US government shuts down as Congress misses deadline

[chuckd]

There's a great irony in all the GOP fans here banging on about them wanting to stop the borrowing, when it's their hamfisted and criminal abuse of the banking system that led to it being required in the first place.

2 questions.

If the clean bill were put on the floor, would is pass?

How has the deficit done under Obama? If that has not been reduced then the borrowing level is an issue, if it has then it is not.

I can't answer your first question. I doubt a clean bill would be passed without some amount of negotiationing and a reasonable approach to the Obamacare muddle. This is very unlikely since the Senate has only passed one budget, in 2009, since Obama was sworn in. They don't like to take votes on that side of the Congressional aisle.

The deficit under Obama has skyrocketed from $10.6 Trillion to $16.7 Trillion with additional Trillion dollar deficits forecast for the forseeable future.

The following article explains...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama’s national debt rate on track to double

Says raising limit ‘won’t add a dime’

By Dave Boyer-The Washington Times Wednesday, October 9, 2013

President Obama likes to say that raising the nation’s borrowing limit “won’t add a dime” to the federal debt, but he neglects to mention that the government already has borrowed the equivalent of more than 60 trillion dimes since he took office.

When Mr. Obama became president in January 2009, the total federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion. This week, it hit $16.7 trillion — an increase of 57 percent. In the same time frame under President George W. Bush, total federal debt rose 38 percent. Under President Clinton, it rose 32 percent.

...from the article...

“It does not increase our debt,” Mr. Obama said. “It does not grow our deficits. All it does is allow the Treasury Department to pay for what Congress has already spent.”

The president rarely mentions that he, by law, approves congressional spending, and his argument glosses over the nation’s burgeoning total debt.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/9/obamas-national-debt-rate-on-track-to-double/

[notmyself]

The deficit under Obama has skyrocketed from $10.6 Trillion to $16.7 Trillion with additional Trillion dollar deficits forecast for the forseeable future.

There is certainly an element of sophistry in that and the article you linked to explains nothing with regard to the question I asked.

Errr. I rent a taxi on a 3 year contract here in Thailand to work with. I become a taxi driver who does not my own taxi in effect. For the sake of example I pay 2000 Baht a week rental but only bring home 1000 Baht a week. After 1 week I am 1000 Baht in deficit and 1000 Baht in debt. After 2 weeks I am 1000 Baht in deficit but 2000 Baht in debt. After 2 weeks... you get the picture.

What was the deficit in 2009? If it has not gone down substantially then then the debt is a worry.

[NeverSure]

There's a great irony in all the GOP fans here banging on about them wanting to stop the borrowing, when it's their hamfisted and criminal abuse of the banking system that led to it being required in the first place.

2 questions.

If the clean bill were put on the floor, would is pass?

How has the deficit done under Obama? If that has not been reduced then the borrowing level is an issue, if it has then it is not.

That's easy. Since the federal debt has increased more under Obama than under any other POTUS in history, and continues to increase faster, it's obvious that the deficit is increasing. Obamacare will add $trillions to that.

Hey the US has maxed out its credit cards. What would YOU do if you had maxed out all of your credit cards? Would you get more credit cards, or cut your spending?

I think it's a no-brainer, but then we do have people with no brains.

Edited October 10, 2013 by NeverSure

[notmyself]

There's a great irony in all the GOP fans here banging on about them wanting to stop the borrowing, when it's their hamfisted and criminal abuse of the banking system that led to it being required in the first place.

2 questions.

If the clean bill were put on the floor, would is pass?

How has the deficit done under Obama? If that has not been reduced then the borrowing level is an issue, if it has then it is not.

That's easy. Since the federal debt has increased more under Obama than under any other POTUS in history, and continues to increase faster, it's obvious that the deficit is increasing. Obamacare will add $trillions to that.

Hey the US has maxed out its credit cards. What would YOU do if you had maxed out all of your credit cards? Would you get more credit cards, or cut your spending?

I think it's a no-brainer, but then we do have people with no brains.

Did you not read my post which is directly above yours?

What would YOU do if you had maxed out all of your credit cards? Would you get more credit cards, or cut your spending?

I would do B and B.

If I do not get more credit then I will default, the loans (debt) will get called in and I will be bankrupt or insolvent. Basic math.. not even economics really. I would then try to reduce weekly/ monthly/ annual outgoings until such time as my income is higher with the knowledge that obviously, if my outgoings are reduced too much then I will not be able to generate income which defeats the entire purpose. With the world economy that way it has been for the last 4-5 years I would not expect to turn a profit (income>outgoings) by now never mind reducing my debt. More than math but still less than economics 101.

What is the deficit level now and what was it in 2009 - 2012?

[lannarebirth]

2 questions.

If the clean bill were put on the floor, would is pass?

How has the deficit done under Obama? If that has not been reduced then the borrowing level is an issue, if it has then it is not.

That's easy. Since the federal debt has increased more under Obama than under any other POTUS in history, and continues to increase faster, it's obvious that the deficit is increasing. Obamacare will add $trillions to that.

Hey the US has maxed out its credit cards. What would YOU do if you had maxed out all of your credit cards? Would you get more credit cards, or cut your spending?

I think it's a no-brainer, but then we do have people with no brains.

Did you not read my post which is directly above yours?

What would YOU do if you had maxed out all of your credit cards? Would you get more credit cards, or cut your spending?

I would do B and B.

If I do not get more credit then I will default, the loans (debt) will get called in and I will be bankrupt or insolvent. Basic math.. not even economics really. I would then try to reduce weekly/ monthly/ annual outgoings until such time as my income is higher with the knowledge that obviously, if my outgoings are reduced too much then I will not be able to generate income which defeats the entire purpose. With the world economy that way it has been for the last 4-5 years I would not expect to turn a profit (income>outgoings) by now never mind reducing my debt. More than math but still less than economics 101.

What is the deficit level now and what was it in 2009 - 2012?

It's not so hard to find really, assuming your internet provider isn't blocking Google.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

[notmyself]

Better than I thought.

[Publicus]

There's a great irony in all the GOP fans here banging on about them wanting to stop the borrowing, when it's their hamfisted and criminal abuse of the banking system that led to it being required in the first place.

2 questions.

If the clean bill were put on the floor, would is pass?

How has the deficit done under Obama? If that has not been reduced then the borrowing level is an issue, if it has then it is not.

That's easy. Since the federal debt has increased more under Obama than under any other POTUS in history, and continues to increase faster, it's obvious that the deficit is increasing. Obamacare will add $trillions to that.

Hey the US has maxed out its credit cards. What would YOU do if you had maxed out all of your credit cards? Would you get more credit cards, or cut your spending?

I think it's a no-brainer, but then we do have people with no brains.

Government shutdowns as the new normal due to Republican party temper tantrums only damages the economy and financial system, and it does so at a time when the US economy remains in a precarious position and situation.

Two words, one name: Herbert Hoover.

The present government shutdown while economic recovery is underway is another Herbert Hoover Republican party scheme to ignore the suffering and hardship of the American people, and which also would deny Americans a rational, debt reducing health and medical care system, i.e., ObamaCare.

By the time Barack Obama was sworn as president in mid-January 2009, unemployment was nearing its ultimate level of 10% after several consecutive months of job losses of 350,000 a month.

It was the worst Recession since the Great Depression. Eighty years before, President Hoover had done nothing for four years to alleviate the catastrophe of the Great Depression, resulting in tens of millions of Americans sustaining severe suffering or hardship - except for the rich.

Three words, one name: John Maynard Keynes.

Keynes at the time pointed out that, to reduce human suffering during depression or recession, governments must spend money to assist their citizens individually, to assist businesses, entrepreneurs and the like. Businesses and corporations do not directly or fully pay unemployment compensation or other forms of unemployment compensation, to include homelessness. The government must do it, for as long as it takes.

Three words, one name: Richard Milhous Nixon.

Even Prez Nixon back in 1970, in dealing with a recession, said, "We're all Keyensians now."

Everyone that is except the old time hard liners who overpopulate this website, among the other discredited tea party extremists elsewhere.

[lannarebirth]

There's a great irony in all the GOP fans here banging on about them wanting to stop the borrowing, when it's their hamfisted and criminal abuse of the banking system that led to it being required in the first place.

2 questions.

If the clean bill were put on the floor, would is pass?

How has the deficit done under Obama? If that has not been reduced then the borrowing level is an issue, if it has then it is not.

That's easy. Since the federal debt has increased more under Obama than under any other POTUS in history, and continues to increase faster, it's obvious that the deficit is increasing. Obamacare will add $trillions to that.

Hey the US has maxed out its credit cards. What would YOU do if you had maxed out all of your credit cards? Would you get more credit cards, or cut your spending?

I think it's a no-brainer, but then we do have people with no brains.

Government shutdowns as the new normal due to Republican party temper tantrums only damages the economy and financial system, and it does so at a time when the US economy remains in a precarious position and situation.

Two words, one name: Herbert Hoover.

The present government shutdown while economic recovery is underway is another Herbert Hoover Republican party scheme to ignore the suffering and hardship of the American people, and which also would deny Americans a rational, debt reducing health and medical care system, i.e., ObamaCare.

By the time Barack Obama was sworn as president in mid-January 2009, unemployment was nearing its ultimate level of 10% after several consecutive months of job losses of 350,000 a month.

It was the worst Recession since the Great Depression. Eighty years before, President Hoover had done nothing for four years to alleviate the catastrophe of the Great Depression, resulting in tens of millions of Americans sustaining severe suffering or hardship - except for the rich.

Three words, one name: John Maynard Keynes.

Keynes at the time pointed out that, to reduce human suffering during depression or recession, governments must spend money to assist their citizens individually, to assist businesses, entrepreneurs and the like. Businesses and corporations do not directly or fully pay unemployment compensation or other forms of unemployment compensation, to include homelessness. The government must do it, for as long as it takes.

Three words, one name: Richard Milhous Nixon.

Even Prez Nixon back in 1970, in dealing with a recession, said, "We're all Keyensians now."

Everyone that is except the old time hard liners who overpopulate this website, among the other discredited tea party extremists elsewhere.

How come everyone only talks about Keynes' philosophy to engage in deficit spending in times of economic downturn, but they never point out that that philosophy was tied to his view that a government must run surpluses in times of economic prosperity in order to pay for it.

[Publicus]

Because we've been in a serious recession since 2008.

Surplus presently is impossible.

Republican Prez George Bush inherited a budget surplus from Democratic Prez Bill Clinton, but quickly set us off on record deficits that had us in a hole when the Great Recession struck in 2008.

[notmyself]

You can't save for a rainy day when running a deficit.

[lannarebirth]

You can't save for a rainy day when running a deficit.

I've never run a deficit, but if I did, I know I wouldn't be able to do it if I hadn't previously saved against that eventuality. Better to require balanced budgets and make hard choices.

[NeverSure]

Government shutdowns as the new normal due to Republican party temper tantrums only damages the economy and financial system, and it does so at a time when the US economy remains in a precarious position and situation.

Two words, one name: Herbert Hoover.

The present government shutdown while economic recovery is underway is another Herbert Hoover Republican party scheme to ignore the suffering and hardship of the American people, and which also would deny Americans a rational, debt reducing health and medical care system, i.e., ObamaCare.

By the time Barack Obama was sworn as president in mid-January 2009, unemployment was nearing its ultimate level of 10% after several consecutive months of job losses of 350,000 a month.

It was the worst Recession since the Great Depression. Eighty years before, President Hoover had done nothing for four years to alleviate the catastrophe of the Great Depression, resulting in tens of millions of Americans sustaining severe suffering or hardship - except for the rich.

Three words, one name: John Maynard Keynes.

Keynes at the time pointed out that, to reduce human suffering during depression or recession, governments must spend money to assist their citizens individually, to assist businesses, entrepreneurs and the like. Businesses and corporations do not directly or fully pay unemployment compensation or other forms of unemployment compensation, to include homelessness. The government must do it, for as long as it takes.

Three words, one name: Richard Milhous Nixon.

Even Prez Nixon back in 1970, in dealing with a recession, said, "We're all Keyensians now."

Everyone that is except the old time hard liners who overpopulate this website, among the other discredited tea party extremists elsewhere.

Wow, do you have it all backwards. Clinton had a big war with the House under Republican leader Newt Gingrich who wouldn't give him the money. Sound familiar?

Gingrich was determined to balance the budget. Clinton finally had to give in and the budget balanced for about 3 years until the dot com bubble burst in the late 90's. Clinton left with a deficit due to a loss of tax income.

One thing Republican Gingrich did was to encourage business which is something Obama abhors. When business booms, so does tax revenue but Obama doesn't get that. The US should be drilling for oil, logging, mining coal and iron ore and other things which create new wealth upon which jobs and taxes are created. Obama has brought the US to a standstill, while spending like there's no tomorrow.

If you're going to spend it, you have to make it, and Obama doesn't get that.

Here's the truth about Clinton's reign. "Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn’t balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened." Link

[Publicus]

NBC/WSJ poll: Shutdown debate damages GOP

The Republican Party has been badly damaged in the ongoing government shutdown and debt limit standoff, with a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finding that a majority of Americans blame the GOP for the shutdown, and with the party’s popularity declining to its lowest level.

By a 22-point margin (53 percent to 31 percent), the public blames the Republican Party more for the shutdown than President Barack Obama – a wider margin of blame for the GOP than the party received during the poll during the last shutdown in 1995-96.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio departs the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 10, 2013, en route to the White House to a meeting with President Barack Obama.

Just 24 percent of respondents have a favorable opinion about the GOP, and only 21 percent have a favorable view of the Tea Party, which are both at all-time lows in the history of the poll.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/10/20903624-nbcwsj-poll-shutdown-debate-damages-gop?lite

Yeah, I know - polls schmolls.

The above poll shows ObamaCare has increased in popularity by 7%.

The news here this morning is the Prez Obama has not yet agreed to the House Republicans' offer of a clean debt ceiling extension but no clean CR. Obama wants to insist on both the clean debt ceiling bill and a clean CR.

That would be the right and best position.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Government shutdowns as the new normal due to Republican party temper tantrums only damages the economy and financial system, and it does so at a time when the US economy remains in a precarious position and situation.

Two words, one name: Herbert Hoover.

The present government shutdown while economic recovery is underway is another Herbert Hoover Republican party scheme to ignore the suffering and hardship of the American people, and which also would deny Americans a rational, debt reducing health and medical care system, i.e., ObamaCare.

By the time Barack Obama was sworn as president in mid-January 2009, unemployment was nearing its ultimate level of 10% after several consecutive months of job losses of 350,000 a month.

It was the worst Recession since the Great Depression. Eighty years before, President Hoover had done nothing for four years to alleviate the catastrophe of the Great Depression, resulting in tens of millions of Americans sustaining severe suffering or hardship - except for the rich.

Three words, one name: John Maynard Keynes.

Keynes at the time pointed out that, to reduce human suffering during depression or recession, governments must spend money to assist their citizens individually, to assist businesses, entrepreneurs and the like. Businesses and corporations do not directly or fully pay unemployment compensation or other forms of unemployment compensation, to include homelessness. The government must do it, for as long as it takes.

Three words, one name: Richard Milhous Nixon.

Even Prez Nixon back in 1970, in dealing with a recession, said, "We're all Keyensians now."

Everyone that is except the old time hard liners who overpopulate this website, among the other discredited tea party extremists elsewhere.

Wow, do you have it all backwards. Clinton had a big war with the House under Republican leader Newt Gingrich who wouldn't give him the money. Sound familiar?

Gingrich was determined to balance the budget. Clinton finally had to give in and the budget balanced for about 3 years until the dot com bubble burst in the late 90's. Clinton left with a deficit due to a loss of tax income.

One thing Republican Gingrich did was to encourage business which is something Obama abhors. When business booms, so does tax revenue but Obama doesn't get that. The US should be drilling for oil, logging, mining coal and iron ore and other things which create new wealth upon which jobs and taxes are created. Obama has brought the US to a standstill, while spending like there's no tomorrow.

If you're going to spend it, you have to make it, and Obama doesn't get that.

Here's the truth about Clinton's reign. "Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn’t balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened." Link

The above is home schooling History as written by the tea party far right.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Publicus

[notmyself]

You can't save for a rainy day when running a deficit.

I've never run a deficit, but if I did, I know I wouldn't be able to do it if I hadn't previously saved against that eventuality. Better to require balanced budgets and make hard choices.

I have though never against my entire bankroll! Well... that's not true really. I done it once many years ago, it paid off but wouldn't want to do it again. High potential gain but high risk.

[NeverSure]

Could it get any more bizarre than this?

How much would it cost the US government to provide security to prevent people from going anywhere in that area?

Rangers arrest 21 for venturing into Grand Canyon post-shutdown

Park officials have been ordered to patrol the Grand Canyon 24 hours a day, seven days a week, a measure that’s obviously not cheap.

The Grand Canyon, arguably one of the most popular National Parks in the U.S., financially depends on October’s revenue, as it’s considered the peak season for tourism, typically hosting 18,000 visitors throughout the month.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/9/rangers-arrest-21-venturing-grand-canyon-post-shut/

What does this do to the private contractors in the park such as the gas stations and restaurants, etc? What does this do to the village just outside the park that's snowed in about 5 months out of the year because the rim is at 7,000 feet asl? What about all of the private employees who go up there to work for the season, and are provided housing by the private owners, outside the park?

It's no big deal to leave that park open. This is a temper tantrum. It's mostly a drive-through, stop in a parking lot and walk to the edge thing. Yet they charge those 18,000 people to go in there. The concessions, both inside and outside the park are privately owned.

There are concessions right outside the park entrance where the village is that give helicopter rides, and motels and the like. What about those people?

What a stupid thing to do. The money is already spent building the roads and the fences. Nature provides the attraction. Now they want to cut off the cash flow both for the government and the private businesses and the village.

Stupid is as stupid does, as they say. There is something seriously wrong with Obama. Seriously. He has business to attend to just as Clinton did with Gingrich (Speaker of the House then) but the difference is that Clinton kept meeting with Gingrich until they hammered out a deal. After that the government's finances did better than they had in decades.

Edited October 11, 2013 by NeverSure

[Credo]

Yes it is a big deal to leave the parks open with no services. You know full well, that a lot of people get into trouble and a lot of damage can be done to sites by people.

Anybody that has been to Yellowstone has seen that the rangers are quite busy keeping people away from some of the geysers.

So who is going to pick up those injured while hiking or climbing? Whose going to pick up the garbage, because people do manage to produce a lot of that? Those little rock slides are going to be cleared by whom?

[boomerangutang]

I like Obama, but in the perspective of deficit spending, he's going down the same soggy trail as his predecessors, though Carter and Clinton were somewhat responsible in that dept.

Most people in the US wouldn't want someone like me in the chief executive's chair, because I would advocate such severe spending cuts, you would hear double dipping social security cheats howling from coast to coast. I would also cut back veterans' benefits and gov't pensions which currently bite off over 2 trillion $$'s of the annual budget.

Edited October 11, 2013 by boomerangutang

[kblaze]

This isn't about how the US government sucks. The government shutdown is the result of the radicalization of the conservative right. The tea party has taken over the republican asylum. This will be political suicide for the republicans. They should be all be perp walked out of congress for trying to sabotage the government.

California is once again showing the way how a government should operate. First you get rid of the republicans and everything else falls in line. You're able to govern again, something the republicans have long forgotten how to do.

That's right, California is showing the way (to collapse, like Detroit):

Debt:

"All told, California’s current debt load — not including billions in liabilities for public pensions and retirement health care benefits — is roughly $132 billion."

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2013/09/06/californias-current-debt-load-132.html

Unemployment:

California adds jobs, but unemployment rate rises to 8.9% (national - 7/3%)

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-jobs-20130921,0,5426857.story

Welfare:

"34% Of the nation’s welfare recipients live in California but only …

12% … of the U.S. population resides here."

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Jul/28/welfare-capital-of-the-us/

Way to go, California and the majority Democrat-controlled government!

The US Federal government is obviously dysfunctional as well. Shouldn't something that is dysfunctional be shut down (or incarcerated or somehow constrained)?

Note:

I was a California resident and taxpayer until I realized that 50-60% of my hard-earned paycheck was going to the parasitical State and Federal governments (aka 'others'). I stopped work and left both the US, California, the IRS and the California Franchise Tax Board to extract their required time and life from others. They will eventually run out of 'others' as did Detroit.

Being a US taxpayer was a job this American refused to do. The parasites will have to find 'others' until they run out of them.

This is exactly the type that makes up the Republican party. It's all about them vs. the hard working (white) little guy. The type that wants to shut the government because they hate the (black) President and the "others" so much. Fortunately for Americans, these people are becoming further and further marginalized. This crazy shut down attempt should finish them.

Everyone knows people like this in the US. The kind that watch Fox News all day, have a large gun collection and hate minorities or as the above refers to them parasites. I bet they really miss him in the old neighborhood.

When I looked at the post you are replying to, I saw not a single word about race.

Only your post brought up race.

Have you ever lived in California? I didn't think so.

[Berkshire]

One thing Republican Gingrich did was to encourage business which is something Obama abhors. When business booms, so does tax revenue but Obama doesn't get that. The US should be drilling for oil, logging, mining coal and iron ore and other things which create new wealth upon which jobs and taxes are created. Obama has brought the US to a standstill, while spending like there's no tomorrow.

If you're going to spend it, you have to make it, and Obama doesn't get that.

Amazing. The typical Republican campaign talking points. Do you believe this stuff? I certainly don't. It wasn't true when Bachmann/Romney/Palin et al were saying it, and it's not true now. That's why President Obama won a second term. Most Americans don't buy these ridiculous assertions.

[Berkshire]

No, it's the Republican that are the ones with a sense of responsibility to our children and grandchildren and those that come after them. Those that will have to pay the massive and ever increasing debt being charged up by the irresponsible and integrity-challenged Obama and Democrats. Sense of responsibility! That's what it is all about. The Republicans in the People's House of Representatives have it. Obama and the Democrats do not have it.

Obama and the Democrats rely on massive debt spending to buy votes. Obama and the Democrats in the US are an accurate parallel of the Shinawatra's and the Pheu Thai here in Thailand. With one it's Rice Crop Pledging and with the other it's massive government spending/giveaways. With both, it's all about buying votes with deficit spending that future generations will have to pay and suffer for.

Obama and the Democrats are out-of-control credit card spenders. Except that they are the ones to raise their own credit limit!! If you have a credit card and continually overspend, and don't pay even the minimum, eventually the bank will refuse to raise your credit limit and your card-charging stops. But Obama and the Democrats constantly demand that their credit limit be raised again and again and again.

For the good or our country and our future generations, the People's Representatives in the House must refuse to increase the credit card limit of Obama and the Democrats. They must stand firm in their defiance of Obama-Reid until meaningful budget-balancing negotiations take place. They must refuse to raise the debt ceiling until meaningful spending reductions are enacted. They must fight against Obama and his goal of turning the United States into the "Greece" of the western hemisphere.

People forget that when Obama first took office, he inherited one of the worst financial crisis ever (Republican-created). Just getting through that took serious foresight, planning, hard decisions, and yes, lots of spending.

[Publicus]

One thing Republican Gingrich did was to encourage business which is something Obama abhors. When business booms, so does tax revenue but Obama doesn't get that. The US should be drilling for oil, logging, mining coal and iron ore and other things which create new wealth upon which jobs and taxes are created. Obama has brought the US to a standstill, while spending like there's no tomorrow.

If you're going to spend it, you have to make it, and Obama doesn't get that.

Amazing. The typical Republican campaign talking points. Do you believe this stuff? I certainly don't. It wasn't true when Bachmann/Romney/Palin et al were saying it, and it's not true now. That's why President Obama won a second term. Most Americans don't buy these ridiculous assertions.

"abhors" is typically OTT

characteristically extreme

The entire paragraph is a straw man statement - yet another one in a long march of them

You people reveal yourselves, no one else.

You guys need to accept Prez Obama won reelection and did so comfortably. That's something obvious you people don't get.

Republicans are in the tank in this and it's because they put themselves there when they shut down the government.

Let's have a clean vote now, today, on the CR. No vote in the House means everything you people say is baloney - everything.

[samran]

There is another thread going on in General, where we have found out that the Thai government has opened up cheap, affordable medical insurance to foreigners. It is government run, and would act as an excellent medical safety net for those who are retired to Thailand.

I wonder how many of the GOP and liberarian attack dogs we have on this thread, living in Thailand, are quietly following that thread and slipping away to sign up for their cheap, government provided health insurance, while railing against Obamacare at home?

Mark my words, while the word 'Obamacare' is currently used as a term of derision, over time it will cement itself positively into the US vernacular as the name of the policy which bought the US some way towards what the rest of the world, even Thailand, take for granted.

[notmyself]

[Ulysses G.]

Mark my words, while the word 'Obamacare' is currently used as a term of derision, over time it will cement itself positively into the US vernacular as the name of the policy which bought the US some way towards what the rest of the world, even Thailand, take for granted.

I'm not so sure about that. I am afraid that it is going to raise too many people's premiums too high and will turn out to be unaffordable for those who are not dirt poor or have pre-existing conditions. IMO, America needs proper single-payer medical care, like most other rich, civilized countries have.

[Berkshire]

Mark my words, while the word 'Obamacare' is currently used as a term of derision, over time it will cement itself positively into the US vernacular as the name of the policy which bought the US some way towards what the rest of the world, even Thailand, take for granted.

I'm not so sure about that. I am afraid that it is going to raise too many people's premiums too high and will turn out to be unaffordable for those who are not dirt poor or have pre-existing conditions. IMO, America needs proper single-payer medical care, like most other rich, civilized countries have.

The whole reason why President Obama got into health reform in the first place was because the previous system was broke. Seriously broke. The cost of medical care was going through the roof, while millions of Americans were uninsured. Surely you know this. The Republicans have no solution of their own, but choose to fight President Obama over his plan. At least the President is trying to do "something" to fix the problem. The only thing the Republicans ever want to do these days is be against the President. So pointless.

[samran]

Mark my words, while the word 'Obamacare' is currently used as a term of derision, over time it will cement itself positively into the US vernacular as the name of the policy which bought the US some way towards what the rest of the world, even Thailand, take for granted.

I'm not so sure about that. I am afraid that it is going to raise too many people's premiums too high and will turn out to be unaffordable for those who are not dirt poor or have pre-existing conditions. IMO, America needs proper single-payer medical care, like most other rich, civilized countries have.

I'm with you there, but it appeared that is a bridge too far for those on the lunar right at the moment. What you are getting is an imperfect solution, but it extends the governments reach, which in Medical care, is essential and not counter productive. The more negotiation power the government has to bring down input costs (like they do in most other developed nations), the better value for money you get on each dollar of medical expenditure.

It astounds me that there is opposition to universal medical care. These blokes are happy to have single payer military. Single payer postal services. Single payer medical care for when you retire.

[lannarebirth]

Mark my words, while the word 'Obamacare' is currently used as a term of derision, over time it will cement itself positively into the US vernacular as the name of the policy which bought the US some way towards what the rest of the world, even Thailand, take for granted.

I'm not so sure about that. I am afraid that it is going to raise too many people's premiums too high and will turn out to be unaffordable for those who are not dirt poor or have pre-existing conditions. IMO, America needs proper single-payer medical care, like most other rich, civilized countries have.

I'm with you there, but it appeared that is a bridge too far for those on the lunar right at the moment. What you are getting is an imperfect solution, but it extends the governments reach, which in Medical care, is essential and not counter productive. The more negotiation power the government has to bring down input costs (like they do in most other developed nations), the better value for money you get on each dollar of medical expenditure.

It astounds me that there is opposition to universal medical care. These blokes are happy to have single payer military. Single payer postal services. Single payer medical care for when you retire.

Universal health care was not even proposed. It was a failure of leadership by a president that controlled the White House and both branches of Congress. The Republicans wouldn't have figured into it anymore than they did the atrocious Obamacare legislation. Instead we had a president bought and paid for by the insurance lobby who merely did their bidding. It has set back the chances of seeing Universal Health Care anytime soon rather than advancing it.

[samran]

Mark my words, while the word 'Obamacare' is currently used as a term of derision, over time it will cement itself positively into the US vernacular as the name of the policy which bought the US some way towards what the rest of the world, even Thailand, take for granted.

I'm not so sure about that. I am afraid that it is going to raise too many people's premiums too high and will turn out to be unaffordable for those who are not dirt poor or have pre-existing conditions. IMO, America needs proper single-payer medical care, like most other rich, civilized countries have.

I'm with you there, but it appeared that is a bridge too far for those on the lunar right at the moment. What you are getting is an imperfect solution, but it extends the governments reach, which in Medical care, is essential and not counter productive. The more negotiation power the government has to bring down input costs (like they do in most other developed nations), the better value for money you get on each dollar of medical expenditure.

It astounds me that there is opposition to universal medical care. These blokes are happy to have single payer military. Single payer postal services. Single payer medical care for when you retire.

Universal health care was not even proposed. It was a failure of leadership by a president that controlled the White House and both branches of Congress. The Republicans wouldn't have figured into it anymore than they did the atrocious Obamacare legislation. Instead we had a president bought and paid for by the insurance lobby who merely did their bidding. It has set back the chances of seeing Universal Health Care anytime soon rather than advancing it.

That is one version of history. Seem to remember named H.Clinton back in the 90's proposing something along the lines of a single payer system only to be eviserated for doing such.

It isn't that it hasn't been tried before. Politics is the art of the possible.

[lannarebirth]

I'm not so sure about that. I am afraid that it is going to raise too many people's premiums too high and will turn out to be unaffordable for those who are not dirt poor or have pre-existing conditions. IMO, America needs proper single-payer medical care, like most other rich, civilized countries have.

I'm with you there, but it appeared that is a bridge too far for those on the lunar right at the moment. What you are getting is an imperfect solution, but it extends the governments reach, which in Medical care, is essential and not counter productive. The more negotiation power the government has to bring down input costs (like they do in most other developed nations), the better value for money you get on each dollar of medical expenditure.

It astounds me that there is opposition to universal medical care. These blokes are happy to have single payer military. Single payer postal services. Single payer medical care for when you retire.

Universal health care was not even proposed. It was a failure of leadership by a president that controlled the White House and both branches of Congress. The Republicans wouldn't have figured into it anymore than they did the atrocious Obamacare legislation. Instead we had a president bought and paid for by the insurance lobby who merely did their bidding. It has set back the chances of seeing Universal Health Care anytime soon rather than advancing it.

That is one version of history. Seem to remember named H.Clinton back in the 90's proposing something along the lines of a single payer system only to be eviserated for doing such.

It isn't that it hasn't been tried before. Politics is the art of the possible.

First of all, Hilary Clinton at that time was never elected by anyone and that got a lot of people's noses out of joint. Secondly the population was not properly aged enough. By that I mean the demographics are now shifting towards seniors and there is critical mass to affect this legislation. There wasn't then because Baby Boomers were still in the early part of their careers.