On October 01 2013 21:17 Varanice wrote: Shouldnt this just go into the US politics megathread thingy?
It's an issue worthy of a seperate thread.
On topic: the debt ceiling is a ludicrous concept. The debt ceiling is always raised (because it has to be for the US government to function), but the senate always holds off until the last second for political leverage. This time both sides are putting their foot down, when obamacare was already delayed a year last time if I remember correctly.
Which side is to blame? Hard to say. Both?
I think instead of looking who is to blame, it would be more important to seek solutions.
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
So because of the Republicans move to change the House rules the US is now effectively a dictatorship. Sole power lies on the House majority leader to bring bills to vote regardless of the actions of any other member of the house and he cannot be removed prior to the 2014 elections.
Congratulations you've done it.
So when does the army intervene, declare a military coup and return power to the people of the United States?
On October 14 2013 19:37 Gorsameth wrote: So because of the Republicans move to change the House rules the US is now effectively a dictatorship. Sole power lies on the House majority leader to bring bills to vote regardless of the actions of any other member of the house and he cannot be removed prior to the 2014 elections.
Congratulations you've done it.
So when does the army intervene, declare a military coup and return power to the people of the United States?
On October 14 2013 19:37 Gorsameth wrote: So because of the Republicans move to change the House rules the US is now effectively a dictatorship. Sole power lies on the House majority leader to bring bills to vote regardless of the actions of any other member of the house and he cannot be removed prior to the 2014 elections.
Congratulations you've done it.
So when does the army intervene, declare a military coup and return power to the people of the United States?
Here's the kicker; the Democrats have enough votes to pass a Clean Resolution. Basically a law with no pork, just raising the debt ceiling with no concessions. The issue is that the only person that can bring the bill to the floor is Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
Am I understanding it correctly that a procedural rule made it's way through (coincidentally on October 1st) that put the power over said Clean Resolution in the hands of one single person or am I misunderstanding something?
e: In addition assuming the above is correct the only way to change that (through a motion) would have to be offered by the majority leader or his designee aka only the dictator may undictator himself? :3
Is this scenario really happening?
What the actual fuck... that it truly messed up right there. And to think people are still defending those rats...
Here's the kicker; the Democrats have enough votes to pass a Clean Resolution. Basically a law with no pork, just raising the debt ceiling with no concessions. The issue is that the only person that can bring the bill to the floor is Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
Am I understanding it correctly that a procedural rule made it's way through (coincidentally on October 1st) that put the power over said Clean Resolution in the hands of one single person or am I misunderstanding something?
e: In addition assuming the above is correct the only way to change that (through a motion) would have to be offered by the majority leader or his designee aka only the dictator may undictator himself? :3
Is this scenario really happening?
What the actual fuck... that it truly messed up right there. And to think people are still defending those rats...
You must be the coolest math teacher living on planet earth. And to all others - GET MAD GOD DAMMIT!
Haha thanks ^^ Right before their first exam, I showed my students the Al Pacino motivational speech from Any Given Sunday. They loved it
On topic: So how's this situation going to play out? Are the Democrats going to pussy out like always and let Republicans run the show on "negotiations"? Because honestly, I can see Republicans outlasting the Democrats, despite their polling numbers. They're much better at playing the "I don't give a fuck; we'll do this forever" stubbornness card than Democrats, in my opinion.
Here's the kicker; the Democrats have enough votes to pass a Clean Resolution. Basically a law with no pork, just raising the debt ceiling with no concessions. The issue is that the only person that can bring the bill to the floor is Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
Am I understanding it correctly that a procedural rule made it's way through (coincidentally on October 1st) that put the power over said Clean Resolution in the hands of one single person or am I misunderstanding something?
e: In addition assuming the above is correct the only way to change that (through a motion) would have to be offered by the majority leader or his designee aka only the dictator may undictator himself? :3
Is this scenario really happening?
What the actual fuck... that it truly messed up right there. And to think people are still defending those rats...
yes. even thinking about it makes my head spin.
On October 14 2013 13:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 14 2013 13:11 Whitewing wrote:
On October 14 2013 13:09 Go0g3n wrote: I'm wondering if the following is technically possible?
A number of republicans switch party and join the democrats, thus granting majority to the democratic party....
It would but they won't, they were elected as republicans, their constituents would be mad as hell.
You must be the coolest math teacher living on planet earth. And to all others - GET MAD GOD DAMMIT!
Haha thanks ^^ Right before their first exam, I showed my students the Al Pacino motivational speech from Any Given Sunday. They loved it
On topic: So how's this situation going to play out? Are the Democrats going to pussy out like always and let Republicans run the show on "negotiations"? Because honestly, I can see Republicans outlasting the Democrats, despite their polling numbers. They're much better at playing the "I don't give a fuck; we'll do this forever" stubbornness card than Democrats, in my opinion.
Yep, that's exactly how it is going to be. I am sure of it.
They will continue negotiating, and Democrats will eventually make some concessions (likely not ACA, some other concessions, but still concessions). Then left wing media will declare a victory for Democrats for saving ACA, and right wing media will declare a victory for Republicans for getting some perks from Democrats. Maybe there will even be an exchange of concessions (to make it look more equitable), but Republicans will get more then Democrats, as they usually do in recent years.
On October 14 2013 19:37 Gorsameth wrote: So because of the Republicans move to change the House rules the US is now effectively a dictatorship. Sole power lies on the House majority leader to bring bills to vote regardless of the actions of any other member of the house and he cannot be removed prior to the 2014 elections.
Congratulations you've done it.
So when does the army intervene, declare a military coup and return power to the people of the United States?
The dumbass who wrote that seems to have forgotten that the Constitution only says that it is the Congress which has the authority to "declare War" (art. 1 sec. 8), not that every military action needs to receive a stamp of approval from Congress - there is plenty of debate on the subject of the extent of Congressional authority over the use of force as opposed to the President's authority as the Commander in Chief, and it's certainly not settled. In fact, there have been only five occasions in the history of the U.S. where declarations of war were issued : in 1812 (vs the UK), 1846 (vs Mexico), 1898 (vs Spain), 1917 and 1940. Apart from those, there have been many "authorizations" by Congress to use military force abroad, but like I said the issue of whether the Constitution actually requires such an authorization is not definitive at all. The War Powers Act passed in 1973 places some restrictions on the use of force by the President but pretty much every president since then has called it unconstitutional and it has never been ruled constitutional or unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so the issue remains very much up for debate.
TL;DR: saying that the U.S. is no longer a democracy because of a debate over which democratically-elected body has a certain competence is nonsensical.
Meanwhile, in Washington, as the world looks on nervously and as state governments attempt to get around the federal closure, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, was in negotiations with his Republican counterpart in the chamber, Mitch McConnell, as they tried to put together a deal to break the deadlock. However, there were no signs of progess on Sunday, with a mid-afternoon phone call between the two leaders described as “cordial but inconclusive” by a Democratic source who spoke to Politico.
The venue shifted after the President rejected an offer from the House Speaker, Mr Boehner, to raise the debt ceiling temporarily until late November. The proposal was contingent on the White House agreeing to more detailed talks on the national budget. Democrats, however, would like a longer-term solution to the debt ceiling issue.
That happened after President Obama apparently proposed this measure himself:
"If the Congress were to pass a clean debt ceiling of short duration to avoid default, the President would sign that," Mr Carney said, following rounds of talks among Mr Obama and Senate and House Republicans.
p.s. I am intentionally taking UK sources, since they may be perceived as less biased.
You know if you're taking it from sources trying to appear less biased why not take the full context with that quote that was put into that article. He says clean and later in the article he describes the proposed short term team as not meting that requirement.
But Mr Carney reiterated the White House would not accept a debt ceiling rise with conditions attached, saying the right thing to do was to "remove that gun from the table".
Clean being just the debt ceiling raised nothing else attached, he would accept that for the short term.
Meanwhile, in Washington, as the world looks on nervously and as state governments attempt to get around the federal closure, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, was in negotiations with his Republican counterpart in the chamber, Mitch McConnell, as they tried to put together a deal to break the deadlock. However, there were no signs of progess on Sunday, with a mid-afternoon phone call between the two leaders described as “cordial but inconclusive” by a Democratic source who spoke to Politico.
The venue shifted after the President rejected an offer from the House Speaker, Mr Boehner, to raise the debt ceiling temporarily until late November. The proposal was contingent on the White House agreeing to more detailed talks on the national budget. Democrats, however, would like a longer-term solution to the debt ceiling issue.
That happened after President Obama apparently proposed this measure himself:
"If the Congress were to pass a clean debt ceiling of short duration to avoid default, the President would sign that," Mr Carney said, following rounds of talks among Mr Obama and Senate and House Republicans.
p.s. I am intentionally taking UK sources, since they may be perceived as less biased.
You know if you're taking it from sources trying to appear less biased why not take the full context with that quote that was put into that article. He says clean and later in the article he describes the proposed short term team as not meting that requirement.
But Mr Carney reiterated the White House would not accept a debt ceiling rise with conditions attached, saying the right thing to do was to "remove that gun from the table".
Clean being just the debt ceiling raised nothing else attached, he would accept that for the short term.
Thanks, I have already mentioned on the previous page that I have cleared my own confusion here.
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
The individual person. If they were under their control and failed to prevent, it's their loss, even if it results in financial ruin.
For example, if you don't buy property insurance for your house, and it burns down, you should be stuck at a loss. That is what the insurance is for. No one will be there to bail you out, even if it results in you being homeless.
On October 14 2013 19:37 Gorsameth wrote: So because of the Republicans move to change the House rules the US is now effectively a dictatorship. Sole power lies on the House majority leader to bring bills to vote regardless of the actions of any other member of the house and he cannot be removed prior to the 2014 elections.
Congratulations you've done it.
So when does the army intervene, declare a military coup and return power to the people of the United States?
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
Is this a trick question ? Maybe the person requiring the services should pay for them. Oh, wait. That's personal responsibility. We can't have that.
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
Is this a trick question ? Maybe the person requiring the services should pay for them. Oh, wait. That's personal responsibility. We can't have that.
Right, so that's how we arrive at the individual mandate.
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
Is this a trick question ? Maybe the person requiring the services should pay for them. Oh, wait. That's personal responsibility. We can't have that.
Open heart surgery that my parents couldn't possibly have afforded in the US saved my life when I was a child. In the US, they would have let me die, but my Canadian citizenship and the health insurance that comes with it saved my life.
Personal responsibility is great for most things, but healthcare has gotten so expensive that people die if you fuck around too much with a broken morality code taken from the middle ages.
The other problem is that many types of treatment to save people's lives are available to people who can't afford them, and when the ER doesn't receive payment from the patient, it just makes everything more expensive. It is actually cheaper to insure people than to spot-treat patients who can't afford treatment. (The money is paid for by insurance companies who raise their rates, making it harder for the poorer person to afford health insurance)
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
Is this a trick question ? Maybe the person requiring the services should pay for them. Oh, wait. That's personal responsibility. We can't have that.
Open heart surgery that my parents couldn't possibly have afforded in the US saved my life when I was a child. In the US, they would have let me die, but my Canadian citizenship and the health insurance that comes with it saved my life.
Personal responsibility is great for most things, but healthcare has gotten so expensive that people die if you fuck around too much with a broken morality code taken from the middle ages.
Outside of that the problems with US healthcare is the A la carte pricing and the fact that alot of the industry in the US due to no import restrictions makes it so there are about 3-5 real medical suppliers depending on item; that ofc don't really want to compete with each other. Smaller businesses are near impossible to occur due to the heavy and necessary regulations on the medical industry part of it is the insurance blocks of hospitals vs insurance companies trying to negotiate.
Eh micronesia actually got to the relevant part that i was going to go on about which is the amount of ER patients and the fact that hospitals are legally obligated(as they should be imo) to not turn away people in critical condition. Then hospitals lose money on patents that don't have insurance and just show up to ER and incur bills they can't pay, it's just as dysfunctional.
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
Is this a trick question ? Maybe the person requiring the services should pay for them. Oh, wait. That's personal responsibility. We can't have that.
The question actually expects that answer. The actual question is, what is your position on what should be done if that person does not have money to pay such services. Should they be left to suffer and die, or should the emergency care be paid for by the society anyway. The latter is current US practice and it is driving everyone else's costs of healthcare quite above what full single payer public system would cost. Is personal responsibility such an important thing for you that you are willing to pay more money for healthcare just to have it in this area of life or willing to deny care to emergency cases that do not have money ?
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.
Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.
The individual person. If they were under their control and failed to prevent, it's their loss, even if it results in financial ruin.
For example, if you don't buy property insurance for your house, and it burns down, you should be stuck at a loss. That is what the insurance is for. No one will be there to bail you out, even if it results in you being homeless.
This approach is actually costing you money already. Unless you are willing to deny emergency care completely to people who cannot pay, your system results in more expense for everyone compared to mandatory public "insurance". So is the notion of personal responsibility worth so much to you, that you are willing to pay more ?
EPT
