US Government Shutdown? Not any more!

[Furious Grandmothers]

Well, Boehner is rushing to secure his place in history as the weakest Speaker of the House the United States has ever had, who put his own desperate desire to cling to his Office ahead of the wellbeing of the country and his Party.

He has apparently bowed before the Tea Party and is now saying either the Democrats give up Obamacare, or face default. Though, I wonder if he might actually trigger a rebellion among his moderates given that he lied through his teeth and claimed he doesn't have the votes to do anything unless he gets Obamacare.

I just sort of picture Boehner sitting on the floor next to Ted Cruz's chair and Cruz reaching down to pat him on the head, "Who's a good little Speaker? You are! Yes you are! You want to go for a walkies?" While the rest of the Tea Party sits around laughing.

I think I found the long form video. Hope you all enjoy repeatedly concussively transferring skin cells from off the front of your forehead to the keyboard. Down a shot every time the republican catchwords "conversation" or "kids" are robotically regurgitated.

[Ashmoria]

yuppers

the house wanted a much more progressive plan but ted kennedy died and the only way to get something was to pass the problematical senate plan as was.

Not Ted Kennedy's death but the the election of Brown. A surprise to both sides.

sure.

[HappyShark]

Well, Boehner is rushing to secure his place in history as the weakest Speaker of the House the United States has ever had, who put his own desperate desire to cling to his Office ahead of the wellbeing of the country and his Party.

He has apparently bowed before the Tea Party and is now saying either the Democrats give up Obamacare, or face default. Though, I wonder if he might actually trigger a rebellion among his moderates given that he lied through his teeth and claimed he doesn't have the votes to do anything unless he gets Obamacare.

I just sort of picture Boehner sitting on the floor next to Ted Cruz's chair and Cruz reaching down to pat him on the head, "Good boy! Good boy Johnny! You wanna go for a walkies?"

I think you're missing an important bit in that.

Republicans (hell, even Ted Cruz himself) are backing off of repeal/defund/delay demands on Obamacare and shifting to, In Boehner's case ""a serious conversation" about spending" and in Cruz's case ""some significant structural plan and reduce government spending" and "...ways to mitigate the harms from Obamacare."

If I am reading this correctly between the lines this is because they are seeing preliminary numbers showing that the mandate is failing and know Obama's way out of this mess is a "Buck Stops Here" approach. They want or need a say in how future negotiations take place. So far for republicans it has been 5 wolves vs. a single sheep deciding what is for dinner. So dropping the mandate delay and other specifics to the ACA in exchange for a voice at the table under more beneficial terms leaves the mandate intact to be attacked later as a failure. This also takes away the President's sacrifice aspect to dictate terms from, and opens the door to if you want to sacrifice something then it will be on how things move forward.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Since we're officially not required to pronounce his name correctly anymore, can we refer to this event as "Boehner's boner" from now on?

[The Tundra]

Since we're officially not required to pronounce his name correctly anymore, can we refer to this event as "Boehner's boner" from now on?

i second this motion

[Greed and Death]

Not Ted Kennedy's death but the the election of Brown. A surprise to both sides.

sure.

There are some problems, not related how Conservative or Liberal the bill is. Which I will spoiler because they are aside from the topic.

1. Congress and staff are required to buy insurance on the exchanges but they forgot to add language about the government paying for it. Solution was President Obama interpreted the law as taking existing funding from current insurance plans and giving to congress person and staff for their coverage. The fix is unlikely to be challenged in court as no one would have standing. The weakness is a Republican President can interpret the rules differently later to force the law be changed because few congress people want to go without help buying insurance.

2. The text of the statute suggest that people in states with federally ran exchanges are ineligible for subsidies. This is very likely a scrivener's error that or a judgement error ( assuming states would all form exchanges). The fix has thus far has been the President interpreting the rules to include both federal and state establish exchanges. This has a pending court challenge it is about a 50/50 shot of denying people subsidies in the 36 states that refused to establish exchanges. It is very textual interpretation of the statute but a very similar congressional accident resulted in Chapter 7 attorney fees disappearing. See Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (2004)

3. The family glitch is the big one, basically with this glitch if your employer provides you insurance with premiums at no more than 9.5%, you do not get subsidies. This makes sense you do not want people digging into the federal treasury when their employer's is available. However your employer is not required to help you with your family's premiums but your employer providing you coverage prevents you from getting subsidies on the exchange. This error must be rewritten, and the only fix available without congressional action has been to exempt the affected families from the mandate.

[Geilinor]

I think you're missing an important bit in that.

Republicans (hell, even Ted Cruz himself) are backing off of repeal/defund/delay demands on Obamacare and shifting to, In Boehner's case ""a serious conversation" about spending" and in Cruz's case ""some significant structural plan and reduce government spending" and "...ways to mitigate the harms from Obamacare."

If I am reading this correctly between the lines this is because they are seeing preliminary numbers showing that the mandate is failing

Source? People are signing up, it will just take some time for word to spread. People will look at the website, think about their budget, health needs, etc.

[Geilinor]

Well, Boehner is rushing to secure his place in history as the weakest Speaker of the House the United States has ever had, who put his own desperate desire to cling to his Office ahead of the wellbeing of the country and his Party.

He has apparently bowed before the Tea Party and is now saying either the Democrats give up Obamacare, or face default. Though, I wonder if he might actually trigger a rebellion among his moderates given that he lied through his teeth and claimed he doesn't have the votes to do anything unless he gets Obamacare.

I just sort of picture Boehner sitting on the floor next to Ted Cruz's chair and Cruz reaching down to pat him on the head, "Who's a good little Speaker? You are! Yes you are! You want to go for a walkies?" While the rest of the Tea Party sits around laughing.

That's hilarious, but accurate.

[New Chalcedon]

If I am reading this correctly between the lines this is because they are seeing preliminary numbers showing that the mandate is failing

Source? People are signing up, it will just take some time for word to spread. People will look at the website, think about their budget, health needs, etc.

People are signing up at faster rates than pre-launch studies projected. HappyShark is, as is typical for him (her?) talking out of their ass and imagining failure where no evidence of it exists, in order to validate their desperate opposition to any reform to the broken healthcare system.

[Geilinor]

Source? People are signing up, it will just take some time for word to spread. People will look at the website, think about their budget, health needs, etc.

People are signing up at faster rates than pre-launch studies projected.

That's what I thought. There are currently no grounds by which to proclaim it a failure. Also, what do they plan to tell people who have already enrolled if we repeal it? "Too bad, you won't be getting the healthcare you've already signed up for"?

[Greed and Death]

Source? People are signing up, it will just take some time for word to spread. People will look at the website, think about their budget, health needs, etc.

People are signing up at faster rates than pre-launch studies projected. HappyShark is, as is typical for him (her?) talking out of their ass and imagining failure where no evidence of it exists, in order to validate their desperate opposition to any reform to the broken healthcare system.

Really the think progress site has a defensive tone about the numbers enrolling.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10 ... failing-2/

[HappyShark]

If I am reading this correctly between the lines this is because they are seeing preliminary numbers showing that the mandate is failing

Source? People are signing up, it will just take some time for word to spread. People will look at the website, think about their budget, health needs, etc.

The "If I am reading this correctly between the lines" should have been ample to clearly indicate this is a guess and opinion on my part. Unless you are trying to indicate I am not entitled to my own opinion and speculation of potential outcomes.

I am not telling you that this is something you need to accept as gospel truth, as a matter of fact "If I am reading this correctly between the lines" should be indicative to anyone reading it, this is highly speculative and fraught with risk. In the financial world it comes down to if you wish to risk your money on this then do so, if you are risk adverse then my suggestion would be do not invest your money. No claims are being made as to the efficacy or accuracy in regards to a forward looking statement and no assurance is being given that the outcome of this speculative statement will occur.

[HappyShark]

Source? People are signing up, it will just take some time for word to spread. People will look at the website, think about their budget, health needs, etc.

People are signing up at faster rates than pre-launch studies projected. HappyShark is, as is typical for him (her?) talking out of their ass and imagining failure where no evidence of it exists, in order to validate their desperate opposition to any reform to the broken healthcare system.

now on this i can ask for a source please show me the enrollment numbers.

[Condunum]

Source? People are signing up, it will just take some time for word to spread. People will look at the website, think about their budget, health needs, etc.

The "If I am reading this correctly between the lines" should have been ample to clearly indicate this is a guess and opinion on my part. Unless you are trying to indicate I am not entitled to my own opinion and speculation of potential outcomes.

I am not telling you that this is something you need to accept as gospel truth, as a matter of fact "If I am reading this correctly between the lines" should be indicative to anyone reading it, this is highly speculative and fraught with risk.

No, reading between the lines means you're seeing implied meaning or something hidden. Stop talking out of your ass.

[The New World Oceania]

Well, Boehner is rushing to secure his place in history as the weakest Speaker of the House the United States has ever had, who put his own desperate desire to cling to his Office ahead of the wellbeing of the country and his Party.

He has apparently bowed before the Tea Party and is now saying either the Democrats give up Obamacare, or face default. Though, I wonder if he might actually trigger a rebellion among his moderates given that he lied through his teeth and claimed he doesn't have the votes to do anything unless he gets Obamacare.

I just sort of picture Boehner sitting on the floor next to Ted Cruz's chair and Cruz reaching down to pat him on the head, "Who's a good little Speaker? You are! Yes you are! You want to go for a walkies?" While the rest of the Tea Party sits around laughing.

OK, what?

I mean, I knew he was a stubborn partisan leader unable to control his even more stubborn partisan colleagues, but this, this is just absurd. The government shutdown is already costing some 200M a day, and has cost us over a billion already, but if we go over the debt limit, that's the end.

If the shutdown is a hiccup, then a default would be an explosive burp.

$300 million per day, but that's not the government losing money. It's mere economic output; still unfortunate, but the idea that the debt limit has anything to do with this is, to my knowledge, absurd.

[Vazdania]

GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN DAY 6: REVENGE OF THE BOEHNER.

[Greed and Death]

OK, what?

I mean, I knew he was a stubborn partisan leader unable to control his even more stubborn partisan colleagues, but this, this is just absurd. The government shutdown is already costing some 200M a day, and has cost us over a billion already, but if we go over the debt limit, that's the end.

If the shutdown is a hiccup, then a default would be an explosive burp.

$300 million per day, but that's not the government losing money. It's mere economic output; still unfortunate, but the idea that the debt limit has anything to do with this is, to my knowledge, absurd.

The Debt limit is coming up shortly.

[Vazdania]

$300 million per day, but that's not the government losing money. It's mere economic output; still unfortunate, but the idea that the debt limit has anything to do with this is, to my knowledge, absurd.

The Debt limit is coming up shortly.

we's aw gwana die.

[Greed and Death]

The Debt limit is coming up shortly.

we's aw gwana die.

I do sincerely hope so.

[HappyShark]

The "If I am reading this correctly between the lines" should have been ample to clearly indicate this is a guess and opinion on my part. Unless you are trying to indicate I am not entitled to my own opinion and speculation of potential outcomes.

I am not telling you that this is something you need to accept as gospel truth, as a matter of fact "If I am reading this correctly between the lines" should be indicative to anyone reading it, this is highly speculative and fraught with risk.

No, reading between the lines means you're seeing implied meaning or something hidden. Stop talking out of your ass.

It is still speculative no matter how you want to cut it, slice it, or dice it. no one is telling you to accept a speculation as some type of guaranteed fact.

[Euronion]

Apparently Amber alert has been shutdown along with the government. I find it rather disgraceful that it is not counted as an "essential" service but apparantly it is not. There is actually a petition going around that some of my facebook friends are signing if you want to sign it. I haven't signed it because I don't have a change.org account unfortunately but I've thought about getting one:

https://www.change.org/petitions/stop-p ... ber-alert#

Though this brings me to a broader question to, what do you exactly define as essential services? and how do you guys feel about Obama refusing to sign piecemeal bills that will keep certain parts of the government running?

I would define essential services as the military, police, courts, Amber Alert, Intelligence, Social Security, etc, while I would not really define national parks and stuff such as that as really essential. I also heard of an interesting story in which the government of Arizona offered to pay to keep the Grand Canyon open but was refused. I think that the President is trying to cast the same light as he did with the sequester making everything seem a lot worse than it is personally, what do you guys think?

P.S. Since I know someone is going to bring up merging this with the government shutdown thread, I shall explain myself here. This is a different question and I believe it deserves a separate thread, it discusses what we believe to be the essential services of the government instead of blaming the government shutdown on one party or the other, we are not talking about the debt ceiling or anything similar. This is a thread for essential services and recent events and that is why I believe it deserves it's own thread.

[New Chalcedon]

People are signing up at faster rates than pre-launch studies projected. HappyShark is, as is typical for him (her?) talking out of their ass and imagining failure where no evidence of it exists, in order to validate their desperate opposition to any reform to the broken healthcare system.

now on this i can ask for a source please show me the enrollment numbers.

You will ask for sources, but not provide them for your own assertions? Typical right-winger.

Rand Paul Republican from Alabama decides that Obamacare's not so bad. Arkansas Republican finds out that he can save money via Obamacare.

Georgia: Enrollment site is swamped by people trying to enrol.
Indiana: Demand swamps Obamacare exchange site, phone lines.
Kentucky: Kynect opens to a surge of demand.
Florida: Demand stresses Florida exchange.

The list goes on...and on...and on...

As was presciently noted by Paul Krugman a few days ago, the only course of action open to the GOP - after their extremely high-profile, near-unanimous opposition to the ACA - is to sabotage its implementation at every turn and hope it fails thereby. Because if the ACA actually works, despite Republican opposition, the GOP is finished. Their "gubbermint is ebil!" mantra will have been comprehensively debunked, their socially-conservative policies are increasingly unpopular, and the boardroom rallying-cry of "screw the poor to give us more!" isn't exactly a vote-winner.

[Blasveck]

Well that's........horrible doesn't seem to put it properly....

[Greed and Death]

Do not worry I set up a privately ran alternative why the federal site was down.
http://www.amberalert.com/

[Skeckoa]

I always though that AMBER Alerts were issued by states, not the Feds.