Government Shutdown Whose Fault?

[mimartin]

Whoops, thanks. Though I thought since that was the driving force behind the shutdown, it might be relevant.

And the smilie and the spoiler should show I was poking fun at my senator from the great, but stupid, state of Texas.

 

Actually from the responses afterward, I put less blame on the majority of the Rep and more blame on Ted Cruz bunch, I know he is extremely intelligent, so I don't see it as principle, and see it for what it is an attempt a political gain at the cost of the American economy and the rest of the republican party. Stunts like that may get him the republican nomination, but it does nothing to get rid of Obamacare as it hurts the Republican chances of taking control of the Senate. There was no chance of getting rid of Obamacare, to do that the republican will at least a majority both in the house and the senate and it would take Dems or veto proof majority. Ted Cruz is more than intelligent enough to know that, so the stunt had to be nothing but politically motivated.

[Tommycat]

And the smilie and the spoiler should show I was poking fun at my senator from the great, but stupid, state of Texas.

 

Actually from the responses afterward, I put less blame on the majority of the Rep and more blame on Ted Cruz bunch, I know he is extremely intelligent, so I don't see it as principle, and see it for what it is an attempt a political gain at the cost of the American economy and the rest of the republican party. Stunts like that may get him the republican nomination, but it does nothing to get rid of Obamacare as it hurts the Republican chances of taking control of the Senate. There was no chance of getting rid of Obamacare, to do that the republican will at least a majority both in the house and the senate and it would take Dems or veto proof majority. Ted Cruz is more than intelligent enough to know that, so the stunt had to be nothing but politically motivated.

 

The largest irony is that had the government NOT shut down, the largest story would have been the fact that the healthcare.gov website was such a failure. The Dems may want to thank Cruz as the shutdown actually distracted from the horrible failure of the launch of PPACA

[mimartin]

The largest irony is that had the government NOT shut down, the largest story would have been the fact that the healthcare.gov website was such a failure. The Dems may want to thank Cruz as the shutdown actually distracted from the horrible failure of the launch of PPACA

Very true...

 

And if the Republican had a brain cell between them all. They would be doing everything now to amend the health care law and fix the problems, but instead their only solution is the typical throw it out and go back to the status quo.

[Tommycat]

Very true...

 

And if the Republican had a brain cell between them all. They would be doing everything now to amend the health care law and fix the problems, but instead their only solution is the typical throw it out and go back to the status quo.

 

I dunno about that. There's only so much fixing you can do to a lemon. But the fact is they are talking more about removing the one in place and not talking about a viable replacement. It's like saying they want to get rid of the patch, but not a replacement permanent fix. "we'll just cut this here patch off. Replacement? what replacement?"

[machievelli]

Things would be worse if there were no form of political parties.

 

If we didn't there would be a greater chances of internal wars in the US- since you would end up with powerful people rising up and representing their own interest of their region. Since these people are not part of a larger group then they would see no interest in listening to another powerful person of another region. This would lead to almost tribal wars if this was done say back in the 1800s. The result would be- the US would be broken apart into a collection of smaller countries and the federal government and the USA would be only known in history books.

 

This was one of the issues with the Civil War- Federal vs State rights/power.

Lincoln knew that if the south/confederates were allowed to leave the union then what stops for any other section of America to group up a few states and break away too.

 

Political parties do serve a purpose since they can work as a group in their numbers to get things done but in turn when a part of them get out of line then they can help bring them back,...which isn't happening now since the Republican party has lost control of the tea party- which is now running the show. Some of this comes from the internal ideas and beliefs which are false but are reinforced since it helps increase their turn out by throwing out the read meat the the base. The problem is that the base Republican party might say some of this red meat but they really don't believe it to the level of the word = truth. But some more radical republicans are manipulating the base and becoming the red meat themselves. And anyone in the party questions them = to be called a rhino and not a true Republican. These people don't understand the dangerous power they are welding - they think it will lead to book deals and money/power but they are making these people into true believes which means when the truth is given and a deal per say in the debt/shutdown is made, they will not accept it while the Republican main party does.

 

But back to the original point- not having political parties wouldn't help..

 

First, the Union could have found another way to deal with the South than forcing them into a war. As you yourself mentioned, State rights Vs Federal rights had been argued all the way back to Patrick Henry, because the South knew then (When the Article of Confederation were still in force) that the Northeast, with the bulk of the citizens, would always be able to control the Congress without major safeguards against it.

 

These days, with over 100 electoral votes in two states (California with 51, New York with 52) both heavily Democrat, the candidate gets halfway to the presidency by carrying those two liberal states alone.

 

We don't have a balance, we have a dog fight and neither cares a lick about the people they are supposed to represent. They care about who wins.

 

They're losing their coverage because of government intervention into health care.

 

LOL, when has either party done that? Not in my lifetime, which is why the country's in the toilet.

 

I can say that too; and I'm a hell of a lot older.

 

You must understand that companies - the large one especially- are looking for ways to stop covering their employes. The Corporate america cares about profit, they don't care about the worker.

 

The healthcare plan will have it's problems and will be tweaked over the next few years.

 

What could happen - that companies will not have the burden of providing healthcare insurance since everyone will have it through their own plans - and since everyone is going out there for insurance- the plans and competition will help drive the prices down.

 

If we don't do anything within a law then the cost from people uninsured going to the hospital will do more damage then this healthcare law.

 

 

 

I agree, the parties in the most part have always worked in their self interest but what we are seeing right now that there are people who are not playing by the rules- they are willing to destroy this country by defaulting and shutting it down for a law that has been up held by the supreme court. I shake my head - there are no adults in politics and the media/reports are failing us - they stop seeking out the truth but instead they became timid with politics and don't grill the people who run our country plus they don't speak out ...etc..etc..

 

Then remember what Warren Buffet said when asked about this. Fire the lot of them, from Obama on down. But what he didn't say, and should have, is we need a third party to keep the others in line. The Reform party, that was started by Ross Perot, and killed by Pat Robertson, could have done it. As Perot himself said, 'I'm a businessman, and you don't stay in business if you don't make your budget balance'

 

Very true...

 

And if the Republican had a brain cell between them all. They would be doing everything now to amend the health care law and fix the problems, but instead their only solution is the typical throw it out and go back to the status quo.

 

The problem with 'amending' it is that it is harder to remove a law than it is to stop it from being passed. As others said, it passed with no Republican votes at all, and that wasn't because it was a Democratic president who fathered it, it was because it was badly written, and every attempt to clean it up before the voting was stopped in committee.

 

If the government is trying to take control of healthcare as some here have suggested, it means taxes leap. When England went to Socialized health care, the taxes went from about 25% to almost 55%.

 

Remember that the Volstead Act (Prohibition) caused not only the rise of organized crime, it also took 15 years to repeal. For those of you still at home; could your parents afford to double their tax burden for that long?

 

Oh, and BTW, I have no health insurance, as I work part time. I also don't make enough money to pay for insurance. Then again, I am in that limbo where I make too much, and live alone, so I don't get Medicaid. What about me? Obamacare didn't address that, now did it?

[mimartin]

The problem with 'amending' it is that it is harder to remove a law than it is to stop it from being passed. As others said, it passed with no Republican votes at all, and that wasn't because it was a Democratic president who fathered it, it was because it was badly written, and every attempt to clean it up before the voting was stopped in committee.

There have been no attempts to fix the bill...they have all been to get rid of the law. 40 or so tries, to 0 to fix.

 

While you not having health insurance are not paying for the uninsured under the old system. Those of us that have health insurance are already paying a higher burden of our income out in the form of health insurance premiums and medical cost to cover the uninsured. Change it from premium to taxes, really does not change the out of pocket expense to me. Spreading the cost to a higher number could reduce my part. Which is what the health care reform attempts to do and was/is needed. People that can't afford insurance are not the problem, those that can afford insurance, but would rather buy boats and other toys is the problem. The still get ill, they still get injured and they still have babies.

[urluckyday]

There have been no attempts to fix the bill...they have all been to get rid of the law. 40 or so tries, to 0 to fix.

 

While you not having health insurance are not paying for the uninsured under the old system. Those of us that have health insurance are already paying a higher burden of our income out in the form of health insurance premiums and medical cost to cover the uninsured. Change it from premium to taxes, really does not change the out of pocket expense to me. Spreading the cost to a higher number could reduce my part. Which is what the health care reform attempts to do and was/is needed. People that can't afford insurance are not the problem, those that can afford insurance, but would rather buy boats and other toys is the problem. The still get ill, they still get injured and they still have babies.

 

None of that is the problem in my mind. The problem is in principle. Not one part of the federal government mandating health insurance (yes, it is a mandate because you get fined if you don't have it) is constitutional in my mind. What a dangerous precedent that sets in my mind. The further down the road we get with socializing every part of our life, the farther away we get from the very basis of our country - limited government.

 

Sure, the shutdown was caused by both parties being babies about whatever, but I truly believe that the vast majority opponents of the healthcare law spent time trying to sabotage it for the same reason I just described. If protecting the founding principles of this country results in a government shutdown, so be it.

[mimartin]

None of that is the problem in my mind. The problem is in principle. Not one part of the federal government mandating health insurance (yes, it is a mandate because you get fined if you don't have it) is constitutional in my mind. What a dangerous precedent that sets in my mind. The further down the road we get with socializing every part of our life, the farther away we get from the very basis of our country - limited government.

It seems a conservative controlled Supreme Court disagrees with your legal opinion.

 

Personally I would be for getting rid of the mandate, if they also got rid of the mandate the hospital/doctors had to treat the uninsured. No insurance go bleed by the dumpster and get out of the way of people that are responsible enough to have insurance (only applies to those that can afford insurance, but don’t have insurance).

[machievelli]

There have been no attempts to fix the bill...they have all been to get rid of the law. 40 or so tries, to 0 to fix.

 

While you not having health insurance are not paying for the uninsured under the old system. Those of us that have health insurance are already paying a higher burden of our income out in the form of health insurance premiums and medical cost to cover the uninsured. Change it from premium to taxes, really does not change the out of pocket expense to me. Spreading the cost to a higher number could reduce my part. Which is what the health care reform attempts to do and was/is needed. People that can't afford insurance are not the problem, those that can afford insurance, but would rather buy boats and other toys is the problem. The still get ill, they still get injured and they still have babies.

 

No, it means I have to pay out of my own pocket. Even if I can't afford it

 

As for 'fixing' it, in California when they passed the law requiring all drivers to have insurance, the rates for those who already had it jumped by between 100 and 200%. The later law to set a rate cap is as far as I know, still tied up in court. After all Insurance companies have the money to spend on political campaigns...

[mimartin]

No, it means I have to pay out of my own pocket. Even if I can't afford it.

 

Q:

What if I can’t afford to buy health care coverage?

 

A:

 

There are two types of federal financial help from the government that may be available to you. One kind helps pay your monthly health insurance premium. The other helps with your out-of-pocket expenses for care. You may qualify for one or both, and the federal government can pay your health plan directly. Or, the ACA may not require that you buy coverage.

 

You will be able to find out if you qualify for reduced premiums and reduced cost-sharing when the Health Insurance Marketplaces launch in October. But here are some general income guidelines that might be used by the government to see if you qualify and how much help you would receive.

 

If you’re single, you could qualify if you make less than $45,960 (or if you live in Hawaii, less than $52,920).

For couples, you could qualify if you make less than $62,040 (or if you live in Hawaii, less than $71,400).

For a family of four, you could qualify if you make less than $94,200 (or if you live in Hawaii, less than $108,360).

 

Try again?

[machievelli]

Try again?

 

I've always paid my own way, Why should I change that now?

[mimartin]

I've always paid my own way, Why should I change that now?

 

So really you can't afford insurance, you don't want help. I respect that....

 

However, if you cant afford insurance how the hell could you afford the medical cost if you were to get in a accident or a sudden illness?

[machievelli]

So really you can't afford insurance, you don't want help. I respect that....

 

However, if you cant afford insurance how the hell could you afford the medical cost if you were to get in a accident or a sudden illness?

 

By telling the creditor I will pay as I can. I think of it as cardio for the soul, since they have to deal with the high blood pressure. Trying to garnish my wages would merely mean I have to go to court to prove exactly how little I make, and how much I have in free cash, which is a pittance. If the judge agreed with them, I would end up on the streets, since my income leaves perhaps fifteen dollars remaining at the end of a month, and it would drop by over 250 dollars when I do, so they are in even worse straits.

[mimartin]

Looking at $100,000. bill right now for one scan on my mother. Don't really thing she could pay in her life time even sending in all of her extra money without insurance.

[urluckyday]

This bill/law/program wasn't ready, and the GOP knew it.

 

Only 248 (!!!) people were signed up for Obamacare through the first few days of the website going live. What a freaking mess.

 

http://news.msn.com/us/documents-obamacare-enrollment-very-small-in-first-days

[mimartin]

GOP knew nothing, had they known that the wouldn't have been playing chicken with the economy trying to end Obama care. It would have gotten rid of itself without their artificial smoke screen.

[Totenkopf]

The democrats, from prez on down, were equally willing to let the charade of "govt. shutdown" play out for their own political advantage (as they saw it). There are no innocent or good parties in this piece of theatre. Frankly, maybe more of the truly nonessential parts of the govt should shutdown so people could get a tax holiday. Seems unlikely we'd suffer much in the their absence. Or at least the money saved could go to the debt (instead of trying to raise the debt limit every six months or so in yet another hair shirt performance of political theatre). This whole healthcare debacle is just a stepping stone toward govt run "universal healthcare" (an admission made by people like Harry Reid and Barney Frank even). If you like how govt runs things now, Im sure you'll be happy when they seize healthcare from the private sector.....right before they move onto making the grab for the 401ks (b/c, you know afterall, old people can't handle more than one check b/c they are so easily confused. ). The govt has an insatiable hunger for money and power and we are merely pawns to be patronized to in its collective view.

[urluckyday]

The democrats, from prez on down, were equally willing to let the charade of "govt. shutdown" play out for their own political advantage (as they saw it). There are no innocent or good parties in this piece of theatre. Frankly, maybe more of the truly nonessential parts of the govt should shutdown so people could get a tax holiday. Seems unlikely we'd suffer much in the their absence. Or at least the money saved could go to the debt (instead of trying to raise the debt limit every six months or so in yet another hair shirt performance of political theatre). This whole healthcare debacle is just a stepping stone toward govt run "universal healthcare" (an admission made by people like Harry Reid and Barney Frank even). If you like how govt runs things now, Im sure you'll be happy when they seize healthcare from the private sector.....right before they move onto making the grab for the 401ks (b/c, you know afterall, old people can't handle more than one check b/c they are so easily confused. ). The govt has an insatiable hunger for money and power and we are merely pawns to be patronized to in its collective view.

 

Yup, and the people continue electing the party determined to take more and more away from the private sector. Truly sickening.