ScrewBalls in Government are Corporate Monster Candy

[Rayzur]

What the frickin sam hill is going on with Obama Care.... once again not everything is what is seems.... it seems...

 

 

I almost hate to say anything because this is such a diametrically opposed partisan discussion, and my comments are not. I am not partisan, party loyal nor do I have a party line in this. Please don't consider this as supporting of any one position. It is not.... Instead, as always, my intention is to drill down on what is most accurate in sorting out the specifics of the capital hill squirrel festival.

 

And don't worry, I jump down the throats of both sides of the aisle and some will probably be surprised at what I conclude. I was kind of.

 

And while my circumstance demands fiscal prudence, I likewise do believe I'm my brother's keeper, and have spent so much over so many years without condition, that my friends have jokingly suggested I apply for federal program grants to underwrite it... I do believe in national health care, and frankly, wish we'd go to a system like Canada where the government provides the health care (like one big VA for civilians) and get the flippin insurance companies completely out of the game. That's where all our frickin money is going,........ to pay for corporate heath insurance companies who wrote national health insurance laws. If people would stop sputtering the word socialist long enough to take a deep breath and realize that most don't have a clue what the frick they are talking about and they are ignorantly using the word wrongly.... and if we actually had a true socialized system, it would the best thing to happen on planet USA in terms of cost/benefit.... instead of this monster hybrid of corporate insurance driven health care.... where the cost is to us and the benefit is to the corporate structure.

 

I don't think either side of this peacock prancing contest is doing a great job discussing the problem and the specifics of what is going on. I think using the term defunding is very misleading (imo) as it implies something that does not exist, being removed. I've some idea of what government budgets do. I've a billion dollars of a 6 billion dollar government budget. Last year I & my XO worked with Senate and got a bill/package passed for ...can't remember..... something like 63 million or therein. We were the ONLY ones in the entire Agency that got a bill passed. The only ones, (it was required to meet federal Court Orders) And while it was passed, it was thereafter NOT FUNDED. And it was essential and not some stupid nice idea package. All of which is to say, it is not at all that uncommon to pass bills that are thereafter not funded. (not sure why no one is telling people that)

 

1st It is not out of the ordinary, this is not the first time this has ever happened, and it's a fairly common part of government in tough economic times that a bill which has passed is subsequently NOT funded.

 

2nd, I did a real cursory review of the OMB SECTION 123—APPORTIONMENTS UNDER CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS , to get an idea as to the parameters of encumbering monies not budgeted, (and instead apportioned). Real cursory,... cause I wasn't into dealing with budgetary legalese and have people who do that much better. As Director, I understand it enough to deal with it, but am not nor do I want to be an expert. Here are some things I looked at:

 

Reference:

OMB SECTION 123—APPORTIONMENTS UNDER CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS

 

123.2 How do I determine the amount available for obligation under a continuing resolution?

Usually, CRs do not appropriate specific sums of money. Rather, they provide "formulas" for calculating

the amounts available for continuing programs at minimal levels. This formula is applied by OMB in

apportioning funds under the CR.

 

Each CR has a formula specific to the fiscal year …. CRs do not bounce from year to year carrying over anything into the next year, with regard to the formula. The formula is specific to the year.

 

Note that you may not obligate funds under the CR that would impinge on final funding prerogatives of

the Congress. CRs usually include provisions directing agencies to execute programs using the most

limited funding actions permitted in order to provide for continuing projects and activities. Agencies are

also directed by the CR to not execute programs that would otherwise have high initial rates of operation

or complete distribution of appropriations at the beginning of the year because of distribution of funds to

States, foreign countries, grantees, or others.

 

I'd heard the statement that O/care was being defunded and I was like wtf? How can you defund something that hasn't been funded for that fiscal year???? So, I looked for OMB regs about year to year funding and found:

 

 

123.3 What do I do if my account receives no funding in the House or Senate bill?

 

If either the House or Senate has reported out of committee or passed an appropriations bill that provides

no funding for an account (as opposed to merely providing no funding for a project, program or activity

within an account) at the time the CR is enacted, the CR automatic apportionment does not apply to that

account, even if that account received funding during the prior year. You must submit a written

apportionment request to OMB if you want to request funds for the account during the period of the CR.

You must also submit justification for any such request. This restrictive funding action is to ensure that

the agency does not impinge on final funding prerogatives of the Congress.

 

And then I wanted to know:

 

123.4 Do the amounts made available for obligation remain available after a continuing resolution

expires?

 

No. CRs make amounts available for obligation only until a time specified by the CR or until the

enactment of regular fiscal year appropriations, whichever is sooner. A CR normally provides temporary

funding. As specified by the CR, it can last any period of time (one day, a few days, a few weeks, or a

month). It is generally understood that the normal appropriations process will eventually produce

appropriation acts to replace or terminate the CR. In relatively few cases, CRs have been in effect

through the end of the fiscal year. [At the longest]

 

 

I could go on and on, but I have come to some conclusions and a few questions?

 

Deal Elected People:

 

1. If you want your side to be heard, you have to have to educate the population along the way.

   a. The peeps are fighting about stuff that is not even accurate, or correct, or ….

2. I'm beginning to actually wonder Senator or Representative if YOU understand what is happening?

   a. IF you do, you're stupid for even allowing words like defunded into a conversation.

 

We're watching a bunch of Banty Roosters hopping around like kangaroos using shorthand words to communicate with each other about a very specific process.... and then we the public walk away thinking we know what the helllll you are talking about. We don't. It is so frickin specific, it takes a few years of actually doing it, before you even understand the words being used and the concepts of what you are doing.

 

 

From my perspective (which could change the more I read OMB etc. rules and regs particularity those in direct reference to this specific issue)... but for now, it appears that:

 

A bill was passed.

 

• For whatever reason, (doesn't matter, it is legal prerogative) one party is saying fine, we see the bill we understand it was passed, however we do not want to fund it.
• It is not unusual or in any way unprecedented that a bill is passed and subsequently not funded.

This is definitely not the first time, nor the last. And it can involve critical mission issues, that are nonetheless decided not as critical as others...

• This party is saying we will fund the government, and encumber this money to run these things, however, we will not fund O/Care.

 

• The other party and executive office is saying no, we will not accept your choice to fund other government programs, but not fund O/Care. Its all or none.

 

• Its almost as if one party wants to bifurcate and do line item while the other party is saying no, its all or none.

 

And in any case, both parties are suking at not communicating what is going on,

They both are responsible for the government shutdown.

 

The US is showing polls clearly indicating that the US population is “blaming” the GOP for this, (up to 75% in some cases) despite from what I can tell, the fact they are instead using clearly acceptable, established budgetary infrastructures, rules and regulations to deny funding a program they believe will put the US in economic harms way.

 

All other politics aside and there are many.... and there are likely some we've no idea exist, ….both sides are really responsible in the sense they're log jammed in a disagreement as to whether or not O/Care should be funded. And both sides are proceeding along infrastructure R/Rs to voice that.

 

However, Congress has the legal prerogative to fund or not fund something..... and therein it appears its the Dems that are throwing down the hard-line gauntlet, by way of Executive privilege demanding a capitulation that leaves no room for negotiating out this economic hostage.

 

I'm not so comfy cozy with the fact that the tea party is the major lead on this only inasmuch as they are (whether they know it or not) so heavily heavily funded by corporate infrastructures... (which pretty much creeps me out).. My disconnect is: why would the dems want such a heavily corporatized system put in place when it would logically be a tea party move, and why is the TP trying to stop it when it is so corporatized and the Dems should be opposing it??? This is a bit of a rabbit hole....

 

And stop saying O/Care socialist. Its isn't and just because that idiot said it doesn't mean you have to be another idiot saying it. Corporatism is rearing its ugly baby head trying to replace government (or at least have government serve its interest).... If you don't think so, go read the TPP thread and tell me why you are not totally creeped freaked out. If it was socialist/government based, we could at least trust it as one more slow moving dysfunctional system that at least is not owned by a a group of people/families. And no, don't be an idiot and think I am socialist or advocating such... I'm pointing out a difference... wait I am advocating it to be government driven versus corporate, so in that sense, that I am advocating... Then again I really love the VA.

 

 

Please don't make me regret I wrote this by taking it out of context, or using it to further some political divisiveness/separation or isolation, If you don't want O/Care and you voted for O, call your rep and tell em so. Tell the dems, tell the gop tell the tea party reps of your area, that you don't want it. And if you do, the same thing applies, call em and tell em so.... Right now they are so embroiled in the peacock dance of mortal kombat, I dont think they even know where the pulse of the people lies, much less bothered to take it.......

Edited October 10, 2013 by Rayzur

[Thaiexpat]

Right on the money, Rayzur. It is the insurance corporations along with their lackeys who will benefit from the act. Are there good parts to it? Of course, but it is what it is  until we demand the corporations stop running any govt program, there can be no benefit for the people who truly need something that support their needs.

Dunno, just saying and thank you for the post

[divemaster5734]

My one issue with anything doled out by the government.

 

I have yet to meet the government agent that is honest and selfless in their administration of their duties.

 

Even Canada had severe health care issues, and corruption is rampant.

 

Everyone knows you get the best care if you pay the right people.

 

Thats the problem.

 

I have yet to see an effective policy or procedure to prevent partisanship or corruption by a government official.

 

In light of the abuses by the last several administrations, the greater majority of us simply do not trust the government to do anything for us that is not in their own best interest or to their greater advantage.

 

We already know they will eliminate anything they perceive as a threat, by whatever means necessary.

 

They have been lying to us for over 100 years about anything they don't want us to know.

 

How is giving them more power going to change how they look at us?

 

Just look at how we have been controlled bty the fed reserve and tell me you can honestly expect them to take a loss in order to save your life with an expensive treatment when your no longer a "producer"?

[Rayzur]

DiveMaster, I knew when I said government, I took a risk in not being clear as to what I was saying.....

 

First, I say government versus corporate.... (and I would probably put elected politicians in there with corporate interests)
 

By government  we might be talking about the difference between those who are in government (civil service up to appointment, everything up to elected) and those who are elected politicians..... Politicians a different breed... Not talking about them and can't really defend them or what they do... Of course the Federal Reserve is private and corporate and not government.... so they would be in the corporate and not government.

 

As civil servants, I've  seen government agents be very selfless and honest in the admin of their duties.... It gives many of their cohorts the heebie jeebies... and is really uncomfortable for those who would rather be able to assume you are on the take just like they are.... I've seen people do remarkable jobs of selfless  service and would be happy to share them..... There are some pretty extraordinary people in civil service.....

 

Therein would likewise be the difference between a bill submitted and passed by elected politicians and a policy or procedure written by civil service.

The politicians would indeed be partisan  in passing a bill......., versus civil service which doesn't give a rat's azzz about partisanship when writing a policy (suking up to elected officials is a different version of politics.... but does not drive the actual policy as such per se... and procedures not at all)...

 

And I totally agree with you and I think in your case, we're talking about elected officials and in my case, we're talking in contrast about civil service members as being government....

So going with my definition of government (as the civil service backbone who actually write the policies and procedures), this is why I would prefer that over corporation.
 

You're dead on right... the Fed and every other corporation would not give a royal rats azzzz about you or me and relative to any expensive treatment unless we were major producers....

The insurance companies use actuarial tables and USE evidence based based protocols to their advantage to basically deny treatment. The demand is that patients be driven like cattle through a maze that will hopefully exhaust them and their will to pursue necessary treatments to the point they give up and go away. Its calculated game that people will go away and not sure for deliberate indifference and incompetent negligence. With this overarching foundation, they write policies and procedures that ultimately support corporate profit making in this game of risk.

 

In contrast, if you have a government agency that is now tasked with providing health care services to the national population.

(okay, government gets way too frickin bulky and I'll tell you I and others can actually and literally build a system ground up using organizational matrix programming with controlled algorithms software like Isee), that uses 10th of the staff that is otherwise used.... for some reason, (I think lack of understanding,,, it freaks people out that gov't can run so lean and mean.... BUT apart from that bulk okay...well that and as executive leader you have to really get your hands dirty and work in the tranches with the staff versus smile and look pretty for the camera... :) )....

 

In contrast, if you have a government agency that is now tasked with providing health care services to the national population.

The civil service building that do not have partisan interests in it. Even the Director, Under Secretary etc etc as long as they stay within budget.

The people building those systems do NOT have a corporate interest matrix/algorithum build into every health care service …. And instead government uses “community standards”, which follow the rubrics of medical practice. Further, its usually the doctors that have initial input on the systems being built (unless you're in some hilllbilly dingle area maybe)... and is guided by standards of Quality Assurance (versus corporate utilization management... bulll sheeet... ). In short without going into 20 pages of contrast, a system built with civil service folks and run by civil service folks is going to be a system of medical care delivery with the patient at the center instead of the dollar as the primary determinant of treatment interventions. And of course you run risk management and cost/benefit matrices.... and are responsible for fiscal prudence absolutely. HOWEVER, ethical medical practice and not the dollar cost is the primary determinant of treatment interventions.

AND if there is a community consensus (the US people) that costs must be cut, then it goes to election in terms of what we cut. Meaning, if we decide to just use “Constitutional minimums” as the driver of care, then its legislated, VERSUS, there is a corporate decision that instead of doing a spine fusion for pain, we just give everyone a scooter to get around.... In other words, change comes from the vote of people via legislation, versus corporate decisions about saving them money by giving us less... (hopefully I've articulated that well enough.... the difference).

And yes a government system costs a pile of money... But we're already spending a pile of money to have government people manage a system that is profiting the corporation!!! So basically, I guess I'm saying take out the corporation and just keep it of the government by the government of the governed...

 

Hopefully the contrast is clear. I think we're actually on the same page given your Fed Reserve example. I'm also having an active verbal conversation about something completely different with another person right now.... so hopefully this reply is not too disjointed and makes sense in terms of why I see this to be a much better /preferred system of health care service delivery..... (if not, come back at me and I'll give it another go...) :D

 

 

[tigerstripes]

What the frickin sam hill is going on with Obama Care.... once again not everything is what is seems.... it seems...

 

<snip>

 

 

From my perspective (which could change the more I read OMB etc. rules and regs particularity those in direct reference to this specific issue)... but for now, it appears that:

 

A bill was passed.

 

• For whatever reason, (doesn't matter, it is legal prerogative) one party is saying fine, we see the bill we understand it was passed, however we do not want to fund it.
• It is not unusual or in any way unprecedented that a bill is passed and subsequently not funded.

This is definitely not the first time, nor the last. And it can involve critical mission issues, that are nonetheless decided not as critical as others...

• This party is saying we will fund the government, and encumber this money to run these things, however, we will not fund O/Care.

 

• The other party and executive office is saying no, we will not accept your choice to fund other government programs, but not fund O/Care. Its all or none.

 

• Its almost as if one party wants to bifurcate and do line item while the other party is saying no, its all or none.

 

And in any case, both parties are suking at not communicating what is going on,

They both are responsible for the government shutdown.

 

The US is showing polls clearly indicating that the US population is “blaming” the GOP for this, (up to 75% in some cases) despite from what I can tell, the fact they are instead using clearly acceptable, established budgetary infrastructures, rules and regulations to deny funding a program they believe will put the US in economic harms way.

 

And as you rightly point out - the ACA would go ahead regardless.

 

All other politics aside and there are many.... and there are likely some we've no idea exist, ….both sides are really responsible in the sense they're log jammed in a disagreement as to whether or not O/Care should be funded. And both sides are proceeding along infrastructure R/Rs to voice that.

 

However, Congress has the legal prerogative to fund or not fund something..... and therein it appears its the Dems that are throwing down the hard-line gauntlet, by way of Executive privilege demanding a capitulation that leaves no room for negotiating out this economic hostage.

 

But here's the thing.  Do you think that the Government could or should operate in this manner.

Remember, the ACA has been signed.  It has already been voted on, and it has been ruled as constitutional by the Supreme Court.

They have tried on over forty occassions to get rid of it through the normal legislative process and failed.

Now they are saying that they are prepared to shut down the Government over it because they have tried the normal legislative procedures and failed.

 

I think this could be a serious turning point.  I have no doubt that now that this tactic has been used, it will be used again should circumstances permit.  By both sides of the aisle.

 

I put a hypothetical situation up in another post a few days ago, reversing the roles, and suggesting an abortion ban as the instigator in place of the ACA.

 

This could happen and the Democrats would be equally as irresponsible as the Republicans are now if they were to shut down the government because they couldn't get their way through the normal processes.

 

I'm not sure that something like this has ever been done previously and would be very interested to see if it had.  To my knowledge it hasn't.

 

I have heard the argument that the TeaParty are doing what their consituents want.  I don't buy it.  If what their voters want is not only destructive to the country, but for the entire basis of governing it, that's even less reason to support what they are doing.

They aren't just standing up for the people in their electorate, they're threatening to tear the entire thing down if they don'r get their way.

 

And if this is going to be the legislative process in the future, where a minority view can be used to shut down the government, then the USA might as well just pack it up as a country and go home.

 

I'm not so comfy cozy with the fact that the tea party is the major lead on this only inasmuch as they are (whether they know it or not) so heavily heavily funded by corporate infrastructures... (which pretty much creeps me out).. My disconnect is: why would the dems want such a heavily corporatized system put in place when it would logically be a tea party move, and why is the TP trying to stop it when it is so corporatized and the Dems should be opposing it??? This is a bit of a rabbit hole....

 

And stop saying O/Care socialist. Its isn't and just because that idiot said it doesn't mean you have to be another idiot saying it. Corporatism is rearing its ugly baby head trying to replace government (or at least have government serve its interest).... If you don't think so, go read the TPP thread and tell me why you are not totally creeped freaked out. If it was socialist/government based, we could at least trust it as one more slow moving dysfunctional system that at least is not owned by a a group of people/families. And no, don't be an idiot and think I am socialist or advocating such... I'm pointing out a difference... wait I am advocating it to be government driven versus corporate, so in that sense, that I am advocating... Then again I really love the VA.

 

And here's where all the rubbish about not negotiating comes into play.  The ACA was the result of the negotiation.  The Democrats gave up their UHC option in order to get something enacted.  The negotiations have already happened.  Years ago.

As far as it being labelled a socialist program - it's a pretty loose description of socialism if you're using it to describe a program that forces people to purchase something from a private company.

 

 

Please don't make me regret I wrote this by taking it out of context, or using it to further some political divisiveness/separation or isolation, If you don't want O/Care and you voted for O, call your rep and tell em so. Tell the dems, tell the gop tell the tea party reps of your area, that you don't want it. And if you do, the same thing applies, call em and tell em so.... Right now they are so embroiled in the peacock dance of mortal kombat, I dont think they even know where the pulse of the people lies, much less bothered to take it.......

[Maggie123]

 

I think this could be a serious turning point.  I have no doubt that now that this tactic has been used, it will be used again should circumstances permit.  By both sides of the aisle.

 

I put a hypothetical situation up in another post a few days ago, reversing the roles, and suggesting an abortion ban as the instigator in place of the ACA.

 

This could happen and the Democrats would be equally as irresponsible as the Republicans are now if they were to shut down the government because they couldn't get their way through the normal processes.

 

I'm not sure that something like this has ever been done previously and would be very interested to see if it had.  To my knowledge it hasn't.

 

I have heard the argument that the TeaParty are doing what their consituents want.  I don't buy it.  If what their voters want is not only destructive to the country, but for the entire basis of governing it, that's even less reason to support what they are doing.

They aren't just standing up for the people in their electorate, they're threatening to tear the entire thing down if they don'r get their way.

 

And if this is going to be the legislative process in the future, where a minority view can be used to shut down the government, then the USA might as well just pack it up as a country and go home.

I Agree Tigerstripes. Thank You

[Rayzur]

 

Blue is my favorite response color darnit.... but I'll do green this time.... lol lol ...

I'm not wedded to anything I have said at the expense of greater clarity, understanding, or knowledge about this flippin thing. And given I've the same foundation I had a a couple of hours ago, will probably come from about the same place, until I see, read or analyze something as different. I'm sure you won't but please don't see that as my continuing to "argue" my point, asmuch as replying from what I understand at present. Since I wrote that I've waded through hundreds of pages (skimmed) from the CBO, which like our LAO is non partisan and gives pretty intense budgetary  analysis... (And are usually kids with crew cuts I often wanted to strangle as a "quick fix" to our disagreement.... lol lol )

 

And as you rightly point out - the ACA would go ahead regardless.

 

It will go on in terms of having been an enacted law.... however if its not funded, it will not be implemented as an actual program. That it is law is not a question.

 

However, Congress has the legal prerogative to fund or not fund something..... and therein it appears its the Dems that are throwing down the hard-line gauntlet, by way of Executive privilege demanding a capitulation that leaves no room for negotiating out this economic hostage.

 

But here's the thing.  Do you think that the Government could or should operate in this manner.

Remember, the ACA has been signed.  It has already been voted on, and it has been ruled as constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Here's the other thing... this is such a hot button item, and is so loaded and is representing a whole host of things symbolically, that have nothing to do with it... its hard to separate out just the factual logistics

Initially I was like, oh for pete's sake, you dill weeds you can't hold the government hostage. Then I was like, wait, I know this stuff... and right you literally can't hold the government hostage, in that it takes two to tango, so wtf is going on... and I then looked into to and came to the thoughts posted in this... Cause I was like, I know how this works... so what is going on that there is any hostage taking in the first place...

 

Like it or not, your question would be better stated as (in essence okay NOT in technical budgetary terms but essentially) Should Congress have line item budgetary authority? And the answer is pretty much found everywhere in budgetary "law" (R&R) as: you may not obligate funds [under the CR] that would impinge on final funding prerogatives of the Congress.

 

Congress has final prerogative in terms of obligating funds.

President has final authority to sign the budget ( I guess, have to research that definitively but appears to be what he is invoking)

    Seems we are shut down as both prerogatives are at odds with one another,

 

And I've scanned lots of paper showing lots of budgetary work for both positions since march 2013, indicating that there are some real concerns on both sides.... and honestly, it seems the budgetary concerns of implementation are very real... (okay fine I'll give you links tomorrow, I downloaded stuff and glad I'm using linux as several 1000 page documents went pretty fast.... but go to CBO and its all there...)

 

It also appears the executive office is relying on the belief that re election was about a loud statement endorsing the ACA, when in fact I know several people who voted O simply as a hopeful means of slowing down the literal corporatization of America, thinking R would have been a fast track (and these guys are multi millionaires who actually have the real money that would really be re distributed, versus the middle class  perception of having money or taxed wealth that would be used in redistribution). Others voted O because of discomfort with R's theocracy, still others, while Jewish, did not like the comfy hug a thon R was having with Netanyahu  in terms of going to war.... None of them endorsed ACA (though most would support spending a greater share of their money through taxation of wealth for National health Care.... but not corporatized health care)... I'm not at all certain that his re election necessarily was an endorsement of ACA, and if that's the strongest selling point... well I don't know.

 

 

They have tried on over forty occassions to get rid of it through the normal legislative process and failed.

I've heard this number before and would like to see the source, In review of the legislated history and those legislated activites related, I see only one bill that was put forward last spring to repeal it.... I didn't trace it to see what happened. I didn't see any history of those actions. Not doubting, and without source, can't really say or respond.

 

Now they are saying that they are prepared to shut down the Government over it because they have tried the normal legislative procedures and failed.

 

I think they are saying we're doing a line item veto (that is not technically speaking, its a shorthand way of saying not fund by way of priority)

Executive office is saying they will veto unless it specifically is funded.

Seems they are both drawing a line in the sand consistent with their authority to do so.

 

I think this could be a serious turning point.  I have no doubt that now that this tactic has been used, it will be used again should circumstances permit.  By both sides of the aisle.

 

It has been used, just not on something so highlighted, emotionally charged, as a platform for election, and so forth. Line item veto (okay not the formal budget technical process, so please use the term as the legal way not to fund), has been used for decades probably back a hundred years.

 

I put a hypothetical situation up in another post a few days ago, reversing the roles, and suggesting an abortion ban as the instigator in place of the ACA.

 

This could happen and the Democrats would be equally as irresponsible as the Republicans are now if they were to shut down the government because they couldn't get their way through the normal processes.

 

If you are saying that there Law X banning abortion was passed. And this law requires funding in order to ban abortion. And the Dems said we will fund all these other programs, however this is among those programs we will not fund. And a GOP president says then I won't sign the CR until that is in there. And the Dems say, well we do not want to fund it. Then yes, the tables would be turned, and people would probably be ticked off at the Dems, even though both branches were operating within their authority.

 

I'm not sure that something like this has ever been done previously and would be very interested to see if it had.  To my knowledge it hasn't.

 

Oh there are many. Just perhaps not this sensational. And maybe few if any that over the many years that ever served as  the corner stone of a presidential campaign for election. I think the Food Modernazation Act (2011) was passed but not initially funded, and then there was pittance... for start up.... and now its in 2014 budget..but not that much money still and is still a start up... or something.... .Don't know that for sure, havent taken time to follow... but initially its looked like it was not going to be funded ever..and I noticed it in 2014 .... (which by the way also did not have the RV in it.... lol ) I'd have to take time to find others...And they are there.....

 

I have heard the argument that the TeaParty are doing what their consituents want.  I don't buy it.  If what their voters want is not only destructive to the country, but for the entire basis of governing it, that's even less reason to support what they are doing.

 

Hopefully its clear.... I really tried to make it clear, I am not supporting anyone or anything.... and I am solely focused upon what is actual factual in terms of points of authority to do what is being done....In looking for that, together with my own experience in this process as well as  unfunded legislation that was successfully passed, I simply could not conclude it was a one-sided issue, a one-sided act or the result of action outside acceptable, legal, commonly used practices in funding government programs passed into law. I'm as guilty as the next guy in initially stating its not okay to hold the government hostage.... then my head cleared and it dawned on me, actually you can't do that.... and now I'm at the place of saying.... while there is hostage taking, both sides have a gun and a legitimate legal budgetary practice...

Who knows, next week I might actually announce I believe the RV is in the 2014 budget .

 

 

They aren't just standing up for the people in their electorate, they're threatening to tear the entire thing down if they don'r get their way.

 

Both groups are pretty much holding their breath on this one.

 

And if this is going to be the legislative process in the future, where a minority view can be used to shut down the government, then the USA might as well just pack it up as a country and go home.

 

This is done and has been done for eons in any line item budget discussion/action/veto. This one just happens to be among the more sensational of any of those ever discussed. There is nothing about me that is able to support the TP, as a group, if for no other reason than nothing definitively explicitly in some codified platform has ever defined them as a group. However, I do think there are individuals who are doing their best to exercise fiscal prudence as well as some constitutional concerns (which were rendered constitutional by way of Tax law, not as a liberty interest) and whatever else, I don't know... Many of these people were voted in after the bill was passed into law...therein, I'm not sure that they aren't representing the people who elected them. I don't know that they are not....

Now lets see what everyone does as a group or individuals when it comes to raising the debt ceiling.... I about fell off my chair last time it was discussed and it became so clear that several were so clueless I was mortified... I mean horrified that they really and truly didn't know what the hellll they were talking about.... so lets hope everyone is up to speed this time....  .

 

.

I'm not so comfy cozy with the fact that the tea party is the major lead on this only inasmuch as they are (whether they know it or not) so heavily heavily funded by corporate infrastructures... (which pretty much creeps me out).. My disconnect is: why would the dems want such a heavily corporatized system put in place when it would logically be a tea party move, and why is the TP trying to stop it when it is so corporatized and the Dems should be opposing it??? This is a bit of a rabbit hole....

 

Okay my friend... explain the above to me.... What's up with that... I really don't get it. Its almost like it's the exact opposite of what it should be and what the differing parties tend to represent..Unless God in heaven forbid... everyone up there is so frickin confused they play8ing follow the leader and have no idea what they are doing... ...

 

And stop saying O/Care socialist. Its isn't and just because that idiot said it doesn't mean you have to be another idiot saying it. Corporatism is rearing its ugly baby head trying to replace government (or at least have government serve its interest).... If you don't think so, go read the TPP thread and tell me why you are not totally creeped freaked out. If it was socialist/government based, we could at least trust it as one more slow moving dysfunctional system that at least is not owned by a a group of people/families. And no, don't be an idiot and think I am socialist or advocating such... I'm pointing out a difference... wait I am advocating it to be government driven versus corporate, so in that sense, that I am advocating... Then again I really love the VA.

 

And here's where all the rubbish about not negotiating comes into play.  The ACA was the result of the negotiation.  The Democrats gave up their UHC option in order to get something enacted.  The negotiations have already happened.  Years ago.

I don;t want to sound trite and hopefully am taking the higher road I pray those elected are taking... Maybe in the last 4 years things have changed enough, or we are beginning to understand its impact, ... or still don't have enough of a clue about its impact, that the will of the people has changed? I'm all for national health care. No question. I am my brother's keeper and willingly take on sharing what I have in gratitude for having it, with those who don't. And since it was passed, just reviewing its shortcomings, together with its budgetary impact, .... maybe the will of the people has changed? Maybe. We are living in a world of so much rapid change and approaching an epic meltdown of the economy that we have come to understand as not an if... but a when..... I don't know Tiger Stripes... I don't know.....

From a provider perspective, as it has rolled out, it is so screwed up many of those who can are retiring, Its a freakin nightmare. From a systems perspective, the juxtaposition of corporatism with a national / government program is a train wreck in the sense of benefiting the corporate and costing the patient. I've screamed out to anyone who listens, there is no way kids are going to take on 1/2 million dollar debt to become a doctor, when they won't be able to pay that back until they retire.... That simply MUST be addressed before we roll out something so demanding of resource we simply don't have. The cart is way before the horse in the sense of not having a viable foundation. I'll tell you right now,.... this system demands by design, that health care will be provided by a lower licensed person, who will be legally bound to use protocol check lists to determine your treatment and that was in no way as clear to me then as it is now as this starts to roll out.... .

As far as it being labelled a socialist program - it's a pretty loose description of socialism if you're using it to describe a program that forces people to purchase something from a private company.

 

That is my whole point exactly, It is NOT socialist. If anything its the antithesis of socialism.... We'd be way better off if it actually if it were  a systems approach that was theoretically speaking a truly socialist program in terms of cost/benefit and actual quality health care and treatment. As it is, this hybrid is a monster of  forced corporatism that will benefit the corporate infrastructure while killing the individual in the name of health care. Technically, theoretically speaking, a socialist system would look like the VA, for civilians..... it would be the same kind of system, run by the government, with no corporate participation whatsoever, in the delivery of health care. The US government spent over 6 million dollars decades ago just researching an ideal system of health care delivery for its veterans. Why not duplicate that for civilians in terms of an organizational structure? Foundation, rules regs policies procedures, etc etc is already there. Why do we need the middle man corporate structure inserted into the middle of it all... what they hellll are they doing, why do we need them...... Oh wait I know, so they can make money off this somehow.... (okay now I'm just being pizzzy... its annoying that we have to re invent the wheel to make sure and insert corporate profits into life and death health care decisions.

 

Okay that was my short answer. I probably missed something... its late... and my son is coming back early for more surfing time tomorrow.... so got to go do push ups (in my sleep) to be ready for him.... lol lol  

 

 

 

 

...

 

[tigerstripes]

 

 

Blue is my favorite response color darnit.... but I'll do green this time.... lol lol ...

 

 

We're running out of colors that we can use that will still be able to be seen.  I'd go with red, but, well, communism and all that!

 

I'm not wedded to anything I have said at the expense of greater clarity, understanding, or knowledge about this flippin thing. And given I've the same foundation I had a a couple of hours ago, will probably come from about the same place, until I see, read or analyze something as different. I'm sure you won't but please don't see that as my continuing to "argue" my point, asmuch as replying from what I understand at present. Since I wrote that I've waded through hundreds of pages (skimmed) from the CBO, which like our LAO is non partisan and gives pretty intense budgetary  analysis... (And are usually kids with crew cuts I often wanted to strangle as a "quick fix" to our disagreement.... lol lol )

 

You are showing great dedication.

 

And as you rightly point out - the ACA would go ahead regardless.

 

It will go on in terms of having been an enacted law.... however if its not funded, it will not be implemented as an actual program. That it is law is not a question.

 

So what's the end result.  If the Democrats cave, what happens?  Bear in mind, it's not just about the de-funding.  It's also delaying the individual mandate for 12 months, which would make the entire system inoperable.

 

But here's the thing.  Do you think that the Government could or should operate in this manner.

Remember, the ACA has been signed.  It has already been voted on, and it has been ruled as constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Here's the other thing... this is such a hot button item, and is so loaded and is representing a whole host of things symbolically, that have nothing to do with it... its hard to separate out just the factual logistics

Initially I was like, oh for pete's sake, you dill weeds you can't hold the government hostage. Then I was like, wait, I know this stuff... and right you literally can't hold the government hostage, in that it takes two to tango, so wtf is going on... and I then looked into to and came to the thoughts posted in this... Cause I was like, I know how this works... so what is going on that there is any hostage taking in the first place...

 

Like it or not, your question would be better stated as (in essence okay NOT in technical budgetary terms but essentially) Should Congress have line item budgetary authority? And the answer is pretty much found everywhere in budgetary "law" (R&R) as: you may not obligate funds [under the CR] that would impinge on final funding prerogatives of the Congress.

 

Congress has final prerogative in terms of obligating funds.

President has final authority to sign the budget ( I guess, have to research that definitively but appears to be what he is invoking)

    Seems we are shut down as both prerogatives are at odds with one another,

 

And I've scanned lots of paper showing lots of budgetary work for both positions since march 2013, indicating that there are some real concerns on both sides.... and honestly, it seems the budgetary concerns of implementation are very real... (okay fine I'll give you links tomorrow, I downloaded stuff and glad I'm using linux as several 1000 page documents went pretty fast.... but go to CBO and its all there...)

 

My issue is not whether it is within Congress' authority to do this.  Obviously they can, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.  My issue is whether this is the best way for running a government.

There's a reason why there are three branches of government, and it's not so that the one being outnumbered can "hold the others hostage" by threatening to shut down the entire government unless they get what they want.

That would render the entire government structure and the processes enacted for passing legislation irrelevant.  And I think that's a really bad precedent to set.

Countries without a functioning government tend to be really bad places.  Personally, I'd prefer that didn't happen in the USA.

 

 

It also appears the executive office is relying on the belief that re election was about a loud statement endorsing the ACA, when in fact I know several people who voted O simply as a hopeful means of slowing down the literal corporatization of America, thinking R would have been a fast track (and these guys are multi millionaires who actually have the real money that would really be re distributed, versus the middle class  perception of having money or taxed wealth that would be used in redistribution). Others voted O because of discomfort with R's theocracy, still others, while Jewish, did not like the comfy hug a thon R was having with Netanyahu  in terms of going to war.... None of them endorsed ACA (though most would support spending a greater share of their money through taxation of wealth for National health Care.... but not corporatized health care)... I'm not at all certain that his re election necessarily was an endorsement of ACA, and if that's the strongest selling point... well I don't know.

 

As far as elections - the process I go through when I vote is balancing the entire party's platform against the other party's entire platform.  If that means that by voting a party into power, they may pass laws that I don't agree with, well, that's the trade off for getting things that are really important to me.  But you see, those things that I don't necessarily agree with may be really important to other people.  We don't all have the same needs.

If one party has enough policies that appeal to an overall majority, they win.

 

 

They have tried on over forty occassions to get rid of it through the normal legislative process and failed.

I've heard this number before and would like to see the source, In review of the legislated history and those legislated activites related, I see only one bill that was put forward last spring to repeal it.... I didn't trace it to see what happened. I didn't see any history of those actions. Not doubting, and without source, can't really say or respond.

 

it's up to 42.  They weren't all about repealing.  And some of them were passed by the Senate and signed by the President.  It's what we like to call negotiation and it's actually what the Democrats have been doing in trying to get something through.

This link gives a reasonable breakdown.  That link is from July and has 37 as the number, but I think with the latest shenanigans I think it's up to 42.

 

Now they are saying that they are prepared to shut down the Government over it because they have tried the normal legislative procedures and failed.

 

I think they are saying we're doing a line item veto (that is not technically speaking, its a shorthand way of saying not fund by way of priority)

Executive office is saying they will veto unless it specifically is funded.

Seems they are both drawing a line in the sand consistent with their authority to do so.

 

I think this could be a serious turning point.  I have no doubt that now that this tactic has been used, it will be used again should circumstances permit.  By both sides of the aisle.

 

It has been used, just not on something so highlighted, emotionally charged, as a platform for election, and so forth. Line item veto (okay not the formal budget technical process, so please use the term as the legal way not to fund), has been used for decades probably back a hundred years.

 

Sure, but have they been passed by both houses, or have they caused a shut down?  That's the issue at play.  Not whether congress has the right to line veto an item, but whether or not they should use that as a means of shutting down the government.

 

I put a hypothetical situation up in another post a few days ago, reversing the roles, and suggesting an abortion ban as the instigator in place of the ACA.

 

This could happen and the Democrats would be equally as irresponsible as the Republicans are now if they were to shut down the government because they couldn't get their way through the normal processes.

 

If you are saying that there Law X banning abortion was passed. And this law requires funding in order to ban abortion. And the Dems said we will fund all these other programs, however this is among those programs we will not fund. And a GOP president says then I won't sign the CR until that is in there. And the Dems say, well we do not want to fund it. Then yes, the tables would be turned, and people would probably be ticked off at the Dems, even though both branches were operating within their authority.

 

I'm not sure that something like this has ever been done previously and would be very interested to see if it had.  To my knowledge it hasn't.

 

Oh there are many. Just perhaps not this sensational. And maybe few if any that over the many years that ever served as  the corner stone of a presidential campaign for election. I think the Food Modernazation Act (2011) was passed but not initially funded, and then there was pittance... for start up.... and now its in 2014 budget..but not that much money still and is still a start up... or something.... .Don't know that for sure, havent taken time to follow... but initially its looked like it was not going to be funded ever..and I noticed it in 2014 .... (which by the way also did not have the RV in it.... lol ) I'd have to take time to find others...And they are there.....

 

OK.  But have they been used as a "weapon" to say - get rid of/delay/defund whatever or we shut down the government?

 

I have heard the argument that the TeaParty are doing what their consituents want.  I don't buy it.  If what their voters want is not only destructive to the country, but for the entire basis of governing it, that's even less reason to support what they are doing.

 

Hopefully its clear.... I really tried to make it clear, I am not supporting anyone or anything.... and I am solely focused upon what is actual factual in terms of points of authority to do what is being done....In looking for that, together with my own experience in this process as well as  unfunded legislation that was successfully passed, I simply could not conclude it was a one-sided issue, a one-sided act or the result of action outside acceptable, legal, commonly used practices in funding government programs passed into law. I'm as guilty as the next guy in initially stating its not okay to hold the government hostage.... then my head cleared and it dawned on me, actually you can't do that.... and now I'm at the place of saying.... while there is hostage taking, both sides have a gun and a legitimate legal budgetary practice...

Who knows, next week I might actually announce I believe the RV is in the 2014 budget .

 

I do understand what you are saying.  I really do.

But the way I see it, they are currently supposed to be voting on a Continuing Resolution to continue funding the government for the next three months.  What the TeaParty are doing is trying to attach the delay of the ACA to the CR.  For a whole year.  If the Democrats cave in to their demands now, we will have to go through this all again on December 3rd or the Government will shut down again on December 4.  if the Democrats cave now, what will the TeaParty demand to pass that CR.

 

They are not supposed to be voting the defunding or delay of a passed and ruled-constitutional law.  If they want to vote on the ACA, they should do that and not try to tie it into the funding of the government because it has nothing to do with it except that the republicans want the Democrats to blink and give them what they want without having to garner enough votes to do it properly.

 

 

They aren't just standing up for the people in their electorate, they're threatening to tear the entire thing down if they don'r get their way.

 

Both groups are pretty much holding their breath on this one.

 

And if this is going to be the legislative process in the future, where a minority view can be used to shut down the government, then the USA might as well just pack it up as a country and go home.

 

This is done and has been done for eons in any line item budget discussion/action/veto. This one just happens to be among the more sensational of any of those ever discussed. There is nothing about me that is able to support the TP, as a group, if for no other reason than nothing definitively explicitly in some codified platform has ever defined them as a group. However, I do think there are individuals who are doing their best to exercise fiscal prudence as well as some constitutional concerns (which were rendered constitutional by way of Tax law, not as a liberty interest) and whatever else, I don't know... Many of these people were voted in after the bill was passed into law...therein, I'm not sure that they aren't representing the people who elected them. I don't know that they are not....

Now lets see what everyone does as a group or individuals when it comes to raising the debt ceiling.... I about fell off my chair last time it was discussed and it became so clear that several were so clueless I was mortified... I mean horrified that they really and truly didn't know what the hellll they were talking about.... so lets hope everyone is up to speed this time....  .

 

The two words I highlighted are the important ones.  Do you think that it's possible that if the TeaParty members get the Democrats to cave on ACA in order to end the shut down, they might come up with something else that they want or they won't raise the debt ceiling?

 

Again, it's not just about the line veto - it's the shutting down of the government.  Or, more catastrophically, the not raising of the debt ceiling.

 

.

I'm not so comfy cozy with the fact that the tea party is the major lead on this only inasmuch as they are (whether they know it or not) so heavily heavily funded by corporate infrastructures... (which pretty much creeps me out).. My disconnect is: why would the dems want such a heavily corporatized system put in place when it would logically be a tea party move, and why is the TP trying to stop it when it is so corporatized and the Dems should be opposing it??? This is a bit of a rabbit hole....

 

Okay my friend... explain the above to me.... What's up with that... I really don't get it. Its almost like it's the exact opposite of what it should be and what the differing parties tend to represent..Unless God in heaven forbid... everyone up there is so frickin confused they play8ing follow the leader and have no idea what they are doing... ...

 

It's a little of like the opposite of what you'd expect.  The Democrats want the ACA because they know that they will not get the UHC that they really want.  It's the compromise position.

The TeaParty are trying to stop it, because well, that's what they do.  Stop stop stop.  Are you aware of what the TeaParty plan is for healthcare?  I have no idea what their plans are.  I don't think it has anything to do with UHC though.

 

And stop saying O/Care socialist. Its isn't and just because that idiot said it doesn't mean you have to be another idiot saying it. Corporatism is rearing its ugly baby head trying to replace government (or at least have government serve its interest).... If you don't think so, go read the TPP thread and tell me why you are not totally creeped freaked out. If it was socialist/government based, we could at least trust it as one more slow moving dysfunctional system that at least is not owned by a a group of people/families. And no, don't be an idiot and think I am socialist or advocating such... I'm pointing out a difference... wait I am advocating it to be government driven versus corporate, so in that sense, that I am advocating... Then again I really love the VA.

 

And here's where all the rubbish about not negotiating comes into play.  The ACA was the result of the negotiation.  The Democrats gave up their UHC option in order to get something enacted.  The negotiations have already happened.  Years ago.

I don;t want to sound trite and hopefully am taking the higher road I pray those elected are taking... Maybe in the last 4 years things have changed enough, or we are beginning to understand its impact, ... or still don't have enough of a clue about its impact, that the will of the people has changed? I'm all for national health care. No question. I am my brother's keeper and willingly take on sharing what I have in gratitude for having it, with those who don't. And since it was passed, just reviewing its shortcomings, together with its budgetary impact, .... maybe the will of the people has changed? Maybe. We are living in a world of so much rapid change and approaching an epic meltdown of the economy that we have come to understand as not an if... but a when..... I don't know Tiger Stripes... I don't know.....

From a provider perspective, as it has rolled out, it is so screwed up many of those who can are retiring, Its a freakin nightmare. From a systems perspective, the juxtaposition of corporatism with a national / government program is a train wreck in the sense of benefiting the corporate and costing the patient. I've screamed out to anyone who listens, there is no way kids are going to take on 1/2 million dollar debt to become a doctor, when they won't be able to pay that back until they retire.... That simply MUST be addressed before we roll out something so demanding of resource we simply don't have. The cart is way before the horse in the sense of not having a viable foundation. I'll tell you right now,.... this system demands by design, that health care will be provided by a lower licensed person, who will be legally bound to use protocol check lists to determine your treatment and that was in no way as clear to me then as it is now as this starts to roll out.... .

 

Personally, I don't think anybody is really all that happy with the ACA.  I know that the Democrats would have preferred the single payer sytem.  But, sadly, the USA is not ready for that.  I don't fully understand why that is.

But, at least with the ACA, millions of Americans who couldn't previously get healthcare will get it.  That benefits society on many levels.  Maybe it will be the first step to a UHC.

 

As far as it being labelled a socialist program - it's a pretty loose description of socialism if you're using it to describe a program that forces people to purchase something from a private company.

 

That is my whole point exactly, It is NOT socialist. If anything its the antithesis of socialism.... We'd be way better off if it actually if it were  a systems approach that was theoretically speaking a truly socialist program in terms of cost/benefit and actual quality health care and treatment. As it is, this hybrid is a monster of  forced corporatism that will benefit the corporate infrastructure while killing the individual in the name of health care. Technically, theoretically speaking, a socialist system would look like the VA, for civilians..... it would be the same kind of system, run by the government, with no corporate participation whatsoever, in the delivery of health care. The US government spent over 6 million dollars decades ago just researching an ideal system of health care delivery for its veterans. Why not duplicate that for civilians in terms of an organizational structure? Foundation, rules regs policies procedures, etc etc is already there. Why do we need the middle man corporate structure inserted into the middle of it all... what they hellll are they doing, why do we need them...... Oh wait I know, so they can make money off this somehow.... (okay now I'm just being pizzzy... its annoying that we have to re invent the wheel to make sure and insert corporate profits into life and death health care decisions.

 

Okay that was my short answer. I probably missed something... its late... and my son is coming back early for more surfing time tomorrow.... so got to go do push ups (in my sleep) to be ready for him.... lol lol  

 

 

Enjoy the waves.

 

 

 

...

 

 

[waterman13]

If your name is in all CAPITAL LETTERS you are a corporation according to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

Wm13

[Rayzur]

Tiger, I would have loved the red... I thought most people knew that theoretical communism was dead.... not to mention, people often spouting out about communism frequently use red to highlight their points... lol lol lol

You raise good points.  And who the helllll really knows, I don't. My whole thing was about drilling down on being technically accurate for my own understanding as where we are...

 

What the TeaParty are doing is trying to attach the delay of the ACA to the CR.... They are not supposed to be voting the defunding or delay of a passed and ruled-constitutional law

Just to be a pesky puss of accuracy.... it is part of the CR in that it is a program that requires funding. It is not being defunded, it is being proposed as being not funded. A slight but perhaps important difference... And again, both sides are shutting it down in the sense of exercising legal authority to engage the process in the way that supports their agenda. (And I can't honestly say I've paid enough attention to the TP to notice that they are the NO group, but it wouldn't surprise me..... some of them are so short on cognitive ability, its frightening.... though not unlike others lol )... 

ooooooo I like this purple.... what do you think.... do you like the way it looks... I think it goes so well with my outfit...

 

But here's the thing.  Do you think that the Government could or should operate in this manner.

It's how it's been done for eons. This part about not funding certain programs, is not new. What is new is that this is such a hot button, sensational, emotion packed issue. And I don't think a victory here on either side will precipitate it to any greater extent than is already practiced all the time. I don't see it being a tactic used anymore than its already used day in and out.... ITs just this issue puts it in public attention...

Now lets see what everyone does as a group or individuals when it comes to raising the debt ceiling.... I about fell off my chair last time it was discussed and it became so clear that several were so clueless I was mortified... I mean horrified that they really and truly didn't know what the hellll they were talking about.... so lets hope everyone is up to speed this time....  .

 

The two words I highlighted are the important ones.  Do you think that it's possible that if the TeaParty members get the Democrats to cave on ACA in order to end the shut down, they might come up with something else that they want or they won't raise the debt ceiling?

 

Again, it's not just about the line veto - it's the shutting down of the government.  Or, more catastrophically, the not raising of the debt ceiling.

 

We are on the same page as to the bottom line...If they get stuck on stupid and for some reason engage some of the same insipid, idiotic stupid logic they did last time... I would want to personally take them on in debate publicly... or at least go slap the hell out of em in hopes they wake up.... lol lol ... If they stop the raising of the debt ceiling, they will be responsible for killing life as we know it in this country....

 

My personal opinion and experience.... I would be fine with the downfall of O/Care, with the proviso, that immediate work is engaged to put something together that we enact within the next few years. From my experience trying to patch up a fuked up system ultimately takes far more time, money and energy, than standing back and building it conjointly together (yes I know its asking a lot.... okay fine I'll volunteer to sit on the committee.... lol ).... I'm willing to bet that implementing a fuked up system, in the end will cause as much dely (and cost far more), than trashing it and building it again from ground up....

Maybe we can get legislation / bill stating we shall have a system in place in x number of years, that a national system is not negotiable, and that only its mechanics are.... Okay I'm rambling off the top of my head in these last paragraphs and not thinking it out.... just brain storming... and I have to jet out for a few hours.... will think about it more....

Thanks for the fun, respectful and insightful discussion.... I'm learning., while at the same time gaining more clarity as to where I stand and why. For me its been a dynamic and fluid process... and I appreciate your willingness to hang in here and continue...

 

PS I think I am going to keep this lovely purple.... red would go really well as an accent color... .

[tigerstripes]

Tiger, I would have loved the red... I thought most people knew that theoretical communism was dead.... not to mention, people often spouting out about communism frequently use red to highlight their points... lol lol lol

You raise good points.  And who the helllll really knows, I don't. My whole thing was about drilling down on being technically accurate for my own understanding as where we are...

 

What the TeaParty are doing is trying to attach the delay of the ACA to the CR.... They are not supposed to be voting the defunding or delay of a passed and ruled-constitutional law

Just to be a pesky puss of accuracy.... it is part of the CR in that it is a program that requires funding. It is not being defunded, it is being proposed as being not funded. A slight but perhaps important difference... And again, both sides are shutting it down in the sense of exercising legal authority to engage the process in the way that supports their agenda.

 

Red it is then!

 

I can only re-state my point that whilst it may be within the procedures for Congress to line veto an item in a CR, it's a crappy way of running the legislature.

There's a difference between "legal" and ethical.

 

As for the unfunding/de-funding whatever, that was the first proposal from the Congress Republicans.  Subsequent proposals have included delaying the implementation for 12 months.  If the individual mandate was to be delayed it would render the ACA pointless, as there would be no reason for anybody to sign up until they got sick.  As you know, insurance works by spreading the risk across the widest pool possible.

So the claims about a simple matter of unfunding are nonsense as evidenced by the subsequent proposals to delay and include the Vitter amendment.

 

(And I can't honestly say I've paid enough attention to the TP to notice that they are the NO group, but it wouldn't surprise me..... some of them are so short on cognitive ability, its frightening.... though not unlike others lol )... 

 

Good article here on TeaParty politics.

 

 

ooooooo I like this purple.... what do you think.... do you like the way it looks... I think it goes so well with my outfit...

 

Love the purple.

 

But here's the thing.  Do you think that the Government could or should operate in this manner.

It's how it's been done for eons. This part about not funding certain programs, is not new. What is new is that this is such a hot button, sensational, emotion packed issue. And I don't think a victory here on either side will precipitate it to any greater extent than is already practiced all the time. I don't see it being a tactic used anymore than its already used day in and out.... ITs just this issue puts it in public attention...

 

Nope.  It's more than that.  It's using this to shut down the government.

What would have happened if the Democrats in this instance had insisted that they weren't going to approve the budget unless their demands to unfund the war in Iraq were met?  In the article in the link, they removed their demand to unfund the war.  They didn't threaten to shut down the government unless they got their way.  Exactly the opposite of the Republicans are doing now.

 

As I said earlier, if they want to delay the implementation or repeal, or do whatever they want, they should raise a bill to do that.  They shouldn't use their objection to torpedo the whole operation of government.

 

To me it keeps coming back to what James Madison wrote in Federalist #10.

 

"If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution."

 

There doesn't seem to be a work-around according to the letter of the Constitution.  Perhaps the authors felt that it wasn't necessary because these sort of actions go against the "spirit" of the constitution, and that nobody would ever do that.

 

Sadly they had probably never considered the likes of Michele Bachman.

 

 

 

 

Now lets see what everyone does as a group or individuals when it comes to raising the debt ceiling.... I about fell off my chair last time it was discussed and it became so clear that several were so clueless I was mortified... I mean horrified that they really and truly didn't know what the hellll they were talking about.... so lets hope everyone is up to speed this time....  .

 

The two words I highlighted are the important ones.  Do you think that it's possible that if the TeaParty members get the Democrats to cave on ACA in order to end the shut down, they might come up with something else that they want or they won't raise the debt ceiling?

 

Again, it's not just about the line veto - it's the shutting down of the government.  Or, more catastrophically, the not raising of the debt ceiling.

 

We are on the same page as to the bottom line...If they get stuck on stupid and for some reason engage some of the same insipid, idiotic stupid logic they did last time... I would want to personally take them on in debate publicly... or at least go slap the hell out of em in hopes they wake up.... lol lol ... If they stop the raising of the debt ceiling, they will be responsible for killing life as we know it in this country....

 

Agreed.  My hope is that Boehner is rational enough to see this and allow a "clean" vote on it.  He is going to lose out no matter what.  But if he was willing to do it, I would personally donate to his re-election fund.

 

My personal opinion and experience.... I would be fine with the downfall of O/Care, with the proviso, that immediate work is engaged to put something together that we enact within the next few years. From my experience trying to patch up a fuked up system ultimately takes far more time, money and energy, than standing back and building it conjointly together (yes I know its asking a lot.... okay fine I'll volunteer to sit on the committee.... lol ).... I'm willing to bet that implementing a fuked up system, in the end will cause as much dely (and cost far more), than trashing it and building it again from ground up....

Maybe we can get legislation / bill stating we shall have a system in place in x number of years, that a national system is not negotiable, and that only its mechanics are.... Okay I'm rambling off the top of my head in these last paragraphs and not thinking it out.... just brain storming... and I have to jet out for a few hours.... will think about it more....

 

We are in total agreement that a UHC option would be better.  It's better in the rest of the developed world, and it would be better in the USA.  I just can't see it happening anytime soon, and if the ACA will allow people to get healthcare, who couldn't get healthcare previously (40 million people or so), well, at least it's a step in the right direction.

 

Thanks for the fun, respectful and insightful discussion.... I'm learning., while at the same time gaining more clarity as to where I stand and why. For me its been a dynamic and fluid process... and I appreciate your willingness to hang in here and continue...

 

Talking with you is always fun.  You bring a level of insight that is largely unparalleled.

 

PS I think I am going to keep this lovely purple.... red would go really well as an accent color... .

 

So, purple and red good or no good?

[Rayzur]

The red was too sparkly for my eyes..so I went back to your blue and my green.... .

 

As I said earlier, if they want to delay the implementation or repeal, or do whatever they want, they should raise a bill to do that.  They shouldn't use their objection to torpedo the whole operation of government.

 

I've read of several attempts to do just that. I can go in search of links.... I don't have any idea who these guys are (this paper) its just the first link that came up http://www.chillicothegazette.com/article/20130916/NEWS01/309160011/Republicans-split-defunding-Obamacare?nclick_check=1  I'm pretty sure I've read at least several recent attempts (since March 2013) to fund everything except fund O/Care.... and I think O said in reply to them all that he won't negotiate anything but a CR that has O/Care in it..Indeed it is only for that reason that I say there is two in the tango.... Were it not for these kinds of proposals, I would be in total disgust with the party that offered nothing in return (e.g., fund other programs)..

 

 

My hope is that Boehner is rational enough to see this and allow a "clean" vote on it.

 

My hope is that both the executive office and the congress has enough frickin sense to separate these two things, given they are separate things in terms of budgetary appropriations..... I hope and pray they bifurcate these issues......OMG, you donate to that dude's campaign, I'll slap the hellllllll out of whatever dude thinks these two should be linked and considered as one and the same..... (and I'm not confused that they are linked in that one feeds the other in terms of funding source for the other).... but they are not monenetarily linked.... please please tell me they are not..... oh Lordie no..... (guess I should watch the news eh????? )   ..

I'm a bit disappointed that at least 30% of the intended target group will not get insurance, and the loss of pay hours occurring all over the country (even in Universities) as a direct artifact of this....  And to be fair...I don't think its right to re-debate this, and I'm really just listing my concerns... and I'm also watching a mass exodus of my doc colleagues/friends with this roll out.... and well... I am taking this off track from what I intended and where I wanted to go.... (really don't want to debate it's merits, we seem so completely on the same page)

And granted like I said earlier, I was stuck in pretty much repeating what I said only inasmuch as there is no different input taking me in a different direction.... and/or would shift this into a different discussion....

I think we might be at a point of kind of agreeing, and maybe disagreeing philosophically.. but even then I'm not so sure.... We ahve both kind of indicated we are gnawing on a different part of the same dog.... This is where I think its at:

I'm saying:

Congress has final prerogative in terms of obligating funds.

President has final authority to sign the budget

    Seems we are shut down as both prerogatives are at odds with one another,

 

You're saying okay I'm not sure that is the point I want to drill down on.... I get it.... but is that the best way to do it.

 

And I'm saying, that being the best way to do it is not the point I want to drill down on, ..... is what's being done within the legislated prerogative and that being a yes, it appears that the prerogatives are at odds and both parties are responsible for the shutdown....

 

It appears we agree on the need for national health care, and that a UHC would have been the far better option.

 

It also appears we are drilling down on different things and don't necessarily disagree with each other as we are focused on different aspects. Its possible we disagree on both sides having responsibility for the shut down.... not sure... (apart from whether or not it even matters)...

 

It appears we are both crystal clear that the debt ceiling must be raised or life as we know it would cease to exist.

 

Does that appear to sum things up fairly accurate??? 

 

 

 

 

.

[tigerstripes]

Summed up pretty well methinks.'

 

You're talking about the "mechanics" of the process and I'm talking about the "ethics" and "implications" of how those mechanics are utilised.

 

Apart from that, yeah, we're pretty much picking over the same carcass. 

 

Time for a celebratory beverage.

[Rayzur]