US government shutdown?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by photon

Am I reading it right?

That's just a continuation of the status quo. A previous Tea Party-backed "deal" in the House tried to remove that power from the Treasury Department.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't know, that politico story seems to say there's measures in this that would make that less of an issue:



Am I reading it right?

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's just a continuation of the status quo. A previous Tea Party-backed "deal" in the House tried to remove that power from the Treasury Department.

Bingo.

The status quo, obfuscating the discussion, lose-lose situation is a win for conservatives.

At it's most base, it highlights the difference between 'progressive' and 'conservative' (preservation of the status quo/return to even more conservative policies).

if, at the end of the day, the democrats still negotiated a deal to re-open government, the GOP has won. They've gone from obfuscating a simple up and down vote into negotiations for things they shouldn't be negotiating on.

That concession to give the the federal government the ability to pay debt servicing interest is a win for the financial industry, not for Americans.

Further still, Republicans are still playing the brinksmanship game as there is tremendous uncertainty about whether the law will be passed prior to the government running out of money. If Boehner held a vote on the proposed Senate Bill before the Senate takes a vote, it would streamline the entire process, helping to avoid financial calamity for the treasury department. Of course, like the simple up and down vote which would have resolved this mess a couple of weeks ago, Boehner doesn't look like he's going to do that.

Some might roll their eyes, but it is the same idea as negotiating with terrorists. You don't reward someone for reckless behaviour by implicitly legitimizing their demands through negotiation. A negotiated settlement allows the arbiters of this abhorrent process to save face rather than face the music.

Further, that small part of the bill people seem to be glossing over referring to proof of identity for coverage is a direct shot at the next substantial bargaining issue for the GOP; immigration. Democrats have already ceded ground on this issue, and it wasn't even really part of the negotiation.

[MarchHare]

[karl262]

Looks like the drunk dialing might have worked, good job everyone!

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Well that's ####ing intense.

[Vulcan]

Yeah sure the GOP will continue to obstruct everything but they lost in trying to repeal the ACA which was their original aim.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Yeah sure the GOP will continue to obstruct everything but they lost in trying to repeal the ACA which was their original aim.

Well when corporations get a year until its implemented why can't the rest of us have the same thing?

Aca is everything but affordable, the whole thing is a shame and they need to go to a single payer system. The thing this has done is raise the cost of premiums on the middle class to pay for the lower class's. it's forcing one to have insurance, and if you can't afford it and don't qualify for the free stuff you get a fine.

I am so surprised that they didn't go single payer, John Stewart said it last week that almost every business would love to rid themselves of the insurance and the government would love to pick it up.

I'm a conservative bit I am 10000000% for a single payer system. I would be willing to bet if you polled Americans that they would have another say 10% of taxes added on but they would not have to worry about insurance they would vote overwhelmingly for it.

I also believe that over time that health care costs would go down as the people would be able to go to a dr without bankrupting their families.

I hate aca, it's sr22 high risk auto insurance for health.

The dumb ass tea party folks wanted it held up in the hopes of getting more seats next year and killing it completely. I hate the whole lot of them from "you must pass it to see what's in it" pelosi to the Canadian that wants to run as president Cruz. (Not a jab at Canadians, more of a jab at a ###### who was a birther that now is in the same boat. But we know that he was born in Canada.)

Hopefully this makes sense, I typed it on my phone

[Bill Bumface]

I think the whole reason ACA ended up the way it is was to appeal a broader audience that at the time was veheminently opposed to a single payer system.

If I was a US citizen, I think I would agree with you. Take the tax, and worry about it for me. Don't burden me with figuring this thing out.

I think the thinking was baby steps, get this in first, then start to shift towards something more centrally administered. But this is purely speculation on my part.

[nik-]

I still find the "freedom" argument to counter Single payer ridiculous. Who wants the "freedom" to get raped in the ass by the medical industry?

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Well when corporations get a year until its implemented why can't the rest of us have the same thing?

Aca is everything but affordable, the whole thing is a shame and they need to go to a single payer system. The thing this has done is raise the cost of premiums on the middle class to pay for the lower class's. it's forcing one to have insurance, and if you can't afford it and don't qualify for the free stuff you get a fine.

I am so surprised that they didn't go single payer, John Stewart said it last week that almost every business would love to rid themselves of the insurance and the government would love to pick it up.

I'm a conservative bit I am 10000000% for a single payer system. I would be willing to bet if you polled Americans that they would have another say 10% of taxes added on but they would not have to worry about insurance they would vote overwhelmingly for it.

I also believe that over time that health care costs would go down as the people would be able to go to a dr without bankrupting their families.

I hate aca, it's sr22 high risk auto insurance for health.

The dumb ass tea party folks wanted it held up in the hopes of getting more seats next year and killing it completely. I hate the whole lot of them from "you must pass it to see what's in it" pelosi to the Canadian that wants to run as president Cruz. (Not a jab at Canadians, more of a jab at a ###### who was a birther that now is in the same boat. But we know that he was born in Canada.)

Hopefully this makes sense, I typed it on my phone

Do you really think that a single payer system would ever be voted on in any US Legislature? The Republicans just put a gun to the head of the country over the very moderate ACA. They would probably turn to actual terrorism before allowing a single payer system to be implemented.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I think the thinking was baby steps, get this in first, then start to shift towards something more centrally administered. But this is purely speculation on my part.

The way to do baby steps I would say is the way most things happen in the States and that is at the State level. If one state voted in a state run healthcare system other states would take notice and if it was up to standards, affordable, and overall worked well other states would follow suit.

Originally Posted by nik-

I still find the "freedom" argument to counter Single payer ridiculous. Who wants the "freedom" to get raped in the ass by the medical industry?

For many people a move to a single payer system would lower their quality of healthcare. If you have the money healthcare is one of the most important things you can spend it on.
There are many Canadians even that pay out of their pocket to receive healthcare independently from the gov't here even going down to the States for service.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

For many people a move to a single payer system would lower their quality of healthcare. If you have the money healthcare is one of the most important things you can spend it on.
There are many Canadians even that pay out of their pocket to receive healthcare independently from the gov't here even going down to the States for service.

You don't think they're related? I'm guessing people in the UK and France don't travel to the US for care, but us being a Public Health Care country have the unfortunate geography to be next to the largest private health care system in the world. It's a lot easier for a Canadian doctor to move south for the dollars and diminish our system.

[Temporary_User]

I would be interested to know what country has the best healthcare in the world. Is it the U.S.?
All I can seem to find is ranking of countries healthcare systems. I want to know where the world's wealthiest would go if they needed care.

I don't know how many people from other countries other than Canada head to the States for care, but I am sure many do for certain treatments.
Regarding doctors, this site states that the 40% of all foreign-born doctors in the States come from Asia while 14% come from Canada and Europe.
http://www.migrationinformation.org/...lay.cfm?ID=898

Receiving the best healthcare isn't limited to the best doctors though. It is receiving immediate care for anything that pops up. It is being treated with the latest and greatest machines. It is access to the best drugs out there. etc.
For example my Dad, a Canadian, was lucky to receive U.S. citizenship and now lives in Florida. Sure he could save money by living in Canada but he has a few health problems and has to take many drugs as a result. Many of the drugs he takes are simply not available to Canadians yet. I'm not sure on the exact drugs and how each one affects him, but needless to say his quality of life would diminish greatly if he lived in Canada under the Canadian healthcare system.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Bingo.

The status quo, obfuscating the discussion, lose-lose situation is a win for conservatives.

At it's most base, it highlights the difference between 'progressive' and 'conservative' (preservation of the status quo/return to even more conservative policies).

if, at the end of the day, the democrats still negotiated a deal to re-open government, the GOP has won. They've gone from obfuscating a simple up and down vote into negotiations for things they shouldn't be negotiating on.

That concession to give the the federal government the ability to pay debt servicing interest is a win for the financial industry, not for Americans.

Further still, Republicans are still playing the brinksmanship game as there is tremendous uncertainty about whether the law will be passed prior to the government running out of money. If Boehner held a vote on the proposed Senate Bill before the Senate takes a vote, it would streamline the entire process, helping to avoid financial calamity for the treasury department. Of course, like the simple up and down vote which would have resolved this mess a couple of weeks ago, Boehner doesn't look like he's going to do that.

Some might roll their eyes, but it is the same idea as negotiating with terrorists. You don't reward someone for reckless behaviour by implicitly legitimizing their demands through negotiation. A negotiated settlement allows the arbiters of this abhorrent process to save face rather than face the music.

Further, that small part of the bill people seem to be glossing over referring to proof of identity for coverage is a direct shot at the next substantial bargaining issue for the GOP; immigration. Democrats have already ceded ground on this issue, and it wasn't even really part of the negotiation.

That's not how government dealings work. The GOP got their butts handed to them big time, and they took a hit politically too. They will now play nice until the mid term next fall. They pretty much have to or they will lose even more support.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

Do you really think that a single payer system would ever be voted on in any US Legislature? The Republicans just put a gun to the head of the country over the very moderate ACA. They would probably turn to actual terrorism before allowing a single payer system to be implemented.

I think it can and it will pass.

ACA see's a lot of heat because of numerous reasons.

1. "you have to pass it to read it" from pelosi, that we couldn't see what was in the bill because the democrats shoved it down our throats.

2. Democrats didn't even unitedly want it, they had to bribe a few senators to get it to pass

3. those who thought it was "free" are now realizing that it isn't and are pissed. I know my housekeepers are freaking out about it. I don't make much being the AGM (lower end of middle class) and I wouldn't qualify.

True story, last week I was getting my haircut and the manager was passing around all the stuff about the ACA. Apparently in the back room one girl didn't like what she read and was screaming "that m'fer lied to us, what do you mean it isn't free?!?!?!"
People were under the impression that it was free and it isn't. They are taking the wrong approach to try and lower health costs. Instead of forcing those who cant afford insurance but dont qualify for it pay a fine, go after the hospitals for the $250 tylenol's.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

I would be interested to know what country has the best healthcare in the world. Is it the U.S.?
All I can seem to find is ranking of countries healthcare systems. I want to know where the world's wealthiest would go if they needed care.

I don't know how many people from other countries other than Canada head to the States for care, but I am sure many do for certain treatments.
Regarding doctors, this site states that the 40% of all foreign-born doctors in the States come from Asia while 14% come from Canada and Europe.
http://www.migrationinformation.org/...lay.cfm?ID=898

Receiving the best healthcare isn't limited to the best doctors though. It is receiving immediate care for anything that pops up. It is being treated with the latest and greatest machines. It is access to the best drugs out there. etc.
For example my Dad, a Canadian, was lucky to receive U.S. citizenship and now lives in Florida. Sure he could save money by living in Canada but he has a few health problems and has to take many drugs as a result. Many of the drugs he takes are simply not available to Canadians yet. I'm not sure on the exact drugs and how each one affects him, but needless to say his quality of life would diminish greatly if he lived in Canada under the Canadian healthcare system.

So, you're saying if you are rich and in need of hc, the states is the place to be. I don't think that was the primary concern when they came up with aca.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

So, you're saying if you are rich and in need of hc, the states is the place to be. I don't think that was the primary concern when they came up with aca.

Well I don't know if it is the States, but it is definitely up there.
My comments were spawned from nik-'s questioning why anyone would be against a single payer system. If you're rich and in need of healthcare you fight against lowering your standard of care.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

Well I don't know if it is the States, but it is definitely up there.
My comments were spawned from nik-'s questioning why anyone would be against a single payer system. If you're rich and in need of healthcare you fight against lowering your standard of care.

lowering the standard? lol DCH hospital here in Tuscaloosa stands for "don't come here" or "doesn't Come home"

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by PIMking

True story, last week I was getting my haircut and the manager was passing around all the stuff about the ACA. Apparently in the back room one girl didn't like what she read and was screaming "that m'fer lied to us, what do you mean it isn't free?!?!?!"
People were under the impression that it was free and it isn't. They are taking the wrong approach to try and lower health costs. Instead of forcing those who cant afford insurance but dont qualify for it pay a fine, go after the hospitals for the $250 tylenol's.

People should clue in and see it's called the "Affordable" care act and not free. Even under a universal single payer system it's going to be funded by tax dollars which wouldn't be free and would require a tax increase.

As for the $250 Tylenol, it would require broad profit cuts to both corporate run private hospitals and pay cuts to private health care professionals (transitioning to public) as well as a partial nationalization of US hospitals (as with Canada) and large copayments by corporations. Initial capital for that effort would be immense and there would be even less political appetite for this than the ACA in the US. Not to mention anything of the sort would be viewed as Socialist and un-American. Unfortunately the US voter base doesn't realize such a system would probably save them huge amounts of money long term if implemented correctly.

[PIMking]

the same idiots that want to call it socialist and unamerican are probably huge NFL fans.