Government Shutdown Over Obamacare

[DieHardBrownsFan]

I was working for the VA the last shut down. I was declared an essential employee and had to work. If you were declared unessential you were sent home. But you were payed for all the time you were off anyway as soon as the budget was passed. So it is a farce. People will end up getting free vacations.

[White Dog]

If anyone sees a unemployed government worker tell them to turn in their smart phones.

we are no longer paying them for FREE cell phone services.

 

[Osiris]

Well a friend of mine says she isn't going to get paid. She works for the CDC, you know that organization that tries to keep epidemics from killing us all.

[Westside Steve]

No doubt that each and every slight problem with someone's paycheck will be all over the news. It's impossible to look at this situation without viewing it through the prism of demagoguery. Just like the sequester. The fiscal cliff. Again nobody can talk about anything without it being a matter of catastrophe.

 

And you must admit that it's ironic to hear these guys crying that Obamacare was legally passed under the rules and regulations of the US government and then bitch like little girls when the same system puts the kibosh on extending the credit...

WSS

[FairHooker11]

well put Steve

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Well a friend of mine says she isn't going to get paid. She works for the CDC, you know that organization that tries to keep epidemics from killing us all.

All I can tell you is when Clinton was President and the same thing happened (I think 1994?) the people who were sent home, did get paid eventually when they returned to work. My friend was harassing me because he was off for awhile and still got paid for it.

[gftChris]

How on earth does it come to this? I mean, if the government can't agree on how to change something, you leave it in place until there's an agreed upon policy? If there's no agreed upon changes, you don't change things. How does this affect things like the CDC and all the other government funded organisations? Does it include things like garbage collection? Public transport? The army?

[Osiris]

How on earth does it come to this? I mean, if the government can't agree on how to change something, you leave it in place until there's an agreed upon policy? If there's no agreed upon changes, you don't change things. How does this affect things like the CDC and all the other government funded organisations? Does it include things like garbage collection? Public transport? The army?

 

It happened because Americans continue to elect people who are at the extreme fringes of their respective parties. It's the Repubs who turned 'compromise' into a bad word, even though it is just what the doctor ordered here. As a result, the people most capable of coming to agreements with each other have either retired in frustration or have been elected out of office. The Republican Brotherhood has hijacked that party, and until American voters punish them in the next election, we only have ourselves to blame.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

How on earth does it come to this? I mean, if the government can't agree on how to change something, you leave it in place until there's an agreed upon policy? If there's no agreed upon changes, you don't change things. How does this affect things like the CDC and all the other government funded organisations? Does it include things like garbage collection? Public transport? The army?

It doesn't affect local or State government. Public Transportation is local, likewise garbage collection. Doesn't affect Defense. Those agencies considered 'essential' will continue.

[FairHooker11]

 

It happened because Americans continue to elect people who are at the extreme fringes of their respective parties. It's the Repubs who turned 'compromise' into a bad word, even though it is just what the doctor ordered here. As a result, the people most capable of coming to agreements with each other have either retired in frustration or have been elected out of office. The Republican Brotherhood has hijacked that party, and until American voters punish them in the next election, we only have ourselves to blame.

yea your outed as a liberal....

 

first noting the MMCC issue in the other thread as having all of us bow the knee to the scientist priests in the UN church of the burning world....

 

and here you tow the party line on the evils of conservative's "dissent" to the failed bill to keep the gvt running? seriously?

 

how bad is it for you libs? you got a majority and still cant run the place lol

[Westside Steve]

Didn't the president just say that he had no intentions of compromise? Didn't I just hear a tirade from Chuck Schumer saying the exact same thing?

 

Let's be honest, Osiris. Compromise to you people is doing what you want.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Osiris ? Surely that means Heck, as in all totally drenched in Egypt !!! @@

 

That's the Dem manipulative slant, KGB style. Say your opponent won't compromise, when

 

you really refuse to compromise yourself, but arrogantly and dishonestly projecting your

 

behavior as a cya "framing" of the opponent as guilty of same.

 

It's all so corrupt, this liberal mindset. And Osiris, and Heck, one and the same maybe,

are/is ? all waterballooned in Egypt.

[Osiris]

I don't know who Heck is, so you can lay that to rest.

 

Fact is as a social conservative i voted for GWB way back when on his first term. I vote on the issues and the candidates, not the party. On recent events in egypt, it is the repubs who had it right, not the pro Muslim Brotherhood dems, and in tihs case, it is the repubs who are wrong. Feel free to believe what you want, though.

 

And who said I agreed with Obama if he said he isn't willing to compromise? You guys are masters at projecting your stereotypes on people you hardly know. I do agree that holding up the budget because you want to fight obamacare is a poor tactic that is going to backfire on republicans, as many moderate republicans are already saying. Fact is the Republicans made the same mistake they made during the Clinton administration by forcing a government shutdown. They are going to pay for it in the next election.

[White Dog]

there has been 17 government shutdowns. so what!

 

who gives a shit you still better pay your taxes when it is all said and done, the government whores and lazy asses need your money so they can live the life you dream of having for you're family.

 

i hope you obama lovers enjoy communism.

[Westside Steve]

I don't know who Heck is, so you can lay that to rest.

 

Fact is as a social conservative i voted for GWB way back when on his first term. I vote on the issues and the candidates, not the party. On recent events in egypt, it is the repubs who had it right, not the pro Muslim Brotherhood dems, and in tihs case, it is the repubs who are wrong. Feel free to believe what you want, though.

 

And who said I agreed with Obama if he said he isn't willing to compromise? You guys are masters at projecting your stereotypes on people you hardly know. I do agree that holding up the budget because you want to fight obamacare is a poor tactic that is going to backfire on republicans, as many moderate republicans are already saying. Fact is the Republicans made the same mistake they made during the Clinton administration by forcing a government shutdown. They are going to pay for it in the next election.

Well you actually did say that it was the Republicans refused to compromise so... And it was a much different scene back during the Clinton administration. Today I think more people realize that Obama is as responsible for whatever catastrophe the shutdown might bring. Personally I don't think there will be any real catastrophe but I'm sure the media with its zeal to shock people will make it seem that way.

WSS

[Osiris]

Well you actually did say that it was the Republicans refused to compromise so... And it was a much different scene back during the Clinton administration. Today I think more people realize that Obama is as responsible for whatever catastrophe the shutdown might bring. Personally I don't think there will be any real catastrophe but I'm sure the media with its zeal to shock people will make it seem that way.

WSS

 

They do refuse to compromise, as do the Dems. Personally I think the Dems should throw the Republicans a bone and let them save face (polls show most Americans blame Republicans for this, and perception is everything in politics, whether or not you agree that they are largely at fault) by agreeing to cut the medical device tax. And I agree, I don't think there will be any real catastrophe unless the shutdown is prolonged. People still are getting unpaid, my friend at the CDC for one, who said she will NOT be getting any back-pay either.

 

You know who shouldn't get paid, but will? Congress. Their salaries ought to be withheld until they pass a budget.

 

And yes, the media does, and always will, sensationalize everything.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

 

They do refuse to compromise, as do the Dems. Personally I think the Dems should throw the Republicans a bone and let them save face (polls show most Americans blame Republicans for this, and perception is everything in politics, whether or not you agree that they are largely at fault) by agreeing to cut the medical device tax. And I agree, I don't think there will be any real catastrophe unless the shutdown is prolonged. People still are getting unpaid, my friend at the CDC for one, who said she will NOT be getting any back-pay either.

 

You know who shouldn't get paid, but will? Congress. Their salaries ought to be withheld until they pass a budget.

 

And yes, the media does, and always will, sensationalize everything.

 

They will end up getting back pay just like before: Republicans Split On Whether To Give Back Pay To Workers Furloughed In Government Shutdown

Posted: 10/01/2013 5:23 pm EDT | Updated: 10/01/2013 6:35 pm EDT

Government Shutdown, John McCain, Jeff Flake, John Delaney, Susan Collins, Chuck Grassley,Federal Workforce, Furloughs, Government Shutdown 2013, Politics News

WASHINGTON -- If and when the federal government reopens for business, congressional lawmakers will have to decide whether or not to retroactively pay federal workers for the time they were out of work. So far, Republicans appear split on the question of back pay for furloughed civil servants -- even though members of Congress are guaranteed to get paid regardless.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she would support such a measure. "They're being furloughed for no fault of their own, and this is very poor policy," she said.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) agreed. "Oh, of course," he said when asked by HuffPost if he would support back pay legislation. "Why penalize these good people for our malfeasance?"

The Arizona Republican even predicted that it wouldn't be too difficult to get a bill retroactively paying federal workers through Congress.

 

But some of McCain's colleagues weren't so sure federal workers should be made whole for their lost time.

"I think it's way too early to even consider that, but again we're $7 trillion more in the hole now than we were [in 1995-1996]," said Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). "It makes it that much more difficult."

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also raised the issue of the national debt, signaling what might prevent many Republicans from getting on board.

"I think there would be less chance of that now considering the great big budget deficit we have now," Grassley said. "We're in a much worse situation."

So how would he vote if a measure were brought to floor to back pay federal employees?

"I would not make a judgment at this point," Grassley responded.

Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) also said it was too early for them to make a determination, while Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said he "probably" would support the move.

Back pay for furlough days requires an act of Congress once a shutdown ends. During the last shutdown, in 1995 and 1996, lawmakers decided to pay workers after the fact. But with a Congress that's focused on deficit reduction -- and that's already furloughed many workers this year through the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration -- plenty of federal employees are bracing themselves for a rebuff from lawmakers.

Declining to grant workers back pay may seem callous -- particularly for a Congress that's immune to furlough -- but the federal workforce seems to have few vocal backers on Capitol Hill these days. In addition to the furlough days created by sequestration, lawmakers have imposed a 3-year freeze on cost-of-living raises for federal workers, arguing that everyone needs to tighten their belts.

While it's unclear just how many Senate Republicans would be willing to grant back pay to employees, the upper chamber has shown more willingness to coalesce around some major pieces of legislation. The real obstacle could lie in the GOP-controlled House, where a combative right flank has rejected many bills over the issue of spending. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had to rely on Democrats to pass arelief package for Hurricane Sandy earlier this year, and a traditionally bipartisan farm bill collapsed in July because conservatives opposed the amount spent on food stamps.

On Tuesday, nine Democrats and three Republicans in the House proposed a bill that would pay federal workers retroactively. Not surprisingly, all of the bi-partisan sponsors hailed from D.C., Maryland and Virginia, where many constituents are federal employees who stand to lose their paychecks. Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.), one of the lead sponsors of the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act, said in a statement that "hard-working civil servants shouldn’t be collateral damage in an ideological battle."

Notably, the House Republicans who've signed on as sponsors appear far more uncomfortable with the shutdown than their tea party colleagues, since they represent districts heavy with federal workers and defense contractors who've already been hit by sequestration. These representatives might have a hard time convincing colleagues further to their right to support paying federal workers for time they weren't on the job.

One of them, Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), even called Tuesday for House leadership to throw in the towel and vote on a clean continuing resolution to fund the government in order to end the shutdown -- something most of his colleagues have so far been unwilling to do.

"Republicans fought the good fight," Rigell said in a statement. “The time has come to pass a clean [continuing resolution] to reopen the government.”

[Westside Steve]

 

They do refuse to compromise, as do the Dems. Personally I think the Dems should throw the Republicans a bone and let them save face (polls show most Americans blame Republicans for this, and perception is everything in politics, whether or not you agree that they are largely at fault) by agreeing to cut the medical device tax. And I agree, I don't think there will be any real catastrophe unless the shutdown is prolonged. People still are getting unpaid, my friend at the CDC for one, who said she will NOT be getting any back-pay either.

 

You know who shouldn't get paid, but will? Congress. Their salaries ought to be withheld until they pass a budget.

 

Of course withholding congressional pay is nothing but window dressing as is with holding the pay of any federal employee. Sooner or later they will get it all back. But if that is your compromise, throwing a bone in the shape of the medical device tax, it's not much of a compromise. It is the Democrats getting what they want. Do you think that there should be any real compromise? If so what would you do in a meaningful way?

WSS

 

And yes, the media does, and always will, sensationalize everything.

[Osiris]

 

 

They do refuse to compromise, as do the Dems. Personally I think the Dems should throw the Republicans a bone and let them save face (polls show most Americans blame Republicans for this, and perception is everything in politics, whether or not you agree that they are largely at fault) by agreeing to cut the medical device tax. And I agree, I don't think there will be any real catastrophe unless the shutdown is prolonged. People still are getting unpaid, my friend at the CDC for one, who said she will NOT be getting any back-pay either.

 

You know who shouldn't get paid, but will? Congress. Their salaries ought to be withheld until they pass a budget.

 

Of course withholding congressional pay is nothing but window dressing as is with holding the pay of any federal employee. Sooner or later they will get it all back. But if that is your compromise, throwing a bone in the shape of the medical device tax, it's not much of a compromise. It is the Democrats getting what they want. Do you think that there should be any real compromise? If so what would you do in a meaningful way?

WSS

 

And yes, the media does, and always will, sensationalize everything.

 

 

I think you misunderstood me, the Republicans want the medical device tax taken out of Obamacare, and I'm saying the Dems should give them what they want on that. Aside from that, I'm not sure what else the Republican congress dislikes about Obamacare. When you poll the Republican electorate on the individual aspects of Obamacare, they support it. So please tell me (and I'm asking seriously), what is it specifically that Republicans don't like about it? If I understood that I could think about what areas could be compromised on.

 

The only reason I can see that the Republican congress would oppose this, despite popularity with their own constituents, is because the Republican congress is not representing their constituents, but instead a group of the largest insurance companies who do not want to see more market competition (an ideal I thought Republicans favored, as do I).

[Westside Steve]

The Republicans don't like Obamacare because it's the flagship of the Obama administration. Just as the Democrats will oppose every and anything a Republican president proposes whether or not they proposed it in a previous administration.everyone, of course, has their own reasons for liking or not liking it. Personally I'm not a huge fan of an insurance based health care system anyway. If it were up to me it would be pay as you go and perhaps catastrophic insurance to be available for extreme cases. I think that would eventually make healthcare market driven. I also think there should be severe tort reform. At least similar to the English system where the loser pays. The legal system these days is viewed as the lottery by to many.

[Westside Steve]

The Republicans don't like Obamacare because it's the flagship of the Obama administration. Just as the Democrats will oppose every and anything a Republican president proposes whether or not they proposed it in a previous administration. Everyone, of course, has their own reasons for liking or not liking it. Personally I'm not a huge fan of an insurance based health care system anyway. If it were up to me it would be pay as you go and perhaps catastrophic insurance to be available for extreme cases. I think that would eventually make healthcare market driven. If the consumer never has to consider the cost why would they try to make wise choices? I also think there should be severe tort reform. At least similar to the English system where the loser pays. The legal system these days is viewed as the lottery by too many. as far as competition through selling across state lines? Of course the insurance companies don't want that. How would you expect Massachusetts to compete with Iowa?

I also don't like everyone in America getting free stuff. It makes us all dependent and makes the politicians royalty.

Conversely I like being able to invest my money in insurance based financial products.

 

But I don't see competition between Democrats and Republicans hinging upon who can give more free stuff to different constituencies in order to keep political power a good and positive thing. If the citizens aren't beholding to the politicians the politicians have less power.

 

I realize there's no definitive answer so I'm probably about as clear as mud. But its political of course. You remember Obama denouncing Hillarys plan which included the public mandate?

 

WSS

[Gidget]

I would certainly like to see more market competition. I just don't see how is Obamacare going to accomplish that. The number of carriers has shrank significantly in the past 5 years, and I see it becoming stagnant. I could be wrong, but I think the rates are going to be very similar across the board, with the only changes being due to small plan design differences, because all of the plans have to have the same basic elements, as required by Obamacare. They also can't have more than a specific out of pocket maximum in a calendar year. Anyone going into the "Marketplace" to get insurance, because they are required to, will choose the cheapest plan, even if it is only by $20 a month. The carrier providing that cheaper plan will get a large piece of the pie just solely based on the premium. Will the smaller carriers be able to sustain themselves if one particular carrier is inundated with applications because their plan is cheaper? I am real anxious to see how this will play out and am looking forward to going into the Marketplace to check out the plans and rates....hopefully in the next few days when they get the tweaks out. It's going to be an eye opener, in my humble opinion.

[Osiris]

So you are saying the Republicans oppose it because they want to hurt Obama... That just makes me sad, and again, why we need to put in more centrists into office on both sides of the aisle.

 

As for how it can increase market competition, it is basic open-market mechanics. The bill introduces a new customer base into the insurance system who yes, will GENERALLY be looking for the cheapest insurance available. Therefore, the companies will compete to provide the cheapest insurance available until nobody can go any lower. It'll then come down to carving out niches in the market. Some will perhaps provide better vision care, which will appeal to people who wear glasses, others perhaps lower visit co-pays but higher drug co-pays, others perhaps vice-versa. Still others may have higher on both but cheaper hospital stay co-pays. It will come down to individuals picking the plan that best suits there need within their budget.

 

Either way, the competition will be good for the country.

[calfoxwc]

No, no, no.

 

For goodness sakes, the Obamao regime and plenty of dems admit it will cause millions to LOSE their insurance.

 

How in the hell in that good for competition?

 

If it's about "competition", why not have a superior program that people will want ? Instead of forcing other

companies to comply with all sorts of interference, fines, etc etc etc, for not complying?

 

And hell yes, it's about forcing coverage of abortions, and more. And, it's about enforcement by the corrupt IRS,

invading every American's private medical business.

 

And more. Asking who owns guns, blah blah.

 

I call bs.

 

What? Where does all this nonsense come from? Oh yeah, Obamao's regime, and places like moveonupObamao'sleg.com......

[MLD Woody]

 

I call bs.

 

What? Where does all this nonsense come from? Oh yeah, Obamao's regime, and places like moveonupObamao'sleg.com......

 

 

 

 

HHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA

 

Holy shit

 

 

I can't take the irony

[Westside Steve]

I think you are being a little naive when you tell me that you're sad that a political party would oppose another political party for political reasons. It happens in just about every situation.

of course they do try and keep a little ideological veneer on each of the parties ie Democrats giving things to the poor Republicans preaching self-sufficiency...

But I'm not talking about competition among the insurance companies. I'm talking about in general competition and market driven system doctors paid directly for their services and not being forced to send in a bill for thousands of dollars with the knowledge that they are only going to receive hundreds of that. Also every time the government subsidized is anything the prices go through the roof. Look at college tuition.

WSS

[FairHooker11]

Roger Daltrey --- "who are you?"

 

 

to review -

 

2009 - Senate sets budget through TARP at $862 billion - as a one time emergency stimulus...?

 

the democratic house / senate rams through the HCA behind closed doors and obamacare is born.

 

2010 a weary and distrustful constituency has a voice and says so in the sweeping house changeover.

 

the senate goes on year by year not passing a budget, and with obamas blessing keeps the "one time TARP" expenditure alive! ($862 billion borrowed every year)

 

so this administration and senate are drunk with its own wreckless actions in spending... wall street salivates...

 

2012 elections prove that there are way more people in denial, (the free shit agenda)

 

and when reality hit people in the face, that its time to stop spending - they become angry drunks!

 

and fall back on the proven credo - blame someone! this time the house republicans -specifically the vocal ones

 

so you want to increase the debt ceiling? the drunks and deniers see no other alternative and wont negotiate!

 

God help us.....

[koalabazooka]

Lol, DC is turning into White House Down.

[calfoxwc]

ey......Ceeskooooo....

 

I theenk you want to look at theese...

 

(Obamaocare premiums sticker shock )

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/03/Obamacare-Facebook-Erupts-With-Citizen-Sticker-Shock

[The Cysko Kid]

Oh yes. Speculation by Obama haters. Well that's all the proof I need.