Federal Government Shutdown

[Airyaman]

When you speak of Denmark you can compare it, population wise, to Wisconsin. Germany is like California, New York, and Texas. People sometimes fail to realize that central government is woefully inefficient for a country our size, and things would be much better if states had more power.

Reality called, it needs your attention and it was saying something about the house of congress and history of senatorial deadlocks that and something about how this really would be more efficient if you gave even more power to states that have unequal economic, populace, and social standings.

What has become reality is not what was intended when the laws of this country were set up, so you are using reality to judge things now against what they might have been if laws had been followed. Yeah, pie in the sky, I know, but that's the problem when you make rules and then fail to live by them.

If there was a state that had many of the things you desire with a central government that stayed within its constitutional limits, then you could just move to that state and not to another country across the world. That is the way it should work, but instead we are forcing everyone to stick the square peg in the round hole.

Please tell me more about these constitutional limits and why we should cling so heavily to them other than merely stating that it's what was intended.

Because if we did, central government would be less invasive and a whole helluva lot smaller. A constitutional government would also require less tax payer money, obviously.

Here's how you do it properly: hold the fed to their constitution limits, and if you don't like the constitution as is, amend it instead of mostly ignoring it.

I live in the rural south (I'll wait on the insults for that one), so how many of us want to live here might not agree with how you would like to live.

And many other states might trample all over yours if given more individual power.

"Might" is the operative word here.

See, I think you're arguing for self-governance of the states, but how does that translate to their relations with one another? You are stating that each state should be beholden only to itself, free to fuck over certain members of its inhabitants. What if how one state behaves starts causing conflicts with others? Would the federal government then step in to alleviate the conflict? But then, wouldn't that just be the government once again telling states what they can and cannot do? What if those conflicts start leading to boycotts of different states? Or even armed conflict? You're asking for less order, more chaos, which can and in all likelihood will lead to a huge mess of problems that will destabilize the nation as a whole. This is not conjecture; this is just human nature. There's a reason anarchy would not work for this very reason and while I am not saying you are advocating anarchy, I AM saying that is a step in that general direction; less unity, more individuality. The self means more than the whole, all because you are mad about, what, PPACA or something or the congressional shutdown? What is the federal government doing that is so thoroughly chapping your ass that you feel your state and every other state should become more self-governing? I would like to hear the reasoning for this because honestly, to me, it just doesn't make any sense.

This is where people lose it. You are talking about extremes here as the default position. There is no idea of "self governance" in that states can do as they please, this is not the wild west, there is still to be central government oversight. Just no where near the levels we see today. its very difficult to roll things back, but it does not appear that the present approach is working well.

People say the Mass care is well like and successful. Bravo, state power. That is how health care should be approached instead of at a national level with 314 million people across fifty states and thousands of cities and towns.

OK, now I actually see your reasoning and where you're coming from, and of course it's with the PPACA. I'm not going to run on about the PPACA again, I've spoken enough about it, but I will say that this is a seriously weak, short-sighted, and narrow-minded reason for this kind of political stance. If there's other reasons, of course, feel free to tell me of them and I'll be willing to hear you out, though I cannot promise I will agree with any of them.

The PPACA is just another symptom of the overall condition. Drug laws are another, as are marriage laws, education, etc. None of these things should, imo, have federal involvement, at least not to present levels.

As an example, what if I enjoyed a doobie on the weekends? If I was caught with one where I live, I might be arrested and then imprisoned, whereas if I lived in Colorado...well, you get the picture. However, that dope smoker in CO is still breaking federal drug law so in theory, they could still face federal imprisonment. Not likely to happen, but its still the way the laws presently work.

Just a start...

[Whateverist]

What has become reality is not what was intended when the laws of this country were set up, so you are using reality to judge things now against what they might have been if laws had been followed. Yeah, pie in the sky, I know, but that's the problem when you make rules and then fail to live by them.

Why do you place so much emphasis on this? The founders weren't demigods. They were just the dudes (sorry ladies) in a position to make the call at that time. Now we're the dudes and dudettes who get to make the call here. The constitution is more fluid than you give it credit for. Its interpretation like our circumstances are able to evolve. If the supreme court has not sided with you about the abrogation of state's rights I don't see why we should.

[Airyaman]

What has become reality is not what was intended when the laws of this country were set up, so you are using reality to judge things now against what they might have been if laws had been followed. Yeah, pie in the sky, I know, but that's the problem when you make rules and then fail to live by them.

Why do you place so much emphasis on this? The founders weren't demigods. They were just the dudes (sorry ladies) in a position to make the call at that time. Now we're the dudes and dudettes who get to make the call here. The constitution is more fluid than you give it credit for. Its interpretation like our circumstances are able to evolve. If the supreme court has not sided with you about the abrogation of state's rights I don't see why we should.

How often are states rights brought to the SCOTUS?

[Raeven]

Well, Airyaman, what's your solution for the health care mess we're in, then? Truly, I'm sick to pieces of criticism for the PPACA, with no alternative ever suggested. It's not enough to dislike it. If you think the system we have now is acceptable, then we don't even have a starting point to chat about it.

Here's a story: A few years ago, Singapore decided it was time for them to implement a national health care system. They started looking around at all the available models in the world. Someone asked them, did you look at how they're doing it in the USA? Of course, they replied. And what did you learn? How not to do it, they said. I couldn't agree more.

A for-profit, employer-based system is ridiculous. Health insurance companies routinely deny care so they can improve their bottom lines (and you worry about "death panels"??). The pure capitalism approach does not work in this model, because who is going to go "stop, shop and negotiate" for competitive rates when they just broke their leg? I mean, really -- do people not get this?

Further, employer-based health insurance is a horrible hindrance to the entrepreneurial spirit. I know at least a half dozen folks who would LOVE to try self-employment, but they can't -- because they have no reasonable alternative for their current employer's group health plan. It also causes people to stick with jobs they hate, just because they need the insurance. Surely you know one or two people like that?

Like others here, I would have much preferred a single payer system. But I understand the political reasons why that wasn't possible, and I admire Obama tremendously for accomplishing what no one else could in more than 90 years -- making inroads into changing our existing crap system. (And he did it while simultaneously managing an economic crisis not before seen in the world.) Sure, it's only half a loaf -- but it's better than what we've had, and there's nothing that says it has to stay this way for time immemorial. The next logical step is to complete what Obama proposed: Include a government-run option to the Exchange (like Medicare for all) instead of only the private exchanges we have now under the PPACA. And hopefully beyond that, single payer.

That's what I'd like to see. So... instead of just bitching about the PPACA, what's YOUR solution?

[Psykhronic]

Missluckie - It is my understanding that disability is still funded, and I am on SSI myself and have received payment. What relating to your disability was cut from the shutdown? I am purely curious and not filled with doubt, of course

[Airyaman]

I wish I had a solution, if I did then you'd see me on TV! But the PPACA is so huge that we won't know how good or bad it is until we see parts of it roll out.

I simply don't like the idea of forcing people to buy health care coverage, and I really don't care if it was an idea stolen from republicans or Massachusetts. I also don't like that the administration has made changes to the law by executive order, and think he should be taken to SCOTUS over some of those orders to see if he has the power to actually do some of the things he has.

In the end though, I believe the PPACA is the result of lazy ass politicians who push problems down the road until someone takes extreme action. Its the same way with the debt, immigration, etc. Congress simply does not do its job until they are forced to, yet we keep voting the same dumb asses back in because none of us want their jobs, and only clowns run for political office now. It really is a fucked up mess, but its that way because most of us allowed it to get there. I say "us" to include myself.

[Raeven]

I wish I had a solution, if I did then you'd see me on TV! But the PPACA is so huge that we won't know how good or bad it is until we see parts of it roll out.

I simply don't like the idea of forcing people to buy health care coverage, and I really don't care if it was an idea stolen from republicans or Massachusetts.

But why? Do you think you will never, ever need it? No one can guarantee that. Do you object to being made to carry auto insurance, too? What's the difference?

I also don't like that the administration has made changes to the law by executive order, and think he should be taken to SCOTUS over some of those orders to see if he has the power to actually do some of the things he has.

If you were as knowledgeable about the legislation from the employer side as I am (not by choice, but by reason of my work), this would make total sense to you. Health care in this country as it has evolved is a massive, Gordian knot. Are you familiar with Health FSAs, HSAs, HDHPs and HRAs? I am. Most everyone in this country uses one or more of those. There is preferred tax treatment involved in the use of each. How does the PPACA interact with all those programs? What about employees who elect to go outside of their group health plans and instead sign up for coverage offered through the PPACA? Should they still enjoy tax-favored treatment for the premiums they pay? If yes, how? Through which mechanism? What if the employees elect differing coverage through the Exchange? Does the employer pay the providers directly, or does the individual employee? How many full time employees did you have in your last calendar year? How do we define a "full-time" employee? Do we count those who terminated, or only those who are presently still employed with the company? How do we determine whether our current group health plan is "affordable," as defined by the PPACA?

Do you begin to appreciate the complexity of how the PPACA will interact with the health care system as it currently exists for employers? This is NOT a problem created by the PPACA. It's a problem created by the fact that the PPACA must be made to work with what we already have -- which is a pretty big mess.

On the employee side, it's simple: Enroll in something, whether company sponsored or otherwise, or pay a fine.

That's why Obama made an executive decision to delay fining employers for a year. And trust me; if there is a way for that to be brought before the SCOTUS to determine if he was outside his authority, it will.

In the end though, I believe the PPACA is the result of lazy ass politicians who push problems down the road until someone takes extreme action. Its the same way with the debt, immigration, etc.

I don't think you have any authority for such an assertion beyond how you "feel" about it. I think the PPACA was an Herculean effort, successful against leviathan, well-monied corporate interests exerting massive lobbying efforts, and about as thoughtful a program as could be mustered given the enormous complexities built within the existing system. Are there ways it can improve? Oh, yes. Many. Those will shake out as it goes forward. They're shaking out now, as they work the kinks out of their websites (overwhelmed because of SO MUCH interest), and in the guidance we as workers in the health care industry are receiving.

Congress simply does not do its job until they are forced to, yet we keep voting the same dumb asses back in because none of us want their jobs, and only clowns run for political office now.

Again, I think this is something you feel is true without any real authority for your position. I can't speak for your Congress critter, but whenever I interact with mine, I see a man who works so hard it makes me tired to watch him. I could not endure the constant stupidity and ignorance he must face among his constituency every single day, but he does it tirelessly, with class and equanimity. The clown in the room when he is holding a meeting is not him. And yes, I will keep voting him in to do the job I feel he is doing so well -- far better than I ever could.

It really is a fucked up mess, but its that way because most of us allowed it to get there. I say "us" to include myself.

On this, we utterly agree.

[Airyaman]

I wish I had a solution, if I did then you'd see me on TV! But the PPACA is so huge that we won't know how good or bad it is until we see parts of it roll out.

I simply don't like the idea of forcing people to buy health care coverage, and I really don't care if it was an idea stolen from republicans or Massachusetts.

But why? Do you think you will never, ever need it? No one can guarantee that. Do you object to being made to carry auto insurance, too? What's the difference?

Most states (if not all) only force people to carry liability auto insurance, you'd have more of a case if they were also forced to carry comprehensive/collision. The reasoning though is simple: your auto insurance covers the other people's property that you damage.

Health insurance is different. You carry it for yourself. Your health insurance will not cover my medical bills if you hurt me in some way.

As to ever needing it, sure I will. I'm all for catastrophic coverage, but this idea of forcing people to buy coverage that covers birth control pills when I am a 46 year old male is ludicrous. I personally believe that most health care transactions should work like every other transaction between two parties. It is much harder with what we have in place now, but these types of efforts make much more sense, imo.

I also don't like that the administration has made changes to the law by executive order, and think he should be taken to SCOTUS over some of those orders to see if he has the power to actually do some of the things he has.

If you were as knowledgeable about the legislation from the employer side as I am (not by choice, but by reason of my work), this would make total sense to you. Health care in this country as it has evolved is a massive, Gordian knot. Are you familiar with Health FSAs, HSAs, HDHPs and HRAs? I am. Most everyone in this country uses one or more of those. There is preferred tax treatment involved in the use of each. How does the PPACA interact with all those programs? What about employees who elect to go outside of their group health plans and instead sign up for coverage offered through the PPACA? Should they still enjoy tax-favored treatment for the premiums they pay? If yes, how? Through which mechanism? What if the employees elect differing coverage through the Exchange? Does the employer pay the providers directly, or does the individual employee? How many full time employees did you have in your last calendar year? How do we define a "full-time" employee? Do we count those who terminated, or only those who are presently still employed with the company? How do we determine whether our current group health plan is "affordable," as defined by the PPACA?

Do you begin to appreciate the complexity of how the PPACA will interact with the health care system as it currently exists for employers? This is NOT a problem created by the PPACA. It's a problem created by the fact that the PPACA must be made to work with what we already have -- which is a pretty big mess.

On the employee side, it's simple: Enroll in something, whether company sponsored or otherwise, or pay a fine.

That's why Obama made an executive decision to delay fining employers for a year. And trust me; if there is a way for that to be brought before the SCOTUS to determine if he was outside his authority, it will.

Quite a bit there that I have no clue about, and I'll honestly admit that. Gives me something to mull over.

In the end though, I believe the PPACA is the result of lazy ass politicians who push problems down the road until someone takes extreme action. Its the same way with the debt, immigration, etc.

I don't think you have any authority for such an assertion beyond how you "feel" about it. I think the PPACA was an Herculean effort, successful against leviathan, well-monied corporate interests exerting massive lobbying efforts, and about as thoughtful a program as could be mustered given the enormous complexities built within the existing system. Are there ways it can improve? Oh, yes. Many. Those will shake out as it goes forward. They're shaking out now, as they work the kinks out of their websites (overwhelmed because of SO MUCH interest), and in the guidance we as workers in the health care industry are receiving.

Your use of the word "think" is really no different from my use of the word "believe". Neither of us presently have any real evidence that the PPACA will fail or be a success. However, government track record is not on the side of "success", so I work with history to help predict future.

Congress simply does not do its job until they are forced to, yet we keep voting the same dumb asses back in because none of us want their jobs, and only clowns run for political office now.

Again, I think this is something you feel is true without any real authority for your position. I can't speak for your Congress critter, but whenever I interact with mine, I see a man who works so hard it makes me tired to watch him. I could not endure the constant stupidity and ignorance he must face among his constituency every single day, but he does it tirelessly, with class and equanimity. The clown in the room when he is holding a meeting is not him. And yes, I will keep voting him in to do the job I feel he is doing so well -- far better than I ever could.

My real authority is performance and results. Those support my views, and I think you know that. Have you not wondered why congress approval rating is less than 10%? Because they don't get anything real done.

It really is a fucked up mess, but its that way because most of us allowed it to get there. I say "us" to include myself.

On this, we utterly agree.

I knew we could see eye-to-eye on something.

[Violet]

It actually DOES apply.

Not a single example you provided could in any way effectively replace government as a way to accomplish the things I listed. At least, you certainly didn't show how. And it's ok.. I don't think you can.

Government is a corporation... one that often collects enormous amounts of money in 'taxes'.

It is not some supernatural force that simply accomplishes things better than any other force I will use roads as an example of the failings of government regarding such.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/1...ng-repairs

Privatized roads are a business that must maintain their -specific roads- to turn the most effective profit. Not that they necessarily will recognize this, what with everything in every system being fallible

Charitable food banks here, for example, barely put a dent in the need. Food stamps are far more effective.

Food stamps existing strongly decreases donation factors, this is what would likely occur if food stamps were suddenly and wholly removed (and it's a cycle):

<Food riots>
<Media headlines>
<Massive donations to food charities>
<Ruckus dies down as people have food>
<People start to run short on food again>
<Food riots>

Honestly, these are only symptoms for the real issues. Me, I'd rather see every one of those properly dealt with... and clearly our government isn't handling these specifically (clashes with other corporate interests, you'll understand).

That's my point. I'm not saying no other entity can ameliorate these needs on an extremely limited basis. I think that was implied, and you needn't question my maturity over it. Of course they can. But that's what government is FOR. If you don't like what it's doing, get in up to your elbows, no utensils, and work your ass off to change it. Government, properly regulated, CAN accomplish big, important tasks for society. Ours has just gone of the rails. And look around you... easy to see why.

That's my point. I'm not saying other corporations can always accomplish what an extorting corporation can accomplish. You're so incredibly defensive: yes I'm going to to have a ribbing at your maturity over it

What a government is 'for' is entirely goal dependent of said government. Understand, please, that not all governments are 'by the people', and not all governments are 'for the people', in whatever subjective capacity either of these statements may at one time or another entail (or not entail!).

It is incredibly difficult for anyone, by themselves (or with a gigantic group!), to change a strongly ingrained government. What body are you going to rely upon to regulate *GOVERNMENT*? <semi-genuine curiosity>

Government is in the market of doing 'big important things'.

---

Right, because it's totally done only for PR and not the delicious tax writeoffs, and they're also done in such sizable quantities so as to cover the entire destitute populace. I'm sure we'll be able to rely on that.

What if PRWORA hadn't been passed?

I'm just a little curious as to what issue we'd then be talking about Dat opportunism, yo.

I detailed what a fucking travesty this would be in another post and why there's a reason private concerns are not likely to provide good services on these affairs to people on an equal scale. They are profit-motivated, and while they can strike deals, how do you expect they're going to profit from city streets? What, is there going to be a toll booth at every light, can we expect competing road-owning companies to connect to one another, to purchase existing roads? And again, how would they profit from this? By charging the businesses and home-owners to pay fees to use those roads? And what happens if you can't pay it? Is your car booted from pulling out of your driveway? Road repair ain't cheap, you know, and nickel-and-dime income from small localities isn't even gonna make the companies break even, let alone profit in any substantial way. And don't even get me started on a private industry of police and firefighters and courts and prisons. That shit has actually been tried in Pennsylvia. How did that turn out?

How about a tax fee? You pay the tax, you can drive a vehicle on all of the roads of this company. You don't pay the fare, obviously you can't use the roads.

There are an awful lot of road types that exist, it doesn't have to be asphalt specifically. Sidewalks are a courtesy.

Private police and firefighters aren't really a problem. You realize, correct, that courts/prisons/police/fire-fighting are traditionally roles of the community? If a community desires a better <whatever>, they can come together as a community, and raise the money they need to get <private company> to do one of these for them, better.

I kind of have a background in community politics. Not all communities will always do 'the right thing' (assuming there is a 'right thing'), but in general they'll get their shit handled. We have it *damn good*, but (after the shake-up riots) things could well return to an earlier time and work out ahead of even (how we got where we are in the first place).

... If I didn't have to pay taxes, and someone made sure I was fed, I would gladly volunteer to assist community construction/repair services. Somehow, I get the feeling that a damn good portion of people would as well. Something about 'society kind of functions', or something like that.

Yes. They can be taken over by private interests...if our goal is to completely blow up our nation and send it crashing into the ground culturally, socially, and economically.

Economics take on a completely different meaning when most of your society cannot afford a mcdonalds cheeseburger as priced. Namely, earning zero in said society is a hell of a lot less detrimental than earning zero in a society where every price on everything is significantly higher.

Socio-culturally, we'd change... but it won't completely stomp on local culture. Actually, I'd say that such de-corporatizing would be central to an American cultural revolution.

They are the only method that a sane individual or voting population would ever consider. Literalism alone does not make a good argument, Vae. If we always went by the list of literal possibilities in every argument we'd never get anywhere. It's generally agreed upon that you only list the reasonable arguments and leave the ridiculous ones out of the equation. Occam's razor.

Only having one method to *ever consider* is not a positive trait in an individual. It's a mark against creativity and adaptability, in particular.

My argument isn't entirely about literalism... I use literalism as a tool to uncover the flaws in other people's thinking, and to arrive at a better (more complete) understanding of <a subject>, hopefully for both parties. My current argument is that people are rather entrenched in their beliefs, and it'll take a flood to drive them from the ditches.

Government is extortion. It's a reasonable argument in 'the modern era' in some respects... but as a business (which is is): America's government (specifically) is failing. You have a corporate government that allows other corporate interests to buy-into its policy.

And that probably isn't going to change unless your government is purged and restructured from the ground up. Odd that you bring up Occam's razor, which is the wisdom of nonassumptiveness, in that post

Only because of Federal mandates about workman's comp and mandatory safety protocols. Look back at the Industrial Revolution era, especially in the beginning of the 20th century, if you want a prime example of how little of a shit corporations or even "small businesses" could give about workplace safety or employee well-being without Federal mandates. QED.

Yeah, I remember it. You are familiar with cycles, yes? Use your noggin.

[Raeven]

Government is a corporation... one that often collects enormous amounts of money in 'taxes'.

Big problem with your assertion. Corporations are for profit. Governments are not. Or they ought not be. If they are, then the populace of that government is doing something wrong -- like not paying attention. It is true we have significantly ceded control of our government over to corporate interests, which is why we have the PPACA instead of single payer... but that needn't remain the case. And that still doesn't make our government a corporation, however charming it may be to say so.

It is not some supernatural force that simply accomplishes things better than any other force

You'll have to show me where I said government was some supernatural force. I don't believe that; I think you know it, and you putting words in my mouth is the refuge of one who doesn't have a sound argument.

I will use roads as an example of the failings of government regarding such.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/1...ng-repairs

Privatized roads are a business that must maintain their -specific roads- to turn the most effective profit. Not that they necessarily will recognize this, what with everything in every system being fallible

One of the biggest problems with our government today is the extent to which services are being privatized. Why did we let this happen? Your statement demonstrates exactly why corporations ought NOT be in charge of many things, and why properly regulated government ought to be, instead.

Food stamps existing strongly decreases donation factors, this is what would likely occur if food stamps were suddenly and wholly removed (and it's a cycle):

<Food riots>
<Media headlines>
<Massive donations to food charities>
<Ruckus dies down as people have food>
<People start to run short on food again>
<Food riots>

Care to show some authority for that view, apart from what would "likely" occur?

Honestly, these are only symptoms for the real issues. Me, I'd rather see every one of those properly dealt with... and clearly our government isn't handling these specifically (clashes with other corporate interests, you'll understand).

I'm not sure, but we may be on the same page on this. I do believe the biggest problem with our government today is corporate involvement. But I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, saying that government is therefore inherently bad, or that it isn't still the most effective way to address large societal concerns, which, frankly, is a ludicrous assertion.

That's my point. I'm not saying other corporations can always accomplish what an extorting corporation can accomplish. You're so incredibly defensive: yes I'm going to to have a ribbing at your maturity over it

Well, have fun, if it pleases you to do so. As you don't know me at all, I think your ad hominem attacks on my demeanor do nothing to advance the validity of your position. It does, however, say a lot more about who you are than who I am.

What a government is 'for' is entirely goal dependent of said government. Understand, please, that not all governments are 'by the people', and not all governments are 'for the people', in whatever subjective capacity either of these statements may at one time or another entail (or not entail!).

It is incredibly difficult for anyone, by themselves (or with a gigantic group!), to change a strongly ingrained government. What body are you going to rely upon to regulate *GOVERNMENT*? <semi-genuine curiosity>

Government is in the market of doing 'big important things'.

On this, we fundamentally disagree. I think people have the government they deserve -- certainly true in this country, anyway. If enough people educate themselves as to the actual facts and not just take their positions based on the garbage that is spewed from mainstream news outlets; if they follow those facts wherever they may lead and then actually take substantive action, they can change anything -- even a flawed government.

Yeah, I'm an idealist, one who has seen how much even one individual, by themselves, can do. It's much more than you think.