On October 15 2013 23:36 Sermokala wrote: Its not a law change its a rule change. This is a very important distinction and I would very much like it if you would stop fear mongering about how the USA is now somehow a dictatorship, they can ignore the rule if they want to or use it if they do want to. Procedural change on who introduces bills is not something that makes america a dictatorship. Republicans still have to get elected in a year
If it ever became one it was when Andrew Jackson showed that you can ignore the other 2 branches (SCOTUS on the trail of tears congress on the national bank) when you control the military and the public opinion.
Back when "politics worked" they would have small continuing resolutions for a few days so that they could negotiate while the people didn't suffer. Democrats don't want the shutdown to be suspended because they think Americans suffering helps them more then it hurts them.
That's very cynical. The democrats would end the shut down in a heartbeat if they could bring a clean bill to the house floor, which the republicans have blocked through rule changes. It would probably have enough votes to pass. Just because the poll numbers are reflecting increasing dissatisfaction with the republicans, it doesn't mean the democrats wouldn't put an end to this if they could. They can't, not without unreasonable concessions.
Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check".
The politics of it aside, if it has the votes and it would end the shut down, but republicans won't allow a vote on it through rule changes, how do we end up at democrats want the shutdown to continue? It would end if house dems weren't reduced to just watching from the sidelines.
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that. they could keep it going for 3 days or so at a time like what the democrats did with jimmy carter back in the day but they want more long term then that so it'll go out of the media cycle and look back for the republicans again when nothing gets done between now and then.
Except even that short term CR wasn't offered by the Republicans without concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly said they would be willing to negotiate if the government was opened. Its the Republicans that are not willing to open the government even for a very limited time without concessions.
They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all.
Do you even read what im replying to? In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation? The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on. The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread. The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before.
You said
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that.
So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing.
the democrats don't want a short term CR they want a long term one so that they can "negotiate" afterwords when the republicans have given away their posision. What you said has nothing to do about how long the CR that democrats have offered.
You're making general statements without any facts that are strewn to your bias in this situation. for someone to respond to you they have to know what you're trying to actualy say other then what side your on.
He's saying that the Republicans have yet to offer a clean CR, short or otherwise, which is a factual statement.
I think it might be useful to identify what people are actually disagreeing about with respect to who is to blame for the shut down, and who is failing to negotiate. I think it boils down to different people having different views on what negotiation tactics are legitimate.
For example, say that a guy pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet. I refuse, and he shoots me. I think everyone would rightly blame the robber for the shooting, even though I also had the ability to prevent the shooting because I could have given up my wallet. This is because people generally do not view the threat of force as a legitimate negotiating tactic, so they would not blame me for the shooting as a result of me not trying to negotiate/give in to the robber.
As a result, I think the reason people in this thread disagree about who to blame for the shut down is because some of us view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics, while others do not.
Supporters of the Democrats' position believe that this is an illegitimate negotiating tactic, in the same way (though to a lesser extent) that threatening to shoot someone is illegitimate. Therefore, they argue that Democrats are not to blame for the shutdown. Instead they view the Democrats as refusing to give way to illegitimate coercion.
On the other hand, supporters of the Republican position view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics. As a result, they view the Republicans as employing a legitimate negotiating strategy and say that both sides are equally to blame because the Democrats are failing to negotiate in return. As a quick side note, I do not think one can be intellectually honest and argue that the Democrats are primarily to blame, because even if you think causing a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, both sides should share the blame equally because it was within the power of both to prevent the shut down.
If I am correct about this interpretation (specifically, that the primary difference between the two sides is over what constitutes a legitimate negotiating tactic) then people in this thread who are trying to convince others to adopt their point of view should focus on the legitimacy of the tactic employed by the Republicans, rather than blanket statements about how this side or that side has failed to negotiate.
Personally, I do not view the Republican strategy as being a legitimate means of negotiating. First, they are asking the Democrats to make policy concessions without offering any concessions in return. Allowing the government to function is not a concession to Democrats, it should be a priority of both parties. Second, if it works it could set a precedent that would cause significant harm to the political process. In the future, each time one of the parties is unable to obtain a goal through ordinary legislative action, it will simply shut down the government and demand concessions from the other party. Finally, I believe tactics that result in ~800K workers being furloughed and a fairly large hit to GDP should be avoided absent extreme circumstances, and I do not believe the ACA coming into effect qualifies as such.
If you happen to disagree about whether this negotiating tactic is legitimate, consider what you would think if Obama threatened to veto any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress added a provision to the bill banning private ownership of assault weapons (or some other provision that you find abhorrent). Obviously this would be a pretty silly thing for him to do, but try to consider whether it would also be a legitimate exercise of the President's veto power. If you think that it would not be, but have no problem with the House Republican's tactic, then I think you may be allowing your biases to cloud your thought process.
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:
Something is very wrong with US healthcare.
You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics.
The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy.
The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care.
Mystery solved.
You can't just mindlessly state things without even proper reasoning and expect to be taken seriously. US does not take more immigrants than all other countries in the world and I doubt they take most poor immigrants also (relative numbers of course). Please provide evidence for that claim.
US does not have highest PER CAPITA GDP in the world and the important statistics are per capita. Again your arguments is flat out wrong.
Per capita is not the relevant statistic here for the very reasons I already cited. You have to follow my arguments before you can call them wrong.
And as you are so kindly ignoring my response, i'll repeat my argument: How is the euro-zone as a whole not comparable to the US, given the fact that economic size, population, cultural diversity and immigration seem to be pretty similar?
On October 16 2013 02:50 Saryph wrote: So now there is talk that if the House passes something tonight the Speaker and Majority leader will leave DC, to pressure the Senate into giving in to their bill.
That is the perfect cover for Obama to resolve the debt ceiling via executive order.
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:
Something is very wrong with US healthcare.
You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics.
The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy.
The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care.
Mystery solved.
You can't just mindlessly state things without even proper reasoning and expect to be taken seriously. US does not take more immigrants than all other countries in the world and I doubt they take most poor immigrants also (relative numbers of course). Please provide evidence for that claim.
US does not have highest PER CAPITA GDP in the world and the important statistics are per capita. Again your arguments is flat out wrong.
Per capita is not the relevant statistic here for the very reasons I already cited. You have to follow my arguments before you can call them wrong.
Your arguments are empty. The graph shows PER CAPITA spending on healthcare and you counter with absolute GDP ? Plus your argument did not show in any way how absolute size of GDP translates into high PER CAPITA spending ? Do you even understand the difference ?
EDIT: You still did not provide any evidence for your immigration claim.
Let me spell it out for you very clearly.
Per capita means less and less the more economic disparity there is in a nation.
Economic disparity means less and less the more poor immigrants there are in a nation.
Don't know why you are asking for sources for the immigration claim when the US has over 3 times the immigrant population of any country in the world. Probably because you want to bring up per capita again, without realizing that once again it is irrelevant. Obviously a percent change over a couple years is not the same as a percent change every year for decades. Not to mention the differences in naturalization policies, differences in types of immigrants, etc. etc. Yet more examples of trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:
Something is very wrong with US healthcare.
You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics.
The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy.
The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care.
Mystery solved.
You can't just mindlessly state things without even proper reasoning and expect to be taken seriously. US does not take more immigrants than all other countries in the world and I doubt they take most poor immigrants also (relative numbers of course). Please provide evidence for that claim.
US does not have highest PER CAPITA GDP in the world and the important statistics are per capita. Again your arguments is flat out wrong.
Per capita is not the relevant statistic here for the very reasons I already cited. You have to follow my arguments before you can call them wrong.
Your arguments are empty. The graph shows PER CAPITA spending on healthcare and you counter with absolute GDP ? Plus your argument did not show in any way how absolute size of GDP translates into high PER CAPITA spending ? Do you even understand the difference ?
EDIT: You still did not provide any evidence for your immigration claim.
Let me spell it out for you very clearly.
Per capita means less and less the more economic disparity there is in a nation.
Economic disparity means less and less the more poor immigrants there are in a nation.
Don't know why you are asking for sources for the immigration claim when the US has over 3 times the immigrant population of any country in the world. Probably because you want to bring up per capita again, without realizing that once again it is irrelevant. Obviously a percent change over a couple years is not the same as a percent change every year for decades. Not to mention the differences in naturalization policies, differences in types of immigrants, etc. etc. Yet more examples of trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
And as we all know all immigrants are poor and dirty.
If you wanted to make a point you take the amount of immigrants living in the US(legal as those are tracked) and use immigrants vs non immigrant populations showing the different inclinations to poverty and uninsured.
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:
Something is very wrong with US healthcare.
You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics.
The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy.
The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care.
Mystery solved.
You can't just mindlessly state things without even proper reasoning and expect to be taken seriously. US does not take more immigrants than all other countries in the world and I doubt they take most poor immigrants also (relative numbers of course). Please provide evidence for that claim.
US does not have highest PER CAPITA GDP in the world and the important statistics are per capita. Again your arguments is flat out wrong.
Per capita is not the relevant statistic here for the very reasons I already cited. You have to follow my arguments before you can call them wrong.
Your arguments are empty. The graph shows PER CAPITA spending on healthcare and you counter with absolute GDP ? Plus your argument did not show in any way how absolute size of GDP translates into high PER CAPITA spending ? Do you even understand the difference ?
EDIT: You still did not provide any evidence for your immigration claim.
Let me spell it out for you very clearly.
Per capita means less and less the more economic disparity there is in a nation.
Economic disparity means less and less the more poor immigrants there are in a nation.
Don't know why you are asking for sources for the immigration claim when the US has over 3 times the immigrant population of any country in the world. Probably because you want to bring up per capita again, without realizing that once again it is irrelevant. Obviously a percent change over a couple years is not the same as a percent change every year for decades. Not to mention the differences in naturalization policies, differences in types of immigrants, etc. etc. Yet more examples of trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:
Something is very wrong with US healthcare.
You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics.
The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy.
The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care.
Mystery solved.
You can't just mindlessly state things without even proper reasoning and expect to be taken seriously. US does not take more immigrants than all other countries in the world and I doubt they take most poor immigrants also (relative numbers of course). Please provide evidence for that claim.
US does not have highest PER CAPITA GDP in the world and the important statistics are per capita. Again your arguments is flat out wrong.
Per capita is not the relevant statistic here for the very reasons I already cited. You have to follow my arguments before you can call them wrong.
Your arguments are empty. The graph shows PER CAPITA spending on healthcare and you counter with absolute GDP ? Plus your argument did not show in any way how absolute size of GDP translates into high PER CAPITA spending ? Do you even understand the difference ?
EDIT: You still did not provide any evidence for your immigration claim.
Let me spell it out for you very clearly.
Per capita means less and less the more economic disparity there is in a nation.
Economic disparity means less and less the more poor immigrants there are in a nation.
Don't know why you are asking for sources for the immigration claim when the US has over 3 times the immigrant population of any country in the world. Probably because you want to bring up per capita again, without realizing that once again it is irrelevant. Obviously a percent change over a couple years is not the same as a percent change every year for decades. Not to mention the differences in naturalization policies, differences in types of immigrants, etc. etc. Yet more examples of trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
Because I was asking for a) relative numbers, b) for numbers on immigrants from poor countries.
Your statements that per capita numbers are irrelevant without any hint to any reason why are telling. You just claim that they are due to some magical property. If per capita numbers are irrelevant, then absolute numbers are complete trash as they tell you absolutely nothing comparatively. When I am comparing nations per capita is the best starting point, you can argue that it does not paint the full picture, but you are yet to show any reason why it is so.
Let me reiterate, US has worse results for its citizens for much more money. That much is clear. If simple transplantation of public system would fix that is debatable, but considering that political blocks of similar size, with similar immigration manage to do exactly that puts a hole in your argument that you have not addressed.
Just a sidenote, is that 45mln number of immigrants, legal immigrants, even more important are they citizens ? Because if not what is the relevance of their existence on the statistic we started with ? They are not counted. The only influence might be on the cost side (by taxing the system) not on the life expectancy side.
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote: Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.
The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.
Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.
If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.
I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.
Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:
Something is very wrong with US healthcare.
You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics.
The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy.
The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care.
Mystery solved.
You can't just mindlessly state things without even proper reasoning and expect to be taken seriously. US does not take more immigrants than all other countries in the world and I doubt they take most poor immigrants also (relative numbers of course). Please provide evidence for that claim.
US does not have highest PER CAPITA GDP in the world and the important statistics are per capita. Again your arguments is flat out wrong.
Per capita is not the relevant statistic here for the very reasons I already cited. You have to follow my arguments before you can call them wrong.
Your arguments are empty. The graph shows PER CAPITA spending on healthcare and you counter with absolute GDP ? Plus your argument did not show in any way how absolute size of GDP translates into high PER CAPITA spending ? Do you even understand the difference ?
EDIT: You still did not provide any evidence for your immigration claim.
Let me spell it out for you very clearly.
Per capita means less and less the more economic disparity there is in a nation.
Economic disparity means less and less the more poor immigrants there are in a nation.
Don't know why you are asking for sources for the immigration claim when the US has over 3 times the immigrant population of any country in the world. Probably because you want to bring up per capita again, without realizing that once again it is irrelevant. Obviously a percent change over a couple years is not the same as a percent change every year for decades. Not to mention the differences in naturalization policies, differences in types of immigrants, etc. etc. Yet more examples of trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
Immigrants have higher life expectancy than native-born citizens in the US: source Healthcare spending per capita is significantly lower for immigrants than for native-born citizens in the US: source So, yes, if the US did not have so many immigrants, the USA would look even worse in that graph.
On October 16 2013 03:00 Gorsameth wrote: Obama has long since made plans for what to do when the default happens. The country will keep running, the debt will still be payed. Nothing is going to happen other then the Republicans looking even more stupid then they already do for not threatening but actually killing the hostage.
You are severely downplaying the effects of a default. There are many things both inside and outside the USA that depend on the US being able to always pay its bills on time. Destroying the 'full faith and credit" of the US is serious.
Not to mention how ridiculous it is to have the interest rates increased for no valid reason...
On October 15 2013 23:36 Sermokala wrote: Its not a law change its a rule change. This is a very important distinction and I would very much like it if you would stop fear mongering about how the USA is now somehow a dictatorship, they can ignore the rule if they want to or use it if they do want to. Procedural change on who introduces bills is not something that makes america a dictatorship. Republicans still have to get elected in a year
If it ever became one it was when Andrew Jackson showed that you can ignore the other 2 branches (SCOTUS on the trail of tears congress on the national bank) when you control the military and the public opinion.
Back when "politics worked" they would have small continuing resolutions for a few days so that they could negotiate while the people didn't suffer. Democrats don't want the shutdown to be suspended because they think Americans suffering helps them more then it hurts them.
That's very cynical. The democrats would end the shut down in a heartbeat if they could bring a clean bill to the house floor, which the republicans have blocked through rule changes. It would probably have enough votes to pass. Just because the poll numbers are reflecting increasing dissatisfaction with the republicans, it doesn't mean the democrats wouldn't put an end to this if they could. They can't, not without unreasonable concessions.
Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check".
The politics of it aside, if it has the votes and it would end the shut down, but republicans won't allow a vote on it through rule changes, how do we end up at democrats want the shutdown to continue? It would end if house dems weren't reduced to just watching from the sidelines.
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that. they could keep it going for 3 days or so at a time like what the democrats did with jimmy carter back in the day but they want more long term then that so it'll go out of the media cycle and look back for the republicans again when nothing gets done between now and then.
Except even that short term CR wasn't offered by the Republicans without concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly said they would be willing to negotiate if the government was opened. Its the Republicans that are not willing to open the government even for a very limited time without concessions.
They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all.
Do you even read what im replying to? In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation? The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on. The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread. The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before.
You said
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that.
So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing.
the democrats don't want a short term CR they want a long term one so that they can "negotiate" afterwords when the republicans have given away their posision. What you said has nothing to do about how long the CR that democrats have offered.
You're making general statements without any facts that are strewn to your bias in this situation. for someone to respond to you they have to know what you're trying to actualy say other then what side your on.
He's saying that the Republicans have yet to offer a clean CR, short or otherwise, which is a factual statement.
I think it might be useful to identify what people are actually disagreeing about with respect to who is to blame for the shut down, and who is failing to negotiate. I think it boils down to different people having different views on what negotiation tactics are legitimate.
For example, say that a guy pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet. I refuse, and he shoots me. I think everyone would rightly blame the robber for the shooting, even though I also had the ability to prevent the shooting because I could have given up my wallet. This is because people generally do not view the threat of force as a legitimate negotiating tactic, so they would not blame me for the shooting as a result of me not trying to negotiate/give in to the robber.
As a result, I think the reason people in this thread disagree about who to blame for the shut down is because some of us view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics, while others do not.
Supporters of the Democrats' position believe that this is an illegitimate negotiating tactic, in the same way (though to a lesser extent) that threatening to shoot someone is illegitimate. Therefore, they argue that Democrats are not to blame for the shutdown. Instead they view the Democrats as refusing to give way to illegitimate coercion.
On the other hand, supporters of the Republican position view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics. As a result, they view the Republicans as employing a legitimate negotiating strategy and say that both sides are equally to blame because the Democrats are failing to negotiate in return. As a quick side note, I do not think one can be intellectually honest and argue that the Democrats are primarily to blame, because even if you think causing a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, both sides should share the blame equally because it was within the power of both to prevent the shut down.
If I am correct about this interpretation (specifically, that the primary difference between the two sides is over what constitutes a legitimate negotiating tactic) then people in this thread who are trying to convince others to adopt their point of view should focus on the legitimacy of the tactic employed by the Republicans, rather than blanket statements about how this side or that side has failed to negotiate.
Personally, I do not view the Republican strategy as being a legitimate means of negotiating. First, they are asking the Democrats to make policy concessions without offering any concessions in return. Allowing the government to function is not a concession to Democrats, it should be a priority of both parties. Second, if it works it could set a precedent that would cause significant harm to the political process. In the future, each time one of the parties is unable to obtain a goal through ordinary legislative action, it will simply shut down the government and demand concessions from the other party. Finally, I believe tactics that result in ~800K workers being furloughed and a fairly large hit to GDP should be avoided absent extreme circumstances, and I do not believe the ACA coming into effect qualifies as such.
If you happen to disagree about whether this negotiating tactic is legitimate, consider what you would think if Obama threatened to veto any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress added a provision to the bill banning private ownership of assault weapons (or some other provision that you find abhorrent). Obviously this would be a pretty silly thing for him to do, but try to consider whether it would also be a legitimate exercise of the President's veto power. If you think that it would not be, but have no problem with the House Republican's tactic, then I think you may be allowing your biases to cloud your thought process.
I think a better analogy is a big group dinner where a few people refuse to pay unless everyone agrees to forego the appetizer, even though it had previously been agreed upon. Additionally, some of the people at the table were not involved in the appetizer decision and if a decision is not reached soon the owner will throw everyone out of the restaurant.
On October 16 2013 00:22 mainerd wrote: [quote] That's very cynical. The democrats would end the shut down in a heartbeat if they could bring a clean bill to the house floor, which the republicans have blocked through rule changes. It would probably have enough votes to pass. Just because the poll numbers are reflecting increasing dissatisfaction with the republicans, it doesn't mean the democrats wouldn't put an end to this if they could. They can't, not without unreasonable concessions.
Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check".
The politics of it aside, if it has the votes and it would end the shut down, but republicans won't allow a vote on it through rule changes, how do we end up at democrats want the shutdown to continue? It would end if house dems weren't reduced to just watching from the sidelines.
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that. they could keep it going for 3 days or so at a time like what the democrats did with jimmy carter back in the day but they want more long term then that so it'll go out of the media cycle and look back for the republicans again when nothing gets done between now and then.
Except even that short term CR wasn't offered by the Republicans without concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly said they would be willing to negotiate if the government was opened. Its the Republicans that are not willing to open the government even for a very limited time without concessions.
They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all.
Do you even read what im replying to? In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation? The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on. The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread. The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before.
You said
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that.
So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing.
the democrats don't want a short term CR they want a long term one so that they can "negotiate" afterwords when the republicans have given away their posision. What you said has nothing to do about how long the CR that democrats have offered.
You're making general statements without any facts that are strewn to your bias in this situation. for someone to respond to you they have to know what you're trying to actualy say other then what side your on.
He's saying that the Republicans have yet to offer a clean CR, short or otherwise, which is a factual statement.
I think it might be useful to identify what people are actually disagreeing about with respect to who is to blame for the shut down, and who is failing to negotiate. I think it boils down to different people having different views on what negotiation tactics are legitimate.
For example, say that a guy pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet. I refuse, and he shoots me. I think everyone would rightly blame the robber for the shooting, even though I also had the ability to prevent the shooting because I could have given up my wallet. This is because people generally do not view the threat of force as a legitimate negotiating tactic, so they would not blame me for the shooting as a result of me not trying to negotiate/give in to the robber.
As a result, I think the reason people in this thread disagree about who to blame for the shut down is because some of us view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics, while others do not.
Supporters of the Democrats' position believe that this is an illegitimate negotiating tactic, in the same way (though to a lesser extent) that threatening to shoot someone is illegitimate. Therefore, they argue that Democrats are not to blame for the shutdown. Instead they view the Democrats as refusing to give way to illegitimate coercion.
On the other hand, supporters of the Republican position view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics. As a result, they view the Republicans as employing a legitimate negotiating strategy and say that both sides are equally to blame because the Democrats are failing to negotiate in return. As a quick side note, I do not think one can be intellectually honest and argue that the Democrats are primarily to blame, because even if you think causing a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, both sides should share the blame equally because it was within the power of both to prevent the shut down.
If I am correct about this interpretation (specifically, that the primary difference between the two sides is over what constitutes a legitimate negotiating tactic) then people in this thread who are trying to convince others to adopt their point of view should focus on the legitimacy of the tactic employed by the Republicans, rather than blanket statements about how this side or that side has failed to negotiate.
Personally, I do not view the Republican strategy as being a legitimate means of negotiating. First, they are asking the Democrats to make policy concessions without offering any concessions in return. Allowing the government to function is not a concession to Democrats, it should be a priority of both parties. Second, if it works it could set a precedent that would cause significant harm to the political process. In the future, each time one of the parties is unable to obtain a goal through ordinary legislative action, it will simply shut down the government and demand concessions from the other party. Finally, I believe tactics that result in ~800K workers being furloughed and a fairly large hit to GDP should be avoided absent extreme circumstances, and I do not believe the ACA coming into effect qualifies as such.
If you happen to disagree about whether this negotiating tactic is legitimate, consider what you would think if Obama threatened to veto any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress added a provision to the bill banning private ownership of assault weapons (or some other provision that you find abhorrent). Obviously this would be a pretty silly thing for him to do, but try to consider whether it would also be a legitimate exercise of the President's veto power. If you think that it would not be, but have no problem with the House Republican's tactic, then I think you may be allowing your biases to cloud your thought process.
I think a better analogy is a big group dinner where a few people refuse to pay unless everyone agrees to forego the appetizer, even though it had previously been agreed upon. Additionally, some of the people at the table were not involved in the appetizer decision and if a decision is not reached soon the owner will throw everyone out of the restaurant.
What? I wasn't using the stickup analogy to describe the Republicans' tactics, just to illustrate a "negotiating" strategy that everyone can agree is illegitimate. I separately explained why I believe the Republicans' tactic is illegitimate, it would be pretty disingenuous of me to use a stickup analogy to do that.
Edit: Didn't you argue the other day that threatening a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, so both sides are equally to blame? I don't have a problem with that viewpoint, provided you can explain why it's a legitimate tactic that both sides can/should be able to use in the future.
Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check".
The politics of it aside, if it has the votes and it would end the shut down, but republicans won't allow a vote on it through rule changes, how do we end up at democrats want the shutdown to continue? It would end if house dems weren't reduced to just watching from the sidelines.
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that. they could keep it going for 3 days or so at a time like what the democrats did with jimmy carter back in the day but they want more long term then that so it'll go out of the media cycle and look back for the republicans again when nothing gets done between now and then.
Except even that short term CR wasn't offered by the Republicans without concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly said they would be willing to negotiate if the government was opened. Its the Republicans that are not willing to open the government even for a very limited time without concessions.
They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all.
Do you even read what im replying to? In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation? The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on. The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread. The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before.
You said
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that.
So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing.
the democrats don't want a short term CR they want a long term one so that they can "negotiate" afterwords when the republicans have given away their posision. What you said has nothing to do about how long the CR that democrats have offered.
You're making general statements without any facts that are strewn to your bias in this situation. for someone to respond to you they have to know what you're trying to actualy say other then what side your on.
He's saying that the Republicans have yet to offer a clean CR, short or otherwise, which is a factual statement.
I think it might be useful to identify what people are actually disagreeing about with respect to who is to blame for the shut down, and who is failing to negotiate. I think it boils down to different people having different views on what negotiation tactics are legitimate.
For example, say that a guy pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet. I refuse, and he shoots me. I think everyone would rightly blame the robber for the shooting, even though I also had the ability to prevent the shooting because I could have given up my wallet. This is because people generally do not view the threat of force as a legitimate negotiating tactic, so they would not blame me for the shooting as a result of me not trying to negotiate/give in to the robber.
As a result, I think the reason people in this thread disagree about who to blame for the shut down is because some of us view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics, while others do not.
Supporters of the Democrats' position believe that this is an illegitimate negotiating tactic, in the same way (though to a lesser extent) that threatening to shoot someone is illegitimate. Therefore, they argue that Democrats are not to blame for the shutdown. Instead they view the Democrats as refusing to give way to illegitimate coercion.
On the other hand, supporters of the Republican position view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics. As a result, they view the Republicans as employing a legitimate negotiating strategy and say that both sides are equally to blame because the Democrats are failing to negotiate in return. As a quick side note, I do not think one can be intellectually honest and argue that the Democrats are primarily to blame, because even if you think causing a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, both sides should share the blame equally because it was within the power of both to prevent the shut down.
If I am correct about this interpretation (specifically, that the primary difference between the two sides is over what constitutes a legitimate negotiating tactic) then people in this thread who are trying to convince others to adopt their point of view should focus on the legitimacy of the tactic employed by the Republicans, rather than blanket statements about how this side or that side has failed to negotiate.
Personally, I do not view the Republican strategy as being a legitimate means of negotiating. First, they are asking the Democrats to make policy concessions without offering any concessions in return. Allowing the government to function is not a concession to Democrats, it should be a priority of both parties. Second, if it works it could set a precedent that would cause significant harm to the political process. In the future, each time one of the parties is unable to obtain a goal through ordinary legislative action, it will simply shut down the government and demand concessions from the other party. Finally, I believe tactics that result in ~800K workers being furloughed and a fairly large hit to GDP should be avoided absent extreme circumstances, and I do not believe the ACA coming into effect qualifies as such.
If you happen to disagree about whether this negotiating tactic is legitimate, consider what you would think if Obama threatened to veto any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress added a provision to the bill banning private ownership of assault weapons (or some other provision that you find abhorrent). Obviously this would be a pretty silly thing for him to do, but try to consider whether it would also be a legitimate exercise of the President's veto power. If you think that it would not be, but have no problem with the House Republican's tactic, then I think you may be allowing your biases to cloud your thought process.
I think a better analogy is a big group dinner where a few people refuse to pay unless everyone agrees to forego the appetizer, even though it had previously been agreed upon. Additionally, some of the people at the table were not involved in the appetizer decision and if a decision is not reached soon the owner will throw everyone out of the restaurant.
What? I wasn't using the stickup analogy to describe the Republicans' tactics, just to illustrate a "negotiating" strategy that everyone can agree is illegitimate. I separately explained why I believe the Republicans' tactic is illegitimate, it would be pretty disingenuous of me to use a stickup analogy to do that.
But not everything thinks its illegitimate as you said yourself. There are people who do, tho like you i disagree with them. As for Johnny's analogy it is more or less exactly what is the situation here although the stakes are ofc a bit higher then at a dinner party ^^
On October 16 2013 00:22 mainerd wrote: [quote] That's very cynical. The democrats would end the shut down in a heartbeat if they could bring a clean bill to the house floor, which the republicans have blocked through rule changes. It would probably have enough votes to pass. Just because the poll numbers are reflecting increasing dissatisfaction with the republicans, it doesn't mean the democrats wouldn't put an end to this if they could. They can't, not without unreasonable concessions.
Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check".
The politics of it aside, if it has the votes and it would end the shut down, but republicans won't allow a vote on it through rule changes, how do we end up at democrats want the shutdown to continue? It would end if house dems weren't reduced to just watching from the sidelines.
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that. they could keep it going for 3 days or so at a time like what the democrats did with jimmy carter back in the day but they want more long term then that so it'll go out of the media cycle and look back for the republicans again when nothing gets done between now and then.
Except even that short term CR wasn't offered by the Republicans without concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly said they would be willing to negotiate if the government was opened. Its the Republicans that are not willing to open the government even for a very limited time without concessions.
They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all.
Do you even read what im replying to? In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation? The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on. The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread. The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before.
You said
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that.
So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing.
the democrats don't want a short term CR they want a long term one so that they can "negotiate" afterwords when the republicans have given away their posision. What you said has nothing to do about how long the CR that democrats have offered.
You're making general statements without any facts that are strewn to your bias in this situation. for someone to respond to you they have to know what you're trying to actualy say other then what side your on.
He's saying that the Republicans have yet to offer a clean CR, short or otherwise, which is a factual statement.
I think it might be useful to identify what people are actually disagreeing about with respect to who is to blame for the shut down, and who is failing to negotiate. I think it boils down to different people having different views on what negotiation tactics are legitimate.
For example, say that a guy pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet. I refuse, and he shoots me. I think everyone would rightly blame the robber for the shooting, even though I also had the ability to prevent the shooting because I could have given up my wallet. This is because people generally do not view the threat of force as a legitimate negotiating tactic, so they would not blame me for the shooting as a result of me not trying to negotiate/give in to the robber.
As a result, I think the reason people in this thread disagree about who to blame for the shut down is because some of us view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics, while others do not.
Supporters of the Democrats' position believe that this is an illegitimate negotiating tactic, in the same way (though to a lesser extent) that threatening to shoot someone is illegitimate. Therefore, they argue that Democrats are not to blame for the shutdown. Instead they view the Democrats as refusing to give way to illegitimate coercion.
On the other hand, supporters of the Republican position view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics. As a result, they view the Republicans as employing a legitimate negotiating strategy and say that both sides are equally to blame because the Democrats are failing to negotiate in return. As a quick side note, I do not think one can be intellectually honest and argue that the Democrats are primarily to blame, because even if you think causing a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, both sides should share the blame equally because it was within the power of both to prevent the shut down.
If I am correct about this interpretation (specifically, that the primary difference between the two sides is over what constitutes a legitimate negotiating tactic) then people in this thread who are trying to convince others to adopt their point of view should focus on the legitimacy of the tactic employed by the Republicans, rather than blanket statements about how this side or that side has failed to negotiate.
Personally, I do not view the Republican strategy as being a legitimate means of negotiating. First, they are asking the Democrats to make policy concessions without offering any concessions in return. Allowing the government to function is not a concession to Democrats, it should be a priority of both parties. Second, if it works it could set a precedent that would cause significant harm to the political process. In the future, each time one of the parties is unable to obtain a goal through ordinary legislative action, it will simply shut down the government and demand concessions from the other party. Finally, I believe tactics that result in ~800K workers being furloughed and a fairly large hit to GDP should be avoided absent extreme circumstances, and I do not believe the ACA coming into effect qualifies as such.
If you happen to disagree about whether this negotiating tactic is legitimate, consider what you would think if Obama threatened to veto any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress added a provision to the bill banning private ownership of assault weapons (or some other provision that you find abhorrent). Obviously this would be a pretty silly thing for him to do, but try to consider whether it would also be a legitimate exercise of the President's veto power. If you think that it would not be, but have no problem with the House Republican's tactic, then I think you may be allowing your biases to cloud your thought process.
I think a better analogy is a big group dinner where a few people refuse to pay unless everyone agrees to forego the appetizer, even though it had previously been agreed upon. Additionally, some of the people at the table were not involved in the appetizer decision and if a decision is not reached soon the owner will throw everyone out of the restaurant.
But the restaurant already spent time and money putting the shrimp cocktail appetizer together - when the table ordered it. It's not completely finished, but if they don't get paid for their work, they won't serve you at the restaurant anymore.
Not to mention, the only deal you'll accept from the rest of your table is to have the kitchen keep the cocktail sauce in the kitchen for one year, and only bring out the cold shrimp part of the shrimp cocktail. You explain that holding back the cocktail sauce will save money and give us all time to think if we actually like the cocktail shrimp or not. Since our date never had shrimp before, she is put off by the cold plain shrimp. This leaves a bad impression with our date, who we wanted to impress with the dinner. She thinks that the shrimp cocktail is a terrible appetizer because there is no cocktail sauce, thereby playing into your original thought that we shouldn't have ordered the shrimp cocktail, it sucks. There's no way we are going to compromise with that kind of deal. It's almost like a lose-lose.
So now instead, you tell us that you will not let any of us pay for the entire bill because of the shrimp cocktail. The restaurant is closing in about 1 hour, and our date is frustrated by our argument. She doesn't really understand the whole discussion fully, but if we get booted out of the restaurant and banned, it's going to look very terrible for us.
The more I see of this, the more I favor a constitutional amendment to stop this from happening again with an automatic CR; and with a penalty clause that kicks all of congress out of office if they don't make a budget on time.
Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check".
The politics of it aside, if it has the votes and it would end the shut down, but republicans won't allow a vote on it through rule changes, how do we end up at democrats want the shutdown to continue? It would end if house dems weren't reduced to just watching from the sidelines.
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that. they could keep it going for 3 days or so at a time like what the democrats did with jimmy carter back in the day but they want more long term then that so it'll go out of the media cycle and look back for the republicans again when nothing gets done between now and then.
Except even that short term CR wasn't offered by the Republicans without concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly said they would be willing to negotiate if the government was opened. Its the Republicans that are not willing to open the government even for a very limited time without concessions.
They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all.
Do you even read what im replying to? In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation? The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on. The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread. The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before.
You said
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that.
So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing.
the democrats don't want a short term CR they want a long term one so that they can "negotiate" afterwords when the republicans have given away their posision. What you said has nothing to do about how long the CR that democrats have offered.
You're making general statements without any facts that are strewn to your bias in this situation. for someone to respond to you they have to know what you're trying to actualy say other then what side your on.
He's saying that the Republicans have yet to offer a clean CR, short or otherwise, which is a factual statement.
I think it might be useful to identify what people are actually disagreeing about with respect to who is to blame for the shut down, and who is failing to negotiate. I think it boils down to different people having different views on what negotiation tactics are legitimate.
For example, say that a guy pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet. I refuse, and he shoots me. I think everyone would rightly blame the robber for the shooting, even though I also had the ability to prevent the shooting because I could have given up my wallet. This is because people generally do not view the threat of force as a legitimate negotiating tactic, so they would not blame me for the shooting as a result of me not trying to negotiate/give in to the robber.
As a result, I think the reason people in this thread disagree about who to blame for the shut down is because some of us view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics, while others do not.
Supporters of the Democrats' position believe that this is an illegitimate negotiating tactic, in the same way (though to a lesser extent) that threatening to shoot someone is illegitimate. Therefore, they argue that Democrats are not to blame for the shutdown. Instead they view the Democrats as refusing to give way to illegitimate coercion.
On the other hand, supporters of the Republican position view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics. As a result, they view the Republicans as employing a legitimate negotiating strategy and say that both sides are equally to blame because the Democrats are failing to negotiate in return. As a quick side note, I do not think one can be intellectually honest and argue that the Democrats are primarily to blame, because even if you think causing a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, both sides should share the blame equally because it was within the power of both to prevent the shut down.
If I am correct about this interpretation (specifically, that the primary difference between the two sides is over what constitutes a legitimate negotiating tactic) then people in this thread who are trying to convince others to adopt their point of view should focus on the legitimacy of the tactic employed by the Republicans, rather than blanket statements about how this side or that side has failed to negotiate.
Personally, I do not view the Republican strategy as being a legitimate means of negotiating. First, they are asking the Democrats to make policy concessions without offering any concessions in return. Allowing the government to function is not a concession to Democrats, it should be a priority of both parties. Second, if it works it could set a precedent that would cause significant harm to the political process. In the future, each time one of the parties is unable to obtain a goal through ordinary legislative action, it will simply shut down the government and demand concessions from the other party. Finally, I believe tactics that result in ~800K workers being furloughed and a fairly large hit to GDP should be avoided absent extreme circumstances, and I do not believe the ACA coming into effect qualifies as such.
If you happen to disagree about whether this negotiating tactic is legitimate, consider what you would think if Obama threatened to veto any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress added a provision to the bill banning private ownership of assault weapons (or some other provision that you find abhorrent). Obviously this would be a pretty silly thing for him to do, but try to consider whether it would also be a legitimate exercise of the President's veto power. If you think that it would not be, but have no problem with the House Republican's tactic, then I think you may be allowing your biases to cloud your thought process.
I think a better analogy is a big group dinner where a few people refuse to pay unless everyone agrees to forego the appetizer, even though it had previously been agreed upon. Additionally, some of the people at the table were not involved in the appetizer decision and if a decision is not reached soon the owner will throw everyone out of the restaurant.
What? I wasn't using the stickup analogy to describe the Republicans' tactics, just to illustrate a "negotiating" strategy that everyone can agree is illegitimate. I separately explained why I believe the Republicans' tactic is illegitimate, it would be pretty disingenuous of me to use a stickup analogy to do that.
Edit: Didn't you argue the other day that threatening a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, so both sides are equally to blame? I don't have a problem with that viewpoint, provided you can explain why it's a legitimate tactic that both sides can/should be able to use in the future.
I don't think Reps view themselves as threatening or causing a shutdown. A shutdown happens only when both sides refuse to agree. It's a natural consequence, not one imposed by either party.
On October 16 2013 03:00 Gorsameth wrote: Obama has long since made plans for what to do when the default happens. The country will keep running, the debt will still be payed. Nothing is going to happen other then the Republicans looking even more stupid then they already do for not threatening but actually killing the hostage.
You are severely downplaying the effects of a default. There are many things both inside and outside the USA that depend on the US being able to always pay its bills on time. Destroying the 'full faith and credit" of the US is serious.
Not to mention how ridiculous it is to have the interest rates increased for no valid reason...
Not to mention the effects of the money multiplier upon those who are not paid in the short run. Even if they do pay everyone back in the long run, the short run will result in a significant contraction of the U.S. economy. We still haven't recovered from the last recession.
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?
Haven't visited the thread in a while...anyone know if House Republicans have dealt with this procedural change?
On October 16 2013 00:47 mainerd wrote: [quote] The politics of it aside, if it has the votes and it would end the shut down, but republicans won't allow a vote on it through rule changes, how do we end up at democrats want the shutdown to continue? It would end if house dems weren't reduced to just watching from the sidelines.
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that. they could keep it going for 3 days or so at a time like what the democrats did with jimmy carter back in the day but they want more long term then that so it'll go out of the media cycle and look back for the republicans again when nothing gets done between now and then.
Except even that short term CR wasn't offered by the Republicans without concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly said they would be willing to negotiate if the government was opened. Its the Republicans that are not willing to open the government even for a very limited time without concessions.
They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all.
Do you even read what im replying to? In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation? The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on. The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread. The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before.
You said
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that.
So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing.
the democrats don't want a short term CR they want a long term one so that they can "negotiate" afterwords when the republicans have given away their posision. What you said has nothing to do about how long the CR that democrats have offered.
You're making general statements without any facts that are strewn to your bias in this situation. for someone to respond to you they have to know what you're trying to actualy say other then what side your on.
He's saying that the Republicans have yet to offer a clean CR, short or otherwise, which is a factual statement.
I think it might be useful to identify what people are actually disagreeing about with respect to who is to blame for the shut down, and who is failing to negotiate. I think it boils down to different people having different views on what negotiation tactics are legitimate.
For example, say that a guy pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet. I refuse, and he shoots me. I think everyone would rightly blame the robber for the shooting, even though I also had the ability to prevent the shooting because I could have given up my wallet. This is because people generally do not view the threat of force as a legitimate negotiating tactic, so they would not blame me for the shooting as a result of me not trying to negotiate/give in to the robber.
As a result, I think the reason people in this thread disagree about who to blame for the shut down is because some of us view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics, while others do not.
Supporters of the Democrats' position believe that this is an illegitimate negotiating tactic, in the same way (though to a lesser extent) that threatening to shoot someone is illegitimate. Therefore, they argue that Democrats are not to blame for the shutdown. Instead they view the Democrats as refusing to give way to illegitimate coercion.
On the other hand, supporters of the Republican position view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics. As a result, they view the Republicans as employing a legitimate negotiating strategy and say that both sides are equally to blame because the Democrats are failing to negotiate in return. As a quick side note, I do not think one can be intellectually honest and argue that the Democrats are primarily to blame, because even if you think causing a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, both sides should share the blame equally because it was within the power of both to prevent the shut down.
If I am correct about this interpretation (specifically, that the primary difference between the two sides is over what constitutes a legitimate negotiating tactic) then people in this thread who are trying to convince others to adopt their point of view should focus on the legitimacy of the tactic employed by the Republicans, rather than blanket statements about how this side or that side has failed to negotiate.
Personally, I do not view the Republican strategy as being a legitimate means of negotiating. First, they are asking the Democrats to make policy concessions without offering any concessions in return. Allowing the government to function is not a concession to Democrats, it should be a priority of both parties. Second, if it works it could set a precedent that would cause significant harm to the political process. In the future, each time one of the parties is unable to obtain a goal through ordinary legislative action, it will simply shut down the government and demand concessions from the other party. Finally, I believe tactics that result in ~800K workers being furloughed and a fairly large hit to GDP should be avoided absent extreme circumstances, and I do not believe the ACA coming into effect qualifies as such.
If you happen to disagree about whether this negotiating tactic is legitimate, consider what you would think if Obama threatened to veto any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress added a provision to the bill banning private ownership of assault weapons (or some other provision that you find abhorrent). Obviously this would be a pretty silly thing for him to do, but try to consider whether it would also be a legitimate exercise of the President's veto power. If you think that it would not be, but have no problem with the House Republican's tactic, then I think you may be allowing your biases to cloud your thought process.
I think a better analogy is a big group dinner where a few people refuse to pay unless everyone agrees to forego the appetizer, even though it had previously been agreed upon. Additionally, some of the people at the table were not involved in the appetizer decision and if a decision is not reached soon the owner will throw everyone out of the restaurant.
What? I wasn't using the stickup analogy to describe the Republicans' tactics, just to illustrate a "negotiating" strategy that everyone can agree is illegitimate. I separately explained why I believe the Republicans' tactic is illegitimate, it would be pretty disingenuous of me to use a stickup analogy to do that.
Edit: Didn't you argue the other day that threatening a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, so both sides are equally to blame? I don't have a problem with that viewpoint, provided you can explain why it's a legitimate tactic that both sides can/should be able to use in the future.
I don't think Reps view themselves as threatening or causing a shutdown. A shutdown happens only when both sides refuse to agree. It's a natural consequence, not one imposed by either party.
To many Americans, the shutdown came out of nowhere. But interviews with a wide array of conservatives show that the confrontation that precipitated the crisis was the outgrowth of a long-running effort to undo the law, the Affordable Care Act, since its passage in 2010 — waged by a galaxy of conservative groups with more money, organized tactics and interconnections than is commonly known.
If you are unwilling to concede that the GOP's strategy has centered around using the threat of a shut down to obtain concessions from Democrats than you and I live in different universes and I don't think continuing this conversation will be very fruitful...
EPT![[image loading]](http://ipatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/cost12.png)
