Will the House Funding Bill Ignite a Government Shutdown?

[Vanadium 50]

Wait, how is this guy in office?

It's worse than that. He was impeached and convicted by the Senate in 1989, and then removed from office.

The more interesting question is why his party has him in a leadership position (he's a whip).

 

[lisab]

Wait, how is this guy in office??

From the CS Monitor link.

Hint: it's Florida .

 

[OmCheeto]

It's worse than that. He was impeached and convicted by the Senate in 1989, and then removed from office.

The more interesting question is why his party has him in a leadership position (he's a whip).

It's no wonder the aliens don't come and visit...

 

[BobG]

They are some very clever idiots.

Many of them are rejecting their pay, though:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rs-will-refuse-their-pay-during-the-shutdown/

I'm thinking finding a way to not take their pay without complicating their taxes will be difficult. Per the Constitution, the government is going to pay them, so it's not like they can just not get paid.

The story's different for Congressional staffers, though. We may only have 535 Congressmen, but we have around 14,000 Congressional staffers. Average staff in the House is 14, average staff in the Senate is 34, plus there's staff for each Committee, etc. It's up to each Congressman how many of his staff are deemed "essential" and keep working during the furlough. Most Congressmen aren't very enthusiastic about discussing how many of their staff were furloughed and how many were kept on.

It's not like life isn't hard enough for Congressional staffers. While there's some good paying jobs, most don't make as much as they could elsewhere. Can't help noticing that the health benefits for Congressional staffers are the best benefit of being a Congressional staffer. Those health benefits look to be collateral damage in the attack on the ACA.

 

[Astronuc]

Republicans consider short-term U.S. debt ceiling increase
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/10/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE98N11220131010

Some folks are trying to make it work.

 

[BobG]

One thing this shutdown battle illustrates is the difference between reaching a consensus decision and reaching a majority decision.

A consensus decision means a decision that everyone could at least accept, even if they didn't like it that much.

A majority decision means you had enough votes to enact a decision even if it was completely unacceptable to a large percentage of the group.

Congress usually works on a consensus type process, which is why there's so many ways a minority can throw a wrench into the works and stop the majority from enacting something the minority finds completely unacceptable.

There was never a consensus on how to reform health care. Even when it was passed, a majority of Americans opposed it (CNN health care reform poll). You can legitimately argue that the "opposed" number is misleading, since a significant number of those opposed were opposed because the ACA didn't go far enough, but you can't argue that America ever reached a consensus on how to handle health care reform.

More significant is the strength of the opposition. Per CBS's poll (from Polling Report, over 30% were strongly opposed even when the bill was approved. That's not at least accepting the decision, even if they don't particularly like it.

The conditions that existed in 2010 were a bit of quirk that rarely happens in Congress. One party had a large enough majority that they could ignore reaching a consensus and push through a bill that many Americans (and many members of Congress) found totally unacceptable. It's a bit of a violation of etiquette to do what Democrats did. It's also a bit naive to think that condition will last for long and they surely knew there'd be hell to pay at some point (which is why there's any etiquette at all when it comes to these things - the temptation to ignore consensus and go to majority rule when you can is hard to resist).

I don't agree with shutting down government over this (in fact, I'm very strongly against it), but you can't put all of the blame for the situation that led to the shut down just on Republicans.

For the Republians in this fight - Right goal, but wrong tactic.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I'm thinking finding a way to not take their pay without complicating their taxes will be difficult. Per the Constitution, the government is going to pay them, so it's not like they can just not get paid.

They can donate their paycheck to charity, or simply send it back to the Bureau of Public Debt, who will allegedly use it to pay off some bonds. These are not tax complicating schemes, they are tax deductible but if the congressman is smart enough to be a congressman it should be easy enough for him to file for the deduction, or to not if that's too hard (assuming his taxes are being held at the right rate, his paycheck was lightened by the amount of taxes he owed on that money, and if he adds that donation in as a deduction he's cheating the 'refusing the paycheck' system by getting some back! ) Also, if it's too hard then he should just quit because there's no way he's qualified to help run the country.

 

[D H]

For the Republians in this fight - Right goal, but wrong tactic.

I don't think it is even the right goal. I also think that Ted Cruz' reading of Green Eggs and Ham was very telling. The Republicans are afraid that, just as was the case with that fictional dish of green eggs and ham, that the public will find out that those ACA green eggs and ham are actually quite tasty once the public tastes them.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Even when it was passed, a majority of Americans opposed it (CNN health care reform poll). You can legitimately argue that the "opposed" number is misleading, since a significant number of those opposed were opposed because the ACA didn't go far enough

That's a very interesting point. Are there any polls that use more intelligent questioning such as:

- The system should remain the same
- The system should be reformed by ACA
- The system should be reformed further than ACA

Were I American I suppose I would come under opposed on the basis of that ACA is not good enough but that wouldn't mean I'd agree with the status quo which is what simple poles would suggest.

 

[Pythagorean]

I kind of view ACA, on one corner, as something that forces us to accept the business of one particular sector... a particularly disfavored sector, insurance: a very clever business model, but also kind of a predatory business. Of course that's not the complete story and insurance has its merits, but I think it's a legitimate criticism.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I kind of view ACA, on one corner, as something that forces us to accept the business of one particular sector... a particularly disfavored sector, insurance: a very clever business model, but also kind of a predatory business. Of course that's not the complete story and insurance has its merits, but I think it's a legitimate criticism.

I would agree. Mandatory insurance with no automatic government insurance seems like a flawed model. Not that it won't work (we'll have to see) but AFAIK the only other country that practices this type of system is Switzerland. There are many other countries with demonstrable universal healthcare systems, from an outside perspective it seems odd that one of these wasn't just adopted.

 

[OmCheeto]

This has gone too far...

Shutdown means no new beer from craft brewers

 

[BobG]

That's a very interesting point. Are there any polls that use more intelligent questioning such as:

- The system should remain the same
- The system should be reformed by ACA
- The system should be reformed further than ACA

Were I American I suppose I would come under opposed on the basis of that ACA is not good enough but that wouldn't mean I'd agree with the status quo which is what simple poles would suggest.

Or ... The system should be reformed by a completely different method than the ACA.

For example, pass a law that tests requested by a doctor be performed by an outside agency unaffiliated with the doctor (very similar to the prohibition against a doctor both prescribing and selling a drug to his patients). Doctors that buy new equipment suddenly have a drastic increase in the number of patients that require that test (MRI, for example). And then the doctor simply charges the patient's insurance company for the test and both the patient and the doctor are happy.

That, in itself, probably wouldn't have a drastic impact on overall medical costs, but it is one example where government could focus on reducing health costs instead of just redistributing the current costs.

 

[Astronuc]

NRC forced to shut down
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_NRC_forced_to_shut_down_1010131.html
10 October 2013

America's budgetary crisis has hit the country's nuclear safety regulator, which will cease non-essential work from today until its industry-collected funding is allowed to flow from federal budgets.

Various DOE labs are starting shutdown processes.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Tuesday during the Q&A portion of his press conference the President asked for at least a temporary extension in the debt ceiling.
Wednesday the House offered a six week extension.
Today the President declined that offer.
This will not end soon.

 

[Pythagorean]

So how legitimate is the claim that Koch brothers contributed to the government shutdown? There is a site that even use the verb "orchestrated":

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2013/10/10-0

But I can see how the issue might be more complex than that.

 

[OmCheeto]

I was talking to another acquaintance at work today. He said he cannot publish his paper because the NIST is down.

I didn't know science was so bureaucratic.

I've decided that I don't want to be a scientist...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Science is not so bureaucratic. Just its funding.

 

[edward]

A Federal Budget Crisis Months in the Planning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/u...nths-in-the-planning.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Shall we say premeditated budget crisis or intentional budget crisis? A lot of organizations were involved. It does appear that defunding Obama care was the motive.

 

[SteamKing]

Government shutdown, with extra spite thrown in at no additional charge, courtesy of the White House.

 

[Pythagorean]

Was there a doubt? That's exactly what the Republican strategist told the Daily Show. I know the Daily Show isn't serious, but she clearly was.

 

[SteamKing]

Or ... The system should be reformed by a completely different method than the ACA.

For example, pass a law that tests requested by a doctor be performed by an outside agency unaffiliated with the doctor (very similar to the prohibition against a doctor both prescribing and selling a drug to his patients). Doctors that buy new equipment suddenly have a drastic increase in the number of patients that require that test (MRI, for example). And then the doctor simply charges the patient's insurance company for the test and both the patient and the doctor are happy.

That, in itself, probably wouldn't have a drastic impact on overall medical costs, but it is one example where government could focus on reducing health costs instead of just redistributing the current costs.

It's that 'unaffiliated' that's tricky. Some doctors which have a lab in the office take a blood sample, for instance, and send it out to be tested. Would that still be OK? It's got to be a thriving practice for a doctor to be able to afford his own MRI. A lot of these tests are done at a hospital or MRI clinic. Would these be considered 'unaffiliated'? If a doctor sends you to a hospital for tests and the doctor also has privileges at that same hospital, is that 'affiliated'?

 

[Astronuc]

Senate Republicans Are Pressing For A Deal To End The Government Shutdown Along With A Debt Ceiling Hike
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/senate-republicans-pressing-deal-end-043232630.html
Business Insider

Senate Democrats are hopeful that their Republican counterparts in the Senate will work with them to come up with a deal that both ends the ongoing federal government shutdown and raises the nation's debt ceiling in the next few days.

A Senate Democratic leadership aide told Business Insider Thursday night that Senate Republicans have a "very strong desire" to end the shutdown before Oct. 17, which also happens to be the Treasury Department's deadline for raising the debt ceiling.

. . .

 

[Student100]

Wait, the government shut down? Quick, someone tell the 80% of the government that is business as usual.

 

[BobG]

It's that 'unaffiliated' that's tricky. Some doctors which have a lab in the office take a blood sample, for instance, and send it out to be tested. Would that still be OK? It's got to be a thriving practice for a doctor to be able to afford his own MRI. A lot of these tests are done at a hospital or MRI clinic. Would these be considered 'unaffiliated'? If a doctor sends you to a hospital for tests and the doctor also has privileges at that same hospital, is that 'affiliated'?

Unaffiliated is probably not the right word. The key is there should be no financial link between the doctor and the testing agency. There's actually a law already in existence addressing the issue, but it's weak and the medical profession has largely found a way around it with numerous exemptions and loopholes. (I'm never quite sure why lawyers and insurance salesmen are peceived to have low morals, while doctors are perceived to have high morals. I think people probably underestimate the morals of lawyers and insurance salesmen and overestimate the morals of doctors. They probably fall about the same spot on the morals scale.)

Strangely, the ACA didn't really address this issue and now there's a push to address it separately.

 

[Evo]

The group of clinics my doctor belongs to bought their own Cat Scan machine and they do CT's for heart and artery blockage at basically no cost since it's so critical, they do not file the scan with your insurance, they just charge a flat $50, even though they could probably charge your insurance up to $1k for the procedure. Despicable! They also have their own MRI machine now and charge half of what it cost for me to go to an outside imaging center.

 

[OmCheeto]

Can anyone verify if this is true or not:

Eric Cantor Has Rigged The Rules of the House So That The Government Stays Shut Down

It was revealed recently that Republicans changed House procedural rules to guarantee that the fate of the government re-opening was the sole purview of Majority Leader Eric Cantor. The rule change was done quietly the night of Sept. 30 to guarantee Republicans could keep the government closed regardless a bipartisan majority found a way to re-open the government. According to regular House rules, if there is an impasse on a bill or resolution between the House and Senate, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged that simply means “any motion from any member should be allowed to proceed to end the gridlock.” However, Republicans changed the rule by adding that “any motion may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee” that guaranteed even though the Democratic Senate caved and met House Republican budget demands, only Eric Cantor had the power to stop the shutdown by allowing a vote to end the closure after it began.

I googled it and came up with the following:

Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59- Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014

Provides that the House insists on its amendment to the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014, and requests a conference with the Senate thereon.
Section 2 of the rule provides that any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII relating to H.J. Res. 59 may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee.

Looking over the text of H.J.RES.59 -- Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (Introduced in House - IH), I've decided I can decipher very little of it.

I guess my question is; Is this just left wing nonsense, or did the Republicans really vote to make Cantor "god almighty" regarding the blocking of the appropriations bill?

Seems somewhat fishy, if true.

 

[OmCheeto]

Things I hear on the radio:

Congress is less popular than dog poop

:thumbs:

 

[Astronuc]

The group of clinics my doctor belongs to bought their own Cat Scan machine and they do CT's for heart and artery blockage at basically no cost since it's so critical, they do not file the scan with your insurance, they just charge a flat $50, even though they could probably charge your insurance up to $1k for the procedure. Despicable! They also have their own MRI machine now and charge half of what it cost for me to go to an outside imaging center.

On the other hand, my wife and I took our daughter for an MRI. The neurologist was a partner (co-investor) in the facility that operated the MRI, and they charged $800 / MRI. He ordered two, although one should have been sufficient. And that was about 20 years ago. The insurance company thought they should be charging much less. It was also not clear that the MRI would resolve anything about my daughter's condition.

The cost of medical care, a la ACA, certainly is one of the central issues regarding the Federal budget (cost) and what the government should or should not provide for the citizens of the nation.

 

[D H]

Things I hear on the radio:

Congress is less popular than dog poop

:thumbs:

They are also less popular than toenail fungus. And jury duty. And hemorrhoids. And the IRS. And cockroaches. And one's mother in law. But they are still more popular than Miley Cyrus and Anthony Weiner. It will be time for Congress to act when they slip below those two.