Countdown to Shutdown or Compromise

The countdown begins. Will Republicans let the country fall apart? We've been down to wire several times in recent years but the media isn't holding out much hope for a compromise. From the NY Times:[More...]

With the 228-201 vote, the House effectively made its last offer before a government shutdown at midnight. The bill demands a one-year delay in the health care law’s requirement that individuals buy health insurance, and denies federal subsidies to members of Congress, Capitol Hill staff, executive branch appointees, White House staff, the president and the vice president, who would be forced to purchase their health insurance on the Affordable Care Act’s new insurance exchanges.

Senate Democratic leaders announced they would immediately take up the spending bill, strip out the health care language and send it back to the House free of policy prescriptions. And with that, time would likely be out, and large portions of the government would be shut down.

The Democrats should hold firm.

< Monday Open Thread | Government Shuts Down >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Compromise? (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 08:30:51 PM EST
    If one side stakes out an utterly extreme and absurd position, does the other side, which is trying to be reasonable, have to "compromise" with the nutcases who are, as has been noted, effectively holding hostages?  This is a bizarre dilemma.  What does game theory say about this?

    IMO, the dems are unimaginative (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:14:55 AM EST
    The repubs have been nuts, and batsh*t so, for decades. Remember The Clintons murdering Vince Foster 20 plus years ago?  This is not a new development. So...when you know this, your only option is to resort to free American creativity and imagination. But I don't think it exists in national politics, at all.

    I simply wish Obama had the inclination to say, "I have a little television studio here in the White House, and I will be debating live every night a Republican leader who wants to attempt to prove to the country that money should matter more than people. And if they don't show up, I will bring in expert after expert, satirist after satirist, and I'll just rip them to shreds intellectually in public 24/7." Hell, have John Stewart and Colbert broadcast FROM the White House for a week, something. I mean, seriously, we ARE an entertainment culture, why is it that our "leaders" have no ability to genuinely entertain, in a creative fashion, the minds of their constituents? Not that they need to be dancing monkeys, but you have to have the ability to communicate imaginatively. I fear they ain't got it. In any form.

    And this is really all you have if the other side is simply going to be so openly and willfully developmentally disabled. But if you don't have the creative game to beat them, then the country is screwed. Period.


    You know, this isn't the first time ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 02:52:34 AM EST
    "Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite." ("Every nation gets the government it deserves.")
    - Joseph-Marie, Comte de Maistre (1753-1821), French diplomat and philosopher

    ... you've insisted that our political salvation lies in "American creativity and imagination," but just like previous times, you then fail to define what that's supposed to look like in our national politics. Surely, emulating the satiric fare offered by the Comedy Central cable network seems neither very imaginative nor creative.

    At its core essence, politics is the art of actualizing the possible in public policy. Personally, I happen to believe that it's serious business, and further, I think we've already careened off the guardrails repeatedly by treating it as a vicarious form of entertainment staged for people's enjoyment. How does doubling down on the same serve our needs and address the pressing issues at hand?

    Given that Republicans have reduced their own conceptualization of policy development to the political equivalent of a two-dimensional cartoon, I fail to see how lowering ourselves to that base level by similarly pandering to the lowest common denominators in American society -- i.e., the lazy thinkers, the clueless and the ignorant -- really solves anything.

    Frankly, what we're seeing happen in Washington, D.C. and in far too many statehouses is exactly what we collectively asked for at election time. I would hope that at some point, U.S. voters would finally recognize their own part in perpetuating this folly, and their need to start exercising some political creativity and imagination of their own.

    Strictly my opinion, but I believe that we've become so damned incurious about and / or disengaged from the art of competent governance that we repeatedly reinforce a crumbling status quo at the polls, and then demand another round of bread and circuses from the Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters we've empowered to make decisions on our behalf. Ergo, a good start to reform would be taking some personal responsibility for the decisions we make at the ballot box -- that is, when we even bother to show up at all.



    The fact that these irresponsible GOPers (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 10:00:20 PM EST
    are holding positions of power means the country has already fallen apart. Irresponsible, stupid, and dangerous: the current Republican party.

    And it's official: (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 11:23:07 PM EST
    The Tea Party has now shut down the government.

    The worst part, IMO, is that administration costs for WIC (supplemental assistance for women, infants, and children) will not be funded.

    Dems have on opening on 2014 campaign ads: photos of Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, John Boehner, and Eric Cantor circle the TV screen, as a voiceover introduces us to the Republicans who voted to starve women and children, for no logical reason.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#3)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 10:14:08 PM EST
    I decided to look up the equivalent of my current health insurance plan (Washington Regence) on the new Exchanges.  The exchanges open tomorrow, but I can at least see my current company.  The Exchange subsidiary for Regence is called Bridgespan.

    None of my enocrinologist, dermatologist or "girl doctor" (sparing the guys, LOL) are providers on the plan.  These are the only specialists I see. I am hoping like anything that this isn't the norm on all the plans, but judging by what I'm seeing from other states, I think it is.

    Go ahead.  Shut the government down.  I think some people need to come to their Obamacare senses....and it's not just the Republicans.

    You do realize (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 10:41:13 PM EST
    that a shutdown has no effect on the ACA right?

    Yes (none / 0) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:23:47 PM EST
    And you do realize that the plans offered on the Exchanges are going to be skinny plans, right? Yes, they offer lots of coverage, as long as you want to get it from 3rd rate doctors.

    It's a nationwide issue.  Insurance is going further down the have/have-not spectrum, as people who work for companies that decide to keep their insurance coverage have good doctors.  The people who get dumped on the Exchanges because they work low paying jobs, small businesses, individuals, get lousy doctors....along with Medicaid and Medicare recipients who have dealt with this all along.  I guess it's another version of social Darwinism.  Thank you, progressives for doing social Darwinism so the Republicans don't have to.

    All I'm saying is that either way, it's the sh*tz.  Obamacare is about as awful a policy as any government has ever enacted.  So shut down government as long as it takes to do something about it.  Republicans won't help matters.  I'm so p****sed I freaking don't care.  Both parties have made our country (this policy being an example) a complete, utter disaster.  

    So-so many problems.


    With (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 04:56:29 PM EST
    all due respect, having an employer plan does not guarantee doctors or anything else. I have had many of them over the last 18 years and a lot of them are crappy. Preexisting conditions that I had to pay for myself for a year. One time I went for a pap smear. The insurance said they pay for annual physicals. So i went in and paid my copay and left only to receive a bill 2 weeks later for a pap. I called the insurance company and said what? They said we don't pay for labs. I said then what the heck is an annual check up for then? I mean am I just supposed to go in there and tell the doctor not to do a pap smear because the insurance company says so when that was the main freaking reason I go there once a year in the first place??? The last employer sponsored health insurance i had was this POS Humana. I went to refill my son's ADHD medicine and the pharmacy said $214.00 and then were so shocked themselves that they went back and double checked to make sure that was right. Apparently Humana had just decided to do discounts on that particular medicine. Then when I had cancer, I had Blue Cross Blue Shield employer sponsored and it took me 2 1/2 years to pay off all the bills that I had from that and I had a crappy doctor to boot on that one. Also the first thing before I even went into the hospital for a test they called me wanting the  money up front. I'm supposed to pay in advance for something. So the problem really is not the ACA per se so much as the ACA is dependent on this crappy for profit insurance business model.

    Teresa, aren't there eight new companies (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 10:58:49 PM EST
    offering various plans in the WA exchange? There has to be something better than Regence (which I think has been almost criminal in its continual raising of rates on self-insured folks).

    Have you contacted any of your docs to find out which plans they are going to be in? I don't know who your legislative reps are, but maybe you should just call Karen Keiser's office and tell them your concerns...see if they can help you find something better than what your seeing with the new-and-not-improved Regence/Bridgespan. Since she's on the health care committee, they have health care experts there who should go to bat for you.

    And MKS is right...the ACA is not going to be dismantled by Republican irresponsibility on the budget.


    Sorry, meant CG was right... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 11:17:05 PM EST
    I asked my GP (none / 0) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:33:03 PM EST
    which plans they were going to accept.  Nobody at the office knew.  Right now the information is only available at the "corporate level".

    The short provider list is a NATIONAL problem with Obamacare, it's not just us.  In California, only one Exchange policy allows people to go to UCLA (and trust me, that plan will cost quite a bit more than your cell coverage as Obama tauts). NONE allow Cedar Sinai.  Here's a link about the facts on the matter: Link.  People wanted "Medicare for All" and what they're getting is privatized Medicare for now with the  same skinny list of providers the current version of Medicare.  And typically, that's about half or less of the list of providers available to people who have employer provided insurance.

    And I haven't seen anything but Regence, BECAUSE WAHEALTHPLANFINDER HASN'T BEEN UP ALL DAY.  THEY ARE DOWN, CAN'T RECOVER.  PEOPLE COULDN'T EVEN CREATE ACCOUNTS, so they took the site down and have no ETA on when they can get it back up again.



    correction (none / 0) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:36:56 PM EST
    *UCLA = UCLA hospital

    The California website is just fine (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:14:34 AM EST
    Easy to use and informative.

    You can play around with the variables.  Someone who is 27 can get a Silver plan for $180 per month....The cost of cell phone bill here...


    You're paying too much for your phone. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:07:37 AM EST
    It includes all kinds of data (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:09:18 AM EST
    and more than one phone.....

    Well, wouldn't that make it more (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:11:54 AM EST
    than an individual mid-silver plan in comparison? More like a family upper silver . . . .

    Plenty of choices (none / 0) (#12)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:15:49 AM EST
    for each level.  Blue Cross, Kaiser, Health Net....

    Teresa's in WA State, like me (none / 0) (#13)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:22:24 AM EST
    What you'll actually get for that $180... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:23:22 AM EST
    ...is the eleven hundred pound gorilla. My hunch is that nothing will change in this area. These companies know everything about you. If they sense you don't have the means to fight them, to hire a lawyer and go the distance, then you are going to get the kind of "care" a buck eighty a month is actually worth. And I seriously doubt this federal government is going to provide the throngs of human beings necessary to force these companies' hands or regulate effectively. Count me as very skeptical. And besides, without the public option, no real freedom of choice exists, except in the narrow corporate sense. Hope I'm wrong.

    Check it out and (none / 0) (#15)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:27:23 AM EST
    show us how it is terrible.....Better than hunches...

    But (none / 0) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:39:27 PM EST
    But what doctors do you get for that money.

    And yeah, apparently California knows how to test web software.  The Washington site is still down, has essentially NEVER been up at all this morning.  And it wasn't users swamping it.  It was simply that they couldn't even register. It didn't work.  It apparently was tested by idiots.


    Look at that $180 plan (none / 0) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:40:30 PM EST
    Is UCLA on the hospital list?

    The time for coming to our Obamacare (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:47:03 AM EST
    senses was way back when it was just a gleam in Obama's eyes, back when he took single-payer off the table and completely shut down even any discussion of it.  Back when Max Baucus and his staff of former health-industry aides were re-packaging the Bob Dole plan.  Back when there was a steady stream of insurance and pharma execs making their way to closed-door meetings in the WH.

    At bottom, this is a fight for the right to insurance, not the right to care - and even then, it is still estimated that tens of millions of people will not be insured.  

    So, where, exactly, does "affordable" attach to actual care?  After making premium payments?  After meeting the huge deductible that makes the premiums "affordable?"  After the government applies its subsidy to the premiums?

    We don't get "care" from an insurance company, ever.  When we're sick, we don't drive to Aetna to find out what's wrong with us.  When we're in a car accident, the ambulance doesn't pull up in the CareFirst parking lot.

    So, this is a fight for millions of people to have insurance, a fight to pay an insurance company a premium, for insurance companies to be fully compensated; it is not and never has been a fight for actual affordable, accessible care.  

    And I would maintain that it is care that we have a right to, not insurance.  Insurance may get you in the door of the doctor's office or the hospital, and if you have it, certain screenings and diagnostics will be included in the cost of your coverage, but insurance is still going to be between you and the care you need.  And it's still going to be a cost to you before you get that care.

    We didn't get to this stage of crisis in health care because the uniquely American model of a private insurance-based system was working - we got here because it wasn't, and isn't.  And instead of replacing the broken model with one that has been proven to work all over the world, the geniuses in DC decided - with a little help from their health-industry campaign contributors - that the real problem was that we all needed insurance - that would fix everything.

    Wrong.  It will make a lot of industry executives and investors very happy, Wall Street will love it, but it's not going to solve the crisis.  And if Republicans were smart, they'd sit back and wait for it to fail instead of putting the entire US economy at risk.

    Sometimes I can't believe how spectacularly stupid these politicians are, nor can I believe we continue to go to the polls every so many years to agree to continue to be held hostage by them.


    As I said before (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:35:31 AM EST
    We can't get insurance because of trivial pre-existing conditions.

    We have insurance through the temporary Obamacare PCIP.  We will switch over to a policy through the new exchanges now.

    Without Obamacare, we got zilch......

    And you are ignoring the rebates the carriers have already had to make because the premium to benefits ratio was not kept.

    You argue in a vacuum.


    You miss the point. (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:47:31 AM EST
    If what Washington is interested in is making sure people have access to affordable care, they would be removing the barriers to it.  The barriers that have been removed are those that prevented people from getting insurance.

    Just got my letter (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:17:39 AM EST
    From CareFirst Blue Cross.  As expected, my plan is going away at the beginning of the year, so I have to get a new plan.  I was looking at the website for what CareFirst will now offer - it seems that I can get a lower deductible, but with a little lesser service for a little bit more money.  My doctors accept this plan, so I may stick with that, even though ultimately, it's not quite as good as what I have now (even with my high deductible, because frankly, there is no difference to me between a $5500 deductible and a $10,000 deductible.  Even if I need to rack up those kinds of medical bills, the difference of $4500 is going to be the least of my problems).

    Tried to look on other companies' websites, but it still appears that the plans they are offering are not ACA-compliant, and I don't have time to dig through the websites right now.

    So, it looks like I am going to pay a little bit more ($5 / month, which is nothing, but I'm having trouble paying for what I have now), and get a bit less.  I guess it could have been worse.


    I'll tell you what really bothers me, and (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:03:01 AM EST
    that is how much confusion and misinformation there is about the exchanges and the plans, given that the administration has had over three years' lead time to roll it out.

    At this stage, people really should not be wandering around, dazed and confused about what "Obamacare" really is, what it does, how or whether one is eligible, and so on.  

    This, from the Guardian, says it all:

    Given the discordance between Americans' feelings on the individual parts of Obamacare and the law as a whole, it's not that surprising that a striking 41% of Americans don't feel they have enough information about the ACA, per the UConn/Hartford survey. Only 19% say they are very familiar with the law.

    The individual provision questions strike the same chord. More than a third of people are unaware of the health insurance exchanges, subsidy assistance to individuals, or the Medicaid expansion. The latter two provisions of the law have actually seen a decrease in the percentage of people who knew these policies were in the bill, since it first passed. The only part of Obamacare that Americans seem to know really well is the individual mandate, which has also seen the largest percentage-point increase in awareness.

    More worryingly, more people than not thought that Obamacare includes a public option, undocumented immigrant insurance, "death panels", and cuts to Medicare. The Affordable Care Act contains none of these.


    Overall, Americans clearly don't know enough about Obamacare. Of course, they know just as little about the Affordable Care Act - but to the extent that they are less hostile to a law that doesn't bear President Obama's name, it does appear that the embrace of the term "Obamacare" by Democrats and the White House was a tactic that has not worked out.

    There is really no excuse - none - for such a large percentage of people to feel they don't know enough - but it sure has been exploited by Republicans, hasn't it?  Were Dems really so complacent over the integrity of the law that they just put on the cruise control and took a nap in the back seat of the Obamacare car?

    It would seem so.  I have no idea how that kind of approach is a recipe for success; if they wanted this historic legislation to result in a vastly improved system, they should have done a much better job than they have of educating the public.  With more of an effort to explain and educate, with public opinion much more in favor than opposed, we might not be in this pickle.


    We are in a pickle (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:11:19 AM EST
    because the Republicans are extremists....

    Please don't misunderstand: (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:45:37 AM EST
    I know the Republicans, or at least a large contingent of them, are batsh!t crazy, and that's definitely a part of all of this.


    Democrats - the administration - had a responsibility to sell the crap out of the ACA, to educate the public.  They had 4 years - 4 years where every time you turned on the TV or the radio, or took a bus ride, or opened a magazine or a newspaper, people should have seen promos/ads/PSAs for what was happening.  They should have had 800-number hotlines, a website where people could e-mail questions.

    Yes, I know in state after state, Republican administrations refused to sign on, refused to create their own exchanges, refused to expand Medicaid - but how much harder would that have been if the country had been flooded with information?  If Republican governors and legislatures had been challenged by a better-informed public?

    Would it have stopped the GOP nonsense?  Of course not, but maybe it would have narrowed the opening Democrats' lackadaisical approach gave them from canyon-sized to itty-bitty-smart-car-sized.  

    Having already missed a gigantic opportunity to truly change how health care is managed in this country, the least - and I do mean the least - Democrats, Obama and the administration could have done is do whatever was required to make this plan a success.

    Just because the immediate fortunes of Democrats may improve as a result of this hostage-taking by Republicans does not mean that if Obamacare fails - even if it fails because the GOP kept interfering - it isn't going to fall anywhere but right into the laps of Democrats.

    And lets try to remember that if people end up being worse off than they were before the ACA, that won't just be a political tragedy, it will be a human one.


    They did a terrible job of selling it (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    They did a terrible job of educating people about it. So did my state, and I called the guy in charge of WA State's health care authority over the summer and gave him a piece of my mind about the fact that millions don't really know what's in the law and know nothing about would happen come OCT 1.

    I'm not even wasting my time today trying to go on the WA State website, because I knew there would be tech meltdowns like what TeresainSnow2 described. I'm waiting until sometime next week to venture in, and I doubt I will find anything truly affordable, even with a subsidy, that gives me the care I need. I'm already assuming I will be better off taking the tax hit this next year. I hate that  the ACA was designed to keep insurance and Big Pharma in control.

    All that aside...

    THe GOP's shenanigan's on the budget and shutting down the government do absolutely nothing to force  a repeal of any or all of the ACA. Nothing. If they wanted to improve the law, they should have come up with legislation that would do that. They don't give a flying fig about improving it. Boehner doesn't give a flying fig about health care at all, he's just desperate to keep his Tea Party caucus happy so they don't throw him out of his speakership position.

    I'm certainly not defending the ACA. But how anyone could think the GOP's insane move to shut down the government is going to have an effect on the law is beyond me.


    I assume (none / 0) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:43:31 PM EST
    that you are certain that you aren't subsidy eligible?  Because if you are, that's good.  The plan that your provider suggested is NOT going to be subsidy eligible if it's not offered through the Exchanges.  And the trick that insurers have been doing is they offer these plans that are outside of the Exchanges and don't tell them about the fact that they're NOT subsidy ineligible.  

    No (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:46:24 PM EST
    I am not going to be subsidy eligible (or eligible for tax credits).

    Yours was an asbstract (none / 0) (#28)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:02:09 AM EST
    criticism....that does not address what is happening now.

    You repeat what many have said about the error in "taking single payer off the table."  The problem is that it was never on the table in the first place.  During the 2008 Primaries, all three major candidates proposed the private insurance/rebate model.   Not Hillary, not Edwards, not Obama advocated single payer.  

    The argument has been that good negotiating strategy means that you should have started with single payer and then settled for a public option.  But, not having run on single payer, you can't really start there and be taken seriously.  If you make an offer out of the ballpark, you run the risk of ending the negotiation.  

    Moreover, it is very hard to reverse course during a negotiation.  Once you have made an offer, then it is hard to backtrack and ask for more.   It can happen and be successful but only after there has been a material change.  The Democrats opening offer here was the insurance rebate model--as established by the plans offered in the 2008 Primary.  You can't backtrack to single payer from there.

    The Public Option was sought.  Pelosi passed it--but by only a couple of votes and at the expense of the Stupak Amendment.  The Senate changed that amendment, and the Public Option never made it in the Senate version.

    This idea that by following basic negotiating strategy  you could have had the public option does not have much evidence to support it.


    He didn't run on a public option (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:40:38 AM EST
    Because health care wasn't even on his radar.  As I've posted before, the line about health care was put into a speech and meant as a throw-away line.  Obama never had any serious thought or policy position on the subject until people started paying attention and then it was an "Oh, $h!t!" moment for his campaign.

    It's also hard to craft policy and negotiate when you start behind the 8-ball.

    Which means nothing at this point.  But the new age "Great Communicator" has been a miserable failure at selling this and articulating this monstrosity of a bill.  Maybe is isn't his speaking skills, but because no one could have sold this to the public, except those are who are willing to see rainbows and unicorns whenever HE speaks.


    The solution (none / 0) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:45:07 PM EST
    was a bridge plan that would help and subsidize people with these conditions, not to create tiers of doctors for the haves and have-nots.

    I also have a trivial pre-existing condition.  That's why I needed the doctors that these plans more than likely aren't going to offer as providers.


    Of the many, many (none / 0) (#8)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 11:52:45 PM EST
    depressing things that have happened to my country, and my once Democratic Party, the one thing that infuriates me the most is the Democrats' complete submissiveness, their total inability to present an exciting agenda to the public. Just listen to all of us here on TL expressing totally simple, comprehensive, and beneficial visions for our country. How hard would it be for our (barf) "representatives," with all their consultants, advisors, and opportunities to do the same? It's like they're impotent, "deer-caught-in-headlights," Muppets, only capable of reacting to Republican assaults; always on the defensive, always looking like a bunch of beaten down wussies.

    It's one thing to fight, and lose. It's quite another to just lose.  

    How is this a loss for the Dems? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:14:20 AM EST
    They've actually stayed surprisingly united on this one. I can only see this as a huge loss for the GOP.

    Because the Dems have no imagination, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:32:12 AM EST
    I don't see it as a win or loss for either party, it's simply a loss for the citizenry. As for the Dems, you cannot just sit back and expect the Republicans to do your work for you by being the socipathic morons they are. You actually have to imaginatively sell the future. The Democratic Party, sadly, cannot do this, because the right has prevailed historically in defining economic terms, and they still do, and the Dem Party does not have the courage or the convictions to declare that paradigm a factually destructive lie. Why?  Because they are beholden to the same financial interests that own the Repubs. The Dems are simply another type of corporate brand, a little more palatable, but still out to do their patrons bidding, not yours.

    Sorry, but what Steven Colbert did to Dubya at that Correspondent's Dinner is what the Democratic Party needs to be doing every single day. Why on earth we believe humor and creativity and satirical rhetoric shouldn't be consistent features of American politics in action, as opposed to in observation, is beyond me.


    I honestly don't see what (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:43:07 AM EST
    any of that has to do with the current budget impasse. Congress either votes to fund the government or they don't. As everyone here knows, I'm not a fan of the Dems, because they are usually so spineless, but they have not been on this. What exactly -- specifically -- is it you think the Dems should have done to force the GOP into passing a budget? The ACA is off the table. For all intents and purposes, it is settled law -- even the conservative SCOTUS upheld it.

    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:12:39 AM EST
    The dems HAVE been spineless. I'll say it again, do what Colbert did, every day, start your own streaming channel from the White House and the Prez on ever day being insightfull, truthful, funny, imaginative...all those things that conservatives, as slaves to the status quo, cannot ever muster. The American public, and large, is still in the dark about what is REALLY going on, about the nature of fiat currency itself. What on earth should a supposedly liberal president be doing right now, if he is really pres of the U.S. PEOPLE (which we know he really isn't), if not taking advantage of every new media, being on the air 24/7 if necessary and destroying the Repubs in a creative and imaginative and very 21st century way. But instead, its politics as usual from the Dems. They are stupid, incapable of thinking out of the box or beyond their own stupid noses. And this, IMO (thought you disagree) is a perfect example. This is PRECISELY when the Dems should sell and sell hard with humor and unsparing self-criticism and hit it HARD, again 24/7 if you have to. And you don't need Networks to do this anymore.

    Ack, we're on the same side, I don't mean to blast at you. But for me, this is just evidence of how empty and vacant the party system is. And whatever outcome occurs, I see no party that will creatively and imaginatively address the problems we face. Yeah, I know, you hate those words in this context. But I love them. So it goes.



    I just found them a bit tacky in this tonight (none / 0) (#20)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:10:48 AM EST
    asking me for 20 bucks to help them stand strong :P

    I never give the Dems money (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:24:49 AM EST
    Nobody should ever give either party's apparatus any money. And I do believe all Congress members should forfeit their pay during the shutdown. Boehner would have to fund his wine bottle evenings out of his own pocket.

    I don't either (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:38:44 AM EST
    and had managed to be off their lists for awhile. They are (both parties) just so freakin' tacky about fundraising these days. They send out a fundraising  email every time someone opens their mouth . . .

    20 bucks so they can 'stand strong'?! lol!~ in their dreams. Buy myself a bottle of wine ;)


    So, is the money they collect supposed (none / 0) (#49)
    by BeDazzled on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:20:58 PM EST
    to be used as bribe money to get the other side to vote with them? Why does it cost extra money for these people to sit at the meetings with the intention of coming to a fair and positive agreement on behalf of the people of this country?

    And (none / 0) (#43)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:46:40 PM EST
    And if you think I'm kidding about the problems with the WA Exchange, here's a nice article about it.  It just didn't work.  From 7:30am on.  It's offline now, not swamped.  


    Argh (none / 0) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:49:49 PM EST
    Here's the correct Link

    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:54:27 PM EST
    because it's "too popular"

    So what. (none / 0) (#47)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:04:48 PM EST
    Seems like an excuse to get your panties in a bunch. You have plenty of time to research and sign up for a plan. Absolutely no reason to freak out because of a system overload today. It's not like it's going to 'sell out' or you are going to penalized for not signing up today . . . .