The shutdown is happening because those parts of the government are not allowed to spend money. The last budget ended September 30th. They can't spend the money on a new cert until they get a new budget.
1) The House and Senate passed FY2019 budget bills. The Senate slightly amended the House bill, so it was due for another vote. Trump said he'd sign it. 2) Some right-wing media personalities started blasting Trump for not building the wall yet. Trump suddenly "changed his mind" and said he'd veto the bill. 3) Paul Ryan refused to hold the vote on the bill in the House.
So, no, this is not a "both sides" thing. One guy got scared of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh saying bad things about him.
Also, that border wall? Trump made it a central part of the 2018 elections. And Republicans lost very, very badly. They even lost 2 Senate seats they were supposed to win easily (they were supposed to be +6, they ended up +4, and those 4 were supposed to be blow-outs that ended up close). That would kinda indicate the electorate isn't quite so excited for a border wall.
Pelosi passed the bill that went through the Senate 93-6. She has also broken up that bill, and passed individual pieces of it. McConnell refuses to hold any votes on it to avoid Trump vetoing it.
So again, this is not a "both sides" thing.
You might point a finger at who put us in that position but I'd point out that isn't productive
The only way you actually solve a problem is to identify what it is. The problem is one person who decided that after two years of not giving a fuck about the wall, now was the time to throw a tantrum over it.
And he's counting on your lack of attention to get what he wants this time, and you'll keep compromising away next time and next time. It's how he ground down his contractors with lawsuits, and he's just trying to play the same game again.
So, we doomed? Nope. Trump is also a coward. He backs down extremely hard when things start going against him. So he'll be signing a no-wall budget bill in the next week or so. He'll probably try to "declare an emergency" as a fig leaf to cover his ass, which will fail in the courts.
Also, the bill to keep the government open passed the Senate before Christmas 93-6. So, they got just a tiny bit over 60 votes.
Also, the Democrats offered to pay for all of Trump's wall ($27B) in return for citizenship for the DACA kids. Which would very easily solve the filibuster problem. Republicans wouldn't even put that up for a vote.
In the Senate you need at least tacit support for 60 senators, or you cannot pass a bill (filibuster).
Unless it is a spending bill. Then you can pass it with a simple majority via reconciliation. And hey look! This was a spending bill.....that already passed the Senate 93-6....and Ryan refused to hold a vote in the House when Trump started his tantrum.
Spending bills still require 60 senators to pass, not 51, so the Republicans could not get it passed by themselves.
No, the Republicans did not try to get it passed by themselves.
The Democrats offered to vote for Trump's entire wall ($27b) in return for citizenship for the DACA kids. Republicans didn't even put that to a vote.
You could have argued that McConnell could have changed the rules to allow those bills to pass with a simple majority
Or, since it's a spending bill, McConnell could have left the rules alone and passed it via reconciliation.
So the OP is right, the blame lies on both sides.
Only if you pretend time started about 3 months ago.
But Trump actually has a better hand. As pointed out, the amount he's asking for really is a tiny fraction of the budget. People's opinion of Trump is not going to change much over this, people that hate him will continue to do so. Pelosi and Schumer, though, are a different story.
Polling doesn't bear out your prediction. Trump is getting the blame for the shutdown, people are responding that it's stupid to keep the shutdown going over the wall, and we're just starting to get to the point where it hurts the economy.
Over the lifetime of the wall, which is probably 20 years or more, that's 0.0008% to 0.005%.
The massive hole in your analysis is the claim that the wall would be effective. It wouldn't.
That ebil, terrsit-infested caravan Trump was talking about before the election? They're asylum seekers, and went straight to a legal port of entry. (Btw, federal law and treaty obligations require we let them into the US while investigating their claims.)
Which means a wall would be completely ineffective at stopping them. And stopping drugs (they're smuggled in through ports, airports and ports of entry). And stopping damn near everything else Trump claims it would stop.
Your cost also does not include the eminent domain seizure of a few million acres of land. Nor does it include the cost of ceding that land to Mexico, 'cause the Rio Grande floods and you can't build a wall right next to it.
So, with an ROI of at best almost zero, why do it?
How many times does the patient die right after a hospital procedure
Every single patient who dies in a hospital. It's not like people go to the ER for entertainment.
I'm certain there are MANY situations where a surgery is botched, and the patient complains to a "brick wall", because the hospital and doctors are conditioned to never admit mistakes, and to prepare to defend themselves in litigation.
You are certain of many things that are wrong. This is one of them.
Malpractice costs are an extremely small percentage of medical costs. It is utterly dwarfed by everything else. You are attacking a single ant when there are several dozen anthills.
But it is the issue that would make those other profiteers more money, so they've spent a lot of time trying to convince you that they should get things like a free do-over for amputating the wrong leg.
The better and cheaper solution is to offer to make it right.
This is not actually possible to do in any surgery. The second surgery is always riskier, always causes longer recovery, and the vast majority of the time damage can not be fully repaired.
Again, I go blind if that ophthalmologist screws up. An error rebuilding a broken shoulder would cause permanent loss of motion or loss of feeling, depending on how they screwed up. Leaving around part of a diseased appendix kills the patient. Cutting the wrong "tube" during a vasectomy has irreversible consequences. Putting a stent in the wrong artery damages that artery forever. And so on.
How can this NOT be a good policy to improve healthcare?
Because it's about as possible as healing people with a Himalayan Salt Lamp. Much cheaper, but doesn't work terribly well.
Addressing your general life expectancy comparisons? That's an overly simplistic way to pretend to gauge "quality of healthcare".
So....the point of quality healthcare is to not make people live longer?
If a nation is full of people with a healthier lifestyle (less air pollution, better eating habits, less tendency to smoke, more inclined to get regular exercise, etc.) - they're going to have a better life expectancy, even if healthcare is relatively poor
Hmmmm....wonder if there's a reason I picked Canada for a comparison......almost like it's pretty similar to the US on those factors.....
The field of medicine still has a pretty terrible track record of actually curing illnesses, vs. treating symptoms.
This is only slightly more uninformed than your belief that surgery lets you have "do-overs".
With advancements like prevalent Internet access, people can research their own health matters and discover such things as drug side effects and dangerous interactions with other drugs on their own
How does your ability to google a test tell you the value of the test? It could save you a million dollars in expensive treatment, lost wages and suffering. Or not.
The only way to evaluate that test is to know all the details about your exact medical conditions, and how your personal history and other test results play into whatever that new test is looking for. And you can not find that kind of personalized information on WebMD. That will say "the test doesn't help 75% of the time" but you will not be able to evaluate if you are in that 25% where the test is critical. Because it's not possible to understand that without many years of intensive medical training. Heck, that's why specialists exist - even doctors can't properly evaluate every medical condition.
Efficient markets require that the purchasers have about the same information as the sellers. That's why insider trading is illegal. And that similarity of knowledge
They use the "Singles" brand name in the US, because it doesn't qualify as cheese here either. It's is labeled "pasteurized processed cheese food" or "pasteurized processed cheese product".
It's mostly made from whey, so it's actually a semi-decent use of an otherwise waste product....it just tastes awful in anything where you want more than a cheese texture.
That's a reason but I don't think it's a great reason any more. Farmers worldwide are so productive and shipping is so efficient that it's really unlikely we'll have a world-wide famine.
And when there's a conflict and that shipping no longer happens?
And keep in mind it takes a few years to start a farm from scratch. So you can't wait for the embargo/blockade/sanctions before building up internal production.
Single-payer is ONE way to handle the idea of "healthcare for all", but it runs completely counter to the principles the USA was founded on.
A federal standing army is also completely counter to the principles the USA was founded on. Wanna eliminate the DoD?
One of the principles the country was founded on was adaptation. We put in a system that can and does change the roles of government over the years. This is just another adaptation to the modern world. Medical care in 1789 wasn't all that expensive, and it is now. Dealing with that requires a change.
Apparently, you don't grasp the difference between people who VOLUNTARILY opt to do some work for free, for the benefit of others, and those who are forced to work under a system where government mandates they be paid a fixed pay rate, no matter how good a level of care they do (or don't) provide?
Apparently you don't grasp that a reimbursement rate is not the same as the maximum allowable rate.
Doctors in Canada can charge whatever they want. The government will pay them $X. If they want to charge $2X, they are free to do so and their patients can pay the difference out-of-pocket.
And no, it's VERY clear that most nations in the world offering forms of single-payer or "universal" healthcare are NOT pulling off "providing the best care possible to everyone"!
Life expectancy in all of them is higher than in the US.
They're providing a mixed bag of generally mediocre levels of care, often with long wait times to see a specialist.
I need eye surgery. I won't be able to get it for 3 months. According to your assertion, this isn't possible in the US, because that wait time only happens under single-payer systems.
because a large percentage of people doing the work aren't that motivated to do as good a job as possible.
Then show me the massive pile of dead Canadians.....oh wait, they live longer than we do.
They're not properly rewarded for going above and beyond, putting in a lot of extra hours of time to research problem cases or to learn and master new techniques.
The countries leading the way on cancer treatment care China and Cuba.
The ACA did eliminate "lifetime caps" on insurance policies, BTW. But that's never been the situation until Obama enacted that change
Good thing you brought up lifetime caps as a thing that still exists then! Oh wait....
and it's far from a certainty it won't revert back again
It's far from a certainty that the 55mph national speed limit won't revert back again. No law is permanent. But you make policy based on the laws that exist, not based on what might happen in Ann Coulter's dreams.
Insurance companies are businesses who need to turn profits like any other businesses.
And that is why they need to be eliminated from health care.
Health care can not be an efficient market. The consumers can not have enough information to make an informed purchasing decision - "is that test really necessary? All you need is 7 years of full-time training to find out". The consumer is also not at all in a position to drive costs down - "Nah, I'll wait on treatment for my heart attack until you're running a sale".
Even if we ignore those, the vast majority are unable to choose their insurance company and thus their providers. They get the insurance company that did the best job bribing the HR department.
Since the market can not be efficient, we can not rely on efficient markets to govern the market. It must be governed externally. Just like the market for firefighting must be governed externally.
When your car is wrecked and it costs too much to repair, they declare it totaled out and pay that value instead. They don't just pay "whate
Slashdot Mirror
The shutdown is happening because those parts of the government are not allowed to spend money. The last budget ended September 30th. They can't spend the money on a new cert until they get a new budget.
Little problem with your accuracy claim:
1) The House and Senate passed FY2019 budget bills. The Senate slightly amended the House bill, so it was due for another vote. Trump said he'd sign it.
2) Some right-wing media personalities started blasting Trump for not building the wall yet. Trump suddenly "changed his mind" and said he'd veto the bill.
3) Paul Ryan refused to hold the vote on the bill in the House.
So, no, this is not a "both sides" thing. One guy got scared of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh saying bad things about him.
Also, that border wall? Trump made it a central part of the 2018 elections. And Republicans lost very, very badly. They even lost 2 Senate seats they were supposed to win easily (they were supposed to be +6, they ended up +4, and those 4 were supposed to be blow-outs that ended up close). That would kinda indicate the electorate isn't quite so excited for a border wall.
Pelosi passed the bill that went through the Senate 93-6. She has also broken up that bill, and passed individual pieces of it. McConnell refuses to hold any votes on it to avoid Trump vetoing it.
So again, this is not a "both sides" thing.
You might point a finger at who put us in that position but I'd point out that isn't productive
The only way you actually solve a problem is to identify what it is. The problem is one person who decided that after two years of not giving a fuck about the wall, now was the time to throw a tantrum over it.
And he's counting on your lack of attention to get what he wants this time, and you'll keep compromising away next time and next time. It's how he ground down his contractors with lawsuits, and he's just trying to play the same game again.
So, we doomed? Nope. Trump is also a coward. He backs down extremely hard when things start going against him. So he'll be signing a no-wall budget bill in the next week or so. He'll probably try to "declare an emergency" as a fig leaf to cover his ass, which will fail in the courts.
These parts of the government are shut down because they are not allowed to spend any money. Renewals cost money.
If you completely forgot about this bit, you might want to brush up on your civics education instead of imagining things.
Are you seriously going to pay for that out of pocket?
Actually, it would be against federal law for someone to pay for that out of pocket.
Certificate renewals cost money. These parts of the government are shutdown because they are not allowed to spend any money.
Your inability to understand this may be an example of the poor civics education we receive in this country.
2) the Senate hasn't voted on the budget yet, so there's no budget for the president to sign.
The Senate voted on a bill for the FY2019 budget before Christmas. It passed 93-6. No wall funding, and Trump said he'd sign it.
Then Trump started his tantrum, so Paul Ryan refused to put the bill up for a vote in the House (Senate had amended the House bill).
Renewals cost money. There is a shutdown because they can't spend money.
Whatever authority they use, I don't see why renewals can't be automated.
Renewals cost money. These parts of the government are shut down because they are not allowed to spend money.
n fact, I'm a little surprised that the government hasn't taken all of Let's Encrypt's code and created their own version just for .gov and .mil sites.
They've done far better than that. But they do not distribute those certificates as part of the bundle shipped with private web browsers.
Reconciliation bills require 50 Senators + Pence.
Also, the bill to keep the government open passed the Senate before Christmas 93-6. So, they got just a tiny bit over 60 votes.
Also, the Democrats offered to pay for all of Trump's wall ($27B) in return for citizenship for the DACA kids. Which would very easily solve the filibuster problem. Republicans wouldn't even put that up for a vote.
In the Senate you need at least tacit support for 60 senators, or you cannot pass a bill (filibuster).
Unless it is a spending bill. Then you can pass it with a simple majority via reconciliation. And hey look! This was a spending bill .....that already passed the Senate 93-6....and Ryan refused to hold a vote in the House when Trump started his tantrum.
Spending bills still require 60 senators to pass, not 51, so the Republicans could not get it passed by themselves.
No, the Republicans did not try to get it passed by themselves.
The Democrats offered to vote for Trump's entire wall ($27b) in return for citizenship for the DACA kids. Republicans didn't even put that to a vote.
You could have argued that McConnell could have changed the rules to allow those bills to pass with a simple majority
Or, since it's a spending bill, McConnell could have left the rules alone and passed it via reconciliation.
So the OP is right, the blame lies on both sides.
Only if you pretend time started about 3 months ago.
But Trump actually has a better hand. As pointed out, the amount he's asking for really is a tiny fraction of the budget. People's opinion of Trump is not going to change much over this, people that hate him will continue to do so. Pelosi and Schumer, though, are a different story.
Polling doesn't bear out your prediction. Trump is getting the blame for the shutdown, people are responding that it's stupid to keep the shutdown going over the wall, and we're just starting to get to the point where it hurts the economy.
Over the lifetime of the wall, which is probably 20 years or more, that's 0.0008% to 0.005%.
The massive hole in your analysis is the claim that the wall would be effective. It wouldn't.
That ebil, terrsit-infested caravan Trump was talking about before the election? They're asylum seekers, and went straight to a legal port of entry. (Btw, federal law and treaty obligations require we let them into the US while investigating their claims.)
Which means a wall would be completely ineffective at stopping them. And stopping drugs (they're smuggled in through ports, airports and ports of entry). And stopping damn near everything else Trump claims it would stop.
Your cost also does not include the eminent domain seizure of a few million acres of land. Nor does it include the cost of ceding that land to Mexico, 'cause the Rio Grande floods and you can't build a wall right next to it.
So, with an ROI of at best almost zero, why do it?
Trump isn't going anywhere until January 21st. At that point, he's served more than half of his term, and Pence could run for re-election twice.
January 21st and later? Who knows what he'd do.
No, you can't file a lawsuit after they've killed you for drawing a gun on them.
How many times does the patient die right after a hospital procedure
Every single patient who dies in a hospital. It's not like people go to the ER for entertainment.
I'm certain there are MANY situations where a surgery is botched, and the patient complains to a "brick wall", because the hospital and doctors are conditioned to never admit mistakes, and to prepare to defend themselves in litigation.
You are certain of many things that are wrong. This is one of them.
Malpractice costs are an extremely small percentage of medical costs. It is utterly dwarfed by everything else. You are attacking a single ant when there are several dozen anthills.
But it is the issue that would make those other profiteers more money, so they've spent a lot of time trying to convince you that they should get things like a free do-over for amputating the wrong leg.
The better and cheaper solution is to offer to make it right.
This is not actually possible to do in any surgery. The second surgery is always riskier, always causes longer recovery, and the vast majority of the time damage can not be fully repaired.
Again, I go blind if that ophthalmologist screws up. An error rebuilding a broken shoulder would cause permanent loss of motion or loss of feeling, depending on how they screwed up. Leaving around part of a diseased appendix kills the patient. Cutting the wrong "tube" during a vasectomy has irreversible consequences. Putting a stent in the wrong artery damages that artery forever. And so on.
How can this NOT be a good policy to improve healthcare?
Because it's about as possible as healing people with a Himalayan Salt Lamp. Much cheaper, but doesn't work terribly well.
Addressing your general life expectancy comparisons? That's an overly simplistic way to pretend to gauge "quality of healthcare".
So....the point of quality healthcare is to not make people live longer?
If a nation is full of people with a healthier lifestyle (less air pollution, better eating habits, less tendency to smoke, more inclined to get regular exercise, etc.) - they're going to have a better life expectancy, even if healthcare is relatively poor
Hmmmm....wonder if there's a reason I picked Canada for a comparison......almost like it's pretty similar to the US on those factors.....
The field of medicine still has a pretty terrible track record of actually curing illnesses, vs. treating symptoms.
This is only slightly more uninformed than your belief that surgery lets you have "do-overs".
With advancements like prevalent Internet access, people can research their own health matters and discover such things as drug side effects and dangerous interactions with other drugs on their own
How does your ability to google a test tell you the value of the test? It could save you a million dollars in expensive treatment, lost wages and suffering. Or not.
The only way to evaluate that test is to know all the details about your exact medical conditions, and how your personal history and other test results play into whatever that new test is looking for. And you can not find that kind of personalized information on WebMD. That will say "the test doesn't help 75% of the time" but you will not be able to evaluate if you are in that 25% where the test is critical. Because it's not possible to understand that without many years of intensive medical training. Heck, that's why specialists exist - even doctors can't properly evaluate every medical condition.
Efficient markets require that the purchasers have about the same information as the sellers. That's why insider trading is illegal. And that similarity of knowledge
And since some of "these people" were law enforcement, that would quickly result in the death of the homeowner.
Please cite any event where this happened.
Ok.
Now, the victim was seeking help after a car accident instead of asking directions, but a pretty similar scenario.
I think the US produces enough of our own food,
:facepalm:
So....know why do you think the US produces enough of our own food? Because of these subsidies.
You do realize it's quite easy to mathematically correct for an unequal age distribution, right?
They use the "Singles" brand name in the US, because it doesn't qualify as cheese here either. It's is labeled "pasteurized processed cheese food" or "pasteurized processed cheese product".
It's mostly made from whey, so it's actually a semi-decent use of an otherwise waste product....it just tastes awful in anything where you want more than a cheese texture.
The story is about cheese made in America, not American "cheese".
That's a reason but I don't think it's a great reason any more. Farmers worldwide are so productive and shipping is so efficient that it's really unlikely we'll have a world-wide famine.
And when there's a conflict and that shipping no longer happens?
And keep in mind it takes a few years to start a farm from scratch. So you can't wait for the embargo/blockade/sanctions before building up internal production.
No, you can buy a hospital room and operating room in a third world country, and a transplant team willing to travel.
But you're not getting it in the US. Organs are tracked too closely, and the penalties are too severe.
Single-payer is ONE way to handle the idea of "healthcare for all", but it runs completely counter to the principles the USA was founded on.
A federal standing army is also completely counter to the principles the USA was founded on. Wanna eliminate the DoD?
One of the principles the country was founded on was adaptation. We put in a system that can and does change the roles of government over the years. This is just another adaptation to the modern world. Medical care in 1789 wasn't all that expensive, and it is now. Dealing with that requires a change.
Apparently, you don't grasp the difference between people who VOLUNTARILY opt to do some work for free, for the benefit of others, and those who are forced to work under a system where government mandates they be paid a fixed pay rate, no matter how good a level of care they do (or don't) provide?
Apparently you don't grasp that a reimbursement rate is not the same as the maximum allowable rate.
Doctors in Canada can charge whatever they want. The government will pay them $X. If they want to charge $2X, they are free to do so and their patients can pay the difference out-of-pocket.
And no, it's VERY clear that most nations in the world offering forms of single-payer or "universal" healthcare are NOT pulling off "providing the best care possible to everyone"!
Life expectancy in all of them is higher than in the US.
They're providing a mixed bag of generally mediocre levels of care, often with long wait times to see a specialist.
I need eye surgery. I won't be able to get it for 3 months. According to your assertion, this isn't possible in the US, because that wait time only happens under single-payer systems.
because a large percentage of people doing the work aren't that motivated to do as good a job as possible.
Then show me the massive pile of dead Canadians.....oh wait, they live longer than we do.
They're not properly rewarded for going above and beyond, putting in a lot of extra hours of time to research problem cases or to learn and master new techniques.
The countries leading the way on cancer treatment care China and Cuba.
The ACA did eliminate "lifetime caps" on insurance policies, BTW. But that's never been the situation until Obama enacted that change
Good thing you brought up lifetime caps as a thing that still exists then! Oh wait....
and it's far from a certainty it won't revert back again
It's far from a certainty that the 55mph national speed limit won't revert back again. No law is permanent. But you make policy based on the laws that exist, not based on what might happen in Ann Coulter's dreams.
Insurance companies are businesses who need to turn profits like any other businesses.
And that is why they need to be eliminated from health care.
Health care can not be an efficient market. The consumers can not have enough information to make an informed purchasing decision - "is that test really necessary? All you need is 7 years of full-time training to find out". The consumer is also not at all in a position to drive costs down - "Nah, I'll wait on treatment for my heart attack until you're running a sale".
Even if we ignore those, the vast majority are unable to choose their insurance company and thus their providers. They get the insurance company that did the best job bribing the HR department.
Since the market can not be efficient, we can not rely on efficient markets to govern the market. It must be governed externally. Just like the market for firefighting must be governed externally.
When your car is wrecked and it costs too much to repair, they declare it totaled out and pay that value instead. They don't just pay "whate
You misunderstand. The surprise is that there are no majors that are massively more marketable.