US govt shutdown

[BazBear]

In specific we are deeply divided over the desirability of the Obama care health care plan. So despite the fact it was made law, the plan does not have widespread popular support among the electorate and the ongoing discussion is currently playing out through this budget debate and government shutdown. 

Actually, this isn't true.

The law passed the House with a vote of 220–215 vote.  At the legislative level that is about as deep of a division as it can be.  How far that goes in representing voters is certainly more of a question but is is clear there is no unity within the country on the desirability of Obamacare or any national health plan. Its what I call a deep division.

Some people disapprove of government health care on principle, and they're entitled to that.  But they should not, then, have anything to do with Medicare, either, and it bugs the bejeezus out of me that they don't seem to know that.

Trying to put a rationale like this on others (if you believe this you shouldn't do that) is kind of a silly strawman that people attach to opponents for political reasons. Not really an sound argument.

I agree with you that the divisions are great, but I fear the underhanded blackmail-ish type tactics being pushed by a minority of GOP members of congress, enabled by a "tea-party whipped" Speaker, are a genie best left in the bottle. The President must not flinch on this one (or at most give them the repeal on taxes of medical equipment they want, as a face saving but minor compromise). Once this genie is out, both parties will be pulling this shit when they are in the minority, and nothing will ever truly be settled.

[Echnaton]

"If you don't believe in governmental health care, you shouldn't use governmental health care" is a silly strawman?

Yes.

One may not "believe" that a law should be a law but one may still follow it or take advantage of the offerings provided by it without being unethical, immoral or illogical.  Also You are equating Obamacare and Medicare as if they are the exact same thing, which they are not.


ETA

To modify my statement, it is not a strawman because it does not try to say another is making that argument.  It is a politically motivated but illogical argument.  And my apology for calling it "silly."  I take you seriously even if we disagree. 

[Echnaton]

Once this genie is out, both parties will be pulling this shit when they are in the minority, and nothing will ever truly be settled.

Our real problem here is that the Republicans are the majority in the House.  And lets face it, nothing is ever truly settled in politics.

[gillianren]

One may not "believe" that a law should be a law but one may still follow it or take advantage of the offerings provided by it without being unethical, immoral or illogical.  Also You are equating Obamacare and Medicare as if they are the exact same thing, which they are not.

Which is one of my problems with it, as it happens--Medicare for all, and if you want expensive private insurance (and it is expensive), have at.  There are too many people without insurance, and the way insurance is handled in the country drives up prices for everyone.  But I'm not actually talking about the ACA here.  I'm saying that the people who are complaining about it because it is government healthcare often take advantage of government healthcare on their own.

As it happens, I think that's hypocritical.  It's not the same as obeying a law with which you disagree, because no one is forcing people to use their Medicare benefits.  However, a lot of people insist that Medicare is essentially their God-given right, but they still go to political rallies with signs demanding that the government get out of healthcare.  It's either hypocrisy or ignorance of the system.  If you are opposed to a system, don't use it.  If you use it, don't try to take it away from other people.  This seems like basic sense--and decency--to me, but I'd love to know how I'm wrong about that.

[Echnaton]

If you are opposed to a system, don't use it.

If you are opposed to a system, but still forced to pay taxes to support it, as we all are, there is nothing hypocritical about using what you pay for.  You are entitled to it by law.  I am, for instance, opposed to being forced to pay into Social Security, but I do pay as required by law and intend to collect as I am entitled to.  That is not hypocritical.

Think back to when we had federally mandated 55 MPH speed limits.  Today, someone can believe we should reinstitute the mandate and still drive above 55 without being a hypocrite.  If for no reason other than road safety.

[smartcooky]

I was told to expect it to last from one to thirty days.  It will end when one side blinks before the other.

Ranb

[Glom]

It's pure gold some of these quotables.

One Congressman justified his obstinate stance by saying this bill is the worst law ever passed by man.

[Peter B]

Things that baffle me about health care in the USA:

1. It's so expensive. I understand that the US govt spends twice as much per person on healthcare as the Australian govt, yet our system seems to work so much better.

2. Conservatives rail against Obamacare as socialist and therefore bad, yet it's basically the same concept as is used in countries like Australia and the UK which are (a) close American allies and (b) not socialist.

[Peter B]

I'm currently a contractor working for a government department in payroll (my job involves calculating and processing payments for people who've been made redundant).

I've been trying to imagine what it'd be like doing payroll work in the US government. While it's probably easy enough these days to get the systems people to prepare a program to stop everyone's pay, I also imagine the job would get that little bit trickier when you have to exclude certain groups of people, and when people's pay has to be cut off part way through a pay period. Then, whenever the shutdown stops, you'd have to reverse it all to restart everyone's pay.

On top of that, there's the timing issue of the pay cycle; whatever the payday is, there's a period before that of up to a week which is required to prepare the pay and disburse the funds to everyone's banks, and in that period of time it's essentially impossible to change someone's pay; all you can do is let it go through or stop it altogether. So depending on where in the pay cycle you're up to, stopping everyone's pay could involve a heap of last-minute work, as could restarting it.

But given I'm a payroll person, other little questions occur to me. Does being stood down without pay affect how much leave you accrue? Does it count as service for calculating severance pay for people who are later made redundant? What happens if someone's already signed up to be made redundant on a particular day, and that day now falls within the shutdown period?

It's easy for the politicians to play these games, but it must be terribly demoralising for the thousands of people who work for the government who are the collateral damage in these events.

[smartcooky]

It's pure gold some of these quotables.

One Congressman justified his obstinate stance by saying this bill is the worst law ever passed by man.

Err, really? What an ignorant prat?

I wonder if he has ever heard of "Apartheid" or the "Nürnberger Gesetze"?

[qt]

It's not the same as obeying a law with which you disagree, because no one is forcing people to use their Medicare benefits.

It's good to know that critics of government-provided health care have the same freedom to refuse benefits from a system they don't support, that critics of employer-provided health care have.

[qt]

But given I'm a payroll person, other little questions occur to me. Does being stood down without pay affect how much leave you accrue? Does it count as service for calculating severance pay for people who are later made redundant? What happens if someone's already signed up to be made redundant on a particular day, and that day now falls within the shutdown period?

All interesting.

I wonder if there were people who had accepted new jobs starting October 1.  If they quit up until the time this is all over, maybe they'll get paid retroactively, without ever having shown up for the job at all.  That would be a good one.

[Glom]

Things that baffle me about health care in the USA:

1. It's so expensive. I understand that the US govt spends twice as much per person on healthcare as the Australian govt, yet our system seems to work so much better.

2. Conservatives rail against Obamacare as socialist and therefore bad, yet it's basically the same concept as is used in countries like Australia and the UK which are (a) close American allies and (b) not socialist.

Is it the government or just everyone? I have heard that the American healthcare system is more expensive as a whole than the UK's, but I think that was how much Americans pay directly and through government funding.

I don't think Obamacare is similar to the UK's NHS. AIUI, it is basically heavier regulation and subsidising of the existing insurance based system to allow more people to get covered. The NHS on the other hand is a giant government body that provides healthcare directly.

It's pure gold some of these quotables.

One Congressman justified his obstinate stance by saying this bill is the worst law ever passed by man.

Err, really? What an ignorant prat?

I wonder if he has ever heard of "Apartheid" or the "Nürnberger Gesetze"?

Jon Stewart pointed out that even within the US, it's going up against laws like the Jim Crow laws.

[qt]

Jon Stewart pointed out that even within the US, it's going up against laws like the Jim Crow laws.

FATCA is the one which got me to tear up my membership card.  But it was really just the straw that broke the camel's back.

2. Conservatives rail against Obamacare as socialist and therefore bad, yet it's basically the same concept as is used in countries like Australia and the UK which are (a) close American allies and (b) not socialist.

You could tell them that Australia and the UK are not socialist, and let us know what they say to that.

[gillianren]

Is it the government or just everyone? I have heard that the American healthcare system is more expensive as a whole than the UK's, but I think that was how much Americans pay directly and through government funding.

Our cost per procedure is higher.  See, in our system, it's expected that your insurance company will wrangle the price down.  And they do.  Routinely.  However, if you don't have insurance, or you've run out of what your insurance will cover in a year, or some other variant on having to pay for it out-of-pocket, there's no one to wrangle it down for you.  You just pay what they charge you.  I'm not sure if it's possible to negotiate directly with the hospital or not.  But it means that Americans end up getting charged insanely high prices for things that they could literally walk down the block and buy themselves for a tiny, tiny fraction of the price--the amount you're charged for even simple things like gauze pads and aspirin in a hospital results from the usual practice of the hospital and the insurance company negotiating for a more sensible price.

I actually had an employer who provided health care once, when I still had a job.  It was officially designated as "supplemental" insurance.  It paid up to $300 a year for office visits, and no more than (as I recall) $40 per visit.  As I was trying to calculate how much therapy that would cover in a year (just enough to trigger my abandonment issues, was what I worked out), I was told this wouldn't cover mental health.  Which, for the record, is one of the changes in the new health care laws.  Insurance must cover mental health care.  Because it's an illness.  Oh, and of course no one where I worked could afford insurance to supplement; the only people who had insurance were either young enough to still be on their parents' insurance (and under the new laws, the age where you can do that has gone up!) or poor enough, despite working a full-time job, to qualify for Medicaid.