The ONLY reason I'm not interested in any sort of compromise on this issue is because it will only encourage both parties to try this tactic more often. That's a message I don't want to be sent to the people who both control this country and seem to not give two shits about it. Do your fucking jobs and stop making the rest of us suffer.
USA Federal government: CLOSED
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
Jesus Christ, If I see this goddamn post on facebook one more time.
http://freepatriot.org/2013/09/18/w...-s-soil-obama-issuing-martial-law-in-october/
http://freepatriot.org/2013/09/18/w...-s-soil-obama-issuing-martial-law-in-october/
Gotta love those Conservative Libertarians huh?
Why did I read the comments?
Oh who the hell am I kidding... the comments are the only reason I clicked that article. I was not disappointed.
I'm not a giant fan of TAHA, I think it does a couple good things that the Healthcare Industry needed but is there a better solution? Probably.
My main issue is that right now republicans aren't offering a better solution other than to just keep things the way they are. That's not good enough.
My main issue is that right now republicans aren't offering a better solution other than to just keep things the way they are. That's not good enough.
GasBandit
Staff member
Someone in his administration did, obviously, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with it if you don't contend that the power of the purse rests solely with congress.I'm pretty sure Reagan found a way to fund those contras.
... was kinda where I was goin with that.[DOUBLEPOST=1381152654,1381152538][/DOUBLEPOST]
To continue an earlier metaphor, when someone says "let's burn the house down," a reasonable response is "no." "Well what's you're reasonable alternative?! You don't have one so we're burning the house down!" is not a valid rejoinder.
For as much as I hate my boss, at least he does have the cajones to stand up to the Feds.
The Wisconsin DNR has actually torn down several barricades put in place by the Feds that are supposed to prevent access to federally-managed lands, because the state has a 52-year-old compact allowing the state to operate those areas.
The Wisconsin DNR has actually torn down several barricades put in place by the Feds that are supposed to prevent access to federally-managed lands, because the state has a 52-year-old compact allowing the state to operate those areas.
Not entirely true. Belgium effectively shut down for most of a year (not the exact same thing, though - public agencies styayed open but no new works could be undertaken, no new motions passed, no government appointees, no government really) for over a year. One opf the main reasons we're not as completely screwed as we might've been. Socialists wanted to spend their way out of a deficit à la Spain and Greece....Idiots.
GasBandit
Staff member
And some people don't think a toothpick with a bit of red crust on the end can burn down a forest, either, but ask Colorado how that worked out for them.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter what plan anybody else has.. The democrats have flat out denied anything but getting everything they want immediately and without reservations "then we can talk." The republicans even tried punting back to simply delaying the individual mandate a year, like the democrats already did the business mandate. But even that's UNPOSSIBLE.
The best solution is to drop it on the federal level and let the states do it, if they or their population wants it. Then, once many states have many variations and have tried a number of methods of solving this problem, we can apply simple small amounts of federal regulation where that regulation will help normalize things and reduce costs.
Congress decided instead to take one small state's plan, adapt it to 300+ million Americans, and then jump in with both feet and "see how it goes."
As we are already seeing, it's exceeding its projected costs by more than two times, and those who decided to put it in place aren't reforming it so it stays inside its budget.
It can't pay for itself. It's not a small amount of money.
And now that the other party finally has some power they're forcing the issue, as they should, and as could be expected of them due to the way it was passed.
And because the shutdown doesn't hurt enough people, Obama is sending out executive orders to spend more money cutting people off from things the shutdown doesn't really affect. Closing a harbor that doesn't require money to operate day to day? Parks that aren't staffed are now getting security to prevent access? It's a bald faced attempt to make a PR statement and drag people under the same bus that's running over the democrats. A bus they themselves set in motion years ago, and they are now suffering the effects of.
This is as much a states rights issue as it is a budget issue.
And on top of all that, the government, by law and specifically the executive branch, gets unfettered access to all our medical records, whether we buy into the program or not. And we are going to be paying for this loss of rights and invasion of privacy.
It's a small thing, though, and certainly not worth shutting down the government for.
When gas bandit mentions that it's damaging our country, he isn't necessarily thinking financially alone. The transfer of SIGNIFICANT power from individuals and states to the executive branch is staggering. It may not be meaningful to those with only a passing understanding of federal governance, but it is no small thing.
Congress decided instead to take one small state's plan, adapt it to 300+ million Americans, and then jump in with both feet and "see how it goes."
As we are already seeing, it's exceeding its projected costs by more than two times, and those who decided to put it in place aren't reforming it so it stays inside its budget.
It can't pay for itself. It's not a small amount of money.
And now that the other party finally has some power they're forcing the issue, as they should, and as could be expected of them due to the way it was passed.
And because the shutdown doesn't hurt enough people, Obama is sending out executive orders to spend more money cutting people off from things the shutdown doesn't really affect. Closing a harbor that doesn't require money to operate day to day? Parks that aren't staffed are now getting security to prevent access? It's a bald faced attempt to make a PR statement and drag people under the same bus that's running over the democrats. A bus they themselves set in motion years ago, and they are now suffering the effects of.
This is as much a states rights issue as it is a budget issue.
And on top of all that, the government, by law and specifically the executive branch, gets unfettered access to all our medical records, whether we buy into the program or not. And we are going to be paying for this loss of rights and invasion of privacy.
It's a small thing, though, and certainly not worth shutting down the government for.
When gas bandit mentions that it's damaging our country, he isn't necessarily thinking financially alone. The transfer of SIGNIFICANT power from individuals and states to the executive branch is staggering. It may not be meaningful to those with only a passing understanding of federal governance, but it is no small thing.
From an outsider's perspective...
A) my sister-in-law and her husband would really love to pass on a message of peace and love. They really enjoy their honeymoon at the Grand Canyon right now, not being able to enter it because of the shutdown. Thanks Obama
B) For me and most foreigners, as I've stated in the past, the odd thing about this system is that you can link anything to practically anything. If they don't want to vote for a budget with the ACA in it, that's one thing. Using that to shut down everything else seems abusive of the system. It seems like whoever is in control in the House can put a "...and we'll nuke Los Angeles and New York" rider on any bill whatsoever that isn't 100% to their liking and just shut down everything, Madagascar-style, until "the other side" caves. That's not "checks and balances at work", that's an oligarchical dictatorship at work. I know I'm oversimplifying and all, but that's what it looks like. Compromise is supposed to be worked out; playing chicken is irresponsible and an abuse of a good system.
That said, both sides are behaving crappily. Both are too focussed on the short term and twitterpolitics to actually govern.
A) my sister-in-law and her husband would really love to pass on a message of peace and love. They really enjoy their honeymoon at the Grand Canyon right now, not being able to enter it because of the shutdown. Thanks Obama
B) For me and most foreigners, as I've stated in the past, the odd thing about this system is that you can link anything to practically anything. If they don't want to vote for a budget with the ACA in it, that's one thing. Using that to shut down everything else seems abusive of the system. It seems like whoever is in control in the House can put a "...and we'll nuke Los Angeles and New York" rider on any bill whatsoever that isn't 100% to their liking and just shut down everything, Madagascar-style, until "the other side" caves. That's not "checks and balances at work", that's an oligarchical dictatorship at work. I know I'm oversimplifying and all, but that's what it looks like. Compromise is supposed to be worked out; playing chicken is irresponsible and an abuse of a good system.
That said, both sides are behaving crappily. Both are too focussed on the short term and twitterpolitics to actually govern.
No, what they're focussed on are private agenda. The public stuff* is what they do to build popular support, and therefore momentum.
That's why I want to read through the stuff so badly, is to try and ferret out exactly what sorts of meta-issues are contained therein. The trouble is that the state of writing legislation these days is like that of obfuscating javascript/actionscript, except that lawmakers have had a loooong head start to perfect their technique.
--Patrick
*meaning the stuff they parade and trumpet in the media.
The one difference between obfuscated JavaScript and legislation and political process is that one of them is deterministic, no matter how obfuscated it is.
Necronic
Staff member
Would this be the current congress or the republican congress of the 90s? Because this was their plan.
Currently the US spends more per capita on government health insurance than many socialist countries, like Japan or Canada. The current system was financially unsustainable. It's time for a serious change, and its been time for that for years. The republicans have only themselves to blame for not presenting something on their own during their last major mandate. Like, say, the last republican health care plan. Oh wait, that's what was passed.
As opposed to the Republicans who are crying crocodile tears about kids cancer treatments at the NIH? Lets be clear, both sides are being scumbags here.
Do you think the medical industry can continue to work without a centrally managed healthcare database? People are dying regularly due to lack of easily accesible patient information. Maybe there should be an option to opt out of the database, I'm totally fine with that, but I WANT the database. I WANT to make sure that I get the correct treatment.
Sorry, I missed the last episode of Prison Planet. Please explain to us idiots how this is some massive government conspiracy to imprison us all.It's a small thing, though, and certainly not worth shutting down the government for.
When gas bandit mentions that it's damaging our country, he isn't necessarily thinking financially alone. The transfer of SIGNIFICANT power from individuals and states to the executive branch is staggering. It may not be meaningful to those with only a passing understanding of federal governance, but it is no small thing.
WOLVERINES![DOUBLEPOST=1381166348,1381165908][/DOUBLEPOST]And what I really want to hear from a republican is whether they support repealling the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Because until they either come up with some form of universal health care, or are honest enough to repeal EMTALA and let the poor die, they are simply lying to look good and letting hospitals and patients eat the cost of that unfunded mandate. As far as I am concerned you can't support EMTALA and be against universal health care, because EMTALA just mitigates the guilt without paying for it.[DOUBLEPOST=1381166608][/DOUBLEPOST]If it wasn't for that cowards way out the republicans would look like the monsters they have actually been.
Necronic
Staff member
And I'm not surprised you used the passive aggressive "funny" tag. Grow a pair.
Seriously why are republicans not up in arms about the legality or overreach of EMTALA, which seriously infringes on private businesses. Why is this not an issue to them? Because t doesn't cost the taxpayer? Cost-shifting would say otherwise.
Seriously why are republicans not up in arms about the legality or overreach of EMTALA, which seriously infringes on private businesses. Why is this not an issue to them? Because t doesn't cost the taxpayer? Cost-shifting would say otherwise.
Necronic
Staff member
I don't even know what that means.
Ed: But seriously. Could a republican please explain to me how they are so up in arms about the ACA and yet they are cool with EMTALA? It's a far more serious over-reach.
And my guess is most of you don't even know what t is.
Last edited:
I find your post to be a joke, a meaningless plea of emotion that goes one step below accusing people who disagree with your position of wanting to gas anyone who can't afford health care. You talk about the high cost, and how the current system just shifts the cost, yet your solution does nothing to actually reduce the actual costs of healthcare, and certainly does shift costs onto an organization that can in no way pay for it.
Now I'll let you get back to accusing anyone who's not down with you of being sycophants who would love nothing more than to see poor people dying in the streets.
Necronic
Staff member
So...are you for or against EMTALA? I couldn't figure that out from your post. Because if you're for it, you can't really be against the ACA, at least not for over-reach. And if you're against it, you actually are ok with people dying in the streets (your words not mine.)
Show me a middle way.
Ed: and yeah, I am getting frothy. It's just how I argue.
Show me a middle way.
Ed: and yeah, I am getting frothy. It's just how I argue.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
Because there is a lot more political will behind resisting further government intrusion than there is in reducing extant government intrusion.
That and "I'm sorry you have a sucking chest wound, sir, but we won't be able to provide you care until you provide two forms of payment and fill out these forms" is too much of a democrat campaign waiting to happen.
I guess this is kind of where I rest too. My major problem is, I think we as a society have to decide if we are interested in actually taking care of those in need or if we are okay letting people drown in the debt the medical system causes or wither away because insurance companies can basically screw anyone they want when they want. I guess I'm at a point in my life right now where I would rather see people taken care of. Maybe that makes me some kind of horrible person for not holding to my previous "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" mentality but I honestly don't know if that kind of thinking works in the system we have set up. I do know that I don't believe that politicians in either party will save our society or make everything right, but I guess anything is better than nothing at this point.
Necronic
Staff member
So the lack of will is just because it's been around a while? It has nothing to do with the fact that it's repeal would be WILDLY unpopular, even if it does represent massive government overreach?
I mean, this is the same party that tried to remove funding for poison control centers.
(in response to Gas)[DOUBLEPOST=1381169165,1381169025][/DOUBLEPOST]
I mean, this is the same party that tried to remove funding for poison control centers.
(in response to Gas)[DOUBLEPOST=1381169165,1381169025][/DOUBLEPOST]
So ideology ends at elections? The tree of liberty must be refreshed by the blood of patriots! Unless its an election cycle.
This was the same argument Kati made, for anyone who might be curious as to what her idea(l)s might be.
--Patrick
Fuck States' Rights. You lost the Civil War.
also: Fuck Thomas Sowell.
also: Fuck Thomas Sowell.
Well, as far as I can tell the republicans are now faintly indicating that they will consider dropping the healthcare issue if their demands are met on budget cutting provisions for several of the big ticket federal budget items.
I don't know if that's any more palatable to the democrats than the healthcare issue, but they would appear to come out the winners of the overall argument if they accept deep concessions to their favorite programs, and that may be the politically expedient thing to do.[DOUBLEPOST=1381169855,1381169778][/DOUBLEPOST]However I expect this whole thing to continue well into next week for an eleventh hour save, as per usual before the possibility of default comes into play.
I don't know if that's any more palatable to the democrats than the healthcare issue, but they would appear to come out the winners of the overall argument if they accept deep concessions to their favorite programs, and that may be the politically expedient thing to do.[DOUBLEPOST=1381169855,1381169778][/DOUBLEPOST]However I expect this whole thing to continue well into next week for an eleventh hour save, as per usual before the possibility of default comes into play.
Or you agree with them.[DOUBLEPOST=1381169984,1381169886][/DOUBLEPOST]
I suppose that depends. Cutting Medicare without cutting military spending probably won't gain much traction with Democrats.
Necronic
Staff member
I agree with this (depending on the cuts). Further, I think that politically it was a mistake to not immediately agree with partial funding for NIH and parks. They should have agreed immediately and said "guys of course we agree, we're not the ones shutting down the government!"
GasBandit
Staff member
Hey, you asked me why republicans acted the way they do, not Libertarians.
Wisconsin was not on the losing side of the civil war, and furthermore, the civil war was not on individual states but rather the governmental entity that sought to replace the US Federal Government for those states. If you think reconstruction is still ongoing, you're an idiot. But then, look who I'm addressing...