PDA

View Full Version : Obamacare Upheld, Conservative Heads Explode



Pages : [1] 2

Magtig
06-28-2012, 05:44 PM
The response to this has been hilarious, especially in this (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900391/posts?q=1&;page=1) thread on freerepublic.com (a new guilty pleasure).


"This is fascism. Welcome to the Fourth Reich."

"The Confederate States of America doesn’t look so bad now, does it?"

‎"The only problem that Liberals have with the history of chattel slavery in the America is that the slaves were privately owned."

http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu179/odin2009/freedom.jpg
http://www.mopo.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/uncle-sam-suicide.jpg

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Magtig
06-28-2012, 05:55 PM
"In short, America died today.. Lady liberty got shot in the back the day Obama was elected and she's finally succumbed to her wounds."

"If someone can’t afford to stay competitive, why do they deserve to compete?If someone can’t afford to keep working, why do they deserve to work?
If someone can’t afford to stay healthy, why do they deserve health?
If someone can’t afford to stay alive, why do they deserve to live?"

If you can't afford to stay alive you should just die? Daaaaang. That's pretty fuckin gangsta. :D

I'm expecting pictures of these people lighting their hair on fire any second now.

edit: "“I think I’ll vote for Zero [Obama]; the sooner the country implodes and goes full CW2 [Civil War II], the better.”

50 Volt Phantom
06-28-2012, 06:13 PM
The mandate was exposed for what it is, a tax, and not just a tax, but one of the biggest tax hikes in US history. An already unpopular bill is now going to be even more unpopular, I expect this to rally the conservatives and bring some of the independents our way too. I look forward to getting Romney in the White House and going about removing this garbage of a bill. You all can celebrate for now.

Magtig
06-28-2012, 06:17 PM
Yeah, yeah, go back to posting on freerepublic.com with the company of folks such as this delightful man:

"3 females on the SCOTUS and they ALL vote to uphold Obamacare. Women in the workplace.. How well that’s worked out, huh?"

And this other delightful man:

"I shall no longer fly any flag other than the Texas flag. I shall defend no constitution other than the Texas Constitution. "

theruiner
06-28-2012, 06:40 PM
I particularly liked this one:
http://i.imgur.com/wOvCg.jpg

The overwhelming consensus (at least there) seems to be: fuck poor people, if you can't afford healthcare you should just die in the street, rich people are awesome, poor people suck, fuck you.

Wonderful human beings, the lot of them.

Cat Mom
06-28-2012, 06:41 PM
It was fun to be working in a LAW FIRM when this decision came down, and not among the general clueless public who doesn't know the argument between tax and commerce and couldn't read a Supreme Court opinion if their lives depended on it.

GO READ THE GOD DAMNED OPINION. USE HIGHLIGHTER PENS IF YOU HAVE TO.


General consensus in the legal community was that this was Roberts' "Rehnquist Moment."

xmd 5a
06-28-2012, 06:52 PM
Hey guys, just posting here from "Australia". A terrifying apocalyptic wasteland, where freedom and liberty and stuff died back in 1975! Thankfully, I, my friends, family and coworkers have all been lucky enough to avoid the death panels and gulags.

Wishing you guys the same luck!

xmd 5a
06-28-2012, 06:55 PM
The overwhelming consensus (at least there) seems to be: fuck poor people, if you can't afford healthcare you should just die in the street, rich people are awesome, poor people suck, fuck you.

Wonderful human beings, the lot of them.

What wonderful Christian family values. Jesus would've said the same, I'm sure.

Cat Mom
06-28-2012, 06:55 PM
https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/409600_4184826138127_1307804442_n.jpg

Fixer808
06-28-2012, 06:56 PM
^^ Awesome, but I can't condone the defamation of our beer for any cause.


this (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900391/posts?q=1&;page=1) thread on freerepublic.com

I thought I'd read it for a laugh but gave up, there's only so many poorly-spelled, badly-parsed outraged comments I can stand in a day.

Cat Mom
06-28-2012, 06:57 PM
I can't read any of that stuff on Facebook, either. Not until they have a "W.T.F." button.

jessamineny
06-28-2012, 06:59 PM
I thought this was really fascinating... suggesting that, according to clues in the opinion, Chief Roberts possibly changed his vote at the last minute.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/28/did_john_roberts_switch_his_vote

Magtig
06-28-2012, 07:16 PM
The overwhelming consensus (at least there) seems to be: fuck poor people, if you can't afford healthcare you should just die in the street...

Yeah, here's an actual quote, it's pretty gangsta:


If someone can’t afford to stay competitive, why do they deserve to compete?
If someone can’t afford to keep working, why do they deserve to work?
If someone can’t afford to stay healthy, why do they deserve health?
If someone can’t afford to stay alive, why do they deserve to live?

Why do they deserve to live? Shit... I hope you don't have grandparents.

Fixer808
06-28-2012, 07:20 PM
The part about not being able to afford to work does not compute. "Fuck, man, I wish I had a job but's just too EXPENSIVE to work at the steel mill!"

orestes
06-28-2012, 07:32 PM
https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/409600_4184826138127_1307804442_n.jpg

Stealing this to post on Facebook.

I like how some people have compared this to Sharia law.

Fixer808
06-28-2012, 07:35 PM
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Sorry, that just... AAAAHAHAHAHA!! Sharia law, holy shit people are stupid. PICK ONE, is it extremist muslim? Nazi? Communist? YOU CAN'T PAINT WITH A BRUSH THAT BIG, CONSERVATIVES!

Cat Mom
06-28-2012, 07:58 PM
G has a cousin WHO'S ON DISABILITY and he's been bitching on Facebook about tax payers getting ripped off and Obamacare taking away liberties.

DUDE, YOU'RE ON FUCKING DISABILITY, LIVING OFF TAX PAYERS AND NOT PAYING ONE FUCKING DIME OF TAXES. BECAUSE YOU'RE FAT. WITH HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, AND YOU'RE AN ALCOHOLIC. AND YOU HAD A FUCKING HEART ATTACK BECAUSE YOU'RE A FAT ALCOHOLIC. AND WE'RE PAYING FOR YOU, BUT YOU'RE BITCHING ABOUT "SOCIALISM?" ARE YOU RETARDED, TOO?

Jinsai
06-28-2012, 08:22 PM
http://static.happyplace.com/assets/images/2012/06/4fec951facaa0.jpeg

it's just really hard to believe that people are this fucking stupid... some of them I'm sure were just making a joke? right? hopefully?

Piko
06-28-2012, 09:04 PM
I really don't understand the uproar. I used to have medicade (which was taken away from me) because of my eyes. Paid for my surgery (Corneal Transplant), which wasn't cheap. The prescriptions weren't cheap either. And for a guy who doesn't have insurance (can't afford that), and STILL have to go all the way to Baton Rouge to see an eye specialist, who isn't cheap to visit. This will help a guy like me in the long run. Especially, i've been shafted time and time again by the whole "pre-existing condition" bullshit. Prescriptions aren't cheap. I luckily qualify for free care to see my doctor (not my eye doctor, unfortunately). But it the end, this zaps my wallet to hell.

Cat Mom
06-28-2012, 09:54 PM
I thought this was really fascinating... suggesting that, according to clues in the opinion, Chief Roberts possibly changed his vote at the last minute.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/28/did_john_roberts_switch_his_vote

I completely disagree with them. It's a clear, eloquent, and beautifully-written opinion. Salon obviously didn't bother reading past the summary, which is the first thing you're taught NOT to do in law school.


Wow, man we just watched Househunters International: fuck Canada, we moving to NICARAGUA!!

theruiner
06-28-2012, 11:07 PM
Prescriptions aren't cheap.Brother, you're not joking.

After I lost my insurance earlier this year, I asked my pharmacy what the cash prices were on all my medication. Most of them were relatively cheap, but two of them were astronomical- one was something like $150 a month and one was over $300 a month. And this was at (God help me, but I've got no choice) Wal-Mart, which is probably the cheapest place around. I went back to my doctor and got my prescriptions changed. I dropped both medications and found alternatives. Turns out the med that I've been taking for four years- the one that cost $150 without insurance and was costing me $60 WITH insurance was unnecessary. I'm now on a FOUR DOLLAR A MONTH medication that does the same thing. And that's the cash price. It's insane.

Cat Mom
06-28-2012, 11:13 PM
Can you get your drugs from CANADA??

I bet you can get cheaper drugs in NICARAGUA!

All joking aside, I'm on a drug that was costing me $75/month under my Humana PPO individual plan. I married G, got his Cadillac Federal insurance, and now that drug costs me ... ready? $22/month. And the drug that used to cost me $35/month now costs me ... drum roll ... $5.60/month.

W.T.F.

theruiner
06-28-2012, 11:18 PM
I actually hadn't thought of that. It's not a big deal now, because almost all of them are $4. The only expensive one I have now is, like, 25 bucks, and that's not so bad. I'm just annoyed that, about two months before I lost my insurance, I went to my doctor and said I couldn't afford the co-pays on two of my meds (the two I mentioned; the co-pays were $60 and $30 a month) and asked if there was anything else I could try. He told me no, sorry, I'm S.O.L. Two months later, I come in and go, I lost my insurance and I'm broke, I literally cannot afford these and he goes, oh, no problem, we can totally change it to something cheaper. Um...so when I had insurance it was, hey, sorry you hit some rough times, but there's nothing I can do, but when I don't have insurance it's, oh, yeah, of course I can give you something else. Figures.

Piko
06-28-2012, 11:48 PM
I tore my TFCC (tiny piece of cartilage in my wrist), went to the doctor. The usual course of action is to operate. They sent me on my merry way and kindly told me to "deal with it". My wrist has never been the same since. It's shit like this why I support obamacare. All these people who are trash talking it probably haven't had to deal with any of that? They could afford their insurance and not give a shit, while the people under them can't. Fuck em, right?

Mantra
06-29-2012, 04:17 AM
RT @morninggloria: Roberts is the Severus Snape of the Supreme Court.

jessamineny
06-29-2012, 09:42 AM
I completely disagree with them. It's a clear. eloquent, and beautifully-written opinion. Salon obviously didn't bother reading past the summary, which is the first thing you're taught NOT to do in law school.

Well, it's not "Salon" writing this. It's Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law at Northwestern.

Deus Ex Machina
06-29-2012, 11:30 AM
Favorite part of the whole thing is how quickly the conservative propaganda machine is embracing the whole 'Tax' idea; and how easily they can rewrite the thought patterns of their constituents.

See, up until yesterday, every last godfearing Conservative American would proudly tell you that Obamacare is not a tax but a fine on those who don't participate in certain kinds of economic inactivity. And is therefore unconstitutional. A great deal of time and energy has been spent on this argument.

But now that the horribly obvious truth has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, that the mandate is constitutionally speaking, just a tax, I'm already seeing news stories and facebook posts on Obama - Tax Raiser.

Cat Mom
06-29-2012, 11:40 AM
Well, it's not "Salon" writing this. It's Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law at Northwestern.
yeah, well, I still think it's some romantic notion that Roberts suddenly changed his mind and it was too late to stop the presses thing, that just seems goofy. Roberts' written opinion doesn't waffle at all, it's really clear and concise, and it obviously wasn't composed at the last minute. It's only the summary that seems to be goofy. I heard some law professors on NPR the other day saying stuff that lawyers in the office were LAUGHING OUT LOUD about, I mean really "WHAT THE FUCK?" kind of stuff. Let's see what's printed in the final U.S. Reports.


But now that the horribly obvious truth has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, that the mandate is constitutionally speaking, just a tax, I'm already seeing news stories and facebook posts on Obama - Tax Raiser.
I know, it's really frustrating that people are too afraid of legal writing to read the actual opinion.

HERE'S THE OPINION FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T READ IT: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/scotus_opinion_on_ACA_from_msnbc.com.pdf

Sutekh
06-29-2012, 11:58 AM
It's a great development & best of luck with it. I think a lot of opposition will die out as over the years more and more people will benefit from or know people that have been saved by your NHS (or whatever it will be caled).

Mantra
06-29-2012, 01:04 PM
yeah, well, I still think it's some romantic notion that Roberts suddenly changed his mind and it was too late to stop the presses thing, that just seems goofy. Roberts' written opinion doesn't waffle at all, it's really clear and concise, and it obviously wasn't composed at the last minute. It's only the summary that seems to be goofy.

What's your opinion on the "dissent" thing? They're saying that Ginsburg's argument is repeatedly referred to as a "dissent," as if there was a time when it wasn't the majority opinion. Is there another explanation for why this would be?

Fixer808
06-29-2012, 01:26 PM
http://static.happyplace.com/assets/images/2012/06/4fec951facaa0.jpeg

it's just really hard to believe that people are this fucking stupid... some of them I'm sure were just making a joke? right? hopefully?
I don't think these people have any idea what or where this "Canada" place is, but we're lousy with commie-Nazis. They can stay right where they are, please.

littlemonkey613
06-29-2012, 01:37 PM
The mandate was exposed for what it is, a tax, and not just a tax, but one of the biggest tax hikes in US history. An already unpopular bill is now going to be even more unpopular, I expect this to rally the conservatives and bring some of the independents our way too. I look forward to getting Romney in the White House and going about removing this garbage of a bill. You all can celebrate for now.

It insures 30 million people who had no health insurance at all before. Thats 30 million Americans. What should tax hikes be for if not this? If taxes that pay for defense that protects us in the most indirect and often non existent way are okay, taxes that pay for the literal protection of 30 million Americans is certainly acceptable. What do you have to say for those 30 million people if Romney were to repeal it (good luck with that). But really no more conservative bill could insure 30 million people practically overnight (in political time). I just don't understand how you can ignore something so drastic because taxes were raised. Also are you talking about the .9% tax hike on those whom make over $200,000 a year or the penalty? Because taxes are still very low as far as American history goes.....I just don't get how someone could deem the cost not worth it this time. Healthcare has to cost something and the sacrifice doesn't seem to be too much when weighed against the benefit for literally tens of millions of Americans. Of course many taxes are unjust but this one? Especially when you consider the preexisting conditions thing, the equal women thing, the young people until they are 26 thing and the lowered cost for the elderly.

I'm really happy because my sister would have lost her insurance overnight had this not passed because she just turned 22 so woohoo!

marodi
06-29-2012, 02:09 PM
Someone should warn all of those idiots who want to move to Canada that in order to do so, they'll need to have their communist party membership card and that they'll need to be very familiar with the work of Karl Marx because there will be an exam.

Also: Good for you USA! I'm very proud! :D

Mantra
06-29-2012, 02:21 PM
It insures 30 million people who had no health insurance at all before. Thats 30 million Americans. What should tax hikes be for if not this? If taxes that pay for defense that protects us in the most indirect and often non existent way are okay, taxes that pay for the literal protection of 30 million Americans is certainly acceptable. What do you have to say for those 30 million people if Romney were to repeal it (good luck with that). But really no more conservative bill could insure 30 million people practically overnight (in political time). I just don't understand how you can ignore something so drastic because taxes were raised. Also are you talking about the .9% tax hike on those whom make over $200,000 a year or the penalty? Because taxes are still very low as far as American history goes.....I just don't get how someone could deem the cost not worth it this time. Healthcare has to cost something and the sacrifice doesn't seem to be too much when weighed against the benefit for literally tens of millions of Americans. Of course many taxes are unjust but this one? Especially when you consider the preexisting conditions thing, the equal women thing, the young people until they are 26 thing and the lowered cost for the elderly.
I think if congress proposed a tax hike that would stop xenamorphs from colonizing the earth and harvesting every last human alive, rightwingers would still claim it was a violation of individual liberty.

there's nothing to debate about or rationalize here, because the conservative stance on this has been very clear: no tax hikes, period. it's a clear-cut principle. their very unwillingness to even discuss the issue is a matter of pride. might as well debate with a brick wall.

50 Volt Phantom
06-29-2012, 06:31 PM
It insures 30 million people who had no health insurance at all before. Thats 30 million Americans. What should tax hikes be for if not this? If taxes that pay for defense that protects us in the most indirect and often non existent way are okay, taxes that pay for the literal protection of 30 million Americans is certainly acceptable. What do you have to say for those 30 million people if Romney were to repeal it (good luck with that). But really no more conservative bill could insure 30 million people practically overnight (in political time). I just don't understand how you can ignore something so drastic because taxes were raised. Also are you talking about the .9% tax hike on those whom make over $200,000 a year or the penalty? Because taxes are still very low as far as American history goes.....I just don't get how someone could deem the cost not worth it this time. Healthcare has to cost something and the sacrifice doesn't seem to be too much when weighed against the benefit for literally tens of millions of Americans. Of course many taxes are unjust but this one? Especially when you consider the preexisting conditions thing, the equal women thing, the young people until they are 26 thing and the lowered cost for the elderly.

I'm really happy because my sister would have lost her insurance overnight had this not passed because she just turned 22 so woohoo!
I shouldn't have to fork out money to buy someone else's healthcare and watch mine go up at the same time because they can't get their own. I already pay enough money into the welfare and entitlement systems as it is, life's not fair, if you don't have health insurance you shouldn't expect the general populace to provide it for you. By the way, there's 20 hidden taxes in this bill, 7 of them affect people making under $250,000 a year, of those 7 only one is avoidable. During a recession it's a great idea to tax people more and create costs for small businesses to try to have to contend with in an already bad market.

I agree health care needed an overhaul, but this wasn't the answer.

Leviathant
06-29-2012, 06:52 PM
Small businesses are going to benefit from this. Before you get your rant on after reading conservative talking points, spend some time reading what the bill does. If you think that because a few rotten apples (bogeymen) might somehow abuse this at your expense, the benefits should instead be completely taken away from deserving people, you are not seeing the big picture. This is a good thing. Just like public education, public parks, public land, public libraries...

50 Volt Phantom
06-29-2012, 07:29 PM
So small businesses benefit from being forced to cover their employees with options the government deem okay? Ya, that seems logical.

On a side note, the good of public education is entirely debatable...

Andrew
06-29-2012, 07:31 PM
Can you list what the "twenty hidden taxes" are? A google search turned up a list of things that are penalties for non compliance and a tax on tanning beds.

One thing I am disappointed about on both sides - and not just this issue - too many people treating major political events like sporting matches. This isn't a team vs team and you shouldn't be having victory parties like the Super Bowl, or screaming revenge because your team lost. We are at a point where a lot of people are ignoring the issue, grabbing a rally cry, and go team go against the "other side." I am hoping this particular issue will touch enough people directly and deliver some deeper insights into what a major issue actually is.

littlemonkey613
06-29-2012, 07:40 PM
On a side note, the good of public education is entirely debatable...

I think the heart of literature just stopped beating. Think about the people who don't stand a chance in this capitalist world and multiply that situation exponentially. Public education is an equalizer (obviously a corruptable system but necessary nonetheless).

That being said what is all this money you'd have to shell out to pay for other people's insurance? Really what are all the hidden taxes I admit I hadn't heard of them. The whole point is that people have to buy their own. The taxes aren't simply buying people a product, the insured health of 30 million people is something that benefits the entire nation (save for a few whom have huge amounts of wealth). This isn't some hobby or convenience. It's life and death literally and I think the rights of citizens to not die when there is treatment available in their own towns weighs out your entitlement to every dollar. Is it your opinion that all taxes are inherently evil? Also a lot of people whom the taxes cover are people whom can't get coverage because they have pre-existing conditions. It is not their fault and for most those people the care isn't just too expensive but literally no insurance companies will cover them for any price. Again if there is such thing as a just tax how does this not apply? If your opinion is that all taxes are bad then it makes more sense.

50 Volt Phantom
06-29-2012, 07:43 PM
http://atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-a6996
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Seven-new-taxes
Go ahead and hate on the sources, but since you all pretend that Huffington Post and Politico are reasonable sources I'm not changing them.

You can blame the team vs team attitude on one of the most divisive administrations in recent history.

theruiner
06-29-2012, 07:47 PM
I shouldn't have to fork out money to buy someone else's healthcare and watch mine go up at the same time because they can't get their own. I already pay enough money into the welfare and entitlement systems as it is, life's not fair, if you don't have health insurance you shouldn't expect the general populace to provide it for you."I got mine, so fuck you!"

littlemonkey613
06-29-2012, 07:53 PM
"I got mine, so fuck you!"

Seriously. People act like they went into the middle of nowhere and magically conjured up their wealth out of nothing. You did it on your own except you LITERALLY didn't. People who benefit disproportionately from a system in place owe their success in huge part to the existence of that system and in order for it to be stable and not medieval you have to admit you owe something back. People don't realize how much of their comfort exists b/c certain taxes exist.....You really want a world without them? Odds are your pocket book wouldn't be nearly as deep , seeing as you'd ACTUALLY be on your own.

Torgo
06-29-2012, 07:58 PM
I shouldn't have to fork out money to buy someone else's healthcare and watch mine go up at the same time because they can't get their own. I already pay enough money into the welfare and entitlement systems as it is, life's not fair, if you don't have health insurance you shouldn't expect the general populace to provide it for you.

Wow. Just... wow.

That is one of the most selfish, arrogant, flagrantly negative posts I've seen on this forum in a while. Congratulations.

50 Volt Phantom
06-29-2012, 08:14 PM
I think the heart of literature just stopped beating. Think about the people who don't stand a chance in this capitalist world and multiply that situation exponentially. Public education is an equalizer (obviously a corruptable system but necessary nonetheless).

That being said what is all this money you'd have to shell out to pay for other people's insurance? Really what are all the hidden taxes I admit I hadn't heard of them. The whole point is that people have to buy their own. The taxes aren't simply buying people a product, the insured health of 30 million people is something that benefits the entire nation (save for a few whom have huge amounts of wealth). This isn't some hobby or convenience. It's life and death literally and I think the rights of citizens to not die when there is treatment available in their own towns weighs out your entitlement to every dollar. Is it your opinion that all taxes are inherently evil? Also a lot of people whom the taxes cover are people whom can't get coverage because they have pre-existing conditions. It is not their fault and for most those people the care isn't just too expensive but literally no insurance companies will cover them for any price. Again if there is such thing as a just tax how does this not apply? If your opinion is that all taxes are bad then it makes more sense.
Public education has become a liberal indoctrination money pit. The teachers unions could care less about educating anyone, they care more about striking, protecting their pensions and getting their tenure. The fact that a teacher can shout down a student who was having a reasonable critical discussion about Obama with made up bullshit about criminal consequences for criticizing Obama and still keep her job just proves that the public education system is fucked.

I would rather find a way for people to take care of themselves and provide for themselves than force half of the country to carry them on their backs, that is where this bill fails. It's not about "I've got mine fuck you" it's about lets fix this so that more people can make it happen on their own, simply expecting the rich to pay for all of our shit isn't going to work.

Also you do know, that in the matter of life and death, no one can be turned down for medical assistance at the hospital, no matter who you are if you come to the ER with a serious condition you will be treated, so the right not to die already existed before Obamacare.

Magtig
06-29-2012, 08:26 PM
Anyone remember a few years back when Alan Grayson was crucified for saying the Republican plan was to die if you can't afford healthcare? Sounds like that's 50's (and a helluva lot of other Republicans) plan to the letter. I can't believe people even have to say things like this at this point, but not being able to afford healthcare is not a justification for fucking DEATH. Yes, I will help with the healthcare costs of others, because I fucking value human life you psychopathic motherfucking assholes. Christ, are we a civilized country or not?

The cut throat, inhumane nature of the "debates" we have in this country are nothing short of astounding.

Aaanyway, has that reddit article been posted? It lays out in clear and concise language what the bill does in an objective way. I like quite a bit of it, even though the only real solution is a single payer system: http://redd.it/vb8vs

50 Volt Phantom
06-29-2012, 08:53 PM
Read my last post, I don't want anyone to die, the reality is people get treated no matter what at hospitals. Oh and single payer is about the farthest thing away from a real healthcare solution, single payer would be a clusterfuck.

Magtig
06-29-2012, 09:28 PM
And yet, 45,000 people die every year because they have no health insurance (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_die_from_no_health_care_insurance_ in_America). Has it ever occurred to you that waiting until things are an emergency, requiring a trip to the ER, is a good way for people to die? Your plan, and the plan of the Republicans, remains: "die, leech."

Torgo
06-29-2012, 09:36 PM
Also - in regards to this argument - pulled from the reddit thread: "... the increased focus on preventative care (making sure people don't get sick in the first place), should help to save money the government already spends on emergency care for these same people. Basically, by catching illnesses early, we're not spending as much on emergency room visits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, who studies these things, the ultimate result is that this bill will reduce the yearly deficit by $210 billion. By the year 2021, the bill will actually have paid itself and started bringing in more money than it cost."

50 Volt Phantom
06-29-2012, 09:38 PM
Ya except the Republicans presented a plan and the civil Democrats snubbed it, but please, feel free to continue spewing bullshit.

50 Volt Phantom
06-29-2012, 09:39 PM
Also - in regards to this argument - pulled from the reddit thread: "... the increased focus on preventative care (making sure people don't get sick in the first place), should help to save money the government already spends on emergency care for these same people. Basically, by catching illnesses early, we're not spending as much on emergency room visits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, who studies these things, the ultimate result is that this bill will reduce the yearly deficit by $210 billion. By the year 2021, the bill will actually have paid itself and started bringing in more money than it cost."
The CBO has a knack for fucking up a lot of their numbers.

Magtig
06-29-2012, 09:40 PM
Also - in regards to this argument - pulled from the reddit thread: "... the increased focus on preventative care (making sure people don't get sick in the first place), should help to save money the government already spends on emergency care for these same people. Basically, by catching illnesses early, we're not spending as much on emergency room visits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, who studies these things, the ultimate result is that this bill will reduce the yearly deficit by $210 billion. By the year 2021, the bill will actually have paid itself and started bringing in more money than it cost."
I don't have insurance, and when my appendix almost burst several years back I had to go to the ER (three times, due to complications post surgery). I couldn't afford it, and got signed up to the state's MSI program (basically it's medicaid for low income people in California). They paid my bills, which wound up being about $50,000. That much money could have paid for a LOT of check-ups and regular visits. I have to think that if I had had regular healthcare and my operation had been done without any ER visits, it would ultimately have cost the tax payers way, way less.

50 Volt Phantom
06-29-2012, 09:44 PM
Except appendicitis tends to be sudden and usually the only way to fix it is removal, not sure that preventative care or regular check ups would have helped at all.

Mantra
06-29-2012, 09:55 PM
if you don't have health insurance you shouldn't expect the general populace to provide it for you.

Wrong. This is exactly what I expect from my country. I have a health insurance policy, but I'm happy to pay a higher tax to prevent others from dying unnecessarily, because that's what should be going on in any decent country, especially one as wealthy as the U.S.

If someone's trying to kill me, I expect to call the cops and get help.
If my house is on fire, I expect the fire department to come and put it out.
And if I have cancer, I expect to walk in, get my treatment, and go home.

And I expect all of this without having to think "Oh shit, what's the bill going to be? Does this treatment fall under my plan?" We're not talking about cosmetic surgery here, these are basic human needs, and unless the country is deeply impoverished, there's no excuse to not provide them to the general populace.

50 Volt Phantom
06-29-2012, 10:01 PM
Neat, I disagree, if you go to the hospital you will be treated, hell hospitals can't even turn away people here illegally. No one is going to die because the hospital won't help them. In a world where entitlement has become the rule and not the exception it's not shocking to see the attitudes that I see here though.

Magtig
06-29-2012, 10:13 PM
Ya except the Republicans presented a plan and the civil Democrats snubbed it, but please, feel free to continue spewing bullshit.
What bullshit? That 45,000 people die every year? That waiting until a health problem requires a trip to the ER is a fantastic way to get dead and cost way more than it needs to? That your whole point about 'the right not to die' is back to zero because of those facts?

THAT bullshit?

Isn't that Republican plan you're speaking of voucher based? PUHLEASE

You've stated outright that these arguments are pointless, and yet you keep participating in them. You think everyone in here is the same, and that we all regard HuffPo as legit when I personally have told you on numerous occasions how bullshit I think it is. You routinely treat everyone who differs from your ideas as "the liberal monolith" as if we all march in lock-step instead of addressing individuals. You don't discuss, you preach, and you're pathetically bad at it. You've probably done more to damage your side by speaking than if you had simply kept silent. I'd love to have a Republican to shake things up around here and keep people on their toes, but it's going to have to be an intelligent one who can make a cogent argument; one who can acknowledge reality (hint: THAT PERSON IS NOT YOU).

Also, who cares about your point with my appendicitis? Plenty of other conditions will be detected by regular checkups and prevent death and trips to the ER, thereby saving taxpayers money, and saving lives of human beings. The concept is not rocket science.

Mantra
06-29-2012, 10:23 PM
No one is going to die because the hospital won't help them.

Yes they will. Tens of thousands of them do, every single year.


In a world where entitlement has become the rule and not the exception

But it is the exception. Again, we're talking pretty basic needs here. The right to receive treatment for a chronic illnesses. The right to not die when the resources are literally right there.

theruiner
06-29-2012, 10:28 PM
Mantra, I wish I could 'like' your post a thousand times. Absolutely spot on. It's not just about people not dying (though, as Magtig pointed out, people do die as a result of not having healthcare coverage), it's about people not going to bankruptcy and losing everything they have because they got sick. We need to stop acting like we're the God damn best country in the world and we're so much better than everyone else. We're not. Not when our citizens are dying because they don't have healthcare.


Neat, I disagree, if you go to the hospital you will be treated, hell hospitals can't even turn away people here illegally.Are you seriously saying that hospitals should be able to turn people away because they're not citizens? Are you seriously fucking saying that? Because if you are, then you are a genuinely a psychopath.

Edit: I went on a pretty big rant, but I see that Magtig already covered what I was going to say, in a much more succinct way than I did:


Also, who cares about your point with my appendicitis? Plenty of other conditions will be detected by regular checkups and prevent death and trips to the ER, thereby saving taxpayers money, and saving lives of human beings. The concept is not rocket science.

50 Volt Phantom
06-29-2012, 10:28 PM
I've listened to several interviews with doctors and ER workers in regards to Obamacare and they all say that no one is turned away from treatment, not the uninsured, not illegals, no one. They must help you, so again, your argument doesn't hold weight with me.

50 Volt Phantom
06-29-2012, 10:31 PM
Manta, I wish I could 'like' your post a thousand times. Absolutely spot on. It's not just about people not dying (though, as Magtig pointed out, people do die as a result of not having healthcare coverage), it's about people not going to bankruptcy and losing everything they have because they got sick. We need to stop acting like we're the God damn best country in the world and we're so much better than everyone else. We're not. Not when our citizens are dying because they don't have healthcare.
I don't disagree, but the means of reaching this goal should be different, the expansion and continuation of welfare systems is not the way to go.

Andrew
06-29-2012, 10:36 PM
I read the "20 hidden taxes" doc. The majority of those items are penalties for non compliance. The majority of the remainder touch only those with incomes over $250k. One that touches everyone is the $2500 FSA cap, which I want to read in detail. There has to be more to that... Or perhaps there was more to that and the other side of the balancing scale was cut. Perhaps the logic is that with better healthcare options, few would go over $2500/yr out of pocket for anything.

Regarding the divisiveness: started long before Obama. More like 2000 with a close, contested election and a sudden, massive evaporation of wealth when the dot-coms burst; a low tide 2001-2002 with a wave of patriotism, followed by a nasty escalation every year since.

Magtig
06-29-2012, 10:36 PM
I've listened to several interviews with doctors and ER workers in regards to Obamacare and they all say that no one is turned away from treatment, not the uninsured, not illegals, no one. They must help you, so again, your argument doesn't hold weight with me.
We're not talking about being turned away, we're talking about conditions getting so bad that it's too late to save the person. We're also talking about how expensive it is ...to the tax payers... to take care of health problems with trips to the ER (which are usually a minimum of 10K, regardless of what procedures are done or not).

Do you understand?

Mantra
06-29-2012, 10:39 PM
I've listened to several interviews with doctors and ER workers in regards to Obamacare and they all say that no one is turned away from treatment, not the uninsured, not illegals, no one. They must help you, so again, your argument doesn't hold weight with me.

So then just to be clear...it is your personal opinion that there is not a single individual in this entire country who has ever died because they didn't have insurance.

That's what you sincerely believe?

Thaned
06-29-2012, 11:32 PM
I've listened to several interviews with doctors and ER workers in regards to Obamacare and they all say that no one is turned away from treatment, not the uninsured, not illegals, no one. They must help you, so again, your argument doesn't hold weight with me.

Can you please listen to what other people are saying? We're not saying that hospitals are turning people away, I don't think anyone in this thread has ever tried to claim that. What we're saying is that the cost of healthcare deters people from seeking healthcare until it's too late.

It's really basic. If you can't afford to go to the hospital, you won't go to the hospital. Does that make sense?

littlemonkey613
06-29-2012, 11:47 PM
Neat, I disagree, if you go to the hospital you will be treated, hell hospitals can't even turn away people here illegally. No one is going to die because the hospital won't help them. In a world where entitlement has become the rule and not the exception it's not shocking to see the attitudes that I see here though.

You think uninsured people without money with cancer just waltz into hospitals and get life saving treatment for months without dire consequences? You think people just get organ transplants if they can't afford them and have waited too long because they don't have insurance? You think people with chronic illnesses just get all their medications and quality treatment if they are poor and have no means to pay for any of it? And you don't think millions of families are going bankrupt over this? The health services these people DO get is not enough and it shouldn't mean the end of their family's potential prosperity and comfort. For most people accepting the bills and going into debt over STAYING ALIVE is unthinkable and people don't want to subject their love ones to this kind of financial strain. You should not have to choose between life and food, or life and college, or life and a savings, or life or quality education for your children, or life and keeping your home.

Whatever the republicans have put forth it would not cover those 30 million people in such a short amount of time. That is simply the reality. The kind of individual empowerment you dream of cannot work when so many people in this country are poor and no matter what poor people will continue to exist and they do and always will have just as much right to any treatment without uprooting their life because LIFE and HEALTH are more valuable than a dollar sign and they should not be weighed against each other. We are really debating whether millions of people's lives and health are worth a tax increase. I mean jesus most taxes go to paying for who knows what in god knows where. You know exactly where this is going. You know it is doing good for fellow Americans and you know there are millions of underprivelaged citizens benefiting directly from the tax. The horror!

Cat Mom
06-30-2012, 12:35 AM
Neat, I disagree, if you go to the hospital you will be treated, hell hospitals can't even turn away people here illegally. No one is going to die because the hospital won't help them. In a world where entitlement has become the rule and not the exception it's not shocking to see the attitudes that I see here though.
Technically, and legally, that's not entirely true. You have to go to a COUNTY hospital to get treatment, otherwise you ARE turned away. Private hospitals are legally allowed to turn you away. But, they can also take you and then guess what happens? Same as what happens if you're uninsured and can't pay and go to a county hospital: If you don't pay, and you can't afford it, hospitals do the following: They sue you for what you owe, and they file a Medicaid claim.

The former is likely to never bring any money, so then guess who pays for the latter?

Taxpayers.

Which is the surer bet if you want money.

People who don't want to pay for, or can't afford, healthcare roll the dice and don't get insurance. And when they have an emergency and they can't pay, the hospitals are stuck with the bill so they file Medicaid claims and/or they pass the extra costs off to everybody else: The insured, and taxpayers.

Another problem with our current "system" is that it is inefficient and broken. People should not be going to emergency rooms for a sore throat, aches and pains, etc. But, we don't encourage preventative medicine. We don't reward the healthcare system with having patients AVOID emergency care. Emergency care is the most expensive care there is, but we don't have nearly enough clinics to handle sick people; and, certain cultures don't understand our system and how it works. If you want to avoid immigrants coming from countries with national healthcare systems using emergency rooms to treat the cold and flu, or people who live in ghettos that are Health Care Deserts, you have to spend money educating people on how our system works and you have to build and open low-cost clinics that treat non-emergencies and provide preventive care. In the end, it will save taxpayers and the insureds LOTS of money, because people aren't using First Class medicine (ERs) to treat a Fourth Class illnesses. Emergency Rooms are FILLED with ridiculous cases of "why the fuck didn't you go to a walk-in clinic? where is your primary physician and why don't you have one?" And then the insurance companies have to deal with the bill. Or the hospitals are stuck with the bill, AND PASS IT ALL OFF ONTO US.

The CANCER cases aren't the biggest problems, here.

Do you know how much it costs to HAVE A BABY in an average hospital?

THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.

MINIMUM.

That's fucking nuts.

And that's just one example. G's dad was on a respirator and the hospital was charging Medicare -- I shit you not -- $100,000.00 per week

And then you get a statement showing that Medicare finally paid the bill ... A YEAR LATER. AFTER THE GUY HAS BEEN DEAD NEARLY A YEAR.

Would YOU run a business and have customers you knew would pay you A YEAR LATER? OR MORE?

And then who pays for your overhead in the meantime?

Um ... TAXPAYERS.

Mantra
06-30-2012, 01:00 AM
hey allegro, before the thread drifted into the current debate, i was honestly curious to know what you thought of this...


What's your opinion on the "dissent" thing? They're saying that Ginsburg's argument is repeatedly referred to as a "dissent," as if there was a time when it wasn't the majority opinion. Is there another explanation for why this would be?

Cat Mom
06-30-2012, 01:08 AM
EDIT:

You know what, this is a HUGE opinion and a HUGE dissent, and I can't really give my opinion until I thoroughly study the whole thing. I've been REALLY busy yesterday and today in REAL ESTATE LAW, and I skimmed and got the jist of it and, frankly, didn't care about the dissent.

What I believe for the most part is that Ginsburg dissented regarding a lot of the LANGUAGE used in Roberts' opinion, because that language, although concurring in opinion, sets precedence in a shifty way. Think of Roberts' opinion as a left-handed compliment, or perhaps worded in such a shitty way that it invites trouble. At least, according to Ginsburg et al. Also, she's dissenting on the Medicaid expansion decision. And, she's arguing the commerce clause vs. the taxation argument:


I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the Court’s consideration of this case, and that the minimum coverage provision is a proper exercise of Congress’ taxing power. I therefore join Parts I, II, and III–C of THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion. Unlike THE CHIEF JUSTICE, however, I would hold, alternatively, that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to enact the minimum coverage provision. I would also hold that the Spending Clause permits the Medicaid expansion exactly as Congress enacted it.

More importantly, read the dissent of SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO.

If Roberts' had suddenly "changed his mind," the dissent of Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito wouldn't have even happened.

Mantra
06-30-2012, 02:43 AM
Okay, I see. Makes sense. I'll have to read through it this weekend.

While it's true that this idea that Roberts switched at the last moment was perhaps initially reported on from a desire to tell an exciting story about the decision (everyone and their mother kept comparing it to the "switch in time, saves nine" thing from the New Deal, probably just to make this feel even more epic and historical by association).

But now it seems to have been seized upon by conservatives who are using the idea for a couple of purposes: 1) to demonize Roberts (Glenn Beck is selling t-shirts with "COWARD" written below Robert's face), using his supposed last minute switch to make him look weak and flip-floppy. And 2) to help paint Obama as tyrannical by fueling batshit paranoid conspiracy theories about him trying to intimidate the supreme court into upholding the act. I read a Fox News article earlier today that used that same Obama quote from the Salon article about how he's "confident that the supreme court won't overturn the law," and then followed it up with all these bullshit speculations like, "Many are baffled as to why Judge Roberts would switch, and are wondering what could possibly inspire such an unusual change from a conservative Judge." And now, big surprise, there are rightwing blogs and message boards populated with fringe nutjobs theorizing that maybe Obama had something to do with this, given that, you know, he's a Marxist dictator and all.

Ordinarily I find this highschool gossip bullshit fairly innocuous, but I do wonder how this whole switch theory will play out for conservatives in the coming months/years. I could imagine the birther types latching onto this as a means of arguing that the whole thing is invalid. "He's not the real president because he wasn't even born here. And Obamacare wasn't REALLY passed because Roberts was forced to switch! Do your research, here's a totally reliable blog link."

theruiner
06-30-2012, 03:05 AM
Nutjob update!


what this does...and what it is supposed to do...is pave the way for a “carbon” tax...which literally will tax you for breathing. If you can’t pay your “breathing tax” you WILL BE “indentured” to someone who can.....

We the People will see this in our lifetime...

That has been your nutjob update. Back to your regularly scheduled discourse.


Edit: Ok, one more, because this one was...wow.


The Confederate States of America doesn’t look so bad now, does it?

WOW.

slave2thewage
06-30-2012, 11:51 AM
LOL. And these people are bitching because America's finally decided to join the rest of the civilized world in terms of healthcare? I think you people need a spot of ethnic cleansing over there.

orestes
06-30-2012, 11:53 AM
It's a really sad day in this country when the inalienable right to good health is considered an entitlement.

Magtig
06-30-2012, 01:44 PM
LOL. And these people are bitching because America's finally decided to join the rest of the civilized world in terms of healthcare?
Well, no, we're really not. Joining the rest of the world would be having a single payer/gov't run system, if I'm not mistaken. I think it's hilarious that all these conservatives out there are saying they're going to move to Canada or whatever other major modern country. It's pretty tough to find one that doesn't have socialized healthcare.

slave2thewage
06-30-2012, 02:46 PM
So, this is a relative babystep compared to the systems in the other developed nations then? I've never really delved deeply into the logistics of this.

Magtig
06-30-2012, 04:19 PM
Yeah, it's just the beginning since modern America is incapable of doing anything decisive except bombing brown people who live far away.

Mantra
06-30-2012, 04:54 PM
...and giving rich people a helping hand.

Sutekh
07-01-2012, 03:59 AM
So, this is a relative babystep compared to the systems in the other developed nations then? I've never really delved deeply into the logistics of this.

Yeah it is a long way to a UK style NHS, but it will gain momentum as it develops. It will always be under attack from conservatives with a private sector finger up their arse though, a health service is something you have to fight for unfortunately

Magtig
07-01-2012, 02:30 PM
This brings up an interesting question: Is there any push in countries with socialized healthcare to make the system for-profit? Does that ever happen from the conservatives in those countries, or is a large majority of the country on the same page in terms of having a socialized system?

icklekitty
07-01-2012, 03:37 PM
In the UK we also have 100% private healthcare. i.e. you either pay for every consultation, operation, injection etc. or you get an insurance policy that works just like car insurance. The rooms look like hotel suites and all the doctors are consultants/professors who were trained under the NHS and either still work there part-time or have left to go private.

It's not a move to make NHS care for profit, but it's a for-profit healthcare system that operates almost entirely independently of the NHS (they're still subject to care quality commissions and things like that though). If the NHS really struggles with beds and things patients get sent to these private hospitals, but the NHS foots the bill.

Most European countries with socialised healthcare have this co-habitation of private/public healthcare, from what I see.



Question: For those in the US, how much do you pay for insurance every month vs how much you earn every month? A percentage will do if you don't want to disclose your salary.

Mantra
07-01-2012, 04:05 PM
About 20% or so. I'm not sure about this, but I suspect that mine is a higher percentage than most people, because I have a fucking shitty policy and because I'm practically broke right now, what with the booming economic prospects for recent college graduates. They keep raising the monthly rate for me, which really irritates the shit out of me. I think in the last 2 or so years it's increased by about 40 dollars. My grandpa used to sell health insurance, so he's gonna help me look into getting a better policy when I go visit him this summer, because given how little I make right now, it's pretty hard to justify the huge monthly expense of this policy.

theruiner
07-01-2012, 07:59 PM
I used to pay around 6% a month for my insurance (back when I had insurance). Most of it was covered by my employer, so that was only my share. I have no idea how much it would have been if I had to pay for the whole thing (a hell of a lot more than that, I can tell you that).

Mantra
07-03-2012, 11:23 PM
Health insurance cost calculator...

http://news.consumerreports.org/health/2012/06/i-cant-afford-insurance-now-so-how-am-i-supposed-to-meet-the-mandate-in-two-years.html?EXTKEY=ZF262P000 (http://news.consumerreports.org/health/2012/06/i-cant-afford-insurance-now-so-how-am-i-supposed-to-meet-the-mandate-in-two-years.html?EXTKEY=ZF262P000)

I did mine and I qualify for all medicaid. I'm pretty fucking happy about that.

icklekitty
07-04-2012, 05:48 AM
I was curious to compare because 22% is the sum total of all my taxes ever (including state pension and policing, street lighting, schools, etc).

liquidcalm
07-04-2012, 03:06 PM
I was curious to compare because 22% is the sum total of all my taxes ever (including state pension and policing, street lighting, schools, etc).
Don't forget to take 20% VAT on every pound you spend on anything that isn't food which is technically there.

In other news, fair play USA for at least getting its foot in the door with healthcare for all. We might get taxed a lot in the UK, but I think every single person I know is still here thanks to the NHS, be it accidents, illness or counseling . Being in Wales is even better as we currently have free prescriptions.

icklekitty
07-04-2012, 03:43 PM
Don't forget to take 20% VAT on every pound you spend on anything that isn't food which is technically there.

Yes but we - and every other country on the planet outside of North America - have that in built to the face value price, which I barely pay for anything thanks to eBay. Also, some food is taxed - biscuits can be taxed but cake can't (for example).

liquidcalm
07-04-2012, 04:33 PM
Yes but we - and every other country on the planet outside of North America - have that in built to the face value price, which I barely pay for anything thanks to eBay. Also, some food is taxed - biscuits can be taxed but cake can't (for example).
true true, I was being fairly broad... but it is still tax money going to the government.. pasty tax rabble rabble!

50 Volt Phantom
01-06-2013, 01:32 PM
Well, my employer provided insurance deductible just tripled, with slightly worse coverage across the board and I have to pay even more into it, not only that but my employer has warned that the current cost increases are unsustainable and we will more than likely be on the exchange next year because the penalty is cheaper. Thanks Obama!

Cat Mom
01-06-2013, 02:24 PM
That IS a big problem with the Affordable Healthcare Act; the penalty is cheaper, so employers will take the penalty. Also, the Act did nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare and the cost of healthcare in this country is nuts, which is why insurance costs have been sharply rising for at least 2 decades.

Dra508
01-06-2013, 10:56 PM
As with any entitlement program, we'll figure out away to mess it up, use the loop holes.

My company ginormous and is self insured. Employee share has been going up for years. We really do need to figure out a better way.

Deepvoid
01-07-2013, 11:41 AM
You gotta love that the first bill introduced to this 113th Congress was a bill to repeal Obamacare in its entirety. Introduced by Michele Bachmann.
34th bill in that regard, all of them failed. House Republicans wasted over $50M in taxpayers money to push legislation which cannot pass because it would ultimately be vetoed by Obama.

50 Volt Phantom
01-14-2013, 03:59 PM
That IS a big problem with the Affordable Healthcare Act; the penalty is cheaper, so employers will take the penalty. Also, the Act did nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare and the cost of healthcare in this country is nuts, which is why insurance costs have been sharply rising for at least 2 decades.
Obamacare itself IS a big problem, wait until 2014 when it really gets shitty.

Cat Mom
01-14-2013, 08:21 PM
It has a lot of really good aspects, though. The fact that it didn't include universal health care (like a big group plan where we pay premiums) is the bigger problem, for me.

It seems like a bloated, over-reaching typical government move. It needs tweaking.

But these mega companies like Walmart that make millions in profits but their employees are on Medicaid need to be punished.

50 Volt Phantom
02-05-2013, 06:20 PM
CBO is predicting 7 million Americans will lose their health insurance, woo Obamacare. Hope some of you fans of the program have the opportunity to lose yours, you should be excited about your 20 grand federal bronze plan anyway.

Baphomette
02-05-2013, 09:08 PM
CBO is predicting 7 million Americans will lose their health insurance...Wrong.

CBO report. (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43900_ACAInsuranceCoverageEffects.pdf)

Fixer808
02-05-2013, 09:21 PM
Woah woah woah, he doesn't like it when silly things like "facts" get in the way of his arguments.

50 Volt Phantom
02-05-2013, 09:41 PM
Read the whole fucking document, page 60, the CBO's revised estimates of people losing the insurance they were promised they could keep has gone up to 7 million from 4 last year. Unless the CBO is suddenly wrong at the same time....

50 Volt Phantom
02-05-2013, 09:43 PM
And yes, losing employer-based private insurance for fucking outrageously expensive DMV style fed healthcare is in fact losing healthcare as far as I'm concerned.

DigitalChaos
02-05-2013, 11:45 PM
"President Obama's health care law will push 7 million people out of their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/5/obama-health-law-will-cost-7-million/

Jinsai
02-06-2013, 02:41 AM
and it still reduces the deficit, and insures everybody, and...

...considering how I've been haggling with my private insurance company lately to get them to cover the hospital fees they originally agreed to cover, I don't feel like I even would be missing out on much if my insurance company were to just "drop me"

xmd 5a
02-06-2013, 03:32 AM
I don't know what I'd do without public healthcare. Thank goodness we sorted that out 40 years ago here. Fighting with insurance companies for treatment seems like hell. Really hoping that that the USA gets a true public option in the near future. The whole idea of a basic human need like healthcare as a vehicle for making excessive profit is incredibly perverse.

50 Volt Phantom
02-06-2013, 07:12 AM
I don't believe that this will actually reduce the deficit, they can predict that now all they want, but I see a Social Security style disaster of cost and lack of return looming in the future.

I won't deny that private insurance can be a bitch, but everything our government runs is massively costly and horribly inefficient, and considering I loved my employer-based healthcare, it pisses me off that we've already been warned that it could be dropped next year due to cost and that my coverage for this year got shittier and the price went up. Obama lied through his teeth about this whole thing, costs didn't go down and I'm not keeping what I wanted.

Pillfred
02-06-2013, 05:00 PM
It has a lot of really good aspects, though. The fact that it didn't include universal health care (like a big group plan where we pay premiums) is the bigger problem, for me.

It seems like a bloated, over-reaching typical government move. It needs tweaking.

But these mega companies like Walmart that make millions in profits but their employees are on Medicaid need to be punished.

My girlfriend is a nurse and the Sanford Hospital whom she works for, gives her shit insurance.

50 Volt Phantom
02-26-2013, 05:41 PM
GAO says this lovely program will add 6.2 trillion to the deficit longterm. Good job guys! Looks like the "won't add a dime to the deficit" talk can be filed in with the "you won't lose your insurance" pile of lies.

Oh and another high five for the federal pre-existing condition plan being shutdown prior to full implementation because it's already unsustainable.

Cat Mom
02-26-2013, 11:09 PM
Truth: Insurance is a giant fucking scam.

My mom's podiatrist clued me in to the crazy horrors of insurance last week. What a joke. And a scam. And the government and Congress knows it and plays along.

Shame on the whole lot of them.

Jinsai
02-26-2013, 11:33 PM
GAO says this lovely program will add 6.2 trillion to the deficit longterm.

No, they said it "could" increase the deficit, not that it WOULD. They also said that it could decrease the deficit over the next 75 years (aka, the long term) if its "cost saving provisions survive."

Thanks for the intentionally misleading "summary" though.

50 Volt Phantom
02-27-2013, 06:17 PM
It's cost saving provisions are already raising concerns about their sustainability, like I said, pre-existing condition plans already became unsustainable. Think whatever you want, this beast is going to cost considerable amounts of money, even the GAO's optimistic outlook that included none of the CBO's and the Medicare and Medicaids Trustees' concerns concluded that the cost cutting provisions would not do enough to curb unsustainable debt.

Cat Mom
02-27-2013, 07:32 PM
The pre-existing conditions mostly sticks it to already-rich insurance companies and if they are passing any "costs" on to us, they should be in PRISON for fraud.

Medicare MUST have an income threshold.

DigitalChaos
02-27-2013, 10:20 PM
http://i.imgur.com/Xy1LxG5.png


.... yup

Jinsai
03-01-2013, 02:35 AM
This has apparently become a GOP meme

DigitalChaos
03-01-2013, 10:37 AM
This has apparently become a GOP meme
The image I posted? You can't really blame them. I mean, seriously... wtf? That's basically the sterotypical "dumb democrat who doesn't understand the consequences of their decisions." She is the DNC vice chair!

Deepvoid
03-01-2013, 10:58 AM
I'm not sure I understand how the Affordable Health Care Act works.
The premium she is referring to is it from the health insurance obtain through an employer?
Or is she referring to the amount that's being taken straight from her paycheck?

Cat Mom
03-01-2013, 11:49 AM
^^ First off, "Obamacare" isn't really the name of it; that's a nickname often used by people who don't LIKE the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act). <---That link will explain the Act. "Obamacare" isn't really healthcare in and of itself, at all. Again, read the link.

It appears that Donna Brazile has independent health insurance, meaning she pays for her own health insurance (since she says she was "on the phone to her healthcare provider" - if she had employer-provided health insurance, she'd be "on the phone with human resources.") Edit: Actually, I don't know what the hell Donna Brazile means, because your "health care provider" is usually your DOCTOR, not your insurance company, and I don't know about paying "premiums" (insurance payments) to a DOCTOR. Who the fuck knows. Maybe she's a part of Kaiser Permanente (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente).

The other alternative is health insurance through your employer, in which case your employer pays all or most of the monthly insurance premiums and increases are absorbed by your employer but are also partially (sometimes totally) passed on to you, and your contribution comes out of your monthly paycheck.

Note that I had independent health insurance (meaning, I had my own health insurance plan and paid for it entirely myself, Humana) from around 2002 through 2012 and my insurance premiums went up a LOT every year, and George W. Bush was still president for most of that time. For what it's worth.

littlemonkey613
06-01-2013, 08:58 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/01/the-shocking-truth-about-obamacares-rate-shock/

Nice positive read about Obamacare.

50 Volt Phantom
06-01-2013, 10:15 PM
Oh man, after reading that my deductible went back to it's much lower cost, my premium went back to it's lower cost, and my coverage returned to it's previous better state. Oh wait, no it didn't.

Leviathant
06-01-2013, 10:40 PM
I was going through old paychecks and shredding them after doing taxes this year. In the year 2000, my monthly cost for a premium health care plan through the newspaper company I worked for was $7.

50 Volt Phantom, you're a fan of blaming things on presidents, right? Or maybe we need a majority Republican congress again? Those guys totally steered us straight, huh.

50 Volt Phantom
06-01-2013, 10:52 PM
I was going through old paychecks and shredding them after doing taxes this year. In the year 2000, my monthly cost for a premium health care plan through the newspaper company I worked for was $7.

50 Volt Phantom, you're a fan of blaming things on presidents, right? Or maybe we need a majority Republican congress again? Those guys totally steered us straight, huh.
Establishment Republicans are only slightly less pro-"spend what we don't have" and pro-government then Democrats, so essentially they all disappoint me. I just want to be left alone, have a smaller government and a group of people that can responsibly budget and won't tax the fuck out of everyone but the poor.

That said, Obamacare, Obama, and his administration are all total shit.

Leviathant
06-01-2013, 11:11 PM
I just want to be left alone, have a smaller government and a group of people that can responsibly budget and won't tax the fuck out of everyone but the poor.

Why don't you run for office? You seem to know what needs to happen - make it so!

Dra508
06-02-2013, 12:32 PM
won't tax the fuck out of everyone but the poor.
.No really, do you just say that?

50 Volt Phantom
06-02-2013, 01:08 PM
Yes i did say that, its not surprising that the poor stay poor when a chunk of them just suck on the welfare nipple all day long and don't feel the need to better themselves. That's not all the poor, but come on, we've created a free handout entitlement problem, listening to college students at Occupy rallies demand the rich pay their tuition is disgusting. Fair tax, that's the way to go, this "eat the rich" attitude is BS.

orestes
06-02-2013, 01:28 PM
Yeah, it's a damn shame corporations pay little to no taxes while getting that sweet federal money.

50 Volt Phantom
06-02-2013, 01:38 PM
Corporations are a different discussion, I'm talking individuals.

Jinsai
06-02-2013, 02:05 PM
my deductible went back to it's much lower cost, my premium went back to it's lower cost, and my coverage returned to it's previous better state... its not surprising that the poor stay poor

Wrong, every goddamn time. This is first grade grammar. Just a helpful hint for the guy who's mocking the poor college students at the occupy rallies.

orestes
06-02-2013, 02:26 PM
Corporations are a different discussion, I'm talking individuals.

The point being that corporations are the biggest welfare recipients, not imaginary welfare queens who live on on the hog from government assistance.

DigitalChaos
06-02-2013, 02:57 PM
Yeah, it's a damn shame corporations pay little to no taxes while getting that sweet federal money.
Gee, i wonder how that happened. Maybe its the unlimited supply of business regulations people are willing to throw at "problems" before thinking them through. Many of those regulations are much harder for the smaller business to follow than the larger ones. You continually give an edge to big business, which gives them more power, which gives them more control over "our" government...

Welcome to crony capitalism. The right thinks its all because of big government. The left thinks its all because of big business. The cycle will continue as long as people think every problem in this country links back to a single variable directly connected to the problem. Let's just add another law to the pile! That'll fix it!

Cat Mom
06-02-2013, 03:27 PM
Gee, i wonder how that happened. Maybe its the unlimited supply of business regulations people are willing to throw at "problems" before thinking them through. Many of those regulations are much harder for the smaller business to follow than the larger ones. You continually give an edge to big business, which gives them more power, which gives them more control over "our" government...

Welcome to crony capitalism.

Dude, there are about 400 things totally incorrect about this post, I don't even know where to start. Do you know anything about corporate taxes or corporate entity structure? Taxation filters? Shareholder taxation? Pass-through taxation? LLCs and LLPs? Small or large, they all enjoy the same rules and protection.

OSHA, FMLA, EEO, etc. - all affect big business, not small business. Where there are loopholes in big business, there are MORE loopholes with small businesses. Including loopholes to keep out unions, avoid paying benefits, etc.

Laissez Faire capitalism IS crony capitalism.

Corruption is born from crony capitalism.

I don't point the finger at ALL big business but I certainly do think that the American public needs to know the evils of Walmart. Seriously, they are the Poster Child of crony capitalism. And those flag-waving Walmart customers need to know that every.fucking.thing they buy at Walmart comes from China, completely unregulated, and takes away jobs from Americans. Cheap goods don't come cheap. And a huge percentage of Walmart employees are on Medicaid and government assistance; while the billionaires at the top at Walmart are collecting billions in profits, we're paying for their employees' health care. We're paying for their employees food stamps. Walmart breaks labor laws every single day but it's like slavery; the American people don't want to get rid of evil if it means giving up cheap goods.

Regarding health care reform: We have done NOTHING to reform health care. "Obamacare" did nothing to reform the profit-based health care system in this country. Hospitals and medicine is about one thing: Profits for shareholders. It's not about good health care of medicine or responsibility or anything like that; it's about $$$$$$$.

The Federal Government hands out paperwork to all medical care providers that show thousands and thousands of medical procedures, codes for those procedures, and the accepted cost for those procedures; that list then determines how much the Federal Government is willing to pay for those procedures. That then sets the standard for insurers. The problem is that the Federal Government lists costs that are REALLY FUCKING HIGH. We could get the procedures done cheaper FOR CASH. If the cost of health care was cheaper, NONE OF US WOULD NEED FUCKING INSURANCE. But, "Obamacare" became all about health insurance and availability of health insurance and the cost of health insurance etc., but NOTHING about the cost of health care. The entire medical industry is corrupt, it's all about profit, the lobbyists keep the system intact and have Congress in their pockets, and none of it will change anytime soon.


Here, read this (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us).

DigitalChaos
06-02-2013, 07:08 PM
Laissez Faire capitalism IS crony capitalism.

not even close. that's a common misconception though.

The surplus of loopholes for small business that you speak of... Yea, those are usually put in place to give the impression that there is a balance on the topic I am complaining about. That's great on paper, but how does it work in practice? Well, let's look! Well, you might want to look at who is drafting the legislation. Hint: lobbyists of those who have money (big business).

I could list a ton of instances where big business benefits from regulation. There are so many examples. In fact, let's use the topic of this thread (ObamaCare) and the company you pointed out (Walmart). Remember when Walmart was very vocal about supporting ObamaCare? Well, turns out they are going to be using the new ObamaCare legislation to dump the healthcare costs of most of their part time employees onto the tax payers (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/09/walmart-bails-on-obamacare-sticks-taxpayers-with-employee-healthcare-costs/). That's just too fucking ironic in a thread where an ObamaCare supporter like orestes is complaining about corporate welfare.


What else....

- Restaurant associations pushing for more parking & sidewalk regulation (wtf?) because it impacts the growing food truck craze.


- Obama's tobacco regulation being supported by Philip Morris because it allows them to lock in market share.


- "The Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012" that was wrapped into the fiscal cliff legislation... absolutely PACKED with big business benefits. I think GE, alone, pulled something like $80billion from that.


- I'm watching the taxi monopolies (not our enforcement agencies) actively use regulation to try and cripple some of these newer transportation services like Uber. Customers are willing to pay MORE for a service like Uber but the taxi monopoly dislikes that.




I won't even touch agricultural subsidies and government loan guarantees...


Business regulation make the barrier to entry harder. It further secures market dominance for those who already have it. In markets where there are fewer barriers to entry the business turnover is much more rapid and per capita economic growth is faster. Not ALL regulation is bad for small business (anti-monopoly, etc) but a whole shitload is bad for small business. Again, look at who is drafting the regulation and where their money comes from.

Cat Mom
06-02-2013, 07:32 PM
DigitalChaos You're right, all very good points. Kudos.

This fucking MONSANTO bullshit is at the top of my shit list

And, all that big business bullshit includes health care.

Walmart doesn't want to provide ANY benefits. Have you seen that Walmart documentary? Firing people caught talking at work because they could be forming a Union?

http://m.chicagoreader.com/chicago/chicago-walmart-low-wages-unions/Content?oid=2043233


Still, I might add that Walmart is not quite the bad boy of a few years ago because the company did support the Obama health-care plan, and once that goes into effect most Walmart workers will be eligible for Medicaid or big insurance subsidies.

You talk about how Walmart has essentially undone the New Deal by gaming the labor laws that are still on the books.

Take unemployment insurance. In theory, unemployment insurance is supposed to work this way: if a company lays you off because sales go down—and that happens at Walmart in January—then you can receive a substitute for your income until you get rehired. And this was designed in the 1930s for cyclical industries like steel and auto. The government and the reformers wanted steady employment. So companies that did a lot of that cyclical hiring and firing were charged more money.

Walmart didn't like that. They wanted to save money. So they issued edicts to their managers that said, "When January comes and you've got to basically lay people off, don't just lay them off. Don't say to them, 'You're laid off, because there's no work,' i.e., 'You can go to the state employment office and get your check.'" No. They say, "You cut back the hours, and you put them on the night shift." And then they quit! That's how the constant churning of the workforce is very useful to Walmart.

Overtime pay—this is another thing Bergdahl talks about. Walmart is extremely militant on not paying overtime because it's time and a half. The whole key is that store managers at Walmart are rewarded on the basis of keeping labor costs low and they're penalized if they don't. And frankly being a store manager is pretty miserable at Walmart because you are constantly fighting to keep your labor costs down. And if you don't, you can get fired. About 10 percent of all store managers are fired every year, and these are the people who do want to have a career at Walmart, who are making $150,000 to $200,000 a year. The computers in Bentonville are relentlessly keeping track of every penny they spend on labor and basically telling them cut cut cut.

orestes
06-02-2013, 08:09 PM
I'm not an Obamacare supporter, much less an Obama supporter, but thanks for playing.

DigitalChaos
06-03-2013, 04:36 PM
@DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598) You're right, all very good points. Kudos.
but... i.... but.... NOOOOOOOO!!!!




This fucking MONSANTO bullshit is at the top of my shit list

And, all that big business bullshit includes health care.

Walmart doesn't want to provide ANY benefits. Have you seen that Walmart documentary? Firing people caught talking at work because they could be forming a Union?

http://m.chicagoreader.com/chicago/chicago-walmart-low-wages-unions/Content?oid=2043233
Agree. This is why I love disruptive technologies and business models. Walmart and Monsanto are too slow to move in such a fast paced world. They are covered in armor made of lawyers and regulation. Tear down the legal situation and they will get screwed quickly by a new business.

ninedead
06-12-2013, 05:26 PM
started a job last year and after working 6 months as a temp i was hired on and given the option of their health insurance plan. they gave me a notice on how because of obamacare they had just raised their premiums, for a weekly amount of 30 for health 7 for dental for my self, if i added my wife it jumped to 124$ weekly and 14$ weekly and when our child comes a family is able to attain their insurance for 240$ a week and then 30$ for myself which comes to 270$ a week not including dental. to understand the problem, i bring home 60$ more than that premium. how can a person live on that without working two full time jobs? well they just passed out a notice in our check two weeks ago stating that because of obamacare our premiums would be jumping considerably and to be prepared (one note, our deduction is 5000$ crazy).
ok now my wife works at the evil walmart part time and because of that she is unable to add me only full time employees can add a spouse, but she has the exact same insurance plan our cards have the same plan number except she only has a 2000$ deductible and pays 18$ every two weeks and when our baby comes it jumps considerably to 24$ biweekly hahah. so someone explain why it is like that? private companies can screw over their employees or is it really because of obamacare? i work for a company that employees under 60 people but they are a fortune 500 company.

DigitalChaos
06-12-2013, 05:51 PM
started a job last year and after working 6 months as a temp i was hired on and given the option of their health insurance plan. they gave me a notice on how because of obamacare they had just raised their premiums, for a weekly amount of 30 for health 7 for dental for my self, if i added my wife it jumped to 124$ weekly and 14$ weekly and when our child comes a family is able to attain their insurance for 240$ a week and then 30$ for myself which comes to 270$ a week not including dental. to understand the problem, i bring home 60$ more than that premium. how can a person live on that without working two full time jobs? well they just passed out a notice in our check two weeks ago stating that because of obamacare our premiums would be jumping considerably and to be prepared (one note, our deduction is 5000$ crazy).
ok now my wife works at the evil walmart part time and because of that she is unable to add me only full time employees can add a spouse, but she has the exact same insurance plan our cards have the same plan number except she only has a 2000$ deductible and pays 18$ every two weeks and when our baby comes it jumps considerably to 24$ biweekly hahah. so someone explain why it is like that? private companies can screw over their employees or is it really because of obamacare? i work for a company that employees under 60 people but they are a fortune 500 company.
Well, how much did that same sort of coverage cost a few years ago? The fact that you are going to have a kid and it increases your insurance costs shouldn't really be surprising or the blame of Obamacare. As for your coverage vs your wifes... well.. yea. Companies offer many different types of coverage.

Without details that are internal to the company, it's impossible to say. If they say that Obamacare is increasing costs, then it is increasing costs. I think that situation is true in most places. How much you pay for coverage of yourself and/or your dependents is entirely based on company policy. Some will subsidize a flat number of dollars, some will do a percentage, some will do nothing. I've worked at shops that cover 90% for the employee and 0% for dependents monthly costs. That place split the rise in healthcare costs 50/50 that happened a few years back. Appointment/service fees are their own thing too. I've also worked at companies that cover 100% of everything.

Look at getting your own insurance, separate from the employer. In many situations, it can actually be cheaper. It will give you a much better idea on what Obamacare is really costing.

ninedead
06-12-2013, 09:25 PM
i believe they pay zero on dependents and always have but it jumped 7$ for a single person from the year before i started and the deductible went from 1000$ to 5000$ which you would think would cause the premium to go down but not the case. ive looked into getting my own but when i called a few places they told me its best to be in a group and that 120 a month would be the norm. my wife plans on keeping her job so as to keep the insurance.

Broadbent
07-15-2013, 10:42 PM
If it's any interest at all in this thread.... Here is what is going on in my small town(49,000) in Ontario Canada. It is a poorly run system here. It's not like this everywhere, but it's like it here.

http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/2011/09/28/thanks-for-nothing-ckha-reader

elevenism
07-19-2013, 05:54 AM
I'm just gonna jump in here and say that i feel that it is truly sad that the US is pretty much the only civilized country in the world without comprehensive universal healthcare.
I thought Obama was promising a system along the lines of the NHS, and for that i thought he was the second coming.
I was sorely disappointed with the bill he passed. I'm a commision-based salesman, and my company doesn't offer insurance...and i can't fucking afford it!
So i'm not too sure exactly what his bill has in store for me.
There's a good PBS doc on netflix called Bad Blood, i believe...i had seen it a few years back, about drug companies KNOWINGLY selling a hemophilia product that was tainted with Hep B, C, and HIV...and they sold a LOT of it.
Some 90% of hemophiliacs at the time were infected. When the government FINALLY stepped in, the big pharm companies sold it to other countries.
That shit gave me the Fear.
Healthcare here is about MONEY. PERIOD.
I want to believe that Obama's heart was in the right place and he got screwed around by the opposition, but i'm not so sure, and it honestly breaks my heart. I'll be about as far to the left as you can get till the day i die, but when it comes to catching up with the rest of the world in terms of medical ethics, meaning a RIGHT to healthcare, i'm afraid "i just want something i can never have."

My fiancee and i have sincerely looked into moving to Canada solely based on this issue.

50 Volt Phantom
09-23-2013, 06:16 PM
Well, the employee provided insurance that I had, which was wonderful, first saw its premium increase and coverage dramatically decrease and now has been stripped to the bone and we've been told to look to the exchanges. Thanks Obama, Obamacare is amazing so far!

DigitalChaos
09-23-2013, 06:18 PM
http://i.imgur.com/gRhZGlh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/gRhZGlh.jpg

DigitalChaos
09-24-2013, 02:04 AM
Well, the employee provided insurance that I had, which was wonderful, first saw its premium increase and coverage dramatically decrease and now has been stripped to the bone and we've been told to look to the exchanges. Thanks Obama, Obamacare is amazing so far!
I haven't been keeping up with this thing, but I did read this today: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/

That's a pretty heavy fuck up if true.

Cat Mom
09-24-2013, 11:50 AM
This "Cadillac Tax" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/obamacare-tax-cadillac-plans_n_3239488.html) thing really pisses me off. A LOT of us trade wages for better insurance, and now we're getting penalized for having good insurance? Plus, a lot of high-cost insurance is based on pre-existings or the age of the worker (both factors increase insurance costs). This Act is such a fucking mess, they really need to throw it out and start over.

Satyr
09-24-2013, 04:44 PM
We are gonna be in for some interesting times in the coming years.

My opinion is that there isn't enough money, health care providers, or physical beds in hospitals to take care of everyone that needs care.

Guess we'll see.

theimage13
09-25-2013, 12:07 PM
What I still need to figure out is WHAT they base my estimated income off of.

I'm a contract employee, and this year wasn't amazing - but it's a lot better than what next year is going to be. If they base it off of what I made this year, then I'm absolutely fucked next year. Too bad the fucking State Department can't be bothered to answer repeated requests for information.

Sutekh
09-25-2013, 01:05 PM
Amazing how many people in the US really are brainwashed by the whole hayek/ayn rand/strauss brands of thought. People are innately selfish, collective endeavour is coercion... It's entire system of false assumptions. Really sad that people will stick up for entities and systems that don't give a shit whether they live or die. The irony is (given the hayek thing) that it's actually quite a serflike mentality. I'm not a lefty or commie by any stretch but people online say some truly absurd things about obamacare, pure fear

Cat Mom
09-25-2013, 02:23 PM
Well, but a lot of us really WANT universal health care, and we really want AFFORDABLE health care (which has NOTHING to do with fucking INSURANCE rates, which is all Obamacare is all about). We have had Medicare since the 60s and that's nothing but a form of universal health care, ditto for Medicaid. But the tea party assholes hate Medicare and Medicaid, too, and they just cut a shitload of money in food stamps to the poor and the elderly. Let them eat cake and die in a sewer, or something. And none of that has anything to do with Obama, it's just the way the conservatives are leaning with that douche bag Paul Ryan leading the charge in the House.

Obamacare (which isn't even what it's called, btw) is a mish-mash clusterfuck and it didn't give us universal health care, it was just a really shitty cobbled together compromise from hell. It did zero toward making healthcare "affordable" and the medical FOR PROFIT industry is not at risk of losing its billions and the people in Washington will continue to have their pockets lined by the medical industry. Business as usual.

But, yeah, re all the idiots online screaming that Obamacare is commie and all that, it's not fear: IT'S STUPIDITY. THEY'RE JUST STUPID. They don't realize how many SOCIALIZED programs we already HAVE. Yes, you have the Paul Ryans who want to eliminate ALL "entitlement" programs and let old and poor and disabled people fend for themselves or die in a gutter, but I really hope that Paul Ryan doesn't represent the majority of this country. If he does, the poor and disabled and elderly are doomed. (They'd be best off thinking about moving out of this country very soon if that's the case. Hell, I've been thinking about moving out; this is embarrassing!)

Sutekh
09-26-2013, 07:45 AM
It's just a racket so the insurance companies can wring people dry

it can't last though, because the more expensive the treatment, the more likely your condition is so serious you won't survive, and if you don't survive, you can't pay off your debts. And you can only sell so many debts as complex assets before the wheels come off the whole thing.

(also I am using obamacare as a catch all for socialised healthcare in the US - but it is inaccurate and i should pack it in)

DigitalChaos
09-27-2013, 04:01 PM
allegro is spot on, as usual

I'm opposed to the government providing most things but even I think some basic social safety nets are a good thing. It will be much better for the economy and society if we have these things. They have to be properly designed to avoid abuse and they have to encourage people to get out of the safety net.

What Obamacare is now is just all fucked. It's nowhere near what Obama was proposing but they seem to be clinging to it out of pure politics. The fear of losing obamacare is more oriented around a political loss than a financial/health loss for the country. The people acting like the republicans are cold, heartless individuals who want people to just die are ridiculous. Sure, they are cold and heartless, but not because of this. The obamacare defenders seem to have very little comprehension of what it even is!

This onion article sums it up well:
Man Who Understands 8% Of Obamacare Vigorously Defends It From Man Who Understands 5%
http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

DigitalChaos
09-29-2013, 05:35 PM
"We will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan. Period." - Barack Obama
http://i.imgur.com/dSgYEKN.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/dSgYEKN.jpg

theimage13
09-30-2013, 06:10 PM
"We will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan. Period." - Barack Obama
http://i.imgur.com/dSgYEKN.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/dSgYEKN.jpg

Can no longer offer you your current plan? Or won't? I wouldn't be too quick to point the finger at the government on this.

binaryhermit
09-30-2013, 06:38 PM
Well, some crappy insurance plans that currently exist will be illegal as of the 1st of the year because they don't meet the requirements that all insurance plans must meet under Obamacare. But I wouldn't be surprised if that letter was the insurance company being a bunch of phallusheads.

Ponderance
10-01-2013, 12:25 AM
Obamacare is a large capitalist piece of crap. And if anyone didn't realize it was capitalist, they're not paying attention. Funneling everybody into the for profit insurance racket surely isn't socialist.

Demogorgon
10-01-2013, 06:42 AM
i'm simply not going to sign up for anything and see what happens. if the tax/fine/whatever it is ends up cheaper than buying in, well, that's the route i'll go. if not, we'll see what the options are once they start making the attempt to put the fine into place. seriously, if i can't afford the cheapest crap insurance out there, how could i afford the cheapest governement subsidized insurance? it's just not happening. i'm one of many people living in america who simply have no good options for insurance. i can either have healthcare, or i can pay my bills. not much of a choice.

The Great Destroyer
10-01-2013, 10:30 AM
The tax isn't going to be cheaper becausr it's designed to go up every year you don't have insurance

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4

theimage13
10-01-2013, 02:00 PM
My state's exchange website is down, because - shocker - they didn't expect that 2,000,000 people were interested in health insurance, and plan a server that could handle it.

Bravo.

DigitalChaos
10-01-2013, 02:56 PM
i'm simply not going to sign up for anything and see what happens. if the tax/fine/whatever it is ends up cheaper than buying in, well, that's the route i'll go. if not, we'll see what the options are once they start making the attempt to put the fine into place. seriously, if i can't afford the cheapest crap insurance out there, how could i afford the cheapest governement subsidized insurance? it's just not happening. i'm one of many people living in america who simply have no good options for insurance. i can either have healthcare, or i can pay my bills. not much of a choice.
It depends on the person, but I saw one individual calculated the costs. His fine is around $500 cheaper than the cheapest insurance. When you factor in the deductible, you'd have to break 10k in medical bills for the insurance to make financial sense. Since you can always sign up when you need it (not sure how often the enrollment window is) the only danger is if you encounter some 10k+ health problem that can't wait for the next window.

I personally wouldn't take the risk, but in a situation like this I can see a lot of people opting for the fine. The people most likely to choose the fine are the ones with financial issues that this program was branded as helping. Instead, they are basically forced to pay money to not be insured.

I'd be curious to see what others are seeing though. The above was just one person. Try out the calculator here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/30/226456791/how-much-will-obamacare-cost-me-try-our-calculator

littlemonkey613
10-01-2013, 06:43 PM
The people acting like the republicans are cold, heartless individuals who want people to just die are ridiculous. Sure, they are cold and heartless, but not because of this.

To be fair, remember when the bill became what it was because the Republican house wouldn't let anything sane through???? Don't forget that... In liberal Democrat fantasy land we would have had single payer or something else much more helpful.

Wanting people to die? Nah..
Caring about other things more than people dying enough to make actual health reform hopeless? You bet.

DigitalChaos
10-01-2013, 06:52 PM
To be fair, remember when the bill became what it was because the Republican house wouldn't let anything sane through???? Don't forget that... In liberal Democrat fantasy land we would have had single payer or something else much more helpful.

Wanting people to die? Nah..
Caring about other things more than people dying enough to make actual health reform hopeless? You bet.
absolutely. now it's this horrible mess and I can't understand why democrats are so much in support of it.

note: while this did get chopped up due to the GOP, the current law also went into play without a single republican vote from the house or senate.

littlemonkey613
10-01-2013, 06:56 PM
note: while this did get chopped up due to the GOP, the current law also went into play without a single republican vote from the house or senate.



I was under the impression that most of the negotiating took place before the bill took the floor, to preemptively address their opposition, but that only the moderate Dems ended up being persuaded after all that.

I guess my main point was, if the House actually wanted comprehensive reform to happen, it wouldn't have been hard for the Dems to jump on it and push it through. Comprehensive reform implies big government (in the way they don't like) so they were never going to be down.

As for Democrats not giving up support for the bill, it would be political suicide obviously, but there is also desperation to stop the sky rocketing costs, even if its incremental. The bill is supposed to slow down the rise (on average), and based on what I've been reading they still think that is going to hold true.

RhettButler
10-01-2013, 08:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2scvIFGjE

binaryhermit
10-01-2013, 08:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2scvIFGjE
For the record, I'm facepalming the idiots in the video, not your post.

RhettButler
10-01-2013, 08:58 PM
Funny how conservatives were for Obamacare before it became Obamcare.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/21/obamacare-the-heritage-foundation-disowns-its-baby/

RhettButler
10-02-2013, 12:16 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/01/1242925/-Dear-GOP-here-s-how-you-change-a-law?detail=facebook


Dear GOP,


For a crowd that loves to bray about the Constitution, it seems you have misplaced your copy. How else to explain your bizarre efforts to destroy the world unless you get your way?


You don't like the Affordable Care Act. You've made it obvious. But it was passed the correct way, in a Congress that generally doesn't pass shit. It made it through the House, and it made it through the Senate. It wasn't passed in the "dead of night", nor was it "rammed down" anyone's throat like you jokers like to claim. It passed only after an excruciating 14-months of debate and negotiations. But all your hysterical shrieking about death panels and communism couldn't stop it. Finally, the president signed it into law.


Us liberals weren't thrilled when it passed. Just relieved. We didn't get anything near what we wanted. After all, we're not in the business of fighting for Heritage Foundation-created ideas championed by the likes of Newt Gingrich and first adopted by Republican governors (the guy you nominated, in fact!). If we couldn't get single payer, we at least wanted a public option—an expansion of Medicare for all. But alas, we went to D.C. with the Congress we had, not the one we wanted. And really, given the dysfunction in D.C., it's amazing we got anything at all.


So now that the law is about to be fully implemented, you're still not happy. You're still shrieking about death panels and communism, and even the death of freedom! Yeah, yeah, we get it. The 42 (or whatever) votes in the House to repeal Obamacare have made it very clear.


But here's the thing: If you want to truly get rid of the law, you have to do it the proper way, as specified in that Constitution you pretend to cherish. Those House votes? Those are a good start! Great job! You're a third of the way there. Because you still have to get that bill passed by the Senate. And then, you have to get the president to sign it. And if the president doesn't sign it, then you have to overturn that veto which requires a two-thirds majority, which you don't have even in the House.


So what are your options? Certainly not shut down the government and threaten a national default on our debt. That's not in that Constitution (seriously, read it!). Your options are to win some elections. Hold that ill-gotten gerrymandered-fueled majority in the House. Get a simple majority in the Senate and then get rid of the filibuster. Seriously, get rid of it. I won't complain. Then win the presidency. You'll have a better shot at that if you don't nominate Ted Cruz, and you might want to broaden your appeal by being less of a bunch of assholes. But really do what you must. I'm not in the habit of giving you guys advice. Just anvils.


What I do want to do is remind you that there's a right way to get rid of laws, and the undemocratic, extra-constitutional way you are trying to do it now.


If you really truly believe that America is behind you, then you're golden. 2014 and 2016 will bear that out and you'll have all the governmental control you'll need to repeal to your heart's content. So put your trust on that American public you so fervently believe is behind you and let the chips fall where they may.


Hugs and kisses, k

Piko
10-02-2013, 10:33 PM
But, bitching and moaning about it seems to work for them... I'm afraid the democrats are going to end up caving, as always, and give them what they want, sorta. They don't bench obamacare, but I can see them neutering it at some point. Hopefully not.

Cat Mom
10-02-2013, 11:11 PM
The extreme right and those damned tea party nuts have the rest of the Republicans by the nuts. Cruz control, indeed.

aggroculture
10-03-2013, 11:12 AM
I am sometimes at a loss when understanding us gov procedures.
How come the House Repubs are able to block the budget, but they couldn't block obamacare? Didn't it have to pass in congress first?

ziltoid
10-03-2013, 12:35 PM
How come the House Repubs are able to block the budget, but they couldn't block obamacare?

This article explains everything perfectly (http://www.dailydot.com/politics/explain-like-im-five-furlough-government-shutdown/).



Didn't it have to pass in congress first?

Obama passed the bill into law in 2010 which gave enough time for them to vote against it.

No congress did not pass the bill but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in its favor in 2012.


On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) upheld the constitutionality of most of the ACA in the case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Seb elius). However, the Court held that states cannot be forced to participate in the ACA's Medicaid expansion under penalty of losing their current Medicaid funding.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#cite_no te-12)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#cite_no te-13)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#cite_no te-14) Since the ruling, the law and its implementation have continued to face challenges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Opposit ion_and_resistance) in Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress), in federal courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_courts), and from some state governments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_governments_of_the_United_States).



What the gop doesnt understand is they have had time to add amendments and change whatever they liked but they didn't want to compromise so they bitched and moaned and did nothing until it was too late.

How accurate is this? (http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2012/06/obamacare-demystified-and-explained-in.html)

This is from my understanding so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Somewhat related, coming mid-term elections I'm voting those Repubs out.

Cat Mom
10-03-2013, 01:16 PM
Here's CNN's timeline (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-timeline/index.html).

See this. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/24/health.care/index.html)

See also this. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/21/health.care.main/index.html?_s=PM:POLITICS)

Dra508
10-03-2013, 04:14 PM
Somewhat related, coming mid-term elections I'm voting those Repubs out.EXACTLY - As the late great Tip O'Neill (Speaker of the House of Reps '77-'87): all politics is local.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQmAjRB07H8

All this crap is economic sabotage. The debt ceiling is bullshit.

themethatyouknow
10-03-2013, 07:22 PM
Obama passed the bill into law in 2010 which gave enough time for them to vote against it.

No congress did not pass the bill but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in its favor in 2012.


Wait, what are you talking about? Congress absolutely passed the bill in 2010. The difference was that congress was controlled by the democrats in 2010 before the House was taken over by the Republicans at the end of the year. Since then, Republicans have controlled the house, but not the senate and presidency, so they can't repeal it.

Now, they're just whining about something that was properly passed into law 3.5 years ago.

DigitalChaos
10-05-2013, 05:24 PM
Wait, what are you talking about? Congress absolutely passed the bill in 2010. The difference was that congress was controlled by the democrats in 2010 before the House was taken over by the Republicans at the end of the year. Since then, Republicans have controlled the house, but not the senate and presidency, so they can't repeal it.

Now, they're just whining about something that was properly passed into law 3.5 years ago.

Government 101. One branch executes law, another funds law.

In 2010, ACA was enacted, Constitutionally, without a single Republican vote due to the Dem majorities. It's now 2013 and a Repub majority doesn't want to fund ACA (or portions of). This is not only Constitutionally acceptable, it should be EXPECTED considering how it was passed in 2010. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with the Republican's view of the ACA. This looks much more like a leadership failure in how the ACA was moved forward. Very short-term thinking was involved. There is no way that Obama, a Constitution scholar, didn't see this coming.

themethatyouknow
10-05-2013, 06:18 PM
Government 101. One branch executes law, another funds law.

In 2010, ACA was enacted, Constitutionally, without a single Republican vote due to the Dem majorities. It's now 2013 and a Repub majority doesn't want to fund ACA (or portions of). This is not only Constitutionally acceptable, it should be EXPECTED considering how it was passed in 2010. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with the Republican's view of the ACA. This looks much more like a leadership failure in how the ACA was moved forward. Very short-term thinking was involved. There is no way that Obama, a Constitution scholar, didn't see this coming.

Reading 101. I never said anything about the funding of the budget. Try reading the quote in my post. He was saying that congress never passed the ACA when if fact they did.

I'm well aware that the house has the right to take their ball and go home.

Cat Mom
10-05-2013, 08:18 PM
Government 101. One branch executes law, another funds law.
No not really. The legislative, judicial and executive branches represent the required balance of power.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/whyhouseandsenate.htm

The Republican tea party contingent absolutely IS butt hurt about something that passed - fair and square - and was affirmed by the SCOTUS.

ACA is ALREADY funded. This shut down will NOT affect the ACA.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/30/government-shutdownwonthaltaffordablecareact.html

RhettButler
10-06-2013, 06:10 AM
Wait, what are you talking about? Congress absolutely passed the bill in 2010. The difference was that congress was controlled by the democrats in 2010 before the House was taken over by the Republicans at the end of the year. Since then, Republicans have controlled the house, but not the senate and presidency, so they can't repeal it.

Now, they're just whining about something that was properly passed into law 3.5 years ago.

Some people don't seem to understand this--The ACA or Obamacare as it's called is not a "bill" as it's sometimes called, IT'S A LAW that was passed by congress in 2010. Congress can't just not pass a budget because they don't like a law. The fact that the Democrats controlled the House in 2010 and the Republicans control it now doesn't mean shit. There aren't two sides here with room for compromise, the GOP is on the wrong side here, plain and simple.



I'm well aware that the house has the right to take their ball and go home.

They do not, and all this could end, today, if John Boehner called to have a vote on a budget bill--there are enough votes to have one pass.

Jinsai
10-06-2013, 12:04 PM
ACA is ALREADY funded. This shut down will NOT affect the ACA.


This is the part that blows my mind. They might as well all get together and openly admit that they don't have the foggiest idea what they're trying to accomplish.

If you listen to these Tea Party "patriots" talk about it, it sounds like they want a dictatorship which selectively disregards the popular vote and supreme court decisions where they see fit. (http://www.npr.org/2013/10/05/229448603/tea-party-patriots-see-a-silver-lining-in-the-shutdown?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook)

But you have to love the GOP's limp attempts to pin the shutdown on the democrats.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Congressman-Confronts-Park-Ranger-Over-Closed-WWII-Memorial-226209781.html

Cat Mom
10-06-2013, 12:21 PM
Some people don't seem to understand this--The ACA or Obamacare as it's called is not a "bill" as it's sometimes called, IT'S A LAW
heh, those people need THIS!!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

october_midnight
10-08-2013, 07:57 PM
A friend just posted this, made me chuckle.

Oct 2008: "You'll never get elected and pass healthcare."
Nov 2008: "We'll never let you pass healthcare."
Jan 2009: "We're gonna shout you down every time you try to pass healthcare."
July 2009: "We'll fight to 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're gonna elect a candidate who'll revoke healthcare NOW."
June 2012: "We'll go to the Supreme Court, and they will overturn healthcare."
Aug 2012: "American people'll never re-elect you-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 got re-elected & 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 35 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 healthcare."
Oct 2013: "WHY AREN'T YOU NEGOTIATING???"

DigitalChaos
10-09-2013, 09:42 PM
The fact that it is "the law" doesn't change the fact that what Congress is doing right now is still legal and part of the separate power of funding things (vs enacting).

Another thing that is THE LAW is never defaulting on our debt. Wait, it's actually Constitution and therefore trumps any law. Yet, we have tons of people insisting that not raising the debt ceiling will result in us defaulting. That's just stupid. The US will simply have to cut back $650bil of spending and operate on the measly $2.8tril in yearly tax income. Oh no!

Cat Mom
10-09-2013, 10:48 PM
The fact that it is "the law" doesn't change the fact that what Congress is doing right now is still legal and part of the separate power of funding things (vs enacting).

They didn't prevent funding the ACA; they're idiots. They = about 30 moron Republicans with their dicks in the mouth of John Boehner. They don't give a fuck about the ACA, either; they were just using that as ransom for cutting the budget and debt threshold. Really, this conversation should be in a separate thread because all but 6 Republicans have said forget focusing on the ACA, they don't care about that anymore.


Next week, my husband will be working without pay.

Cat Mom
10-09-2013, 11:11 PM
See this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/when-is-a-default-a-default/2013/10/09/33cff600-3104-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html

DigitalChaos
10-10-2013, 01:35 AM
See this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/when-is-a-default-a-default/2013/10/09/33cff600-3104-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html
exactly. The only people saying that a default is not paying every single thing you've ever promised is the Democrats. Everyone else is, correctly, calling a default what happens when you stop paying your creditors. Even in your link is a reference that Moody's disagrees with the Democrats definition. I'm pretty sure Moody's understands credit. THIS is what our Constitution says we must not fail to pay. I'm sorry for your husband, but his job is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Our discretionary spending budget is double our deficit. We could cut discretionary spending by 50% and not have to touch a single item on our gigantic $2tril mandatory spending budget. It would be much easier for everyone if we balanced the burden onto the mandatory spending portions too.

DigitalChaos
10-10-2013, 01:40 AM
Right now, the Republicans are claiming that they only want to delay the fine for individuals that choose not to participate in ACA for a year. If that's all they want, it's extremely reasonable. That's exactly what Obama granted for businesses.

Not sure if everyone has seen it, but the GOP is fawning over Jon Stewart for the interview he did monday night. It pertains to this exact delay for individuals and the HHS Secretary was completely unable to answer:
Part 1 - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-7-2013/exclusive---kathleen-sebelius-extended-interview-pt--1
Part 2 - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-7-2013/exclusive---kathleen-sebelius-extended-interview-pt--2
Part 3 - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-7-2013/moment-of-zen---shutdown---what-s-up

RhettButler
10-10-2013, 06:19 AM
Yet, we have tons of people insisting that not raising the debt ceiling will result in us defaulting. That's just stupid. The US will simply have to cut back $650bil of spending and operate on the measly $2.8tril in yearly tax income. Oh no!

Not raising the debt ceiling will absolutely result in the U.S. defaulting. This article is very helpful and should explain things for people.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57606253/debt-ceiling-understanding-whats-at-stake/


What happens if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling?

If the government runs low on cash, it will have to withhold a range of payments. Retirees might not get their Social Security checks, especially worrisome for the millions of Americans who depend almost entirely on the social insurance program for income. The same goes for Medicare and Medicaid recipients. Holders of Treasury notes, from Wall Street and other global banks to foreign governments, also could get stiffed, jeopardizing the solvency of many financial institutions and choking off global credit flows.
The U.S. also would struggle to pay the interest on its debt, including a $6 billion payout due at the end of the month. At that point, the U.S. would be in default of its obligations. The value of Treasury bonds and the dollar would nosedive. The nation's borrowing costs would soar as anxious investors demanded a higher return to buy suddenly shaky U.S. debt. And because the interest rate on Treasuries provides a benchmark for rates on other loans, from mortgages and credit cards to car and student loans, borrowing would become far more costly for consumers and businesses. Stock markets in the U.S. and elsewhere around the world would almost certainly plunge.

"When stock prices fall, investment or other spending to expand a business is more costly," the Treasury Department said in a report last week outlining the potential impact of the debt-ceiling fight. "The effects on households and businesses, moreover, are reinforcing. Less capacity and willingness of households to spend, when businesses have less incentive to invest, hire and expand production, all lead to weaker economic activity."

In short, the already fragile economic recovery could stall.

Cat Mom
10-10-2013, 07:33 AM
This default needs a new thread.



I'm sorry for your husband, but his job is not guaranteed by the Constitution.
My husband is an Air Traffic Controller, he got his job when Reagan fired all the ATCs in 1981 because AT is "essential." So, if paying Air Traffic Controllers is not guaranteed by the Constitution, then let's shut down the entire air traffic system and not let one plane land or take off. Then see what happens.

If you don't want to pay people or contracts for services, then you have to eliminate the jobs or services and then you won't have the bills; you aren't allowed to get free work from people. That's called "slavery."

edit: when this happened in 1995/1996 (government shutdown), a special provision was passed to pay the ATCs so let's see what happens.

Here's the U.S. Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf), which we had to pretty much memorize to obtain a post-baccalaureate paralegal certification. Each time you cite the Constitution, why don't you actually cite it. Like, cut and paste the section you're talking about.

Cat Mom
10-10-2013, 11:54 AM
This is awesome (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/site-offers-chance-to-drunk-dial-congress-98139.html).

“Whether you are a furloughed worker, being forced to work for free, or just fed up at Capitol Hill: call and yell at a random member of Congress.”

Cat Mom
10-10-2013, 12:10 PM
YAY, NATCA (https://www.facebook.com/NATCAfamily)!!!

GOP quietly backing away from Obamacare (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/republicans-gop-obamacare-government-shutdown-debt-ceiling-98102.html)

“We have to have a plan, right now we don’t have a plan. Maybe you’ve heard of one?” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain also said: “We’re not going to defund Obamacare, I’ve told you that 50 times.”

DigitalChaos
10-10-2013, 12:31 PM
edit: when this happened in 1995/1996 (government shutdown), a special provision was passed to pay the ATCs so let's see what happens.


Each time you cite the Constitution, why don't you actually cite it.
Nothing is preventing specific things from being passes to fund future services. Well, except a lack of money. The govt has enough tax income to pay our debts and find the majority of services. It's just that future services aren't promised the way debts are. So, we would have to cut down some of those services/functions/entitlements/whatever else is listed in the budget.

What you are looking for is Amendment 14, Sec 4.

DigitalChaos
10-10-2013, 12:37 PM
Not raising the debt ceiling will absolutely result in the U.S. defaulting. This article is very helpful and should explain things for people.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57606253/debt-ceiling-understanding-whats-at-stake/


You might want to figure out who Moody's is before trying to rebuke them with an anonymously authored article from CBS.
I'm not going to respond further until you can cite something that is at least as credible as Moody's. I might as well be trying to explain to the teabaggers that there aren't death panels in ACA.

RhettButler
10-10-2013, 02:27 PM
The article is not anonymously authored. If you click the link it says it is written by Alain Sherter.

As for the rest of your post, I don't know what you're talking about and I'm not going to argue with you. Not raising the debt ceiling will result in the U.S. defaulting, end of story. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. It may not come on 10/17, but it will happen shortly thereafter:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/10/news/economy/debt-ceiling-default/

Here's what the Treasury Department (http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/06/news/economy/lew-debt-ceiling-crisis/index.html?iid=EL) has said: The 17th is the day by which it will run out of "legal and prudent" accounting maneuvers to keep the country below its borrowing limit, while still paying all the bills in full and on time.

And here's what that means: Even if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling in the next week, Treasury in all likelihood could continue to pay bills in full beyond the 17th -- but not for very long.
Why? Because at that point, it will be using the estimated $30 billion in cash it will have on hand, plus whatever daily revenue comes in. It will no longer be able to borrow to make up the difference between expenses and revenue.

The true cash crunch will come sometime between October 22 and November 1, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the Bipartisan Policy Center.
It's impossible to say precisely which day because payments due and revenue inflows are uneven and hard to predict.

Cat Mom
10-10-2013, 03:40 PM
Nothing is preventing specific things from being passes to fund future services. Well, except a lack of money. The govt has enough tax income to pay our debts and find the majority of services. It's just that future services aren't promised the way debts are. So, we would have to cut down some of those services/functions/entitlements/whatever else is listed in the budget.

What you are looking for is Amendment 14, Sec 4.
WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR? You're kidding, right? After I just said that I had to memorize the Constitution for my JOB?

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Cat Mom
10-10-2013, 03:47 PM
Btw, there has been a lot of discussion regarding the President's ability to raise the debt ceiling under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (which I just copied and pasted for the benefit of others reading this thread). http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/27/1241726/-The-14th-Amendment-Clearly-Gives-Obama-the-Right-to-Raise-the-Debt-Ceiling



Most people stop at a section of the 14th amendment and wrongly conclude it only referred to President Lincoln using it to pay the civil war debt. But it doesn't say raising the debt to pay for the war was the ONLY reason a president can justify using the 14th amendment. The civil war debt was simply one of the reasons used at the time. It can be used for any reason when the country defaults on its debt and the president raising the debt ceiling shall not be questioned.

The framers made sure their intent was to make clear no reason was left out when they made clear by this language, "INCLUDING debt incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection, or rebellion" (civil war). In President's Obama case, it would be to prevent a radical unhinged and most obstructionist party in history bent on defaulting on the debt at all cost, regardless of the consequences, or the harm it does to the UNITED STATES. But the president doesn't have to tell them shit, because it's not to be questioned.

It could also be argued, that the actions of the republican party is a rebellion by people with motives to stop our government from functioning. They have actually stated, they want a "government so small it can be drown in a bath tub". There actions when the country was on the brink of a second great depression, when they did all they could to "make Obama fail" including the country. Add to that, this would actually be the third time republican will have shut the government down. But regardless, the president doesn't have to tell them sh*t, because it's not to be questioned

The framers didn't list what reasons, or conditions other than a default on the debt to give the president the right to raise the debt ceiling. But the framers didn't have to, because the president doesn't have to give them a reason, because his decision is not to be questioned.

This confirms the president can do it for any reason. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by LAW...Shall not be questioned. If the presidents actions in raising the debt ceiling is not to be questioned, how could anyone know the reason?

But, no matter which interpretation you believe, Pres Obama said he ain't using the 14th Amendment (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-09/obama-throws-cold-water-on-14th-amendment-to-fix-debt-fight.html).

Cat Mom
10-10-2013, 04:00 PM
Nothing is preventing specific things from being passes to fund future services. Well, except a lack of money. The govt has enough tax income to pay our debts and find the majority of services.
The FAA is telling Air Traffic Controllers that as of the 17th of this month, essential employees (Air Traffic Controllers) must be working but they will not receive paychecks and this may be the case through December.

Cat Mom
10-10-2013, 04:06 PM
This surprising chart shows which countries own the most U.S. debt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/10/this-surprising-chart-shows-which-countries-own-the-most-u-s-debt/?tid=sm_fb)

DigitalChaos
10-10-2013, 04:09 PM
The article is not anonymously authored. If you click the link it says it is written by Alain Sherter.
It showed "by cbsnews.com" and only that when on my phone, looks like the full site is different. A business journalist isn't much better when you are trying to match the credibility of Moody's. Moody's is one of the "big 3" credit rating agencies. They deal in the bonds market. That's exactly what matters when it comes to a default. You really can't beat the authoritative level of Moody's. You simply saying that they are wrong means very little.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the-shutdown-4/?hpid=z2#c1e3ada3-dc00-41d8-92cb-327c5c814d82

Cat Mom
10-10-2013, 04:12 PM
The FAA is telling Air Traffic Controllers that as of the 17th of this month, essential employees (Air Traffic Controllers) must be working but they will not receive paychecks and this may be the case through December.

edit:

NATCA has issued this press release:


NATCA HOSTS AVIATION RALLY CALLING ON CONGRESS TO END GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN
Thursday, October 10, 2013
CONTACT: Sarah Dunn, 315-796-1560

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Air Traffic Controllers Association today hosted a rally calling on lawmakers to end the government shutdown immediately. Gathering on Capitol Hill, NATCA’s leaders, alongside representatives from across the aviation community, made clear that it is not business as usual for the aviation system during this government shutdown.

“There are grave repercussions as a result of the shutdown on all aspects of the system,” said NATCA President Paul Rinaldi. “There are real people suffering real consequences as a result of this shutdown. The only way to restore the aviation system to full staffing and speed is to end it right away. This is an increasingly difficult situation that will only worsen as it drags on. The shutdown must be stopped immediately.”

The furlough of thousands of aviation safety professionals is eliminating critical layers of redundancy and safety that keep the system operating safely and efficiently. The shutdown has also interrupted the flow of hiring, training and innovation.

Manufacturing and modernization efforts have been stopped and certification processes that are critical for general aviation to thrive have been halted. Even worse, the furloughs of safety inspectors and accident investigators may put the United States in default of its treaty obligations under the Chicago Convention and the obligations of member states of the International Civil Aviation Organization.

“Imagine if no citizen of the United States could buy or sell a car, purchase or re-finance a home, or if the sale of any other critical goods came to a complete and grinding halt,” said Ed Bolen, President and CEO of the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). “That’s what’s basically happened in business aviation - because the industry is more regulated than other industries, the shutdown has had a far more dire impact on business aviation than for other industries. As just one example of this reality, the government shutdown has led to the closure of the FAA Aircraft Registry, and as a result, aircraft cannot be purchased, sold, imported, exported, and in some cases, flown. The many small and mid-sized companies that rely on the Registry to be open and accessible are hurting, and the shutdown is hurting the industry in a host of other ways as well. Simply put, until government leaders can get the FAA reopened, an essential American industry remains on an indefinite layover.”

“Under the government shutdown, aircraft sales are unable to proceed and aircraft registrations are expiring daily without the opportunity for renewal, medical and pilot certificate applications are languishing, knowledge testing is shut down, and infrastructure is not being maintained,” said Mark Baker, President and CEO of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). “AOPA calls on our elected leaders to preserve the integrity of the safest air transportation system in the world and to protect our economy by immediately restoring all aviation-related activities.”

“Every day that Congress allows this shutdown to remain in place is putting the safety and efficiency of the aviation system at risk,” said Mike Perrone, President of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS). “This is unacceptable. The system is broken. It must be fixed. Congress may not be able to do its job, but that doesn’t mean we should be prevented from doing ours. I join with you today to tell Congress to end the shutdown NOW so we can all go back to work. We are all essential.”

“Airports and our aviation system have bent under the continuous strain of repeated budget crises, and we’re on the verge of breaking,” said Todd Hauptli, President of GOV for the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE). “It’s time to end the current impasse and the ongoing threat caused by sequestration so that airports and our industry partners can get back to the business of operating and building the world-class aviation system our country deserves.”

“So far, there isn’t any evidence of negative impacts on the safety of U.S. aviation. However, the longer the government remains shutdown and the longer key safety staff are being prevented from doing their important work, the more we risk creating a situation where safety could be threatened,” said Capt. Sean Cassidy, First Vice President of the Airline Pilots Association Int’l. (ALPA). “Simply put, the safety of our skies is on borrowed time. The shutdown needs to end and we need to bring everyone back to work for the sake—and safety—of our crews, passengers, cargo, and the aviation industry as a whole.”

"General aviation aircraft manufacturers are already feeling significant and harmful effects from the shutdown," said Jens Hennig, Vice President of Operations for the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). "With the FAA Aircraft Registry office closed, more than 150 newly manufactured aircraft worth more than $1.9 billion will be delayed by mid-October. Our message to the nation's political leaders is clear: End the shutdown now."

"The impact of the government shutdown, especially the shuttering of the Federal Aviation Administration, is having negative consequences for small aviation businesses across the country,” said Tom Hendricks, President and CEO of the National Air Transportation Association (NATA). “Every sector from experimental, general, business and commercial aviation need to be as healthy as possible in order to truly unleash economic prosperity for the entire nation."

“Our leaders need to understand that entire local economies are built around national parks and historic sites — and unlike federal workers, there is no mechanism for those small businesses and their employees to get back pay once the shutdown is over,” said Jonathan Grella, senior vice president for public affairs at the U.S. Travel Association (USTA). “We’re hearing stories of real financial pain from all over the country, and we’ve been posting them on USTravel.org in the hope of encouraging policymakers to move swiftly to end this.”

DigitalChaos
10-10-2013, 04:13 PM
But, no matter which interpretation you believe, Pres Obama said he ain't using the 14th Amendment (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-09/obama-throws-cold-water-on-14th-amendment-to-fix-debt-fight.html).
Correct. The 14th mandates that we MUST pay our debt. It's entirely possible that Obama could use that fact to say "fuck your debt ceiling" but in your link he is saying he won't do that. That doesn't change the fact that we still need to pay our debt. It just means that some other lesser law (lesser to the constitution) will get broken to keep the 14th intact. That's inline with exactly what I've been saying.

Of course, it's very unlikely that either party is going to let us actually get to a point where we have to cut back on spending, let alone the absurdity of a default. Looks like they have already agreed to a short ceiling bump.

Cat Mom
10-10-2013, 04:17 PM
Correct. The 14th mandates that we MUST pay our debt. It's entirely possible that Obama could use that fact to say "fuck your debt ceiling" but in your link he is saying he won't do that. That doesn't change the fact that we still need to pay our debt. It just means that some other lesser law (lesser to the constitution) will get broken to keep the 14th intact. That's inline with exactly what I've been saying.
What?! You sure do word your posts in an inefficient and goofy way because, perhaps unintentionally, you've been coming across as insisting that the House has the power to NOT pay the debt. And, the current argument I mentioned about Obama and the 14th Amendment isn't to say that Obama could use it to say "fuck your debt ceiling;" it's arguing that he could use it to RAISE the debt ceiling, so that debts would be paid. This is why I asked you to cite specific language and argue those citations, not only for the benefit of others reading this thread (it's common BBS courtesy), but also because your points are not totally clear and you sound like you're arguing the opposite of what you apparently mean.

DigitalChaos
10-10-2013, 04:31 PM
What?! You sure do word your posts in an inefficient and goofy way because, perhaps unintentionally, you've been coming across as insisting that the House has the power to NOT pay the debt. And, the current argument I mentioned about Obama and the 14th Amendment isn't to say that Obama could use it to say "fuck your debt ceiling;" it's arguing that he could use it to RAISE the debt ceiling, so that debts would be paid. This is why I asked you to cite specific language and argue those citations, not only for the benefit of others reading this thread (it's common BBS courtesy), but also because your points are not totally clear and you sound like you're arguing the opposite of what you apparently mean.

well, it's effectively fucking THEIR (congress's) debt ceiling. Obama would get to set it wherever he wants so that the 14th is obeyed. The process for setting the ceiling is of lower legal priority. Of course, he said that he won't do it.


And to be clear about "debts" and "defaults"... Just like Moody's, I consider the 14th protected debts to be that of our creditors. Technically, you could also factor in things like social security and pension oriented things. It does NOT protect the various services that are granted to the people by law outside the Constitution. Everything on the discretionary budget is certainly an option for that chopping block. Much of the mandatory budget would be on the chopping block too. Lots of govt works would probably lose their jobs. We would probably dip back into a recession. Whatever it takes to make govt expenditures and debt payments equal to the tax income. It will hurt, but nowhere near as bad as the fallout from defaulting on our creditors. It would also put us on a positive financial path where our debt could slowly go down.

I don't think either party has the guts to make this happen though.

Cat Mom
10-10-2013, 04:42 PM
well, it's effectively fucking THEIR (congress's) debt ceiling. Obama would get to set it wherever he wants so that the 14th is obeyed. The process for setting the ceiling is of lower legal priority. Of course, he said that he won't do it.


And to be clear about "debts" and "defaults"... Just like Moody's, I consider the 14th protected debts to be that of our creditors. Technically, you could also factor in things like social security and pension oriented things. It does NOT protect the various services that are granted to the people by law outside the Constitution. Everything on the discretionary budget is certainly an option for that chopping block. Much of the mandatory budget would be on the chopping block too. Lots of govt works would probably lose their jobs. We would probably dip back into a recession. Whatever it takes to make govt expenditures and debt payments equal to the tax income. It will hurt, but nowhere near as bad as the fallout from defaulting on our creditors. It would also put us on a positive financial path where our debt could slowly go down.

I don't think either party has the guts to make this happen though.
First of all, I think you're giving Moody's too much credit AND I think you are misunderstanding Moody's; you seem to think that Moody's thinks a credit default is just another day at the beach. Here's some more about Moody's and S&P (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-14/kroll-says-s-p-moody-s-again-putting-profits-ahead-of-accuracy.html), btw. Secondly, a "debt" is a debt according to our Constitution. Trust me, it's my job.

Secondly, so you think completely shutting down, say, all aviation is the way to cut things? Fuck with enterprise and business? Cripple it? Jesus, when the ATCs were furloughed last spring, it took Congress all of 4 days to change their minds because it fucked up their personal travel plans.

I have a better idea: How about if the MORONS in Congress actually SIT DOWN AND READ THE BUDGET and, line by line, EVEN IT TAKES ALL FUCKING YEAR, OR THEIR ENTIRE TERM, figure out realistic ways to cut expenses? And not just grab low-hanging fruit like social security and medicare (which we employed people have been paying into all of our lives). I know the answer: They're all too fucking stupid to read a budget, and it's too big and they all have the collective attention span of a toddler. This would mean that they raise the debt ceiling, then spend all year reading the budget.

Or, BETTER YET: Hire a non-partisan auditing team and audit THE ENTIRE FUCKING SYSTEM: Budget, income and expenses. SHITCAN the baseline budget system that ENCOURAGES crazy spending.

You know what pisses me off, pending my husband potentially working with no pay with a very stressful job insuring the safety of Americans?

THIS SHIT (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-08/news/ct-met-congress-foreign-travel-20131009_1_schakowsky-robert-creamer-congress):


Schakowsky is most-frequent flier among state's congressional delegation

WASHINGTON — A Tribune analysis of foreign travel by members of Congress from Illinois since 2011 shows that Rep. Jan Schakowsky is by far the most frequent flier and that Rep. Peter Roskam took the costliest privately paid trip — one that has led to a House ethics review.

Schakowsky, an Evanston Democrat, traveled abroad 10 times, bankrolled chiefly by private groups spending $130,000 on expenses for her and her husband.



Roskam, a Wheaton Republican, ran up nearly $26,000 in bills on a trip he made with his wife to Taiwan in 2011. He said the trip was proper, but ethics officials are asking whether the listed sponsor indeed picked up the tab.

Since 2011, members of Congress from Illinois have made 75 foreign trips: 41 paid for by private sponsors, 32 by taxpayers and two by foreign governments. Private groups spent more than $569,000 on the Illinoisans' trips abroad.

Government watchdogs say foreign travel can be a valuable way for lawmakers to understand other cultures and build ties in a world full of opportunities yet fraught with war, upheaval and economic competition.

But some advocates find fault in trips financed by private groups that might seek to advance special interests. And others see expenses-paid foreign trips as another perk that separates members of Congress from their constituents, especially in cases when spouses tag along for free.

Schakowsky and her husband, political consultant Robert Creamer, went to six privately funded educational conferences for members of Congress, held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Barcelona, Spain; Brussels; Istanbul; Sao Paulo; and Vienna, public reports show.

On her own she took in another conference in Istanbul and twice visited Israel. She also made a solo trip with public money to strife-torn Rwanda and Congo, where the focus was violence against women.

Globe-trotting was common for Illinoisans in Congress during the August recess. Rep. Bobby Rush joined Schakowsky in Addis Ababa; Rep. Randy Hultgren visited Guatemala; Rep. Tammy Duckworth, Thailand; Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Ireland; Rep. Danny Davis, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Qatar; and Reps. Brad Schneider and Cheri Bustos, Israel.

Craig Holman, with the Washington-based watchdog group Public Citizen, helped write a 2007 law that tightened rules on who may pay for lawmakers' travel. He is among those who believe that if an overseas trip is valuable, taxpayers should foot the bill.

"I do believe members should be traveling, especially to problematic areas around the world so they can see what their policies are doing in the rest of the world," he said. "If a member is traveling to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, that's perfectly fine and educational. It is the travel junkets that I object to, that are sponsored by private groups that want something from Congress."

Holman, who has a doctorate, sees value in educational conferences but is skeptical about Schakowsky going to seven since 2011.

"That sounds like too much. How much is she trying to learn?" he said. "I am an academic and I only get to one or two conferences a year."


Since 2011, Illinoisans in Congress have hit every continent but Antarctica. Top countries were Israel (12 trips), Turkey (seven) and Afghanistan and Germany (six each). For most lawmakers, destinations such as London, Rome and Hong Kong outnumbered treks to unstable hot spots.

After Schakowsky, the top foreign travelers were Rush and Gutierrez, both Chicago Democrats, and Rep. Aaron Schock, a Peoria Republican, each of whom took six trips.

Rush's six trips were underwritten by private sponsors, which in four cases picked up the tab for his wife, Carolyn. Five of Gutierrez's six trips were financed by private groups, which paid for his wife, Soraida, to accompany him in four cases. Four of Schock's six trips were privately financed, and in one case the group paid for his mother, Janice Knapp, to accompany him, according to records.

Bill Allison, an official at the Sunlight Foundation, a pro-transparency group based in Washington, worries when outsiders open their wallets for trips.

"Especially when private interests are paying for the travel, there is a real possibility that whatever the lawmaker is seeing is just what the sponsor wants them to see, instead of getting a full picture," Allison said.

Public Citizen's Holman is troubled by spouses going along for the ride at the expense of private groups. "Whenever a member of Congress brings a spouse along, it immediately raises a red flag that we're talking about travel junkets and not work-related trips," he said.

Still, Schakowsky and other lawmakers vigorously defended their trips.

"I choose trips that inform my knowledge and decision-making as a member of Congress," said Schakowsky, who is on the House Intelligence Committee. "And I choose trips that match the interests of my district, one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse in the country."

Debra Johnson, a Rush spokeswoman, said the lawmaker selects trips that benefit constituents and are important to his work on the Energy and Commerce Committee. Spokesman Doug Rivlin said Gutierrez picks trips relating to work on the Judiciary Committee or to his constituents and interests, such as immigration, trade, the economy, Puerto Rico and Latin America.

Schock would not comment for this report. Nor would Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. The other 18 Illinoisans in Congress made their offices available for Tribune inquiries on foreign travel.



Roskam probe

The $25,653 Taiwan trip by Roskam that is being examined by the House Ethics Committee took place Oct. 15-22, 2011, when Roskam and his wife, Elizabeth, met Taiwanese officials, went on sightseeing visits and spent time with their daughter Gracey, who was an English teacher in Taiwan at the time.

Months before the Roskams' trip, an arm of the Taiwanese government had invited the congressman to visit under the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act, which allows foreign countries to pay for lawmakers' trips but not for family members' travel. Roskam did not accept that invitation but instead took up a later offer by a private group that was allowed to pay for Roskam and his wife.

The Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent agency, said Roskam had "no interaction" before the trip with the listed private sponsor, Chinese Culture University, and "knew, or should have known, that the Taiwanese government was organizing and conducting his trip to Taiwan."

The matter was referred to the House Ethics Committee, which extended its review last month. Roskam has denied any wrongdoing and noted that the House Ethics Committee preapproved the trip, with the university as sponsor.

Roskam, who is chief deputy whip in the House, No. 4 in the Republican leadership, has made four overseas trips since 2011, three of them funded by sponsors that also paid for his wife.

Spokesman Meagan Holder said Roskam co-chairs the Congressional Caucus on Korea, the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, and the House Republican Israel Caucus and is a "key liaison between the U.S. and these countries."

Roskam also sits on a trade subcommittee, Holder said, and relationships with other nations "have a direct impact on our ability to compete in a global marketplace."

Davis and Moon group

One trip made by Davis was financed by a group founded by the controversial Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who led the Unification Church until his death last year. Davis went with his wife, Vera, on the $14,963 trip to Japan paid for by the Universal Peace Federation.

The Chicago lawmaker played a part in a 2004 coronation ceremony for Moon and his wife held in a Senate office building. The lawmaker, wearing white gloves, carried to a dais a pillow bearing one of two gold crowns placed upon the couple's heads; he later said it went to Moon's wife.


Davis, in an interview, said he is a Baptist who has had a relationship with the Unification Church for at least 25 years. He said the Japan trip was made to urge officials to let people join the church without harassment and that while there, he also examined tsunami relief efforts.

"I didn't go over to enjoy myself," he said. "The pace was about equivalent or more than the normal pace of work that I do every day. … We certainly did not go hula dancing."

Lipinski at Catholic confab

Rep. Dan Lipinski, a Western Springs Democrat, went on a $7,399, taxpayer-paid trip to Rome and Frascati, Italy, in 2012 to attend the International Catholic Legislators Network conference. He took his wife, Judith, and paid for her expenses, said Guy Tridgell, his spokesman.

The agenda included legislation in favor of life, marriage and the family; the case against euthanasia; and Africa and Western aid, Tridgell said.

Asked how Lipinski justified using tax dollars for a Catholic legislators' conference, Tridgell said the worldwide gathering included discussions of critical foreign policy matters and issues important to many constituents.

When Pope Francis was inaugurated in March, Lipinski returned to Rome at taxpayer expense with a House delegation. His costs were $4,188 and he paid his wife's way, Tridgell said.

Schock's travels

Schock went on a taxpayer-paid congressional delegation trip in 2011 timed to the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth. He was on the Reagan Centennial Commission.

The delegation visited Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Germany and England — nations where Reagan is held in high regard. Schock's costs were $3,591, not including flights on military aircraft. Total delegation costs were $52,440, not including air travel, reports show.

The cost of military aircraft — not spelled out in public reports — makes dollar-for-dollar comparisons of taxpayer-paid and privately sponsored trips difficult. Because of sequestration, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has put on hold the use of military flights for congressionally approved travel.

Another Schock trip, financed by the National Indian American Public Policy Institute, attracted attention in the spring. Schock and other Republicans went to India, and while there Schock invited the chief minister of India's Gujarat state, Narendra Modi, to the U.S., even though the State Department revoked his visa in 2005.



Modi, who is seeking to become India's prime minister, has been accused of not doing enough to stop riots in 2002 that killed at least 1,000 people, mostly Muslims. The State Department, in explaining Modi's visa revocation, cited "particularly severe violations of religious freedom."

The institute, based in west suburban Carol Stream, now touts the congressional invitation to Modi on its website. Its chairman, Shalli Kumar, denied the allegations against Modi and said the Schock trip was meant to foster closer economic ties between the U.S. and India.

Schock's agenda of official meetings in India was interspersed with visits to temples and palaces and an evening Bollywood program, reports show. "When you're going to go that far away, it would be silly to just go in there and back and not see the culture of the country," Kumar said, noting that the lawmaker also visited a Ford plant in India.

Chicago-area sponsors

Along with the National Indian American Public Policy Institute, three other Chicago-area organizations paid for lawmakers' travel abroad.

The Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago sent three lawmakers — Schakowsky, Schneider and former Rep. Bob Dold, R-Ill. — on separate trips to Israel, and Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., to Israel and Jordan.

David Prystowsky, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Jewish United Fund, said the trips were intended to advance the U.S.-Israel alliance and let lawmakers meet representatives of Illinois companies in Israel.

"We expect to gain nothing directly ourselves," Prystowsky said. "We hope the elected officials gain better understanding of the breadth and benefits of the special U.S.-Israel relationship and for those who are Christians, to visit the land where their faith was formed."

The Turkish American Federation of Midwest in Mount Prospect underwrote separate trips to Turkey for Lipinski and Schock and to Azerbaijan for Davis.

Its president, Suleyman Turhanogullari, said his group sends lawmakers abroad to improve U.S. relations with Turkey and Turkic countries such as Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. He said the trips were excellent opportunities to let lawmakers explore regional economic, political and social issues.

The Multicultural Educational Foundation, 55 W. Wacker Dr., submitted a private-sponsor travel form to the House Ethics Committee asking in advance to pay for Gutierrez to go to Mexico in 2012 as part of a delegation facilitating partnerships between Chicago and Guadalajara on health, education and the environment. Gutierrez's trip cost $1,524.

Tax returns obtained by GuideStar, a Washington-based group that tracks nonprofits, show the Multicultural Educational Foundation had no revenue or expenses for three tax years ending in 2010. But it self-reported to GuideStar that it in 2012, it had $80,000 in revenue and $10,000 in expenses, according to a GuideStar spokeswoman.


Chicago attorney Fred Tannenbaum, the Illinois agent for the foundation, said Tuesday that those figures need "to be reviewed, because this does not appear to be accurate." He said the foundation has never solicited contributions in Illinois and is not active. But the foundation submitted paperwork to the Illinois secretary of state as recently as March.

The Illinois secretary of state lists the group's president as David Andalcio, a former chairman of the Illinois Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and former member of the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority board, who was appointed in 2003 by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

According to Andalcio's LinkedIn profile, he is CEO of Wynndalco Enterprises, which describes itself as working in renewable energy and other areas, with facilities in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. Andalcio was unavailable for comment. Xavier Montemayor, director of marketing and sales for the firm, said Tuesday that Andalcio was in Mexico being treated for cancer.

The two trips paid for by foreign governments involved Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Channahon, who went to Turkey last spring, and Duckworth, who in August went to Thailand, where she was born. Duckworth, from Hoffman Estates, took her mother along and paid for her expenses, said Anton Becker, a spokesman.

Walsh at Beck rally

Former Rep. Joe Walsh, now a talk radio host, took a $6,300 trip to Jerusalem in August 2011 and attended a controversial rally there by broadcaster Glenn Beck. The trip was paid for by the International Israel Allies Caucus Foundation.

Walsh, a Republican, said that during his one term in office he refused offers to go to India, Taiwan, Lithuania, the Middle East and the U.S.-Mexico border, concerned that in some cases taxpayers would get the bill and that in others there was a lot of personal time on the agenda.

"Even me as a freshman, not on the biggest committees in the world, every time there was a recess for a couple of weeks, there were always potential trips put in front of you," he said.

He said the offers were "very tempting."

"You learn a lot, you see another part of the world," he said. "It's like a perk of the job."

Alexei Koseff of the Tribune Washington Bureau contributed.

DigitalChaos
10-10-2013, 04:47 PM
^ Well yea, that would be the sane way to deal with reducing our budget. You'd want to cut the least essential items. Congress is fucking horrible about passing an actual budget. THAT is required by the Constitution but the assholes haven't passed a real one since.... what... 1997?

Cat Mom
10-10-2013, 04:57 PM
Well, yeah, in order to have a budget deficit, you have to have a budget. But Congress is TOO FUCKING STUPID to do that, especially when Republicans have assigned PAUL FUCKING RYAN as their "Budget Guru" and he has the economic experience of a 5th grader.

Go look at that link I posted up there ^^ about to which countries we owe a lot of debt. Because that's what really matters, here; this is the smoke and mirrors show; China could OWN us very soon if we don't get our shit together. We spend like crazy and then blame old farts on Social Security while we're borrowing billions from China. And, are we surprised when we see the caliber of lazy assholes in Congress? Really? Living like kings on Capital Hill, vacations and trips and paychecks the likes of which most of us will NEVER see?

DigitalChaos
10-10-2013, 05:30 PM
I'll definitely be rereading through the last several posts/links later tonight.
For the record, my interpretation of the recent Moody's memo is basically "The USA won't default on their creditors. They have more than enough income to pay the debts, even if they don't raise the debt limit." I was using this to demonstrate the absurdity in the people saying that we absolutely will default on our debt unless the debt ceiling gets raised. If we actually default on our creditors, all hell will break loose... but defaulting is just not going to happen, regardless of the debt ceiling.

Cat Mom
10-10-2013, 07:03 PM
For the record, my interpretation of the recent Moody's memo is basically "The USA won't default on their creditors. They have more than enough income to pay the debts, even if they don't raise the debt limit."

See this (http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-debt-limit-moodys-government-shutdown-economy-20130924,0,6853177.story):


Failure to raise the debt limit would have more dire consequences.

Moody's said it expected federal officials would use incoming revenues to continue paying interest on Treasury securities. But there is no precedent for prioritizing those payments.

On top of that, federal officials "would have to make painful choices as to which expenditures to cut," Moody's said.

"Financial market and economic consequences would likely be more severe if the debt limit is not raised than under a government shutdown," the company said.

See also this, though (http://www.examiner.com/article/does-a-moody-s-memo-really-reinforce-gop-claim-on-debt-ceiling):


Curious, though, is the caveat noted by one economist who warns that a strategy of making only interest payments would be short-lived at best.

Even if the government made its Nov. 1 payments, a $29 billion interest payment due Nov. 15 looms after it. Including that payment, Washington is likely to have a cash shortfall of $60 billion to $70 billion from Oct. 17 until Nov. 15.

Said the economist: "If they don't prioritize payments, there's no way they make that payment on time."

Who's the economist? Mark Zandi. Who does he work for? Moody's. In fact, he's the chief economist for Moody's. And yet, perhaps purposely, House Republicans touting that memo from Moody's didn't include Zandi's warning. Why do you suppose not?


REMEMBER: Moody's is a CREDIT RATING AGENCY. ALL they give a shit about is CREDIT RATING. That's it. Nothing else. So Moody's not defining "debt" as regular non-credit debt is like citing a memo from your plumber about your electrical box.

The United States Bankruptcy Court defines debt as DEBT. There is secured debt and unsecured debt, but it's all just debt.

Also, Moody's is corrupt. Plain and simple. They were a HUGE contributor to the mortgage securities meltdown of 2007 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-13/moody-s-s-p-caved-to-mortgage-pressure-by-goldman-ubs-levin-report-says.html). There are plenty of governmental agencies and Congress people who want to GET RID of Moody's. And S&P, which is just as corrupt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agency#Criticism).

DigitalChaos
10-10-2013, 07:18 PM
No doubt about that. No precedent does not mean not possible though. You could use the 14th to lay down an emergency prioritization system. Making the "difficult choices of what expenditures to cut" is exactly what I'm proposing Congress should be doing right now.

Think about how much the Democrats could destroy Republicans if they did this. The current shutdown is over the discretionary spending budget. There is also a looming budget ceiling quick approaching. The GOP is refusing to agree on a discretionary budget unless something happens to the ACA. Even a full defunding of ACA would leave us with massive deficit spending and a need to bump the debt ceiling...

Then in comes the Democrats with a proposal to either:
A - Immediately cut all discretionary spending items by 50% and then agree to immediately get moving on a real budget that allows them to drop some of the mandatory spending and restore a good portion of the discretionary budget.
B - Find a way to leverage the 14th Amendment in a way that allows them to cut $650bil from both the discretionary and mandatory budgets.

You then throw that on the table and ask the Republicans which is more important:
A - defunding ACA (or more likely just delaying parts of it)
or
B - A massive reduction in govt spending, no more deficit spending, and no need to bump the debt ceiling.
Any Republican who choose A is going to look completely ridiculous. Any remaining claims to being a fiscal conservative will be gone. By offering up B, the Democrats also bring a nuclear holocaust on the GOP. They have nothing left to bitch about and their big goals just got hijacked by the Dems. Dems will be undoing the fiscal failures of Reagan and both Bush presidencies. The GOP will be eating massive shit.

Cat Mom
10-10-2013, 07:22 PM
We just exited TWO VERY EXPENSIVE WARS that cost us TRILLIONS of dollars. That's money already spent, wasted. And we're not getting that back. It may take YEARS to recover.

Do I think we need to get rid of stupid spending? Absolutely. Do I think that stupid spending is defined by "entitlement" programs (what a bullshit term)? FUCK NO. I think of stupid spending as THIS. WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? (www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/police-tank-purchase-new-hampshire_n_1279983.html).


the Center for Investigative Reporting reported that Homeland Security grants totalled $34 billion, and went to such unlikely terrorism targets as Fargo, N.D.; Fon du Lac, Wisc.; and Canyon County, Idaho. The report noted that because of the grants, defense contractors that long served the Pentagon exclusively have increasingly turned looked to police departments, hoping to tap a "homeland security market" expected to reach $19 billion by 2014.

Multiply this by THOUSANDS and this is the dumb fucking spending this country does every second of every day, and these tea party assholes are focusing on food stamps for old people (because the old people and poor people are the people that Ayn Rand would put at the top of the expendable list, per Ryan)

It could take DECADES to cut our budget and spending. This can't happen overnight because some Republican douche bag House members want to look like heroes. Ain't happening! You need a long-term plan and goal. And you slowly get to that goal. You get bipartisan agreement to cut waste. LIKE THAT FUCKING LINK UP THERE! And, yeah, waste includes Congress. Which they ain't gonna like too much, but then find another job asshole with 4 months of paid vacation and a giant pension.

Cat Mom
10-11-2013, 04:08 PM
It's official: G just got his paycheck deposit, it's through September 30th. So Air Traffic Controllers are not being paid to work as of October 1st.

I sure hope this doesn't last long.

Cat Mom
10-14-2013, 11:22 AM
Government shutdown could lead to delays -- or Worse (http://nation.time.com/2013/10/11/the-government-shutdown-could-lead-to-flight-delays-or-worse/).

Yup. Lots worse.

DigitalChaos
10-14-2013, 02:29 PM
Government shutdown could lead to delays -- or Worse (http://nation.time.com/2013/10/11/the-government-shutdown-could-lead-to-flight-delays-or-worse/).

Yup. Lots worse.
It would be awesome if the government was unable to hold this stuff over our heads like petulant children. One of the many reasons I am for the decentralization of anything important.

Cat Mom
10-14-2013, 03:20 PM
It would be awesome if the government was unable to hold this stuff over our heads like petulant children. One of the many reasons I am for the decentralization of anything important.
NATCA used to be against the privatization of the nation's air traffic control system, but I think a lot of them are seriously re-thinking that right now; so long as their pensions and/or 401Ks and union contracts aren't jeopardized.

As the above article indicates, staffing levels have been at scary low levels and more and more ATCs are retiring each year, with nobody replacing them because the training program is so long and rigorous and the stupid government didn't finally say "hey, I guess we should actually HIRE some people!" until it was far too late. Nothing would make me happier than to see the air traffic screech to 1960s levels for YEARS because there aren't enough ATCs.

As of right now, there's no training since March because of the furloughs and now there's ZERO training because of the shutdown (training isn't considered essential; most training is done by ATCs but if they're too busy controlling planes nobody can stop to train anyone).

We saw it all come to a halt once already, right after 9-11; no planes flew anywhere for about 4 days.

Deepvoid
10-14-2013, 03:47 PM
This more related to the shutdown than Obamacare.
Some House rules were changed on Oct. 1st

http://www.upworthy.com/congress-did-something-so-spectacularly-creepy-that-its-too-unbelievable-to-make-up?c=fea

Cat Mom
10-14-2013, 05:35 PM
Indentured Servitude is Alive and Well in the U.S. (http://rdougwicker.com/2013/10/14/indentured-servitude-is-alive-and-well-in-the-u-s/)


Take it from a former controller who has in his 34 years in the business worked at some pretty busy facilities under less than ideal conditions with obsolete or failing equipment and uncooperative weather: There are few if any jobs more stressful than air traffic control. Period. It’s certainly more stressful than being, say, a congressman or a senator.

Imagine working New York TRACON (Terminal Radar Approach Control) during a bush inbound rush of air carriers, failing equipment, and a line of thunderstorms pushing into the area from the west. Throw into that mix an inflight emergency or two and perhaps an aircraft with minimum fuel that needs to get on the ground right now.

Then let’s add to all that stress.

Let’s tell those controllers that they have to go to work, but a group of about thirty congressmen and a senator or two who didn’t agree with the results of the last election are going to refuse to allow the United States Congress to pay them.

These already overworked, stressed controllers have mortgages to make, utilities to pay, car payments, grocery bills, kids in college . . . but none of that makes any difference. They are required by federal law to work. For free. Indefinitely.

Think that’s fair? That’s what’s happening right now, this very second. In New York. In Dallas. In Atlanta. In Chicago. In Los Angeles. In myriad other busy facilities across this great nation. All because of thirty-some-odd Congressmen and at least one delusional, grand-standing Senator from Texas who has ambitions beyond the senate seat he’s held for less than ten months.

Tomorrow, these controllers will be paid for only 48 of the 80 or more hours they worked — the 48 hours they worked before the shutdown that occurred just thirteen days ago. Those controllers received that bad news when they got their “pay” statements last Thursday. Two weeks from tomorrow the amount in their paychecks drops to Z-E-R-O despite working another 80 or more hours during the next pay period.

How long do you think you could financially hold on under such conditions? How long do you think it’ll be before some of these controllers have to resign to find jobs that pay the bills? How long do you think it’ll be before retirement-eligible controllers with 20 or 25+ years of badly needed experience and who are currently mentoring an already far-too-young and inexperienced group of new controllers decide that they should go into retirement just to pay the bills? (Controllers, by the way, are only allowed to work to the last day of the month in which they turn 56 because of the stresses inherent to their jobs, and because before that reduction in the retirement age, very few controllers could make it to mandatory retirement because of failing health and deteriorating abilities and reaction times. These are the professionals who your congressman is stiffing on pay for work they’ve already done.)

How long before that radar control room guiding your airliner is staffed like this?:

http://rdougwicker.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/elp-tracon.jpg
The Control Room of a Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON)


And while these people are working for free, I’d like for you to consider this: Those congressmen? The ones who before the last election proclaimed the 2012 elections a “referendum on Obamacare?” The congressmen who are now having a temper tantrum because, at their core, they apparently only believe in democracy when it suits them?

Those congressmen work on average just two days out of every five-day workweek, earn at a minimum $174,000 a year (Speaker Boehner gets a whopping $223,500 for not doing his job), are vested for retirement benefits after only five years on what I laughingly call “the job,” get federally subsidized healthcare (which those thirty want to deny people who make one tenth as much as they), and they continue to receive those pay and all those benefits while your air traffic controllers are forced to do without. Those congressmen certainly aren’t hurting financially during this self-induced “crisis,” but your air traffic controllers certainly are.

How dare any elected representative do this to employees who work for them? How dare any elected representative put employees’ families through this kind of stress and uncertainty? How dare anyone whose job is given to them by a democratic process repudiate the outcome of a democratic election because they do not agree with the results?

It is way past time to start reducing the stress levels of your already overstressed air traffic controllers, and to start raising the stress levels of your elected representative. And if you live in the state of Texas, as do I, it’s way past time to tell the wealthy Senator Ted Cruz (55th wealthiest member of the U.S. Senate) that if he doesn’t agree with democracy, then it’s well beyond time to democratically terminate his employment come next election.

These people, quite frankly, disgust this former Republican who, effective October 1 of this year, no longer affiliates himself with what once was truly the Grand Old Party . . . but is no more.

DigitalChaos
10-14-2013, 06:32 PM
NATCA used to be against the privatization of the nation's air traffic control system, but I think a lot of them are seriously re-thinking that right now; so long as their pensions and/or 401Ks and union contracts aren't jeopardized.

As the above article indicates, staffing levels have been at scary low levels and more and more ATCs are retiring each year, with nobody replacing them because the training program is so long and rigorous and the stupid government didn't finally say "hey, I guess we should actually HIRE some people!" until it was far too late. Nothing would make me happier than to see the air traffic screech to 1960s levels for YEARS because there aren't enough ATCs.

As of right now, there's no training since March because of the furloughs and now there's ZERO training because of the shutdown (training isn't considered essential; most training is done by ATCs but if they're too busy controlling planes nobody can stop to train anyone).

We saw it all come to a halt once already, right after 9-11; no planes flew anywhere for about 4 days.

Shit is nuts. Privatize every thing that requires money to operate unless there is a horribly obvious reason not to. You can still regulate the shit out of it.

On the topic of ObamaCare, that failure of a site cost $93million... what .. the .. fuck? Obama's 2012 campaign tech was the model of badass tech. Even though it was much more complex, they did it way faster, with less people, waaaaay cheaper, and it worked right out of the box. THAT'S the kind of model we need to use when building stuff, not this wasteful business model that runs rampant in the majority of government practices. We could have payed well under $1mil and sent $92mil off to pay for a LOT of people's health coverage.

DigitalChaos
10-14-2013, 06:38 PM
This more related to the shutdown than Obamacare.
Some House rules were changed on Oct. 1st
http://www.upworthy.com/congress-did-something-so-spectacularly-creepy-that-its-too-unbelievable-to-make-up?c=fea

This is why I love to point out how the "small government" pitch of the GOP is such bullshit. They basically created a King of Congress. That's the opposite of what any small government person would want. That said, this kind of shit happens all the time with both parties. The distort and corrupt the fuck out of democracy. If its "your" party you say they are just playing the game that the other side always plays. If it's not your side, you bitch about it. Fuck them all.

Deepvoid
10-14-2013, 09:06 PM
I need a quick lesson in US politics guys.
Why is the Tea Party within the Republican Party? Why isn't it a party of its own?
Could they form an official 3rd party?

Cat Mom
10-14-2013, 09:46 PM
I need a quick lesson in US politics guys.
Why is the Tea Party within the Republican Party? Why isn't it a party of its own?
Could they form an official 3rd party?

The tea party isn't a real political party; it's a very small (but, right now, controlling) faction of the Republican party. They are called "tea party" candidates in honor of the Boston Tea Party rebellion against taxes. Third parties aren't successful in this country, so these people are running in primaries as Republicans.

DigitalChaos
10-15-2013, 01:06 AM
^ exactly.
Deepvoid - Here is a very brief explanation of how it happened and reasons behind the current state of affairs...

Ron Paul, a previous libertarian candidate who decided to run as a republican instead, started running "Tea Party" money donations that got media attention. A platform of "legalize all the things, privatize all the things, reduce government size, and stop the wars" getting that kind of attention freaked the Republicans out. So, they started co-opting it and rebranding into a very distorted version and pretended to welcome it with open arms. They thought it would be a great populist tool for anti-Democrat purposes. This mutant Tea Party was very attractive to the life-long republicans who watched their party move away from the "fiscal responsibility" and "reduced government" that they actually used to follow. It also attracted many of the people who were just plain jaded by the state of politics. The right-wing tried to satisfy this group with the McCain/Palin ticket.... which lost horribly.

Clearly, a mutant Tea Party wasn't going to win the next election... so they put Romney up in 2012. Yet, they still had this force of people who wanted what was originally offered to the Tea Party. Ultimately, this became more of a dividing force for the right-wing than a driving power against democrats. They spent a shitload of time and money fighting against the Ron Paul supporters during the 2012 run. The "King of Congress" thing the GOP pulled a few weeks ago, before the current shutdown, is NOTHING compared to the systematic corruption wielded against the Ron Paul supporters. Of course, that got almost no coverage. In many ways, the "Tea Party" vs Republican fight is stronger than the Republican vs Democrat. It's not hard to understand why the Tea Party republicans are sticking their heels in and simply refusing to compromise with their own party, let alone the Democrats.

Actual libertarians have more in common with current democrats than they do with current republicans. Democrats could create an incredible shakeup if they reached out to libertarians. Reducing our war machine, and getting govt out of our personal lives used to be a very democratic thing. Spin that back up and offer up Clinton-era debt reduction and you will put the shriveled republican carcass into the ground for good.

Jinsai
10-15-2013, 01:34 AM
oh good, we're talking about libertarians again, and how they're "the best party for your interests, even if they previously thought teaming up with the republicans was the best idea" instead of what the thread's about.

RhettButler
10-15-2013, 07:16 AM
I need a quick lesson in US politics guys.
Why is the Tea Party within the Republican Party? Why isn't it a party of its own?
Could they form an official 3rd party?

They are a right-wing fringe group. There have been other groups like them, like The John Birch Society. They aren't actually that popular, just very vocal.

aggroculture
10-15-2013, 10:12 AM
I have not read a single intelligent explanation of why the ACA is so bad for the country, that it's worth shutting down the govt over. Please, feel free to point me in the right direction.

Also, that rule-changing business: it bothers me that the rules of congress can just be changed so easily. Shouldn't one need a 2/3 majority to make radical changes to how congress votes work?

Cat Mom
10-15-2013, 11:05 AM
Also, that rule-changing business: it bothers me that the rules of congress can just be changed so easily. Shouldn't one need a 2/3 majority to make radical changes to how congress votes work?
Since the Republicans currently have the majority of seats in the House of Representatives, they currently control the House (the Democrats currently control the Senate; Senate + House = Congress). Deciding that only the House Majority Leader (Cantor) can decide to end the shutdown is relative only to this particular issue and the only thing the Republicans are REALLY doing is preventing an up or down vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_down_vote); it's just more indicative of the rancor between House Republicans than anything else. It does not represent any kind of permanent change in Democracy.

Cat Mom
10-15-2013, 11:12 AM
They are a right-wing fringe group. There have been other groups like them, like The John Birch Society. They aren't actually that popular, just very vocal.

Lots of political analysts believe that the Koch brothers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers) created the so-called "Tea Party Movement."

aggroculture
10-15-2013, 11:14 AM
Seems like a way to prevent a clean bill that Dems (+ Repubs that break ranks), would have the votes for.
In other words the majority of the house does not want this shutdown to continue, but the republican majority has tweaked the rules to disempower an alternative majority from voting to end it/pass a clean bill.
How is this act defensible?

Also, can someone explain why people were saying it was Boehner not allowing a vote, when apparently only Eric Cantor can allow the vote? Also, why is Boehner's job on the line?

Cat Mom
10-15-2013, 11:18 AM
Boehnar's job may be on the line only within his own party (they choose the Speaker); if the Republicans in the House decide that they need a scapegoat for the public disapproval and hostility, Boehner will be the scapegoat. But, really, CANTOR should be the scapegoat; he's a total piece of shit right wing conservative nutjob. Also, Boehner could "lose his job" as Speaker if the Republicans lose control of the House with the next election; if Democrats hold more seats in the House, then the House Speaker will be a DEMOCRAT, not a Republican (last Democrat Speaker was Nancy Pelosi)

For a good explanation about this mess, see the Chomsky interview that RhettButler posted in another thread (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1951-Chomsky-Zizek-feud?p=142196#post142196).



Seems like a way to prevent a clean bill that Dems (+ Repubs that break ranks), would have the votes for.
In other words the majority of the house does not want this shutdown to continue, but the republican majority has tweaked the rules to disempower an alternative majority from voting to end it/pass a clean bill.
The "majority of the house" is currently Republican. A lot of those Republicans do NOT want the shutdown to continue but they are allegedly afraid of voting against it because the tea party Republicans (especially those bankrolled by the Koch brothers) run terrible ads against those members in primaries. Having only the Majority Leader end the shutdown takes the heat off of those afraid of the Koch brothers hahaha.

Piko
10-15-2013, 12:16 PM
I'd be amazed to see the republicans get reelected. I wouldn't be surprised to see congress change all together in the next couple of years.

DigitalChaos
10-15-2013, 12:34 PM
They are a right-wing fringe group. There have been other groups like them, like The John Birch Society. They aren't actually that popular, just very vocal.

Blue Dog Democrats. Everyone forgets about them. There are many subgroups of a political party.

DigitalChaos
10-15-2013, 12:49 PM
the republican majority has tweaked the rules to disempower an alternative majority

How is this act defensible?

It's not. But it also happens all the damn time! If people stood up on principle instead of when it's politically convenient, this shit wouldn't happen.
Where were you when the GOP changed the electoral college rules in mid-primaries to try and secure Romney the GOP nomination? They were even forcing delegates to sign legal documents promising their vote for Romney. Is that not a perversion of democracy too?

edit: bolded for Jinsai's reading comprehension

Jinsai
10-15-2013, 02:05 PM
Where were you when the GOP changed the electoral college rules in mid-primaries to try and secure Romney the GOP nomination?

...is this the part where you imply that the election would have been won by Ron Paul if the republicans hadn't disenfranchised the libertarian youtube comment-box majority? (http://www.policymic.com/articles/18815/the-ron-paul-effect-how-the-gop-threw-the-election-by-disenfranchising-ron-paul-supporters)

Jinsai
10-15-2013, 02:15 PM
nope.

Oh good, because that's what it sounded like. I'm glad to hear that you were talking about something completely different that didn't have anything to do with curbing votes that were going to go to Ron Paul.

Can I get a link to this story? As long as it doesn't have anything to do with libertarians or Ron Paul, I'm interested.

EDIT: I take it by your facepalming/deleting rampage that you don't have that link? Ok great, moving right along

DigitalChaos
10-15-2013, 03:24 PM
Jinsai; the shining example of the unprincipled and very partisan type of person I've been describing. It's only an issue in the system when it impacts the output that you are after. As such, you've received the government you deserve. I find that as amusing as your involuntary outbursts anytime the word libertarian is mentioned. The recurring problem is a reflexive response to anything in front of you. Stop and think a little more.

dpeters
10-15-2013, 06:48 PM
Tyranny of the State, Tyranny of the Corporation: Enhanced Constitutional Powers for Their Pleasure.

Cat Mom
10-15-2013, 06:57 PM
Blue Dog Democrats. Everyone forgets about them. There are many subgroups of a political party.

Per the above-linked interview with Professor Chomsky (http://truth-out.org/news/item/19287-in-conversation-with-noam-chomsky-on-us-politics-global-affairs-and-capitalist-reform):

"The main point to look at is the split within the Republican Party. The Republican establishment, and Wall Street, and the bankers, and the corporate executives and so on, they don't want [the shutdown]. They don't want it at all. It's the part of the base that is mobilized that wants it. And they're finding it hard to control that base. There's a reason why they have a collection of near crazies as the base. Over the past 30 or 40 years, both political parties have drifted to the right. Same thing's happened in Canada, incidentally. This is all part of the whole neoliberal shift in the economy. But the parties have shifted to the right. Today's Democrats are pretty much what used to be called moderate Republicans a generation ago. And the Republicans went so far to the right that they just can't get votes. They've become a dedicated party of the very rich and the corporate sector. And you can't get votes that way. So they've been compelled to mobilize a base of voters and gone to elements of the country that have always been there but were kind of marginal to the political system, for example, religious extremists. The United States is off the international spectrum in religious extremism. I mean half of the population, roughly, thinks the world was created a couple thousand years ago. Two thirds of the country is expecting the second coming of Christ. They've also had to turn to nativists. The gun culture in the United States, which is out of control, is party fueled by people who think 'we've got to have our guns to protect ourselves.' Protect ourselves from whom? From the United Nations? From the federal government? From people from outer space?

There are big, extremely irrational parts of the society, and they have now been mobilized politically by the Republican establishment, hoping that these people could be an electoral base to keep them in power, but on the assumption that they'd be able to control them. And that's turning out not to be easy. You actually saw it in the last primaries if you were watching. The Republican Primaries were quite interesting. The establishment had its candidate, Romney, a kind of a Wall Street lawyer and investor, and they wanted him in. But the base didn't want him. And every time a candidate came up from the base, that is with popular support, the Republican establishment went into high gear to destroy them with massive propaganda attack ads and so on. It was one after another, each one crazier than the last. And the Republican establishment is afraid of them, they don't want them. So they were able to keep them under control and get their own candidate in. But they're losing control of the base, and that's a deep dilemma for the Republican Party.

Actually, I'm sorry to say it has some historical analogs. It's kind of reminiscent of what happened in Germany in the late Weimar years. German industrialists wanted to use the Nazis, who were a relatively small group, as a battering ram against the labour movement and the left. They thought they control them but it turns out they were wrong. They couldn't control them. I'm not saying that will happen here, it's quite a different set of circumstances, but something similar is taking place. The Republican establishment, the mainstream corporate financial wealth, is getting to a point where it can't control the base it's mobilized."

Cat Mom
10-15-2013, 07:01 PM
So there is no confusion, this interview is about Professor Chomsky's political views (http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-anarchism-i-believe-and-whats-wrong-libertarians).

Deepvoid
10-15-2013, 07:47 PM
Thanks guys for all the insightful information.

Wouldn't defaulting actually hurt the banks and Wall St.?
Would Republicans let that happen if that's the case.
TYT is saying that some top Rep. donors are currently pissed at Tea Party representatives.
My guess is that they are gonna cave in, raise the debt ceiling for a short period of time and this circus will start again in a few months.

DigitalChaos
10-15-2013, 07:49 PM
Per the above-linked interview with Professor Chomsky (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/noam-chomsky-what-id-like-to-see-on-front-pages-of-newspapers-29654898.html):

I agree with all of that... except the implication that this small portion of the group are representative of the entire group. It's also a bit too kind to the "republican establishment." But of course a shitload of marginalized crazies have attached to it. When the GOP took over the Tea Party thing, they turned it into a populist movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism).

Cat Mom
10-15-2013, 09:46 PM
The GOP did not take over the tea party; the tea party (and its founders, the Koch brothers) took over the GOP; go read that Chomsky interview (http://truth-out.org/news/item/19287-in-conversation-with-noam-chomsky-on-us-politics-global-affairs-and-capitalist-reform) again, and this time put your own preconceptions aside to read what a brilliant scholar (Chomsky) is trying to tell you.


I wonder how many people here are old enough to remember Jerry Falwell and the "Moral Majority."

Cat Mom
10-15-2013, 09:49 PM
Wouldn't defaulting actually hurt the banks and Wall St.?
Yes, it would, which is why the Koch brothers are calling in the cavalry; except now some of their cavalry has gone rogue.

DigitalChaos
10-16-2013, 12:04 AM
The GOP did not take over the tea party; the tea party (and its founders, the Koch brothers) took over the GOP; go read that Chomsky interview (http://truth-out.org/news/item/19287-in-conversation-with-noam-chomsky-on-us-politics-global-affairs-and-capitalist-reform) again, and this time put your own preconceptions aside to read what a brilliant scholar (Chomsky) is trying to tell you.


I wonder how many people here are old enough to remember Jerry Falwell and the "Moral Majority."
I did. If you consider the Tea Party to have started in 2009 with Rick Santelli yelling about shit on the trading floor, then this logic works. I guess that IS the popular stance from most people these days. I still consider the foundation to be from 2007 when there was a very small group of independents trying to get Ron Paul's name out there and starting up the donation drives on our own using the Tea Party theme. This predates even the Koch involvement.

DigitalChaos
10-16-2013, 12:08 AM
On the topic of ACA... what do people think about the various GOP proposals?
- a few months worth of govt funding and debt ceiling hikes along with delays to very small parts of ACA related taxing.
- requiring Congress and the President to use ACA

and does nobody think this is absurd?
Feds reviewed only one bid for Obamacare website design
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2537194

$93mil is beyond excessive for a project like this, but only getting one bid on it... wtf? A non-USA firm on top of that.

Cat Mom
10-16-2013, 07:40 AM
I did. If you consider the Tea Party to have started in 2009 with Rick Santelli yelling about shit on the trading floor, then this logic works. I guess that IS the popular stance from most people these days. I still consider the foundation to be from 2007 when there was a very small group of independents trying to get Ron Paul's name out there and starting up the donation drives on our own using the Tea Party theme. This predates even the Koch involvement.

Read up on the Koch brothers; they've been pushing this since the 80s.

Cat Mom
10-16-2013, 07:41 AM
On the topic of ACA... what do people think about the various GOP proposals?
- a few months worth of govt funding and debt ceiling hikes along with delays to very small parts of ACA related taxing.
- requiring Congress and the President to use ACA
Congress is already required to use the ACA exchanges as of January 1st of 2014, that's already a provision of the ACA.

Dra508
10-16-2013, 09:27 AM
I wonder how many people here are old enough to remember Jerry Falwell and the "Moral Majority."*waves* This time around feels so much more threatening...

My thoughts today on this whole shut down bullshit:

Boehner can not control the Reps that are supposedly in the Republican party in The House. I'm not a American History expert, but I have to believe he will rank as one of the least powerful Speakers ever. I'd be surprised if he keeps the position next time around.

Mitch McConnell is up for re-election and in a real sticky wicket. His challenger is raising more money than him. Does he work with Harry Reid, potentially looking like he caved and not get re-elected (a lot of connections but work with me here) or does he dig his heels in so he looks good among the voters that he must have to appeal to that are tea party leaning Republicans? If Nancy Pelosi was still speaker, and the Senate had the Republican majority, this drama would be over. Yeah, a woman would remove the drama and actually be actionable.

I'm a bit freaked by the chance that the US could default. The ramifications of which could last for years. Love those low mortgage rates, say goodbye. Like how your IRA or your 401K is growing? yeah, forget that. Job growth, yeah, naw - even low paying crap jobs will be going away.

A third political party would not be a bad idea. I just don't think it could be a more conservative like the tea party. I think it would be more in the center.

And I just heard a woman caller on NPR call the Tea Party, Klansmen in suits. Wow.

DigitalChaos
10-16-2013, 11:15 AM
A third political party would not be a bad idea. I just don't think it could be a more conservative like the tea party. I think it would be more in the center.

That's a common statement but it's completely ridiculous. That's called a moderate, not a 3rd party. It speaks very loudly about how ingrained the two party system is in people. People can't even imagine something that lies OUTSIDE the realm of Democrat ----- Republican. Believe it or not, there are MANY fundamentally different ideas about how to run a country (while staying in the Constitution) other than this fucked up narrow viewed methodology you are all complaining about.

binaryhermit
10-16-2013, 11:55 AM
To be fair, a moderate party would have to be somewhere to the left of your average so-called "liberal" Democrat. The political spectrum in this country is so far slanted to the right it isn't even funny. IMO, if there's a semi-legitimate 3rd party, it will be the Teatards breaking away from the Republicans, which might be the best possible thing that could happen to the Republicans short of the Teatards getting raptured by Jesus.

Deepvoid
10-16-2013, 12:10 PM
Senate got a deal in place. Let's see what the House does.
Cruz states he won't block Senate vote.
"Ted Cruz praises House Republicans for putting up a fight, blames his Senate colleagues for "failing the American people."

Cat Mom
10-16-2013, 12:12 PM
To be fair, a moderate party would have to be somewhere to the left of your average so-called "liberal" Democrat. The political spectrum in this country is so far slanted to the right it isn't even funny.

That's really true; like Professor Chomsky said, in the above-quoted article: today's Democratic Party is a lot like Eisenhower Republicans.

My Green Party is the logical third party choice.

Ted Cruz is gonna come out of this as the lone crazy douche bag. HE'S the one failing the American people.

DigitalChaos
10-16-2013, 12:18 PM
To be fair, a moderate party would have to be somewhere to the left of your average so-called "liberal" Democrat. The political spectrum in this country is so far slanted to the right it isn't even funny. IMO, if there's a semi-legitimate 3rd party, it will be the Teatards breaking away from the Republicans, which might be the best possible thing that could happen to the Republicans short of the Teatards getting raptured by Jesus.

Agree about the right bias. But stop dealing with just a single axis and your world opens up.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012(for example)
I would take Jill Stein or Gary Johnson any day over the Obama/Romney "choice"

Look into the end of the Whigs and the birth of Republicans. You'll notice some similarities to today.

Cat Mom
10-16-2013, 12:24 PM
Agree about the right bias. But stop dealing with just a single axis and your world opens up.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012(for example)
I would take Jill Stein or Gary Johnson any day over the Obama/Romney "choice"

Look into the end of the Whigs and the birth of Republicans. You'll notice some similarities to today.

Long time ago, different voter base, no blacks or latinos voting, can't compare.

I think the Greens could definitely win if (a) they changed the name of the party; too many people out there think "Green" means "Ralph Nader crazy flower child hippy" and (b) if they had a presidential candidate that became WILDLY popular via the underground and totally outshone the other two candidates (I'm thinking Bill Clinton playing sax on late night TV, Barack Obama and the Internet, etc.) AND WAS ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC DEBATES. Gary Johnson and the Libertarians will be labeled as neo Tea Party by those now terrified by Tea Party crazy assholes (remember, the Koch brothers label themselves as Libertarian) so, not looking good for Gary.

I like Jill Stein, but I think her running mate for the last election was a little too pedestrian. I think Elizabeth Warren from Boston is a strong candidate no matter her political party.

We need a GIANT re-boot of Congress before we worry about the Presidential candidates. We need to get more independent (no party affiliation) House members in there, FOR SURE.

DigitalChaos
10-16-2013, 12:44 PM
Long time ago, different voter base, no blacks or latinos voting, can't compare.

I think the Greens could definitely win if (a) they changed the name of the party; too many people out there think "Green" means "Ralph Nader crazy flower child hippy" and (b) if they had a presidential candidate that became WILDLY popular via the underground and totally outshone the other two candidates (I'm thinking Bill Clinton playing sax on late night TV, Barack Obama and the Internet, etc.) AND WAS ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC DEBATES. Gary Johnson and the Libertarians will be labeled as neo Tea Party by those now terrified by Tea Party crazy assholes (remember, the Koch brothers label themselves as Libertarian) so, not looking good for Gary.

I like Jill Stein, but I think her running mate for the last election was a little too pedestrian. I think Elizabeth Warren from Boston is a strong candidate no matter her political party.

We need a GIANT re-boot of Congress before we worry about the Presidential candidates. We need to get more independent (no party affiliation) House members in there, FOR SURE.

You can compare from a macro level since the systematic foundation is still about the same. Whigs fractured over a core fundamental principle and moral decision. Only one party was left standing after it happened. We are already seeing the first part. We will likely see the second part too.

Totally agree on Jihnson'a party being a dirty word now. I wouldn't mind his policies under any party label.

Congess would absolutely have to flip too. The politicalcompass graph of 2012 presidential election was just a simple way to demonstrate a break from the 2 dimensional thinking. I'd vote for anyone south of the authoritarian half in that graph.

You think Warren would go for any party but Dem? Dems have always seemed more bound to a united party message/image than the Repubs. That's probably their biggest strength.

DigitalChaos
10-16-2013, 12:46 PM
I'm reading your post and am once again reminded of how much a name/label matters to voters instead of actual policies. Fucking humans. Depressing.

Cat Mom
10-16-2013, 12:54 PM
I'm reading your post and am once again reminded of how much a name/label matters to voters instead of actual policies. Fucking humans. Depressing.
Well, but there are policies and then there are policies. The current Tea Party platform (whatever the hell that is) isn't classic Republican platform, either.

But, yeah, it all comes down to marketing; s/he with the best TV ads wins? I'm all for completely eliminating paid advertising for all political candidates; the amount of money you have in your campaign wallet shouldn't dictate your ability to be elected by the people.

The "third party" of the future may very well end up being NO party (independent, like Mayor Bloomberg).

DigitalChaos
10-16-2013, 04:42 PM
God damn, "no party" would be fucking beautiful. It would eliminate all the flag planting bullshit we see... gerrymandering, parties securing their incumbent instead of a much better challenger from the same party, ... just... so much partisan bullshit wiped out. Humanity needs to have "sides" on anything and everything. They would find a way to bring it back... but it would at least help. I'd hope that they pit their tribalism inside their state. "My state vs all the other states" That would actually produce some healthy results.


While we are dreaming, here is a heroic sewage pipe that saved us from Congress: http://www.theonion.com/articles/heroic-broken-sewage-pipe-floods-congress-with-hum,34237/

binaryhermit
10-16-2013, 07:21 PM
Well, as expected, the deal made it through the Senate 81-18. If the deal manages to get even 15% of the Republicans in the House it should pass.

Dra508
10-16-2013, 07:28 PM
That's a common statement but it's completely ridiculous. That's called a moderate, not a 3rd party. It speaks very loudly about how ingrained the two party system is in people. People can't even imagine something that lies OUTSIDE the realm of Democrat ----- Republican. Believe it or not, there are MANY fundamentally different ideas about how to run a country (while staying in the Constitution) other than this fucked up narrow viewed methodology you are all complaining about.Is there a party called moderate? No, there is not. Is there a party called Tea? No, there is not. Is there a party called Independent? No, not really. What I was trying to say is that clearly the two parties we have are a bit broad in their values. Liberals/Progressive in the Democratic party are pissed at Obama for not being as liberal as they expected a black man to be (yeah, I said it - liberals can be oddly racist too). Tea Partiers are only registered Republican's because why? They can't admit they are Libertarians? Or Libertarians won't take them from the cold?

I really try my best to take all journalistic reports without the slant that inevitably put on them, but I really think there are many politicians that are losers in this one and I don't think it's Reid or Obama.

Side question: what the CW on why Biden has had a sock in his mouth the whole time here? Previous big news items have had him front and center. Politically, did Obama want to keep the Executive branch out on the side and let the Congress duke it out? Is Biden trying to keep his hands and mouth clean so he might have a chance to run next time around? Mindless wondering, because you know, I really like Joe. He is a politician's politician.

Cat Mom
10-16-2013, 07:31 PM
Side question: what the CW on why Biden has had a sock in his mouth the whole time here? Previous big news items have had him front and center. Politically, did Obama want to keep the Executive branch out on the side and let the Congress duke it out? Is Biden trying to keep his hands and mouth clean so he might have a chance to run next time around? Mindless wondering, because you know, I really like Joe. He is a politician's politician.
Well, there's this (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/joe-biden-government-shutdown-debt-ceiling-97969.html).

Dra508
10-16-2013, 07:35 PM
Well, there's this (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/joe-biden-government-shutdown-debt-ceiling-97969.html).Ah ha. Interesting. That would explain a lot. I heard this interesting piece on NPR, I think, from a guy who worked for one of them. Reid makes decisions quickly, McConnell has to take everything back to his "kitchen cabinet". The later makes me freaking crazy. Clinton was slow like that too. Be decisive people. ;)

Clearly, I haven't been on facebook enough lately. I have Politico in my newsfeed.