government shut down

[Dashenka]

do they even care about the people?

How can you expect such a thing from politicians? They got better things to do...

[Oniya]

As for the other point... I guess that is a good point but what do Americans who cannot affort an insurance do now, when they need to go to hospital?

Frequently, they don't.  They make choices like 'Do I get the antibiotics I need, or do I get food for my family?'  'Do I have desperately needed surgery, or do I pay my rent?'

[Dashenka]

What if they're in an accident and being rushed to hospital? Are they gonna say let him die because he's not insured? Who's going to pay for that surgery?

[Avis habilis]

The hospital eats the bill for people who have no insurance because they're prohibited by law from refusing critical care to those who can't pay. They increase what they charge for everything else to make up for it. The insurance companies hike their rates to make up for the increased amount they have to pay to hospitals. The whole country ends up paying more than they would have if we had public health care.

[Dashenka]

The hospital eats the bill for people who have no insurance because they're prohibited by law from refusing critical care to those who can't pay. They increase what they charge for everything else to make up for it. The insurance companies hike their rates to make up for the increased amount they have to pay to hospitals. The whole country ends up paying more than they would have if we had public health care.

That's not really fair. So why are people against that new law? It's better for everybody I think?

[Avis habilis]

So why are people against that new law?

Hell if I know.

[Dashenka]

So basically...

you get helped anyway if you need care. Only some people pay for it themselves or through insurance and others who refuse or can't get an insurance, don't pay anything?

[Oniya]

The people who don't have insurance can end up with their lives ruined because of it.  Collections agencies calling at all hours of the day, sometimes in violation of the Fair Debt Collections laws.  Credit rating sunk.  Wages garnished.  Without a decent credit rating, some companies won't hire you, so if you lose the crappy minimum wage job that was paying even less because your wages were being garnished, you can't find another one.  Without a decent credit rating, people won't rent to you, much less sell you a house.  You don't 'not pay anything' - you just end up paying in a more crippling way.

So why are people against that new law?

The insurance companies are Big Money.  Big Money (thanks to the 'Citizens United' decision) can make big donations to PACs for political campaigns.  John and Jane Smith are lucky to have a few bucks to rub together at the end of the month, thanks to high insurance bills.  They can't make big donations to political campaigns.

Two guesses who the politicians kowtow to.  First one doesn't count.

[Ebb]

So basically...

you get helped anyway if you need care. Only some people pay for it themselves or through insurance and others who refuse or can't get an insurance, don't pay anything?

It's a little bit of an oversimplification, but essentially yes. Keep in mind that many people declare bankruptcy as a result of medical bills that they can't pay. It's not as simple as just refusing.

The reverse side of the problem is that people who are uninsured and have no other access to healthcare will often use the emergency rooms for things you'd normally go see a regular doctor for. This ends up being far more expensive in the long run.

If you're interested in understanding the American health care system better, I highly recommend this video:

http://youtu.be/qSjGouBmo0M

It's eight minutes long, but it's entertaining and contains a whole lot of useful information. The bottom line is that we have a fundamentally broken system.

[Avis habilis]

Keep in mind that many people declare bankruptcy as a result of medical bills that they can't pay. It's not as simple as just refusing.

In fact it's the leading cause of personal bankruptcy filings in the U.S. Congress blew a lot of smoke about "irresponsible credit card spending" when they made it harder to declare bankruptcy a while back, but it's due to mostly medical bills.

[Dashenka]

Thank you that was very learning and clear. I didn't know that, in fact I thought the opposite and thought the $7000 I had to spend for three days in a Dutch hospital were quite high.


Another question then.

In most countries with health insurances, the insurance company makes sure you get the best deal. Quality vs price. Obviously a new hip can't be too expensive but it has to be good, so the insurance companies do the 'negotiating' and if a certain hospital charges too much in comparison to another, your insurance has the option to ban that hospital from their policies and all their clients have to see another hospital.

Wouldn't that work the same in the US, with everybody having a health insurance?

[Avis habilis]

It would & in fact does for Medicare & the Veterans' Administration medical system. For the rest of us - well, reducing the amount we pay the companies that bankroll their campaigns isn't in any politician's best interests.

[DarklingAlice]

That's not really fair. So why are people against that new law? It's better for everybody I think?

Oniya covers the basics of it, but I do want to toss another aspect out there for discussion: this crazy ass religious element that love to confuse what they want with morality. One of the major hang-ups in getting the law passed is that a vocal minority of employers (and a lot of House Republicans) are saying: "Okay, I will give my employees health insurance, but that health insurance can't include birth control because I think it is a sin." House Republicans explicitly attempted to put things like their so-called 'conscience clause' in the spending bills meaning that if an employer personally didn't like contraception as a concept, then they wouldn't have to pay for it for their employees. So in a very depressing way, the inability of petty old men to stop trying to force their will on women in this country is stalling our political process. Oh America...

[Vekseid]

That's not really fair. So why are people against that new law? It's better for everybody I think?

The original reason the US didn't provide universal care to its citizens was because that entailed providing care to certain parts of society that naturally wouldn't be working as hard for such.

...the racist attitude is no small part of the current opposition, either. While I'm sure that insurance companies know that their current policies are completely unsustainable, they still want to milk it for as long as they can.



Before considering the opinion of anyone who mentions the word 'debt' or 'loans', though, look up treasury yield rates. Where were these right-wing debtmongerers when the 10-year yield crossed 4% in the Bush era?

Crickets.

It fucking reached 1.43%. 1.43% on a ten year loan! That sure demonstrates a lack of confidence in American debt, it does.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The House is attempting to hold the federal government hostage, acting like a bunch of children that lost at Chutes and Ladders.  Bills are negotiated and discussed before becoming a law, not after.

[gaggedLouise]

The House is attempting to hold the federal government hostage, acting like a bunch of children that lost at Chutes and Ladders.  Bills are negotiated and discussed before becoming a law, not after.

In the old days - thirty or forty years ago - it was ordinary citizens engaging in taxation revolt. Now it's the politicians, even the lawmakers. And as Pumpkin points out, years after something has been signed into law.*

Or even decades after something has been recognized as a valid legal right across the country:

Oniya covers the basics of it, but I do want to toss another aspect out there for discussion: this crazy ass religious element that love to confuse what they want with morality. One of the major hang-ups in getting the law passed is that a vocal minority of employers (and a lot of House Republicans) are saying: "Okay, I will give my employees health insurance, but that health insurance can't include birth control because I think it is a sin." House Republicans explicitly attempted to put things like their so-called 'conscience clause' in the spending bills meaning that if an employer personally didn't like contraception as a concept, then they wouldn't have to pay for it for their employees. So in a very depressing way, the inability of petty old men to stop trying to force their will on women in this country is stalling our political process. Oh America...

*(while some of said lawmakers' personal incomes may effectively be free of tax)

[Dashenka]

The original reason the US didn't provide universal care to its citizens was because that entailed providing care to certain parts of society that naturally wouldn't be working as hard for such.

I can sort of symphatize with that reasoning but isn't it part of the American 'spirit' to help out fellow countrymen in need?

I come from a family which has always been above average in income and when governments raise taxes for the higher incomes, I'm not complaining because I feel I can do with a little bit less and if that helps the people that need it, I'm fine with it.

Some people can work harder than others but they still deserve the same basic needs as everybody else and if they can't afford that, the people who can, should step in. In the form of a bill or law or extra taxes or something.

I always thought that the Republican party was popular among lower incomes but hearing what you said Veks, I can hardly understand why.

[Moraline]

Don't worry American people! When your Trillion Dollar a Year Military stops getting paid they'll all come home and restore order to the country... one way or the other.



On a serious note. I hope this all gets straightened out soon for the sake of all those low level government employees just trying to make a living and get by. Also for the sake of the world because this sort of thing can throw the world into another recession.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

So... I'm gonna weigh in because this is something that directly effects me, my family, and the area I live in. My entire family pretty much (with the exception of my grandparents) all work for the Federal Gov't in some way. My uncle does some sort of IT support for Congress. I stopped asking what exactly he did a while ago because he's kind of a jack of all trades which meant he did something different every few months. My mother is a DoD Civilian employee, and so is my father. Currently they're safe from being furloughed because there were already funds appropriated for their positions, but we don't know how long that is going to last. Last but certainly not least, I'm a DoD contractor. My job is safe... for now... but it's on very thin ice due to the size of our contract. One minor flub on the financing side of things and I can get sent home.

They've already started sending government employees home here on the base, and the only ones that are safe are the ones whose jobs are either considered "essential" or those who are already paid for. However something to keep in mind... "paid for" does not mean they're going to be getting paid on time. In most instances, their pay is going to be delayed until this is over. That means that they're actually paying to come in to work. Normally people would just take vacation time at this point, but guess what? The summer just ended. Most people have used up their time because their leave is due to expire come December.

Anyone who says "well Congress and the Senate can't do their jobs so we should just let them shut down" is woefully ignorant to the impact a shut down has on those of us who do our jobs and do them well. If I did my job a fraction of how poorly Congress does theirs, I wouldn't have one. My job expects no less than absolute excellence, and for all intents and purposes I'm at the bottom rung on a very large contract... if lay offs happen, I'll be one of the first to go. It's been a year since I was laid off from my last job, also a DoD contract, due to the sequester (which, incidentally, was also entirely Congress's fault). I've only been at this one a few months. If this shut down goes on too long... you can guess how that's going to turn out for me.

Me, a single mom already struggling to make ends meet despite having what's considered a "good" job, because the "good" jobs that require so much experience and skill now don't pay nearly as much as they used to. When I first became a contractor, I made 20 an hour, which got upped to 22 when they realized that based on my experience and qualifications and professional certifications, they weren't paying me enough. I'm now in a job that requires more experience and a more specialized skill set and guess what? I'm getting paid less than 17 an hour. In an area where you're lucky to find a decent one bedroom apartment for less than 1000, that's nothing. I have done nothing to deserve having to struggle like this, I had nothing to do with the sequester or this new issue. And yet here I am having to pay for the fact that Congress can't and won't do its fucking job.

That being said... My family is currently waiting with baited breath to see what is going to happen with the furloughs and the shut downs. My parents don't know if they're going to get paid on time. They don't know if they're going to be working at all come a week from now. My father's intention to buy another car have been put off, meaning my plan to buy his current one is also put off, and we're stuck continuing to carpool even though I technically live about 15-20 minutes out of the way for them.

And honestly, looking at the whole situation, the fact of the matter is that it is easy to see what's causing all of this. It's the Republican Party (who used to be the reasonable opposition party... they balanced out the Democrat party which was sometimes a little too liberal and wanted to do things that could have potentially fucked us over financially) has been taken hostage from the inside by the Tea Party, most of whom don't know their head from their ass, let alone have a damn clue about governing. They think simply breathing gives them a right to legislate morality to the rest of the country, based on their holy book and overlook that pesky nonsense about a separation of church and state. Apparently they think the laws should stay out of their religion but that their religion doesn't need to stay out of the law. The ACA would provide for things like birth control, which they don't agree with on religious grounds, and so they think they should be able to hold the entire government hostage while they throw their two-year-old-worthy temper tantrum over it... and they're doing it all at the expense of hard working, honest Americans who really just want to be able to safely put food on the table, a roof over our heads, and medicines in our sick bodies.

In summary? Screw you, Congress. I'm tired of you hurting me. I'm tired of you hurting my family. I'm tired of you hurting my friends who are literally giving their lives for the country you're so gleefully fucking over. Get your heads out of your asses and do your damn job.

[Kythia]

OK.  So let me check I've got this right. 

I'm - hypothetically, obviously - an employer in the US who doesn't agree with birth control.  Under Obamacare I have to pay for it (or at least a percentage of the cost) for any of my employees that want it, with no opt out.  Republicans are saying this is bad for understandable (note:understandable, meaning "can be understood.  Not "agreeable", "sympathetic" or anything else.  Understandable) reasons and as such have refused to agree how much the Federal Government can spend this financial year unless concessions have been made to their position.  As a result of that, the Federal Government is going to stop paying its employees because they have, effectively, no budget. 

And this is the second time this has happened in twenty years.

Is that right?  Because that sounds crazy.

[Avis habilis]

Not even "pay for birth control" - pay for a percentage of the cost of an insurance plan that covers the cost of birth control.

Otherwise yes.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

OK.  So let me check I've got this right. 

I'm - hypothetically, obviously - an employer in the US who doesn't agree with birth control.  Under Obamacare I have to pay for it (or at least a percentage of the cost) for any of my employees that want it, with no opt out.  Republicans are saying this is bad for understandable (note:understandable, meaning "can be understood.  Not "agreeable", "sympathetic" or anything else.  Understandable) reasons and as such have refused to agree how much the Federal Government can spend this financial year unless concessions have been made to their position.  As a result of that, the Federal Government is going to stop paying its employees because they have, effectively, no budget. 

And this is the second time this has happened in twenty years.

Is that right?  Because that sounds crazy.

The birth control issue is only part of it but essentially, yes that is a contributing factor, at least on the surface. I'm not completely convinced that it's not actually that they're in bed with big insurance like they're in bed with big oil, and they're just using birth control as a talking point so those who side with them won't freak the fuck out over the nonsense they're pushing.

[meikle]

I think it is pretty optimistic thinking to believe that the House is listening to the people. Don't believe all the polls that say the majority is against the Affordable Care Act. When they say some 60% are against it, that includes the 15 - 20% who think it does not go far enough and that we should have a single payer system,  all of those who don't really understand what it means, and the many that have insurance and don't want to help fund those who don't. For those who are unable to get insurance it is a godsend.

I feel like I saw a poll the other day that showed that people mostly support the Affordable Care Act, it's Obamacare they're against.

Edit: Apparently, calling it "obamacare" instead of "the Affordable Care Act" actually just polarizes everyone, with 'Obamacare' having significantly more support and opposition than the Affordable Care Act, despite being the same thing.

[gaggedLouise]

OK.  So let me check I've got this right. 

I'm - hypothetically, obviously - an employer in the US who doesn't agree with birth control.  Under Obamacare I have to pay for it (or at least a percentage of the cost) for any of my employees that want it, with no opt out.  Republicans are saying this is bad for understandable (note:understandable, meaning "can be understood.  Not "agreeable", "sympathetic" or anything else.  Understandable) reasons and as such have refused to agree how much the Federal Government can spend this financial year unless concessions have been made to their position.  As a result of that, the Federal Government is going to stop paying its employees because they have, effectively, no budget. 

And this is the second time this has happened in twenty years.

Is that right?  Because that sounds crazy.

Last time around it wasn't over such a relatively petty item in the legal record - meaning abortions under the ACA - but the move of refusing to sign up to any budget is essentially the same. And it used to happen more frequently than it does now. Between 1976 and 1984 there were thirteen instances of federal government shutdown. I figure it's sometimes a "vote of protest" against the president and his policies, not just about the budget.

[Kythia]

So here's what I don't get.  Why haven't concessions been made?  I mean, employers not paying for birth control (or paying for a percentage of the cost of...blah blah blah) was the status quo ante bellum, right?  So no one will be losing anything, simply not gaining something.  And, you know, this seems pretty fucking important, surely.

I mean, sure, the Republicans position is clearly in the wrong.  And I get the whole "we don't negotiate with terrorists" aspect of it.  But if two sides can't come to an agreement than how can it be that only one of them is being stubborn?