# The US Government Has Shut Down



## Gahars (Oct 1, 2013)

The United States' Congress has been playing a nasty game of brinkmanship (aka "politics chicken") for a while now, with the rival Democrats and Republicans bickering over the nation's budget. Republicans have tried to tie budget negotiations to the Affordable Healthcare Act, Democrats were outraged, and shit just hasn't gotten done.

Well, we've reached the deadline without any budget, so... here are we. The US government is in shutdown mode.



> A federal government shutdown officially began Tuesday morning as a deadlocked
> 
> Congress failed to reach an agreement on a short-term funding measure by a 12:01 a.m. ET deadline.
> 
> ...


NBC







Thanks, ya dinguses.

To be fair, this is hardly the first time such a thing has happened. We've been through this process 18 times in the past, so it's not like things are irreparably damaged or that we can't get back on track. Still plenty embarrassing, of course.

Kick your back your shoes and relax, folks. Thanks to all the Congressional dicks, tonight we're going to party like it's 1996.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 1, 2013)

You had one job!


----------



## filfat (Oct 1, 2013)

We all know that the Leaders in use as kinda weird... USA please do not kill me...
BTW I am not saying that our "leader" isent weird, but he is defently better then Barack Obama(Have no idea how to spel that XD).


----------



## Duo8 (Oct 1, 2013)

Yep guys


Spoiler


----------



## BrightNeko (Oct 1, 2013)

An here I was suppose to apply for food assistance in 17 days 8D


----------



## Arras (Oct 1, 2013)

filfat said:


> We all know that the Leaders in use as kinda weird... USA please do not kill me...
> BTW I am not saying that our "leader" isent weird, but he is defently better then Barack Obama(Have no idea how to spel that XD).


From what I know this is not Obama's fault.


----------



## filfat (Oct 1, 2013)

Arras said:


> From what I know this is not Obama's fault.


I took him as a example, there is more peoples that "rule" in USA.
 ... Is you a secret spy from USA???... Please don't kill me


----------



## Arras (Oct 1, 2013)

filfat said:


> I took him as a example, there is more peoples that "rule" in USA.
> ... Is you a secret spy from USA???... Please don't kill me


No but Congress is not the president. I don't know too much about the inner workings about the US but I wouldn't be surprised if Congress has much more power than the president. The drawback is that they'll have to agree about everything or nothing happens (like here).


----------



## filfat (Oct 1, 2013)

Arras said:


> No but Congress is not the president. I don't know too much about the inner workings about the US but I wouldn't be surprised if Congress has much more power than the president. The drawback is that they'll have to agree about everything or nothing happens (like here).


 True... Agent Arras


----------



## FireGrey (Oct 1, 2013)

Wait what, how would the country even function without a government...?


----------



## Duo8 (Oct 1, 2013)

FireGrey said:


> Wait what, how would the country even function without a government...?


 
Only parts are shut down.


----------



## Arras (Oct 1, 2013)

FireGrey said:


> Wait what, how would the country even function without a government...?


I point you to Belgium which had no government for 1.5 years or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–11_Belgian_government_formation


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2013)

Bah, the Republicans will stop being ignorant after awhile.


----------



## anhminh (Oct 1, 2013)

Yes, we can
This slogan still work =))


----------



## Jayro (Oct 1, 2013)




----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Oct 1, 2013)

For some fun check out www.usda.com Has a special message about this. I wonder if the food is no longer being inspected? I knoww almost none was before but almost and is are not the same.
Edit: awwww they changed it.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 1, 2013)

Well...sucks for certain government employees.


----------



## BORTZ (Oct 1, 2013)

If the NSA was monitoring facebook as heavily as they say, they could have already had this problem solved by all the experts.


----------



## marcus134 (Oct 1, 2013)

FireGrey said:


> Wait what, how would the country even function without a government...?


Actually, the question is: what if the country could function without a government?


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 1, 2013)

For the laymen/non-US citizens:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/government-shutdown-up-to-speed/


----------



## shakirmoledina (Oct 1, 2013)

now we rule assassin's style... Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted

but seriously thanks Gahars for that clarification as I was not sure of the reason of the shutdown


----------



## Hop2089 (Oct 1, 2013)

The GOP blew it for 2016, they aren't going to have control of the Senate, as they are also messing with money of the Special Interest groups and corporations that fund them.  The longer the shutdown, the worst it will be for them come 2016.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 1, 2013)

Arras said:


> I point you to Belgium which had no government for 1.5 years or something.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–11_Belgian_government_formation


Damnit...you beat me to it. 


Yeah...it's not like the average Joe actually noticed anything different. Even the newspapers eventually had to find other items to fill the front pages. 


And the US even still has their president. And I may be mistaken, but I thought the fellow actually DOES anything (unlike our king, whom is literally forbidden to be involved in politics).


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 1, 2013)

There are idiots and douchebags on both sides of the political spectrum. Congress never agrees on anything anyway.


----------



## DinohScene (Oct 1, 2013)

Communist party everyone?


----------



## Black-Ice (Oct 1, 2013)

Perfect time for Kim Jong Un to take over America


----------



## Arras (Oct 1, 2013)

Taleweaver said:


> Damnit...you beat me to it.
> 
> 
> Yeah...it's not like the average Joe actually noticed anything different. Even the newspapers eventually had to find other items to fill the front pages.
> ...


Yeah, our queen is pretty much the same. She can't even express her opinion about something. Sometimes I wonder why we even have one.


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (Oct 1, 2013)

filfat said:


> True... Agent Arras


Watch this, you might learn something


----------



## Rockhoundhigh (Oct 1, 2013)

Love that gif  , anyways considering the BS that happened last year I think this finally HAD to happen this year. While I doubt anyone's going to learn any lessons from this at least it'll outrage the public a bit more.


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Oct 1, 2013)




----------



## Zeliga (Oct 1, 2013)

Sucks for them xD they need to find a solution sooner or later.


----------



## Black-Ice (Oct 1, 2013)

Oh this is relevant.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Oct 1, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Oh this is relevant.


 
Well really, it's not like this was Obama's fault. I mean getting a better health care system? EVERYBODY should be in favor of that. Anybody who disagrees should be exiled to Mexico.

It's just a whole shit ton of problems that have caused this ranging back from before Obama was president.
But iono, this picture reminds me of this:



Spoiler


----------



## Sheimi (Oct 1, 2013)

Affordable Care...pffft. I wouldn't be able to pay the fine for not having Obama care.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Oct 1, 2013)

The only problem I (I'm sure most people agree with me) have with Affordable Health Care is individual mandate (have health care or pay additional taxes each year). *Economies of scale only works in free market; it will not work with government mandate.* Plus I love to see government arrest all those who couldn't afford penalty taxes.

In any cases, both sides are now playing blame game at each other. Maybe this government shutdown will finally let voters to see how incompetent these elected officials are.


----------



## Black-Ice (Oct 1, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Well really, it's not like this was Obama's fault. I mean getting a better health care system? EVERYBODY should be in favor of that. Anybody who disagrees should be exiled to Mexico.
> 
> It's just a whole shit ton of problems that have caused this ranging back from before Obama was president.
> But iono, this picture reminds me of this:


 
I seriously dont understand what the problem is with it...
I dont understand why people would be against a great health care system. I love it here in the UK


----------



## trumpet-205 (Oct 1, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> I seriously dont understand what the problem is with it...
> I dont understand why people would be against a great health care system. I love it here in the UK





ShadowSoldier said:


> Well really, it's not like this was Obama's fault. I mean getting a better health care system? EVERYBODY should be in favor of that. Anybody who disagrees should be exiled to Mexico.


 
Individual mandate is the problem. Have health care (by employer or purchased by yourself) or pay penalty taxes each year.

There is a penalty for not having insurance. There are a lot of Americans who can not afford health insurance. If they cannot afford it, they can't pay this penalty taxes either.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Oct 1, 2013)

You'd think everyone would lose in a situation like this. However, knowing the American Gov't, the politicans are likely partying like there's no tomorrow. I wonder what a party like that would like . . .






In all seriousness though, this is terrible news for the employes that got laid off and for the American public in general. At least the Military was unaffected somewhat. At some point, the American people gotta ask themselves how many times they're willing to receive the short-end of the stick like this time and time again. Here's hoping the shutdown is brief and the Gov't can resume ASAP.


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 1, 2013)

Oh, right, I forgot that was happening.  Explains why my parents didn't get up for work this morning.


----------



## blahkamehameha (Oct 1, 2013)

As expected, the media is going to pin all the blame on the GOP.

The majority of americans did not favor 'Obamacare', but it was essentially rammed down everyone's throat. The Senate ends up rejecting a bill that would keep the government funded, except 'Obamacare' (which again, the majority of americans do not like.)

So the media can place all the blame on the GOP, but really, both sides are responsible, perhaps the Democrats even more, just to keep their unpopular law.


----------



## GreatZimkogway (Oct 1, 2013)

Hop2089 said:


> The GOP blew it for 2016, they aren't going to have control of the Senate, as they are also messing with money of the Special Interest groups and corporations that fund them. The longer the shutdown, the worst it will be for them come 2016.


 
Yeah they will. Look up Gerrymandering. It's exactly what they're doing right now. Voting means absolutely nothing anymore(don't think it's mattered for about...well...gotta be over a decade)



blahkamehameha said:


> As expected, the media is going to pin all the blame on the GOP.
> 
> The majority of americans did not favor 'Obamacare', but it was essentially rammed down everyone's throat. The Senate ends up rejecting a bill that would keep the government funded, except 'Obamacare' (which again, the majority of americans do not like.)
> 
> So the media can place all the blame on the GOP, but really, both sides are responsible, perhaps the Democrats even more, just to keep their unpopular law.


 
Point me to your proof that the majority didn't favor it.  Legit majority, not manipulated "majority"


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 1, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Well really, it's not like this was Obama's fault. I mean getting a better health care system? EVERYBODY should be in favor of that. Anybody who disagrees should be exiled to Mexico.
> 
> It's just a whole shit ton of problems that have caused this ranging back from before Obama was president.
> But iono, this picture reminds me of this:


 
lol, "better".


----------



## Gahars (Oct 1, 2013)

blahkamehameha said:


> As expected, the media is going to pin all the blame on the GOP.
> 
> The majority of americans did not favor 'Obamacare', but it was essentially rammed down everyone's throat. The Senate ends up rejecting a bill that would keep the government funded, except 'Obamacare' (which again, the majority of americans do not like.)
> 
> So the media can place all the blame on the GOP, but really, both sides are responsible, perhaps the Democrats even more, just to keep their unpopular law.


 

Mitt Romney ran on a platform of repealing The Affordable Care Act. This and the economy were the entire basis of his campaign. If the country was so against the ACA, you'd think that he would be our president right now. As it turns out, Romney lost by a clear margin. Not only that, Democrats gained seats in the Senate and House of Representatives. That's hardly a mandate against the bill.

Not to mention that the polling on the issue of healthcare leaves a lot to be desired. Just changing the name you use alters the results tremendously.

Holding the nation's budget hostage over health care was a brazen display. It's a shame that extremists in the Republican party would rather bring the country down than admit that they lost this battle and move on. It's the political equivalent of a temper tantrum and it is embarrassing.


----------



## Nah3DS (Oct 1, 2013)

USA... that's what happen when you spend all of your money playing T.E.G. with the world


----------



## Bobbybangin (Oct 1, 2013)

*It's amusing to read my facebook news feed and these forums and see the amount of people who have absolutely no idea how politics work and are blinded by their own simple spite. It's even more amusing how many of those people I have blocked in my news feed. We can still be friends, I just can't tolerate the level of ignorance that some people openly display for everybody to see. It's simple, the president passed a health care bill in perfect and due legal process. It was upheld by the Supreme court vote as constitutional, confirming it's legality. If you're blaming anybody other than John Boehner and the GOP for the shutdown, that they didn't have to make happen, you've got the wrong idea. Because this was totally their choice. After being defeated 44 times they still opted for a shutdown. I can only imagine the outrage if Obama had overridden the system in this same fashion. They hate our president more than they love our country. Their policy has changed from one of bettering American lives to simply stopping all progress in an effort to regain power. You're more than welcome to hold your beliefs, but don't blame those who aren't responsible and don't punish undeserving people out of your temper-tantrum. Just because one side lost doesn't mean they should be allowed to hold people's jobs hostage and further hurt the American economy.*


----------



## rusty shackleford (Oct 1, 2013)




----------



## Sporky McForkinspoon (Oct 1, 2013)

blahkamehameha said:


> As expected, the media is going to pin all the blame on the GOP.
> 
> The majority of americans did not favor 'Obamacare', but it was essentially rammed down everyone's throat. The Senate ends up rejecting a bill that would keep the government funded, except 'Obamacare' (which again, the majority of americans do not like.)
> 
> So the media can place all the blame on the GOP, but really, both sides are responsible, perhaps the Democrats even more, just to keep their unpopular law.


That's only true for a given value of true.  A very slim majority of people will if asked tell you they are not in favor of Obamacare (last I checked, this may have changed), however almost two thirds of people will approve of the ACA if you describe the way it works to people and ask if they would like a law that worked that way.  Further, two thirds of the third that still doesn't like it thinks the problem is that a public option or single payer system should exist like in every other civilized country.

It's pretty disingenuous to say that most people don't like Obamacare when a close examination of the numbers shows that most people do want something almost exactly like Obamacare, or in the alternative socialized medicine.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2013)

The following video does a good job explaining the history behind what's going on if you've got 16 minutes to spare: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/53151808#53151808


----------



## trumpet-205 (Oct 1, 2013)

Sporky McForkinspoon said:


> It's pretty disingenuous to say that most people don't like Obamacare when a close examination of the numbers shows that most people do want something almost exactly like Obamacare, or in the alternative socialized medicine.


If ACA doesn't include individual mandate, I support it.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Oct 1, 2013)

This just in - The US Government has been a player in _Hell's Kitchen_ this entire time and their latest dish caused great distress to Gordon Ramsay.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 1, 2013)

blahkamehameha said:


> As expected, the media is going to pin all the blame on the GOP.
> 
> The majority of americans did not favor 'Obamacare', but it was essentially rammed down everyone's throat. The Senate ends up rejecting a bill that would keep the government funded, except 'Obamacare' (which again, the majority of americans do not like.)
> 
> So the media can place all the blame on the GOP, but really, both sides are responsible, perhaps the Democrats even more, just to keep their unpopular law.


 
Actually more people support the Affordable Health Care act than they did "Obamacare." In reality, they are supporting the same act with just a different name. None the less the GOP are actually to blame because instead of working together they worked together with the soul intend to bring down one man. The GOP has voted more on repealing this one law than they have on any other law, even more than they did on repealing any of the expensive and invasive laws Bush created, then instead of settling they just ragequit and shutdown the government. Neither side is perfect, but when one side decides to hold the entire country hostage just to shutdown one man, it's pretty easy to say who is the most guilty in all of this.


----------



## Blaze163 (Oct 1, 2013)

So.....as I understand it the short version of this is that two groups of equally stupid people who decide on things based on some crazed sense of near tribal alignment instead of actually listening to the issues then discussing them rationally couldn't reach an agreement, and now they're all sulking?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2013)

trumpet-205 said:


> If ACA doesn't include individual mandate, I support it.


 
In a nutshell, the individual mandate has the same purpose as having people pay into Social Security and Medicare who are not yet reaping the benefits. There are also exemptions to the mandate. Regardless, how one feels about the ACA and/or individual mandate is irrelevant should be irrelevant to what's going on with the budget and government shutdown.
https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/


----------



## Flame (Oct 1, 2013)

US government shuts down. 


the plan is in motion.... 


this is the perfect time to take back the colonies.... FULL SHIPS AHEAD....


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 1, 2013)

Flame said:


> US government shuts down.
> 
> 
> the plan is in motion....
> ...


 
Don't forget that our citizenship is more armed than your military.  Bring it on, servant-to-the-crown.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2013)

Blaze163 said:


> So.....as I understand it the short version of this is that two groups of equally stupid people who decide on things based on some crazed sense of near tribal alignment instead of actually listening to the issues then discussing them rationally couldn't reach an agreement, and now they're all sulking?


 
No, it's one group of stupid people taking advantage of a broken system in order to take the government hostage and threaten to shut it down if they don't get things they want (e.g. ending Obamacare, contraception issues, etc.) that are irrelevant to the budget and potential shutdown. It would be analogous to a liberal House demanding a conservative Senate and conservative President make gay marriage legal or else they will shut down the government.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Oct 1, 2013)

Crap. I think in this political deadlock, there needs to be a coalition government, so bills can be passed, and things can actually happen.


----------



## Blaze163 (Oct 1, 2013)

Lacius said:


> No, it's one group of stupid people taking advantage of a broken system in order to take the government hostage and threaten to shut it down if they don't get things they want (e.g. ending Obamacare, contraception issues, etc.) that are irrelevant to the budget and potential shutdown. It would be analogous to a liberal House demanding a conservative Senate and conservative President make gay marriage legal or else they will shut down the government.


 
So it's one group bitching and throwing their toys out of the pram because they're not getting their own way?

Either way, not exactly the sort of adult behavior you expect from the government of supposedly the most powerful nation on the planet. If anyone needs me I'll be building a rocket to Mars, seems pretty clear things on this planet have gone tits up.


----------



## Black-Ice (Oct 1, 2013)

ComeTurismO said:


> there needs to be a coalition government,


 
Learn from Britain.
There cant be a coalition, only the leader and his bitch.
*Cough* Nick Clegg


----------



## ComeTurismO (Oct 1, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Learn from Britain.
> There cant be a coalition, only the leader and his bitch.
> *Cough* Nick Clegg


 
LOL! True. I just typed up stuff I learned from Grade 8 Canadian History, which was months ago. LOL.
You know what? It's because of people like you that make my day. Thank you so much, I had a good laugh =)


----------



## trumpet-205 (Oct 2, 2013)

Lacius said:


> In a nutshell, the individual mandate has the same purpose as having people pay into Social Security and Medicare who are not yet reaping the benefits. There are also exemptions to the mandate. Regardless, how one feels about the ACA and/or individual mandate is irrelevant should be irrelevant to what's going on with the budget and government shutdown.
> https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/


I agree, as much as I hate individual mandate (exemption only covers very small amount of people) this should NOT be used to invoke a government shutdown.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 2, 2013)

In summary, both parties are being crybabies. In fact, they're like the two brothers who argue over which toys are theirs.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2013)

trumpet-205 said:


> I agree, as much as I hate individual mandate (exemption only covers very small amount of people) this should NOT be used to invoke a government shutdown.


"CBO estimates that in 2016, after the major provisions of the health law are implemented, 24 million people will be exempted from the mandate's penalties."
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Sto.../FAQ-on-individual-insurance-mandate-ACA.aspx

While I would much rather there be a single-payer system, the individual mandate brings down healthcare costs while simultaneously incentivizing more people to be insured. Exemptions include but aren't limited to people who cannot afford it.



the_randomizer said:


> In summary, both parties are being crybabies. In fact, they're like the two brothers who argue over which toys are theirs.


While I'm not saying the Democrats can do no wrong, tell me again how the Democrats are being crybabies in this situation or are at all responsible for the shutdown.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Oct 2, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> In summary, both parties are being crybabies. In fact, they're like the two brothers who argue over which toys are theirs.


George Washington once said in his Farewell address that parties exist to grab political power. Lincoln once said that nation's greatest enemies is its own people, not outsiders.


Lacius said:


> the individual mandate brings down healthcare costs while simultaneously incentivizing more people to be insured.


Except that it doesn't. ACA tries to use the concept "economies of scale" to bring down insurance cost. _Economies of scale (more people buy something less it'll cost to produce; basis for mass production) ONLY works in free market, not when under the influence of government mandate._


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2013)

trumpet-205 said:


> Except that it doesn't. ACA tries to use the concept "economies of scale" to bring down insurance cost. _Economies of scale (more people buy something less it'll cost to produce; basis for mass production) ONLY works in free market, not when under the influence of government mandate._


 
This is still a free market system despite the mandate. People are free to shop around and choose, causing free market pressures to apply to costs. Also, each example we have of an individual mandate with regard to health care, including but not limited to the case in Massachusetts, involves health care costs going down for a number of reasons stemming from the presence of the mandate.


----------



## dalc789 (Oct 2, 2013)

Greeeat, my family's fucked.  Right now my dad's the only one with a job, and that's at a commissary.  With the shutdown, he's working on furlough.  So no pay until this shit gets resolved.


----------



## whinis (Oct 2, 2013)

Lacius said:


> This is still a free market system despite the mandate. People are free to shop around and choose, causing free market pressures to apply to costs. Also, each example we have of an individual mandate with regard to health care, including but not limited to the case in Massachusetts, involves health care costs going down for a number of reasons stemming from the presence of the mandate.


It wasn't a free-market system before or after the ACA as most insurance is tied to your job and hence people are often not able to freely shop and choose. Free market pressures does not apply here without or without the individual mandate. Also there are many studies which have shown things like healthcare can't be a free market system as things that one relies on adds in pressure to accept the closest rather than the best resource.

with that being said the mandate is not enough to push people into the system who do not want it as like it or not the ACA has caused premiums to rise and given incentive for employers to layoff employees if they are a small business to get exemption from portions of the law or to move more employees to part time. Both of those scenarios are a bad outcome of this law and why poll numbers tend to be low for the overall bill but cherry-picked functions of the bill are seen as favorable.

EDIT: to clarify the penalty this year for not having insurance is $95 and will be at max $695 in 2016, whenever you don't get sick and insurance is currently averaging $150-$400 a month then $695 a year penalty is nothing.


----------



## BenRK (Oct 2, 2013)

Once again, Congress proves its pointlessness.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2013)

whinis said:


> It wasn't a free-market system before or after the ACA as most insurance is tied to your job and hence people are often not able to freely shop and choose. Free market pressures does not apply here without or without the individual mandate. Also there are many studies which have shown things like healthcare can't be a free market system as things that one relies on adds in pressure to accept the closest rather than the best resource.


You act as though a.) employers have no say with regard to which insurance policies they buy, b.) that employees have no say with regard to which insurance they end up going with: employer-provided or other, and c.) that employees and employee unions have no say with regard to which health insurance their employers provide.



whinis said:


> with that being said the mandate is not enough to push people into the system who do not want it


 
Does it cause 100% of people to be covered? No. Does it cause a lot more people to be covered and lower costs? Yes.



whinis said:


> as like it or not the ACA has caused premiums to rise


Depending on the case, the ACA has caused health insurance premiums to either go down or go up at a much slower rate. It has not caused prices to go up in any case.



whinis said:


> and given incentive for employers to layoff employees if they are a small business to get exemption from portions of the law or to move more employees to part time.


In principle, you might be right. I'm aware of this, and it's disconcerting. It should perhaps be done away with. In practice, however, it might be another story:


> “You’ve got 5.7 million firms in the U.S.,” says Wharton’s Mark Duggan, who served as the top health economist at White House’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. “Only 210,000 have more than 50 employees. So 96 percent of firms aren’t affected. Then if you look among those firms with 50 or more employees, something on the order of 95 percent offer health insurance. So it’s basically 10,000 or so employers who have more than 50 employees and don’t offer coverage.” Those companies probably employ around one percent of American workers.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...te-shouldnt-be-delayed-it-should-be-repealed/

It should also be noted that the employer mandate doesn't go into effect until 2015.



whinis said:


> Both of those scenarios are a bad outcome of this law and why poll numbers tend to be low for the overall bill but cherry-picked functions of the bill are seen as favorable.


No, the law gets bad press due to right-wing rhetoric. That's why the elements of the law are largely supported but not when listed by name. It's why the following happened:


> LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- A middle-aged man in a red golf shirt shuffles up to a small folding table with gold trim, in a booth adorned with a flotilla of helium balloons, where government workers at the Kentucky State Fair are hawking the virtues of Kynect, the state’s health benefit exchange established by Obamacare.
> The man is impressed. "This beats Obamacare I hope," he mutters to one of the workers.
> 
> "Do I burst his bubble?" wonders Reina Diaz-Dempsey, overseeing the operation. She doesn't. If he signs up, it's a win-win, whether he knows he's been ensnared by Obamacare or not.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...amacare-at-the-clinton-global-initiative.html

People like the ACA as long as it's not by name, and that's what conservatives in congress are deathly afraid of, hence the shutdown.



whinis said:


> EDIT: to clarify the penalty this year for not having insurance is $95 and will be at max $695 in 2016, whenever you don't get sick and insurance is currently averaging $150-$400 a month then $695 a year penalty is nothing.


 
You're calculating costs without factoring gains from having health insurance. If you do the math, it's an average net gain from having health insurance and a net loss from paying a penalty and getting nothing in return; the amount of the net gain depends on one's demographic information. The mandate was also intentionally low, particularly at the beginning.

Edit: Let the record show that I'm for a single-payer option. I don't mean to sound like an ACA commercial, but them's the facts.


----------



## Sporky McForkinspoon (Oct 2, 2013)

trumpet-205 said:


> If ACA doesn't include individual mandate, I support it.


I would prefer a single payer system, however if we are to use the insurance regulation method the ACA introduces, the individual mandate is crucial to it.  It's fairly basic economics, by removing the ability to discriminate based on pre existing conditions, people in my situation (young, health and unlikely to need more than basic health care in any given year) won't get it.  Only people who either have or are at risk to get e.g. cancer will get insurance since as soon as you have symptoms you can call and get insurance at the drop of a hat.  Therefore, the cost of insurance will skyrocket for the people who actually need healthcare.  It doesn't work.

The system works by adding a large number of low risk people to the pool.  They are in effect subsidizing the elderly and the sick, and that's okay.  When they get old or sick they'll be subsidized, and if they never need healthcare, GOOD FOR THEM.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2013)

Sporky McForkinspoon said:


> The system works by adding a large number of low risk people to the pool. They are in effect subsidizing the elderly and the sick, and that's okay. When they get old or sick they'll be subsidized, and if they never need healthcare, GOOD FOR THEM.


 
Which is how Medicare works, the only difference being that the gains one gets from Medicare (aside from the moral gains) is that he/she will be covered when he/she is older, while the low-risk people have the benefit of health insurance in the unlikely event they get sick and when they become higher risk with the ACA.


----------



## calmwaters (Oct 2, 2013)

They're awfully bureaucratic already, aren't they? It's their own fault for being like that; they can't get anything done. "The early bird gets the worm: the late bird gets the hole in the ground."


FireGrey said:


> Wait what, how would the country even function without a government...?


 
We've got Sylvester Stallone and Chuck Norris; what you talkin' 'bout, boy? No seriously, if the government shuts down, then the citizens of the U.S. will have to create their own government. Created by the people, for the people. (Jeez, does this sound familiar to anyone?)


----------



## nukeboy95 (Oct 2, 2013)

(im sorry for this but)


----------



## Sporky McForkinspoon (Oct 2, 2013)

Lacius said:


> Which is how Medicare works, the only difference being that the gains one gets from Medicare (aside from the moral gains) is that he/she will be covered when he/she is older, while the low-risk people have the benefit of health insurance in the unlikely event they get sick and when they become higher risk with the ACA.


Exactly, a single payer system would be better yet, but I'll take what I can get.

Let me tell you a story about me.  Two years ago I was about to go back to school.  I had run into some money problems a couple years before and had to drop out of college, I had worked hard at the best paying job I could get (read:terrible) until I was completely debt free.  On literally   the day I was at the local community college to register for classes I started vomiting and had a terrible pain in my stomach.  Having no insurance I went to the local free clinic, they told me I had stomach flu, and to take some over the counter medicine and I'd be fine in a few days.  Two days later I went back because I was feeling worse, the sickest I had ever felt, I had used up all my sick days at work and was told if I missed any more I'd be fired,  same deal, stomach flu good bye.  And the next day I felt a little better, not much but enough to force myself to go to work.  Five days after I initially got sick I made a third visit to the clinic who gave me the same song and dance.  So I worked for two more days.

Seven days after I first got sick my mother said that I looked awful and insisted on taking me to a hospital.  It seems that a week before I had appendicitis, now I had an appendix that had burst on the fourth day, and I'd been walking around with a burst organ.  By the time I got to the hospital it was literally in pieces.  I am told I had less than twelve hours to live at this point.

I was given a bill for twenty five thousand dollars all told, being that I went to a catholic hospital I plead indigence and they cut that down to five thousand.  Since the previous year I had made twelve thousand dollars, and was now fired, I had a hard time paying for it.  I have since found a somewhat better job, one that is full time and pays a bit better than minimum wage.  I've spent the last two years fighting again to get out of the most debt I have ever been in, and succeeded.  And now I'm back to exactly the same spot I was in two years ago, except that I've gotten to waste two years of my life in the interim.  I still don't have health insurance, but under Obamacare I can finally, for the first time since I turned eighteen afford to get it.

I am hopeful that the ACA will prevent more people having to experience what I have.  The surgeon saved my life, but took two years in payment and that's bullshit.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2013)

Sporky McForkinspoon said:


> I still don't have health insurance, but under Obamacare I can finally, for the first time since I turned eighteen afford to get it.


 
I'd be interested in hearing what monthly premium you're offered.


----------



## Sporky McForkinspoon (Oct 2, 2013)

Depends what level of coverage I decide on. A catastrophic plan would be about thirty dollars per month, a bronze plan that covers 60% of out of pocket for basically any healthcare is sixty per month, silver covers 75% and would cost me about eighty per month, gold covers 90% and would cost me one hundred per month, and a platinum plan would cover literally everything and be about one hundred and twenty per month.

That's based on me as a single, twenty three year old, non smoking, male, with no dependents.

Edit: for reference, the health coverage offered by my employer is approximately equal to the bronze level coverage, though it actually covers fewer things, is three hundred dollars per month to cover just myself with no spouse or dependents.  A coworker of mine covers herself, her husband, and two children for eleven hundred per month out of pocket.


----------



## hhs (Oct 2, 2013)

Thanks Obama!


----------



## Sporky McForkinspoon (Oct 2, 2013)

Alright, it's clearly not Obama who tweeted that (he always ends ones he does personally with - BO) but whoever came up with that needs a raise.


----------



## Dann Woolf (Oct 2, 2013)

As someone with little understanding of politics, I have no idea how to fix this, but I do know that punching everyone on all sides in the face would be a good start.


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Oct 2, 2013)

Not many people know this but our government is childish. Congress likes to act like children and bicker over things that don't matter, personally I think obamacare is evil and will be the death of the country if not the shutdown then the debt ceiling but I do not think they need to shutdown the government just because they have an opinion that differs their own. Work something out!!!!


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2013)

dj4uk6cjm said:


> personally I think obamacare is evil and will be the death of the country


I'd like to know how healthcare is going to be the death of the country.




dj4uk6cjm said:


> but I do not think they need to shutdown the government just because they have an opinion that differs their own.


Amen.


----------

