Federal Shutdown

[janvanvurpa]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/b ... acare.html


« Boehner Advises Americans to Delay Getting Cancer for a Year
Main

October 1, 2013
Millions Flee Obamacare
Posted by Andy Borowitz


UNITED STATES (The Borowitz Report)—Millions of Tea Party loyalists fled the United States in the early morning hours today, seeking what one of them called “the American dream of liberty from health care.”

Harland Dorrinson, 47, a tire salesman from Lexington, Kentucky, packed up his family and whatever belongings he could fit into his Chevy Suburban just hours before the health-insurance exchanges opened, joining the Tea Party’s Freedom Caravan with one goal in mind: escape from Obamacare.

“My father didn’t have health care and neither did my father’s father before him,” he said. “I’ll be damned if I’m going to let my children have it.”

But after driving over ten hours to the Canadian border, Mr. Dorrinson was dismayed to learn that America’s northern neighbor had been in the iron grip of health care for decades.

“The border guard was so calm when he told me, as if it was the most normal thing in the world,” he said. “It’s like he was brainwashed by health care.”

Turning away from Canada, Mr. Dorrinson joined a procession of Tea Party cars heading south to Mexico, noting, “They may have drug cartels and narcoterrorism down there, but at least they’ve kept health care out.”

Mr. Dorrinson was halfway to the southern border before he heard through the Tea Party grapevine that Mexico, too, has public health care, as do Great Britain, Japan, Turkey, Spain, Belgium, New Zealand, Slovenia, and dozens of other countries to which he had considered fleeing.

Undaunted, Mr. Dorrinson said he had begun looking into additional countries, like Chad and North Korea, but he expressed astonishment at a world seemingly overrun by health care.

“It turns out that the United States is one of the last countries on earth to get it,” he said. “It makes me proud to be an American.”

[Starter]

The ironic thing is this terrible plan the Tea-party fringe of the Republican party have shut the Gubbymint down for is.............

A Republican plan: (follow the links, it is almost hilarious..
If we want to be accurate its "The Heritage Foundation" plan

They were all for it, until Obama took up their idea.
Utterslime balls.

Welcome back.

What some don't seem to understand is that everything isn't always black and white. There has been graft and corruption in Congress since just about day one. Any government has some of that and, mostly, you can live with it. The issue is that it has reached epic proportions in the last twenty years or so. The so called legislators are so busy chasing dollars they have no time to actually look at and consider the things they pass. There have been several times in the last couple Congresses that many of them voted for bills they hadn't even read. Most bills aren't even prepared by the legislators. They are written by staff and, in some cases, lobbyists. Both parties participate fully in this sham of good governance.

As for US healthcare, I agree that reforms were desperately needed - and that comes from someone who is not a fan of big government. My point on this is that while reforms were certainly needed, Obamacare was not the solution. There are a few good things in Obamacare, no question, but there are many bad things too. Instead of passing a huge package where no one really knew or understood what was in the legislation, they should have brought each area up separately and had open debate and then passed or dropped them based on the merits of each part. Instead it was pushed down everybody's throat.

As for Obama, he'll go down as one of the worst presidents. Part of the problem is that, while Congress has always been fairly partisan, the President needs to rise above all that. Obama has been an absentee from the deliberative process. He has no relationships with anyone in Congress. I expect several of his initiatives to be overturned once they reach the Supreme Court. Before you accuse me of being a racist or right wing lackey, I should point out that I voted for this turkey the first time around. I stand embarrassed by my poor judgement. I had been hoping for someone to rise above the bull excrement put out by both of the major parties.

[Gregor-y]

My question was not very well worded I must admit. I suppose what I'm wondering is one of the reasons the Democrats got elected was health care reform, which is currently being stymied by the Republicans.

It's because of a number of things.

1. The House of Representatives is elected through rules that allow states to develop their own boundaries for a number of representatives based on their population. State governments typically draw boundaries to retain their own party's dominance in the national body. This was also done with the US Senate (through in those cases it was often the state government that chose their senators) until direct election by all voters in the state was passed as a constitutional amendment, forcing all states to use this standard. A number of states that have a few or no Democratic representatives actually had more people voting Democratic than Republican across the state, but retain Republicans because of how boundaries are drawn. Typically cities with large populations have less representation in the House of Representatives than rural areas.

2. The Republican party has a number of its own rules, one of which is not to disagree when voting. This means if there's disagreement as there is now, all Republicans feel the obligation to support their party, similar to other country's parliamentary systems. Most of them don't agree with the current path but are politically unable to vote any other way.

3. Republican intransigence is actually a new thing. Other than once in the 1990s no party has intentionally held up the workings of the entire government as a means to forward a particular agenda. Republicans can't accomplish anything through voting because they don't control enough of the Senate and of course could not override the President, so they have decided it's better to destroy the livelihood of workers, veterans, anyone receiving assistance, anyone going on vacation to a park, anyone needing a passport or visa and all their associated families and businesses in order to announce their opposition to a particular law. Short of seceding over the fear of eliminating slavery there's not a lot of precedent for what's happening at the moment.

So yes, this is a Republican problem caused by Republicans. They've been digging themselves into a hole for years, and are now just lashing out in frustration. Kind of like Al Shabaab over in Somalia. After steadily losing support it's being whittled down to the psychotics that want to destroy everything just to prove how right they are.

[Starter]

It's because of a number of things.

A couple of misleading statements here.

1. The House of Representatives is elected through rules that allow states to develop their own boundaries for a number of representatives based on their population. State governments typically draw boundaries to retain their own party's dominance in the national body. This was also done with the US Senate (through in those cases it was often the state government that chose their senators) until direct election by all voters in the state was passed as a constitutional amendment, forcing all states to use this standard.

This is true.

A number of states that have a few or no Democratic representatives actually had more people voting Democratic than Republican across the state, but retain Republicans because of how boundaries are drawn.

This is misleading because both parties do it. I live in Maryland which is heavily democratic overall. There are two regions which lean more Republican - western Maryland and the eastern shore. The Democratic legislature has redrawn boundary lines to essentially disenfranchise those voters and to try and ensure that every one elected from Maryland is a Democrat. So lets be clear about BOTH parties playing dirty.

2. The Republican party has a number of its own rules, one of which is not to disagree when voting. This means if there's disagreement as there is now, all Republicans feel the obligation to support their party, similar to other country's parliamentary systems. Most of them don't agree with the current path but are politically unable to vote any other way.

Um,you haven't noticed that the Democrats do the same thing? I'd also replace the word "most" with "many" in your last sentence.

3. Republican intransigence is actually a new thing. Other than once in the 1990s no party has intentionally held up the workings of the entire government as a means to forward a particular agenda. Republicans can't accomplish anything through voting because they don't control enough of the Senate and of course could not override the President, so they have decided it's better to destroy the livelihood of workers, veterans, anyone receiving assistance, Most receiving assistance will continue to do so. anyone going on vacation to a park, anyone needing a passport or visa and all their associated families and businesses in order to announce their opposition to a particular law. Short of seceding over the fear of eliminating slavery there's not a lot of precedent for what's happening at the moment.

Partly wrong. There will be little or no impact on those receiving assistance or those needing passports or visas.

So yes, this is a Republican problem caused by Republicans. They've been digging themselves into a hole for years, and are now just lashing out in frustration. Kind of like Al Shabaab over in Somalia. After steadily losing support it's being whittled down to the psychotics that want to destroy everything just to prove how right they are.

Completely wrong. The problem was caused DIRECTLY by BOTH Democratic and Republican congresses who spent more money than they took in over many years. If there was no debt there COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE A DEBT CEILING CRISIS.

[Rollo]

The so called legislators are so busy chasing dollars they have no time to actually look at and consider the things they pass. There have been several times in the last couple Congresses that many of them voted for bills they hadn't even read. Most bills aren't even prepared by the legislators. They are written by staff and, in some cases, lobbyists. Both parties participate fully in this sham of good governance.

As for US healthcare, I agree that reforms were desperately needed - and that comes from someone who is not a fan of big government. My point on this is that while reforms were certainly needed, Obamacare was not the solution. There are a few good things in Obamacare, no question, but there are many bad things too. Instead of passing a huge package where no one really knew or understood what was in the legislation, they should have brought each area up separately and had open debate and then passed or dropped them based on the merits of each part. Instead it was pushed down everybody's throat.

This is an aspect that I really don't get about American politics. You'd think that if people have been elected to a legislative body, they'd actually read and debate the legislation. Last week we actually saw Ted Cruz read "Green Eggs And Ham" and whatever his intentions were, basically he's just held the Congress in contempt and publicly wasted time whilst being paid for it.

As for Obama, he'll go down as one of the worst presidents. Part of the problem is that, while Congress has always been fairly partisan, the President needs to rise above all that. Obama has been an absentee from the deliberative process. He has no relationships with anyone in Congress. I expect several of his initiatives to be overturned once they reach the Supreme Court. Before you accuse me of being a racist or right wing lackey, I should point out that I voted for this turkey the first time around. I stand embarrassed by my poor judgement. I had been hoping for someone to rise above the bull excrement put out by both of the major parties.

This I think is a failing of the US Congress as a system. This sort of thing can not happen in a Westminster System in the same way. There's standing orders in the UK (as a result of the Parliament Act 1911) and Australia had its own battle which resulted in the Govenor-General sacking government and then the entire parliament in 1975 for failing to do its job.

I would have framed the US Constitution so that at very least, the President is forced to have some consultative process with the Congress by law through some sort of meetings in the same way that the Crown does with the Prime Minister/Premier in Westminster parliaments... but sadly no.

[shazbot]

Thanks for the intelligent replies! As a legal alien as Sting would say, I find it very confusing to say the least. It doesn't sound like it works very well at all in these situations? I dread to think of what it would take to move closer to the UK system of government.

[Gregor-y]

A couple of misleading statements here.

Not misleading at all, unless you can't see through blind hatred of the President.

This is misleading because both parties do it. I live in Maryland which is heavily democratic overall. There are two regions which lean more Republican - western Maryland and the eastern shore. The Democratic legislature has redrawn boundary lines to essentially disenfranchise those voters and to try and ensure that every one elected from Maryland is a Democrat. So lets be clear about BOTH parties playing dirty.

Yes both parties do it. Republicans seem to be doing it a lot more to retain a commanding position even with a minority of a state's population. Thus the latest attempts to restrict voting rights. Democrats aren't doing that, so it's not appropriate to assign equal blame. And when was the last time a minority of Democrats shut down the government?

Um,you haven't noticed that the Democrats do the same thing? I'd also replace the word "most" with "many" in your last sentence.

No, no, no. This is absolutely not true in any way shape or form. The Democratic party has never (other than before 1964; and most of those were southern segregationists that all became Republicans) voted in a single block the way Republicans do. When has the Democratic party ever worked as a single body to intentionally harm the country? Even the Republicans were only dumb enough to do it once before. Don't try to make this into an everyone is to blame argument, because it's only one party that is doing this.

Partly wrong. There will be little or no impact on those receiving assistance or those needing passports or visas.

This is not true. It affects passport services, the Veteran's Administration, enforcement of environmental laws, social services and all national parks are closed. Do you have a vacation planned and hotels booked? Too bad! Shoulder surgery at the VA? Got to wait and reschedule? Therapy for your PTSD? Guess you'll just have to go shoot up a multiplex instead.

Completely wrong. The problem was caused DIRECTLY by BOTH Democratic and Republican congresses who spent more money than they took in over many years. If there was no debt there COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE A DEBT CEILING CRISIS.

There has been a debt for decades; centuries, even, depending on conditions. It's never been considered a bad thing by either party until Republicans began to tout it as an issue after 1992. ALL of these problems are on the Republican party. Do not even attempt to make an equivalency argument, here.

[Gregor-y]

This I think is a failing of the US Congress as a system. This sort of thing can not happen in a Westminster System in the same way. There's standing orders in the UK (as a result of the Parliament Act 1911) and Australia had its own battle which resulted in the Govenor-General sacking government and then the entire parliament in 1975 for failing to do its job.

I would have framed the US Constitution so that at very least, the President is forced to have some consultative process with the Congress by law through some sort of meetings in the same way that the Crown does with the Prime Minister/Premier in Westminster parliaments... but sadly no.

It was a very early experiment, and to be honest I don't think anyone predicted any party would be so stupid as to intentionally cripple the country for political gain. Obviously the US founders had never heard of Republicans.

[Gregor-y]

There will be little or no impact on those receiving assistance or those needing passports or visas.

One more; it affects anyone in college receiving grants.

[Gregor-y]

Thanks for the intelligent replies! As a legal alien as Sting would say, I find it very confusing to say the least. It doesn't sound like it works very well at all in these situations? I dread to think of what it would take to move closer to the UK system of government.

Actually I think the solution would be to elect representatives directly from states rather than allow local governments to determine boundaries.

The US Senate was determined by state governments (many in less open ways than the current House districts) until 1913 when direct elections required all states to have the same system for selecting their representatives. Something similar for the House would solve most of our problems, mainly because it would force the Republican party to become more mainstream or be relegated to the equivalent of European 'national front' parties, with more moderate parties appearing in their place.