US Government shutdown

I know that this is an almost naive question, but has anyone in US congress actually been trying to reduce the debt? It seems that there is a lot of talk of "reducing deficit spending" and yet once more the debt limit needs to be raised. Is there any chance at all that they won't just keep borrowing until the wheels fall off?

Paul Ryan

Invictus wrote:I know that this is an almost naive question, but has anyone in US congress actually been trying to reduce the debt? It seems that there is a lot of talk of "reducing deficit spending" and yet once more the debt limit needs to be raised. Is there any chance at all that they won't just keep borrowing until the wheels fall off?

When ANY polly (not just US, I must emphasize) yammers about cutting spending, it always comes with the silent proviso "... except for all the stuff I like."

The Democrats are just as bad, although the press tends to blame the Republicans. They could have accepted the Republican proposal or attempted to negotiate a compromise but they want it all their way and with a Democrat leaning media (about 80-90% of them vote Democrat vs 20-30% of the general population) on their side they might get it. Which is too bad. The government functions best when both parties are forced to compromise in the middle.

The latest Republican proposal was to fund critical parts of the government i.e. things mentioned on this thread while continuing to negotiate over the rest was dismissed out of hand.

The Republican proposal before that was to delay Obamacare for a year and end federally provided health care for the president, members of Congress and their staffs. I really like this one. Obamacare implementation is a disaster. It is not ready for prime time and the Obama administration is handing out temporary wavers like they are M&Ms. The smart thing would be to delay it for a year and fix all of these problems rather than to issue wavers one by one. Plus I would love to make congress actually live with the consequences of their actions for once, rather than exempting themselves as they usually do.

Why should the Democrats agree to that? As I understand, this bill would have continued funding to the end of the year, so in return for defunding a key Democratic law they'd get another ultimatum three months from now. Likewise, good for them for rejecting the compromise bill; if the GOP wants to hold the country hostage, they shouldn't rely on the Democrats to help them avoid the fallout.
I think it should be law that in the case of a government shutdown, the legislature's paychecks should be among thoee suspended; as you say, let them feel the consequences of their actions.

biochem wrote:The Democrats are just as bad, although the press tends to blame the Republicans. They could have accepted the Republican proposal or attempted to negotiate a compromise but they want it all their way and with a Democrat leaning media (about 80-90% of them vote Democrat vs 20-30% of the general population) on their side they might get it. Which is too bad. The government functions best when both parties are forced to compromise in the middle.

The latest Republican proposal was to fund critical parts of the government i.e. things mentioned on this thread while continuing to negotiate over the rest was dismissed out of hand.

The Republican proposal before that was to delay Obamacare for a year and end federally provided health care for the president, members of Congress and their staffs. I really like this one. Obamacare implementation is a disaster. It is not ready for prime time and the Obama administration is handing out temporary wavers like they are M&Ms. The smart thing would be to delay it for a year and fix all of these problems rather than to issue wavers one by one. Plus I would love to make congress actually live with the consequences of their actions for once, rather than exempting themselves as they usually do.

Are you seriously suggesting that you aren't trying to provoke a flame war?

The perceptions of outsiders are severely skewed by their own countries' publicly funded healthcare system. You presume that it is some version of your own publicly funded healthcare systems. This is not what Obamacare is. Obamacare is NOT publicly funded healthcare. At it's core it is a government mandate that EVERYONE have private health insurance unless they are a government insurance program such as the VA or medicare. At first glance this isn't a bad thing because most people already have private health insurance through their employer. Unfortunately; Obamacare has provisions that impose new requirements that increase costs that make private insurance far, far more expensive. The rules also include provisions that encourage private companies to either pay a relatively small tax rather than provide health insurance or to simply reduce worker hours below 30 hrs per week to evade the obligation. Obamahas made it worse by granting exemptions to his political supporters.

The net result of Obamacare is that tens of millions of working Americans will loose their health insurance. Theoretically, they can get insurance from the government that is hideously expensive or go on a government healthcare program that simply doesn't have the funding to accommodate the need.

This disaster is magnified by a system of healthcare rationing that is familiar to Europeans but not to Americans. We actually expect to get needed medical care even when it is expensive rather than be allowed to die so the government can save money. Everyone who has a brain now understands that Governor Palin was prescient when she warned us about death panels.

As for the mechanics of the "government shutdown" it isn't Armageddon. We have been there, done that many times before. Essential services continue while non essential Federal workers stay home, proving that their jobs are non essential and should be eliminated. Obama has gone the extra mile by paying Federal goons to block Veterans' access to war memorials just to be vindictive which is pissing people off.

We will eventually have a compromise of some sort and life will go on until out $16 Trillion debt collapses the economy then it will be a really nasty civil war.

Daryl wrote:Please be nice in response and remember the rules against flaming. As an outsider from another developed (1st world) country I'm perplexed about the current US government budget standoff. Going by what our various press says, the situation to me appears to be that one side of your politics has enacted into law a health care program that the rest of the developed world would regard as being only a small step towards what would be acceptable elsewhere; and the other side of politics is prepared to stop governmental processes and wreck the economy to stop it because to them it is a socialist attack on their freedom?
If that assessment is incorrect please politely tell me so?
From a distance to outsiders it appears that this world has underdeveloped countries (3d world), developing countries, developed countries (1st world), and the US which is rich and technologically advanced but quite out of step with the rest of the developed world in values and outlook. That may be a good thing, or not?

biochem wrote:

I know that this is an almost naive question, but has anyone in US congress actually been trying to reduce the debt? It seems that there is a lot of talk of "reducing deficit spending" and yet once more the debt limit needs to be raised. Is there any chance at all that they won't just keep borrowing until the wheels fall off?

Paul Ryan

If we had elected McCain in 2008 and then he had died from overexerting himself on inauguration night, President Palin would be presiding over a surplus resulting from rapid economic growth triggered by dramatic reductions in entry costs.

namelessfly wrote:This disaster is magnified by a system of healthcare rationing that is familiar to Europeans but not to Americans. We actually expect to get needed medical care even when it is expensive rather than be allowed to die so the government can save money. Everyone who has a brain now understands that Governor Palin was prescient when she warned us about death panels.

Do you actually have any idea how socialized health care actually works in countries wich have it? Not to mention that your health care is rationed to at least as great a degree as any UHC system, it's just that it's private companies doing the rationing.

Essential services continue while non essential Federal workers stay home, proving that their jobs are non essential and should be eliminated.

That logic is rather lacking. "Essential employees" usually means employees which need to be kept on all the time. It doesn't mean that other personnel aren't important to the organization's mission and/or functioning in the longer run.

Hi Eyal,

You missed fly's most telling paragraph:

Namelessfly wrote:The perceptions of outsiders are severely skewed by their own countries' publicly funded healthcare system. You presume that it is some version of your own publicly funded healthcare systems. This is not what Obama care is. Obama care is NOT publicly funded healthcare. At it's core it is a government mandate that EVERYONE have private health insurance unless they are a government insurance program such as the VA or medicare. At first glance this isn't a bad thing because most people already have private health insurance through their employer. Unfortunately; Obama care has provisions that impose new requirements that increase costs that make private insurance far, far more expensive. The rules also include provisions that encourage private companies to either pay a relatively small tax rather than provide health insurance or to simply reduce worker hours below 30 hrs per week to evade the obligation. Obama has made it worse by granting exemptions to his political supporters.

Thus Obama care is not Governmental health care.

Your point that Fly and myself may not know such a Governmental system, since we don't have direct experience with one is somewhat valid, nor is Obama Care one. We have however heard horror stories from patients under one, had Canadians come south to purchase healthcare rather than wait years for treatment due to the rationed care.

Not to mention watching the graft and corruption that passed the bill in the first place, the first exemptions were in the actual law before it was passed to buy the votes of key Senators.

We have seen negative effects of the law prior to it's implementation. Part time employment to evade the law being one. Increase in premiums since those with preexisting medical conditions cannot be denied coverage thus increasing the insurer's cost and thus raising premiums.

At a time of increasing deficits we add more entitlements, stipends to those who cannot afford the high premiums. You know the poor who cannot get full time jobs do to the employer mandate to provide health insurance, but have to pay for the high premiums.

The law is a Frankenstein monster that well may destroy the United States.

Poker

My wife is an RN who has had many patients who were medical refugees from Canada. The Canadian system like many UHCs has a central bureaucracy which allocates resources either by simply refusing to approve some treatments or by limiting the availability of approved treatments.

I am very much aware that private insurers effectively ration healthcare by refusing to cover some treatments or limiting compensation to doctors. However; the degree of limitation varies with insurer. My wife treated many patients who were covered by Keizer who were medical disasters do to either incompetence or the withholding of treatment. However; the primary difference between the US healthcare system which Obamacare is destroying and a UHC is that Americans have the freedom to find an alternative health insurance provider or paying out of pocket. We are justifiably afraid of loosing this freedom.

My comment about furloughed workers being unneeded was partially in jest. However; a lot of government workers are as useless as tits on a boar and should be fired.

I vote for firing President Obama just as soon as he finishes his latest golf game.

Of course this government shutdown might result in another scandal that occurred during the shutdown when President Clinton was receiving oral sex from Monica Lwinsky in the oval office. About the only difference that I would expect is that it would be a male intern and President Obama would be on his knees.

Eyal wrote:

namelessfly wrote:This disaster is magnified by a system of healthcare rationing that is familiar to Europeans but not to Americans. We actually expect to get needed medical care even when it is expensive rather than be allowed to die so the government can save money. Everyone who has a brain now understands that Governor Palin was prescient when she warned us about death panels.

Do you actually have any idea how socialized health care actually works in countries wich have it? Not to mention that your health care is rationed to at least as great a degree as any UHC system, it's just that it's private companies doing the rationing.

Essential services continue while non essential Federal workers stay home, proving that their jobs are non essential and should be eliminated.

That logic is rather lacking. "Essential employees" usually means employees which need to be kept on all the time. It doesn't mean that other personnel aren't important to the organization's mission and/or functioning in the longer run.

Why should the Democrats agree to that? As I understand, this bill would have continued funding to the end of the year, so in return for defunding a key Democratic law they'd get another ultimatum three months from now. Likewise, good for them for rejecting the compromise bill; if the GOP wants to hold the country hostage, they shouldn't rely on the Democrats to help them avoid the fallout.

It depends on what the Democrats care about the most the USA or political power. Unlike governmental systems based on a parliamentary system, the system in the USA is designed to be divided to provide checks and balances. As pokermind stated earlier the minority party usually controls 1 of the 3 parts and thus major legislation tends to be a centrist compromise. In this case it was 100% Democratic with 0% Republican input, so it's not surprising that the Republicans hate it. In the current case the Republicans are proposing compromises. The Democrats are rejecting the compromises out of hand. You may not like the Republican proposals but the proper thing to do in the American system is not to reject them but to use them as starting points to negotiate a centrist compromise. Instead the Democrats seem intend on using the situation to score political points with the help of a compliant media (which votes 80-90% Democrat). And yes the Republicans aren't angels either but at this time the my way or the highway position is being taken by the Democrats.

I think it should be law that in the case of a government shutdown, the legislature's paychecks should be among thoee suspended; as you say, let them feel the consequences of their actions.

I agree with this one! But why stop there? They should also have to live with the same regulations they impose on the rest of us in every area!

Thus Obama care is not Governmental health care.

I'll agree with fly and pokermind on this one. It is a MESS! There are 1000s of pages of new regulations, some of which contradict others. And not 1 person in congress in either party read the thing in its entirety before voting on it! It is full of errors and bugs which we will be years straightening out. Currently the implementation is running way behind schedule and 100s of temporary waivers etc are being issued because it is NOT ready to be implemented. Delaying it for a year seems to be happening anyway!!! And in spite of the Republican's inflammatory statements to the media (yes there is fault on both sides) all they are actually asking for is a one year delay which is already happening.

The law is a Frankenstein monster that well may destroy the United States.

Frankenstein monster I'll agree with but I think the US is resilient enough to survive it.