U.S. Government shuts down.

[shoju]

And tonight, amid political deadlock, and a government that is shut down, we see that it isn't shutdown enough to make sure we don't go stomping through Africa kicking shit in people's faces, and busting caps in terrorist ass.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/05/world/afri...?hpt=hp_t1

[kandrathe]

What am I looking at here? Am I supposed to be focusing on the guys in berets and saggy jackets, the pregnant lady drinking a milkshake, or the "Guild House West" sign?

Those were the Black Panthers who allegedly intimidated certain voters outside a polling place. They represent a different extreme form of thuggery. I just despise the generalized bigotry of saying the Democrats are X, or the GOP are Y, or the Tea Party is Z. Its the precursor to targeting them as a group for prejudicial treatment. I've heard the media spend the last week labeling Republicans as “anarchists,” “fanatics,” “radicals,” and “terrorists” who are wholly to blame for the government shutdown.

No one addresses the fact that the budgeting process has completely broken down for the past few years, and the two people most responsible for that breakdown are President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

For three years now, 2010-2012 — the Democrat-controlled Senate did not pass a budget bill as Reid knew that it would be a political liability to do so. Passing a budget that detailed the Democrats’ plans for spending and revenue as official policy would have exposed the “something for nothing” swindle that Reid and his colleagues are perpetrating on the American people. The Republican challengers campaigning against Democrat senators could then cite their votes for the budget bill, saying that the incumbent voted for this, that, or other unpopular components of the budget.

They also knew very well that the federal deficit was spiraling out of control, that there is not enough tax revenue to pay the ballooning cost of entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment, et cetera), and certainly there isn’t enough revenue to pay for all the boondoggles and giveaways the Democrats voted for in the name of “stimulus.” Adding to this, there is not enough revenue to pay the cost of Obamacare, which Democrats rammed through Congress in March 2010 on a party-line vote. Passing an actual budget would have made clear the unsustainable fiscal nightmare into which Democrat policies have plunged the nation during the Obama Age, and so Harry Reid simply didn’t pass a budget for three years.

The Republican's, in order to get on board to endorse yet another continuing resolution to keep paying as we go (rather than do the right thing a create a budget), set the bar at rolling back some spending, namely they began with the one thing that seems very unpopular, that is Obamacare. Yeah, I know, it's crazy.

[eppie]

Those were the Black Panthers who allegedly intimidated certain voters outside a polling place.

This reminds me of an Italian news program I saw this summer where a woman was telling about the mafia giving people money to vote for Berlusconi in the south.
This woman (poor like so many in the south of Italy) said on national TV she took the money, but of course didn't vote for Berlusconi!

She was a very brave person, and I had a good laugh.


Point of the story; unless you go with someone in the voting booth (which is illegal) you can threaten what you want but people will vote what they want anyway.

[Occhidiangela]

eppie, I wonder if she'll get whacked for her troubles. The mafiosi don't like disrespect from the sheep.

One operation took place Saturday in the Libyan capital of Tripoli, when U.S. forces captured Abu Anas al Libi, an al Qaeda leader wanted for his role in the deadly 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

Only took 15 years to get him. Three different administrations.

In the second raid, a team of U.S. Navy SEALs in southern Somalia targeted the top leader of Al-Shabaab, which was behind last month's mall attack in Kenya. The SEALs came under fire and had to withdraw before they could confirm whether they killed their target, a senior U.S. official said.

Interesting.

[Jester]

They also knew very well that the federal deficit was spiraling out of control, that there is not enough tax revenue to pay the ballooning cost of entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment, et cetera), and certainly there isn’t enough revenue to pay for all the boondoggles and giveaways the Democrats voted for in the name of “stimulus.” Adding to this, there is not enough revenue to pay the cost of Obamacare, which Democrats rammed through Congress in March 2010 on a party-line vote. Passing an actual budget would have made clear the unsustainable fiscal nightmare into which Democrat policies have plunged the nation during the Obama Age, and so Harry Reid simply didn’t pass a budget for three years.

The Republican's, in order to get on board to endorse yet another continuing resolution to keep paying as we go (rather than do the right thing a create a budget), set the bar at rolling back some spending, namely they began with the one thing that seems very unpopular, that is Obamacare. Yeah, I know, it's crazy.

It's almost as if... they have a completely different view of what's happening than Republicans! How could that be?

They believe that stimulus during downturns is low-cost and high-value. That consumption smoothing is a real thing, and that you don't have to balance the budget every year. That the US is nowhere near a debt crisis, since borrowing costs are low, and bond financing is cheap. That Obamacare is better than what it replaces, and in the long run, cheaper. That it's actually not unpopular, and that the polls are lumping together both rightist critics who think it goes too far, and leftist critics who think it doesn't go far enough. That about 3/4 of Americans oppose both defunding and repealing, let alone shutting the government down in a hissy fit.

Yeah, I know. It's crazy. It's like they haven't been getting the memos at all.

Budgets, by the by, are window dressing. Congress approves spending and taxation. That happens, whether they put it down on paper or not. It's a fair cop that it was cowardly to not pass a budget back when they ran the show. But it doesn't actually affect the fiscal situation, though I agree it looks bad. The problem now, however, is that they can't agree on what spending and taxation should be, which is a much larger problem than passing a document saying what it is.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

This is all totally based on language presented to people. If you ask most Americans if they want a "universal healthcare system", past and present polls show that the majority do. But if you ask them if they want "government controlled healthcare" (or what the GOP likes to call "socialism"), then they get scared. I find it odd (and disturbing) that we live in a country where if you are arrested, you are told "if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you"......yet if you cannot afford healthcare, welp, you're pretty much up shits creek without a paddle. Gee, I wonder which is more of a basic necessity in people's everyday lives.

And while Obamacare is pretty weak, it isn't nearly as unpopular as the GOP would like to think it is. I have my problems with OC, but not for the same reason conservative fear mongers do.

Americans need to understand that a universal healthcare system (or the welfare state as a whole) and socialism are two completely different things - one is a set of institutions and policies, the other is a social-economic system/mode of production, governed by a very specific set of social and property relationships (just as capitalism is).

[DeeBye]

But if you ask them if they want "government controlled healthcare" (or what the GOP likes to call "socialism"), then they get scared.

What tickles my nerves is the notion that "government controlled healthcare" is somehow worse than the current "insurance company controlled healthcare". I can't think of a worse entity to determine the quality of healthcare I receive than a corporation that profits more by denying me healthcare.

[eppie]

But if you ask them if they want "government controlled healthcare" (or what the GOP likes to call "socialism"), then they get scared.

What tickles my nerves is the notion that "government controlled healthcare" is somehow worse than the current "insurance company controlled healthcare". I can't think of a worse entity to determine the quality of healthcare I receive than a corporation that profits more by denying me healthcare.

Insurance companies only want what's best for us, everybody knows that.

[LochnarITB]

Insurance companies only want what's best for us, everybody knows that.

If I hadn't already been throwing up all night, I'm sure that joke would have done it. The dry heaves are no fun though either! Thanks!

[eppie]

If I hadn't already been throwing up all night,

Well at least you are not suffering from a shut down.

[FireIceTalon]

The whole shutdown is a material expression of the partitioning that is taking place in the ruling class at this time. They agree that concessions won by the working class, past reforms, and even basic civil rights must continue to be chipped away at (more evidence as to why capitalism does not and cannot work). What they don't agree on is how to achieve this - a summary execution (conservatives) or death by a thousand small cuts (liberals) - pun intended. But the piper must be paid. It is pretty self evident that capitalism is no longer sustainable, the dam is springing a new leak almost everyday, and they are running out of fingers and toes to fill the ever increasing gaps. Whichever route the sworn defenders of private capital take, the collapse of the system under the weight of its own contradictions is unavoidable.

Congresses 10% approval rating is quite telling, since that is about the % of the population (top end of course) they represent give or take.

[Jester]

Congresses 10% approval rating is quite telling, since that is about the % of the population (top end of course) they represent give or take.

Metaphorically telling? Or are you suggesting that the 10% who still approve are the 10% richest?

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

A bit of both I guess. Part of the statement was tongue in cheek since there are obviously some sects of the proletariat that probably think congress is ok, but effectively speaking, the 10% richest have more vestiges of interest in the status quo than the rest of us.

[Jester]

A bit of both I guess. Part of the statement was tongue in cheek since there are obviously some sects of the proletariat that probably think congress is ok, but effectively speaking, the 10% richest have more vestiges of interest in the status quo than the rest of us.

But this isn't the status quo. The status quo involves a functioning government, and certainly no threat that the world's largest economy is going to default on its sovereign debt (for absolutely no reason except political gridlock).

Who on earth is winning from this mess? The Russians? Anarcho-nihilists? Rand Paul?

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

The owners of capital are winning. Their profits are the highest they've ever been, it is business as usual for them. Meanwhile the working class faces lower wages and benefits, higher unemployment, combined with more policies of austerity.

The government shutdown is merely the inevitable result of the organic contradictions of capitalism. The capitalist class is naturally divided just as much as the working class, and they are fighting over how many scraps off the table we get. One of their parties wants us to have a few scraps, their other party doesn't want us to have any at all. This IS the status quo, because it has nothing to do with how things theoretically OUGHT TO be according to bourgeois rule-of-law philosophy, but rather with how things actually ARE, and ultimately WILL BE. The capitalist system is breaking down, so it only makes sense that its malfunctioning institutions effectively reflect that. Now the bourgeois are running around scratching their heads as to why the daily management of their affairs has become so difficult. Political gridlock is the symptom, not the cause (though it can compound the crisis).

[Jester]

The ruling class is winning. Their profits are the highest they've been in the last 75 years give or take, it is business as usual for them. Meanwhile the working class faces lower wages and benefits, combined with more policies of austerity.

The government shutdown is merely the result of the organic contradictions of capitalism. The ruling class is naturally divided just as much as the working class, and they are fighting over how many scraps off the table we get. One of their parties wants us to have a few scraps, their other party doesn't want us to have any at all. This IS the status quo, because it has nothing to do with how things theoretically OUGHT TO be according to bourgeois rule-of-law philosophy, but rather with how things actually ARE, and ultimately WILL BE. The capitalist system is breaking down, so it only makes sense that its malfunctioning institutions effectively reflect that. Now the bourgeois are running around scratching their heads as to why the daily management of their affairs has become so difficult. Political gridlock is the symptom, not the cause (though it can compound the crisis).

We will no doubt see whether you are correct. The rich are getting richer. The last time that happened to this extent, "capitalism" - insofar as that means liberal, roughly free-market democracy - spent the next fifteen years drowning in blood. So I'm hoping that doesn't happen again, it was terrible enough having one trip through 1931-46.

But "capitalism" survived through it, and in retrospect, still looked like a much better system overall than any of the alternatives that were so popular in the 1930s. Communists of various stripes have been predicting the imminent end of capitalism under the weight of its own contradictions pretty much constantly for about a century and a half now. It frankly seems a little eschatological, at this point. Keynes seems to be right - it's possible for "capitalism" to correct itself sufficiently to sustain the core concepts, and it's a fair sight better than any alternative we've seen so far. Maybe he won't continue to be right, but I wouldn't bet against it, myself.

Whether the government shutdown represents this kind of thing? It seems rather fanciful to me, and requires a view where a ruling class is simultaneously doing fantastically well, but also completely losing control. Also, where they conspire constantly to keep the little guy down, but also bicker among themselves over social policy to the point of almost overturning the whole apple cart. I don't think this is a very realistic view of anyone's actual motivations here.

XKCD more or less sums this up.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

But "capitalism" survived through it, and in retrospect, still looked like a much better system overall than any of the alternatives that were so popular in the 1930s. Communists of various stripes have been predicting the imminent end of capitalism under the weight of its own contradictions pretty much constantly for about a century and a half now. It frankly seems a little eschatological, at this point. Keynes seems to be right - it's possible for "capitalism" to correct itself sufficiently to sustain the core concepts, and it's a fair sight better than any alternative we've seen so far. Maybe he won't continue to be right, but I wouldn't bet against it, myself.

Ah, but it didn't survive on its own accord or merit - it required a heavy handed state to resurrect it. It doesn't correct itself, again, it needs a heavy handed state to keep it alive. Free markets are a myth, which is why libertarian ideology is so unrealistic and naive. Keynesian economics has proven better and more stable for sustaining capitalism longer than neo-liberal polices, but it too is also naive, for the simple fact reform policies always eventually lead back to liberal capitalist policies becoming a part of everyday political discourse, and rollbacks of prior "progress" are inevitable at some point - we're seeing it right now, and have seen it in the past numerous times. I've talked to a few comrades from Sweden for instance, who have stated the political climate there has seen a significant shift to the right, and libertarian-like ideologies which would have never even been considered a decade ago, are now regularly on the table for discussion. Although I can't remember specifically which policies they mentioned, they have said there has been substantial austerity taking place (even if Sweden remains one of the prominent 'social democracies' for now). Whether it uses liberal measures (U.S.), Keynesian economics/social democracy (Western Europe), Stalinism/social democracy with bayonets (former USSR) or fascism (Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy); the state is an organ of class rulership - a mediator whose presence is necessary for the protection of private capital. Further it is important to remember that the piecemeal reforms granted to workers, that are now being rolled back, didn't just come: they had to fight and struggle for them, which in itself was a very violent, and generally unpleasant process for millions of working class people. Luxemburg said it best when regarding reformation: "Our program becomes not the realization of socialism, but the reform of capitalism; not the suppression of the wage labor system but the diminution of exploitation, that is, the suppression of the abuses of capitalism instead of suppression of capitalism itself."

In any case, I don't think the state can keep bailing it out forever, eventually these contradictions will become unsustainable - for capitalism cannot produce continued growth in a world of limited space and resources, AND have perfect "competition". Nor can production for profit and production for human need be reconciled - it is one or the other and under capitalism the former is necessary. Keynesian policy also does not (nor can it) address the fact of capitalism's inherent exploitative nature, even when its not "in crisis" - the fact that the capitalist class produces no or little value yet it consumes the most. The workers, who have only their labor power to sell, produce the vast majority of the value created in society and are compensated for far less than that value of what they produce because the capitalist extracts a "surplus value" from the workers labor - is this not an indisputable fact? I am going to go out on a limb, and bet against Keynesian economics in the long run. Whether socialism replaces capitalism is another matter to debate, but capitalism CANNOT be sustained, and will inevitably be replaced with something else (just as feudalism's demise was inevitable by 1789). From what I can see, the only alternatives are the victory of socialism, or a transition into a degenerate, more barbaric society mixed in with some features of Huxley's "Brave New World".....for revolutionary leftists, we want to ensure the former occurs, and prevent the latter.

Whether the government shutdown represents this kind of thing? It seems rather fanciful to me, and requires a view where a ruling class is simultaneously doing fantastically well, but also completely losing control. Also, where they conspire constantly to keep the little guy down, but also bicker among themselves over social policy to the point of almost overturning the whole apple cart. I don't think this is a very realistic view of anyone's actual motivations here.

The capitalist class is factionalized, but are well organized and 'class conscious' relative to workers. Even they know their control rests heavily on their dominant ideology being the prevailing one - and that it is important for it to be convincing enough that the rest of us accept it (I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, but more on that later). They probably understand their power is not absolute (as history has shown in previous stages of society with prior ruling classes), and when the system breaks down they become more fearful of losing that power, even if they are making record profits. Their security is only as good as the stability of the system itself. And in the wake of the Great Recession, anti-capitalist sentiment has grown very strongly across the globe (of course, this doesn't necessarily translate to "pro-socialist" views, but it certainly leaves the door open for them). Which is at least partially why we are seeing stronger policies of austerity, the development of fascist parties, and the use of more state and police force in general. They are afraid, very afraid - and they should be. Even they are finding it difficult to control their own system at this point, and the US government shutdown is just one example of this. Not to mention places like Greece, which has developed a fascist party (Golden Dawn) to attack whatever the predominant scapegoat is perceived to be at the time for their economic and social problems, but there is also potential anarchist and Marxist groups developing, and the place is a powder keg for a Leftist revolution. One can only hope that a prominent one develops to counter Golden Dawn and prevent a fascist dictatorship from becoming the material reality of Greece's future. Unfortunately, this is not in the EU's interest, and although a fascist dictatorship probably isn't either, it's likely considered the lesser of two evils since there maybe a chance to salvage EU interests should the latter case occur, with more leverage for political negotiation. In the case of a communist/anarchist or leftist revolution in general, the EU will almost certainly lack that leverage, and can pretty much kiss its interests in Greece goodbye should that be what takes place.

That being said, I don't consider capitalism to be some crazy "conspiracy" to keep the little guy down. It is simply the natural result due to the intrinsic property relationships that characterize it. Marx/Engels stated this in a much more eloquent fashion than myself: "Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class". To be honest, that little cartoon you posted is funny, and I actually agree with what it is getting at. But again, I don't think the exploitation in capitalism is a conspiracy so much as it is just a organic result its social relationships and the corresponding class structure. Do I think ideology is consciously used to manipulate opinion and present capitalism as something that it really is not, in order to protect the status quo? To some extent, yes (Fox News being a prime example). But the exploitation in capitalism and its power relations are more subtle than in other oppressive systems such as chattel slavery or feudalism, and therefore substantially more difficult for one to detect if he/she looks at things at face value alone. I think ideology as false consciousness both fosters and reinforces this, but like the exploitation itself - it is also seems a natural development of the systems processes more than it is an abstract conspiracy that was purposely devised to achieve a specific agenda. In my humble opinion, at least.

And I could be incorrect about this, but I don't think much of the ruling class even views the relationship between labor and capital as being an antagonistic one; lots of them simply look at it as being a fair exchange that benefits both sides. But this is far from being the case, regardless if they are aware of it or not isn't so important. Capital does in fact exploit labor - because it has to. Even the most "benign" capitalist must engage in exploitation of the working class to some degree, otherwise his fellow capitalist competitors will leave him in the dust, ultimately removing him from the market. It just comes down to objective class interests: The capitalists want to preserve and expand their larger class interests (more profits and the accumulation of capital), which is actually very rational (even if capitalism itself is not a very rational system, economically or socially). By the same token, it is in OUR rational class interests as workers, who have only our labor power to sell so we can survive, to oppose capitalism; since it has demonstrably proven, and continues to prove, to not be in our class interests (survival, worker self-determination & dignity, production based on human-need instead of commodity production for profit, the abolishment of both capital and wage labor, and free democratic association for every individual to utilize and maximize their talents/abilities to meet their needs - without the ownership of their labor and the value it creates being expropriated by a small property-owning plutocratic class). If that makes any sense.

That is my humble view of things. Apologies for the lengthy post, but I needed to clarify much here.

[kandrathe]

They believe that stimulus during downturns is low-cost and high-value. That consumption smoothing is a real thing, and that you don't have to balance the budget every year.

What budget? Is it balanced? Who can tell? What is stimulus? Is all spending stimulus? How much stimulus do you need? Is it prudent to incur decades of expensive debt, for years of QE "smoothing" of a temporary fiscal correction. Worse yet, much of the "stimulus" is directed at re-inflating the same bubbles that burst in 2009.

That the US is nowhere near a debt crisis, since borrowing costs are low, and bond financing is cheap.

But it is. The US is not like most other nations. We have over extended debt at all levels from personal, to corporate, to civic, to national. The estimated amount of just federal debt every current citizen owes today is $52,885. There are four people in my household, which means we owe federal bond holders about $211,540. My ability to pay off my share is diminishing, as it is with the boomers. Meanwhile, the amount of debt we are incurring has accelerated faster than our ability to pay it off. The legacy of our generation will be a series of financial fiascoes engineered by the greedy, bailed out by governments, and paid for by our children and grand children. Clearly, an intergenerational swindle. I cannot support it.

And... the financing is cheap now... But, most of the federal debt are necessarily in short term notes. So, once it gets more expensive, it careens out of control. As it stands now, we cannot afford to have the economy improve. It would drive up our borrowing costs beyond our ability to pay. I'd say it is a death spiral.


More ropadope; Then OMB Director Jack Lew promised us something different.

That Obamacare is better than what it replaces, and in the long run, cheaper.

For who? Do you honestly believe that by forcing the uninsured (who mostly either don't see a need for it, or cannot afford it) onto an insurance plan that it will decrease the rates that the rest of us who can afford it pay? Do you believe that by increasing the autocratic Medicare/Medicaid program rolls that the already "in the red" programs will become anymore solvent, and that ultimately FICA taxes won't need to be jacked up to recover that deficit?

I mean let's call it what it is, right? Obamacare is primarily a law that targets those who cannot afford insurance, and forces them to go onto State run exchanges where the are forced to buy an insurance product from a private insurance company, or face penalties. It forces companies to provide an approved health care plan, whether they can afford it or not, or face fines. This is only a great idea if you are a) wealthy enough to not care about insurance premiums, b) an insurance company c) a health care facility who had to write off the unpaid health care of the uninsured d) so poor that had you looked into it, you'd have been on Medicaid anyway.

It is not a single payer system. It is not nationalized health care. It targets the symptom of expensive health care, and solves it by trying to eliminate the symptom. We could probably eliminate headaches the same way. If you report a headache, you are fined $50. Worse, the abuses are not rampant yet, but... the system rewards individuals that skip insurance until they need it, then only get it while they need it. It rewards companies to keep employees below half time, and also to not provide health insurance to their employees. Due to these factors, I would predict the costs of health insurance only increasing.

For me personally; My health care will get worse, less convenient, and more expensive because of Obamacare. The organization where I work really takes care of it's employees and used to have "a Cadillac plan", which they paid the bulk of, and I paid about 30%. Threatened with a 40 percent excise tax, we're now only offered a high deductible ($5000 family, $3000 individual) HSA plan resulting in "no insurance" for about half the year until we hit the deductible. It means that I need to save the last half the year for my out of pocket costs for the first half of the year. In a word, it really sucks.

That it's actually not unpopular, and that the polls are lumping together both rightist critics who think it goes too far, and leftist critics who think it doesn't go far enough.

It is irrelevant. It is unpopular with the constituents of the congress people who've dug in their heels.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/16/a...y-persist/

Budgets, by the by, are window dressing. Congress approves spending and taxation.

Our government, at all levels operates on budgets. And funding bills, and the budget originates in the House. The House has attempted to make a budget for the past three years, and Reid, nor the WH have attempted to address the budget. The House controls the federal purse, and this is more than a "hissy fit". I think this is more likely a last stand.

That happens, whether they put it down on paper or not. It's a fair cop that it was cowardly to not pass a budget back when they ran the show. But it doesn't actually affect the fiscal situation, though I agree it looks bad. The problem now, however, is that they can't agree on what spending and taxation should be, which is a much larger problem than passing a document saying what it is.

During Obama's first 18 months, when Democrats controlled it all, they bloated all the budgets. Since they've lost control of the House, and therefore the purse strings, they've maintained their bloated budgets by a) not renegotiating the budget, and b) forcing budget showdowns with CR's and debt ceilings. These are the key events when the House, can assert whatever flabby muscles they have left.

It appears they are the underdogs, with the Executive, the Senate, and the Press, and 48% of the people arranged against them.

[FireIceTalon]

I mean let's call it what it is, right? Obamacare is primarily a law that targets those who cannot afford insurance, and forces them to go onto State run exchanges where the are forced to buy an insurance product from a private insurance company, or face penalties. It forces companies to provide an approved health care plan, whether they can afford it or not, or face fines. This is only a great idea if you are a) wealthy enough to not care about insurance premiums, b) an insurance company c) a health care facility who had to write off the unpaid health care of the uninsured d) so poor that had you looked into it, you'd have been on Medicaid anyway.

It is not a single payer system. It is not nationalized health care. It targets the symptom of expensive health care, and solves it by trying to eliminate the symptom. We could probably eliminate headaches the same way. If you report a headache, you are fined $50. Worse, the abuses are not rampant yet, but... the system rewards individuals that skip insurance until they need it, then only get it while they need it. It rewards companies to keep employees below half time, and also to not provide health insurance to their employees. Due to these factors, I would predict the costs of health insurance only increasing.

For me personally; My health care will get worse, less convenient, and more expensive because of Obamacare. The organization where I work really takes care of it's employees and used to have "a Cadillac plan", which they paid the bulk of, and I paid about 30%. Threatened with a 40 percent excise tax, we're now only offered a high deductible ($5000 family, $3000 individual) HSA plan resulting in "no insurance" for about half the year until we hit the deductible. It means that I need to save the last half the year for my out of pocket costs for the first half of the year. In a word, it really sucks.

Most of this is pretty true. This is a handout to insurance companies more than it is a social benefit or public good for people, and the best feature it has really (other than that more people will able to get healthcare) is that you can no longer be denied for having pre-existing conditions. Probably, I will benefit from this since I haven't seen a doctor in probably almost 10 years or so. And perhaps my mom whose health has plummeted rapidly and has no insurance will finally get some relief without having to worry so much about out of pocket costs and potential financial ruin. Overall, the bill doesn't go nearly far enough and has more negatives than positives, but I will grudgingly take it for now, since A.) I don't really have much choice in the matter, and B.) Because I probably need to by now.

Indeed, it is not nationalized healthcare. But there is a catch to all this: it was YOUR party, the GOP, who shot down the public option to serve their corporate insurance company masters! Using their standard fear-mongering, anti-socialist jargon to pander to their most extreme reactionary constituents. Now, the bill has been gutted, is no longer sufficient, will likely leave a sour taste in peoples mouths....and more fundamentally, it will now be even more difficult if not impossible to ever get a universal healthcare system in this country. Thanks a lot, republicans. You guys suck. And the Dems suck too, since they have the spinal properties of a jellyfish, and all they do is negotiate to reform policy further to the right towards capital.

[LochnarITB]

I just couldn't let something pass that was so very wrong.

c) a health care facility who had to write off the unpaid health care of the uninsured

This does not happen. I've had this very discussion (insured vs. uninsured) with facilities that have provided my care. Any care that is "written off" is actually rolled into the rates that everyone pays. Our health care costs are a huge game between providers and insurers and we are all under the thumbs of their bean counters. And, their beans are more magical than Jack's. They just keep growing and growing. Provider sets rates. Insurers contract what portion they pay. Provider decides they might lose money and adjust rates up. Insurers adjust contract.... Did you know that you will be billed at lower, somewhat more realistic, rate if you declare yourself uninsured before you ever receive care? Also, if they do bill you at insured rate, it is against the law to adjust down to the lower rate. The bean counters keep an eagle eye on it all. A simple check mark in a box or change in code and they can ruin you, but neither insurer or provider will ever lose! I've had to contest bills that should never have been my responsibility under my insurance plans. My parents are currently in a situation where they went from covered by insurance to paying hundreds of dollars a day because a bean counter moved a check mark from one box to another. They are trying to resolve the problem but being run in huge circles.

Bean counters, both provider and insurer, run our health care. They do not lose. Nothing is ever "written off"!