|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Are these people complete prats?
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
They already know. Yes, that's Sally Kohn, but numbers don't lie.
Maybe it's just me, but when you have Fox News running an article in support of Obamacare, it makes the opponents of Obamacare look like extreme right wing loonies.
Fox News favors something Obama likes? The world I know has ended.
As I implied, Sally Kohn is far from the stereotypical Fox News appointment. But still...
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Your argument essentially amounts to leaving the present, demonstrably less efficient system in place because health care is excessively expensive under that system.
With the government already spending about the same % of gdp on healthcare to cover a little over 30% of our population that other countries spend to cover all their people, our government already has demonstrated itself to be inefficient.
Let me put that into perspective because the raw numbers you cite are extremely misleading.
The US Government provides basically vour types of care. Medicare, Medicaid, Kidney Care (which is technically a branch of medicare but doesn't require that the recipient be over 65), and Veterans. Medicare covers the Over 65s. In Britain, the over 65s take well over 60% of the budget to treat because they are simply more unwell than those in the prime of life. Medicaid is not quite so disproportionately expensive - but includes people on long term disability. And dialysis? That stuff is incredibly expensive. And there is nothing that could ever possibly go wrong with the health of veterans that doesn't have the same prevalence in absolute numbers.
While it isn't quite true to say that the US government pays for the most expensive 30% of the population it's probably 30 of the top 40%.
Meanwhile the private healthcare model tells people to piss up a rope if they are actually ill. They get their majority share of the pie despite providing as little healthcare as possible to the least needy tranches of the population they can find.
US public healthcare isn't that much less efficient than the rest of the world's - and that it is is mostly down to the bureaucratic nightmare that the private sector imposes.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re: the locked out vets--
Saw on TV that someone found a way to let them in.
The "lock out" was a barricade of yellow tape saying do not enter. The Park ranger there to prevent people from entering said "I'm not going to stop them, I'm a veteran, too". There was a congressman there too trying to help since he had nothing better to do.
Not like maybe go to work and start doing something about solving this mess?
I'm beginning to think that the only way this could be solved would be if some independent group was to conduct a random selection from the pool of Representative, Senator and Cabinet members every six hours and inflict a painful death. That would see a negotiated settlement in no time!
More realistically, limits on the number of consecutive terms able to be served in a federal elected office and UN supervision of US electoral procedures are probably the best chance the US has of getting a functional legislature.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Premiums are to be as much as 9% of your gross income. For those who don't buy health insurance, that's a huge new budget item. Lots of my friends are bare, they just hope they never get sick.
For a couple with no kids and an income of $30,000, a pretty tight budget, they will have to pay between $600 and $2500 in premiums (plus various deductibles). calculator For health insurance compared with pre-Obamacare, that's cheap. But it's a big added expense. (OTOH, pay for it by just killing the Smart Phone or the 100 channel TV subscription! Nope, those are "essentials.")
My friend who struggles to live on an uncertain $20,000 a year will have to pay about $50 a year for the lowest cost plan.
Interesting that it's so high. UK NHS funding comes to about 4% of income on a £30,000 salary according to this Telegraph calculator. A yearly income of £30,000 pays around £1233 a year, or £103 a month towards the NHS, although a £15,000pa income pays £360.00pa/£30pm which is 2.5%.
I suspect the US model is more expensive because it is forced to fund an existing expensive insurance company model rather than setting one up from scratch.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I suspect the US model is more expensive because it is forced to fund an existing expensive insurance company model rather than setting one up from scratch.
Well, yeah. If you were living in an ideal world where you weren't constrained by existing systems you'd never design a health care system along the lines of America's pre-ACA system (or even the post-ACA system). Of course, we don't live in such a world.
[ 03. October 2013, 12:06: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I suspect the US model is more expensive because it is forced to fund an existing expensive insurance company model rather than setting one up from scratch.
Well, yeah. If you were living in an ideal world where you weren't constrained by existing systems you'd never design a health care system along the lines of America's pre-ACA system (or even the post-ACA system). Of course, we don't live in such a world.
There are a number of names which apply to such an ideal world, like Australia, Britain, Canada, Cuba, Sweden ...
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I suspect the US model is more expensive because it is forced to fund an existing expensive insurance company model rather than setting one up from scratch.
Well, yeah. If you were living in an ideal world where you weren't constrained by existing systems you'd never design a health care system along the lines of America's pre-ACA system (or even the post-ACA system). Of course, we don't live in such a world.
There are a number of names which apply to such an ideal world, like Australia, Britain, Canada, Cuba, Sweden ...
The interesting thing about the NHS is that it was constrained by existing systems. It didn't pop into existence in 1946 out of thin air. it was based on previous welfare laws, societies, charities and insurance schemes that dated back to 1911 at least. Yet still it met without the rage and assault that the US reforms are meeting with today.
The UK Conservatives of the day quickly realised how popular the welfare reforms were and switched their political attacks from the policies themselves to the incompetence of the people administering them. It still allowed them to regularly stick the knife into their political opponents, but not at the expense of the smooth running of the country's laws and economy, and without the loss of political captial that would result from opposing the people's will and need.
If only the Republicans learned from history, or had any sense of the public will, and used the same tactics today. They could argue that the ACA was their idea all along, and Obama was just doing it wrong. Vote for Republicans who would adminster the popular medicare reform with less government waste! It's just rank stupidity to set themselves up as a modern-day Canute against the tide.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Hawk, I think part of the reason for that was because the UK welfare reforms were introduced in 1946 - just after the Second World War, when there was a much greater sense of 'we're all in this together' (to quote one of CallmeDave's inane slogans). Everyone had been affected by the war; some lost everything they owned in the Blitz; there was a lot of sympathy for refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe (more than refugees get nowadays, anyway). And there was some opposition to the NHS, though most of it came from doctors' organisations who were worried about losing out financially under the new system.
Nowadays it's much easier for politicians to play divide and rule; look at the way the UK government is cutting back on welfare with hardly any opposition by characterising anyone who claims benefits as a scrounger. They're not out to get nice respectable people like us, oh dear me no (I understand the current code is 'hard-working families). They're after the lazy sods over there who want something for nothing.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
"We’re not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is."
- Congressman Marlin Stutzman, elegantly summing up the Republican position
I think we've reached the point where Congressional Republicans are fixated on "winning", but no longer remember what "winning" means for them. Maybe they never knew, other than them winning means someone else (the President? Congressional Democrats? the American people?) lost.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Hawk, I think part of the reason for that was because the UK welfare reforms were introduced in 1946 - just after the Second World War, when there was a much greater sense of 'we're all in this together' (to quote one of CallmeDave's inane slogans). Everyone had been affected by the war; some lost everything they owned in the Blitz; there was a lot of sympathy for refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe (more than refugees get nowadays, anyway). And there was some opposition to the NHS, though most of it came from doctors' organisations who were worried about losing out financially under the new system.
Nowadays it's much easier for politicians to play divide and rule; look at the way the UK government is cutting back on welfare with hardly any opposition by characterising anyone who claims benefits as a scrounger. They're not out to get nice respectable people like us, oh dear me no (I understand the current code is 'hard-working families). They're after the lazy sods over there who want something for nothing.
I'm not sure about 'hardly any opposition'. Quite a lot of people seem to be dimly aware that an awful lot of benefit claimants are in work, and are having their low wages topped up. You see, the state is just thinking about those employers, who need their wage-bill subsidizing! Well, it just shows that we're all in this together, after all.
On the initial resistance to the NHS by GPs, do you remember Aneurin Bevan's nostrum - stuff their mouths with gold!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
I don't think there's enough gold in the world to buy off the opponents of Obamacare...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I suspect the US model is more expensive because it is forced to fund an existing expensive insurance company model rather than setting one up from scratch.
Well, yeah. If you were living in an ideal world where you weren't constrained by existing systems you'd never design a health care system along the lines of America's pre-ACA system (or even the post-ACA system). Of course, we don't live in such a world.
There are a number of names which apply to such an ideal world, like Australia, Britain, Canada, Cuba, Sweden ...
Absolutely. But I'm living in the US, which does have a clunky, outdated, inefficient system already in place. That will HAVE to be dismantled. And that will be costly, messy, painful, and people will get hurt. But we either keep living in a decrepit old house that's falling apart around our ears, or we do the hard work of tearing it down and rebuilding something better. Right now we're in the process of tearing it down while still trying to keep a roof over our heads to keep out the rain. Not easy to do.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Tangent Alert.
I live in a country with quite an efficient health-care system, which I support, and from which I have greatly benefited personally.
This is a thoroughly relevant and stimulating thread, and I generally concur with the criticism of the Tea Party obstructionism.
Having said that, I am also disturbed that this issue has generated so much concern and interest, while contemporaneous and equally serious events have passed unremarked.
About a week ago, within a few days of each other, about eighty-five Christians were killed in an explosion outside a church in Pakistan, about sixty-seven people were shot dead in a Kenyan shopping centre, and over twenty students were murdered in a Nigerian college dormitory.
To the best of my knowledge (apologies if I am wrong) none of these atrocities was so much as even mentioned on the Ship.
Is this caused by a parochialism which sees the welfare of white Westerners as more interesting than the actual lives of Africans and Asians?
Or is it simply more feel-good and fashionable to rail against Republicans, than to be caught saying anything negative about Islamist extremism?
Every now and then this idea rears its head about what we should and should not be talking about on the Ship.
And every time I think it's based on a complete fallacy. There is no moral rule that says that if we discuss one thing, we are obliged to discuss 5 other things that someone comes along and labels as 'important'.
And if you think those things are important, you are free to start threads discussing them. Just as a Shipmate decided to start THIS thread on something they found worthy of discussion.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
What I find interesting is that, after several posters telling him "Go start a new thread," he hasn't, instead continued to try derailing this one.
Sort of like the Teapotty Repugs shutting down a government that won't (and can't) give them what they demand.
[ 03. October 2013, 15:53: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Is this caused by a parochialism which sees the welfare of white Westerners as more interesting than the actual lives of Africans and Asians?
What about the parochialism that sees what is happening in the US as having to do with "white Westerners"? There are people of every color, ethnicity and nationality living here and we are deeply (and disproportionately ) affected by all of this.
Africa is a continent, Asian a race and the US a country. Not sure how they can be lumped together.
[ 03. October 2013, 15:58: Message edited by: art dunce ]
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Having said that, I am also disturbed that this issue has generated so much concern and interest, while contemporaneous and equally serious events have passed unremarked.
This is because 'interesting' and important' are two completely different things. They may coincide, they may not. I come here to get away from what's important, have a rest, and to read and chat about what's interesting.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Stop derailing this thread.
Thank you.
Doublethink
Purgatory host
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Tangent Alert.
I live in a country with quite an efficient health-care system, which I support, and from which I have greatly benefited personally.
This is a thoroughly relevant and stimulating thread, and I generally concur with the criticism of the Tea Party obstructionism.
Having said that, I am also disturbed that this issue has generated so much concern and interest, while contemporaneous and equally serious events have passed unremarked.
About a week ago, within a few days of each other, about eighty-five Christians were killed in an explosion outside a church in Pakistan, about sixty-seven people were shot dead in a Kenyan shopping centre, and over twenty students were murdered in a Nigerian college dormitory.
To the best of my knowledge (apologies if I am wrong) none of these atrocities was so much as even mentioned on the Ship.
Is this caused by a parochialism which sees the welfare of white Westerners as more interesting than the actual lives of Africans and Asians?
Or is it simply more feel-good and fashionable to rail against Republicans, than to be caught saying anything negative about Islamist extremism?
Also in context there are three things that need taking into account.
1: This is crazier than if the entire legislature stripped down and decided to streak naked, and hasn't happened for seventeen years. It is news, and far more so than bombings which haven't happened for ... months? And I don't think this happens in any other country.
2: I know people who are affected by this shutdown. I'm talking to one online right now. It's therefore more immediate.
3: If only 67 people are killed by park rangers not being allowed to search for missing people, the NIH not being allowed to have more patients treated, 800,000 people not getting paid, food to commissaries being shut down, and possibly soon Meals on Wheels.
No it's not myopia to care more about people you know than those you don't. It's basic human nature. It's not wrong to care more about the unusual than the normal. And it's not bad to talk about the scary. And sorting your own house before throwing stones at other peoples, and looking at your neighbour's before the one half way across town is again normal and sensible.
And even if that were the case it would be utterly irrelevant. If you wanted a thread on those things you could have posted one. No one stopped you.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
From today's NYT.
'The 26 states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion are home to about half of the country’s population, but about 68 percent of poor, uninsured blacks and single mothers. About 60 percent of the country’s uninsured working poor are in those states.'
A travesty. I hope this whole fiasco can build enough momentum to boot the Republicans out of Governorships in those states and cost them seats in both houses.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
From today's NYT.
'The 26 states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion are home to about half of the country’s population, but about 68 percent of poor, uninsured blacks and single mothers. About 60 percent of the country’s uninsured working poor are in those states.'
A travesty. I hope this whole fiasco can build enough momentum to boot the Republicans out of Governorships in those states and cost them seats in both houses.
The republican legislatures for those states have, furthermore, worked to make it more difficult for people to sign up for healthcare under the ACA.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Justinian: quote:
1: This is crazier than if the entire legislature stripped down and decided to streak naked,
Ugh... Brain bleach! Now!
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
From the category of slightly gross but nonetheless accurate movie analogies:
quote:
Boehner does not seem to share his party’s sociopathic embrace of hostage tactics. Boehner resembles William H. Macy’s character in Fargo, who concocts a simple plan to have his wife kidnapped and skim the proceeds, failing to think a step forward about what happens once she’s actually seized by violent criminals. He doesn’t intend for her to be harmed, but also has no ability to control the plan once he’s set it in motion. In the end, Boehner's Speakership is likely to end up in the wood chipper, anyway.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
From the category of slightly gross but nonetheless accurate movie analogies:
quote:
Boehner does not seem to share his party’s sociopathic embrace of hostage tactics. Boehner resembles William H. Macy’s character in Fargo, who concocts a simple plan to have his wife kidnapped and skim the proceeds, failing to think a step forward about what happens once she’s actually seized by violent criminals. He doesn’t intend for her to be harmed, but also has no ability to control the plan once he’s set it in motion. In the end, Boehner's Speakership is likely to end up in the wood chipper, anyway.
How sadly accurate.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
This whole episode reminds me of shopping with one of my nieces when she was 3.
Probably the real problem was she got overtired and had no other way to express this, but as we were nearing the checkout line, her eye lit on some cheesy gizmo she wanted. Mebbe it was candy, which her parents forbade her; mebbe it was something I couldn't afford; I don't recall. Whatever the reason, I said no.
She ended up lying on the floor purple-faced, screeching blue murder, kicking her heels in full-blown tantrum. This tactic used to work with her mother; I've seen it. AFAICT, the result of giving in is more tantrums
However, I earn part of my living dealing with clients who routinely commit major cringe-worthy faux pas in public. So I just stood by, to see she didn't actually hurt herself, and waited for her to wind down, or for management to kick us out (whichever happened first).
So here we are at the ACA checkout line, and the Teapotty folk want something (though they're not sure what). And they're kicking and screaming while the rest of us stand around and watch.
I'm struck by the number of freshmen in this crew. Do you suppose that actually trying to be a serious Congress-critter is more than they bargained for, and the real problem is they're all overtired and should be sent home for naps?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
As I started this thread, perhaps I'd better answer Kaplan Korday and others. Yes, I feel very strongly about the bombing of churches in Pakistan, and and the other bombings in Nigeria, Kenya and elsewhere. However, that didn't happen to be the subject I posted the OP on. It could have been, but it wasn't.
These events have been inexcusable and appalling, but I'd assume we all agree that. There would not have been much to discuss.
My OP was inspired - as I explained in it - by some news I had just heard, a few minutes before, which struck me as a bizarre, irresponsible and juvenile misuse of a political process by people who should have known better.
The subject matter, in this case Obamacare, strikes me as more or less irrelevant. The same criticisms would, to a foreign observer, have applied whatever the subject matter of debate and whether perpetrated by Republicans or Democrats.
However, I live in a far away country, where things are done differently - imperfectly but with different imperfections. I wondered if there was some other explanation.
So far, nobody has given any alternative explanation, or even tried to defend those whom I described as the monkeys in Halitosis Hall.
Is that fair comment? Or does someone feel they have defended their representatives?
Meanwhile, let me frame part of the question in a slightly different way.
The Legislature presumably has to vote a budget, and one of its responsibilities is to make sure the Executive runs a reasonably tight financial ship. However, as I understand it, under the US Constitution, the Legislature does not frame policy and then hire a President to deliver it. Nor does it have the power to sack a President who it thinks isn't up to scratch or is overspending.
The President is elected by the electorate. Candidates presumably issue manifestos saying what they will do if the people vote for them. The President's mandate comes from the electorate, not the Legislature.
So is it legitimate for the Legislature suddenly to cut the Executive's purse strings, root and branch, clunk, just because it doesn't like something the President was elected to do?
And should the Legislature regard itself as having any responsibility for government - or is it entitled to say 'nothing to do with us - that's the Executive's job'?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So is it legitimate for the Legislature suddenly to cut the Executive's purse strings, root and branch, clunk, just because it doesn't like something the President was elected to do?
And should the Legislature regard itself as having any responsibility for government - or is it entitled to say 'nothing to do with us - that's the Executive's job'?
These are two different, though inter-related questions. It's legitimate for the legislature to the executive's purse strings. Control of spending was assigned to the legislature for that very reason, to serve as a check on executive power. On the other hand, it's not responsible to do so in the indiscriminate and scattershot manner that's been done in this case.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Enoch, in the U.S. system, the Executive has no purse strings to be cut. Laws which appropriate funds for routine US government actions must by our Constitution originate in the House, eventually be approved by the Senate (possibly in altered form), and then signed into law by the President after both chambers have developed a mutually-agreeable version of the original bill.
What's happening here is that a small faction is refusing to authorize a continuing budget resolution to fund the government (separate from the ACA) because a majority of their body passed a law (the ACA) the small faction doesn't like.
This faction has already attempted, some 40-odd times, to get the law they hate repealed, altered, or delayed, in whole or in part. Every one of these attempts has failed. Money was appropriated with its passage. It's now law, and has money appropriated for its implementation.
What the faction seems to be trying to do now is force the President into a situation where he'd have to act unconstitutionally: he's now obligated to oversee the law's implementation. Yet if the Tea Potters can somehow separate the funding from the law, he won't be able to. They want to force Obama into a Catch-22 corner, where anything he does will be unconstitutional.
Maybe they're trying to render him impeachable.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
Interesting subject.
Why no mention of it in the thread title?
.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
That seems a plausible explanation.
However, if both houses and the president have *already passed* a law - surely, blackmail on this scale must be unconstitutional ?
Come to think of it, isn't blackmail illegal under the US equivalent of common law ?
[crosspost with content free post]
[ 03. October 2013, 19:42: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
That seems a plausible explanation.
However, if both houses and the president have *already passed* a law - surely, blackmail on this scale must be unconstitutional?
Not really. Most laws don't have a built-in funding mechanism included in them. For example, Congress can pass a law establishing food safety standards and even authorize an agency to maintain those standards, but funds for operations are typically apportioned on a year-by-year basis. There are fairly good, practical reasons for this. For starters, it would require an implausible level of economic forecasting. It's very hard to anticipate in 1970 what level of staffing or operations will be appropriate for the Environmental Protection Agency in 2013.
Interestingly the U.S. Constitution actually forbids appropriating money for the Army more than two years in advance.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I get that, but it is the stalling with the deliberate intention of sabotage - deliberate and stated intention - that seems impeachable.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Hmm, I wonder if any bribery charges will ever arise ...
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Except that Parliamentary systems do this too; the only difference the issue is brought directly to a head through a Confidence Vote. Canadian Governments have fallen on the their budgets and the Ontario Government will likely do so next March. The US system has no confidence votes and can't resort to a spontaneous election to resolve matters. It would probably help it it did, but that would depend on reducing the amount of gerrymandering.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Except that Parliamentary systems do this too; the only difference the issue is brought directly to a head through a Confidence Vote. Canadian Governments have fallen on the their budgets and the Ontario Government will likely do so next March. The US system has no confidence votes and can't resort to a spontaneous election to resolve matters. It would probably help it it did, but that would depend on reducing the amount of gerrymandering.
Most recently in 2009. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I get that, but it is the stalling with the deliberate intention of sabotage - deliberate and stated intention - that seems impeachable.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Hmm, I wonder if any bribery charges will ever arise ...
Since Congress is the obstructive party in this case, impeachment isn't an option. Congressmen can't be impeached, only members of the Executive or Judiciary branches.
Each House of Congress has the power to expel its own members, but this isn't technically an impeachment. In fact, expulsion doesn't require proving a charge of bribery or treason (though historically most expulsions were for Civil War-era treason). "Being an obstructive asshole" is a good enough reason to be expelled from the Senate or the House, provided that two-thirds of your fellow Senators on Congresspeople can be convinced to vote that way.
[ 03. October 2013, 20:40: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I get that, but it is the stalling with the deliberate intention of sabotage - deliberate and stated intention - that seems impeachable.
Stuff I Don't Like != "impeachable."
Keep it realistic please.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think abuse of public office is a serious issue. (Which is covered by that part of the constitution.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Stuff I Don't Like != "impeachable."
Keep it realistic please.
No, but "stuff I don't like" can equal expulsion. What's unrealistic with that is getting two-thirds of the House of Representatives to establish a precedent that makes expulsion so easy.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Except that Parliamentary systems do this too; the only difference the issue is brought directly to a head through a Confidence Vote. Canadian Governments have fallen on the their budgets and the Ontario Government will likely do so next March. The US system has no confidence votes and can't resort to a spontaneous election to resolve matters. It would probably help it it did, but that would depend on reducing the amount of gerrymandering.
Most recently in 2009.
2011.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think abuse of public office is a serious issue. (Which is covered by that part of the constitution.)
I Think It Is A Serious Issue != it is covered by the constitution*.
I Think It Is A Serious Issue != it is illegal.
I Think It Is A Serious Issue != it is a criminal act.
I agree that it's a serious issue, it is a good cause to write to your representative and advise them that you will vote for somebody else next time around if they don't fix the mess.
However, members of the Congress voting on bills and amendments in ways you don't like is NOT good cause to go around making up legal-sounding bullshit about impeachment or the constitution* that has no basis. That kind of mendacious conduct is worthy of a Hussein-type dictatorship where a completely transparent façade of a democracy is maintained, not a democratic republic like the USA - and in doing that you only drag yourself down to the level of those who have been doing it for years and are ready to beat you with experience.
* the constitution does not contain the terms "abuse" or "public office" - let alone together. Try harder next time.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" includes the abuse of public office.
[ 03. October 2013, 21:43: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
The Westminster system works . Both UK & Canada don't have these shocks every few years. Yes we have other shocks but the system still works. What is happening in USA is
disfunction by a small group of people closing down much of the Federal system.
I wonder if the tea party typpes realize how bad it looks to close down, The Lincoln
memorial, the Jefferson Memorial , the Washington memorial , the Federally supported museums , the National Park Service and so on. Then they wonder why some people laught at America
Hopefully someone in Washington will start acting in an adult manner and get this settled .
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" includes the abuse of public office.
Voting In Ways I Don't Like != "high crimes and misdemeanors"
In any case, that's for civil officers. Congressmen are not civil officers, they are Members of the House of Representatives.
There are plenty of things going wrong in this situation that are real, they should be addressed instead of going off on fanciful rants about imaginary constitutions and imaginary impeachments.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
The Westminster system works . Both UK & Canada don't have these shocks every few years. Yes we have other shocks but the system still works. What is happening in USA is
disfunction by a small group of people closing down much of the Federal system.
I wonder if the tea party typpes realize how bad it looks to close down, The Lincoln
memorial, the Jefferson Memorial , the Washington memorial , the Federally supported museums , the National Park Service and so on. Then they wonder why some people laught at America
Hopefully someone in Washington will start acting in an adult manner and get this settled .
Yes, they do realize it, which is why they're trying to push through a "lifeboat" resolution that funds the NPS, the city of Washington (which is already taking matters into its own hands), and National Institutes of Health, so that stories of tourists unable to visit Washington or children with cancer turned away from medical trials stop making the news and the shutdown can continue. Not in the lifeboat: food stamps, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control, or most anything that could regulate industry or help the poor. Draw your own conclusions.
The closures are turning into quite the story, especially because a few Republicans took credit for the Park Service letting WWII veterans into the closed WWII Memorial on the Mall—nevermind that, from what news reports are saying, it was the director of the NPS who ordered the Memorial opened. It's also a problem because many roads and bike paths in DC are on Park Service land, meaning that people who commute by bike (a large number of folks in DC, even during a shutdown) are out of luck. Suffice it to say, there are a lot of people who are happy about neither the closures or the fact that every day this drags out (current crowdsourced prediction on the Washington Post website is that it'll last until 17 October—when the debt ceiling default deadline is) is another day people around the country don't get (and won't get) paid.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Oh, will people stop pretending that their system of government is so superior? Every system has its problems.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I thought 'civil officers' would cover those civilians holding public office. The confusion coming from the terms 'civil' and 'office'. Divided by a common language again I see.
In the UK MPs can be charged with misconduct in public office. I had understood 'impeachment' to be the legal term for charging someone in relation to their public office. I shall rephrase:
- If congress members accept bribes can they be charged with a crime by congress or by the police ?
- If congress members deliberately try to damage the infrastructure of the state, at what point would that be considered a criminal offence ? E.g. Would it be legal for a congress member to threaten to reveal classified information in the house, in order to force the repeal of a law already on the statute books ?
- If a group of congress people chose to conspire to try to suspend government for long enough to cause civil unrest in order to bring down the government of the day - would that be legal ?
N.B. I am trying to contribute to this discussion with a degree of courtesy, I would appreciate some reciprocal effort.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I had understood 'impeachment' to be the legal term for charging someone in relation to their public office. I shall rephrase:
- If congress members accept bribes can they be charged with a crime by congress or by the police?
It depends. The U.S. Constitution grants members of Congress a certain level of immunity from arrest and prosecution when Congress is in session. The exceptions to this immunity include "Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace". The general purpose of this is to prevent the executive branch from harassing Congress.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
- If congress members deliberately try to damage the infrastructure of the state, at what point would that be considered a criminal offence ? E.g. Would it be legal for a congress member to threaten to reveal classified information in the house, in order to force the repeal of a law already on the statute books?
"Damag[ing] the infrastructure of the state" is pretty vague. Technically speaking, any change in the law damages the infrastructure that existed before it by tearing it down and replacing it with something new.
Your specific example would fall outside normal Congressional immunity, since it would probably be classified as either "Treason" or "Felony".
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
- If a group of congress people chose to conspire to try to suspend government for long enough to cause civil unrest in order to bring down the government of the day - would that be legal ?
No, but only if you could prove a deliberate conspiracy (once again, Treason or Felony) rather than ordinary incompetence or intransigence.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
....
I thought 'civil officers' would cover those
In the UK MPs can be charged with misconduct in public office. I had understood 'impeachment' to be the legal term for charging someone in relation to their public office. I shall rephrase:
- If congress members accept bribes can they be charged with a crime by congress or by the police ?
- If congress members deliberately try to damage the infrastructure of the state, at what point would that be considered a criminal offence ? E.g. Would it be legal for a congress member to threaten to reveal classified information in the house, in order to force the repeal of a law already on the statute books ?
- If a group of congress people chose to conspire to try to suspend government for long enough to cause civil unrest in order to bring down the government of the day - would that be legal ?
Fortunately we have examples of corruption investigations in stock.
You might want to look at the conviction of William Jefferson who was convicted after an FBI investigation.
In general, there's a reluctance to prosecute sitting congressman and the primary enforcement mechanism is self regulation by House and senate of their members.
Impeachment of Congressman by Congress can be overridden by the electorate re-electing the ejected member. See Adam Clayton Powell Jr
Shutting down the government by not passing a bill is not illegal as far as I know. You can't compel legislation by Congress. Retribution for prior shutdowns was by the electorate and not legal prosecution.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I had understood 'impeachment' to be the legal term for charging someone in relation to their public office.
In the USA, impeachment is the very specific term for an elected legislature proceeding to remove an executive official from their civil office. Members of Congress are by definition not executive officials due to the separation of the three branches of government, as opposed to a parliamentary system where some executive offices (i.e. Ministers of the Crown) may only be held by a person who is an elected representative of the people.
Ordinary criminal charges prosecuted in an ordinary criminal court are a different thing altogether. It is my understanding that members of Congress enjoy no immunity from arrest or prosecution on felony charges, but by convention are not prosecuted unless it's something very serious.
I understand that the President and Vice-President are the only two people in the USA who cannot be prosecuted without first being removed from office (either by impeachment or resignation) and that Her Majesty the Queen would probably have a similar position as the Head of State in the 16 Commonwealth Realms. This is the reason that Gerald Ford made the courageous decision to pardon Richard Nixon, to avoid the embarrassing spectacle of a long investigation and trial keeping the incident fresh when the country needed to move on.
quote:
- If congress members accept bribes can they be charged with a crime by congress or by the police ?
If accepting (or offering) bribes is illegal for everyone, or specifically for members of Congress, I imagine that charges could be laid by the police.
quote:
- If congress members deliberately try to damage the infrastructure of the state, at what point would that be considered a criminal offence ? E.g. Would it be legal for a congress member to threaten to reveal classified information in the house, in order to force the repeal of a law already on the statute books ?
That's an interesting one. It would probably fall back on whether a real criminal offence had taken place (one written in law, not the offence of annoying Somebody On The Internet) and whether there was anything protecting the member/s from prosecution at the time (such as an equivalent of parliamentary privilege in reference to your specific example).
I'm not sure that voting on a bill in a way some people don't like would ever fit such a framework you've set up there, given that's the whole purpose of having a Congress in the first place. Such a law to establish that would be tantamount to removing Congress from the picture in favour of a dictatorship if it wasn't replaced by something else such as the executive proposing bills to be approved/rejected by referenda.
Attempting to repeal a law (or passing a law that amends a previous law) is completely legal. That no legislature is bound by the decisions of its preceding sessions is actually a cornerstone of a representative democracy.
quote:
- If a group of congress people chose to conspire to try to suspend government for long enough to cause civil unrest in order to bring down the government of the day - would that be legal ?
The more important question than "would that be legal" is of course "would that be criminal" as the US criminal justice system works on the basis of regulating illegal behaviour rather than permitting selected legal behaviours. The actual charge would need to be proven (and a real one at that, not something that somebody thinks is A Serious Issue) which would be near on impossible to prove for such a huge conspiracy and would result in an absolute circus of a trial - see my previous reference to the Nixon pardon. If the attempt to prove such a charge required the use of materials gained through illegal surveillance the trial could well do more damage than the attempt to bring down the government.
In this case, however, government isn't suspended but only certain functions of it have had their funding not approved by Congress. That's the risk that the Founders took when they set up a system where Congress controlled the use of public funds but without any circuit breaker (such as the Governor-General dismissing a government that couldn't guarantee supply and reflecting the power back to the people at an election) to resolve a dysfunctional legislature-executive combination.
[ 03. October 2013, 23:22: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It seems to me pretty likely that the writers of the constitution didn't provide for this because they didn't imagine it happening. The first shutdown was apparently in 1976. So it took a couple of centuries before anyone thought it was a good tactic to deny funding to the executive.
Edit: Oh hell, that's right after 1975. I damn well hope we didn't give anybody any ideas with our own little crisis back then...
[ 04. October 2013, 00:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
