Slashdot Mirror
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."'"
I didn't think the Democrats were capable of not caving in.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I suspect it will be massaged over the years to work out little wrinkles, with the end result being a single payer system.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
They all need to go. Vote out the incumbents in 2014.
Proving once again that, once all other options are eliminated, the Americans will do the right thing
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".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Given pro is the opposite of con,
What is the opposite of progress?
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
I dunno... some people are still trying to kill Social Security.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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...
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
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.
"Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
The truth shall set you free!
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.
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.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Health insurance company stocks are near all time highs. I don't think they're going out of business any time soon.
Nobody ever scared anyone with tales of $50 ER visits. Who'd buy insurance to cover cheap healthcare?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Some of the same actors in the current crises are among those you refer to
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
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.
~~
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?
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.
If an idea is going to piss off the special interests that got our congress critters elected, it's probably not going to fly.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
President Obama, 'It wasnt me'...
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.
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?
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.
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.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Apparently, Standard & Poors has estimate it cost the economy $24B.
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.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
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).
And nothing of value was lost. Or gained.
Approximately $24 billion was lost.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.
Need Mercedes parts ?
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.
Write failed: Broken pipe
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.
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)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
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.)
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
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.
20 minutes into the future
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?
Germans do, too.
20 minutes into the future
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.
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.
Australians; we buy insurance to cover the free healthcare.
Actually, we buy insurance to buy better healthcare than the free stuff.
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.
Write failed: Broken pipe
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.
It's still vastly preferable to the US system.
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.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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 ?
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.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
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.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
In the UK you don't need an insurance plan. Even if you are unemployed.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
For the amount the US spends on medical care I'd expect hospitals to look like the sickbay from Star Trek.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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.
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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
Senators are still Congressmen... I think you meant Representative or House Elf.
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.
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
This is the sig that says NI (again)
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
# grep slashdot access.log | grep html | sort | uniq | wc -l 2604
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.
Greed is the root of all evil.
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.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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?
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."
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".
I disagree, since most single payer systems have morphed into hybrid single-payer / private insurance systems.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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).
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
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
As a gov't employee, you have the most ironic Slashdot username ever. :-)
You realize the name "Affordable Care Act" comes right out of Propaganda Naming Department and has less connection to reality than "Obamacare" does?
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.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
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.
Just like 'No Child Left Behind' and 'Mission Accomplished'
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.
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
Better example: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.
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.
21st Century Renaissance Man
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?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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.
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.
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).
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.
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/)
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.
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
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.
Profitability ultimately determines if they will be able to stay in business, not stock price.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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
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....
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
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?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
how could they ?
By spending that money in the economy. Creating demand, supporting businesses. ,their extra workers also create more demand and incentive for yet more growth and investment.All of which pay more taxes
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
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.
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.
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.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
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.