Debt-Ceiling Shutdown Will Close Some Gov’t Websites

[mesyn191]

Republican and Democrat politicians are the same people. There not a single difference between them other than who's vote their trying to buy.

There are degrees of corruption and incompetance between the 2 major parties. One is advocating pretty much a no-holds-barred return to late 1800's style regulation for labor and business (with a few members even going so far as to advocate for child labor) and the other is at least willing to throw the poor and working poor a few crumbs.

Even if you don't like or trust them it makes sense to support and vote for the party that is at least willing to toss some crumbs at you.

In the long run if you really want to change things you continue the practice of voting for the lesser evil during primary elections when candidates are selected. That is how you will get rid of the incompetant incumbants and corrupt representatives, and eventually, improve the government. If you want a practical real world example of that strategy than do some googling or reading up on the end of the Gilded Age in the late 1800's/early 1900's. The corruption and incompetance that was common then is unbelievable to most today. Yes even after the bail outs and TBTF.

Voting for the lesser evil isn't very satisfying to say the least, but it is the only reasonable and sane option we have at this point in order to reform the government. And perhaps bizzarely the most optimistic too. Most others either advocate apathy (which is what you seem to be drifting towards, but that is just my impression from your post) or Revolutionary War 2.0 arm chair theory crafting.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

I grew up with a craptastic socialized system. The healthcare was so inferior it would be wrong not to fight it here. The moral high ground is with those opposing it. Unfortunately there's no way for harm this is going to do to be limited to the fools who wanted it.

And I've spent time in various countries with "socialized" systems as well... and while they may have their faults, they are pretty much all *much* better than U.S. Health Care...

If you look at the world wide rankings on quality of health care systems, the U.S. barely makes the top twenty. Hell, there are third world countries and former soviet and eastern European states ranked higher...

The Health care industry can try to brainwash the masses by repeating over and over how great our system is, but the truth is unless you can afford the Mayo clinic or some other prestigious hospital (or you have Congressional health care plans...) our entire health care system is a joke that is nothing more than a money making scam operated by the insurance companies and big pharma.

 

[Hurin]

One is advocating pretty much a no-holds-barred return to late 1800's style regulation for labor and business (with a few members even going so far as to advocate for child labor)

. . . and everyone can stop reading there.

It would be nice if people would argue against positions actually held by those they decry. But instead, we sure do get some nicely crafted straw men.

The last time the Republicans held both branches of congress and the presidency, the welfare state expanded and spending increased (yes, even domestically, not just for Iraq and Afghanistan) as we got all new entitlements like prescriptions drug coverage under medicare, etc.

Funny, they had everything in place to fulfill their ultimate goal of enslaving children, and "returning to the late 1800s" and yet all they did was find new ways to inefficiently confiscate and then redistribute other people's money. Though I suppose I can concede that they did it more slowly and tentatively than the progressives would have.

If you truly think that the Right wants to drive us all back to the 1800s, I can't stop you. But you won't be taken seriously except by people who share your convenient, self-serving delusions.

 

[mesyn191]

I would pay extra just to keep the government shut down, and i don't have money to spare

Refreshing to see an loud n' proud anarchist these days! Most of them just try and pretend to be Libertarians and then get all pissy when you point out they'd probably have more success achieving their govt./lifestyle of choice in some 3rd world failed state rather than the US what with that whole majority (or is it supermajority?) rules we have here. Its gotten to the point where I just tell em', "You're in the US, love it or leave it!!" which either shuts them up or they start acting like a Scanner is trying to explode their heads.

 

[auspexd]

Until people are willing to help each other than selfishly care about themselves-- the government and many of the tax payers, the US will never have a national healthcare system.

Or more simply if they shifted their attitudes from an "I don't care if I don't win as long as the other guy loses" to a "right tool for the right job mentality" the US government would get alot more done. Alas, it probably is a pipedream at least in my lifetime.

I grew up with a craptastic socialized system. The healthcare was so inferior it would be wrong not to fight it here. The moral high ground is with those opposing it. Unfortunately there's no way for harm this is going to do to be limited to the fools who wanted it.

Where if I might ask? Because their is socialized medicine... and their is socialized medicine (where it's the only option.

Probably the best system to have is a mix of various public and private options. Have a baseline standard for the general public and offer supplemental insurance through employers and individual payers. A good friend of mine is a MD in France and this is what he does and it works well for him. He uses his public insurance for most things and he also has private insurance in case he needs a specialist or has an life-threatening emergency. Of course that would be too damn rational for this country, what was I thinking.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Why? I have cancer, the major insurance companies consider it a pre-existing condition.

You're actually lucky they won't give you coverage, in most cases they'll happily take your money, but then stipulate that anything from a nose bleed to chemotherapy won't be covered because of your "pre-existing condition". Shit happened with my father-in-law, he's been cancer free for 15 years, but they still see it as a red flag, offer him insurance at rates of $1500/month w/ exclusions due to any cancer related issues so he just says fuck it, and goes without insurance. Last time something bad happened he has pneumonia had to go to the hospital, get some tests, some antibiotics, cost him like $5000 because he has no insurance (crazy expensive shit...and it wasn't an ER visit either)... however he looks at it as him saving money because the rest of the year he wasn't sick would cost him $18000.

Pre-existing conditions... most fucked up thing in medical insurance history. I've seen pregnant women have to fork over $30k for having a baby because they were pregnant when they got the insurance (through work)... these are people, not fucking cars.

 

[Exavior]

I frequent a lot of political forums and there are (ALWAYS) two issues there:

1. Many Americans, regardless what extreme or side they ally themselves with, are unwilling to pay any of their [hard earned] money to help someone less themselves, or allow any government program helping those that need help using their tax dollars. (Examples: Social Security, Veterans affairs, food stamps, welfare, and similar.)
2. Many Americans (and some Europeans who have national healthcare coverage) have complained that a national healthcare system would lead to an overcrowding of hospitals, denied medical care due to overcrowding, and lesser quality medical care. And, again, it will always go back to argument #1.

Until people are willing to help each other than selfishly care about themselves-- the government and many of the tax payers, the US will never have a national healthcare system.

Better solution that solves all issues. Anyone on social security, medicaid, medicare, welfare, food stamps or any other types of aid should just be killed. We drag them out into the streets, load them into a dump trunk, shoot them in the head and bury them in a hole. Instead of helping people with costly medical issues, like cancer and stuff like that. we just kill them also. Problems solved. No more need to worry about us wasting money on these projects because then all of these people are dead and don't cost us anything other than a bullet.

I think that is the solution that most people want give how they bitch about how we have became a socialist nation because of one program. so lets give people want they want, mass killing of people.

 

[Romale23]

I frequent a lot of political forums and there are (ALWAYS) two issues there:

1. Many Americans, regardless what extreme or side they ally themselves with, are unwilling to pay any of their [hard earned] money to help someone less themselves, or allow any government program helping those that need help using their tax dollars. (Examples: Social Security, Veterans affairs, food stamps, welfare, and similar.)
2. Many Americans (and some Europeans who have national healthcare coverage) have complained that a national healthcare system would lead to an overcrowding of hospitals, denied medical care due to overcrowding, and lesser quality medical care. And, again, it will always go back to argument #1.

Until people are willing to help each other than selfishly care about themselves-- the government and many of the tax payers, the US will never have a national healthcare system.

Your fundamental argument that American's wont give their hard earned money to others is false. Americans have given away more money per capita than any other nation on earth, every year. The difference is they don't want it done through the government.

 

[Hurin]

Your fundamental argument that American's wont give their hard earned money to others is false. Americans have given away more money per capita than any other nation on earth, every year. The difference is they don't want it done through the government.

It doesn't count unless the government does it.

 

[auspexd]

Better solution that solves all issues. Anyone on social security, medicaid, medicare, welfare, food stamps or any other types of aid should just be killed. We drag them out into the streets, load them into a dump trunk, shoot them in the head and bury them in a hole. Instead of helping people with costly medical issues, like cancer and stuff like that. we just kill them also. Problems solved. No more need to worry about us wasting money on these projects because then all of these people are dead and don't cost us anything other than a bullet.

I think that is the solution that most people want give how they bitch about how we have became a socialist nation because of one program. so lets give people want they want, mass killing of people.

I think you have something here. The problem with the healthcare act is in the marketing. They should just reintroduce it next session as "A Modest Proposal". Problem Solved. Well, I'm well past my expiration date and if this jewel in my hand is any indication, I best be getting on my way to those ice caves before their is a line....

 

[Ashbringer]

All this over healthcare? Doesn't this send alarm bells that health insurance companies have their hands too deep in our government?

Anyway, here's two videos that briefly explain how health care works right now. There's a reason why changes need to be done.
http://youtu.be/qSjGouBmo0M
http://youtu.be/R7LF5Vj2n64

Also, putting a price on health is just stupid. Cause in reality you'll pay whatever they're asking, cause it's your health. That shit shouldn't have ever happened.

 

[mesyn191]

. . . and everyone can stop reading there....But instead, we sure do get some nicely crafted straw men.

Do you have any idea to search for things on the internet?

There isn't just 1 or 2 R's saying crazy stuff, there are lots of them that advocate that position. Nor is it anywhere near some of the worst things that R's have advocated for.

The last time the Republicans held both branches of congress and the presidency, the crony capitalism expanded and spending increased quote]
There, fixed. The R's have no problem with spending heaps of cash and expanding the deficit while crying about "welfare queens", an old meme from the Regan days that was untrue then as it is now. What is sad is people keep buying into it. Especially since its so obvious they're only interested in funneling public money to military, banks, and drug companies.

If you truly think that the Right wants to drive us all back to the 1800s, I can't stop you. But you won't be taken seriously except by people who share your convenient, self-serving delusions.

Because decades of "starve the beast" and deregulation and anti-govt. rehtoric by Repub heroes like Regan, Gingrich, Bush II, and Romney can't be wrong right?

 

[mesyn191]

Your fundamental argument that American's wont give their hard earned money to others is false. QUOTE]
Donation amounts aren't good proxies for "giving" or empathy for that matter. There are plenty of people who donate all sorts of money but also do all sorts of amoral or even horrible things (ie. Capone, Carnege, Romney, etc.). Donations are also no substitue for even half assed welfare programs and social safety nets.

 

[mesyn191]

figgin brackets!!!!

 

[mesyn191]

Oh my! We're quoting The Guardian now. Because partisan journalism is effective in convincing partisans on the other side that they're wrong.

1)No news source is unbiased so claiming bias is a moot point 2)point out what is incorrect in the article.

And, of course, for every Koch brother setting up a Cato institute, there's a George Soros dumping billions into his socialist/statist causes.

Even if this were true, its not Soros is just a strawman for Limbaugh to whack at which for some reasons impresses Tea Baggers, you're essentially advocating 2 wrongs make a right.

 

[octoberasian]

Your fundamental argument that American's wont give their hard earned money to others is false. Americans have given away more money per capita than any other nation on earth, every year. The difference is they don't want it done through the government.

Donation amounts aren't good proxies for "giving" or empathy for that matter. There are plenty of people who donate all sorts of money but also do all sorts of amoral or even horrible things (ie. Capone, Carnege, Romney, etc.). Donations are also no substitue for even half assed welfare programs and social safety nets.

Yeah, there is a difference between paying for social and healthcare programs through the government from taxes and donating directly to an organization. It's a big difference.

It doesn't matter whether you belong to the far right or far left, or Democrat, Independent, or Republican, many Americans don't want to pay more taxes than they already do now. Many feel they pay too much to the government.

And, every time there is talk about social security, welfare, healthcare programs, and similar social and healthcare programs that get brought up, they will argue and protest that the government is being socialist or Communist. It's like they're unwilling to pay taxes to the government to help others. If we don't have these programs, we're going to have a big problem with the unemployed and the impoverished, especially when it comes to our veteran soldiers.

It is those same programs that the Republican-controlled government wants to limit funding to or cut them off entirely or they threaten a government shutdown.

Last time I checked, we still have a functional Democratic Republican government, not a Communist or Socialist government.

There is a difference between socialism with no choice, and having choices in a capitalist and Democratic society. At least our government has social and healthcare programs. If it were anything like other countries, there'd be increased numbers of the impoverished and the poor on our streets.

The moment we stop caring for those less than us, the moment we become no different than a third world country.

 

[Romale23]

Your fundamental argument that American's wont give their hard earned money to others is false. QUOTE]
Donation amounts aren't good proxies for "giving" or empathy for that matter. There are plenty of people who donate all sorts of money but also do all sorts of amoral or even horrible things (ie. Capone, Carnege, Romney, etc.). Donations are also no substitue for even half assed welfare programs and social safety nets.

I fundamentally disagree. I literally don't believe that the half assed social welfare programs or social safety nets in their current state are better. Lets look at food stamps, why can you use your EBT card at a strip club or a liquor store or at Disney. Why is it that despite the fact that they say well, the food portion of welfare money can only be used to buy food, you can infact still use that money at same strip club or liquor store and there is no catching mechanism in most states?

But lets get back on hand: I do not like our healthcare system. I fundamentally believe that insurance as a whole allows for over inflated prices and does not meet the need. Their is no actual market in health care. If no one can afford 250 dollar medication it wont cost 250 dollars. Now that's HUGLY over simplifying things that also add to that cost such as trail requirements and the like but if I had my "dream" system it would be a single payer for "catastrophic coverage only" IE you will die. For everything else, you would be on your own. That being said I personally do believe the current system is better than the one that is supposed to go into effect on the 1st. Its just another example of government forcing me to spend money with a private company that I don't want to do business with.

But that doesn't really cover the debt-ceiling shut down to which I simply say this
No government is better than the one we have. Now I know this doesn't get rid of anything. But I will literally never say omg how irresponsible your shutting down government for reason X. It just means for a limited period of time it limits the damage they can do.

 

[rudy]

Makes you wonder just how much they are paying for servers

 

[octoberasian]

Makes you wonder just how much they are paying for servers

It doesn't cost THAT much to run servers unless it's the tired old argument of "$2000 toilet seat" equivalent for servers.

Heck, running MMO servers according Ntreev (Mabinogi, Dragon Nest), costs them approximately $1 million a month. If it costs the government 100 times to 10,000 times then there is something wrong there... The IRS and ICE website pales in comparison to an MMO server and something like Amazon, Facebook, and eBay with millions if not billions of concurrent users and frequent visitors.

Then again, how many [publicly accessible] websites are they running? That's not including the private, internal networks of some government agencies.

 

[Cmdrmonkey]

The Republicans really need to stop throwing temper tantrums and threatening to shut down the government every time they don't get their way. It makes them look like pathetic children.

Obamacare isn't the universal healthcare this country really needs, but it's something. At least insurance companies won't be able to deny people for pre-existing conditions. People who need health coverage the most should finally be able to get it.

 

[Stiletto]

I love how legislation that forces everyone to buy something from major corporations is seen as a good thing, instead of corporatism, which really is a very scary concept.

I love how imposing fines on those who don't, effectively forcing everyone in the country to pony up either to the IRS or to the health care field, is in some way supposed to be "fixing" the health care crisis, which is about costs, not insurance premiums.

I love how imposing a 2.3% excise tax on all companies that make medical devices is supposed to be helpful, instead of just cutting into the profits of all those companies, some of whom will potentially go under if their margins aren't big enough in this oh-so-healthy economy.

I love how businesses are now moving people to part-time so they don't have to give them health insurance, or instead are dropping coverage and sending them to the exchanges, taking away plans they may have liked after we were told "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan".

I love how all the people who thought these were good ideas are telling us that the sky will fall if we don't pay them to fuck us all in the ass with the razor dildo from Se7en for a few days, when they spent the past few years not coming up with a budget, raising our deficits to all-new heights, and somehow magically not spending a penny past the debt ceiling for...how many days, now?

Let it burn.
Piss in the ashes.
Salt the earth where it stood.
Rebuild.

 

[mesyn191]

I fundamentally disagree....Why is it that despite the fact that they say well, the food portion of welfare money can only be used to buy food, you can infact still use that money at same strip club or liquor store and there is no catching mechanism in most states?

I don't know off hand but if some states do and some don't that sounds like a state and not a federal implementation problem. But a implementation problem isn't really a reason to have a fundamental disagreement with something. After all even good ideas, if implemented poorly, will turn out bad.

But lets get back on hand: I do not like our healthcare system.

I don't like it either, or for that matter Obamacare (aka PPACA). I also however think that the PPACA is better than doing nothing and allowing the healthcare insurance industry to keep increasing their prices and denying claims for profit. Usually disscussions on the PPACA seem to revolve around how terrible it is, but why throw that baby out with the bath water when you can reform it?

I fundamentally believe that insurance as a whole allows for over inflated prices and does not meet the need. Their is no actual market in health care. If no one can afford 250 dollar medication it wont cost 250 dollars.

The problem with this idea is if you go back far enough into history, and by that I mean prior to the 1900's, you already have plenty of real world examples of health insurance not existing while actual healthcare costs were too high for everyone but the rich. No market is anywhere near perfectly efficient or effective at pricing services or goods...there is no "invisible hand". Only booms busting forever right in humanity's face in a "ideal" laissez faire economy.

But I will literally never say omg how irresponsible your shutting down government for reason X. It just means for a limited period of time it limits the damage they can do.

It also limits them setting the debt limit which if not raised in about 2 weeks will blow up our and the world economy when we have a partial or even full default on our debt. Not to mention all the people that will be out of work for however long this shutdown lasts. Do you remember the last shutdown at all BTW?

 

[mesyn191]

I love how legislation that forces everyone to buy something from major corporations is seen as a good thing, instead of corporatism, which really is a very scary concept.

Without price fixing its a pretty bad thing I agree. What blows me away is that many call it Socialism or even Communism. They don't even seem to know what those words mean, they just say them like a kid tossing out some newly learned cuss-words because they know they're "bad".

I love how imposing fines on those who don't, effectively forcing everyone in the country to pony up either to the IRS or to the health care field, is in some way supposed to be "fixing" the health care crisis, which is about costs, not insurance premiums.

The reasoning, which I don't necessarily agree with, behind that decision was to stop people from waiting until they got sick or injured before buying insurance. Increased risk pools only work in a beneficial manner if everyone in the pool actually pays out.

I love how imposing a 2.3% excise tax on all companies that make medical devices is supposed to be helpful, instead of just cutting into the profits of all those companies, some of whom will potentially go under if their margins aren't big enough in this oh-so-healthy economy.

Its because these guys have been found to be doing lots of price gouging to customers, hospitals, and doctors. Also its a tax on profit and not total revenue...it is litterally impossible for a comany to go out of business by having their profit taxed.

I love how businesses are now moving people to part-time so they don't have to give them health insurance, or instead are dropping coverage and sending them to the exchanges, taking away plans they may have liked after we were told "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan".

The businesses doing this are ran by jerks that is why. This could've been handled a lot better I definitely agree but most of the really good things that were supposed to be in the PPACA were killed in committe back in 2010. Some of the really stupid things were done purposely as poison pills to help prevent the bill from passing in the first place. The R's were more than a little surprised that the D's decided to pass it anyways IIRC.

Let it burn.
Piss in the ashes.
Salt the earth where it stood.
Rebuild.

Its emotionally satisfying to say and think such things but the real world outcome would be awful for many years to come and there would be no guarantee any govt. that came after would be better. Revolutions tend to end badly for everyone involved, we kinda lucked out 200+ yr ago.

 

[Stiletto]

Without price fixing its a pretty bad thing I agree. What blows me away is that many call it Socialism or even Communism. They don't even seem to know what those words mean, they just say them like a kid tossing out some newly learned cuss-words because they know they're "bad".

They are bad. No need for the quotes.

The reasoning, which I don't necessarily agree with, behind that decision was to stop people from waiting until they got sick or injured before buying insurance. Increased risk pools only work in a beneficial manner if everyone in the pool actually pays out.

And those that don't get sick or injured will be under increased financial pressure during a time of high unemployment, a weak dollar and a struggling economy. Some may even get sick as a result of that economic hardship.

Its because these guys have been found to be doing lots of price gouging to customers, hospitals, and doctors. Also its a tax on profit and not total revenue...it is litterally impossible for a comany to go out of business by having their profit taxed.

The entire industry of medical device manufacture has been doing that? If not, then businesses crucial to health care are being extorted by the government. And no, it's a tax on gross sales...even if they don't make a profit.

This could've been handled a lot better I definitely agree but most of the really good things that were supposed to be in the PPACA were killed in committe back in 2010. Some of the really stupid things were done purposely as poison pills to help prevent the bill from passing in the first place. The R's were more than a little surprised that the D's decided to pass it anyways IIRC.

Then why was it passed at all, if it's full of shit and little that's good?

there would be no guarantee any govt. that came after would be better. Revolutions tend to end badly for everyone involved, we kinda lucked out 200+ yr ago.

At what point is the scale tipped enough? Or are the ideals this country was founded upon not worth fighting for? Is it good to want only to subsist on government handouts and a mediocre existence?

 

[heatlesssun]

I love how businesses are now moving people to part-time so they don't have to give them health insurance, or instead are dropping coverage and sending them to the exchanges, taking away plans they may have liked after we were told "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan".

Becoming seriously ill in the US is can be a VERY expensive proposition. At some point it happens to a lot of people and/or their families. A company that would begrudge a worker full time employment over this law doesn't give a shit about its those employees in the first place.

 

[Oppy]

Far better question..... why no real budgets for the last 3 and a half years .................

 

[Romale23]

I don't know off hand but if some states do and some don't that sounds like a state and not a federal implementation problem. But a implementation problem isn't really a reason to have a fundamental disagreement with something. After all even good ideas, if implemented poorly, will turn out bad.


I don't like it either, or for that matter Obamacare (aka PPACA). I also however think that the PPACA is better than doing nothing and allowing the healthcare insurance industry to keep increasing their prices and denying claims for profit. Usually disscussions on the PPACA seem to revolve around how terrible it is, but why throw that baby out with the bath water when you can reform it?


The problem with this idea is if you go back far enough into history, and by that I mean prior to the 1900's, you already have plenty of real world examples of health insurance not existing while actual healthcare costs were too high for everyone but the rich. No market is anywhere near perfectly efficient or effective at pricing services or goods...there is no "invisible hand". Only booms busting forever right in humanity's face in a "ideal" laissez faire economy.


It also limits them setting the debt limit which if not raised in about 2 weeks will blow up our and the world economy when we have a partial or even full default on our debt. Not to mention all the people that will be out of work for however long this shutdown lasts. Do you remember the last shutdown at all BTW?

so in first order: the government is absolutely incapable of implementing anything well which is why i want less of it.

As far as the second: I don't. I think its fucking terrible. I dont think it will prevent what you think it will, i think it will make healthcare even more expensive because reguardless if you cap the insurance industry's profits it doesn't cap the medical industry's. In other words it makes more expensive possible. It means i can charge 400 dollars for this new procedure instead of 200 and in the end take more income away from people as people who dont need insurance now have to buy it, especially people of lower income.

There is no fundamental lack of care. If you show up at an ER you will be treated in some way form or fashion, this debate and this bill is all about money and control and the funny thing is, i would of thought people who want some kind of universal healthcare would absolutely hate this bill since its just literally the government making you give your money to a private company and not addressing the real problem that healthcare is expensive. Instead it's trying to pool resource. This doesn't work on anything of scale. Look at higher education, they keep raising tuition because money supply for education is vast and therefore they can. They could of done this bill in a way that actually did make things better despite my fundamental dislike of government involvement in anything, but they didn't.

I don't think your assessment on prior to 1900's is valid because of current market conditions and transitions. In other words, there is not enough rich people in the entire world, much less in America to give the current level of profits or income to companies in the medical industry no matter how much they raise prices which effectively leaves the other direction, finding the cost sweet spot between actual supply and demand instead of this artificial money supply for medical treatment we are creating . Many companies will go out of business, will consolidate and in the end it will Make it more affordable. Hell, just removing the insurance companies cut will make it more affordable.

Also, the last shutdown i was in the military so yes i remember it very well, i was a fan then too.

 

[mesyn191]

They are bad. No need for the quotes.

Many socialist countries were running just fine prior to the GFC + housing bubble blow up. Some even had a (slim) budget surplus. Communism itself has never really been implemented properly so we couldn't have a good discussion about it, other than the usual "USSR/China/N. Korea=BAD" stuff, but its critiques of capitalim have been nearly prophetic.

All that is kind've besides the point though: most people don't know what the hell they're talking about when they call the PPACA socialist, communist, or even just bad.

Which is sad because it isn't a very good bill, but you have to understand _why_ its bad before you can try to either reform it or replace it with something better. Otherwise you might just end up making the same mistakes all over again. Or even worse ones. It'd be like trying to fix a car by just randomly replacing old parts with new ones in the engine when for all you know the problem could be the transmission.

And those that don't get sick or injured will be under increased financial pressure during a time of high unemployment, a weak dollar and a struggling economy. Some may even get sick as a result of that economic hardship.

They're already getting sick as a result of economic hardship and have been for years if not decades due to stagnant wages since the late 1970's while the cost of most everything, but in particular: housing, college, healthcare, went up quite a bit.

That the PPACA doesn't fix everything on the healthcare cost side of things is obvious...but a drop in the rate at which healthcare costs increase is still a good, if nowhere near ideal, sort of thing.

It should be noted too that the PPACA makes healthcare nearly free for very poor (up to 133% of the FPL for participating states) and gives subsides to the "working poor" as well.

The entire industry of medical device manufacture has been doing that? If not, then businesses crucial to health care are being extorted by the government. And no, it's a tax on gross sales...even if they don't make a profit.

Yup. They're pretty terrible. Same thing with medical supplies. Hospitals, doctors, and patients get routinely price gouged for all that stuff. Its part of the reason a bandaid can easily cost upwards of $5 or a simple saline IV drip costs over $1,000 in the ER. So you're right about the 2.3% tax being applied to gross sales, but that is nowhere near extortion, particularly with the profits many of the these companies bring in. Especially since many of them just pass much of the cost on to the consumer anyways. That tax should've been done on profits IMO, but that can be fixed via reform.

Then why was it passed at all, if it's full of shit and little that's good?

Because they hoped to reform it over time into something better. Is this ideal? No. Is it what I want? Hell no. Is it the situation that you and I and everyone else here in the US has to make the best of? Yes, unfortunately. Ultimately their efforts to do so depend on the HoR, which is currently controlled by the R's, so good reforms won't be coming any time soon. But that isn't Obama's fault.

At what point is the scale tipped enough? Or are the ideals this country was founded upon not worth fighting for? Is it good to want only to subsist on government handouts and a mediocre existence?

I think if you saw a genuine no-hold-barred totalitarian police state starting to form it'd be reasonable to do the whole "take up arms RAAAAH FREEEDOM" bit. But a mandate for everyone to buy private for profit health insurance and to give the really poor some crappy but free healthcare is nowhere near that, or socialism for that matter.

 

[Rhinohelix]

Many socialist countries were running just fine prior to the GFC + housing bubble blow up. Some even had a (slim) budget surplus. Communism itself has never really been implemented properly so we couldn't have a good discussion about it, other than the usual "USSR/China/N. Korea=BAD" stuff, but its critiques of capitalim have been nearly prophetic.

This is another flag to indicate someone can be ignored. The way Communism was implemented is the only way it can be implemented: Via police state.

It should be noted too that the PPACA makes healthcare nearly free for very poor (up to 133% of the FPL for participating states) and gives subsides to the "working poor" as well.

You can't make something free by passing legislation. You can only change who pays for it. The very poor were already getting "free" healthcare from state programs and Medicare but don't let that get in the way of your road to serfdom.

Yup. They're pretty terrible. Same thing with medical supplies. Hospitals, doctors, and patients get routinely price gouged for all that stuff. Its part of the reason a bandaid can easily cost upwards of $5 or a simple saline IV drip costs over $1,000 in the ER. So you're right about the 2.3% tax being applied to gross sales, but that is nowhere near extortion, particularly with the profits many of the these companies bring in. Especially since many of them just pass much of the cost on to the consumer anyways. That tax should've been done on profits IMO, but that can be fixed via reform.

You completely misread what was posted. The reason why band-aids cost so much in hospitals has nothing to do with medical device manufacturers: Hospitals do that in order to recover funds from paying patients to cover non-paying patients, as well as put themselves in a better position to negotiate actually survivable amounts with third-party payers, the biggest one being the Federal government. Again, nothing is free; only who pays changes.

 

[mesyn191]

so in first order: the government is absolutely incapable of implementing anything well which is why i want less of it.

But why would govt. be incapable of implementing anything? Just because its govt.?

Now I know you can list a bunch of cases where govt. has failed, its easy with google and all, but it doesn't convince me of govt. being fundamentally incompetant. Why? Because every organization, public or private, ever has failed at one point or another. None of them are inherently reliable or efficient.

In the end it really depends on who is running things: because even a perfect system of govt. that is ran by the incompetant or corrupt will do bad things. And our system of govt. and private enterprise are anything but perfect.

The nice, and really only good thing, about our govt. is that it is designed to be reformable to some extent by average citizens. You can't say the same about private enterprise, or in this case insurance companies. Which have failed miserably to provide decent affordable healthcare for decades, not because of incompetance, but because of profit seeking.

Most people at this point say something along the lines of "b-b-but free markets" or "invisible hand" as a counter-reply. But the first has never really existed, even in a laissez-faire economic environment, and the second has never been shown to exist since markets have boom/busted continuously without self regulation throughout history.

As far as the second:

The PPACA is already having a signficant effect on reducing the rate at which the cost of healthcare rises. That is without being fully implemented too BTW, old but good article. Its effect on reducing costs is going to be even greater once every part of the PPACA is enacted.

There is no fundamental lack of care.

Hahahahahahaha Don't take this as me being rude but sorry you don't know what you're talking about. Yes if you show up in the ER and you're dying they'll stabilize you...and kick you out and ship you over to the free clinic. After which you're someone else's problem. They're not going to give you a free knee arthroscopy or a free D&C or a lumbar laminectomy, etc.

I don't think your assessment on prior to 1900's is valid because... there is not enough rich people in the entire world, much less in America to give the current level of profits or income to companies in the medical industry no matter how much they raise prices

But that doesn't matter since in the real world your ideal conditions already existed and healthcare costs still didn't become affordable for the common man. Real world events beats "sounds good in theory" every time.

Also, the last shutdown i was in the military so yes i remember it very well, i was a fan then too.

You're in the extreme minority then. It also didn't pan out well for the R's, Clinton capitalized on that like a mofo for the rest of his presidancy...and Obama is the next best thing to Clinton when it comes to PR.

 

[mesyn191]

This is another flag...

Well I never advocated for the implementation of communsim in that post. At all. Also the USSR was established via revolution against the Tsarist monarchy. Much like the US. Now if you'd said that the post Russian Revolution govt. that Stalin established had been maintained via a police state, then I'd have agreed with you.

You can't make something free by passing legislation.

I also wasn't even vaugely suggesting that the PPACA makes healthcare coverage for the poor truly free!! Its free in terms of personal out of pocket costs for some who are very poor and need all the help they can get. Which most would argue is a good thing, unless you're a social Darwinist?

The reason why band-aids cost so much in hospitals...do that in order to recover funds from paying patients to cover non-paying patientsQUOTE]
You're misreading my post. I never said medical device manufacturers are driving up the cost of medical supplies. I said medical supplies are subject to the same price gouging as medical devices. The actual companies invovled (ie. Abbott, Aesculap, Stryker, J&J, etc.) are usually seperate though some sell both sets of goods. Also hospitals are generally making quite a bit of money right now

and have been for some time. The whole "they price gouge on stuff to make up for the indigent" is a meme that is perpetrated by poor-haters. You know, the same sorts of people who go on and on about "welfare queens" and "Obamaphones", etc.

 

[mesyn191]

friiiiiiggggggiiiin brackets ugh, need to hit the damn preview button moar

 

[Romale23]

But why would govt. be incapable of implementing anything? Just because its govt.?

Now I know you can list a bunch of cases where govt. has failed, its easy with google and all, but it doesn't convince me of govt. being fundamentally incompetant. Why? Because every organization, public or private, ever has failed at one point or another. None of them are inherently reliable or efficient.

In the end it really depends on who is running things: because even a perfect system of govt. that is ran by the incompetant or corrupt will do bad things. And our system of govt. and private enterprise are anything but perfect.

The nice, and really only good thing, about our govt. is that it is designed to be reformable to some extent by average citizens. You can't say the same about private enterprise, or in this case insurance companies. Which have failed miserably to provide decent affordable healthcare for decades, not because of incompetance, but because of profit seeking.

Most people at this point say something along the lines of "b-b-but free markets" or "invisible hand" as a counter-reply. But the first has never really existed, even in a laissez-faire economic environment, and the second has never been shown to exist since markets have boom/busted continuously without self regulation throughout history.


The PPACA is already having a signficant effect on reducing the rate at which the cost of healthcare rises. That is without being fully implemented too BTW, old but good article. Its effect on reducing costs is going to be even greater once every part of the PPACA is enacted.


Hahahahahahaha Don't take this as me being rude but sorry you don't know what you're talking about. Yes if you show up in the ER and you're dying they'll stabilize you...and kick you out and ship you over to the free clinic. After which you're someone else's problem. They're not going to give you a free knee arthroscopy or a free D&C or a lumbar laminectomy, etc.


But that doesn't matter since in the real world your ideal conditions already existed and healthcare costs still didn't become affordable for the common man. Real world events beats "sounds good in theory" every time.


You're in the extreme minority then. It also didn't pan out well for the R's, Clinton capitalized on that like a mofo for the rest of his presidency...and Obama is the next best thing to Clinton when it comes to PR.

The difference is i can walk next door to another company, i can't just do that with my government, i have more inherent power through my spending habbits with a company than with government which forces me to deal with it. Just like the government says i only have access to a specific cable company

You seem to think that i'm arguing for insurance company's, which is funny because the healthcare law is basically throwing money at insurance company's. I'm not. I think insurance should be gotten rid of completely. You think that insurance companies haven't provided cost saving measures because of profit seeking. I'm saying they inherently dont produce cost seeking measures because it affects the ability for the market to "afford" something. It artificially raises prices. I'm saying the very concept of insurance raises cost and in the end artificially creating a larger money pool for healthcare will raise costs, just like it does in higher education thank you federal loan system.

You think "ideal" conditions have been met and my argument is insurance makes these conditions impossible.

That article is shit btw. It makes correlations that don't exist. Its making a linkage between the rise of healthcare costs (as in the cost it takes to get healthcare) to the decrease in medicare/medicade spending... and spending on healthcare overall. So let me get this straight: people are spending less overall healthcare because of recession, yup okay i get that. Government is realizing some savings because they made their bureaucracy a little easier to deal with, okay. It has a title "New Data Suggests Obamacare Is Actually Bending The Healthcare Cost Curve" which people will interpret that the increase in the cost for ME to get healthcare has gotten lower, which it has NOT. The thing is, everything that is cited here is absolutely irreverent to the bottom line which is: making healthcare affordable to people. This has absolutely nothing to do with that. I'd feel good about the government saving money part of it except am i going to get my tax's lowered because of it? Nope, so its utterly meaningless.

I dont go but thee markets because i actually agree that we dont have them. Instead we have a government that says ya its okay if you fuck up, go ahead we gotcha. I get personally pissed because i get punished for this shit. Who the fuck is the government to take what i earn and give it to the rich fatfucks at GM and citibank or people who are unwilling to simply follow the goddamn path to be somewhat successful because they feel their requirements are too high.

The only thing i truly like about the bill is if your going to force this insurance shit down my throat getting rid of the pre-existing condition bullshit will help. But the spending on healthcare is just going to go up. Prices for procedures will not go down and neither will my actual insurance rates.

I dont understand how someone can argue that this bill in particular or any government involvement as far as government doing anything other than regulation (ie spending money or forcing me to spend money) on anything has ever been a long term gain. The only thing that WAS working was social security, and they even managed to find a way to fuck that up.

 

[kbrickley]

I grew up with a craptastic socialized system. The healthcare was so inferior it would be wrong not to fight it here. The moral high ground is with those opposing it. Unfortunately there's no way for harm this is going to do to be limited to the fools who wanted it.

Although the new Obamacare system may or may not be the right solution (probably may not), the health care system in the USA is clearly broken ... it is cheaper right now for many major illnesses to seek treatment outside the USA ... people can fly halfway around the world to India (and other countries) and receive heart surgery or other significant procedures for less than the procedure would cost them in the USA (this is including both the travel and the medical costs and is for people WITH insurance ... without insurance this is dramatically cheaper) ... they either need to figure out a way to outsource some medical procedures to force the USA system to compete with the cheaper foreign alternatives or to change the laws on medical liability (limiting the payouts and risk exposure for doctors/hospitals) or the government needs to subsidize the liability insurance costs (which would inspire them to reform the court system very quickly)

 

[kbrickley]

I love how businesses are now moving people to part-time so they don't have to give them health insurance, or instead are dropping coverage and sending them to the exchanges, taking away plans they may have liked after we were told "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan".

Business has been doing this for years ... there are many federal regulations you can avoid if you have part time employees ... Walmart has been accused of this long before any of the current insurance wrangling around the Obamacare legislation ... health care costs of companies have been rising for years forcing lots of changes and compromises ... although the burdened rates for employee salaries in the USA is a lot less than Brazil and the EU it is still far too high to compete with countries like China ... we need to do something to help businesses in the USA or they will all be forced to outsource eventually

 

[Mchart]

Also, the last shutdown i was in the military so yes i remember it very well, i was a fan then too.

No you weren't.

 

[Romale23]

No you weren't.

Yes, i was

 

[mesyn191]

The difference is i can walk next door to another company, i can't just do that with my government,

This is an illusion of choice. All the healthcare companies are pulling the same crap.

You seem to think that i'm arguing for insurance company's,

Any argument against govt. involvement is de facto an argument for private profit seeking companies wether you intend it to be or not.

which is funny because the healthcare law is basically throwing money at insurance company's.

Yes it is. Like I said before, its not a good bill at all.

I'm saying they inherently dont produce cost seeking measures because it affects the ability for the market to "afford" something.

I know what you're saying and I've provided you with real world examples of how what you're saying doesn't pan out. Pretty much all of pre-"modern" history disagrees with you.

It makes correlations that don't exist....that the increase in the cost for ME to get healthcare has gotten lower, which it has NOT. ....This has absolutely nothing to do with that. I'd feel good about the government saving money part of it except am i going to get my tax's lowered because of it? Nope, so its utterly meaningless.

PPACA is meant to reduce the cost of healthcare in the long term, it has to be fully implemented before you might see healthcare costs actually drop instead of rise less. Until it does a decrease in the rise is still a good thing and you'd be foolish if not selfish to throw that away because you might just pay a lil' less in taxes even if you're in denial about the info in the article I linked. Taxes are the price you pay for a society and country that allows you collect any wealth at all and actually live long enough for you or your children to enjoy them. That is the reason why you see so many people breaking their backs to earn just enough to get by for the day in 3rd world failed states, it has nothing to do with laziness or a lack of entrepreneurial zeal.

Instead we have a government that says ya its okay if you fuck up, go ahead we gotcha.

That happens with the banks ATM but not with the PPACA. The exchanges and minimum standards imposed do the exact opposite of what you're talking about.

I dont understand how someone can argue that...any government involvement as far as government doing anything...on anything has ever been a long term gain. The only thing that WAS working was social security, and they even managed to find a way to fuck that up.

I don't understand how someone who has studied history at all can argue that govt. involvement isn't effective. Do you think the standard of living for the average person just rose automagically by itself in the US due to "free market" or something? Also any issues with SS are overblown. Implement means testing or get rid of the income cap or raise FICA taxes by a couple of per cent and *boooom* SS funding solved for decades to come. The real problem is getting ANY of those changes through congress or more specifically the HoR.

 

[BBA]

May as well shutdown the government. It's probably the worse suggestion.

However, neither side is willing to compromise, and neither side is willing to sacrifice certain things. And, at the same time, both sides-- mostly Republicans-- would rather have the budget benefit themselves and their constituents and sponsors, than the American people. The Republican-led Congress already voted to cut funding to food stamps. I would not be surprised if they're willing to de-fund any social and veterans programs just for the poor excuse of "keeping the government open" rather than cut spending on unnecessary things like their own paychecks.

Keep on drinking that Kool-Aid. Takes two to tango.

 

[Jagger100]

The Tea Baggers aren't evil or stupid but they are delusional and/or willfully ignorant while wallowing in misplaced rage that has been manufactured and fed to them by monied interests in the media and government.

And yes media includes talk radio and blogs, while not part of traditional big media they're a part of it these days and have been for some time now.

So much for dissent being the highest form of patriotism. I guess if you dissent against the wrong things, you're evil fools.