home

Government Shuts Down

Republicans are stupid. They shut the Government down. The public will be unforgiving.

Boehner refused to yield. He instead won approval, in a 1 a.m. largely party-line roll call, requesting a special House-Senate committee to meet in the coming days to resolve differences between the two parties, leaving in limbo the fate of millions of federal workers and the services they provide.

[More...]

Shortly before midnight, the White House budget office issued a memo instructing agencies to “execute plans for an orderly shutdown due to the absence of appropriations.”

John Boehner's ratings plummeted as a shutdown approached in 2011. (Poll results here.) Maybe this time he's pulled one boner too many.

Here is the new DOJ Contingency Plan. Plans for other agencies are here.

< Countdown to Shutdown or Compromise | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Interesting bit of history on (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:42:50 AM EST
    government shutdowns, from David Dayen, writing at naked capitalism:

    The truth is that there were 17 government shutdowns from the initiation of the modern Congressional budget process in 1976 until 1996. Even after 1980, when rulings by Carter's Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti mandated that government agencies receiving appropriations close down if funding ran out, government shutdowns occurred with disturbing regularity, with nine throughout the Reagan-Bush years, and two under Clinton. In fact, every time there has been divided government since the Ford Administration, the government has shut down at some point, with only one exception: the tenure of George W. Bush in 2007-2008.

    [snip]

    But before you, like many Democratic partisans, say "but everything's changed, Democrats would never hold the government hostage over gun control," consider the various policy reasons for government shutdowns over the past 37 years. There were four shutdowns over abortion funding in the 1970s, a Democratic-led shutdown over funding for the notorious MX missile in 1982, a Democratic-led shutdown over a Supreme Court civil rights ruling in 1984, a Democratic-led shutdown over expanding Aid to Families with Dependent Children (that's welfare) in 1986, and a Democratic-led shutdown over aid to the Contras and the Fairness Doctrine(!) in 1987. So shutdowns were for quite a while part of the normal business of government. And as I said, there's a cruel logic to them. When Congress and the White House are held by different parties, Congress has no bigger chip at their disposal than the power of the purse. So they use that, over and over again, to extract often unrelated policy concessions from the executive branch. It may have stopped for a while for various reasons, but it's back because it's a very inviting way for a Congressional majority to assert their will.

    Will it work this time?  It wouldn't surprise me to see some kind of stop-gap measure that will have us re-visiting it before the end of the year, but what worries me is that these kamikaze Republicans seem perfectly willing to go the distance on this, and I fear what Dems will end up sacrificing to make it stop.  

    Don't forget (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:10:27 AM EST
    The BIGGER fight comes in two weeks - the fight over the debt ceiling.

    Parent
    Both are variations ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:18:44 AM EST
    on the same shadow puppet theater performance.

    Parent
    Given the anticipated public repulsion ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:50:57 AM EST
    ... to this particular GOP political stunt -- and it really is nothing but a collective act of over-emotive posturing -- what makes you believe that Republicans will be so eager for a repeat performance, two weeks hence?

    I suppose there is a chance that Republicans are indeed on a political kamikaze mission, dutifully inspired by a desire to take as much of the country down with them as can be had, but that's not been my experience in dealing with them. Rather, and were I a betting man, I'd say that the remaining non-batsh*t crazy members of the GOP's House caucus would rebel against the leadership and compel the Speaker to cut a deal with Nancy Pelosi.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    A yes vote on a clean CR (none / 0) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:58:58 AM EST
    isn't cutting a deal. It's doing what should be done by anyone in the House that is still sane.

    If and when it's actually put up for a vote in the House, which hasn't been done yet, we'll find out if any sanity remains there.

    Parent

    I'm sorry, but ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:18:55 PM EST
    ... but it IS cutting a deal, when the Speaker needs Democratic votes to fend off the insanity from inside his own caucus -- and he will, inevitably unless the teabots can read the tea leaves.

    You're focused on the policy, and from that perspective, you're absolutely right. It's the responsible thing to do, and indeed the only sane thing to do.

    But I'm looking at the political gyrations that John Boehner is having to perform in order to get there. Unless either the teabaggers suddenly throw in the towel, the Speaker is eventually going to have to bring a clean bill to the floor of his own volition, and he'll need Nancy Pelosi's support to do that.

    It's all about counting to 218 in the House right now, and 18-20 Republicans willing to break ranks and join the Speaker in that deal is all it'll take to get there. Given the initial polling, I'd say it's only a matter of time.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Durbin is already negotiating (none / 0) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:21:46 PM EST
    Durbin to Republicans - Give us a clean CR and the Dems will repeal the excise tax in Obamacare on medical equipment.

    Wonder what else the Dems are willing to negotiate away now that they {cough, cough} are holding the line on not negotiating.

    For once Hoyer is making sense. He gives 3 good reasons why this is a bad idea:

    "I don't think it would work," he told reporters in the Capitol.
    ...
    "It's an extraneous issue, and if you start this extraneous issue, then the next extraneous issue, where do you stop on extraneous issues?" he asked.

    Read the rest for all 3 reasons.

    Why wouldn't the Republicans continue their actions. Boehner is right when he says Obama and the Dems will negotiate regardless of anything they say.

    Parent

    And, of course, Durbin has shut down his office (none / 0) (#73)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:24:52 PM EST
    in D.C. so that you can't reach them by phone to even complain about it.

    Parent
    Dick Durbin is a spineless fool who's ... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 02:21:20 PM EST
    ... in love with the sound of his own voice. There's no indication from the Majority Leader's office and any other Democratic nerve center that he's speaking for anyone other than himself.

    Parent
    Has Obama ever in the last 4 years (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 03:19:36 PM EST
    cut the feet out from under Reed after Reed has said that the Dems would not negotiate?

    Has Durbin ever been the front man on points of negotiations that were later adopted in the past 4 years?

     

    Parent

    Whoops, bad spelling day (none / 0) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:28:56 PM EST
    is worse than a bad hair day when commenting on blogs.

    Of course, Harry Reid's name is spelled R E I D and not R E E D.

    Parent

    Durbin is a mouthpiece for Obama (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 03:21:19 PM EST
    trial balloons. It would not surprise me if this was one of those trial balloon occasions. It's not like Obama has a strong record of standing firm against Republican vandals. He's given in many times before. If I were in the GOP I'd be betting that he gives in again.

    My hope is that Obama and the Dems stand firm on no negotiating on this or the debt ceiling. Sadly, I see some kind of deal that cuts Social security and Medicare and screws even more people on things like food straps. Of course, it will be promoted as a courageous stand in the face of criticism from all the Dirty F@cking Hippies that make up the left of the Dems.

    Whatever happens, the rich will be fine. The rest of us will be screwed.

    Parent

    I think that (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:55:36 PM EST
    when someone continually goes along on everything with someone else whom they 'claim' to be opposing, it's not caving, it's the plan.

    Parent
    The "medical devices" provision (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 05:28:46 PM EST
    is not a give.  I'm thinking here that you may be reacting too quickly.  From what I saw, Sen. Durbin is foreshadowing the one "give" that is already a foregone conclusion ... but, when it actually becomes a "give," the Repubs would be charged with coming up with/covering the $$$ loss.

    Parent
    It is a give in anyway that really (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:21:29 PM EST
    matters. You just refuse to see it. It takes the Dem position from "no negotiations" -  to "here is the opening bid" of what we are willing to put on the table.

    As to your second point, do really want the Republicans to be the ones to dictate how to  cover the $$$ lost? Be honest now. Who do you think the Republicans will ask to "sacrifice" more to offset the $30 billion that this would add to the deficit. Do you think it will be paid for by the highest 1% or by those already below poverty and those on the brink of poverty?

    Parent

    I think the offset (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:50:15 PM EST
    from the repeal of this tax will be integrated into the ACA such as  less coverage, higher deductibles,and  co-pays, reduced payments to hospitals and health care providers.  And, of course, Medicare can contribute more through new and greater "savings."

    Parent
    My guess would be in line with yours (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:06:52 PM EST
    especially the part where

    Medicare can contribute more through new and greater "savings."

    Somehow I can't see Christine's POV that assigning this to the Republicans is a good thing. It will be interesting to see what she thinks they will do with this responsibility.

    Actually based on past actions, I can't see where assigning this to either party would be a good thing.

    Parent

    "Cutting a deal" (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jack203 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:48:39 PM EST
    Cutting a deal is one way to put it.  Another would be extorting concessions without offering anything in return.   No doubt the Republicans will be interested in throwing something back for the uber rich.

    The debt ceiling makes this very interesting.

    I expect the President making a small concession in the next few weeks but only if BOTH government shutdown and debt ceiling (for the rest of his presidency) go away for good.

    Maybe Durbin's concession?

    The Republicans are only offering not to throw a hand grenade in a crowded room.  I think they are crazy enough to do it.  The rabid 30% are certainly crazy enough to default on the debt ceiling and shut down the government.


    Parent

    You are more optimistic than I (none / 0) (#149)
    by sj on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:57:02 PM EST
    I expect the President making a small concession in the next few weeks but only if BOTH government shutdown and debt ceiling (for the rest of his presidency) go away for good.
    I expect nothing of the sort. I expect a cr@ppy deal for the upcoming debt ceiling crisis with no thought for the future. At least no thought for anyone other than the haves and have-mores.

    I sincerely hope that you are right and I am wrong.

    Parent

    With the current crop of House republicans (none / 0) (#151)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:09:06 PM EST
    any deal by it's very nature will be crappy unless Boehner finds his huevos, ignores the non-existent Hastert rule, and lets the House vote with Dems helping pass the debt ceiling.

    Parent
    Boehner is caught; so, he is dangerous (none / 0) (#155)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:37:58 PM EST
    He is looking for time ... in that way, he can show his extreme right that he stood with them, and he can hope that any who would oppose that extreme right -- the dozen or so declared today, and eventually more -- will ease him into allowing a vote on a clean bill.  He rode the tiger, and it turned on him.

    My real concern in terms of positioning in the immediate days is the Cruz-sponsored approach to fund piecemeal.  President Obama has said he would veto that approach; and, it may be up to him -- because it would be quite hard for the Senate to hold the line against opening up the parks, etc.  The silver lining in that scenario is that the Repubs may not be able to agree on the order of funding.

    Parent

    They aren't expected to get out of the House (none / 0) (#157)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:47:29 PM EST
    And the GOP doesn't really want them to pass. They are just trying to find a way to attempt to blame Dems, so Boehner altered the rules making each amendment needing 2/3rds to pass.

    I would classify it as the GOP mental ma$turbation form of governing.

    Parent

    All shutdown not equal (none / 0) (#29)
    by TomStewart on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:27:05 AM EST
    From the WP article on various shutdowns:

    "It's also important to note that not all shutdowns are created equal. Before some 1980 and 1981 opinions issued by then-Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, a failure to fund some part of the government didn't necessarily mean that that part of government would stop functioning. Civiletti's opinions interpreted the Antideficiency Act, a law passed in 1884, as meaning that a failure to pass new spending bills required government functioning to shut down in whole or in part. So the "shutdowns" listed below that happened between 1976 and 1979 did not always entail an actual stop to government functioning; they were often simply funding gaps that didn't have any real-world effect."

    Parent

    Now that the House Republicans (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 09:03:15 AM EST
    have wildly banged their spoons on their high-chairs, there is a mess to clean-up.   My worry is that the "clean-up" will involve  a new Grand Bargain--for the Democrats, Obamacare, the namesake legislation will be off the table, but we know that Social Security and Medicare are on the table.  For the Republican extremists (which includes essentially all of them and leader enablers) there is nothing other than destroying most of government save for the military--but they may like a Grand Bargain that cuts taxes (repeal of medical device tax to support Obamacare) and hits other social programs.

    Yup, the Dems have ... (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 09:17:03 AM EST
    devalued the Repub brand, while adopting their policies.

    A win/win for our real evil overlords.  They get the policies they want, and they can complain about them too.

    It's devilishly clever.

    Parent

    That's what worries me, too... (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 09:22:41 AM EST
    and what's better than being "forced" into doing something you already wanted to do, and then getting to claim credit for being reasonable?

    Parent
    That's the new game ... (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 09:26:36 AM EST
    And it seems to be working.  Otherwise smart people fall for it.

    Parent
    Along those lines (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 04:06:07 PM EST
    Charlie Pierce sums it up pretty well.

    The Sequester was doing real damage to the country. Now, apparently, it is very much the new Democratic normal. And the Senate budget bill, which is supposed to be the hill on which progressives choose to die, locks in government spending at a level that didn't occur even to Paul Ryan. This is the living definition of you can't win for losing.

    This is going to be one of the major problems going forward with the coverage of this story which, when it's not going to be the increasingly preposterous both-sides-do-it trope, is likely to be an exercise in who's-up-who's-down horse race reporting. The fact is that this whole debate begins generally in a context of previous Democratic capitulations. Far from an equal footing, the Democrats find themselves in the ludicrous position of defending previous Republican victories for current Republican attacks. This is a matter of coming back to the yard, or for the whole arm, or whatever cliche happens to float your boat. Except for the survival of a Heritage Foundation-devised health-care reform, and the (temporary) defeat of an ideology that would hand the whole country over to the management firm of Scrooge and Marley, there isn't a single progressive gain to be had, even in what would be perceived to be a victory for the president and the Democrats. link



    Parent
    At least because the NSA (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 09:49:22 AM EST
    will keep on running, Alexander, the president, the speaker, and anyone else cleared in Washington will know your thoughts on the shutdown moments after you post them.

    Direct participatory democracy! Finally. Exceptional.

    Figures... (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:10:38 AM EST
    we can't even do a government shutdown correctly...the agencies and departments that should be shut down permanently post haste stay open, services people use and like and need get shut down.

    Open the parks, close the f*ckin' DEA.

    Parent

    Well, at least (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:19:48 AM EST
    they have most people fighting each other from with the two-party paradigm/scam.

    Divide and conquer is a historically time tested proven effective strategy for wielding power over millions. From their standpoint why "fix" it if it ain't broke?

    Parent

    They've also learned ... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:25:02 AM EST
    the less difference there is between the parties the more eager people are to take sides.

    Start a Coke vs. Pepsi debate to see just how true this is.

    Parent

    That;'s kinda like... (none / 0) (#97)
    by unitron on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 04:29:31 PM EST
    ...the old saying about academic politics being so vicious because the stakes are so small.

    Of course back when they used government subsidized real sugar instead of government subsidized corn syrup there was a difference between Coke and Pepsi worth taking note of.

    Parent

    Everglades National Park (none / 0) (#25)
    by fishcamp on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:18:18 AM EST
    extends way out into Florida Bay and the boundary markers are less than 10 miles from my house.  Does this shutdown mean we can no longer fish in the already over regulated Park?  I'm positive they will have watchers, probably more than they do now?

    Parent
    Take a page... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:49:49 PM EST
    from these WWII vets and cast away my good man...they have no right to shut down what we the people own.

    Power to the people!

    Parent

    I'm not one of those people ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 02:14:03 PM EST
    who fetishizes WWII Vets. But those boys have the right idea.

    It's also a good example of libertarianism in action.

    Parent

    Civil disobedience... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 02:31:14 PM EST
    tis a beautiful thing.  

     

    Parent

    Feline civil disobedience. For some obscure reason, she's decided that she really likes to sit and lay on top of the coffee table in the living room, even though she knows we don't like her on table and counter tops. She hasn't done that in years. And now, when we come home at the end of the day and find her on top of the coffee table, she just yawns and doesn't even bother to move.

    She doesn't hop up on the other table tops and counters, so we're cutting her some slack right now, figuring that she'll get bored with the spot soon enough and find a new place to sleep the day away. Cats sure are mysterious creatures, and hard to figure out.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Gingrich did this 20 years ago... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:40:47 AM EST
    ...and you know what it costs the Repubs?

    Nothing.

    Unless the American people decide THEY don't want to be stupid, nothing will change.

    It cost (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 03:11:50 PM EST
    them the presidency in 1996. The tea party has cost them the senate two elections in a row. So it seems that their antics are engulfing more and more members. It's a virus that has been allowed to grow and has now infected the whole GOP.

    Parent
    Do they really need the WH (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:40:07 PM EST
    and a majority in the Senate? Seems like they are doing real well implementing their agenda without them.

    Just to highlight this fact one more time. The current CR that the Democrats are championing is about 10 percent less than the levels in the original Ryan budget. 10% less than good old Granny starver Ryan, himself.

     

    Parent

    And it would be nice... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:49:24 AM EST
    ...if the Dems had, say, a 24/7 streaming show dedicated to explaining to the public exactly what is going on, exactly what it means, and what will happen if the right wins. But, again, that requires two cents worth of imagination, and we ain't even got a penny. Just pitiful.

    And it would also require.... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:51:36 AM EST
    ...telling those monied interests to go take a leap, that the party cares about the people more than the corporations.

    And that ain't gonna happen with the current crop of creativity vacuums in office.

    Parent

    Of course both parties are ... (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:12:38 AM EST
    far to the right.  So, either way, the right wins.

    Parent
    neoliberlism vs scorched earth libertarianism.. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 03:14:44 PM EST
    trickle down or piss on 'em..

    Parent
    I thougt that *was*... (none / 0) (#98)
    by unitron on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 04:31:32 PM EST
    ...what being trickled down on is.

    It's certainly the way it's worked out.

    Parent

    Solutions (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:37:44 AM EST
    One: Boehner and Obama arm-wrestle.

    Two: Rock paper scissors.

    Not for discussion: Obama's early cave on the public option - instead of this fershuggina mandate.

    Rock, Paper, Scissors (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:44:27 AM EST
    Boehner (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:55:41 AM EST
    holds nothing but the Enchanted Bunny card.

    Parent
    I won't (none / 0) (#70)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:16:00 PM EST
    comment on what Obama might be holding.

    They deserve each other.

    Parent

    Tales from the Department of Labor: (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 03:13:30 PM EST
    Courtesy of The Guardian's live-blog of events (bold is mine):

       Thousands of workers filled the sidewalks from 11am onwards, after they had been instructed to go home.

        Inside, two Labor department chiefs - David Michaels, an assistant secretary, and his deputy, Jordan Barab - had just finished visiting every single office to speak personally with staff. Barab did so despite being on crutches.

        The two men assured staff that they were important and apologized for the situation, according to several employees who came out immediately afterwards.

        Like other government employees, Labor Department workers had been instructed to return to work on Tuesday, to learn their fate. Upon arrival, they were given meetings by department supervisors, and told whether or not they were needed for work.

        Then all that was left was for employees to turn on out-of-office alerts on their emails, voicemail messages on their desk phones, turn off their computers at the socket and complete their time-sheets.

        Department employees were told to state that they had worked just 4 hours on Tuesday, and then add 'UF' - code for furloughed - on the timesheets.

        "There was no sense when we might come back," said Lisa Long, 45, a safety engineer. "People were demoralised and maybe even a little shocked that it was actually happening."

        The impact of the shutdown is not only being felt by the hundreds of thousands of employees who suddenly find themselves out of work; the consequences ripple out further.

        On Tuesday, the hot-dog trucks that usually stationed outside the rear entrance of the Francis Perkins Building building were gone. Nearly all of the restaurants that cater for office-workers were closed.

        Employees in the Labor building include some well-paid senior officials, but others on annual salaries as low as $25,000. "These people need paychecks, they gotta eat," said Monique Tribbett, a 45-year-old IT contractor.

        "I'm trying to get people to protest. Not just people in the department but, you know all these other people who are affected. If we all went, right now, to the steps of the Capitol Building and protested then they might start listening to us, but people don't wanna stand together. I feel like I'm on my own."

    Good times...

    Well, and of course, (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 03:33:20 PM EST
    the government workers were told to come into work today, "to learn their fate."
    Many government employees commute quite a distance to get to their jobs.  Just to be told that "you're outta here, go home."
    Are they going to be compensated for the cost of their commute, for no reason whatsoever?  It is to laugh.  Of course not.  They could have been told to call in to see if they actually needed to appear.  But that makes too much sense.


    Parent
    I have an idea. (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:54:38 PM EST
    Let's bomb Syria.

    Actually it was the Senate and Obama (2.10 / 10) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:11:57 AM EST
    who shut down the government by refusing to negotiate.

    The public has it figured out, this time.

    Nope (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:25:41 AM EST
    only the tea party thinks that. The rest of the country blames the GOP. I mean they were asking for the blame when they submitted their laundry list of demands. They sounded just like some kidnapper wanting ransom.

    Parent
    Negotiate on a law that has passed Congress (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:09:19 AM EST
    and has been declared constitutional?

    I have to believe you're smarter than that.

    Even if you believe changes need to be made, responsible leaders debate it....responsibly. Betcha if those R's had a bunch of federal employees in their districts, we wouldn't be here.

    Parent

    Actually, the states with (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:30:49 AM EST
    the most federal workers are red states.  There are a lot of civilian contractors that work on military bases....

    Parent
    Actually, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:59:49 AM EST
    The top 12 states with executive branch federal employees (judicial branch and legislative branch numbers would be minimal) as of March 2013:

    CALIFORNIA 150,762
    VIRGINIA 144,753
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 143,537
    TEXAS 131,580
    MARYLAND 119,816
    FLORIDA 82,915
    GEORGIA 71,486
    PENNSYLVANIA 63,137
    NEW YORK 62,011
    WASHINGTON 50,300
    OHIO 48,422
    ILLINOIS 45,801

    That's almost 1 million workers in those 12 states alone - about 1/3 of the total. It's hard to classify Virginia, since most of the federal workers (civilian) live in Northern Virginia, which is pretty blue, with some red mixed in. Looks like a lot of blue states in there.

    And of course, that number doesn't account for the number of contractors who are furloughed as a result of this shutdown.

    Parent

    I believe that MKS may be talking ... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 03:08:10 PM EST
    ... about the number of federal workers per capita, and not raw numbers of federal workers, in which case the list would look quite different.

    The state with the highest number of federal workers per capita is Maryland, where 4.8% of the population has a federal job. Second is Virginia, with 3.7% of its residents having a federal job. No. 3 is Alaska, where 3.3% of the population has a federal job. They're followed by Hawaii, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Oklahoma.

    And of those ten states, seven voted Republican in the last few presidential elections.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Maybe, (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 08:55:11 AM EST
    But that's not what he said. He may have meant that, but you also may be reading something into his statement that wasn't there.

    Actually, the states with (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:30:49 AM EST

    the most federal workers are red states.

    His statement, as quoted, is factually incorrect.

    Parent

    And Romney will win (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:29:36 AM EST
    the election.  

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Amiss on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:24:51 PM EST
    It's all about the next election. So sick of it.

    Parent
    I don't know who ... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:50:34 AM EST
    ultimately will get "the blame".  Nor do I really care.

    But enough grandstanding, and constitutional inaccuracies, on both sides to last us a while.

    Just pols being pols.  It should boost fundraising.  And smart day traders will make a penny or two.

    But it's a largely meaningless borefest.  And it will be "resolved" in a few days.

    Speaking of borefests, Tweety was on one of the morning shows, talking about this, and his new Reagan-wasn't-so-bad-after-all book.  Zzzz.

    Parent

    Porter: Nice try in trying to downplay (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:32:20 PM EST
    Nope ... I suspect your Zzzz will have a bit of nightmarish quality for you.  But, if history is any guide, we might be quite accurate in  guessing who "gets the blame."  Take a look, for example, at the pre-positioning; take a look at the morning headlines; take a look at the Repubs who are starting to talk about their conclusion that it might be time for a clean bill from the House (note that, so far, those Reps hail from PA, NJ, VA, NY, Calif. -- the magic number is 17.)  In CO, an interesting sign: Rep. Lamborn, who usually his Repub party on everything, is talking about the harm that the shutdown might do and hinting here & there already about the need for a clean bill from the House ... as my husband quickly said "Ah yes, Lamborn from Colorado Springs and the Air Force Academy infrastructure of the area."

    Well, for now, continue to have a fitful nap conjuring up ways for Boehner and his buddies to get out of the corner into which they have painted themselves.  Reading the latest Quinnipiac poll on party preferences should make that nap even more fitful.  Oh, and I almost forgot:  One of the highest voting groups in the country are federal workers ... ironically, a fair number of the white collar workers can be classified as swing voters outside DC; but, man, they (plus us retired ones) really detest this form of shutdown.

    And, after it is all over and the shutdown is resolved (as it eventually will be), one has to wonder how many more times the Repubs will go after a law passed and upheld long ago.  Maybe there will we a lesson learned.  'Be interested in hearing how zzzz-inspiring you think it turned out to be at that time.

    Parent

    Amusing. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:46:52 PM EST
    Negotiate? (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 09:14:14 AM EST
    by refusing to negotiate.

    It's axiomatic that you don't negotiate with terrorists.  It only encourages more terrorism.

    Parent

    You should dial back ... (3.67 / 3) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 09:24:49 AM EST
    that rhetoric about 18,000 notches.

    This is just pols being pols.  There are no "terrorists" in this "debate".

    Parent

    Nice country you got there (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:07:43 AM EST
    Be a shame if something happened to it.

    Would you accept "extortion" as a substitute for "terrorism?"

    Parent

    None of this is ... (2.67 / 3) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:16:43 AM EST
    criminal activity.

    Just pols being pols.

    Parent

    "Pols being pols" (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jtaylorr on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:31:27 AM EST
    Tell that to the millions of disadvantaged people who rely on government services that will now be shut down, all over a Republican effort to make sure that tens of millions of uninsured remain that way.

    The goal of terrorism is to undermine a nation's faith in its government through violence, Republicans are reaching for that same goal through legislative extortion. They're the American Taliban. Less violent, to be sure, but they certainly do see the world in the same way. Both the Taliban and Republicans (and really conservatives the world over) see themselves as the last vanguards of tradition and order and think that their society is just one socialist health care law (or in the case of the Taliban, American military base) from total collapse and being overrun by the infidel (socialists and minorities in the case of Republicans, Americans in the case of terrorists).

    Parent

    When that Saudi cleric... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by unitron on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 04:38:22 PM EST
    ...said that letting women drive was bad for their ovaries, I figured he must have gone to the same science-free OB/GYN school as the GOTP'ers who pontificate on "lady parts" so often and incorrectly.

    Or maybe he's a closet Republican.

    Parent

    Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Jack203 on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 07:12:01 PM EST
    The tea partiers are the "useful idiots" to the ultra-rich and neocons.  

    Parent
    Zzzz ... (4.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:09:41 AM EST
    it will be over in a couple of days.

    And disadvantage people will likely be robbed of something more lasting in the bargain.

    Parent

    No, it is an extreme position (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:14:20 AM EST
    It is blackmail, and extortion.  Not usual politics.

    When have the Democrats said they would allow a default on the debt unless the Republicans agreed to one of their legislative goals?

    Parent

    That Kool-Aid is tasty, isn't it? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:16:52 AM EST
    Well, you could answer the question (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:53:34 AM EST
    show me how this has been done before by the Democrats....

    Parent
    Shutting down the government (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:05:07 PM EST
    isn't the sole province of Republicans.

    From the excerpt I posted, with link, above:

    But before you, like many Democratic partisans, say "but everything's changed, Democrats would never hold the government hostage over gun control," consider the various policy reasons for government shutdowns over the past 37 years. There were four shutdowns over abortion funding in the 1970s, a Democratic-led shutdown over funding for the notorious MX missile in 1982, a Democratic-led shutdown over a Supreme Court civil rights ruling in 1984, a Democratic-led shutdown over expanding Aid to Families with Dependent Children (that's welfare) in 1986, and a Democratic-led shutdown over aid to the Contras and the Fairness Doctrine(!) in 1987. So shutdowns were for quite a while part of the normal business of government. And as I said, there's a cruel logic to them. When Congress and the White House are held by different parties, Congress has no bigger chip at their disposal than the power of the purse. So they use that, over and over again, to extract often unrelated policy concessions from the executive branch. It may have stopped for a while for various reasons, but it's back because it's a very inviting way for a Congressional majority to assert their will.

    As to threatening not to raise the debt ceiling and default on the debt, that's pretty much all it is - a threat.  We've covered this ground before, but we might as well cover it again, here.

    From the link:

    The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default." Alan Greenspan

    "In the case of United States, default is absolutely impossible. All U.S. government debt is denominated in U.S. dollar assets." Peter Zeihan, Vice President of Analysis for STRATFOR

    "In the case of governments boasting monetary sovereignty and debt denominated in its own currency, like the United States (but also Japan and the UK), it is technically impossible to fall into debt default." Erwan Mahe, European asset allocation and options strategies adviser

    "There is never a risk of default for a sovereign nation that issues its own free-floating currency and where its debts are denominated in that currency." Mike Norman, Chief Economist for John Thomas Financial

    "There is no inherent limit on federal expenses and therefore on federal spending...When the U.S. government decides to spend fiat money, it adds to its banking reserve system and when it taxes or borrows (issues Treasury securities) it drains reserves from its banking system. These reserve operations are done solely to maintain the target Federal Funds rate." Monty Agarwal , managing partner and chief investment officer of MA Managed Futures Fund

    "As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational." Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

    "A sovereign government can always make payments as they come due by crediting bank accounts -- something recognized by Chairman Ben Bernanke when he said the Fed spends by marking up the size of the reserve accounts of banks." L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute



    Parent
    Not raising the debt limit (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:19:36 PM EST
    is not so blithely dismissed.....

    The Federal Government cannot just print money.  That is not how it works....You would have all kinds of havoc if you do that.....Almost all economists agree....

    You are slicing this in an odd way.....If you do not raise the debt limit, you will have all sorts of distortions....This is the Michelle Bachmann view.

    Parent

    Like a lot of other things, it's largely (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:25:59 PM EST
    a manufactured crisis.

    I think you need to have a better understanding of monetary and fiscal policy.

    Parent

    While this shutdown has the potential (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:37:59 PM EST
    to hurt people, the political parties benefit financially by these type of actions.

    Shutdown Monday brings DNC biggest fundraising haul since election

    The big haul is the latest sign political campaigns are cashing in on a contentious few weeks in Washington. The third quarter of fundraising ended on Monday.

    The tea party has also made a haul on this action.


    Parent

    I do have a firm understanding (1.50 / 2) (#55)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:35:25 PM EST
    of money and banking.  It is my academic background....I have read Bernanke's scholarship.  I have studied the Fed for decades.  I have studied the monetary history of the U.S., including its namesake treatise, going back to William Jennings Bryan.

    You read one article and then write some condescending tripe....

    You cannot just "print" money without there being severe consequences...The Fed buys bonds to expand the money supply.  This idea of printing money as if it is easy, is a hobbyhorse of those who are making some very questionable assumptions.    

     

    Parent

    I guess you should know (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by sj on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:40:10 PM EST
    condescending tripe when you write it. Sometimes even when you read it.

    Parent
    Why don't provide (1.50 / 2) (#61)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:42:01 PM EST
    some substance....If you have anything of value to add.

     

    Parent

    Sorry (3.00 / 2) (#63)
    by sj on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:43:10 PM EST
    Did someone say something worth hearing? I keep hearing a buzz... that smells like tripe.

    Parent
    Yes, you have used that line before (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:45:40 PM EST
    But if you are not paying attention why do you bother to respond?

    Try talking about the money supply and how the Fed creates money and what the "money" supply is.

    Parent

    I think I was reading someone (3.50 / 2) (#67)
    by sj on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:58:14 PM EST
    who was discussing monetary theory and then someone else slid in an almost-relevant remark seasoned heavily with condescension and insults, and then followed up with some self aggrandizing list of completely unverifiable credentials not reflected in the commentary preceding said self-aggrandizement.

    Your bully tactics, however... boring. Total snooze-fest.

    I come here often to learn. On very rare occasions I have learned bits and pieces even from you. One thing I have learned from you in perfect clarity, however, is that you have no manners whatsoever, other than bad ones. Boorishness comes as naturally to you, as political history comes from Donald, ethical purity comes from kdog, ignorance from jim, and compassion and good food comes from Zorba.

    Parent

    Awwww! (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 04:36:55 PM EST
    You're so sweet, sj!  Thanks for the compliment, although I'm not sure that I deserve it.
    ;-)

    Parent
    Tis true, Lady Z (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by sj on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 05:01:31 PM EST
    You are deeply and pragmatically compassionate with a fierce sense of fair play. No airy phrases, just doing the work where you can and funding where you can't. That's you. As for food... come the revolution, I'm definitely going to work my way over to your turf.

    Parent
    I am worried about (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:22:02 PM EST
    the "little guys" working for the government, who have not done anything to deserve being sent home without pay.  These are our neighbors, whether we know them or not.  They go to work every day and just try to do their jobs.  And these are the workers who are not making very much money.  They are the ones who will get damaged first, and the ones that the Republican Party cares about least.
    Meanwhile, come on over and I'll feed you some of the Greek Avgolemono soup I made for dinner.     ;-)

    Parent
    My last job (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by sj on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:35:36 PM EST
    was liaising with government employees. I'm not entirely sure how they fit in, as they were civilian supporting Army projects. But in any case, they already took a 25% pay hit just with sequester. I expect that they will benefit from the decision to fund the armed forces, but I wouldn't count on it. Lots of good, earnest people will be affected.

    The effects on me personally will be indirect as wages are driven down, loss of support services for elderly and/or non-functioning family members take hold.

    And even if family was not likely to be affected (and they will be), these are our neighbors. They are all somebody's son or daughter, sister or brother, mother or father. What have we become? I cannot wrap my mind around the fact that some people feel perfectly fine gutting services and fine with some people dying of starvation, and/or lack of basic medical care.

    It literally makes me feel sick.

    Parent

    Oh! (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Thanin on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 07:52:41 AM EST
    I come here often to learn. On very rare occasions I have learned bits and pieces even from you. One thing I have learned from you in perfect clarity, however, is that you have no manners whatsoever, other than bad ones. Boorishness comes as naturally to you, as political history comes from Donald, ethical purity comes from kdog, ignorance from jim, and compassion and good food comes from Zorba.

    Do me, do me!

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by sj on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 11:38:48 AM EST
    When I get to know you better :)

    A quick peek at your comment history shows you commented in the GZ threads (which I only opened accidentally). But there does seem to be a pattern of unusual attempts at sanity.

    Parent

    Nice of you to comment (1.50 / 2) (#128)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:01:38 PM EST
    on monetary policy.

    I only seem to interact with you as you make every effort to levy insult instead of responding with something on the subject matter.

    Parent

    Frankly, (1.00 / 0) (#136)
    by sj on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:21:50 PM EST
    like most people you "interact" with, I would prefer that you not "interact" with me at all. When your boorishness becomes oppressive, however, I may or may not "interact" with you. I think bullying should never be allowed to stand unanswered.

    Parent
    Yeah! (none / 0) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 05:14:26 PM EST
    Let's hijack the thread, and talk about food instead. It sounds much more interesting right now, than speculating and projecting on the shutdown in the absence of further information.

    Parent
    Yes, as usual (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by sj on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:42:03 PM EST
    Lots of condescending tripe coming from you.

    Parent
    Of course the government can ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:36:40 PM EST
    just print money.  And they've been doing a lot of that recently.

    But, more importantly, banks can create almost unlimited money out of thin air, due to deregulation, through the exploitation of various debt instruments.

    Despite what people are lead to believe, debt creates money.  In fact, more about 95% of the cash circulating in our economy was created out of thin air by the banking system through the execution of the panoply of debt instruments they have at their disposal.

    Parent

    You overstate (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:40:45 PM EST
    The Fed has not been printing money, it has been buying bonds....That is how it is done....

    Yes, banks do create money by virtue of the demand deposits that they lend.  That is part of even the most basic measures of the money supply.  There is nothing unusual about that.  The question is whether there is a run on the banks....That is why you have the FDIC.

    Parent

    You describe how it used to be ... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:07:20 PM EST
    that system is long gone.  The system used to backed by gold.  Then deposits.  Now it's supported by debt itself.

    And most of the cash that this system generates can be tracked back to signatures of people who make very little money.  These signatures generate billions for the banking system.  But next to nothing for these individuals.

    This has occurred within my lifetime.  The banking system I first used as a child, that gave me over 8% interest on my passbook savings account, is not the system that exists today.

     

    Parent

    ... were also accompanied by double-digit rates of inflation, as I remember. It really has nothing to do with today's impasse.

    But that said, you're right, the banking system in this country has changed markedly from what it was 30 years ago, and yes, we've probably over-commoditized debt to a degree that's inherently unwise, if not rather reckless.

    That's probably due to our now well-developed pathological fear of inflation, which has served to underscore the development of a federal monetary policy over the past 30-plus years which seeks to keep primary interest rates low at all costs, which does next to nothing for the small investor except drive him elsewhere to seek a better rate of return.

    I don't pretend to be an expert on banking, but my late grandfather was a retired senior executive vice president with the former First Western (now Sanwa) Bank, and a lot of what's been happening of late he first prophesied to us back in the 1980s when the banking deregulation craze was first take hold in Washington.

    He first started at First Western Bank prior to the Great Depression, and he saw first-hand back then what an anything goes-type mentality could do to the financial services industry -- not to mention the country as a whole -- were it allowed to go unfettered and untethered. And his cogent arguments against banking deregulation have always stayed with me.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Nixon taking the U.S. off the gold (none / 0) (#123)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:53:40 PM EST
    standard did not change the fundamentals of how money is created.....

     

    Parent

    Might want to tell that (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 08:56:55 AM EST
    to WH adviser Dan Carney

    As the shutdown drags on, the most popular meme among Democrats is to portray the House Republicans as political terrorists with whom one cannot bargain as a matter of principle. President Obama himself drove home the harsh analogy in remarks in the Rose Garden on Tuesday that revealed his apparent contempt for his opponents and appeared to slam the door on further talks. The Republicans, the president said, were demanding "ransom just for doing their jobs" and "don't get to hold the entire government hostage." As White House advisor Dan Pfeiffer put it on CNN, Obama is not going to negotiate "with people with a bomb strapped to their chest."


    Parent
    Really, Jim? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:09:19 PM EST
    Actually it was the Senate and Obama who shut down the government by refusing to negotiate.

    The public has it figured out, this time.

    You're speaking for "the public", now?

    As accurate as ever ...

    Government Shutdown Blame Would Fall On Republicans, GOP Seen As 'Spoiled Children'

    Parent

    Jim's the only real American here. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 03:00:05 PM EST
    He's made it clear time and again that he's right and the rest of us are wrong. That the rest of us are allowed to remain in this country is no doubt solely at the right's discretion.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Woah! You can't pin this one (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 05:06:09 PM EST
    on Jim this time. He's absolutely right.

    The Wingers offered to give Nothing, and in return, wanted Everything.

    The Senate and Obama refused.

    So, there you go; Obama refused and now we have a shut down.

    And, like Jim said, "The public has it figured out, this time." When They want complete capitulation, in return for nothing, and, you refuse.......THAT'S refusing to negotiate.

    And, I, for one, give my buddy Jim credit for being the only one here to catch it.

    Parent

    Bruce Bartlett (none / 0) (#172)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 08:39:45 AM EST
    A senior policy and treasury official in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations tweeted this:

    Bruce Bartlett ‏@BruceBartlett  30 Sep

    There's a slight possibility that Boehner is a genius and the Tea Party will die a well-deserved death in next few days. Fingers-crossed.

    Methinks he is not a fan of the crazies either.

    Parent

    There (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:19:00 PM EST
    was nothing to negotiate.

    Boehner wanted to delay the mandate for a year.
    Obama says no.

    Of course, if Obama had gone for the public option, this bs would all be moot.

    But, we have two right-wing parties.

    Nobody suffers but the people.

    The crooks in Washington get paid anyway.

    Parent

    Ever wonder if this was all (none / 0) (#162)
    by BeDazzled on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:16:22 PM EST
    planned and agreed to by both parties and they know exactly how many days they will remain shut down?

    Parent
    This (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 06:25:17 AM EST
    little spectacle does indeed have a distinctly pungent aroma about it.

    At least we can rest knowing that, although denied many of the basic services, bombing and spying can continue unabatted.

    Parent

    Turn off the Faux noise machine, Jim. (4.40 / 5) (#4)
    by Angel on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:47:28 AM EST
    Once again (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:03:39 AM EST
    Aaron Sorkin was prescient.

    My brother is playing golf (none / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:28:48 AM EST
    today with his co workers.  What does he do? He is an FAA engineer responsible for the ILS systems regionally.   That means the engineers responsible for the Instrument Landing Systems have been furloughed.  

    The Air Traffic Controllers are still on the job....but better hope no glitches in the ILS system.

    We're scheduled to fly tomorrow. I'm nervous. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Angel on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:36:45 AM EST
    And truly angry with the GOP.  

    Parent
    Relax ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:55:22 AM EST
    air traffic controllers will continue to work.

    Don't get caught up in the hype.

    Parent

    I said that (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:37:28 PM EST
    The Engineers, however, who maintain and repair the ILS system have been furloughed....That is not hype.

    Maybe you think the ILS system does not need maintenance or repair, but I tend think that is important.

    Parent

    Fear mongering. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 02:22:33 PM EST
    Of course an ILS system (none / 0) (#113)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:13:32 PM EST
    "...needs maintenance or repair"

    And, you think an airline would place countless hundreds of lives in jeopardy by instructing pilots to land on runways having faulty instrument landing systems? Or, that there are pilots who would risk the same by agreeing to attempt landings on runways whose primary approach control system was deficient?

    I'm as cynical as the rest, but, really......

    Parent

    What can I tell you (none / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:43:51 PM EST
    The FAA engineers responsible for the ILS system have been furloughed....

    Parent
    And we have the first big moves in the polls (none / 0) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:10:17 AM EST
    As a result of the crazy clown show the GOP is putting on, today's Quinnipiac poll has Democrats opening a 9 point lead on Republicans on a generic congressional ballot 43-34.

    Also, today's PPP poll for Florida Governor shows former moderate republican turned moderate Dem Charlie Crist with a big 12 point lead over Tea Party favorite incumbent Rick Scott 50-38.

     

    Hope it lasts, but.... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:42:03 AM EST
    ...History tells me differently, that voters have very short memories; and, the sad fact that the Democratic party is equally beholden to the same big money interests as the Repubs.

    This is a sad exercise in delusion, IMO.

    But necessary, I suppose.

    Peace out.

    Parent

    An exception will surely be (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:09:12 PM EST
    Florida Governor Rick Scott.  It will not take someone with a memory act background to remember the damage Scott has and continues to do to Floridians.   His Florida Windstorm Insurance shenanigans alone should do it-- what with citizen memories as fresh as hurricane season.  

    Parent
    I find myself once again turning to (none / 0) (#33)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:43:17 AM EST
    The Guardian, which is live-blogging the shutdown, and doing, I think, a nice job of covering a lot of aspects of it.

    The political fallout is inevitable; the real question is whether any advantage that accrues to Democrats will be used to the ultimate advantage of the people most likely to be affected by how this all resolves (whatever it is Democrats sacrifice to get a budget and raise the debt ceiling - because something's going to give).

    Parent

    Well so far (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:46:27 PM EST
    the Democrats have given nothing....

    But thanks for the good wishes....

    Parent

    You are right (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:05:01 PM EST
    "SO FAR" the Dems have given up nothing but they have definitely shown a great willingness to do so.

    Exactly how many hours passed from the official time of the shut down to Durbin's beginning offer in the negotiations?

    The Dems couldn't even wait 1 full day in their eagerness to start offering to give up stuff. So much for their rhetoric.

    Parent

    There are no negotiations (none / 0) (#74)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:33:00 PM EST
    so whatever Durbin says at this point is kind of meaningless. And although it has been said for awhile that the medical device excise tax would likely be dropped someday as both parties have an issue with it, it should be noted that you gave only part of Durbin's statement.

    The entire statement:

    We can work on something, I believe, on the medical device tax. That was one of the proposals from Republicans, as long as we replace the revenue


    Parent
    O.K. if you say so (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:56:30 PM EST
    Durbin is not negotiating when he puts the medical devise tax on the table as long as you believe he is not negotiating. :-(

    Parent
    If you had been keeping tabs (none / 0) (#80)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 02:23:51 PM EST
    you'd know both parties have been in agreement and have plans to do away with that tax. It's just a matter of how to replace the funding that is in disagreement.

    Parent
    I know full well that the medical device (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 02:56:30 PM EST
    tax is something that the Dems are willing to "negotiate" away.

    The point is that Durbin has opened the door to negotiations on passing the CR something that the Dems have stated they will not do. Even you should see that it takes away from their position that they will not negotiate.

    You state that there are no negotiations. It is hard to argue with someone who makes their own reality but here goes.

    This non negotiation of yours evidently is not an universally held opinion.

    A Democratic Representative viewed it as an opening negotiating gambit enough to say in response:

    A repeal of the medical device tax would not catalyze a deal to end the government shutdown, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday.

    "I don't think it would work," he told reporters in the Capitol.

    Headlines refer to this non negotiation:

    Durbin: Democrats willing to negotiate on medical device tax

    The verbiage in all the articles on the subject refer to Dems being ready to deal.

    It will be interesting to see how much more Durbin or other Dems will be willing to put on the table in their non-negotiations.

    Parent

    ... for anyone other than himself. He's not the Majority Leader, so whatever he says publicly doesn't constitute negotiating. Besides, while he clearly loves the limelight and TV cameras, he's a wimp who's never had the nerve or fortitude necessary for brass-knuckled politics. When the battle is joined, he's the last guy to whom I'd pay any attention.

    Parent
    Just one question (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 03:08:51 PM EST
    Has Durbin, as one of the top Dems, ever in the last couple of years, acted as a front man on positions that Obama or the Dems finally take?

    Parent
    The part of Durbin's remarks that (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    ought to get one's spidey-sense tingling is the "as long as we replace the revenue" part...that's a mighty big opening to be giving to a$$hats who fairly drool over the possibility of gouging, squeezing, and milking precious dollars from programs or initiatives that likely serve the least among us.

    Parent
    Just in case anyone has forgotten (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 03:58:43 PM EST
    Dick Durbin stated he would have been a "YEA" vote on the Cat Food Commission recommendations.

    Parent
    The part that you omitted from your (none / 0) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:13:10 PM EST
    "entire" statement.

    Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) said Tuesday that it was "conceivable" that some changes to Obamacare could be included in whatever temporary government spending bill is ultimately passed by Congress.

    "It's conceivable some aspect of it would be, but the notion of delaying it or defunding it is not going to happen," Durbin said on CNN.

    Durbin's "non negotiation" willingness to negotiate on changes that could be included in the temporary government spending bill.

    Parent

    Actually I was wrong (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 05:23:43 PM EST
    The Dems have already given away a whole lot for nothing.

    --By Kevin Drum
    | Tue Oct. 1, 2013 12:22 PM PDT

    Yet another in my series of quick reminders: Democrats have already agreed to fund the government at Republican levels. In other words, they've already caved in. It wasn't even a compromise. They've just flatly given in to Republican demands to continue funding at sequester levels.

    This is the CR that Republicans now refuse to pass.

    Democrats Have Already Caved In to Republicans
    The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a continuing resolution, or CR--a temporary funding measure meant to keep the government operating--that would set the relevant funding levels at an annualized total of $986 billion. That's about $70 billion less than what the Senate endorsed as part of its comprehensive budget plan back in April. But that actually understates the extent of the compromise.

    When President Barack Obama first took office in 2009, his budget proposed $1.203 trillion in discretionary spending for FY 2014. The Senate CR is about $216 billion, or nearly 18 percent, lower than that. Actual enacted funding levels for FY 2010, when the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, totaled $1.185 trillion in 2014 dollars. The Senate CR is about $200 billion below that, a cut of nearly 17 percent.

    After the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican Party took control of the House of Representatives and offered a budget plan that proposed dramatic spending reductions. That plan, authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), envisioned FY 2014 funding levels at $1.095 trillion. Note that the funding in the current Senate-passed CR is about 10 percent less than the levels in the original Ryan budget.

    Finally, in August 2011, after a prolonged standoff over the debt limit, President Obama and Congress agreed to cut even more spending than the original Ryan budget demanded. The original spending caps in the 2011 debt limit deal limited funding to $1.066 trillion in FY 2014. The Senate CR accepts a cut of an additional $80 billion, or nearly 8 percent, from that compromise level. link



    Parent
    Is the shutdown the new sequester (none / 0) (#34)
    by ragebot on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 10:45:50 AM EST
    My guess was the GOP would get a lot more blowback from the sequester than they did.  Does anyone even remember or talk about it?

    Obama and the Democrats predicted dire results if the sequester became a reality, kinda like they are predicting now.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

    Update on providers (none / 0) (#106)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 05:25:41 PM EST
    I went to the following 3 insurance providers who have plans on the Washington State Health Plan Finder:

    Bridgespan/Regence, Premera Blue Cross, Lifewise.  These are the major providers (other than Kaiser and Group Health which wouldn't have my doctors anyway).

    My "girl doctor" does not accept any of the Exchange plans with these providers.  I searched far and wide for this woman, was very happy with her.  Now if I want to see her, insurance or not, I'll have to pay out of pocket.  Out of pocket maximums do NOT apply to doctors who are out of network.  Thus if I were to use her, need surgery, my costs are unlimited.

    This is the new face of health care.  Obamacare ballooned premium prices, making insurance less affordable, thus really making a lot of people need subsidies.  The only way you can get subsidies if if you buy plans on the Exchanges.  The Exchange plans have very limited provider networks (to keep prices down). People who need to use the Exchanges will have to see less popular (i.e. less competent) doctors, get lesser care.

    Just a warning, even if you love Obamacare, don't fall for the premium pricing WITHOUT first making sure that your most important medical providers are in your plan network.  If they are not, and if you think you won't be eligible for subsidies (or don't need them), then don't buy your insurance on the Exchange.  Plans outside of the Exchange have much more robust provider networks but are not subsidy eligible.

    And BTW, I still can't get on WAHealthPlanFinder.  I got all of this information from insurance co web sites.


    Also (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 05:31:01 PM EST
    I feel terrible for people who are undergoing cancer treatment, need subsidies because of ballooned costs, and think they're going to be able keep their doctors.  It's very likely that they'll need to find another doctor on short notice in a limited provider network.

    This is information that should be out on the front page of every newspaper, mentioned nightly on the news, but it's hidden.  And the only way you'll find it easily is to think of it yourself or accidentally read an article and then find out. I don't think it would naturally occur to people that the provider networks are really skimpy.

    Instead we get political sound bites.  "Insurance for the cost of a cell phone."  "Everybody gets 'coverage'".  It's a lie and a travesty.  These are our lives we're talking about, not some awful political campaign.

    Parent

    I just called Premera (none / 0) (#111)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:08:19 PM EST
    NONE of the following hospitals in the Seattle Area will offer in-network coverage on the Exchange plans for Premera.  (I haven't checked the others yet):

    Swedish Hospital
    UW Medical Center
    Providence Hospital
    Harborview
    Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
    Also, NO PolyClinic doctors

    If you live in Seattle, make sure that people who are choosing plans know this.  You may NOT want to buy a plan on the Exchange if you need serious medical care.

    Parent

    If you live in other cities/states (none / 0) (#114)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:13:58 PM EST
    and you want to give people a realistic view of what the Exchange plans will be like, please research the provider networks and help people understand the limits of the coverage.

    Parent
    Georgia (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:57:31 PM EST
    is not doing an exchange and I can't find out anything on the federal without applying which I don't want to do.

    Parent
    Premera (none / 0) (#115)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:16:14 PM EST
    is one of the two major Blue Cross/Blue Shield providers in the Seattle area.  Lifewise is also a Premera affiliate.

    Parent
    I have a dumb question: (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:01:36 PM EST
    have you looked at getting insurance without going through the exchange?  Because as far as I know, the mandates of the ACA are across-the-board mandates, applying to ALL insurance, not just those offered via the exchange.

    I truly have no idea whether that's an option, but the things you are reporting here are very worrisome; I said at the time the ACA was passed that insurance companies were going to spend the next three years raising the floor for premiums, so when ACA went live, they'd have a basis for the rates they'd be charging on the exchange.

    It makes me feel ill to think about how badly people need affordable CARE, and we've been reduced to fighting over fking insurance that's going to be an expensive illusion.  And close to a million more people are sitting at home tonight wondering how long they can manage without a job because of these a$$holes in Congress.


    Parent

    Here's a sampling of the controversy over Regence (none / 0) (#152)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:14:18 PM EST
    in WA State, and how it has behaved since the passage of the ACA. It elaborates on your fears over steep rate hikes on premiums as a way of setting a pretty high floor for the exchange. Thank gawd we have such a great advocate for the people in insurance commissioner Mike Kreidler (who was also our U.S. rep in the years before McDermott).

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#156)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:44:35 PM EST
    these plans with the lesser providers were accepted by Mike.  He knows about the poor provider networks.

    He actually rejected one plan because it didn't even offer a children's hospital.  They resubmitted with Children's as a provider and were accepted.

    Parent

    It's possible (none / 0) (#158)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:52:24 PM EST
    to get insurance outside of the Exchanges. That insurance would have a better provider network.

    That insurance, tho, is not eligible for tax credits.  Thus, the insurance rates have ballooned because of Obamacare mandates to a rate where you choose between having such a high deductible that you never get any care or a ridiculously high premium.  However, unless you buy the insurance via the Exchanges, no subsidies are available.

    I would advise anyone who knows they won't qualify for subsidies to buy their insurance outside of the Exchanges, especially if they have a serious illness or disease.

    It's a nationwide problem.  I hope that people reading this will notify their friends. When buying plans on the Exchanges, people think they're getting the same old insurance they traditionally got.  They are not.  It's a new paradigm....

    Here's a link from the New York Times talking about how it's a NATIONWIDE issue.  It rarely makes the front page, though.  I wish some bloggers would take the issue on, but other than Corrente, bloggers are pretty much towing the party line.  This is how the controlling forces wanted it.  Do a dump on consumers when the "consumer friendly" party is in office, and nobody will scream about it.

    Nobody, except me, of course.  And I'm going to be doing a raft of screaming in the near days.

    Parent

    Qliance (none / 0) (#161)
    by BeDazzled on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 11:13:32 PM EST
    Have you ever researched the Qliance - it's more of a membership group, so it would not let you keep your own doctors, but maybe it is an option for others you know. They have clinics all over the area - Bellevue, Seattle, Kent, Tacoma, etc.

    Parent
    Swedish-Ballard has a similar program (none / 0) (#163)
    by shoephone on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 12:31:29 AM EST
    You pay a minimal fee (something like $20 a month) and get basic medical services. It's been a good program for about the past three or four years, but I wonder what will become of both the Swedish program and the qliance program now that insurance is mandatory, how they may have to adapt.

    Parent
    I would not be surprised (none / 0) (#164)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 04:09:43 AM EST
    to find out that these programs are federally subsidized and the funding for them has been cut by Obamacare.

    Parent
    "other than Kaiser..." ??? (none / 0) (#109)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 05:40:48 PM EST
    My husband & I have been enrolled in Kaiser health care for 30+ years ... wonderful service, excellent doctors and medical personnel here in Denver.  I do not think that we are lackadaisical, but we have no complaints.  Think about it ....

    Parent
    I think you're missing the point (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by sj on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:02:22 PM EST
    Teresa is/was trying to keep her existing physicians. Kaiser has their own physicians so going that route will not accomplish her goal.

    Parent
    Remember (none / 0) (#112)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:08:58 PM EST
    that Kaiser plans on the Exchanges will also more than likely have more limited provider networks.

    Parent
    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:36:05 PM EST
    if those are your choices you might want to switch to Kaiser. The Kaiser here does not really have "networks". The majority of the doctors are in house. I paid as much for Kaiser on the individual market as the employers paid for crappy BCBS and Humana. I know it doesn't have your doctors but if you're not going to be able to have them anyway or have to pay out of pocket (lots of money) to see them then you might want to think about it. I got better care with Kaiser than I did any of my other insurance companies. A lot of it I think is because Kaiser is meticulous with their records where other doctors are not.

    Parent
    When I first (none / 0) (#127)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:59:02 PM EST
    came to the Seattle area, I had Group Health.  I had 3 doctors to choose from as PCP and would have to be referred for anything else.  The one I chose scared me so badly that I never went back.  I was afraid to be alone with him.

    I also had vision coverage through Group Health.  It took SIX MONTHS to get a vision appointment.  One time I tore a contact and they made me drive 30 miles to see a dcotr.

    I will likely never do HMO again, unless I have no other choice.  

    And you say Kaiser doesn't really have networks?  Maybe not until now.....I'll ask to be sure.  I won't do Group Health.  Kaiser, I don't believe has a clinic anywhere near me.  But I will check with them.  I know they don't offer my doctors either.  That was my point.  I'm going to have to change all my doctors.

    But this problem is WIDESPREAD with the Obamacare Exchanges.  That is my point.

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:16:48 PM EST
    what you are saying but Kaiser has been doing HMO's for long they are good at it. Here I was able to see a psychiatrist, a counselor, a pediatrician and an OB/GYN with no referrals. They were all "in house" Also they would give me a 3 month refill on my son's ADHD meds which I loved because i could not get there anywhere else. I really loved Kaiser. The pediatrician was the best one my son ever had. Even my friends that had Kaiser hated to switch out of Kaiser because of this particular pediatrician. The only complaint I ever had was one every time I took my youngest in and was sick they seemed to give him like five prescriptions. I guess they wanted to make sure he was well or either they were looking to make money for their pharmacy. Of course, you could always opt not to have a prescription filled.

    I know they don't have your doctors but i was just suggesting that if you aren't going to be able to see your doctors anyway, to take a look at Kaiser.  And sometimes when health insurance plans first roll out, no doctors sign up. I had this happen when I lived in a smaller area. There were literally no pediatricians on the plan because all the pediatricians said no to HMO's and PPO's at that point in time. It's gotten now that they seem to have realized that it's take this insurance plan or don't have any patients. I think what you are experiencing is probably going ot be a problem for smaller areas at least at first. If the doctors start losing a lot of patients because they are not on a certain plain you better believe the next time around they will be signing up to take that plan.

    Parent

    Group Health (none / 0) (#144)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:42:10 PM EST
    has also been doing HMO's forever.  They are actually more prevalent and more popular here than Kaiser.

    Parent
    The Exchange Plans (none / 0) (#145)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:48:06 PM EST
    are based on plans that have been available in the area for years and years.  The problem is the providers refused to take the low reimbursements.  They are basically doing what providers do with Medicaid and Medicare.  If they don't have to accept them, they don't.

    The Exchange plans are really like outsourced Medicare/Medicaid.  Unless EVERYONE has to go on these plans, doctors can cherrypick from the plans with higher reimbursement rates and refuse these plans.  But these plans are actually worse than Medicare/Medicaid.  Hospitals that accept federal money have to accept Medicaid patients (I don't know about Medicare).  They DON'T have to accept these plans...which is why UW and Harborview (our research hospitals) don't have to accept these plans.  If it were federal care, they'd have to accept it.

    Parent

    Generally (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:20:45 PM EST
    they have to accept medicare patients too. I see what you are saying. The GOP did that here with SCHIP and then no one took Peachcare anymore because once it became "privatized" the insurance companies were sucking up 30% of the money for the plan and there was no money to pay doctors, health care professionals or almost anybody for that matter. Medicaid probably paid more than SCHIP.

    Parent
    There's a reason Group Health was dubbed (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:21:34 PM EST
    "Group Death" for so many years.

    Parent
    Did you actually speak (none / 0) (#117)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:26:28 PM EST
    with your girl doctor/office?

    Parent
    I spoke (none / 0) (#124)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 06:54:35 PM EST
    with Premera.  They gave me a list of hospitals and clinics that did not agree to participate in the Exchanges.

    My gynecologist is at the Polyclinic in Seattle.  Polyclinic does not accept Exchange plans.

    Parent

    I'd wait it out if you can (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:11:19 PM EST
    and speak to your Dr's office directly. They may have some recommendations for you, or they may grandfather some patients in etc. I wouldn't lay everything on what you've learned on the first day mostly via the internet and an insurance company.

    I'd wait a week or so and then speak with all your DRs directly. And I'd speak to them again before I signed on with a new policy (which I would wait to do to give the Drs a chance to re-think if they find they are dropping too many patients).

    Parent

    None of them take effect until Jan 1 (none / 0) (#134)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:18:50 PM EST
    That permits 92 days of shopping. Those with a current private policy can shop for three months and see if they like something better than what they have now. Those with nothing like me can shop around until January and also find what works best, be they exchanges or private. It's fairly safe to say the exchanges will be an easy call for me.

    Parent
    You're very nonchalant about all this, CG (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:29:46 PM EST
    I may agree with you on the GOP disaster over the shutdown, but do you think you could possibly show a bit more compassion for people in different financial and health situations than you have?

    And being in a quandary over gynecological care is nothing to thumb your nose at. 92 days to look means little if there isn't anything better available.

    Parent

    It's okay (none / 0) (#143)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:40:49 PM EST
    People are in denial.  They'll realize how things are.

    Parent
    All of these plans (none / 0) (#141)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:36:26 PM EST
    have pretty much the same provider network.

    Parent
    The Exchange Plan (none / 0) (#142)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:40:04 PM EST
    is going to be my plan as well, because Obamacare has ballooned premiums so insurance is all the less affordable outside of the Exchanges.  I will have substandard care like everyone else on Exchange plans.  My doctors will not be available.  In addition, they won't be available to anyone else on the Exchanges so we'll be competing for the same set of doctors.  This is basically outsourced Medicaid.

    CoralGables, where do you live?  Have you researched the coverage you have via Exchanges there?

    Parent

    I have no coverage for the last 16 months (none / 0) (#148)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:55:03 PM EST
    and haven't seen a doctor in years. I'm one of those that should be upset that is being forced into coverage.

    Haven't looked at the exchanges yet at all. Florida didn't set up their own because out Governor is a little on the nutty side, so I'll be going through the Federal Government website after all the kinks are worked out. Probably won't decide on one until the last deadline which I believe is March 31, 2014.

    Parent

    You can find out (none / 0) (#165)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 04:22:30 AM EST
    which programs are available and what/who they cover by visiting regional insurance plan "providers."

    But yeah, the insurance sites are completely hosed.  It's because of "demand" and also because they pretty much started testing them 2 weeks ago.  

    Well, I'm glad that you're getting coverage. I only hope that it's not frustrating for you.  The skinny provider networks are essentially going to make all the Republicans' horror stories of "rationed care" come true.  When all of the Exchange patients have to see the same sets of doctors while the doctors are still providing spots for people whose insurance pays at a higher rate, we are not going to see the doctor we want, even once we change doctors.  And if we do see our doctor, it won't be in any decent timeframe.

    One of the big deals that enforced the idea that we needed health insurance was the notion of medical bankruptcy.  Well guess what?  When all of the providers that do the extreme procedures, like organ and bone marrow transplants are out of network, that problem is not solved, only made worse...because it's not just for the chronically uninsured that it is a problem, but for everyone on the insurance market who (because of ballooned premiums due to Obamacare) cannot afford to buy coverage without subsidies.  And even "ordinary" procedures like open heart transplants will have a long waiting list.

    I am all for fixing the insurance problem.  Obamacare only made the problem much worse than my wildest dreams could have predicted.

    Parent

    Things (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 07:06:35 AM EST
    like bone marrow and organ transplants pretty much have always been out of network. The insurance problem cannot be fixed. The problem is the insurance company's business model.

    Parent
    My doctor (none / 0) (#166)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 04:25:41 AM EST
    works for a large bureaucratic clinic, called The Polyclinic.  She is not going to grandfather me.  It's not her call.

    The insurance company knows what they will pay for out of network doctors and they consider her an out of network doctor.  They have the final word in what is covered.

    Parent

    One reason I'm screaming (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 04:32:45 AM EST
    ...is that scads of companies are dumping people onto Exchanges.  If a Republican had enacted this law, every liberal blog on the internet would be front page screaming bloody murder about how people are being forced onto plans with hugely limited provider networks, forcing people into rationed and less quality care.

    But since it's OBAMAcare, the crickets chirp, all the while people move from relatively decent plans that companies like Trader Joe's and my our local grocery store union stores and even Home Depot offers onto skinny plans on the Exchanges.  Not only does it hurt those people, it also desperately hurts those of us already on the individual market as we have to compete with a new crop of people for the lousy 3rd rate doctors.  I feel like the individual insurance market is being nuked while nobody is talking about this except me.  

    Parent

    Somehow (none / 0) (#168)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 04:33:59 AM EST
    even preview doesn't help me find the typos.  Sorry about them.

    Parent
    Notice how... (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by unitron on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 10:26:02 AM EST
    ...they leap out at you just as you're clicking "Post"?

    Parent
    I may just stick with Country Doctor clinic (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:32:22 PM EST
    (not far from the Polyclinic). They provide really good care, with a lot of compassion. I've been seeing the same doc there for 5 years.

    Parent
    Regarding Kaiser (none / 0) (#147)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:52:10 PM EST
    I misread. All their programs are in Southern Washington. They have nothing available in the Seattle area.

    That's too bad. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 08:23:01 PM EST
    I was hoping that at least would be an option for you to look at.

    Parent
    Andy Borowitz (none / 0) (#160)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 09:07:35 PM EST
    renounces satire...
    If the Internet had been shut down there would be rioting in the streets.


    Here are a few more effects (none / 0) (#176)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 11:17:38 AM EST
    Military Academies hit hard

    And THIS may be the thing that gets people up in arms.

    The Department of Defense on Tuesday suspended all intercollegiate athletics at the service academies because of the government shutdown, jeopardizing Navy's football game against Air Force in Annapolis on Saturday.