costs and don't care.

Ugh, I have higher expectations than "better than nothing". Particularly when going down this road can very easily be "worse than what we have now" if done wrong.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

Do you believe that an individual or a corporation has a right to say "I will not pay a penny more than X for a Y"? Does an individual or corporation have a right to take it's business elsewhere? If so, then medicare is not price fixing.

At the same time, if Medicare is ACTUALLY a net loss for a provider, they do have the right to accept no medicare. But they don't seem to want to opt out.

The problem is that there is no market. Nobody publishes prices at all. There's often nobody you can even ask. The 'customer' is often in no condition or position to argue. Even for a non emergency, they may not be able to decline the service for long and live to tell about it. Most customers aren't even vaguely qualified to make appropriate medical decisions. The only person they might ask is the one selling them medical service.

The barrier to entry is high, but do we really want to lower it? Go back to letting anyone at all say they're a physician and letting anyone make medicine with no oversight? I don't think we really want to go there. We know that didn't work very well.

I'm not so sure there can be a healthy and free market given all of that.

Keep in mind that for many Americans, no system can be worse than we have now because they cannot afford what we have now.

I am open to suggestions as to what might work better, but not to arguments to leave things as they are. We already know that isn't working. It's notable that what I suggest has a proven track record in other 1st world countries, there is nothing radical or speculative in my suggestion.

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

At the same time, if Medicare is ACTUALLY a net loss for a provider, they do have the right to accept no medicare. But they don't seem to want to opt out.

The number of doctors not accepting Medicare patients has tripled: http://www.healthcaretechnologyonline.com/doc/doctors-refuse-to-accept-medicare-patients-0001

Last I heard, they weren't very pleased with the constant "doc fixes" either. However, to be fair, it's still proportionally a very low amount of doctors.

The problem is that there is no market. Nobody publishes prices at all. There's often nobody you can even ask.

I agree this is a problem, and what the government should be spending time/money fixing.

The 'customer' is often in no condition or position to argue. Even for a non emergency, they may not be able to decline the service for long and live to tell about it.

That's not a reasonable stance. Equate a healthcare market with a healthcare insurance market. Current day, do people start shopping in the insurance market when they get sick? Or do they already have a provider lined up? When your car breaks down, do you then start getting mechanic estimates, or do you generally have an affordable mechanic already picked out? That is how the healthcare market would work, if there was one. You'd know which hospitals/doctors are competitive and which ones would rip you off, because those prices would be transparent and exposed, long long before you get sick.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

How do you propose to kickstart a healthcare market?

Keep in mind, if you're in an accident, you will be taken (often unconscious) top the nearest facility. There is no shopping around and they don't even know what your preferred hospital might be.

People may know a mechanic they like if they have frequent car trouble, but honestly, a lot of people look in the phone book and hope when they need a plumber, mechanic, electrician, etc.

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

How do you propose to kickstart a healthcare market?

Like I said, that's the exact question the government should be spending money + brainpower solving. I know it's not impossible, but I acknowledge that's it's not trivial either. What I'm saying is that no one is even trying to address this problem, seemingly more content to let insurance companies run the show.

Keep in mind, if you're in an accident, you will be taken (often unconscious) top the nearest facility. There is no shopping around and they don't even know what your preferred hospital might be.

Emergency care is a very small portion of our total healthcare bill (around 2%): http://newsroom.acep.org/download/ACEP+2%25+booklet.pdf

If we could turn 98% of the healthcare system into a true competitive market, that would be plenty sufficient for me. The 2% we could deal with through other means.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

I don't know how we could kickstart competition either. Perhaps nobody knows that. That's why my preference is to go with a solution that is already known to work because the entire first world but us has already done it.

Re:Thank goodness

[Magius_AR]

I don't know how we could kickstart competition either. Perhaps nobody knows that. That's why my preference is to go with a solution that is already known to work because the entire first world but us has already done it.

Except they haven't figured it out either. The fact they're beating us handily is merely proof of how fucked up our system is, not of how good theirs is. Healthcare costs over there have been rising substantially as well, and many of those systems are making alot of hard choices. NHS comes to mind as a system that appears to be struggling heavily:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10162848/NHS-is-about-to-run-out-of-cash-top-official-warns.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/britains-rx-to-fix-health-care-a-pen-and-paper/article15120806/
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/08/opinion/la-oe-dalrymple-british-health-system-20120808

Single payer isn't a silver bullet. I wish people would stop thinking it is. It comes with its own host of problems.

Re:Thank goodness

[sjames]

I never said it was a silver bullet. I'm just saying we can't just stand here on one foot waiting for some mythical perfect answer that doesn't involve the dreaded 's-word' to come riding in on a unicorn. Note that their concern is that if they don't act soon, conditions there might deteriorate to a point that we here aspire to.

We easily have a dozen models we can choose from, all of which are proven to beat the pants off of what we have now. Meanwhile in the U.S. we have an increasing number of people resorting to 19th century medicine in order to have SOME healthcare,.

Wow.

[Black Parrot]

I didn't think the Democrats were capable of not caving in.

Re:Wow.

[MightyMartian]

Why did you think that? They knew the moderate Republicans in the House would eventually force Boehner's hand. Even Boehner knew it, but this little dance had to go all the way because the moderate Republicans are as terrified of the Tea Party as they are of voters.

Obama and Congressional Democrats have seen this growing weakness in the GOP since 2008, and have been waiting for a chance to humiliate Boehner. Now they'll sit back and watch the civil war in the Republican ranks make the Republicans' dominance of the house become an empty accomplishment.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

They only cave when lobbyists or polls tell them to.

Re:Wow.

[phantomfive]

Seriously? You thought Obama would allow a bill to pass that would get rid of Obamacare?

He wouldn't, especially when the country was blaming the shutdown on the opposition.

Re:Wow.

[sjames]

Because they nearly always cave in, often before the first vote.

Re:Wow.

[Technician]

The fight to limit spending is a fight for the economy. I'll leave the research to those really interested. Current deficit is about 17.5 trillion. Do you know how much it was in 1980, 1990, 2000? Do you know what it was when Obama took office? Do you know how much of the GDP is just spent on servicing the debt?

Quick personal finance question.

If your interest payments were over 60% of your income before taxes, and you still had taxes, insurance payments, water bills, and other obligations, would you consider yourself a AAA credit risk? Would it make sense to continue to borrow to give charitable donations to your favorite cause?

Would it make sence to trim your spending to borrow less?

The great divide in the parties is No problem, borrow money and don't be late on payments for a fantastic credit score vs we need to curtail our spending as this is not sustainable as it will trigger hyper-inflation with plenty of examples of those who did this before.

Can we afford ACA?
  If the middle class can't afford it, how can the poor?

If you have a choice between housing and insurance, which will you drop? Between food and insurance? Heat in the winter and Insurance.. Oh snap, insurance is now mandentory. Ok do you drop housing, food, heat, transportation?

Welcom to the welfare state. You voted for it.

Re:Wow.

[paiute]

Welcom to the welfare state. You voted for it.

The rest of the civilized world makes this shit work. You don't think America can do it better? Why do you hate America?

Re:Wow.

[Neo-Rio-101]

[quote] but this little dance had to go all the way because the moderate Republicans are as terrified of the Tea Party as they are of voters.[/quote]

I think this little dance had to go all the way through to sucker enough opportunists into placing orders on Wall Street. Then Wall street looks at their books and moves the market into the direction that they are most likely to profit on aggregate from the orders. ... and if you happened to trade with the banks, good for you.

Re:Wow.

[dbc]

Bah. Weak sauce. Both Reps and Dems want to use the coercive power of the state to control my life. They just have different priorities. It's not that the Dems want a nanny state and the Reps want to set me free. The Reps just want to fire the current nanny and install a different nanny with different rules. Unless the libertarian-leaning wing of the Republican party manages to give Boehner and his ilk a full spinal transplant we are doomed. Oh... and all the Republican bible-thumpers need to back-off, too. Don't use the coercive power of the state to enforce your morality on your neighbor. You see we have this thing called the constitution, and you have to live by the parts that you like as well as the parts that you don't so much agree with.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume being forced to buy health insurance equates with getting better health care.

You've been duped into transferring liability for the boomer generation onto your personal balance sheet.

That is what the ACA does.

Do you really think the government will manage this program any better than it did the one that caused the necessity for it in the first place ?

What a tool you are.

Re:Wow.

[sjames]

I'm claiming the latter, naturally.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

[President] Obama and Congressional Democrats... have been waiting for a chance to humiliate Boehner

You're confused. Statesmen do not ever have a childish agenda as you've just described. You can be assured that Speaker Boehner has the respect of President Obama and Democratic members of Congress. The hyperbole of editorialists aside, Congress is not a playground, but a government institution of serious and careful business.

Re:Wow.

[mrbester]

The BBC had an interesting choice of vox populus last night. They chose one ignorant redneck hick from Bumfuck and asked him who was to blame for the shutdown. He said Obama. There was no opposing view put forward, just "S'all Obama's fault. A-herk".

But that's the BBC for you. I had to explain to the wife what had actually happened.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not going to help the GOP in any way. They only got tokens and pocket change while the Democrats won everything else. This was a decisive defeat for the GOP and is probably going to sting them for decades. They mobilized everything they had and were forced to back down. And let's look at how this is going to affect campaign contributions. Are the 1% that fund Republican candidates going to be happy that they took our financial system to the brink of collapse? And are Tea Party contributions going to continue to candidates who surrendered at the last minute? This is not to mention the infighting and primary challenges that the Republicans are going to face due to some members surrendering. And finally, look at public perception. The GOP was massively hated for this shutdown/debt ceiling game of chicken.

So in effect, the Republicans got a few tokens, demonstrated they would yield when pushed, pissed off their campaign contributors, and pissed off the public. And now the Democrats have a new campaign cry for 2014: "remember how close the GOP took us to financial oblivion, again". The GOP took an enormous beating that is going to cost them dearly in the next couple elections, and it was only due to their arrogance and inability to believe the polls. Obama might not have wanted this battle, but this victory is going to be one of the most important in his Presidency, all thanks to GOP overreach.

Re:Wow.

[Jeremi]

Would it make sense to trim your spending to borrow less?

It would, but if given the choice I'd also like to get a raise, and use the additional income to help pay down the debt and reduce the necessary size (and therefore pain) of the spending cuts. The one thing I definitely wouldn't do is go to my boss and demand that my salary be reduced -- that would be counterproductive.

Can we afford ACA?

Are you asking, can we afford to provide health care to our citizens? As a first world nation, the answer is definitely yes. Every other first world nation manages to do that without going bankrupt, so there's no reason the "greatest nation on Earth" can't do it too. It's not rocket science. The only question is whether we have the will and self-confidence to make it work, or whether the conservatives have demoralized people to the point that they don't think our nation is capable of it.

If you have a choice between housing and insurance, which will you drop? Between food and insurance?

Conservatives, for some reason, have come to the conclusion that health care is a luxury. It is not, it is a necessity, that's why it is illegal for emergency rooms to turn people away. So the only remaining question is, who pays for it? Under the old system, health care for the uninsured is paid for either by the insured (in the form of inflated premiums) or by the taxpayer. Under the ACA, people are for the first time required to take personal responsibility to plan for their own (inevitable) health care costs, rather than foisting them on to the rest of us, and somehow conservatives think that is a bad thing. Which is odd, because it was their idea in the first place.

Welcom to the welfare state. You voted for it.

Yes, and I'll continue to vote for it. I prefer civilization to social darwinism.

Re:Wow.

[Darinbob]

Even many conservative Republicans felt the same way, it was just a core set of really hardline Republicans that were the problem, and the upcoming elections where the race is decided in the primary. These guys want to keep their jobs and are nervous about the new group of bull headed populist ideologues trying to push them out.

I heard someone recently naively suggest that the solution was to get term limits. But the problem is coming from the new legislators! Freshmen with no experience think they know all the answers while they ignore the old guard who have worked through the budget for many years with a staff of budget experts.

Re:Wow.

[Darinbob]

The government is like some redneck family with credit card problems. They won't cancel the cable TV because the kids will cry, and they won't sell off their guns because that's unamerican, so instead they stop buying toothpaste while threatening to stop paying the mortgage and the doctor.

Re:Wow.

[Darinbob]

It's hard to get interested in a brothel where you have to fill out a government form before you start.

Re:Wow.

[Darinbob]

BBC web site though has some very good information, better than I saw in US news.

Re:Wow.

[complete loony]

The fight to limit spending is a fight for the economy

No, no, no, no, no! Government spending reduces when then the economy is booming. But attempting to reduce spending does not trigger a boom!. Correlation does not imply causation.

That's not to say that the level of debt in the economy isn't important. Understanding the role of debt is critical to understanding the dynamics of the economy. But you can't just focus on government debt, you have to look at *all* of the debt in the economy to understand what is really going on. Once the crisis hit in 2008, the private sector started reducing their debts. Spending from credit essentially stopped. Government spending since 2008 has helped to cushion the impact of that reduction in credit. See this graph to get a feel for the scale of the problem.

If anything the role of government is to save for the future during a boom, and pay from those savings during a slump. Or borrow during a slump and pay it back in the next boom, which amounts to the same thing. Of course before this crisis started the government wasn't saving at all, but forcing the government to save now will have a drastic impact on the welfare of the country. Look how well austerity programs have been working in the rest of the world.

Re:Wow.

[LandDolphin]

Yeah,

You do know that Lobbyists and Polls are two ways that Congress finds out what people want? You pretty much jsut said:

They only cave when THE PEOPLE tell them to.

Re:Wow.

[artor3]

The government isn't like a family. It's more like a bank.

People (and countries) buy government securities because they want a safe place to store their money while earning a token interest rate. So they "deposit" their money with the US government. They give the US $1 billion, at which point the government now has $1 billion cash and $1 billion of debt. After some predetermined amount of time, the government repays the debt, but at the same time someone else will deposit as much or more money.

As long as the government invests the $1 billion cash in a way that earns a greater rate of return than the interest rate that they pay out, it's a profit center.

Eliminating the debt would be monumentally stupid. It would be like a bank giving back all its deposits and refusing to take new ones.

The goal should be to make sure we take only as much as we can invest well, and the way to do that is to improve the efficiency of our investments. Cutting to the bone makes our spending less efficient.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The rest of the civilized world makes this shit work" - would that be the English, who are swimming in debt, or the Japanese, swimming in debt, or the French, swimming in debt, or the Greeks? Turks? Italians? As an exercise, please list ONE country in the world where "this shit works." Protip: not Argentina.

Re:Wow.

[evilviper]

the moderate Republicans in the House would eventually force Boehner's hand. Even Boehner knew it, but this little dance had to go all the way because the moderate Republicans are as terrified of the Tea Party as they are of voters.

Boehner was pandering to the Tea Party's demands, to try and maintain his speakership. He has ingratiated himself with that splinter group, in order to fight off challengers.

The Republicans aren't really "terrified" of the Tea Party, they're just afraid of them splitting off from the GOP to form their own party. With "conservative" voters split between two parties, and "liberal" voters concentrated in a single party, there would cease to be any national party that could counter the Democrats.

Of course, demographic and cultural shifts mean even with the Tea Party under their umbrella, the Republican party doesn't have long (maybe a decade) until that happens, anyhow. That is why the GOP has done a complete 180 degree shift on immigration in the past couple years, desperately trying to undo the disenfranchisement of Hispanics to shore up their voter rolls. Seems very likely still a doomed effort, and a party on the eve of self-destruction.

It has happened in the past, which is why you don't hear much from the Whig party anymore, but not without painful consequences. The Republican party was formed just a few years before the Civil War. I can't even guess what kind of a mess we'll be in-for this time around.

Re:Wow.

[evilviper]

The fight to limit spending is a fight for the economy. I'll leave the research to those really interested. Current deficit is about 17.5 trillion.

That's exactly what's supposed to happen during an economic downturn. The government spends more money, incurring debt, to stimulate the economy. When the economy climbs back out of the hole, THEN you need to pay down the huge deficit.

And the cries about our terrible, unmanageable, record deficit are complete BS. It has been FAR higher in the past... In fact it was highest right before the US golden age of prosperity and growth...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_Held_by_the_Public_1790-2013.png

your interest payments were over 60% of your income before taxes, and you still had taxes, insurance payments, water bills, and other obligations, would you consider yourself a AAA credit risk?

If I had carte blanch to determine my "income". Yes, absolutely.

If you have a choice between housing and insurance, which will you drop?

I'd tell my rich uncle staying in the spare bedroom to start paying his rent... Back when FDR was president and introduced these programs, the top tax bracket was around 90%. Compare that to current capital gains taxes of 20% on multi-billionaires.

In medical terms, prevention is less expensive than treatment after the fact, and on a country-wide scale, we spend more because people don't have access to medical treatment, than it would cost to provide that care.

Welcom to the welfare state. You voted for it.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has more public / social services than the USA, INCLUDING healthcare. We voted NOT to be a 3rd world country anymore...

Re:Wow.

[techno-vampire]

You've been duped into transferring liability for the boomer generation onto your personal balance sheet.

I'm a boomer, and I'm against the ACA, partially for exactly that reason. Of course, unlike most boomers, I'll never have to worry about health care because I have my VA benefits.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume being forced to buy health insurance equates with getting better health care.

It does tremendously for the people who would otherwise not buy an insurance at all. Seen from the outside by someone who has so far lived in three different countries with obligatory health insurance, this fight against ACA by a large minority in the US is really stupid and irrational. To be honest, it appears batshit crazy to the rest of the civilized world, especially since the existing US system is much more expensive than the ones with obligatory insurance.

Re:Wow.

[bfandreas]

I was wondering about a GOP split, too.
In any other country the Tea Party would be its own party. But in the weird two party system in the US such a split would mean they wouldn't get into congress/senate at all. They rode into the houses on the coat tails of the GOP and that's why they will never leave.

Also in the primaries the regular GOPpers compete with the Tea Party candidates who usually have no qualms to push the right populist buttons. They can be a very tough competition. So yeah, moderate Republicans are afraid to lose their seats to them.

Re:Wow.

[Tom]

The fight to limit spending is a fight for the economy.

In logic 101, you learn to look for assumptions first, because if an assumption is wrong, then the entire rest of the logic chain doesn't need to be examined anymore, as it is meaningless.

Your wrong assumption is that the problem is with the spending. But a deficit is not a problem of high spending, it is a problem of spending more than you have. You can fix it by reducing your spending, or by increasing your income.

Would it make sence to trim your spending to borrow less?

Most western countries have been cutting all kinds of expenditure for two decades now. The cuts have not been equally distributed - military spending has not been affected as much as social spending, for example.

At the same time, taxes have been abolished or reduced for the top income brackets. No, wait, for the very, very top only. I consistently earned quite well for most of that time, I've seen personally what the press has only picked up recently: The destruction of the middle class. The gap between me and the guy working at the supermarket hasn't changed all that much. But the gap between me and the guy who owns supermarket chain, that has become insane.

If you raise taxes on property and wealth by 1%, then half of the additional income from that tax will come from the famous 1% that Occupy has been going on about.

So if you think that the poor can't survive a 1% tax increase, then increase the tax 2% for the top 1% income bracket, and you will get the same net tax increase. I don't know many billionaires who'd have to starve if they were taxed 2% more.

Re:Wow.

[jcr]

Government spending reduces when then the economy is booming.

Not in the USA, it doesn't.

-jcr

Re:Wow.

[Stuarticus]

That's because it's painfully obvious what happened, the redneck was just there as an illustration of American stupidity.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding, just look at Italy, Greece, France... never mind, look at the U.K. they can afford nationalized healthcare and an expensive Royal Family! Why can't the U.S. afford a royal family like every other sustainable civilized country?

To the OP: please put some thought behind what you are saying instead of putting forth sound bites from the daily show.

Re:Wow.

[Megaport]

The rest of the civilized world makes this shit work. You don't think America can do it better? Why do you hate America?

America has brainwashed itself. I lived in Texas for a few years and have seen it first-hand. Its called cognitive dissonance I think. A 'patriot' seems to be someone who can simultaneously believe that the consitution is perfect, America is the greatest nation, and that they need to be armed in case they need to shoot it out with their own government.

Wow.

--D

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

The government isn't like a family. It's more like a bank.

Should it not be more like a govenerment?

Eliminating the debt would be monumentally stupid. It would be like a bank giving back all its deposits and refusing to take new ones.

It sure would, coz as a bank you can get the government to cover the losses when you gamble and loss, but you get to keep the gains if you win.

Who covers the governement when it losses?

Re:Wow.

[Eunuchswear]

"The rest of the civilized world makes this shit work" - would that be the English, who are swimming in debt, or the Japanese, swimming in debt, or the French, swimming in debt, or the Greeks? Turks? Italians? As an exercise, please list ONE country in the world where "this shit works." Protip: not Argentina.

Swimming in debt?

Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Greece: 155%
Japan: 134%
USA: 107%
Italy: 103%
France: 85%
UK: 82%
Argentinia: 42%

So, yes, Greece and Japan are more heavily indebted that the US, but no, compared to the US, France and the UK are not swimming in debt.

As an exercise, please list ONE country in the world where "this shit works." Protip: not Argentina.

By "this shit" you mean what? Government? Health care?

Re:Wow.

[Goose In Orbit]

Polls tell you what the people want...
Lobbyists tell you what their paymasters want.

Re:Wow.

[SirGarlon]

You don't think America can do it better? Why do you hate America?

It's not hating America to recognize that the country is currently being governed incompetently and to distrust the Federal government with expanded authority.

Re:Wow.

[Noxal]

Right, because personal finances and government monetary policy are just so totally easily comparable.
Idiot.

Re:Wow.

[misexistentialist]

And the Europeans seem to think a "civilized society" is one where there are no rights, where the people are the greatest threat to themselves, and so they need to be disarmed because they love their government so much. You guys have so much cognitive dissonance you have cognitive dissonance about cognitive dissonance.

Re:Wow.

[madro]

A common fallacy is that governments should run their finances like a family. A family does not (1) live forever, (2) print its own currency, (3) collect revenue as a matter of law, or (4) have a duty to provide public goods like a national defense. Maintaining debt in perpetuity makes sense as long as the economy grows over the long term and as long as that debt doesn't get "too big" (with pretty fierce debate over what that means -- 100% of GDP is not necessarily too big by historical standards, but reputable minds can disagree).

But in terms of the maturity level of *this* particular Congress, this is pretty spot on.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

False choice. Your thinking is narrow and without the benefit of light. Obamacare had very little to do with providing health care for the indigent and very much to do with providing a captive market to the Health Care industry and extending government control. I have already had my family and raised my children. Why should I now be forced to buy pregnancy coverage? I won't ever want gender reassignment surgery or cosmetic surgery. Why should I be forced to purchase it? I choose to only visit a doctor when I am injured or for periodic screenings, why should I be forced to pay for regular checkups I don't want. When I get sick with a cold or flue, not very often, I make chicken soup and ride it out. Why should I pay to run to a doctor every time I get a sniffle? There are a whole lot of ways to improve health care and take care of the poor that do not include mandating everyone pay to purchase every medical procedure that is offered.

Many of the things that are included in reported health care costs are very much luxuries. It is akin to forcing everyone to pay to have someone come and mow their lawn when a lot of people would rather do it themselves. Your really need to expand your thought process and come to understand just what the ACA forces you to pay for and who really benefits from it.

Re:Wow.

[ColdWetDog]

[President] Obama and Congressional Democrats... have been waiting for a chance to humiliate Boehner

You're confused. Statesmen do not ever have a childish agenda as you've just described. You can be assured that Speaker Boehner has the respect of President Obama and Democratic members of Congress. The hyperbole of editorialists aside, Congress is not a playground, but a government institution of serious and careful business.

New keyboard time!

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

It does tremendously for the people who would otherwise not buy an insurance at all.

At everyone else's expense. This is the nature of wealth transfers. They are inherently zero sum games.

Seen from the outside by someone who has so far lived in three different countries with obligatory health insurance, this fight against ACA by a large minority in the US is really stupid and irrational.

It's simple economics. The act restricts supply and increases demand. Both force prices up. The world's puzzlement will be banished in the next few years as health care costs continue to climb.

Obamacare doesn't fix the problem, but only makes it worse. That's what a lot of people don't get.

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

They are inherently zero sum games.

Or negative sum games. I forgot that important note. I think Obamacare qualifies as a negative sum game here.

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Japan: 214%
Greece: 161%
Italy: 126%
France: 90%
UK: 89%
USA: 74%
Argentinia: 42%

FIFY. This new and improved list came from averaging estimates of publicly held debt by the various countries as reported by the CIA and IMF, according to Wikipedia. In particular, this drops Social Security bonds from the US which is imaginary debt owed by one part of the government to another part of the government.

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

You don't think America can do it better? Why do you hate America?

The same government that thinks you don't have privacy rights for your prescription medication? Is this a trick question? Of course, I don't think America can do it better.

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

Can we afford ACA?

Are you asking, can we afford to provide health care to our citizens?

No, the previous poster was asking "Can we afford ACA?" It's disingenuous to conflate the providing of health care with a particular piece of bad law.

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

A common fallacy is that governments should run their finances like a family. A family does not (1) live forever, (2) print its own currency, (3) collect revenue as a matter of law, or (4) have a duty to provide public goods like a national defense.

None of which is actually relevant. Note that 1) doesn't matter since governments don't live forever either and it wouldn't be relevant if they did. Point 2) is constrained by inflation. You can print arbitrary amounts of money and make your currency worthless. And as a result, you would lose the power to borrow in that currency.

Point 3) is just irrelevant. A family doesn't need to "collect revenue" as a matter of law, but in practice, they collect revenue via wages and investments, just the same. And point 4) holds for families as well. They take on obligations which require them to do things.

Maintaining debt in perpetuity makes sense as long as the economy grows over the long term and as long as that debt doesn't get "too big" (with pretty fierce debate over what that means -- 100% of GDP is not necessarily too big by historical standards, but reputable minds can disagree).

Maintaining debt in perpetuity makes sense, if you're doing something productive with the money that you borrow. If you aren't, then it doesn't make sense.

Re:Wow.

[Magius_AR]

Because they nearly always cave in, often before the first vote.

Recent history speaks to the opposite. The Senate has gotten nearly everything it wanted. The House has gotten next to nothing. For instance, the Democrats have gotten the Republicans to cave on a considerable amount of tax hikes, yet entitlements haven't seen a single reform yet, nor has Obamacare seen a single significant change (short of the piddly one that was passed in this most recent showdown).

Re:Wow.

[Magius_AR]

The rest of the civilized world makes this shit work. You don't think America can do it better? Why do you hate America?

Just because the "rest of the civilized world" is content to lead a mediocre lifestyle with the government confiscating over half their income doesn't mean we want it for ourselves.

Re:Wow.

[_Sharp'r_]

Spending has gone up twice as much (in constant dollars) over the last 30 years as revenue has. Based on that, it's pretty difficult to make a good case that the issue is revenue and not out of control spending. You can blame military spending or Wall Street rescue spending. But it's pretty obviously a spending problem.

"From 1980 to 2012, Revenue is $892 Billion higher. Does that sound like taxes have just gotten too low?
In the same 32 years, spending is $1,844 Billion higher. Hmm... I think we see why our deficit is so high now...."

Re:Wow.

[Jeremi]

No, the previous poster was asking "Can we afford ACA?" It's disingenuous to conflate the providing of health care with a particular piece of bad law.

That's a fair point. I believe we can, but if not, then the appropriate response will be to improve the ACA until it becomes workable and affordable.

However, that is not at all what the Republicans have been trying to do. They ran (and lost) on "repeal and replace", but they've never offered any serious proposals on what they would replace it with. All they've offered is the "repeal" part, which would mean an unacceptable return to the pre-ACA status quo of people being unable to obtain health insurance and other people getting screwed by their insurance companies when they got sick.

I'd genuinely love to see Republicans participating in a thoughtful and constructive way towards making the ACA work better; maybe in a year or two they'll come around.

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

No, no, no, no, no! Government spending reduces when then the economy is booming. But attempting to reduce spending does not trigger a boom!. Correlation does not imply causation.

[...]

Look how well austerity programs have been working in the rest of the world.

Remember, "correlation does not imply causation"? Here, the problem is that only countries in really bad shape get austerity programs forced upon them. So why are we blaming austerity programs rather than decades of poor behavior that led to this course of action?

Re:Wow.

[Magius_AR]

Seriously? You thought Obama would allow a bill to pass that would get rid of Obamacare?

The "defund Obamacare" demand was dropped very early in the "neogitations" (if you would call them that). Near the end, the Republicans were in fact asking for very very little (one year individual mandate delay + takeaway of congressional healthcare kickbacks) in exchange for a government reopen, but the Dems would still have none of it.

He wouldn't, especially when the country was blaming the shutdown on the opposition.

Now you're at the root of the problem. The Republicans are terrible at steering national dialogue.

Re:Wow.

[geminidomino]

As an "outsider", you're not looking close enough at the ACA. In spite of making insurance obligatory, there's no reason to expect ACA to do anything to lower costs. All it does is use punitive taxation (not a fine, because that would be illegal!) to force people into a business arrangement with a private corporation.

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

As long as the government invests the $1 billion cash in a way that earns a greater rate of return than the interest rate that they pay out, it's a profit center.

And when they don't, which is most of the time, then it isn't a profit center. My view is that if the US cut away non-profit center spending, it'd be returning a lot of tax money. For example, none of the big three spending items are profit centers - Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and military spending. Cutting those away would put the US budget into the black right there.

The goal should be to make sure we take only as much as we can invest well, and the way to do that is to improve the efficiency of our investments.

Isn't happening. If I were to "cut to the bone", I'd get a budget perhaps as large as a third the size of the present one. We're not even remotely close to "cut to the bone" territory here.

Re:Wow.

[geminidomino]

And of course, the US is debt free... What country is not in debt? How stupid of a metric of how well the healthcare system works is that?

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

Your wrong assumption is that the problem is with the spending. But a deficit is not a problem of high spending, it is a problem of spending more than you have. You can fix it by reducing your spending, or by increasing your income.

It's not a "wrong" assumption. The US, for example, has demonstrated both that it will expand spending when revenue is increased and that a persistent, high deficit is tolerated.

Re:Wow.

[dunkelfalke]

Do you ever read what you write?

Re:Wow.

[dunkelfalke]

Mediocre lifestyle?

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

That's a fair point. I believe we can, but if not, then the appropriate response will be to improve the ACA until it becomes workable and affordable.

I'd suggest starting by reversing the law. It's that bad. We could fix it for the next few decades, but there are so many problems (such as the incentive for part time employment, the individual mandate, the incentives to increase health care costs by restricting supply and increasing demand, and the political bribes that were necessary to pass this law) or we could start over and fix actual health care problems.

Then you can target problem areas like malpractice reform, equalizing of taxes for individual versus employer insurance (preferably by ending the tax subsidy altogether), removal of routine and elective health care procedures from required health insurance, and some sort of standardization of health care across state lines so that a business can offer a single health insurance policy applicable in multiple states.

If at this point, there is still a health insurance or health care coverage problem, we can address it. But my view is that it is much more important to cut health care costs than to provide health care coverage. Lowering health care costs would also help improve coverage. That is a nice side benefit.

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

Conservatives, for some reason, have come to the conclusion that health care is a luxury. It is not, it is a necessity, that's why it is illegal for emergency rooms to turn people away.

Some health care is a necessity and some a luxury. Free birth control, for example, is a luxury.

Under the ACA, people are for the first time required to take personal responsibility to plan for their own (inevitable) health care costs, rather than foisting them on to the rest of us, and somehow conservatives think that is a bad thing.

That hasn't happened. There's no such requirement. For example, I can pay the mandate tax until such time as I get an expensive medical condition, then get the insurance.

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

The government isn't like a family. It's more like a bank.

There's three big problems with that model. Banks don't have taxes or a captive revenue stream. Second, banks have to have positive net assets. Third, banks have to follow rigorous accounting laws.

Governments can run some degree of negative liabilities due to the captive revenue stream and lack of accountability.

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

you raise taxes on property and wealth by 1%

As an aside, you would need to pass a constitutional amendment to make this work. Capital gains and income taxes are a work around for this.

Re:Wow.

[phantomfive]

At the same time, taxes have been abolished or reduced for the top income brackets. No, wait, for the very, very top only.

Do you know why Democrats have so much trouble getting rid of the Bush tax cuts? Because they cut taxes for everybody, not just the rich.

Re:Wow.

[Nimey]

You must not get out much. I've seen many people say that the 2nd amendment is our defense against a tyrannical government.

Re:Wow.

[AllenABQ]

If every major country in the world in swimming in debt, who are they in debt to?

Re:Wow.

[AllenABQ]

Maybe I'm a bit naive about this being covered under insurance by my employer as I didn't get to choose from a menu on micro-coverage options when I signed on to the company health plan. Perhaps this is different on the individual insurance market? When you shop for coverage under the old system you got to choose: well I'll take cancer treatment; I don't want pregnancy coverage; yes to broken limbs; no to cosmetic surgery (even if I'm disfigured in an accident); definitely no on annual physical because I'm in great shape; etc. etc. And then you present your list to the insurance companies and they give you a quote?

Re:Wow.

[Eunuchswear]

This new and improved list came from averaging estimates of publicly held debt by the various countries as reported by the CIA and IMF

No it didn't - those are the straight CIA figures.

The bizarre (unjustifiable?) Wikipedia averages give the US 80%, France 87% and the UK 86%.

Re:Wow.

[AllenABQ]

Free birth control is an incredibly cheap "luxury" that insurance companies are only too happy to provide because it offsets the higher cost to the them for paying for more pregnancies, which in turn helps lower premiums. It's all part and parcel of why so much preventive care comes as a basic element under the ACA. The number-crunching analysis shows it helps lower the costs of covering more expensive services in the long run when they are caught early with cheap intervention.

Re:Wow.

[sjames]

Obamacare is itself such a massive compromise that it is actually Rommneycare re-packaged.

Re:Wow.

[Bite The Pillow]

Read the declaration of independence. It says that people have an obligation to throw off the yoke of bad government. So no, that is not cognitive dissonance, that is doing what the founders asked of us.

Believing that the gubmint is coming for your guns, while buying guns, and no laws is sight to do so, might be. There are lots of examples from those people, but what you wrote is not one.

Re:Wow.

[tbannist]

Even Boehner knew it, but this little dance had to go all the way because the moderate Republicans are as terrified of the Tea Party as they are of voters.

I would say most of the House Republicans are more terrified of the Tea Party than voters. I think most of the "competitive" districts went Democrat last time around (not that there are that many of them in the first place), which leaves most (if not all) of the Republicans are in safe seats where the biggest threat is a primary challenge from the far right.

Re:Wow.

[amicusNYCL]

Can we afford ACA?

Yeah, we sure can. Can we afford to continue with the ridiculously over-inflated defense budget apparently designed to counter an enemy that doesn't exist? No, we need to cut that. Then we can afford to fund education, healthcare, and everything else that will improve society.

The ACA is not the problem with our spending. The defense budget is the problem.

Re:Wow.

[tbannist]

It's supposed to, however, during the last boom period the Republicans decided to spend that money on wars and tax cuts with the express purpose of making sure the money would not be there later. They call it "starving the beast". You should probably thank them for the foresight in making sure the government wouldn't have enough money.

Re:Wow.

[SecurityTheatre]

It's worth pointing out (as was said below), that most Democrats would support a single-payer government healthcare system, either on a federal level (like the NHS in Britain), or through federal mandates for states to create their own single player (as in Canada).

For a bit of context, lets look at the history

The RomneyCare-lite package that was passed was a huge compromise of ideals for most left-leaning politicians. This plan as it was passed was about 90% Republican/Conservative and was drafted originally by the conservative partisan think-tank The Heritage Foundation. It enjoyed prominent and vocal support throughout the 1990s from folks like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole. In fact, Republicans in the senate proposed a nearly identical version of this law in 1993 as an alternative to Bill Clinton's proposed health care reforms (including an "individual mandate" and "health exchanges" and Medicaid Expansion).

In fact, the most controversial portion, the "individual mandate" was the brainchild of Republican senators Orin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, and Kit Bond in 1993 and was agreed to by Republican president George HW Bush, as well as by 43 Republican senators in preliminary voting.

In 2006, Republican Mitt Romney implemented a nearly identical plan, with broad Republican support in his home state. It was accepted as an alternative to the single-payer system proposed by Democrats in the state senate and passed with broad bipartisan support, though there was more support from Republicans than Democrats (some of whom saw it as to corporate-focused).

In 2007, Republican US Senator Bob Bennett introduced the bill to a senate subcommitte for adoption as US Federal law and the bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

In 2008, when it had been revised down to most of what was in the current bill, Democrats pushed strongly for a "public option", which was basically a government-run insurance company to compete with the private insurance companies, which Republicans at the time claimed to be their primary disagreement with the bill. In a show of compromise, Democrats agreed to remove the "public option" from the bill.

But by then, Republicans had made it a rallying cry of their party and were going to stick with opposition to the bill, often in defiance of their previous position, as a matter of principle.

The rest is history.

Yes, there are legit reasons to be annoyed or disappointed with it, but the rhetoric "the communist, authoritarian" claims and frequent citations of the bill as "the worst law in American history" are completely absurd. I mean... beyond absurd to such an extreme level that it defies reality that people believe it.

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

Free birth control is an incredibly cheap "luxury" that insurance companies are only too happy to provide because it offsets the higher cost to the them for paying for more pregnancies

They also get higher insurance payments for the resulting kids. I don't see the net gain for insurers here. Also, the kind of people who would have problems obtaining cheap birth control are going to have similar troubles obtaining and properly applying free birth control.

The number-crunching analysis shows it helps lower the costs of covering more expensive services in the long run when they are caught early with cheap intervention.

The insurance industry did the same number crunching and they as a whole decided to forgo preventative care. I'll side with the people who actually have an interest in getting this calculation right.

Re:Wow.

[Copid]

I'd suggest starting by reversing the law. It's that bad. We could fix it for the next few decades, but there are so many problems (such as the incentive for part time employment, the individual mandate, the incentives to increase health care costs by restricting supply and increasing demand, and the political bribes that were necessary to pass this law) or we could start over and fix actual health care problems.

My one and only reason for supporting the law is the creation of exchanges that may start to pry us away from employer based health insurance. I don't think that we can do much in the way of meaningful reform until "consumers choose their insurance provider" becomes the norm. If somebody had offered a bill that killed employer health insurance and created an exchange and also launched cruise missiles at Chinese warships, I'd probably think a little bit before deciding it was a bad idea.

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

The government is just another case of "middlemen parasitic scum". You're trading one for another.

Even in the US, most people can pay for most of their health care. So it's reasonable to have them do so. And insurance is a great way to cover costly, low probability health issues. The US system worked great in the 50s and 60s before everyone started gaming the system and making it what it is today.

Re:Wow.

[Copid]

And when they don't, which is most of the time, then it isn't a profit center. My view is that if the US cut away non-profit center spending, it'd be returning a lot of tax money. For example, none of the big three spending items are profit centers - Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and military spending. Cutting those away would put the US budget into the black right there.

I think people are conflating two different issues in this conversation. The first is whether certain programs should exist. The second is whether they should be paid for by deficit spending. The program doesn't need to be "profit center" for deficit spending to make sense. Let's say you have $1B in military spending that you're going to spend one way or the other. It's not making "profit" in that it doesn't really return anything measurably useful to society at the margin. The question is whether we take that $1B in taxes now, or if we pay $(1 + interest)B in taxes in the future. If your nominal interest rate is lower than nominal GDP growth, it's not crazy to push that spending off into the future when it will be easier to pay for as a percentage of GDP.

Given that we were able to borrow at *negative* real rates and we were discussing how bad it was to borrow, I'm really thinking that what people mean to say is, "It's bad that this program exists." Because borrowing money at negative real rates when you have expenses is an awesome business decision. I always ask, "What would Goldman Sachs do if it ran the government?" Bringing the deficit to $0 would not be high on its list.

Re:Wow.

[AK Marc]

The IRS forclosed on a legal brothel, and for the time they were runing it they lost money.

Yes, and was it making money before they took over? It was a 400-acre ranch with the only working livestock being women. The government isn't as "slimy" as most pimps, so it didn't exploit the workers for enough profit, and you think that's a bad thing? And the IRS made money on it. They foreclosed on it with the intention of selling it, not running it. Then they sold it for a profit (easy when you get it for $0).

Re:Wow.

[AK Marc]

Australia and New Zealand make it work. But I'm sure your "name one" was a lie for effect.

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

Iceland didn't have the problems these other countries had to start with. And their debt started to decline this year with respect to GDP, which is one of the goals of austerity, despite weak economic growth.

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

Well, then that could be implemented separately.

Re:Wow.

[marcosdumay]

But attempting to reduce spending does not trigger a boom!.

And... Do you have any evidence for that? Because a lot of the government spending (any government) is just throwing wealth in a black hole. When one makes that wealth available for some productive application, there should be a boom. Eclipsed by the nominal impact of the goverment savings on the GDP at first, but a boom that should be quite visible if the savings last for any measurable time.

Currently, here at Brazil we even have a hard time observing the nominal burst of the GDP. If it's really there, it's too fast. Every time we measure the outcome after the governemnt has cut some spending, our GDP has increased. Increasing the spending does not have an equivalently fast impact on the numbers.

Re:Wow.

[marcosdumay]

It's like a condominuim. One that likes to pretend that it's a bank, but spends the deposits instead of lending them.

Re:Wow.

[complete loony]

Invest in bridges, dams, highways, internet backbones, schools, housing... Invest in things with a long term payoff to the rest of society that the private sector can't afford to build. Then you should be improving our economic potential. But the important thing is to spend now and get that money into the hands of those people who are suffering the most due to the current economic conditions. The poor wont hold onto that money, they can't afford to.

The recent differences in measured GDP might be slight, but the recent changes in private debt levels & employment have been much larger, faster, strongly correlated and easy to measure. If you only look at government spending you aren't seeing the whole picture. You have to look at spending across the whole economy to quantify the dynamics of the system.

Re:Wow.

[marcosdumay]

Bridges, and highways, sure, given that they are needed (no, thanks for bridges to nowhere). Dams, schools and houses are better done by anybody else. But the important thing is that the money never goes to the hand of those who are suffering, unless it's specifically tranferred to them, and spending resources on things that they don't need will increase their cost of living (either through taxes, or competition on resources - notice that I'm not against competition, it's just that competing with them won't improve their life).

Anyway, my question was for data. There is this economical assumption that everybody just hold as true, and since it's true, no data is needed to demonstrate it...

Do you (or anybody here) have any data that demonstrates that spending (instead of saving) improves the economy in the long term - like 1 year after you start spending, without exponentially increasing the rate of spending? You can get another definition of long term if you like, but the data should show an improvement that sustains itself or increases after the spending starts, instead of an instantaneous improvement that only goes down with time to a negative assintote.

Re:Wow.

[khallow]

Their interest is in maximizing profit, not maximizing health or minimizing costs to the insured.

Exactly. Original poster was claiming that these policies would make profit for insurance companies. Sorry, they disagree.

Birth control costs very little to society, and unwanted kids are generally a drain on society's resources.

It costs even less to simply not pay for this at all. And if kids even after considering their adulthood contribution are a net drain on society, then that society has deep problems that aren't going to be solved by birth control or health care reform.

Incidentally, consider why insurance companies are involved in this gimmick at all. There are plenty of better ways of distributing birth control than via an insurance policy.

For example, the person who is going to use the birth control can pay for it themselves. That has the advantage of being more convenient since one doesn't have to provide health insurance information to the cashier.

Or the government could just give out free birth control on the appropriate level. That catches the people for whom it is too difficult to actually go to a store and buy birth control (whether with their own money or an insurer's).

So why not those two approaches? The first is ruled out on liberal-religious grounds. Certain portions of society aren't supposed to buy their own birth control. The second is ruled out because it costs the government a lot of money.

Money is why this is getting tossed on the insurance companies and the people who pay for health insurance. And I'm sure it'll be an outrageous boon to any expensive birth control systems out there which happen to qualify.

Re:Wow.

[houstonbofh]

"The IRS forclosed on a legal brothel"

Really? Where? Link?

" and for the time they were runing it they lost money"

No Shit. They are the IRS, not pimps.

Is Google broken where you live? http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-08-11-398857697_x.htm

Re:Wow.

[artor3]

All three of those big ticket items are profit centers.

The social safety net (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) allows Americans to take more risks. It allows brilliant people born into poverty a chance to climb out of it. It reduces crimes born out of desperation. A well-cared for populace is a productive populace, and a productive populace generates more tax revenue.

As for the military, it can act as a profit center by propping up US-friendly regimes. It's not exactly moral, but it does generate wealth for the country.

There's waste in each case, and we can and should make them more efficient. But eliminating them, or even cutting them in half, would be a bad idea.

Re:Wow.

[complete loony]

A perspective on Australia's government debt and spending based on average trends.
For some more depth on the dynamics of the economy and how governments should react to crisis, I'd suggest reading some of Steve Keen's research in this area.

Re:Wow.

[evilviper]

if Tea Party candidates start to win more and more primaries by pandering to far right populist agendas; then they start to alienate the centrist voters who can swing an election

That's only true of NATIONAL elections, or a few "swing" state senate races. In most local elections, either because of gerrymandering or just because of naturally occurring demographics, the area is heavily R or D, and there isn't a large enough center to swing the vote. That's why the House is such an intractable mess... Each of them has to answer to the fools in their tiny sliver of the map, the size of a couple cities, and nobody else. If that group is crazy conservative, their Rep has to be, too, and it doesn't matter how badly they screw-up the country, so long as their electorate is happy with them.

Re:Wow.

[Uberbah]

Retire at 60 with, have better health care for less money, and get a first-rate education without starting with 5 or 6 figures in student debt! The horror!

Re:Wow.

[geekoid]

Is reading comprehension broken where you live?
The government didn't want to run a brothel, and they were dealing with legal issues.

Re:Wow.

[geekoid]

Current deficit is about 17.5 trillion

do you know what deficit means? WHy it eixsts? Becasue nothing in you post indicate you know what you are talking about

"Quick personal finance question."
Stop. The government is NOT PERSONAL FINANCE.

"Can we afford ACA?
    If the middle class can't afford it, how can the poor?"

Yes, and if you would read it you would know how. What, you haven't read it? I have.

If you have a choice between housing and insurance, which will you drop? Between food and insurance? Heat in the winter and Insurance.. Oh snap, insurance is now mandentory. Ok do you drop housing, food, heat, transportation?

A family of 5 making 120,000 year would pay ~350 a month for a basic plan, with Keiser

"Welcom to the welfare state. You voted for it."
it's not a welfare state, please make SOME effort to fucking learn.

frankly, I like the original better, where the government was going to just offer insurance. Remember that? funny how all the people who said the government can run anything panicked and fought hard to stop the ONLY thing that could have proved them right.

Re:Wow.

[geekoid]

The VAST majority ( > 99.99%) of project done by the federal government are complete on time and budget and with little waste.
All these number are available.
The US government does it shit really well compared to pretty much every other government.

The only think hurting the government is people claiming the government can't do anything to strip it of funding so it can't do anything.

Re:Wow.

[Tom]

Spending has gone up twice as much (in constant dollars) over the last 30 years as revenue has. Based on that, it's pretty difficult to make a good case that the issue is revenue and not out of control spending.

Total non-sequitur. You are blaming a gap between two numbers exclusively on one of them and don't even notice what you're doing.

I'm trying to not do the opposite. I'm not claiming it is all a revenue issue. However, when you do tax cuts at the same time as increased spending, you can't blame the spending alone. I don't even understand how any sane person could even argue that point.

Re:Wow.

[Tom]

BAM! One of the stupidest statements I've ever read.

Sometimes, the stupid is with the reader and not the writer.

There is a difference between "high spending" and "spending more than you have". One looks at an absolute value, the other at a relative value. That is not a tautology.

Note the use of the word "limited".

Note how this has nothing to do with the argument, because nobody has made a proposal that includes unlimited goods and services.

Re:Wow.

[_Sharp'r_]

Revenue has gone up over the last 30 years in constant dollars. So why is revenue an issue in deficits?

Spending, having gone up much faster, is the obvious issue when you are comparing the two numbers. Revenue is the number that has gone in the desired direction to reduce the deficits. Spending has gone in the wrong direction to reduce the deficits.

The issue of nominal reductions in tax rates (what you're calling tax cuts) and how that affects revenue (not as much as people think) isn't a big part of the impact.

Empirically, revenue still went up in the years after most of the major tax cuts. It's hard to distinguish that from the effects of an improved economy, so you can can certainly argue about causation, but they clearly didn't cause any sort of major drop in revenue. Forget what you've heard in the media. Look at the numbers and read some economists.

Revenue historically tracks how the economy is doing. As a result of how people adjust to changes in tax rates, while the actual nominal tax rates have a marginal impact and a distortionary affect on economic efficiency, they aren't a big driver of how much total revenue is received by the government.

Re:Wow.

[marcosdumay]

I don't get it. Are you citing Steve Keen's research as the evidence that I asked for? Because, if so, it doesn't say what you think it does.

Re:Wow.

[complete loony]

I was mainly thinking of his research into government responses to a credit crunch. Though he has also talked about the events of 1937, where the US government believed the crisis was over and they cut spending, leading to higher unemployment, which has more in common with the events of today.

Re:Wow.

[marcosdumay]

I didn't know about that talk (about 1937). I can't find it at this research page (probably because it was a talk) do you have a pointer?

Re:Wow.

[complete loony]

Here's one.

Re:Wow.

[marcosdumay]

Thanks.

Re:Wow.

[Magius_AR]

t's worth pointing out (as was said below), that most Democrats would support a single-payer government healthcare system, either on a federal level (like the NHS in Britain), or through federal mandates for states to create their own single player (as in Canada).

Whats' your point? Republicans have a bunch of "pie in the skies" as well (such as eliminating entitlements entirely). What'd Obama say? "You can't get everything you want"?

Yes, there are legit reasons to be annoyed or disappointed with it, but the rhetoric "the communist, authoritarian" claims and frequent citations of the bill as "the worst law in American history" are completely absurd.

How do you figure? Obamacare represents an entitlement expansion not seen since the New Deal. Given the major spending issues we already have with our current New Deal programs, why wouldn't people be freaking out? (especially when the party that gave us Obamacare would like to cover their eyes and just pretend Social Security/Medicare aren't going to explode in costs in the next few decades.) I ask you: at what point does a government become communist/authoritarian? All the rhetoric (+ legislation) I ever hear about from the Democrats is talk of income redistribution from the rich to the poor. In addition, our govt entitlement spending is at downright silly levels (~60+% of the budget now?). I understand that Republicans like to hyperbolize about socialism, but honestly, when do you qualify?

Re:Wow.

[Magius_AR]

Retire at 60 with, have better health care for less money, and get a first-rate education without starting with 5 or 6 figures in student debt! The horror!

Don't forget the purple unicorn and the raining doughnuts. Truly paradise.

Remember this in the 2014 elections

[Anonymous Coward]

They all need to go. Vote out the incumbents in 2014.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[Black Parrot]

They all need to go.

Fortunately the Capital bathrooms are open again.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[aardvarkjoe]

No thanks, I'll vote based on the individual's actual performance, not because some kind of sweeping generalization steeped in rhetoric.

There wasn't a single person in Congress, Democrat or Republican, who actually attempted to avert the shutdown.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[AHuxley]

Consider any person who is not a Democrat or Republican :)

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[sumdumass]

You mean that the president wasn't out thee telling the drmocrats not to vote on any of the bills the house passed? He wasn't leading the senate in this?

It has nothing to fo with sleeping durring civic class and everything to do with paying attention to who said what during this. A lot of blame for this goes to most all of the government. Or do you believe that no negotiations means those who refused to negotiate where somehow never involved?

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[LandDolphin]

Good luck with that. The House enjoys a 90% reelection rate.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[Sockatume]

Given the research demonstrating that people make better decisions when they need to go to the bathroom, maybe we should reconsider that.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[danaris]

No thanks, I'll vote based on the individual's actual performance, not because some kind of sweeping generalization steeped in rhetoric.

There wasn't a single person in Congress, Democrat or Republican, who actually attempted to avert the shutdown.

That's a very simplistic—and somewhat wrongheaded—view of the way things actually happened.

Though it's not perfect, I liked this analogy I saw somewhere: Rob comes up to Dave and says, "Give me $100." Dave says no. Rob says, "All right, give me $50." Dave says no again. Rob says, "Come on, why can't you compromise with me?"

Suggesting that the Democrats should have "compromised" on this is little short of ludicrous. Holding first the civil service sector, then the entire economy hostage in an attempt to force through a measure that the Republicans want, but do not actually have the votes to achieve (even after they've tried dozens of times), is not a standard, or even sane, negotiating tactic. It is not "business as usual." The Democrats are not equally to blame for this as the Republicans.

I know we've been fed the idea for some time that the two sides of every issue are always equally valid, but you know what? That's total BS.

But, based on experience, you're probably just going to ignore and vilify me because I don't share your exact worldview.

Dan Aris

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[Nimey]

That's how we got the teabaggers in the first place, idiot.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[Nimey]

I'd take your opinion seriously if it wasn't utterly intellectually lazy and ignorant of facts.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[aardvarkjoe]

Your analogy fails because it's not relevant to politics. Politics always involves compromises and negotiation. Both parties persisted in making "offers" that they knew from the start would be completely unacceptable to the other -- the Democrats, as well as the Republicans, invited the standoff.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[aardvarkjoe]

Really? Name one member of Congress who tried to make a proposal acceptable to both major parties before the shutdown?

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[Nimey]

Irrelevant. The only proposal acceptable to the fucking teabaggers was to get their way or for the government to shut down. You can't negotiate with someone like that.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[Nimey]

You're a fucking moron. The Dems said "OK, keep the government open and we'll negotiate."
The teabaggers said "Defund Obamacare or the government gets it."

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[aardvarkjoe]

"Give us what we want and we'll 'negotiate'" is not real negotiation.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[aardvarkjoe]

The only proposal acceptable to the fucking teabaggers was to get their way or for the government to shut down.

You don't know that, because "your team" didn't bother trying. Instead they spent their time holding press conferences assigning blame, and betting that if they allowed the shutdown to happen that it would hurt their "enemies" more than it would hurt them.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[Nimey]

They're not my team, dipshit. I only vote for them because 1) they're not Republicans, and 2) our political system requires 2 viable parties.

And I do know that from watching their behavior.

You're pretty tiresome, so bye now.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[Valdrax]

How House Republicans changed House rules to prevent Democrats from working with 28 Republicans who would have signed a clean budget bill from bringing the bill to the floor. (aka House Resolution 368.)

For bonus reading:
19 Times Democrats Tried to Negotiate with Republicans to avert the shutdown by sending the Senate's proposed budget to a bicameral conference committee.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[danaris]

"Give us what we want and we'll 'negotiate'" is not real negotiation.

Yes, you're absolutely right. And that's what the Republicans were saying.

"Stop acting like fucking idiots and threatening our entire economy and way of life, and we'll be willing to negotiate" is more like what the Democrats were saying.

Again, this manufactured crisis was in no way a standard negotiating tactic or anything a reasonable person would have done, or even expected. Rather than negotiate in good faith, or even try to put together a compromise budget, the Republicans chose to hold first the civil service, then the entire economy hostage in hopes of blackmailing the Democrats into killing or weakening a piece of legislation that was already a huge compromise, which the Supreme Court found to be constitutional, and which the Republicans have been utterly and completely unable to repeal or reduce through any of the normal, proper legislative channels.

If you think Dave was unreasonable for not giving Rob any of his money, then you, like a truly disturbing number of Americans, have some serious problems with understanding the dangerous and unprecedented level of partisanship at work and what it actually means.

Dan Aris

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[danaris]

"Give us what we want and we'll 'negotiate'" is not real negotiation.

"Put the gun down and we'll negotiate" is.

(And that's the great thing about arguments on the Internet: if you do come up with that snappy comeback hours later, you can actually reply with it ;-) )

Dan Aris

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[Uberbah]

Your analogy fails because it debunks my argument

FTFY. The Republicans were using blackmail to try and force a change in legislation they did not have the votes for. The only reason you're claiming their tactic is legit is because you agree with what they were trying to do - if the Democrats had taken Congress in 2006 and refused to grant Bush an increase in the debt ceiling unless a gun ban was passed, you would have been screaming bloody murder.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[aardvarkjoe]

Your attempt to paint me as supporting or agreeing with the Republicans on this matter is kind of ridiculous, given what I have written.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[Uberbah]

So you're a mundane moran, as opposed to a blindly partisan tribalist moran?

Okay, noted.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[phantomfive]

You're a fucking moron.

Well you're a pleasant guy, aren't you.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[Nimey]

I don't have time for stupid people, and that includes deniers. Fuck off.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[phantomfive]

Oh, your closed minded too. I hope someday your life gets better.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[Nimey]

In the morning I may be in a more pleasant mood, but you shall still be stupid.

Re:Remember this in the 2014 elections

[phantomfive]

Indeed, what a horror for me

Americans doing the right thing

[mhotchin]

Proving once again that, once all other options are eliminated, the Americans will do the right thing

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[axlash]

This is not really "the right thing", any more than a hacky bug fix is the right thing. The right thing is to deal with the deficit/debt, as many Republicans want to - but the way they want to go about it is terrible (a combination of threats and spending cuts only). The reality is that until both parties sit down and agree to deal with the deficit/debt with a mix of tax hikes *and* spending cuts, it's going to be hard to make any significant progress on this.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[countach74]

Tax hikes don't necessarily mean increased revenue (they have actually decreased revenue at times). Frankly, the only sure-fire way to pay off this debt is via massive spending cuts. But these are cuts that Republicans aren't generally in favor of.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends. A good deal of additional revenue could be appropriated simply by revisiting the corporate tax code. Preventing eg, Apple, from doing a "double Irish with a Dutch sandwich", and hiding $11bn from the us's 30-ish% tax alone is 3bn. (Extend that to microsoft, oracle, and pals as well, and you get the picture.) Playing footsie with investors only works when the market isn't at death's door. In the long run, making those companies pay their goddamn taxes is way better than having debt limit crisis 2014, return of the deficit bomb, both for them, and the world at large, and for the same said investors.

There's plenty of revenue that isn't being properly appropriated. The major problem is the byzantine tax system the US uses, which has more holes in it than a whiffle ball.

We don't really need new taxes, we need to revisit and refine the taxes we already have, and sanitize the tax code. Of course, that would almost certainly never see the light of day, since like term limits, it stands to cost all of the corrupt people on the hill a good deal of money. (Eg, it demonstrates a genuine conflict of interest for them.)

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[sjames]

Given the history of the deficits, if the GOP is serious about fixing it they should just not field a candidate for president for a few cycles. It's the Dems in the White House that lower the deficit every time (including right now, it's headed down, though the shutdown may cause a reversal) only to have the next Republican come along and blow it sky high again.

But if they want to cut all funding for domestic spying out of the NSA's budget, I'll be all for it. They can cut the TSA and DEA entirely while they're at it. Any one of those will be an order of magnitude more than cutting food stamps would save and nobody gets hurt.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[sjames]

Carter and Clinton managed it just fine. They got the deficit to nothing and Clinton actually managed to pay the debt down a bit.

Or we could raise the taxes in the upper brackets to the levels maintained by that notorious lefty Eisenhower. :-)

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[ClickOnThis]

Proving once again that, once all other options are eliminated, the Americans will do the right thing

If you're going to quote Sir Winston, then give him credit.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[MavicGirardi]

About damn time they do the right thing!

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Carter and Clinton managed it just fine. They got the deficit to nothing and Clinton actually managed to pay the debt down a bit.

Or we could raise the taxes in the upper brackets to the levels maintained by that notorious lefty Eisenhower. :-)

Your facts are wrong. The last time the national debt went down year over year was Eisenhower. It increased every year under every President since then - Clinton included.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[sjames]

It increased overall, but the deficit (rate of change) went below zero under Clinton meaning that for that brief period before Bush took office and went nuts we were paying the debt down. The deficit started a steady decline the moment Clinton took office, it just took a while to cross zero. Had bush held the course and avoided the great crash, the debt would have been paid off by now (yes, really!).

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[rwa2]

It was always a bluff and everyone knew it. The benefactors behind the GOP would not allow them to allow the dollar to default. I can only imagine the kinds of phone calls they had been receiving from concerned benefactors, though.

But pretty sure we'll be doing this again in a few months. It's the only button the GOP has right now, so they're going to have to use it. Kind of like the MAD doctrine... nukes are absolutely useless unless you can convince every one that you are absolutely insane enough to use them, hence all of the brinksmanship during the cold war.

Fortunately the other side was cool-headed enough to see this for what it was and call their bluff without too many concessions. It'll be interesting to see how half-heartedly they try to pull this exercise next time... especially since it did definitely weaken the dollar internationally (albeit no where near as much as a default would have). The GOP might still construe this as a win, since their objective is to make Obama look bad at any cost... and now they can point to 2-3 weeks of furlough and a dip in the dollar and economy as signs of "his policies not working" *snicker*.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[complete loony]

Austerity programs in other countries have not helped to reduce their level of government debt, the level of government debt has still grown during this period.

Why? Because the population is spending less from borrowed money. The scale of that change in consumer spending easily dwarfs the change in government spending.

If you want to boost the economy, the government needs to drastically *increase* their spending, with the majority of that money spent in ways that will flow through to the majority of citizens. Don't just throw cash at bank managers, that doesn't help anyone.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[Anonymous Coward]

You give credit to Clinton for the debt going down.

This was the Internet bubble time. The economy was white hot and tax revenues were phat. You could have put a Teddy Ruxpin in as President and the effect would have been the same.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[riverat1]

The problem with massive spending cuts is that federal government spending is such a large part of the economy (on the order of 20%+ IIRC) that any massive abrupt cuts in spending would plunge us back into recession. Austerity doesn't have a particularly good track record.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[drinkypoo]

they still won't cut money and arms to Israel and military adventures that only benefit Israel... all that money being wasted rampant military spending and wars in the Mid East and just who benefits? Certainly not your fellow Americans, just the one percent of the one percenters and their Israeli handlers.

Wow, that is a staggeringly ignorant thing to say. The truth is that the UK knew that creating the nation of Israel would destabilize the nation for the foreseeable future. You can find this out simply from Lawrence of Arabia, you don't even need to study history. We know the same thing. We pour money into Israel and it keeps the region locked into one form of conflict.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[Eunuchswear]

Frankly, the only sure-fire way to pay off this debt is via massive spending cuts

No. The only sure-fire way to pay off the debt is to grow the economy.

Massive spending cuts will shrink it, and cause the debt to grow.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[nharmon]

Carter and Clinton managed it just fine. They got the deficit to nothing and Clinton actually managed to pay the debt down a bit.

That isn't true. Under Carter and Clinton the public debt went up every single year. In fact, the last time we managed to actually pay down the debt was in 1957.

Or we could raise the taxes in the upper brackets to the levels maintained by that notorious lefty Eisenhower. :-)

Go ahead. Just be sure to add every loophole and tax deduction that was available during Eisenhower's times. Otherwise you're just advocating confiscation of wealth, which is not such a lovely road for us to go down. But hey, high tax rates with generous deductions would encourage spending, and that would be fine by me.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[darkstar949]

Frankly, the only sure-fire way to pay off this debt is via massive spending cuts.

Massive spending cuts are completely useless if you are still running a deficit. If you have a balanced budget then you will eventually payoff all of your debts in full and considering the time frames that governments have to work with, who really cares how long it takes as long as the principle is not increasing and the payments are being made on time?

There are some issues with actually getting a balanced federal budget though due to the inconstant way the money comes in and the unpredictability at times as well. It's not like a household budget where barring job loss you pretty much know exactly how much each paycheck is going to be. The federal budget really does need to be running a slight surplus so that a âoerainy day fundâ can be established but usually as soon as a surplus appears politicians want to use that money to gain political capital as opposed to saving it for later on down the road.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[crimson tsunami]

Can we assume you will give the same consideration to the current situation.

The economy was in the shitter thanks to "you know who".
The debt went up because tax revenues decreased and entitlements increased.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[madro]

Part of the credit for the deficit decline under Clinton goes to George HW Bush, who broke his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge for the good of the country. I remember being really concerned about the revenue increases that Clinton signed early in his first term because I was familiar with Republican talking points about taxes being automatically bad for the economy. Then I saw that the world didn't end, I took some basic econ courses (micro/macro) and learned to take macro theories (left or right) with huge handfuls of salt when considering the real world.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[IamTheRealMike]

You do understand the reason that companies like Apple come up with such convoluted tax arrangements, right? It's because the US tax system is fundamentally broken in a very important way - it tries to tax income regardless of where it was earned or who earned it - for people this is "citizenship based taxation", for companies what it means is if they earn money overseas and spend that money overseas, not only does the overseas government take a slice but the US wants a slice too. That's not how other tax systems work. If this was actually enforced properly then every US company would get double taxed on foreign-earned income, which would make them less competitive against foreign companies that only pay tax on income where it's earned. The reason it's NOT enforced properly, is exactly because closing this "loophole" would be very harmful.

Generally the rule is that if a US company brings the income home, then it gets double taxed. So big tech companies which are very profitable end up stockpiling profits outside the USA. They don't want to bring it back to the US because then they'd lose a lot of it, after it was already taxed once. But they don't have anything to spend it on outside the US either. They instead sit it out and hope for a "tax holiday". From time to time politicians grant these because it doesn't make any sense for the money to be sitting around outside the reach of the IRS waiting for investment opportunities abroad, when it could be spent inside the US instead.

Companies that are not US based don't have this problem.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[Magius_AR]

Austerity programs in other countries have not helped to reduce their level of government debt, the level of government debt has still grown during this period.

You are mistaken. They have helped. The only reason the debt still grew was because the economy was generally still in a recession and economies/spending don't turn on a dime. For instance, the US has significant shrunk it's deficit despite the fact it continues to run one.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[IamTheRealMike]

It depends what you really want when you say, "boost the economy". The reason so many EU economies are trashed right now is because they were fundamentally weak for a long time, ever since the flight of manufacturing to Asia really, and this weakness was covered up through extremely large amounts of borrowing and government deficit spending. In the UK for instance large parts of the north were almost being kept afloat by large deficits run up under Labour. In Spain a lot of employment came from an unsustainable housing bubble that triggered over-construction - construction being an industry loved by politicians because it employs lots of relatively low-skilled labourers.

So these economies were already "boosted" for a long time on what amounts to economic caffeine, and like all caffeine-fuelled energy streaks eventually it comes to an end and the drinker has to crash for a while to catch up on sleep and get things back to normal. People that were being pointlessly employed through bubbles or government jobs programs have to find something more useful to do, which is often really hard and involves complicated retraining, assuming they can even afford that, and then of course such huge amounts of resources were misallocated for so long who even says there are jobs for them to take? In fact there often aren't. This "crashing out on the sofa for 24 hours" is a recession.

Meanwhile tax takes drop, interest payments go up due to the cost of banking bailouts and thus deficit spending rises still further. But that process of adjustment is still required.

The US economy is doing marginally better than most EU economies (except maybe Germany?) because it is still jacked up on caffeine, it never had the crash, specifically, it's jacked up on massive government work programs and the resulting secondary employment, like all the towns that revolve around military contractors working on pointless boondoggle projects. Common sense tells you that the US does not need to sink so many resources into advanced weapons programs or building yet more jets or aircraft carriers. But those people and resources get directed towards such projects anyway, partly because the excuse of national security means it's easy to exclude foreign contractors and get Americans working. American can afford this much longer than most countries can because the dollar is very large, US Treasuries have a privileged place in the worlds financial system, and the Fed has basically broken the US bond markets by buying vast amounts of government debt using newly created money. Theory tells us this should cause inflation. In practice it hasn't become a huge problem yet because the dollar is such a very very deep currency, so it's possible to print more money without impacting the overall supply, and because so many prices are indirectly connected to the price of food and fuel, both of which are very cheap in America.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[countach74]

The trouble with you quantitative easing advocates is, no matter how much QE is performed, if it doesn't work, the problem is we didn't do enough QE. The problem could never be with the system itself; surely sound money and limited government have no roles to play in a "modern economy" *sigh*. As for austerity programs, no one's willing to make the sort of cuts necessary; if I overspend on a monthly basis, going $1000 in to debt each month, then cut my expenditures by $500 (ceteris paribus), I'm still going in the hole $500 a month--of course my debt is still going up!

What we need is a serious market correction that is going to take time: these things are generally mild and quick, but when it's been put off as long as it has via bad economic policy, it's going to be a sharper, longer correction than it would be otherwise.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[sjames]

That would be it, yes.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[sjames]

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

I did say it was briefly at zero and very briefly below zero. Yes, you can manipulate the figures in a desperate attempt to make it seem like the GOP is the debt hero, but have a look.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[sjames]

And then Bush took over and the economy was not so hot and the revenues were anemic? Wonder how that happened?

Guess we shoulda elected Ruxpin.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[sjames]

I smell burning pants. Go look it up.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[sjames]

The government was not trying to give everyone a home. It was letting predatory lenders convince naive first time buyers that they could afford to skip the starter home and go directly to the McMansion. It was letting the crooks on Wall Street slice and dice junk and fraudulently present it as AAA while leveraging capital to batshit insane levels.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[SecurityTheatre]

Progressive taxation is (by your inane definition) "confiscation of wealth" already.

There is no change, only a change in progressiveness.

Mitt Romney wasn't wrong when he said 47% of Americans pay little or no tax (at least on the surface). That's the way a modern social democracy works.

It's been very successful for a very long time. The US has very nearly the *least* progressive system in the world.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[complete loony]

The US's current QE program is useless. Giving money to banks to hold in reserve may help keep the banks afloat, but it does nothing to help the common man. Also the scale of the current program, while large, is smaller than the reduction of consumer spending.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[Uberbah]

Tax hikes don't necessarily mean increased revenue (they have actually decreased revenue at times).

Yes, the "Laffer Curve", otherwise known as bulllllllshit. Low taxes for the rich are about only one thing: allowing the rich to reap the benefits of the society they live in without having to pay an honest price for it.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[Uberbah]

That isn't true. Under Carter and Clinton the public debt went up every single year [treasurydirect.gov]. In fact, the last time we managed to actually pay down the debt was in 1957.

Cute how you left out the oil shocks, Nixon's inflation, and the enormous Reagan/Bush deficit that was left in Clinton's lap.

Go ahead. Just be sure to add every loophole and tax deduction that was available during Eisenhower's times.

No.

Otherwise you're just advocating confiscation of wealth, which is not such a lovely road for us to go down.

Of course it is. You tax 91% of Bill Gate's wealth, and he's still one of the richest people on the planet. You tax 91% of the Walton fortune, and their descendents will still be exempt from having to work for the next few hundred years. Whereas if you cut social services for the poor, people will literally suffer and die.

Re:Americans doing the right thing

[Uberbah]

Insignificant next to spending trillions on tax cuts for the rich and trillions on illegal wars.

But you knew that already.

Veto it. Demand Single Payer.

[Tatarize]

Take that! Better hurry.

Re:Veto it. Demand Single Payer.

[Copid]

That would be hilarious. How much you want to be that according to all of the pundits on both sides of the aisle, it would be "different" when Obama takes a hostage than when the Republicans did it?

US Government logic

[Cryacin]

Given pro is the opposite of con,

What is the opposite of progress?

Re:US Government logic

[noh8rz10]

Given pro is the opposite of con,

What is the opposite of progress?

republicans! [raises mod shield]

Re:US Government logic

[paiute]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hackneyed

Re:US Government logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-obligatory Little Gamers

It's been done to death and was only funny the first time.

Re:US Government logic

[davester666]

A Republican from Texas.

Re:US Government logic

[MichaelJenkins]

Thumbs up sir!

Re:US Government logic

[XaXXon]

stupid-ass word games are the opposite of progress.

I know you jest, but some many people believe that shit.

Re:US Government logic

[soccerisgod]

You mean... republicons?

Re:US Government logic

[GarethIwanFairclough]

You mean... republicons?

No, RepubliCANTs.

Re:US Government logic

[Cryacin]

It's funny how that comment has gone from troll, to insightful, to funny, being modded up, and modded down by republican shills. It's a good thing to have Karma to burn.

Re:US Government logic

[TripleE78]

LOBBYISTS!!!

Re:US Government logic

[Applekid]

How many posts have you made for this article that revolves around imaginary internet points? Ignore karma, you'll have a better time.

Re:US Government logic

[painandgreed]

You mean... republicons?

I think he really meant republican'ts.

Politics in America

[Anonymous Coward]

Title for a book describing all of this:
Politics in America
Democracy Inaction

It might sound a bit silly, but their toying with the idea of paying bills or not is just slightly less crazy than early Manhattan Project scientists doing an experiment called "Tickling the Dragons Tail" which really was a nuclear weapon criticality test. One little mistake, and suddenly you and everyone within ten miles of you are all dead, and no one will be able to identify you later. And that only depends on how much other material is within proximity of your experiment. The hole could be 100 miles (or more) across. The path of no return for the economy is the adoption of another currency as the world benchmark instead of the US dollar. Suddenly the ability to print money to pay bills is gone, and the US is in a huge amount of trouble that talk and speeches won't fix.

Ends?

[kevinatilusa]

Maybe a more accurate headline is "US Government Shutdown on temporary hiatus"? It's only a few months funding, and there's no guarantee we won't go through the entire thing again come January 15th...

Re:Ends?

[MightyMartian]

I can't imagine the House Republicans wanting to go through this again. Everyone has taken a beating, but while the Democrats might be battered and bruised, the Republicans have hemorrhaged support. For some time, moderate Republican incumbents have lived in fear of the Tea Party smashing them in the primaries, but now the choice between accommodating wingnuts and winning in 2014 has become very very clear.

I'm sure Cruz and his ilk will want to pick another fight in January, but even he seems to realize the Tea Party has been damaged by this, and his actions and the actions of his compatriots in the House are threatening to bring down a civil war on the GOP.

Re:Ends?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations! You have correctly absorbed the media's message on this fiasco:

Government shutdown
Democrats in Senate and Democrat President refuse to negotiate
So...It's all the Tea Party Republicans' fault.

See any logical flaws here?

Re:Ends?

[rmstar]

Government shutdown
Democrats in Senate and Democrat President refuse to negotiate
So...It's all the Tea Party Republicans' fault.

See any logical flaws here?

No, actually. Where should it be? It's all the fault of the reckless hostage takers, and these are all teabaggers.

Re:Ends?

[Pseudonym Authority]

It was their fault. They tried to kill Obamacare (since the first fifty times they tried failed) and wanted to risk burning the entire country to do it.

Now they have lost half their supporters, probably half their donors, and have nothing to show for it except a pathetic deal to make congress, a collection of millionaires, pay for their own insurance. Yeah, that'll buy back a few hundred people that they alienated.

But they have you to give them head when their feeling sad and defend them on the internet. And that's something, I guess.

Re: Ends?

[toppavak]

Right, this has nothing to do with the fact that a no strings attached version of the bill had enough Republican votes in the house to pass from the get go but the republican caucus in the house changed the parliamentary rules so only the majority leader could bring the bill to vote, ie boehner, who proceeded to refuse to do so to begin this whole charade of brinkmanship to begin with. Citation: http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77802818/

Re:Ends?

[matfud]

Republicans also refused to negotiate.

Looking at the mess from across the Atlantic all I see is petty bickering. It is almost as though no one wants a government that works.

Your two party politics are strange. Most people seem to treat it as they would a football (soccer) team.

Come on us red/blue we are winning!

Re:Ends?

[crimson tsunami]

Congratulations! You have correctly absorbed the media's message on this fiasco:

Government shutdown Democrats in Senate and Democrat President refuse to negotiate So...It's all the Tea Party Republicans' fault.

Oct 2008: "You'll never get elected and pass healthcare."

Nov 2008: "We'll never let you pass healthcare."

Jan 2009: "We are going to shout you down every time you try to pass healthcare."

July 2009: "We will fight to the death every attempt you make to pass healthcare."

Dec 2009: "We will destroy you if you even consider passing healthcare."

March 2010: "We can't believe you just passed healthcare."

April 2010: "We are going to overturn healthcare."

Sept 2010: "We are going to repeal healthcare."

Jan 2011: "We are going to destroy healthcare."

Feb 2012: "We are going to elect a candidate who will immediately revoke healthcare."

June 2012: "We will go to the Supreme Court, and they will overturn healthcare."

Aug 2012: "The American people will never re-elect you, because they don't want healthcare."

Oct 2012: "We can't wait to win the election and explode healthcare."

Nov 2012: "We can't believe you just got re-elected and that we can't repeal healthcare."

Feb 2013: "We're still going to vote to obliterate healthcare."

June 2013: "We can't believe the Supreme Court just upheld healthcare."

July 2013: "We're going to vote like 40 more times to erase healthcare."

Sept 2013: "We are going to leverage a government shutdown into defunding, destroying, obliterating, overturning, repealing, dismantling, erasing and ripping apart ealthcare."

Oct 2013: "WHY AREN'T YOU NEGOTIATING???"

Oct 2013: "Why are you blaming us for the shutdown?"

See any logical flaws here?

No. did you?

Re:Ends?

[atgaaa]

How could this be moded "insightful"?
Can slash dot add some somd other options like "partisan", "astro turfer". "name caller", "rhetoric", "I heard this on tv"?

The democrats voted that obamacare/aca. and their being exempted from it was more important then passing CR, or Debt Ceiling.
Both partys had several opportunities to "open the government", but they voted for what they thougt was important.

Re:Ends?

[T.E.D.]

Congratulations! You have correctly absorbed the media's message on this fiasco: Government shutdown Democrats in Senate and Democrat President refuse to negotiate

OK. As someone who seems to honestly believe this story, perhaps you can answer a question for me. In a real negotiation, both sides agree to something they may not like much, in order to get something they do like. We know what Democrats compromised on: the CR they voted for is more austere than even Ryan's widely derided bugdet, but they just held their noses and voted for it to get the government running again. So what exactly were Republicans willing to compromise on? All I ever heard out of them were ideas for more Democratic compromises, on top of the huge compromises they already made. So what were the Republicans offering to "negotiate"?

Re: Ends?

[NeutronCowboy]

Nope. It's called negotiating with hostage takers 101: you never, ever give them what they want while they're pointing a gun to someone's head. Otherwise, they'll just keep doing it for everything they want.

Re:Ends?

[MightyMartian]

Attempting to tie Obamacare to raising the debt ceiling... Yes, I'm afraid that is the Tea Party's fault, and in their religious zeal to destroy government, all they're doing is fucking up the GOP.

Re: Ends?

[atgaaa]

I agree, the House of Representatives should have refused to negotiate, when the Senate and President threatened to default on the debt, unless the House let them go deeper into debt. Everyone knows there is money to service the debt, without raising the debt ceiling.

Re:Ends?

[atgaaa]

Well, someone should be trying to limit the government, if it is only the tea party doing that, they have my support. Who else would you suggest I support, if I believe in limited government?

Re:Ends?

[quacking duck]

Congratulations! You have correctly absorbed the media's message on this fiasco:

Government shutdown
Democrats in Senate and Democrat President refuse to negotiate
So...It's all the Tea Party Republicans' fault.

See any logical flaws here?

Congratulations! You have correctly absorbed the media's message on this fiasco:

Government shutdown
Democrats in Senate and Democrat President refuse to negotiate
So...It's all the Tea Party Republicans' fault.

See any logical flaws here?

Yes, I see a logical flaw there. You deliberately left out parts of the story to paint the Republicans / TP as innocent bystanders.

The Democrats worked in the spirit of compromise for years on the ACA/Obamacare, and the Republicans / Tea Party took that as a weakness and excuse to demand more concessions and even the total destruction of the ACA.

Finally the Democrats and the President said no more, and gave the Republicans / TP a dose of their own bull-headed, no-compromise medicine. The House Republicans forced a shutdown, and then Boehner exacerbated it by refusing calls for a vote in the House because he knew enough moderate Republicans would vote against the TP extremists, risking civil war within the party.

Then, by waiting for the Senate to work out a bipartisan plan, House Republicans saved face--the moderates could still vote against their TP colleagues without actually opposing anything the TP had put on a bill.

Re:Ends?

[Copid]

"I know it wasn't good that he threatened to blow up the building unless we paid him, but your refusal to pay him not to blow up the building was also a major part of the impasse. Let's admit that there's blame on both sides, so maybe the next time he comes in with a bomb, we can resolve this peacefully."

Re:Ends?

[Copid]

Depends. How much are you willing to subvert the normal democratic process, and how much collateral damage are you willing to do to have your preferences enacted. I'm pretty sure that there are some militia groups you'd be interested in, depending on how little you care about things like "elections" and "voting."

Re:Ends?

[atgaaa]

I am willing to follow the Constitution and the normal processes of the republic outlined in that document, that would include elections and voting. I will support like minded individuals. Based on that, do you have any suggestions?

Re:Ends?

[Copid]

Well, normally your goal should be to get a legislative majority and pass some legislation that repeals the legislation you don't like. Since that hasn't happened, it shouldn't really be all that surprising that the Tea Party types have been unable to get laws repealed, temper tantrums and parliamentary games notwithstanding. If you're in a small enough minority that you can't pass a law the normal way, your only option is to threaten to do something dangerous to force the controlling majority to capitulate. Since that seems to be the way we're going these days, I just thought I'd check in and see how much damage you're willing to threaten to the rest of us to give in to your demands.

If we're all willing to go the, "Do it my way or I'll start breaking shit and ruin it for everybody" direction, there are a lot of fascinating and newsworthy options on the table.

Re: Ends?

[NeutronCowboy]

Splendid display of ignorance.

1) The fight was over a law that had been passed according to the regular process and passed the Supreme Court.
2) The debt ceiling was an automatic event based on a budget that these same people had approved earlier.
3) The people holding up a basic vote of various budgets and debt-ceiling agreements were a small fraction of the Republican caucus, but which managed to convince the leader of the Republican House to not even put anything to a vote that they didn't approve of.

So we have:
1) People trying to do an end-run around the legislative process.
2) People trying to score points by arguing over something that was a direct outcome of their earlier approval.
3) A minority in the House of Representatives trying to impose its will on the majority, not by rational argument, but by procedural shenanigans.

All three points were instigated by Republicans. Specifically, Tea-party republicans. As a result, it was indeed republicans trying to sabotage the legislative process laid down by the founding fathers to advance their pet cause.

Finally, yes, there was money to service the debt. But no one is fooled by shell games on the global market. And no one was fooled by rhetoric that "it's not a default", because everyone knew what not raising the debt limit meant to the functioning of the US government.

But that's what you get when you elect people to government who promise to show how bad government is and to destroy it.

Re:Ends?

[atgaaa]

Ok, good, they already have the legislative majority in the House.
They do have the power to spend (or not) money, under the Constitution, which is what they did offer.
They tried to limit the damage they saw would be caused by Obamacare/ACA.

Then the other side said something like "Do it my way or I'll start breaking shit and ruin it for everybody"
And proceded to try to break and ruin things.

I am willing to cause less damage then I see the government causing now.

Re:Ends?

[Uberbah]

Oct 2008: "You'll never get elected and pass healthcare."

Nov 2008: "We'll never let you pass healthcare."

That's a nice long list. Slight problem: not only did we get health insurance reform instead of health care reform, but what we ended up with was a Republican plan to start with.

Re:Ends?

[Copid]

They do have the power to spend (or not) money, under the Constitution, which is what they did offer.

The ACA was already funded by law, though. It didn't need appropriations in this budget, so they weren't witholding their votes from appropriations for the ACA. The shutdown was over other budgeting for the year's discretionary spending. They had the power to stop this year's discretionary spending, but they would need new legislation to defund the ACA, which they couldn't pass without more support. So they used their power to cause problems elsewhere by defunding whatever they could as a threat to extort everybody else into going with their agenda. They also escalated matters by not raising the debt ceiling and threatening default--something they may or may not have the authority to do, but which also amounts to just threatening chaos because they don't have the votes to pass the laws they want.

Imagine the following:

1) It's 2014. Obama is in the White House, but the 2014 elections were a major defeat for the Democrats.
2) Republicans control every seat in the House. 100% of them.
3) Republicans have 66 seats in the Senate.

The Democrats clearly don't have any business pushing major unilateral policy changes, and they certainly couldn't pass any legislation on their own. Suddenly, Obama announces that unless we implement a full single payer health care system, he will veto ALL military spending and allow our military to collapse. The Senate Democratic minority agrees to support him to prevent the veto override.

It's legal. It's constitutional. Should the Republicans give him some policy concessions to prevent disaster? What precedent does it set, and who should get the blame if the Republicans don't negotiate and Obama follows through? Do Republicans deserve all of the blame? Half? I'd argue that all of the blame would be on Obama and those 34 senators who touched off an artificial crisis in order to extort policy concessions.

Re:Ends?

[atgaaa]

Just to be clear, the debt obligation could have been met. without raising the debt ceiling, it is that sort of misinformation that really bothers me (not directed at you, I mean the media reporting and rhetoric from both sides). Neither side wanted to debate the spending choices if they did not raise the dc, this is where I think they are all grossly irresponsible.

I like your 2014 senerio, I would support the president's and the senates rights to do that, if they believed it was that important. These are the rules they govern under. Would I like it? maybe not, will I call them names for standing up for what they believe? I hope not.
Some people believe the Congress did push a major unilateral policy change, in ACA, that is what this debate was about this week. The damage or benefits of that remain to be seen.

Government is probably the biggest single expenditure in my budget, bigger then my savings, my housing, transportation, or food. I do not think what I (or the rest of humanity) gets for that price, is worth it. The dabate this past week was about how your and my tax money is being spent. I want our government to do a better job with it, and I was glad to see a healthy debate, and get a more clear picture or where are elected representatives stand on the issue of fiscal responsibility.

Re:Ends?

[crimson tsunami]

Oct 2008: "You'll never get elected and pass healthcare."

Nov 2008: "We'll never let you pass healthcare."

That's a nice long list. Slight problem: not only did we get health insurance reform instead of health care reform,

And of course we all know, health insurance reform has no change whatsoever on peoples health care .
Except for people who now get healthcare, people who get cheaper health care etc.

but what we ended up with was a Republican plan to start with.

That just makes the situation worse.
It shows that the republicans were never really against the plan. Just against the government and the economy, to try and score cheap political points and appease some teabaggers.

Re:Ends?

[Copid]

Just to be clear, the debt obligation could have been met. without raising the debt ceiling, it is that sort of misinformation that really bothers me (not directed at you, I mean the media reporting and rhetoric from both sides).

That's a very optimistic way of looking at it. The logistical and legal issues with the Treasury picking and choosing which of our creditors gets paid are enormous. But that's only if you consider "debt" to be bonds and not other obligations like payments owed to contractors and employees. And even that assumes that the payment schedule is such that cashflows can always be managed so that an unimportant payment earlier on doesn't leave you unable to make a more important payment later in the month. And even more importantly, what do the credit markets think of that kind of insane behavior? An abrupt drop in the value of US government debt could trigger a major financial crisis.

I like your 2014 senerio, I would support the president's and the senates rights to do that, if they believed it was that important. These are the rules they govern under.

I suspect that you're a rare bird. For me, the highest principle isn't whatever piddling issue Congress is fighting over today, or even the damage that would be done by a default. The issue for me is that if you start bargaining this way, you abdicate government to whoever is most willing to inflict damage on the country without flinching. The scary question is, what if they don't "believe it was that important"? What if they just know that you are too sane to risk letting them go through with it, so now they can extract whatever they want? What if Obama said he'd tank the military if we didn't send some pork back to his old neighborhood? Rewarding that kind of behavior just encourages more of it, and the final equilibrium is that policy will be made by the craziest and most reckless. It's the proverbial "negotiating with terrorists" problem.

As for the shutdown, I'm a little more sympathetic. At least the continuing resolution is *peripherally* related to broader government funding questions. A shutdown is a good way to make government spending "real" by doing away with it and seeing who screams. But the debt ceiling game was seriously poking at the doomsday button, and only dangerous idealogues and idiots do that. Those aren't the types of people who should be given the keys to the kingdom.

Some people believe the Congress did push a major unilateral policy change, in ACA, that is what this debate was about this week.

I'm not sure what you mean by "unilateral" given that the ACA was passed by the majority of both houses, signed by the President and then survived its first Supreme Court review. That's pretty much how the constitution lays out our democratic process. And that's after the party campaigning for it gained the White House and a majority in both houses. You may not have liked it, but it was hardly a hijacking by a fringe minority. I realize that people do crazy things when they feel like their voices aren't being heard, but the GOP had plenty of time to shape the ACA (or any health care bill in the 15+ years since they killed the previous reform effort with promises to come up with a better solution), and sometimes when you're in the minority, you don't get your way. Threatening to let it all burn is not an adult response to that situation.

I want our government to do a better job with it, and I was glad to see a healthy debate, and get a more clear picture or where are elected representatives stand on the issue of fiscal responsibility.

I really don't consider threatening to create an artificial financial crisis "healthy debate" over policy. Maybe there are people who genuinely believe that a mild, mostly private semi-public health insurance system is the worst thing since Hitler or slavery or whatever. I'm fine with having serious policy discussions with those people. But they have to put the gun down first.

Re:Ends?

[atgaaa]

what gun?
Unilateral, means one sided.
Do I need to get a 2nd account for my phone, too?

Re:Ends?

[Uberbah]

And of course we all know, health insurance reform has no change whatsoever on peoples health care

Is it change worth enrich a corrupt industry that was dying under it's own weight? Change worth establishing the precedent that the public can be forced to buy junk products from for-profit industries? Change worth kicking a public option down the road anther decade at least, and longer than that for single payer?

Except for people who now get healthcare, people who get cheaper health care etc.

On the backs of the poor, in the ultimate form of Lemon Socialism. A working stiff making $22k a year pays the exact same amount in deductibles and copays as a person making $66k per year or a $122k per year. So what's going to happen? The working stiff is going to be paying premiums for care he cannot afford, thus making it cheaper for the middle and upper classes.

This bill comforts the already comforted, while leaving those most in need of help still high and dry.

It shows that the republicans were never really against the plan.

It shows there are huge amounts of partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle. Democrats are hacks for pushing Single Payer for decades, only to hail the Heritage Foundation plan as the greatest thing since Medicare once it was their guy pushing it. And Republicans, who have been trying to push mandates for over 20 years, now scream bloody socialist murder once their own plan was passed by a Democrat.

Re:Ends?

[Uberbah]

The most in need were those who couldn't get or weren't covered, those people are helped.

How is it helping them when they need health care but are forced to first buy insurance instead? Candidate Obama had this right when he was first running for office. People aren't getting health care because they don't have the money. If mandates are a solution to the problem, why not mandate the homeless to buy homes.

yet 33% in the House opposed it

[binarstu]

The bill passed the House, but 144 votes were cast against it -- more than 1/3 of those voting! One can only guess at the careful thought that went into casting those votes. Do these people actually believe that funding "Obamacare" for a few months is worse than letting the federal government default on its loans? There is no acceptable answer to this question. If the answer is "yes," well -- yikes. If the answer is "no," and this is just shameless pandering to the extreme right faction of the GOP/"Tea Party", then -- yikes.

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[Anonymous Coward]

The bill passed the House, but 144 votes were cast against it -- more than 1/3 of those voting! One can only guess at the careful thought that went into casting those votes. Do these people actually believe that funding "Obamacare" for a few months is worse than letting the federal government default on its loans? There is no acceptable answer to this question. If the answer is "yes," well -- yikes. If the answer is "no," and this is just shameless pandering to the extreme right faction of the GOP/"Tea Party", then -- yikes.

Don't fall for that nonsense. People talk, the party whips do what they do. Everyone is reasonably certain of how everyone is going to vote long before the actual event. It can sometimes be beneficial to vote no on something that will assuredly pass, and you may even want passed, merely because voters and donors that care to keep track in such detail want you to vote no.

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[Leuf]

Also 18% of the Senate. They know it has to pass, but they also know there's enough votes to pass it without them. So they get to vote no which is what they think will play the best back in their home district. Sometimes they will even vote yes if it's close and then when there's enough to pass they go back and change it to a no once it's safe to do it.

In the same way, Ted Cruz was all about the filibuster when doing so was completely meaningless but tonight when given the opportunity to actually filibuster he instead just whined for a minute and then made a completely meaningless no vote, like the little bitch that he is.

Not a one of them actually cares about the debt or health care (okay, maybe Rand Paul), only their own careers.

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[sjames]

Actually, if you'll read to the bottom of your link, Obama freely admits that he was voting for political reasons and he has now come to understand that it was the wrong way to go. Yes, a politician admitted he was wrong once. AMAZING!

At the same time, he has at least reduced the deficit indicating willingness and ability to work in that direction for the good of the country.

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[Anonymous Coward]

One can only guess at the careful thought that went into casting those votes. Do these people actually believe that funding "Obamacare" for a few months is worse than letting the federal government default on its loans?

I do.

Look, we're going to default eventually. It's going to happen. Better to have let the federal government default and kill Obamacare once and for all so we can start rebuilding America now than to let it continue to fester and making things even worse.

I'm extremely disappointed in GOP leadership over this. They've failed they constituents and they've failed America.

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[dbc]

Voting against is for the contituents back home. The party whip knows how to count votes. Those who most needed to vote against this in order to get re-elected were allowed to vote against it. Don't read too much into it.

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[drawfour]

Well, Cruz could have tried to filibuster, but with 60 votes needed to end the filibuster, and 81 people voting for the bill, it seems likely that it would have ended 1 minute after it began.

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[Mitreya]

Obama freely admits that he was voting for political reasons and he has now come to understand that it was the wrong way to go. Yes, a politician admitted he was wrong once. AMAZING!

This does not count for shit, until a politician ACTS to right a wrongdoing. If a politician does something wrong, then admits it to be "wrong" but makes no effort to fix it, that hardly changes the outcome.

If you look at Obama's speeches (particularly the ones before the election), you would be far more impressed than based on his actual performance in the office.

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[sumdumass]

Ted cruise never filibustered anything on this. That was only a mass media explaination of what was happening during his speech. The fact of the matter is that Reid gave him 18 hours on the floor to make his case and the time limit was prearranged.

Check the senate record if you don't believe me. Chech the end of his dpeech where reid asked him if he would yeild 15 minutes to mccain if he gave him another hour and Cruze said no, the deal was made and he would follow it.

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[evilviper]

The bill passed the House, but 144 votes were cast against it -- more than 1/3 of those voting! One can only guess at the careful thought that went into casting those votes.

If they needed more Republican votes, there would have been more Republican votes. EVERYONE voting knew exactly how many votes it was going to get, and the leaders made sure the numbers were up to snuff before bringing it to the floor. The Republicans offered just enough votes to get it passed, while the rest played dumb so they could go on Fox News and continue to rant about how much they hate Obama, without taking any responsibility for this vote.

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[Pseudonym Authority]

This does not count for shit, until a politician ACTS to right a wrongdoing. If a politician does something wrong, then admits it to be "wrong" but makes no effort to fix it, that hardly changes the outcome.

So what's he have to do? Get elected president and oppose the debt ceiling or something?

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[Magius_AR]

Do these people actually believe that funding "Obamacare" for a few months is worse than letting the federal government default on its loans? There is no acceptable answer to this question. If the answer is "yes," well -- yikes. If the answer is "no," and this is just shameless pandering to the extreme right faction of the GOP/"Tea Party", then -- yikes.

The "default" talk is overblown. Failure to raise the debt limit wouldn't have been the armageddon you people seem to think it would be. Moreover, the reason 144 people voted against it is because they didn't get a single damn concession, as usual. As they feel that if they didn't get them now after all this pain, they certainly won't get it in February, when public pressure will be significantly against engaging in another shutdown. I might also add the "defunding Obamacare" demand was dropped very early in the negotiations. By the end, they were just looking for either Obamacare reform, or entitlement reform (two things they've been seeking for a very very long time that Democrats have never been willing to entertain).

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[khallow]

Actually, if you'll read to the bottom of your link, Obama freely admits that he was voting for political reasons and he has now come to understand that it was the wrong way to go. Yes, a politician admitted he was wrong once. AMAZING!

He lies well, doesn't he? He became the president of the US on the strength of those "political reasons" so no matter how wrong he claims to understand himself to be, I see no reason to expect him to act differently should the occasion arise again.

This reminds me of the event that turned me off of Obama in the first place. After he secured the Democrat nomination in 2008, he promptly turned around and dropped his opposition to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Everyone expects some "triangulation" to the center, but the brazenness and complete lack of contrition of the turnaround is what got me, The moment the deal was sealed, he dropped the stance that won him the nomination, issued a perfunctory excuse (just as he did above), and moved on.

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[sjames]

I am also deeply disappointed by his performance on issues of domestic spying and the general excesses of the terror panic.

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[Valdrax]

Party whips are near powerless compared to the past in the current environment because of changes to eliminate earmarks and favoritism in the selection of committee members and chairs. The whip cracks the other way today, as seen by Boehner's actions over the past few crises.

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Concessions? For what, funding the government?

How would that be a compromise? The Democrats would get something they want (a funded government), but have to support something they didn't want (defunding/reforming/neutering Obamacare). The Republicans would get something they want (defunding/reforming/neutering Obamacare), but have to support something they didn't want (a funded government)? Or are you saying that it would only really be a compromise on the part of Democrats, or basically that the Republicans should get what they want without any real concessions?

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[Magius_AR]

Concessions? For what, funding the government?

Yes, for funding the government, as has been done many times before in the past w/ respect to increasing the debt limit. It's particularly relevant considering the Dems spent the past half decade spending like sailors on shore leave (including on their beloved Obamacare, and Obama's tax cuts, and entitlements, which are all the primary drivers of our current debt).

Or are you saying that it would only really be a compromise on the part of Democrats, or basically that the Republicans should get what they want without any real concessions?

I'm saying that the Republicans never get concessions, and frankly are due. They've been asking for entitlement reform for forever, for instance. When Obama did the exact same budget bravado in December, the Republicans caved on their #1 "golden cow" and allowed tax hikes. Yet the promised entitlement conversation never followed.

The Dems are remarkably good at steering public dialogue to make it appear that the Republicans are "getting something, but just whining about not getting enough", when in reality the Dems are pretty much getting practically everything they want, while refusing to put anything on the table of actual relevance (as an example: the Dems get a new massive entitlement program not seen since the New Deal, and the Republicans in return get "some piddly discretionary cuts that don't even dent the deficit"). That's the problem.

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Yes, for funding the government, as has been done many times before in the past w/ respect to increasing the debt limit. It's particularly relevant considering the Dems spent the past half decade spending like sailors on shore leave (including on their beloved Obamacare, and Obama's tax cuts, and entitlements, which are all the primary drivers of our current debt).

Yes, like sailors on shore leave, unlike the preceding administration's fiscal responsibility with things like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the "Bush tax cuts", Medicare Part D, which make the current "spending spree" seem like austerity.

I'm saying that the Republicans never get concessions, and frankly are due. They've been asking for entitlement reform for forever, for instance.

Much like Democrats have been asking for single payer healthcare, a significant reduction in military spending, and a repeal of the second amendment. I got news for you: it's not happening, and simply asking for the same thing over and over again isn't going to make it any more palatable to the voting public.

That's the problem.

The problem is that people keep voting for Democrats and Republicans. Both sides are equally guilty of sucking ass.

Re:yet 33% in the House opposed it

[Magius_AR]

Yes, like sailors on shore leave, unlike the preceding administration's fiscal responsibility with things like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the "Bush tax cuts", Medicare Part D, which make the current "spending spree" seem like austerity.

Expenses that are all already gone. The current budget no longer has a significant Iraq/Afghan expense. The Bush temporary tax cuts have expired. So no, I'm afraid you're incorrect. The current administration's permanent tax cuts plus permanent Obamacare/entitlement expansion are way more damaging to our budget, and have contributed far more to the deficit to date. And I never recall supporting the previous administration either. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Much like Democrats have been asking for single payer healthcare, a significant reduction in military spending, and a repeal of the second amendment

The Dems couldn't even get their own party behind single payer, so you lose there.

Military spending has already seen a significant reduction. The wars have been wound down, the sequester has hit them hard, and projected growth is flat. On top of that, defense spending is at an all time low: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Defense_Spending_-_percent_to_Outlays.png
You guys really need to learn to get your news from someone other than Stewart/Colbert.

Regarding the repeal of the 2nd amendment, please -- like that's in any way comparable to requests for entitlement reform?

I got news for you: it's not happening, and simply asking for the same thing over and over again isn't going to make it any more palatable to the voting public.

Incorrect, the voting public wants entitlement reform: http://www.people-press.org/2011/07/07/public-wants-changes-in-entitlements-not-change-in-benefits/

Between people who want "major change" in the program or a "complete rebuild", a plurality of the nation wants substantial change to those programs Once again, get out of your echo chamber. The only people it isn't palatable to are liberals afraid of losing votes.

Tea party is like a dolphin

[Anonymous Coward]

Cames out of the water, makes a mummery, and then goes to the bottom again...

Now it gets worse.

[ulatekh]

The federal government is still spending far more than it's taking in, and seems to have little to show for it.

We're not even borrowing the money any more; the Federal Reserve just changes a number in a computer to create more money, then lends it to the U.S. government at near-zero interest.

This is a shell game of the highest magnitude, and all historical precedents point to this ending badly.

Federal spending has to be brought under control. It appears there's no will in our so-called leaders to do so. A shutdown and default, despite the chaos it would lead to, would have stopped the out-of-control spending. I would like to think there's another way to get federal spending under control, but I'm not that gullible.

This was a chance to stop the hemorrhaging. This chance is gone. The problem will only get worse.

And if you think there's something special about the United States that'll keep it from collapsing like so many other empires in history...I hope you're right. But I'm still constructing my compound on raw land in the middle of nowhere.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[NoKaOi]

This was a chance to stop the hemorrhaging.

No, it wasn't. This was a manipulation tactic by a minority group of legislators to change the law even though they knew they couldn't really change the law legally (they tried and failed) and knew their tactic had no chance of success anyway. That they were able to do this points to a systematic problem that will only get worse. That they hemorrhaging resources into the military (see: Roman Empire) is only a symptom of that systematic corruption.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[maccodemonkey]

This was a chance to stop the hemorrhaging. This chance is gone. The problem will only get worse.

It was not a reasonable amount of time to put together a balanced budget. One does not convince others their roof needs fixing by setting their house on fire.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[dbc]

I agree with you on all points but one -- this wasn't really a chance to stop the crazy. The budget is too out of control to come up with a fix in a few days. It is going to take a very difficult debate among the entire electorate to decide which sacred cows are going to be slaughtered. It has gotten to the point where no politician is willing to bring the subject up because everyone is going to feel some very real pain in order to solve all of this.

It is going to get ugly, without a doubt. The sooner it is tackled, the less ugly it will be. I think it is a 70/30 chance to be bloody, as well.

Everyone who remembers the great depression is at least in their eighties, and they were just children then. Ask them what it was like in order to prepare yourself. Those days were ugly, and we may see a repeat. Only this time, instead of 50% of the population being rural/farm and having the ability to at least grow a garden for their own food, today only 1% of the population lives on farms and 99% is at the end of a food supply chain with a 5 day buffer. Just a few days ago EBT went out in a few states for a couple of days and we came close to food riots. The only reason we didn't have actual riots is that WalMart let people simply shoplift any food they wanted.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[sumdumass]

What do you mean they couldn't change the law legally? The elected government can change any law, even the constitution. What they did wad completely legal and by design. What they aldo did was failed in changing the law but sbsolutely nothing about it was illegal.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[LandDolphin]

What he means is that they've tried to change the law (The ACA) through legislative means 41 times and failed each time. So they attached their failed legislation to a budget bill hoping to force it down. They failed.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[Tablizer]

Federal spending has to be brought under control.

Austerity did not work for Hoover, nor Europe recently. It just makes the problem worse. You cannot pay off debt if the economy remains in a slump. Keynesian policy may be counter-intuitive to some, but some things in life are like that. At least pick the middle ground if you hate stimuluses.

the Federal Reserve just changes a number in a computer to create more money,

If it were the case that it was being overdone, then our inflation rate would be higher than it is. Our inflation rate should be higher to encourage the rich to spend their cash instead of sitting on it waiting for better times. About 2.2% would be nice, but we are at about 1.7% right now (annually adjusted, smoothed over several months).

I realize there is risk either way, but history tends to favor stimuluses over austerity during prolonged slumps. I'll go with the horse with the better record.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[Vaphell]

the rich have the stock market to park their money on, what do the poor have? It's not like the will get a raise any time soon to offset the ballooning costs of living.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[evilviper]

It is going to get ugly, without a doubt. The sooner it is tackled, the less ugly it will be.

Slashing the budget during a recession with already-high unemployment is a GREAT way to drive us into a real depression. So yes, doing this soon is a TERRIBLE idea. It needs to wait until the economy is growing.

Everyone who remembers the great depression is at least in their eighties, and they were just children then. Ask them what it was like in order to prepare yourself. Those days were ugly, and we may see a repeat.

I agree... If we follow your idiotic advice, that's exactly what we'll get.

Only this time, instead of 50% of the population being rural/farm and having the ability to at least grow a garden for their own food, today only 1% of the population lives on farms

So, I take it you've never read or watched "The Grapes of Wrath", and have never heard of The Dust Bowl? Farms didn't save the US from the depression AT ALL. Roosevelt's government programs did...

Re:Now it gets worse.

[TheRaven64]

And does cutting government services help the poor? The rich can typically opt out of them: send their children to private schools, buy private security, pay someone to take their rubbish away, drink bottled water, go abroad for heath care, and even use stock and currency markets so that they're not reliant on a single government's currency.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[swillden]

It is going to get ugly, without a doubt. The sooner it is tackled, the less ugly it will be.

Slashing the budget during a recession with already-high unemployment is a GREAT way to drive us into a real depression. So yes, doing this soon is a TERRIBLE idea. It needs to wait until the economy is growing.

At which point we'll make some token efforts that will look good for a little while because the healthier economy will provide greater tax revenue... until the next downturn. It'll be just like the deficit reduction of the Clinton era, and do nothing to really fix the systemic problems. At the end of the day the federal government needs to dramatically slash expenditures or increase taxes -- or, probably, both.

Farms didn't save the US from the depression AT ALL. Roosevelt's government programs did...

There is a large and increasing number of economists who disagree, at least with respect to FDR's labor programs. There's a good argument to be made that the New Deal deepened and lengthened the depression. FDR's fiscal reforms were probably correct, and the labor programs did have the beneficial effect of building a lot of great infrastructure (though much of it not economically productive, e.g. national parks), but it seems likely that the private sector would have recovered much faster and unemployment would never have gotten as severe as it did without them.

There's also a counterargument, but it's based mostly on the psychology of economics, not economics itself. That is that while the New Deal's labor policies were bad for the economy they gave people hope, which increased spending and were therefore good for the economy. But the Keynesian notion that the federal spending directly helped to solve the problems is pretty much dead, and has been for decades.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[darkstar949]

I agree with you on all points but one -- this wasn't really a chance to stop the crazy. The budget is too out of control to come up with a fix in a few days. It is going to take a very difficult debate among the entire electorate to decide which sacred cows are going to be slaughtered. It has gotten to the point where no politician is willing to bring the subject up because everyone is going to feel some very real pain in order to solve all of this.

The biggest sacred cow to fix the federal deficits would be to just reform the tax code and actually have more revenue coming in than is being spent. Discretionary spending is only 30% of the budget with 6%, 64% is mandatory spending and the interest on the debt is only 6%. Even if you cut the discretionary spending completely (ignoring the revenue issues due to that workforce being laid off) you still aren't going to close the gap completely. Tax breaks, on the other hand, are currently $1.18 trillion dollars which is more than the discretionary budget.

Once you have the federal deficits taken care of you can just pretty much let the budget cost on cruise control since your principle shouldn't be getting any bigger at that point. Granted between months in the year you might see some nominal increases in the debt due to short term bonds being sold to smooth out the bumps in the revenue caused by how taxes are filed, in the long run even that would go away if a nice âoerainy day fundâ and âoebufferâ account was established.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[Eunuchswear]

the rich have the stock market to park their money on, what do the poor have?

By definition the poor don't have to worry about where to park their money. They spend it.

It's not like the will get a raise any time soon to offset the ballooning costs of living.

Why not? If they don't get a raise they should just eat their bosses.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[_Sharp'r_]

What he means is that they've tried to change the law (The ACA) through legislative means 41 times and failed each time. So they attached their failed legislation to a budget bill hoping to force it down. They failed.

That's factually inaccurate, since that "41" count includes many bills that actually succeeded in repealing parts of the law , like the 1099 regulations and the unworkable CLASS program. So "failed each time" doesn't exactly match reality does it? Of course, if you counted only the times they tried to repeal the entire law, then you'd have to cite a much tinier number that wouldn't be as useful for propaganda purposes.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[khallow]

Austerity did not work for Hoover, nor Europe recently. It just makes the problem worse.

I don't see the evidence for that. Keep in mind that a country has to be pretty desperate to get forced into austerity in the first place.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[dbc]

It is going to get ugly, without a doubt. The sooner it is tackled, the less ugly it will be.

Slashing the budget during a recession with already-high unemployment is a GREAT way to drive us into a real depression. So yes, doing this soon is a TERRIBLE idea. It needs to wait until the economy is growing.

Everyone who remembers the great depression is at least in their eighties, and they were just children then. Ask them what it was like in order to prepare yourself. Those days were ugly, and we may see a repeat.

I agree... If we follow your idiotic advice, that's exactly what we'll get.

What advice did I give, exactly? You'll have to tell me, because I don't think I gave any, except to say that the problem needs to be tackled in a deliberate manner.

Only this time, instead of 50% of the population being rural/farm and having the ability to at least grow a garden for their own food, today only 1% of the population lives on farms

So, I take it you've never read or watched "The Grapes of Wrath", and have never heard of The Dust Bowl? Farms didn't save the US from the depression AT ALL. Roosevelt's government programs did...

Again, who said farms saved us from the depression? Only an idiot could think that. That did not happen at all. Farms allowed people to subsist, instead of starve at the end of a broken supply chain. Don't have that luxury this time.

I didn't need to read Grapes of Wrath (although I have). I have a rancher/neighbor who *lived* it. He is a genuine Okie who travelled back and forth between Oklahoma and California, and worked the farm fields. My own father had a farm in the midwest, where men came by daily and begged to be allowed to work there in return for one meal a day and the right to sleep in the hay barn.

Your reading skills are pretty sloppy. Go back and reread what I really said. Between your projecting and bizarre parsing, you missed most of it the first time.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[jdogalt]

Federal spending has to be brought under control. It appears there's no will in our so-called leaders to do so.

Obligatory "Starve The Beast" link. Neocons and others are so god damned crazy that responsible accounting, the likes of which most high school students could comprehend (aiming for lack of debt, cuz like, it's better to have money than to owe it), will probably not return to our leadership until the "ending badly" you spoke of comes even more to pass than it already has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

Re:Now it gets worse.

[avandesande]

When spending outruns GDP you are headed for catastrophe, it's a mathematical fact.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[tbannist]

The Republicans in congress can't change the law legally, because they don't have the votes in the Senate to get it passed, or the votes in Congress to overrule a presidential veto. Despite knowing this, they've tried 42 times to get rid of the Affordable Care Act.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[Tablizer]

The worse unemployment ever in the US, about 25%, was under Hoover's austerity programs. (Hoover eventually started public works programs toward the very end of his tenure.) When the public works programs ended around 1937, unemployment crept back up, and were restarted (at which point the war started soon after). The employment graph of the 1930's is roughly "M" shaped, and the downward slopes happen to line up with public works programs.

And recently UK tried an austerity program, but their economy remained in a rut. Under Obama's stimulus, our economy performed noticeably better than UK's. True, many different things are going on at the same time, but if you look at all the attempts at austerity, they either make the problem worse or don't do anything for the economy in the shorter term.

The best time to fix debt is during the good times, not the bad times. (Ideally a safety margin should be built up, but US squandered that in the 2000's with war, tax-cuts, and pork.)

Re:Now it gets worse.

[Tablizer]

Unemployment dropped from about 24% to 12% after the public works programs began. There were no significant public works programs until the very end of Hoover's term. If there was government spending going on, it wasn't on public works. The increase in debt during the middle of Hoover appeared to be because of mostly the shrinking GDP and less tax revenue, not more spending. Remember, the debt as % GDP is a combo of 3 factors: GDP level, tax revenue, and gov't spending. An increase in debt % by itself does not mean more spending.

The public works programs are not the only explanation for the drop in UE, but so far the best. And UE started going right back up to around 18% after most public works programs ended around 1937. They were rekindled and UE again went back down to around 12% (just before war broke out).

Re:Now it gets worse.

[Tablizer]

If austerity stalls your economy, you are contributing to the catastrophe. It is a delicate balancing act, but austerity appears to be the greater evil.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[khallow]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. I consider people in "public works" unemployed. They just aren't counted as such.

The best time to fix debt is during the good times, not the bad times.

Some entities just don't fix debt during the good times. Then it becomes a matter of fixing them when they have no choice.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[khallow]

That "if" is a particularly large obstacle.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[Tablizer]

In the US:
1934
1938
1942 (war spending = stimu)
1983 (military boom = stimu)

Re:Now it gets worse.

[Uberbah]

When spending outruns GDP you are headed for catastrophe, it's a mathematical fact.

Debunked 20 years ago in Japan. Mathematically.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[Uberbah]

I don't see the evidence for that.

It's hard to get a man to understand something when his ideology is dependent on his not understanding it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. I consider people in "public works" unemployed. They just aren't counted as such.

Nice clown shoes you got there.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[evilviper]

At which point we'll make some token efforts that will look good for a little while because the healthier economy will provide greater tax revenue... until the next downturn.

That's a legitimate concern, but slashing and burning the fed now, at the worst possible time, and destroying the economy in the process, is still a HORRID idea, and past mistakes won't make it cease to be a horrible idea.

If GW had lost in 2000, we'd certainly be in a far better position, now... Al Gore's "lock box" would have paid down the debt further, rather than increasing it by leaps and bounds like GW. Only having a single war, instead of two at a time, would have developed far less of a hole for us to get out of. And the lack of a tax cut on the rich would have kept far more revenue flowing in before the crash. Who knows, his administration might even have gotten a handle on the housing and financial bubble before it burst, but that bit is just speculation.

My point being, the ones yelling loudest about how we need to reduce our deficit, are the ones that repeatedly voted to grow it the most, didn't pay it down when they could have, and put us in this unnecessarily deep hole.

There is a large and increasing number of economists who disagree

There are always conservative shills, but everything they have to say has been flatly discounted by the facts decisively and repeatedly for decades. There is no truth to their claims, and they know it as well as anyone.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[evilviper]

What advice did I give, exactly? You'll have to tell me, because I don't think I gave any, except to say that the problem needs to be tackled in a deliberate manner.

No, you specifically said: "sooner", which you conveniently left out this time, in a sad and transparent attempt to backpedal.

Farms allowed people to subsist, instead of starve at the end of a broken supply chain.

Except they absolutely did NOT. Farmers were in the worst position of all, and made up a huge number of those that were completely starving, until government programs came along to rescue them.

My own father had a farm in the midwest, where men came by daily and begged to be allowed to work there in return for one meal a day and the right to sleep in the hay barn.

That's absolutely not unique to farms at all. The starving would make the same offers at any and every private home they came across, too, and they similarly got a meal.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[khallow]

Where's the evidence? I just hear complaining from lazy people who can't be bothered to provide evidence for their dogmatic assertions.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[avandesande]

Japan/China buttressed by Dollar debasement and deficit spending. It will end eventually.

Re:Now it gets worse.

[sumdumass]

They can't change the law illegally either. But none of that bars them from attempting to change the law does it? There is only a few ways to change a law, all of them are legal so adding legally suggests something illegal which isn't the case. Even if something is voted down in the house of representatives, it is still not illegal to bring it back up for a vote. Of course the house has rules to how often failed legislation can be brought to the floor but even those rules are somewhat flexible.

Oh, Barak. . .

[jafac]

When asked as he left the podium whether he believed America would be going through all this political turmoil again in a few months, the President didn't waste words. "No."'"

. . . still naive.

Re:Oh, Barak. . .

[phantomfive]

Yeah, hard to believe we won't be going through this turmoil. Especially since he played almost no part in it until the end, when he signed the bill.

Re:Oh, Barak. . .

[guises]

No. I'm sure this will happen again, but it will not be soon. This was humiliating for the Republicans - a grand display with nothing to show for it. They won't bring it up again this year.

The sad thing is that it's embarrassment, not the thousands of people who have lost their jobs over this, not the $24 billion lost from the economy, that will make them pause when they consider doing this again in the future.

Re:Oh, Barak. . .

[Cro Magnon]

No. I'm sure this will happen again, but it will not be soon. This was humiliating for the Republicans - a grand display with nothing to show for it. They won't bring it up again this year.

True. Jan 15 2014 is next year.

Re:Oh, Barak. . .

[fldsofglry]

No. I'm sure this will happen again, but it will not be soon. This was humiliating for the Republicans - a grand display with nothing to show for it. They won't bring it up again this year.

I see what you did there. A new deadline has been set for January 15th-ish.

Re:Oh, Barak. . .

[quacking duck]

When asked as he left the podium whether he believed America would be going through all this political turmoil again in a few months, the President didn't waste words. "No."'"

. . . still naive.

More like playing to the media. Much like asking any athlete after a playoff game loss whether they still have a chance to come back... only rarely will you get an honest answer, and when it happened recently (down 3-1 in a best-of-7, captain's answer as "probably not") the media raked him over the coals for being defeatist and having no confidence in his team.

Short version: the media, both sports and politics, ask some really stupid questions.

postpone the inevitable

[johnsnails]

postpone the inevitable... Come January it will all have to happen again. Nothing has been fixed, US still has a spending problem.

Re:postpone the inevitable

[LandDolphin]

Yeah it does... It's Three Biggest offenders are: The Military, Social Security, and Medicare.

Any real spending cuts would have to come from those three sources.

Re:postpone the inevitable

[darkstar949]

Nothing has been fixed, US still has a spending problem.

I'd argue that we have a spending problem and a revenue problem. Think of it this way, if you were trying to pay all of you debts off, would you quit your job and find a lower paying one or would you get a second job to until things are paid off?

Re:postpone the inevitable

[Eunuchswear]

Nothing has been fixed, US still has a spending problem.

No, it doesn't.

It has a governance problem.

Re:postpone the inevitable

[Cro Magnon]

I'd argue that we have a spending problem and a revenue problem. Think of it this way, if you were trying to pay all of you debts off, would you quit your job and find a lower paying one or would you get a second job to until things are paid off?

Hopefully, I'd quit, or at least slow down on buying everything in sight on credit.

Re:Stupid question from a European

[phantomfive]

Why exactly is providing healthcare to all people so bad?

Different Republicans oppose Obamacare for various reasons, some more entertaining than others:

1) It's the road through socialism to full Soviet communism where Obama wants to take us (really, that's what some think).
2) Giving poor people everything they need creates a culture of dependency, and traps those people who receive welfare into poverty (this is IMO more a problem of aligning incentives properly: you need to make sure the system is set up in a way that people are motivated to get off welfare).
3) Some Republicans think we SHOULD provide healthcare to poor people, but shouldn't force people to take buy insurance (people should have the right to make bad decisions, let them die).
4) Some Republicans think healthcare reform is a good idea, but that the details of Obamacare are what make it a bad system (both Romney and McCain fall into this category, at least on the surface).
5) Some think we should provide subsidies for people who can't pay for healthcare themselves, but that we should use a market based system (which generally involves getting rid of regulations, for better or worse).

I'm not sure how many people think we should not actually help poor people out with healthcare (especially once "welfare queens" are gotten rid of). It would be interesting if someone did a survey on that topic.

Re:As the saying goes...

[CaptQuark]

And nothing of value was lost. Or gained.

Nothing was lost? All the work that the government workers could have been doing during the shutdown was lost. All the revenue from the National Parks were lost. Two weeks food inspections, drug inspections, VA claims processing were lost . Worldwide confidence in the US and the US dollar was lost. US credit rating was compromised with the possibility of higher interest rates on new deficit. Scientific tests will have to be thrown out and restarted.

You might not be personally affected, but plenty of money and confidence has been lost during the past three weeks.

~~

Vote out ALL the incumbents!

[linebackn]

But just watch as election time rolls around. Everyone will have forgotten about this mess, likely focusing on some new manufactured crisis. And even then it will still be a choice between Kang and Kodos.

You know, if you or I threatened to shut down the government we would instantly be thrown in Guantanamo or gunned down by capitol police. But somehow these terrorists that occupy the White House can get away with this nonsense and even expect us to praise them for coming to an "agreement" at the last minute?

Re:Vote out ALL the incumbents!

[celle]

You know, if you or I threatened to shut down the government we would instantly be thrown in Guantanamo or gunned down by capitol police. But somehow these terrorists that occupy the 'Congress, Supreme Court, and the' White House can get away with this nonsense and even expect us to praise them for coming to an "agreement" at the last minute?

Fixed that for you!!

Re:Vote out ALL the incumbents!

[Bite The Pillow]

Your only method to shut down the government requires force or trespass. The people you complain about need only inaction. These things are vastly different, making your analogy horseshit.
Please try harder to make useful contributions. Additional deductions for stating conventional wisdom, D minus. The last 20 words weren't so bad.

Re:Non-Partisan Democracy

[Z00L00K]

I agree, but you may at least patch it to be the next best level by at least provide a proportional election system to the House and possibly also to the Senate.

That would at least make it less likely to create deadlocks like this and also make extreme voices like the Tea Party less prominent.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Stupid question from a European

[Qzukk]

Why exactly is providing healthcare to all people so bad?

I don't think it's all that bad. What we've got, though, is providing health insurance to all people. The difference isn't readily apparent unless you've actually had to use it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Government spending is not out of control

[Anonymous Coward]

No, goverment spending is not out of control. The deficit was basically already taking care of itself since the economy has been getting better.

Government spending actually needs to be higher rather than lower right now. The government can borrow at negative real interest rates, and inflation is near zero. Under those conditions, we should buy nice things for our children (things like transportation improvements)

It wasnt me...

[pgnas]

President Obama, 'It wasnt me'...

• Government Shutdown: "Washington needs to get out of the habit of governing by crisis" , blame Washington
• Weak employment number s, Blame Congress , forget the fact that the democrats have 40 job creation bills they haven't acted on.
• The Economy is sluggish , blame the Europe..
• Structural Problems are preventing economic growth: its the ATM Machines in airport Kiosks
• Businesses have lost their edge causing slow job growth, blame the American Businesses , forget tax hikes and regulations imposed by the administration
• US Economy is slow and jobs are not on the rise, blame High Energy Prices lets not talk about opposition to the American Energy Initiative, Shutting down Coal Production. After all Nuclear Power is the way to go... just ask Japan.
• Debt ceiling, spending out of control. blame republicans, blame congress. Wait.. doesnt the President sign all those spending bills?

Failure is an opportunity.
If you blame someone else,
there is no end to the blame.

Therefore the Master
fulfills her own obligations
and corrects her own mistakes.
She does what she needs to do
and demands nothing of others.

--Lao Tzu

I think the problem we are facing is a lack of good leadership.

Re:It wasnt me...

[R3d M3rcury]

forget the fact that the democrats have 40 job creation bills [majorityleader.gov]they haven't acted on.

Check out some of these "Job Creation Bills"

H.J. Resolution 37, where, "“Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices" Yup, real job builder there.

House Resolution 2018, which seeks "to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State's water quality standards, and for other purposes." Wow, that'll create a bunch of jobs right there!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

153 GOP voted to default

[goombah99]

At the end of the day here's the bottom line: 144 congressmen all GOP voted to default the government. 14 senators, all Republican, including Ron Paul, voted No, and one abstained, effectively voting to default the government.

I'm so done with Ron Paul. I wish he would resign. I feel ill that I ever voted for the man.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Anonymous Coward]

It was Rand Paul and not Ron Paul. I'm not sure if you just made a mistake or didn't know. Ron Paul is retired and never held a Senate seat. Rand Paul is his son.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[LandDolphin]

How are you surprised that he voted no?

He didn't vote to defund the government, he voted to end all government spending except for essential operations, including paying debt. HE voted true to his mindset and word. IF you canceled Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and reduced the military to a few special ops. teams, there would be more then enough money to stary paying off the debt and no need to default.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[bfandreas]

Wrong Paul. Please pardon the pun.

What amazes me is that those people seriously considered a situation that could have had a devastating economical effect on the US. Things like this cause nations to implode. A bankrupt, non-functional state has time and again led to violent overthrow and civil war. This is what their game of chicken was risking. And when you listen to some of their backers they would welcome this in the hopes to build a different state from the ashes. Only their vision is really frightening.

And yet come next election they will present themselves on TV spots with flowing stars&stripes banner and parade their patriotism in front of everybody who is stupid enough to believe in it.

I feel our definitions of patriotism differ substantially.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[chill]

You know, I'm not sure which would be worse. You being from Kentucky and not knowing *RAND* Paul is Senator and not a Congressman -- much less a different person from *RON* Paul.

Or you being from Texas and not knowing Ron Paul is retired and no longer serving in Congress. Randy Weber is now the Representative from the 14th District.

My guess is you're from neither place and just pig ignorant.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[XaXXon]

once it's passed, all the other votes are just for show.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[MickLinux]

Defaulting the government may actually have been a good thi\g: it could have stopped the juggernaut. I for one had about 4500 dollars tied up still in a tax refund, about equal to my liquid assets (and the variance for our family of six, from paycheck to check is $2000) . I was happy to see the National government stay closed, even with that significant loss.

Regardless whether you think default would be good, the ability to default was absolutely necessary to prevent our national government from breaking completely away from its democratic moorings. When all the functions of government, from setting up departments to writing law, to enforcement and trials are performed by unelected --APPOINTED!!-- civil servants who are paid vastly more than those they "serve", the power to halt the spending is the last control.

Constitutionally,this bill, which now makes the issuing of debt automated, is illegal. But we haven't paid any attention to that old, dead document for fifty years.

This bill was a disaster. Watch what happens next. I don't know what, but the next twenty years should make it obvious.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[hairyfish]

Except you've just added a half million more people to the unemployment line. And those people used to pay tax, and each and every dollar they spent generated tax revenue too. Austerity doesn't work.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[SJHillman]

Senators are still Congressmen... I think you meant Representative or House Elf.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[SJHillman]

The question is whether reps should vote for what's for the best for everyone or for what their constituents voted them in for. Many of the GOP that started this were voted in on the promise to try and stop Obamacare no matter what it takes (which, in turn, is what won them the House to begin with)... so it turns out they're actually upholding their campaign promises.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[DarkOx]

What amazes me is that those people seriously considered a situation that could have had a devastating economical effect on the US.

You could say the very same thing about any big legislation. Many people myself included think this healthcare reform might have devastating long term economic effects on our nation yet it was considered and passed

Things like this cause nations to implode. A bankrupt, non-functional state has time and again led to violent overthrow and civil war.

Citation please, when has this happened in recent history exactly? Ecuador, and Iceland both defaulted and both again have access to credit and both economies are at least arguably the better for it. The world does not look like it did 70 years ago all indications point to the rules having changed somewhat.

This is what their game of chicken was risking. And when you listen to some of their backers they would welcome this in the hopes to build a different state from the ashes.

Again citation please, who exactly has called for building a different state from the ashes? Anyone actually in the House or Senate? Anyone who is a top line political contributor? or did you just mean well some commentators on Slashdot?

Only their vision is really frightening.

Many say the same about those currently in power.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[camperdave]

I feel ill that I ever voted for the man.

I thought you were supposed to vote for policies and platforms, not people (or parties)

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[RabidReindeer]

Well <quack>Government doesn't create jobs</quack> so obviously all those people not working are imaginary.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[danaris]

What amazes me is that those people seriously considered a situation that could have had a devastating economical effect on the US.

You could say the very same thing about any big legislation. Many people myself included think this healthcare reform might have devastating long term economic effects on our nation yet it was considered and passed

No, that's really not true.

First of all, according to nonpartisan estimates, the ACA will reduce the deficit. But let's ignore that for the moment and assume that you're correct that it will raise the cost of government by a significant amount.

If that happens, how could we possibly solve such a problem? Could it be that we could...pass a law raising taxes? From their current historically low levels, particularly as a fraction of GDP? And particularly on the super-wealthy?

If I'm reading you right, what you're actually saying is that the ACA will cost money to implement, and cost money into the future as well. But you know what? Doing stuff for people costs money. Helping poor people costs money. Fixing the worst economic downturn and the worst economic inequalities in decades costs money. And I don't mean "costs money that we have to give to the super-wealthy, so they'll be even more super-wealthy." Trickle-down economics is a pretty solidly discredited theory by this point. Empirical evidence just doesn't bear it out.

And if you're one of the "all taxation is theft types," well, then, just screw you. You want to go live in a tax-free wilderness off the fruit of your own labour and no one else's, I suggest you up stakes and find some place in northern Canada without another soul for 50 miles in any direction, because anywhere in this country, you're already benefiting from the results of taxation. It was well over 100 years ago that Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr famously said, "I like taxes. With them, I buy civilization." And that's pretty much the way it works: If you want civilization, if you want to live as part of a society, particularly a modern society, you have no choice but to pay taxes to a central governing body of one sort or another. Because anything else is at least as much a theft from everyone else around you.

Dan Aris

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[bfandreas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(political_party)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

Look, I'm not going to argue with you. A weak state and a weak economy lead to the rise of populists which not unlikely will lead to social unrest. It has happened, it is happening and it will happen.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[pspahn]

+1.

Right now, this country hates itself. The political divide between Red and Blue is preventing us from fixing the things that need fixing. If this is the case, then it's not far off that secessation is going to be much more strongly considered by some states/regions.

It's difficult to read something along the lines of societal collapse and not see the writing on the wall.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[MachineShedFred]

At the end of the day, it only needed 51 in the Senate and 216 in the House. The rest is just running up the score.

Many Congress critters will wait until there are the votes to pass, and then throw their vote in for the record on the side that is politically expedient for them. Coming from a "tea party" district, but still want the Government funded because it's the right thing for the country? Wait for that 217th vote, and then hit the "nay" button on your electronic voting device.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[MachineShedFred]

They should vote in this order:

Conscience
District
Country
Party

Unfortunately, that rarely happens.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Pino Grigio]

Whatever you say about Rand Paul, at least someone is vaguely thinking about the US National Debt.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Anonymous Coward]

*facepalm* With what money do these workers pay taxes? If you said tax money, you'd be correct!

The government collect the taxes.
The government uses the taxes to pay it's workers.
The workers pay tax on the compensation they receive. Yes, they're paying taxes on taxes!
Each and every dollar they not only is a dollar that someone else (who earned it) isn't spending, but it's a dollar that's been devalued by being taxed: (at least) twice.

There are no financial perpetual motion machines.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Anonymous Coward]

If the half million people taxpayers you are referring to were government employees, then they don't really contribute to tax revenue anyway - how could they? They get paid from that revenue stream, so only by setting their income tax rate above 100% would they be able to help fund the government.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Xyrus]

What a great idea. I also heard that you can cure the flu by driving a stake through your heart.

Sticking to your ideals while simultaneously throwing a country into chaos isn't smart, principled, or noble. It's fucking childish and stupid.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[cornjones]

I thought you were supposed to vote for policies and platforms, not people (or parties)

Not so much. We vote for people to represent us and they will have to make decisions across a broad spectrum of potentially unknown (at voting time) issues. You are always voting for a person. Preferably, one that will make the decisions you would (or even better ones).

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[MachineShedFred]

So how much tax on the super wealthy is right? 70%? 100%? What prevents them from using that super wealth to offer the country both middle fingers and move somewhere that doesn't want to reach into their wallet and take everything?

The 2009 Federal Budget had a bottom line of $3.518T actual spending. The so-called 1% had a total adjusted gross income of $1.3T in 2009. If you tax them at 100%, that gets you about 4.5 months into the fiscal year, or around March 12th.

The "super wealthy" might be a politically expedient punching bag, but they aren't the solution. The solution is to stop spending money we don't fucking have, and we're doing way too much of that. It's not on 1% to fix it. It's on ALL OF US to fix it.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot. Not a single person voted to default. Those were votes against raising the debt ceiling and kicking the can down the road again.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[cHALiTO]

Man, how I wish I had mod points. I always tell the same to every idiot who comes babbling about how they earned their stuff on their own, with nobody's help (self-made man bullshit) so they can justify being self-centered, every-man-for-himself assholes. The fact that some people manage to get where they get in life (no matter how much hard work they put in it), because we live in a society organized in a way that gives them that possibility, and that it's the same society that denies that possibility to others, seems to be incomprehensible to some people. or maybe they're just selfish and don't want to take responsibility for their role in all of this.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[bogjobber]

Right..... those are the only two options: all or none. If you even mention the prospect of raising taxes it's assumed that the goal is a quasi-communist state where no one is allowed to keep any money.

Re: 153 GOP voted to default

[Anonymous Coward]

No they voted not to bankrupt us. Obama and the dems voted to default us permanently. How do u think raising the debt ceiling continuously works in the long run? Try it yourself. Keep getting more credit cards and raising the limit on them until u hc no way to ver pay them off. The is where we are now. Regardless of your political views u should be able to understand the simple concept of a balanced budget at home.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[tbannist]

So how much tax on the super wealthy is right? 70%? 100%?

I think it was close to 98% for the top income bracket around World War 2, but that's probably too high. The current 15% on investment income seems a bit low, though, so it should probably be somewhere between those extremes. There's a reaonable argument that it should probably go over 50% at some absurdly large number to discourage investors from bidding up wages past reasonable levels in the quest for superstar executives. For example, the top bracket could be set to 100 times the average American income with a tax rate of 75%. I know and understand the argument that this would be forcing an individual to give up most of the value of his work as taxes, but in practice what happened when taxes were similarly high in the past is that wages that went into the top bracket(s) weren't offered. Instead stock and perks were used instead because they became obviously more cost-effective compensation (and may actually benefit the companies hiring the executives because the stock and perks are less expensive than dealing with spiralling executive salaries).

What prevents them from using that super wealth to offer the country both middle fingers and move somewhere that doesn't want to reach into their wallet and take everything?

Reality? The simple truth is that most rich people don't want to live in any of the countries that have very low tax rates on the rich. A perceptive person might see cause and effect in that statement.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[tbannist]

Many of the GOP that started this were voted in on the promise to try and stop Obamacare no matter what it takes (which, in turn, is what won them the House to begin with)...

Actually, the GOP should have lost the house. The Democrats won the popular vote by 1.2%, or more than a million votes, but because of gerrymandering by the states, the Republicans maintain an 34 seat edge over the Democrats despite getting fewer votes. So in effect, the people who were holding the Government hostage are mostly Tea Party candidates who defeated more moderate Republicans during the primaries and went on to win safe seats that probably didn't even need to campaign for. So it's highly likely that their promises to overturn Obamacare won them the primary, but the effect on the general election is hard to gauge because they were expected to win regardless of what they did.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Magius_AR]

First of all, according to nonpartisan estimates, the ACA will reduce the deficit

Umm, I'll believe it when I see it. So far, it's added over 1.7 trillion in spending and put a severe crimp on business with new costs and regulations (such as mandatory electronic requirements). Or are you one of those "it's budget neutral" morons, simply because they embedded new taxes in it to "pay for it"? Believe it or not "new taxes + more spending + a failure to fix real spending growth problems" can very easily cause long term deleterious effects (some nonpartisan sources say the current continued economic malaise is a partial result of ACA).

If that happens, how could we possibly solve such a problem? Could it be that we could...pass a law raising taxes?

We already did that. Many times. Once during the Obamacare passage. Another time in December, on "rich" people. And as much as you like to believe that we can just endlessly raise taxes to solve our problems, it does actually have an effect on the economy.

From their current historically low levels, particularly as a fraction of GDP? And particularly on the super-wealthy?

Highly misleading. Rates on the "super wealthy" are far from historically low. The only people currently benefiting from historically low taxes are the poor. Taxes on everybody else are around "average" historical values: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-facts-lowest-rates-in-30-years/ (and that article was before the December tax hike)

And since you aren't advocating raising taxes on everyone (perish the thought), instead of only on the people you envy, I'm afraid your statement is false. Additionally, raising taxes on the super-wealthy can't possibly bring in enough money to cover our government's level of spending (again, per unbiased sources: http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/01/news/economy/income_tax_deficit/)

If I'm reading you right, what you're actually saying is that the ACA will cost money to implement,

That isn't a "maybe", that's a fact. And it's predicted cost is beyond estimates (with most of the heavy spending not even beginning until 2014). The belief that it's going to be a net deficit savings requires not only outright lies that try to use tax increases as "savings" but also lots of speculation (since it takes into account a metric ton of complete unknowns and tries to use them as "cost savings"): http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcarereform/a/Cost-of-Obamacare.htm

If you were 100% genuine about discussing the "cost" of something, that discussion should be held in a vacuum (namely, what I spend on the program vs what costs the program reduces). You can't chalk in additional revenue from additional taxes and try to pretend the program isn't costing 1.7 trillion in additional spending. At best, the net effect of the program is "1.7 trillion in spending minus the cost savings of the four things it's actually reducing: drug subsidies to wealthy/Hospital DSH Payments/Medicare Payments/Medicare Advantage Payments". Everything else is smoke and mirrors. Oh, and the net effect IS a deficit increase, based on those numbers. And it's a loss that we believe does nothing to address the real problem of high healthcare costs, and will likely continue to balloon in costs.

Doing stuff for people costs money. Helping poor people costs money.

And we'd love to see healthcare reform, reform that would actually help people. ACA does not. It passes the buck, shifts around costs, and tries to hide its massive spending behind tax increases. In reality, nothing has been don

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[goombah99]

I feel ill that I ever voted for the man.

I thought you were supposed to vote for policies and platforms, not people (or parties)

That would be a democracy. This is a republic.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[goombah99]

Do you actually think that a trillion dollar deficit and $17 trillion in current liabilities and over $100 trillion in long term liabilities does not have a devasating economic affect on the US?

yes that's what I think. Read Keynes. Or for that matter buy some google stock, or amazon or Facbook. At a price to earnings ration of 100, it's pretty clear that people think it more reasonable to grow your way out of debt than it is to contract your way out. If that were not true the stock market would not have grown over time.

Do you think the last five years (with five years of trillion dollar deficits) has improved our economic situation?

yes, the deficit has shrunk every year.

Granted, it improves the situation for the banking class that is first in line at the money printing spigot, but I wouldn't think person who has stopped wetting the bed would think that transferring trillions to the Wall Street parasites is a good thing.

unrelated. Or if you think this is related then I understand why you are confused. To begin, whose money do you think the parasites are managing? A good chunk of it is your 401K. And the people borrowing that money are the bussinesses that employ you.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[cdwiegand]

Probably because it's HARD WORK to get a company up and running, and no, the government doesn't help us small business owners. We constantly face defeat every week. More laws, more taxes, more "benefits" we have to give employees, that takes money away from the business. Ask almost any small business owner how much TAKE HOME PAY they get - very often it's only enough to pay their bills. Any extra money needs to stay in the business to fund whatever crazy law comes down the pipe next. Yes, society may make it easier here than elsewhere (like Soviet Russia or Iran), but that doesn't mean it's not hard work. Society is so not organized to help startups at all, in fact it favors large businesses that can afford economies of scale as well as lobbyists.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[khallow]

Except you've just added a half million more people to the unemployment line.

So what? They'll find jobs. And elimination of a couple of the taxes for those entitlement programs means that US labor got more affordable.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[multipartmixed]

Please don't send him to live in Northern Canada. The first time he slips and breaks his leg, he'll wind up using our free healthcare.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[DG]

You're talking about a nation that went to war with itself - killing millions of people - so that it could try and keep the institution of SLAVERY.

In the face of that, how is brinksmanship over paying the bills in any way surprising?

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[10101001 10101001]

So how much tax on the super wealthy is right? 70%? 100%? What prevents them from using that super wealth to offer the country both middle fingers and move somewhere that doesn't want to reach into their wallet and take everything?

Great reductio ad absurdum--except it could just as well be used to block all tax increases on anyone which is also reductio ad absurdum. Too bad people aren't calling for 70%+ taxation but instead a modest 5% increase on income taxes. They are also calling for things like capital gains taxes to be abolished and income tax rates to be used--which would admittedly effectively increase the rate by 15%+ for some people--precisely because this whole "take my ball and move" mentality is not a useful justification for the regressive tax system available to the super wealthy. Oh, and, btw, there was a time when the super wealthy tax rate was 90% and not everyone left. I wouldn't recommend a rate near that, but cowering in fear isn't even justified by historical evidence.

The 2009 Federal Budget had a bottom line of $3.518T actual spending. The so-called 1% had a total adjusted gross income of $1.3T in 2009. If you tax them at 100%, that gets you about 4.5 months into the fiscal year, or around March 12th.

And? Should we tax them nothing then because they can't pay for everything? No? Well, then, perhaps your little bit of math is only relevant for the fractional percentage of people who even desire such a system.

The "super wealthy" might be a politically expedient punching bag, but they aren't the solution.

They aren't THE solution, but raising taxes on higher income earners is PART of the solution.

The solution is to stop spending money we don't fucking have, and we're doing way too much of that.

Granted, the other PART of the solution is to cut spending. Funny how the ACA or a universal health care system would actually cut costs. After all, we're already funding Medicare/Medicaid at the Federal/State level and its per capita costs are the same as Canada's per capita costs. Another approach would be to stop the Medicare/Medicaid tax and funnel all the health insurance spending to the government to implement universal health care, as too all health insurance spending in the US near is equivalent to Canada's per capita costs on its universal health care. Regardless, health care coverage by a single payer is a big win--and anyone who understands monopsonies would see why.

It's not on 1% to fix it. It's on ALL OF US to fix it.

No doubt. Funny thing, then, that that 1% make up a part of ALL OF US and so they too need to do their part. To put it in perspective, if we demand the poorest of us should give up an expensive meal once a month be it through less government spending or more taxes, we should demand at least as much of a token gesture by the top 1%. It just happens that at top 1% levels, a token gesture is a lot more money.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[crimson tsunami]

how could they ?

By spending that money in the economy. Creating demand, supporting businesses.
Causing those businesses to invest and grow their business, make more profits hire more workers and pay more taxes.
This business, its extra workers, its suppliers ,their extra workers also create more demand and incentive for yet more growth and investment.All of which pay more taxes
etc.

Or American style, they could use their proof of a regular income to take out loans buy houses get credit cards and do all those previous things turbo charged and on steroids. (When the house prices go up they can then refinance and spend yet more still.)

Or they could take their paycheque leverage it and invest in anything profitable, stocks/bonds/derivatives/etc. and pay extra taxes on the profits

Or they could get lucky and gamble their way to fortune, daytrading, online poker.

I'm sure there are more ways.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[phantomfive]

First of all, according to nonpartisan estimates, the ACA will reduce the deficit.

It's peripheral to your point, but this is only due to a number of very bad accounting tricks. Look them up.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Bartles]

The treasury would only need to spend about 10% of tax revenues to prevent default. No permission from congress is necessary.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Bartles]

What is default? I think you forgot to find out what that means.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[camperdave]

That makes no sense. At the end of the day in either system, it is the policies that matter, not the representatives. People in a republic don't go around saying "We have lousy laws, but the politicians were people of great intelligence and character."

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[tompaulco]

StarTribune has an interesting article that demonstrates that if we taxed the superwealthy at 100% on ALL of their money that they have made in their ENTIRE LIFETIME, then we would be able to run the government for about 6 months. And that was superwealthy in terms of having $1 million in net worth, which is not even what I would consider "super" wealthy. I mean, it's a heck of a lot more than my net worth, but there are literally millions of households that have $1 million or more in net worth in the United States.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Bartles]

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt problem.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans — a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.

But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.

Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.

Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[citylivin]

"Highly misleading. Rates on the "super wealthy" are far from historically low. The only people currently benefiting from historically low taxes are the poor. Taxes on everybody else are around "average" historical values: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-facts-lowest-rates-in-30-years/ (and that article was before the December tax hike)"

You have cherry picked your timeline there my friend. I know for a fact, that corporate taxes were much higher in the 50s and this site agrees with me http://personal.psu.edu/sjh11/TCTaxBits/OtherTaxBits/TaxRates.shtml (to the tune of 90% corporate taxes, in what some white people call the golden age of american life). Taxing the rich, but especially corporations, is the way forward. Fix the loopholes in corporate tax, and make companies pay their fair share. We need to get out from under the market society, where wealth can buy anything and there is rampant inequality. (see http://blog.ted.com/2013/06/14/the-real-price-of-market-values-michael-sandel-at-tedglobal-2013/ for a newish highly topical ted talk about it)

Certain things like healthcare are a human right in most developed countries. As i understand it, the better solution of single payer healthcare was already shot down by american republicans, and obama and his right wing democrats. So this ACA is the best that the obstructionist republicans and not really leftist democrats could do to please their corporate masters.

Another good reason to up corporate taxes, take control away from the lobbyist's and corporate interests in washington. Hopefully you can agree that money should absolutely not be a part of political campaigns.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Bartles]

After watching the Senate for the last two weeks, it has become apparent that "all or none" is the way we do things now.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Bartles]

True, but it's actually year 4, next year, when the problems become fully apparent. That will be the first year where cbo does cost analysis with a full 10 years of benefits.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Bartles]

How many taxpayers paid that 95% tax rate around WW2?

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[coinreturn]

The 2009 Federal Budget had a bottom line of $3.518T actual spending. The so-called 1% had a total adjusted gross income of $1.3T in 2009. If you tax them at 100%, that gets you about 4.5 months into the fiscal year, or around March 12th.

Math fail. No one is suggesting that only the super wealthy pay taxes.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[coinreturn]

The question is whether reps should vote for what's for the best for everyone or for what their constituents voted them in for. Many of the GOP that started this were voted in on the promise to try and stop Obamacare no matter what it takes (which, in turn, is what won them the House to begin with)... so it turns out they're actually upholding their campaign promises.

No. What won them the House is gerrymandering.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[cayenne8]

If I'm reading you right, what you're actually saying is that the ACA will cost money to implement, and cost money into the future as well. But you know what? Doing stuff for people costs money. Helping poor people costs money. Fixing the worst economic downturn and the worst economic inequalities in decades costs money. And I don't mean "costs money that we have to give to the super-wealthy, so they'll be even more super-wealthy." Trickle-down economics is a pretty solidly discredited theory by this point. Empirical evidence just doesn't bear it out.

Helping out the poor...is that something mandated by the US Constitution? Is this something the govt should be doing? I mean, I can see having a safety net for those who are elderly and infirmed and cannot work...but for those able bodied...why give them money? Wouldn't be a bit more 'hungry" be a bit more incentive to work harder rather than stay at home and have more kids they can't afford?

And you statement about "worst economic inequalities"....where in the world is the US federal govt. mandated to right this wrong? Seriously, where in the constitution is the US federal govt charged with redistributing wealth from the haves to the have nots?!?!

I don't have a problem paying a fair amount of taxes, for what the govt should be charged with doing...roads, defense of our country and borders..infrastructure and yes, I'm good with a true safety net for those that cannot work. But we have a bloated and wasteful govt that has long expanded past its limited, enumerated powers and responsibilities, and needs to be seriously reigned in.....not given more money to waste and allowed to expand into our lives even more.

The federal govt was set up to be a somewhat weak and limited entity with most of the power going to the states...we need to move more back to that direction, since you state is more responsive to your needs than a bloated, one size fits all federal govt.

Re: 153 GOP voted to default

[cadeon]

There is no need for tax. In a system where the government can create money directly, government projects which create "civilization" can be funded by simply creating the extra cash. Doing so devalues the existing cash (because now it's less rare) so this cash creation needs to happen in moderation, but it does work.

And this is how things work now. Tax does not fund the government. If it did, we wouldn't be taking out loans and racking up debt. As this situation proves, tax provides a very small amount of the government funding.

And that's fine. I like the government being able to create money. I like roads and schools and national parks and NASA. In fact, creating money is the perfect tax- the dollar decreases in value and therefore those with a lot of dollars lose more than those with only a few. And there's no administration to be done to facilitate it.

What's not fine is the only mechanism the government has to create money is to borrow it from a bank. People like to rant about which banks it borrows from (the fed, china, wherever) but that's short sighted.

The problem is the fact we end up paying interest on ever dollar the government creates.

And that's what isn't sustainable. Paying tax to pay interest is unacceptable.

The idea behind defaulting is to get away from this ridiculous idea that the government of this nation has to borrow money to create money. Going about it this way would have been horrible, but seriously considering breaking the tie is worth real consideration.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[betterprimate]

What prevents them from using that super wealth to offer the country both middle fingers and move somewhere that doesn't want to reach into their wallet and take everything?

Because they're parasites. Also, stop distorting numbers. The discussion is the 0.1%.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[tbannist]

How many taxpayers paid that 95% tax rate around WW2?

I had trouble finding reliable information on that account, but from what I did find it looks like around 0.1% would have been in the top bracket, but they didn't actually pay the full 94% (1944-1945), the people who would have been affected were all wealthy enough to hire tax accountants to reduce actual taxes paid to about 70% on income in the top bracket using tax loop holes.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Bartles]

I remember reading something that about 300 people fell into that tax bracket when it was in effect, and this was before the loopholes.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[NetCow]

What amazes me is that those people seriously considered a situation that could have had a devastating economical effect on the US. Things like this cause nations to implode. A bankrupt, non-functional state has time and again led to violent overthrow and civil war. This is what their game of chicken was risking. And when you listen to some of their backers they would welcome this in the hopes to build a different state from the ashes. Only their vision is really frightening.

Indeed it should be, but I hope you're not under the impression that this is anything unprecedented in any way, shape or form. The actions of the Tea Party are perfectly rational given their underpinnings. Here's a thought-provoking (and well-researched) analysis about their origins, motives and strategies: Tea Party radicalism is misunderstood: Meet the "Newest Right"

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[shutdown -p now]

Ecuador, and Iceland both defaulted and both again have access to credit and both economies are at least arguably the better for it.

Ecuador and Iceland didn't release securities that more than half of the world holds its savings in. They're also tiny economies in the worldwide picture, barely affecting imports/exports.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[shutdown -p now]

The tax on "super wealthy" should be a capital gains tax, not progressive regular income tax. Simply put, we need to differentiate the "sweat of the brow" income vs "sitting there and watching my stocks pay dividends" income. Tax on the latter can be made significantly higher and still be paid, because people tend to value the money that they didn't earn through their labor less. It's also more fair, since this kind of income is basically just rent collected from actual producers of wealth.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[rea1l1]

If only that were true! The system is set up so that the US government BORROWS from the Federal Reserve.

For every dollar borrowed, a dollar twenty five is owed. It is literally impossible to pay all of the dollars back because, well, there aren't that many dollars in existence.

Unless, of course, the US government decided to actually start printing its own money again instead of handing that power to a private corporation with private stock holders.

This video will tell you everything you need to know about the root cause of problems in this nation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iFDe5kUUyT0

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[rea1l1]

How the hell does a government get into debt when it can print money?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iFDe5kUUyT0

Re: 153 GOP voted to default

[rea1l1]

MOD PARENT UP!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iFDe5kUUyT0

Re: 153 GOP voted to default

[cayenne8]

you fucking idiot. you help the poor able bodied because if they go hungry they start to amass on the streets. letting people go hungry is the first step towards an actial revolution. or you could just work the make something like "The Purge" leg, and go kill them all. startt to amass on the streets. where exactly do you think this farce begins?

Funny...before we started all this welfare state we're in now, we didn't have any riots, or amassing in the streets. No...they got off their fuckin' asses and found a job and worked.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[LandDolphin]

The US National Debt is held in T-Bonds (Treasury Bonds) as the video discusses. If we reduced Government spending to less then the Tax Revenue, then the Surplus each year could be used to purchase back the T-Bonds, thus lowering the National Debt. Or could be held to fund next years governmental spending so new T-Bonds would not need to be issued.

Could this be done over night? No. But over time (10, 15, 30 years)? sure.

Of course, this brings up a major issue - If 16 Trillion isn't being held in T-Bonds and is pushed back out into the Markets, suddenly the value of circulating dollars would drop. This would probably be a bigger problem then the National Debt.

Re: 153 GOP voted to default

[Ken D]

So, there was no Bonus Army? no Hooverville? no Food Riots in 1931?

I guess the New Deal was just something that sprang from no where for no reason at all.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Vitriol Angst]

So the actual argument is, how much is too much tax 15%, 12%, they pay nothing and we give them a t-shirt? You start at 70% in your example -- that probably is good enough. People making the equivalent of $9 Million a year paid 90% AFTER they hit that high level -- and all those deductions probably didn't lower it to the "15%" we have now.

This idea is that all tax is passed on -- brilliant, then no tax then? The wealthy are far from a punching bag. But when you've got the fate of 150 million people versus 4 WalMart kids -- we lose that many people accidentally on the freeway each day. Are you saying the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many ... because they said so?

If the wealthy want to be deadbeats -- fine, let them go and take their toys. We'll raise tariffs. We've been catering to multinationals for far too long and having each state to compete to see who can low ball each other to win their favors means we've got a lot of companies getting free stuff, and a few politicians with really great 0 interest loans and discounts on car purchases, but really nothing to show for the effort in the grand scheme of things.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Vitriol Angst]

You probably would find a good job at the Heritage Foundation.

We had a good friend of our family who was a multi billionaire, and he once showed me his "ATM Card" out of some offshore tax haven. Basically, he could buy stuff but never actually OWNED stuff. I'm sure Mitt Romney has the same kind of card. He's made over 1000% on his 401K because his private leveraged buyout company pays all it's profits into that. Then there are all these "profits" that show up on Wall Street but they have a different set of books for the IRS (that's legal BTW). So where are all these record profits?

Your model of "historical wealth" pre-supposes that the wealthy haven't advanced ways to hide assets. I would not be surprised if some of the wealthiest people in this country are not even on the radar. They realize profits offshore and their transactions are not in their name.

The stats you are using to analyze things are based on old assumptions and not the global electronic economy we have today. A lot of brain power is spent on ways to cheat.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Highly misleading. Rates on the "super wealthy" are far from historically low. The only people currently benefiting from historically low taxes are the poor. Taxes on everybody else are around "average" historical values: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-facts-lowest-rates-in-30-years/ [factcheck.org] (and that article was before the December tax hike)

You're either a liar or an idiot. In any case, take a look at this chart and apologize for trying to misinform the readers of slashdot.

For bonus awesomeness, one of the articles you yourself link to (the money.cnn.com one) states: "By historical standards, those rates are pretty low. While income tax rates for top earners have been below 40% since 1986, they were as high as 91% in the 1960s" in reference to the increased rates Obama has proposed.

So fuck you and your greed, bullshitting about "envying" the rich. I don't envy greedy sociopaths; I hate them. The reason people are talking about taxing the rich is because they're the only ones that still have any money left to tax. You can't squeeze blood from a stone, you fuckwit. You really think we can fix the deficit by taxing poor people's welfare payments? How the fuck would that even make sense?

And we'd love to see healthcare reform

Oh of course. That's why see Republicans pushing for single-payer heathcare. That's why we see a flood of healthcare reform bills coming out of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Not a single Republicans is trying to break the entire economy to defund Obamacare because they're all so busy proposing alternative healthcare reforms. You're a sack of shit. Stop making excuses for your bullshit obstructionism.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Magius_AR]

You have cherry picked your timeline there my friend. I know for a fact, that corporate taxes were much higher in the 50s

I have not, I've specifically picked a more relevant period. The 50s aren't applicable. They had barely any "social security taxes or medicare taxes" (~2% as per http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/content/pdf/ssrate_historical.pdf) that were "Tacked on", yet never included when discussing the taxes that people pay. It's like the great 90% myth -- just because a tax bracket was at one point 90% didn't mean anyone ever paid it. The number of deductions one could take back then was also far FAR higher than it is today. "Total taxes" is the relevant number, not some arbitrary income tax percentage. In truth, the fairest test is to simply compare the share of taxes the rich are paying, and that's at an all-time high.

Hopefully you can agree that money should absolutely not be a part of political campaigns.

I do agree.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Magius_AR]

Your model of "historical wealth" pre-supposes that the wealthy haven't advanced ways to hide assets.

And your model presupposes they haven't always had ways to hide assets. Deductions in the past were way more lenient than current day deductions, for instance. Just compare total share of taxes by income category -- that's the only truly fair test. Then compare the spending level. You'll see that spending is near historical highs (~post WW2 spending), and the bulk of the tax cost is being bourne by the rich (once again, at historical percentages of total taxes).

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Magius_AR]

In any case, take a look at this chart and apologize for trying to misinform the readers of slashdot.

I'm not going to repeat myself. Look here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4345611&cid=45182993 or here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4345611&cid=45182959

You people in your echo chamber like to trot out a chart where a single tax (income) that was set so at an income level so high that it was not even paid at the time allows you to skew the results and paint the argument in a favorable light. In reality, govt spending is at all-time highs, and the rich already pay a historical high share of the taxes that cover said spending. That's a fact, and reality, and you can't hide from it.

The reason people are talking about taxing the rich is because they're the only ones that still have any money left to tax.

Except that if you took ALL their income, you still couldn't pay the bills at our level of govt spending, as I've already stated.

You really think we can fix the deficit by taxing poor people's welfare payments?

No, we do it by reducing govt spending. Social Security and Medicare reform would be a good start. Those taxes have escalated from 2% to 12% since inception. And they're still running a deficit (and projected to grow worse). And our health (and retirements) are no better for it.

Oh of course. That's why see Republicans pushing for single-payer heathcare.

Why in god's name would we want that? We want something that works.

That's why we see a flood of healthcare reform bills coming out of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

We had a voucher proposal via Romney not long ago. Additionally, Bush tried to do something about runaway social security spending by privatizing part of it.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[NoImNotNineVolt]

That's fine, historical top marginal rates of 90% aren't relevant because people dodged taxes back then. Unlike today? So the solution is not to actually enforce the tax code, or to get rid of loopholes, but instead to simply lower taxes? Some of us are unwilling to bend to the will of the rich and don't feel that giving up on taxing them is the optimal solution here.

Except that if you took ALL their income, you still couldn't pay the bills at our level of govt spending, as I've already stated.

According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, "in 2007, the share of after-tax income going to the top 1 percent hit its highest level (17.1 percent) since 1979". That means that that the income of the top 1% accounts for roughly 17% of GDP. Are you suggesting that federal spending is greater than 17% of GDP? Where are you getting these numbers?

Social Security and Medicare reform would be a good start... Bush tried to do something about runaway social security spending by privatizing part of it.

Reform... what does that even mean? Let's say we give $X/year in entitlements to recipients of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs that need "reform". Surely you'll agree that this will cost at least $X/year, plus overhead costs. By "reform", are you talking about cutting the already-nominal overhead costs? If so, you'll be disappointed to hear that this won't put any noticeable dent in the federal budget. Of course, you don't mean reform. You mean you want to gut these social programs, to pay out less to the recipients. You want to screw people that have spent their entire lives paying into the system, allowing "the market" to "take care" of them. At least be honest and say you don't think it's the government's business to take care of those in need, and that you have no issue with them dying in the streets so long as it doesn't cost you much to sweep up their corpses.

That's an entirely rational point of view to espouse, so I can't fault you for it. After all, what's in it for you if we pamper our elderly, or heal the ailing poor. You're not elderly, and you're not poor. It's just a drain on your own personal resources. Thankfully enough, sociopaths like you aren't a majority in our society.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Magius_AR]

So the solution is not to actually enforce the tax code, or to get rid of loopholes, but instead to simply lower taxes?

Actually, closing the loopholes is a far more noble (and fruitful) cause than simply jacking up the rates. Sadly, no Democrats are willing to engage that concept in any serious fashion.

Some of us are unwilling to bend to the will of the rich and don't feel that giving up on taxing them is the optimal solution here.

Define "giving up" -- the rich have already seen substantial tax hikes in the past 4 years -- why do you pretend as if nothing has been done? When is enough enough? When they're out of money? As I said before, they're already paying a historically massive sum of total taxes.

According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, "in 2007, the share of after-tax income going to the top 1 percent hit its highest level (17.1 percent) since 1979". That means that that the income of the top 1% accounts for roughly 17% of GDP. Are you suggesting that federal spending is greater than 17% of GDP? Where are you getting these numbers?

Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. 2013 US GDP was a hair above 15 trillion. 17% of that is about 2.5 trillion. The 2013 federal budget had 3.8 trillion dollars in outlays. That's the kind of spending we're talking about. Even if you account for the fact that payroll taxes cover part of that sum, you're still nowhere near where you need to be. And that spending is expected to spike in a big way down the road as well as Medicare and Social Security balloon. So that's exactly why this conversation should be about the spending and not about the revenue.

Reform... what does that even mean? Let's say we give $X/year in entitlements to recipients of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs that need "reform". Surely you'll agree that this will cost at least $X/year, plus overhead costs. By "reform", are you talking about cutting the already-nominal overhead costs?

If you're talking about me personally, I want a complete overhaul (as in privatizing part of Social Security and/or changing it to more of a pre-funded forced retirement w/ a smaller supporting safety net rather than the pyramid scheme it is today). But there's a great deal of smaller things that could be done which would still put a significant dent into it such as means testing.

You mean you want to gut these social programs, to pay out less to the recipients.

No, benefit changes are the last thing I want. I want a well designed program that isn't susceptible to govt raiding of the funds, a shrinking workforce, or a declining population.

You want to screw people that have spent their entire lives paying into the system, allowing "the market" to "take care" of them.

Had the social security lockbox been in the stock market for the duration of its existence, rather than being borrowed upon and wasted by the government, we wouldn't even have a deficit right now. But go ahead and keep mindlessly bashing the free market -- you guys are good for that.

At least be honest and say you don't think it's the government's business to take care of those in need

It is a task better suited for the state government, where the majority of these programs should be implemented. I disagree with the unconstitutional nature of the federal programs. But I believe that such safety net programs should exist.

Thankfully enough, sociopaths like you aren't a majority in our society.

And sadly enough, shortsighted people like you are a majority of our society. You'll gladly praise any dollar the govt is throwing at a problem, no matter how poorly designed or horribly implemented. You stand ignorantly in the f

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Sadly, no Democrats are willing to engage that concept in any serious fashion.

Let's be honest, no elected legislator of either major party is willing to engage that concept, even in a lighthearted fashion.

Define "giving up" -- the rich have already seen substantial tax hikes in the past 4 years -- why do you pretend as if nothing has been done? When is enough enough? When they're out of money? As I said before, they're already paying a historically massive sum of total taxes.

I was trying not to digress, but this question is beyond the scope of the original topic. Taxation serves, or can serve, more than one purpose. One obvious purpose is to fund the government. Another is to implement socioeconomic change. There are those among us that believe equitable distribution of wealth strengthens an economy, and that even wealthy people are "better off" if poor people have money to spend. To ensure an equitable distribution of wealth, a government may implement an appropriate system of taxation, to limit the ability of the wealthy to become more wealthy, and to likewise limit the ability of the poor to become more poor. That being said, despite these "historically massive" taxes that the wealthy are allegedly paying, their share of wealth ownership continues to increase relative to the rest of society. Therefore, it is easy to see how some people might be calling for higher taxes on the wealthy, and similarly easy to see when "enough is enough". Clearly, equitable distribution of wealth is not yet being facilitated by these "historically massive" taxes, so that is why "unprecedentedly gargantuan" taxes are being called for.

Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. 2013 US GDP was a hair above 15 trillion. 17% of that is about 2.5 trillion. The 2013 federal budget had 3.8 trillion dollars in outlays. That's the kind of spending we're talking about.

Wow. That really is an eye-opener. I honestly didn't realize that about 1/4 of GDP goes to the feds. That really is some crazy shit. I'm not sure how this ranks among other developed Western nations, but you may have just convinced me of the value, or even the necessity, of talking about spending. I seriously recommend you take this as a talking point in future discussions. However, while I concede that there is perhaps not enough of a focus on cutting spending, you can't simply ignore the issue of taxation, even if only for the reasons I mention previously. Taxation isn't solely about raising revenues for the government. Additionally, you can't talk about solving the issue by cutting spending alone. To cut the deficit to zero without increasing revenues, we'd need to slash nearly 1/4 of the federal budget. That would indisputably have a serious impact on the economy, disrupting roughly $901B in federal outlays, or 6% of GDP. If cutting 1/4 of the federal budget cuts 1/4 of the federal jobs (a big if), that could mean over 600K new people looking for work. I'm just glad I'm not in charge, because this really does seem like a shitty situation.

No, benefit changes are the last thing I want. I want a well designed program that isn't susceptible to govt raiding of the funds, a shrinking workforce, or a declining population.

Yea, I think we all want that. And unicorns. But really, even a well designed program as you describe would amount to a benefit change. We simply can't keep paying people as we've promised if we keep charging people as we've been doing. The demographics just won't support it. The numbers don't work, and it's not any fault of Social Security's.

It is a task better suited for the state government, where the majority of these programs should be implemented. I disagree with the unconstitutional nature of the federal programs. But I believe that such safety net programs should exist.

The states had a good couple decades, centuries in some cases, to get this shit straightened out. Nothi

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[qzjul]

Well, you could tax assets just as easily, with minimum deductibles. Also, I think increasing federal revenues by ~38% (4.5/12) would add quite a lot of breathing room. I could do a lot with $1.3T.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[Magius_AR]

Let's be honest, no elected legislator of either major party is willing to engage that concept, even in a lighthearted fashion.

It's been a mainstay request of Republicans for some time now. And do you know what Obama's counter proposal has been? He'll entertain the idea if he gets to spend the money saved from the reform: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-30/obama-tax-plan-tackles-budget-issue-with-political-hurdle.html

That's actually a very common thread with him actually. Just look at any of his budget proposals. Spending never goes down. He pretends to claim financial discipline via using tax hikes and retribution of dollars (by cutting programs he doesn't like) to account for added spending.

However, while I concede that there is perhaps not enough of a focus on cutting spending, you can't simply ignore the issue of taxation, even if only for the reasons I mention previously.

I would agree with this statement only if taxation wasn't already addressed while spending has been completely overlooked. Obamacare hiked taxes by about 1 trillion over 10 years: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/does-obamacare-have-1-trillion-in-tax-hikes-aimed-at-the-middle-class/2013/03/11/1e685f4c-8a9b-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_blog.html
The December tax hike on the upper income bracket resulted in 600 billion in new revenue over 10 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_2012

That alone is 1.6 trillion dollars in new revenue over 10 years. Now show me a drop in the budget anywhere near that. Here's the last 6 budgets (over his total time in office, he has added 700 billion in spending to the budget -- and keep in mind, this is accounting for the savings in winding down Iraq/Afghanistan spending + TARP paying for itself...so even with those windfalls, we're at +700 billion):

2014 United States federal budget â" $3.8 trillion (submitted 2013 by President Obama)
2013 United States federal budget â" $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama)
2012 United States federal budget â" $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
2011 United States federal budget â" $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
2010 United States federal budget â" $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget â" $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)

You'll note that spending hasn't changed at all. At best, it's petered out at "unchanged" (and this is in an environment with very little inflation). So once again, you'll have to pardon me if I don't scoff at the demands for more taxes by the Democrats (or at the demands for more spending for "stimulus"). I find it particularly insulting that Obama has the gall to demand a "balanced" (i.e. "1-to-1") composition of tax hikes and spending cuts after he just permanently added 700 billion (20% more spending) to our total spending picture

The states had a good couple decades, centuries in some cases, to get this shit straightened out. Nothing happened.

Actually, I'm fairly certain the states dodge most of these issues because they assume mother government is going to handle it on the federal level. Otherwise, why haven't all the Democratic states adopted single payer programs as they've been clamoring for so incessantly?

I hear a lot of talk about reform. I have yet to hear any coherent plan to provide t

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[shentino]

Maybe we should do away with the federal reserve and stop forcing ourselves to borrow in order to inflate.

Countries that print their own money at least don't have to sell their souls to foreign banks to do it.

Re:153 GOP voted to default

[LandDolphin]

Printing money is a problem too. Getting rid of the Fed does no good if you don't get rid of the rampant spending. Bring the military and entitlement spending down to less then what we tax in a year (so maybe raise taxes along with cutting spending!) and then we can address the issues with the Fed.

Re:As the saying goes...

[drawfour]

Apparently, Standard & Poors has estimate it cost the economy $24B.

Re:As the saying goes...

[Jeremi]

And nothing of value was lost. Or gained.

Approximately $24 billion was lost.

Re:Stupid question from a European

[Jeremi]

Don't forget

6) Republicans have spent the last 20 years telling people that "government is the problem, not the solution" -- that is, that the government can't do anything to help them. If some dude now comes along and sets up a government health insurance program that actually does help people, the Republican Party gets badly discredited. Better to keep everything broken than to risk that!

(the fact that what the dude got passed is almost exactly what Republicans themselves were proposing in the 1990's only makes it worse -- those proposals were never meant to be taken seriously, they were only put out there as a way to stop HillaryCare, and were supposed to be forgotten immediately after that was accomplished)

The rent seekers have the votes

[dbIII]

The problem is that "healthcare" in the USA is an insurance system with a tiny trickle down to the medical service providers. While it remains an entrenched insurance system instead of what the veterans have (nobody dares to call them socialist!) all that can be done is a removing some of the injustice in that insurance system.
There's far too much opportunity for bribery, sorry I meant "lobbying", to get rid of such an enormous industry of parasites and provide the sort of system based on medical instead of financial outcomes that returned soldiers get at far less expense to the state than if it had been funnelled through insurance providers like other employers have to.
"Conservatives" are always going on about how a minimum wage raises the cost of doing business - well why don't they start suggesting getting rid of the middleman and go after those insurance companies that are increasing the price of employment far more? Are their ideals far less important than that lobby money?

Re:Non-Partisan Democracy

[LandDolphin]

Yes, Parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. However, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton all belonged to political parties. Not to mention, Madison and Hamilton did speak about parties (factions) role within a society in the Federalists Papers. Not saying they supported them, but they knew they'd exist in a free society.

And yes, George Washington did speak about against them.

Redundant

[Anonymous Coward]

What the shutdown proved, is that the Federal government is redundant. The state governments are what matters.

Re:Just leave it down.

[bfandreas]

They should just give up and shut it down. It's what the Republicans (or at least 144 of them) want.

They shouldn't go for this partial shutdown except essential services. Shut it all down.

People in seek order in chaos. Call it an era, and let it go. We'll rebuild something better in it's place. Rebuilding will let us get rid of waste and inefficiency that has existed for an awful long time.

Then again, the current politicians wouldn't have a place in a new system. They aren't really willing to give up power, and perks through questionable dealings.

Historically, every civilization has come and gone. What we see today are just the ones that happen to still exist. In time, they will fall, and new ones will rise. It's just the way things work.

I for one could do without the violence and turmoil that historically follows a complete breakdown. You have an awefully cavalier attitude towards this.

Simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pass legislation that caps healthcare supply costs at the lowest of these following lands: (Canada, Norway, Sweden, ... (choose non-insane healthcare cost structure)). I heard a crazy rumor that rubber gloves aren't made of magical faerie-dust and they actually cost less than a cheeseburger. They cost way less in Canada than in the U.S. Why is that? Hmm.

captcha: Dynasty

thereby solving the problem

[smash]

Once and for all!

Re:As the saying goes...

[Sockatume]

Maybe we should bill them.

well, that is the point.

[jotaeleemeese]

In the UK you don't need an insurance plan. Even if you are unemployed.

Re:well, that is the point.

[amiga3D]

I wonder why people who do work and pay taxes have to pay for people who wont work to have insurance.

Re:well, that is the point.

[sycodon]

In the U.K. you wait 18 months for an MRI.

Just recently, a former Director of something or other in NIH died after having surgery postponed for months and months.

Nice.

Re:well, that is the point.

[sycodon]

Paying for people who can't work is called humanity.

Paying people who won't work is called stupid.

Too bad most people don't understand that.

 

Re:well, that is the point.

[LandDolphin]

What do you call assuming people who can't work are people who wont work? Retarded or Republican?

Also, How does paying for people who DO WORK, but don't make near enough to pay for health insurance factor in? That is what the ACA primarily takes care of - expanding Medicaid to cover the "working poor".

Re:well, that is the point.

[sycodon]

What is retarded is making shit up and then making a comment about it.

And the people who DO work and can't pay for health insurance will now get it free because of my tax dollars. Say Thank You you fucking son of a bitch.

 

Re:well, that is the point.

[LandDolphin]

Thank You you fucking son of a bitch

Moderation

[benjfowler]

One positive development is the possibility of the Republicans developing a split between normal conservatives, and the unelectable raving loonies.

Re:Moderation

[intermodal]

Unelectable raving loonies like John McCain and Mitt Romney? I think we're already seeing a split between normal conservatives and unelectable raving loonies like that.

The English, the English, the English are best...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the US Government was shut down for longer than a month, it would revert, so the US law states, to the previous rulers... ie. the English. David Cameron was said to be both happy, that the US Government had gone to work, and sad, because he had desired the White House for himself. Supporters of the Prime Minster are relieved however because the PM would have to manage Second US Civil War. In other news, civil servants are shelving plans to rename the land that HM Queen governed, becuase of US Government going back to work. The last time America was governed by the British was when the title was "Great Britian and the Colonies". This apparently is not PC anymore, so the popular vote is "Greater Britain". :-)

Time to consider refactoring our code

[TomGreenhaw]

Its like we used all our storage except for 1KB, so we plugged in a new usb drive at the last minute. Our government program needs to be more efficient and we need more capacity. Given a choice, I'd start with the tax code - its a big bowl of spaghetti.

FTLM, unfamiliar...

[rmdingler]

"small humanoid creatures who inhabit large houses belonging to wealthy Wizarding families" ---well done.

Interesting

[RawGutts]

It is interesting that a good amount of you here think Obamacare and ACA are two different ACTS. They are not folks, they are the same thing.

youtube.com/watch?v=sx2scvIFGjE

Re:As the saying goes...

[Eunuchswear]

Ok, I know 24E9 USD isn't a lot to some people, but it's not nothing.

Re:As the saying goes...

[0101000001001010]

And nothing of value was lost. Or gained.

In addition to the lost productivity, increased uncertainty, 3 points off GDP growth (estimate by Macroeconomic Advisers), there's also the plain old bill of $24 billion in shutdown and startup cost.

In Slashdot money, that would have built about 4 Large Hadron Colliders including fully funding the experiments; or about 1.5 ITERs.

The Douchenozzles who voted against it

[sl4shd0rk]

If you are in one of these states you should really be raising hell to get these people out of office. They are bought and paid for 1% shills.
Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX),
Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX),
Mike Lee (R-UT),
Rand Paul (R-KY),
Mike Enzi (R-WY),
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Marco Rubio (R-FL).

Re:As the saying goes...

[akirapill]

which is approximately 45 Solyndra scandals

Dems != Republicans

[PeterM from Berkeley]

The Democrats haven't threatened to default on the Government debt and trash the US's credit and blow up the world economy in order to repeal a bill they don't have the votes to repeal--all while illegitametly holding a majority in the House due to the fact that they gerrymandered districts.

The Republicans got less votes in the last House elections but have the majority SOLELY because they abused their power in past years to re-draw districts lines (gerrymandering) to their benefit.

Essentially, the Republicans want to impose their will via any means at all, fair or foul.

Not that I approve of the Democrats, I think we need to turn over ALL of Congress, but I also recognize that there are levels of bad and the Republicans have demonstrated their complete unfitness to govern.

--PM

Re:Dems != Republicans

[dbc]

Well, I agree partly with what you said. The Democrats have *also* demonstrated their complete unfitness to govern.

Re:As the saying goes...

[Ken D]

You seem to be under the misapprehension that "non-essential" means 'surplus' or 'extra' or 'not needed'

"essential employee' is defined by statute (i.e. a law passed by congress) and is typically used when closing offices for events like Hurricane Katrina. "non-essential" employees are sent home or told not to come in.

You are most likely considered a "non-essential" employee by your own employer.

"Essential employees" typically have jobs related to safety or security. Non-essential do not.

If government shutdowns weren't political theater, then ALL employees would gone. The borders would be open, the airports would be closed, etc.

Re:As the saying goes...

[crimson tsunami]

You mean all that work that was so important that it was deemed non-essential?

Non-essential isn't the same as zero.
Even Breathing isn't essential for a couple minutes.

And yet safe food and drugs were still being produced, shipped, and sold.

Not all safe (salmonella),and that's just 1 example we found now,its too early to tell with the rest as they are still in the supply chain.

So this was all a job creation program for scientists, you're saying? After all, they can look forward to redoing all that work. Sounds just about as effective as the previous economic stimuli to me!

So now you want the government to spend/waste extra money? I thought you wanted to put the breaks on spending.

You mean I have to go back to work???

[aknutson]

Awesome, I have to stop my paid vacation and go back into work. All of this so that we can go through this AGAIN at the beginning of next year AGAIN... So the problem is still there, we just kicked the can down the road 3 months.... ASININE!!! Well at least Obama tells me that this is the RIGHT thing to do.

Re:Just leave it down.

[JWSmythe]

Have you checked the way most Americans behave these days? The majority of the citizens are armchair activists. The violence here would probably be less than after an unfavorable soccer game in Europe.

Boehner

[crimson tsunami]

I think the problem we are facing is a lack of good leadership.

My thoughts exactly, If only Boehner had shown some leadership in reigning in the teabagger faction of his party none of this would have happened.

Negotiate?

[trentfoley]

I am surprised that anyone, including the Tea Party members themselves, believed that the Federal Government would negotiate with terrorists.

Don't send him to Canada

[DG]

We use taxes to fund our universal healthcare system. And the air ambulance that would come get him if required.

A low standard

[tipo33]

Finaly, the U.S. achieved what EVERY OTHER country is capable of doing. Passing a budget.

Mountains of Debt

[jimmydigital]

Debt... the cause-of and solution-to all our problems!

Yeah, let's not let FACTS get in the way of a good

[sgtrock]

rant.

Life expectancy vs. % of GDP spent on health care.

Life expectancy vs. Government share of total health spending.

Tell me again why government funded health care is a bad idea? We get less for our health care than every other developed nation and pay far, FAR more than anyone else does. We are clearly doing something wrong. Maybe we ought to take a look at what works for a change instead of getting our 'facts' from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

The ACA is the death of single-payer care.

[Valdrax]

I suspect it will be massaged over the years to work out little wrinkles, with the end result being a single payer system.

I disagree, and its one of the reasons that I was so opposed to the ACA at it's time of passage. By establishing the front-lines of the healthcare debate so far in favor of the continued existence of private insurance companies (only regulated), it has insured that the battles will only be fought over how much further right it can be pulled until it collapses, with the Democrats forced to defend their position rather than reform it into something more usable.

The fight over Obamacare will dominate at least the next 10-20 years of politics until it's either pulled down or grudgingly accepted. That's an entire generation that won't receive public healthcare because Democrats were too weak to get a public option put in. Had the public option made it in as an alternative to private companies, we would give the American people a good taste of how a public healthcare system would work, and we might have made it to a single-payer system eventually.

But that was a disaster scenario from the GOP's perspective, so it couldn't happen. Instead, Americans will be faced with exclusively a crappy, expensive hybrid system that's more likely to sour people on public healthcare than to make them embrace it.

I predict that Obamacare will kill any hopes of true public healthcare for at least 50 years. Either it will get pulled down, or it will become so entrenched that even liberals are afraid to attack it (as we see today) for fear of losing the scraps they have. We'll have to wait until the predicted demographic shift kills the Republican Party before there's any hope of real healthcare reform.

Re:You mean that stolen from social security?

[khallow]

Stolen from Social Security? For the past 80 years. It's not going to be paid back anywhere near in full so it's a fait accompli. My take is that the US federal government will game the consumer price index (CPI) so that cost of living adjustments (COLAs) don't keep track with inflation (something that they've been doing for a while) and reduce the Social Security and federal debt (some bonds track CPI) liabilities that way.

Propaganda

[DarthVain]

I don't think it means what you think it means.

Considering you are arguing that Obamacare is less propaganda than the Affordable Care Act. I would bet a random poll would show that more people in the US know what Obamacare is as opposed to the ACA. Heck I have seen it used so many times on TV that I barely knew what the hell the ACA was the same thing... The quote rightly or wrongly attributed to Gobbles regarding propaganda was that one of the most essential rules being to repeat, repeat, repeat (and Goodwin already).

Pretty much any law in any county proposed by any political group is going to be carefully named.

Not sure what you are arguing, that the intention of the Act is not honest, or what you think the net effect will be of the law not being "Affordable"? It could be debated who the target is, Affordable to the people, or to the government, or to society as a whole I suppose.

Knowing you have such things in the recent past as the "Patriot Act", it is hard to fathom being too critical of the naming of the ACA,

But hell even Canada has had some fun ones in recent history. I forget at present the two I was thinking of, but one I think was the one proposed countless times (and I think eventually passed) to "reform" copyright and IP to conform to US law and US corporate interests. There was also the one about internet spying that as I recall was named something about protecting children. Hell if they could get away with it every party would call their proposed laws "Kitten and Puppies Protection and the Think of the Children Act".

Opposites Attract

[DarthVain]

Which is really the messed up thing about politics.

Liberals are thought of as big government and increased spending while Conservatives are thought of as small government and less spending.

However look at historical budgets, the reverse is true.

What is even weirder is that it is true in Canada as well. Though I attribute much of that to be a policy of "do whatever the US does"...

Re:Opposites Attract

[sjames]

Funny how that works. The Rs might have once been about smaller government, but that day is long gone.

Re:Opposites Attract

[DarthVain]

The Conservatives up here in Canada actually ran part of their campaign on Senate reform to the point of abolishing it. Once elected they appointed more Senators than any other previous Canadian government. They have also spent more and put us further in debt than any other, all under the auspices of supporting wars and stimulus packages (which are basically buying votes with an excuse in certain regions).

None of that bothers me. What bothers me, is the people that vote for them parroting the same not actually factual things we are just talking about. They just buy into it because they want to for one reason or another. I know smart people who suddenly become morons when it comes to politics, sometimes I just don't get it.

Re:Opposites Attract

[Uberbah]

Which is really the messed up thing about politics.

Liberals are thought of as big government and increased spending while Conservatives are thought of as small government and less spending.

What else is messed up: thinking politicians are "liberal" or "conservative" based on their party affiliation, rather than what they actually do. We haven't had a liberal president since Nixon, and that's judging him by today's standards.

Re:Opposites Attract

[sjames]

I know smart people who suddenly become morons when it comes to politics, sometimes I just don't get it.

I'm with you there. Something about politics seems uniquely able to halt logical thought in it's tracks.

here's an idea for you

[almechist]

Hey, here's a thought. You want to fix the deficit? OK, first step, repeal the Bush era tax cuts, all of them. Remember how we used to have this thing called a surplus, back before the insanity of supply side economics? You know, back in the previous Democratic administration? It pisses me off no end that the same Republicans who cry about fiscal responsibility are the ones who got us into this mess in the first place by drastically reducing revenue. Oh yeah, I remember it well, even if nobody else does. Cut taxes and revenues will actually go up, they said! The economy will soar! Well guess what, we tried it and it didn't work. So lets repeal all of that, make the rich pay their share again, as they did in the days of our greatness, and then, once we have a surplus again, then... Well, then maybe we can start thinking about creating a health care system that actually gives results worthy of an industrialized superpower rather than a third-world kleptocracy. But no, all these staunch fiscal conservatives would rather eat shit and die than do anything that even remotely hints at a tax increase, even if the so-called increase is just letting the Bush era handouts to the rich expire. I'm sorry, but it's basic economics, without a return to a more historically normal levels of taxation we will never achieve the very goals the Republicans say they are aiming for. When you take one whole side of the economic equation off the table, it should come as no surprise that you can't ever balance the books. Sorry to rant like this, but these people make me sick. Repeal the Bush tax cuts, then use the money to do something useful. End of story.

Overthrow the government

[JamieIanMacgregor]

In how many countries would this be cause for the people to rise up and oust their government?

"Elective"?

[DarthVain]

I don't know about accidents.

However from personal experience I had to have a tooth extracted due to absorption/resorption (Basically your body for some reason decides it is a foreign object, attacks it, and it starts dissolving inside/outside).

Options:
A) Dentures before 30 (I was 28 believe) for 800$
B) Bridge that would wreak two perfectly good neighboring teeth 2300$
C) Dental Implant which was +5000$

The extraction was 600$ I think (and that was with a local, and were I ever to do it again, I would gladly pay the 300$ extra for a general, it was horrible).

I did option C, because it was the only one that makes any sense whatsoever. I have a dental plan through work that covered 1400$.

I was out about 4000$ out of pocket. That's not teeth a little straighter. (Yes I had braces to the tune of 10,000, for 7 years when I was young).

I play hockey (full cage, not cool I know, but see above), and I have tons of friends that lost teeth to sticks, pucks, etc... type accidents.
None covered, all out of pocket, with whatever insurance they had.

Even had I taken A) the cheapest, I would still have to pay. My insurance through work would have covered that entirely... but still.

And glasses, well I am pretty blind. -12 basically. That's 500$ lenses before you even talk about frames. Try finding frames for less than 200$. Online, etc... many won't give you prescription, etc...

Anyway looking at both industries in Canada, they are both basically closed cartels, supported by insurance. Which is basically the whole system is in the US, so I can see why it is so broken, and why they need to get away from that. Pardon the pun, but the insurance and the various interested medical groups and associations will bleed you dry.

There was an interesting legal case in Canada where one optometrist tried get around the BS to provide affordable glasses (online i believe), the association basically had him thrown in jail where I believe he is today.

Re:"Elective"?

[cbeaudry]

The story of the optometrist is a little crazier than that, but I agree, optometry and dentistry are both propped up and over priced because of insurance, there is no competition or will to fair prices. And yes, it is exactly that situation in the USA.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/11/25/unlicensed_optician_jailed_for_flouting_court_orders.html

Geez next you'll tell me

[NotSoHeavyD3]

(sarcasm on) The Liz Warren's suggestion to lower student loan interest rates was really just a way to give kick backs to her buddies in academia without making it too obvious (sarcasm off) Yeah, I'm pretty jaded about everything every politician does.