and the govt shutdown still exists..

[Captain N]

Republicans don't want to go along with a Democrat president? Shutdown is Republicans' fault.

Democrats don't want to go along with a Republican president? Shutdown is Republicans' fault.

If this is your thinking, you aren't actually thinking. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with a given party, what matters is the process. If Congress is to blame for not cooperating, that holds true whether they are right or wrong.

Hypocrites.

Republican President admits the shutdown is his fault -- Shitheel cult member complains about Democrats.

You're totes adorbs.

[zenkai]

Don't mistake my claims about the useless of a wall for an open stance on entry. I support strong immigration laws and a better border patrol. I don't want drugs, and drug crime, here any more than you do. However, tossing up a wall that weather will wreck, people will drive over, and most methods of entry already permit people to remain illegally and move drugs, is a waste of taxpayer money.

But their are way bigger waste of tax payers money so why get triggered over the wall? Again I am not for the wall but at the same time if it went up I wouldn't give a shit there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to tax payer waste. Like you pointed out we are probably wasting more money stopping the wall at this time. fuck let the crying child has his toy.

- - - Updated - - -

Republican President admits the shutdown is his fault -- Shitheel cult member complains about Democrats.

You're totes adorbs.

His point when democrats do it they still blame republicans. Obama shut it down for Obama care, was it republicans fault then because they didn't want him to have his way?

[Darsithis]

But their are way bigger waste of tax payers money so why get triggered over the wall? Again I am not for the wall but at the same time if it went up I wouldn't give a shit there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to tax payer waste. Like you pointed out we are probably wasting more money stopping the wall at this time. fuck let the crying child has his toy.

Here is why I don't want a wall and why I would support my tax money going to better border patrol and more enforcement across the country:

- The wall is ecologically devastating. Parts of it are going through protected wildlife and plant sanctuaries, wrecking millions of years of cultivation and destroying species that we may never see again
- The wall, once done, will require constant resources and even more environmentally damaging maintenance to remain together through natural disasters
- Better enforcement, better tracking of visas and entry, better wages and incentives to deter corruption, better methods to detect corruption lead to a better economy and more jobs overall for a longer period of time than a single wall being built.

[Captain N]

His point when democrats do it they still blame republicans. Obama shut it down for Obama care, was it republicans fault then because they didn't want him to have his way?

Obama shut it down for ACA and the raising of the debt ceiling. However if you want to focus on the ACA, it was already law by the time this shutdown took place, funding for the wall is not. Also Paul Ryan was pretty adamant when he said that even ceasing funding to certain aspects of Obamacare would likely not stop it.

You're comparing apples to bowling balls, and per usual purposely omitting information to fit a narrative.

[Nasuuna]

Just to toss in an anecdote, my best friend would be dying if not for the ACA. He had no access to affordable health care, and ended up with cancer. He is alive today because of the ACA.

lucky I didn't get cancer, cause I got pushed into the medicare gap, made to much for free healthcare, not enough to pay for my health insurance that tripled in price.

OT, wish even more of the government was shutdown.

Lets lower our budget to less than 1T a year.

[Draco-Onis]

We had heathcare, obamacare made it worse. Not to mention it still doesn't change the fact it was shutdown until a child got his way.

Look we aren't going to agree on Obamacare so I am not even going to try but at least that fight was over policy and I understand the right and the left fighting over it. What is the Trump shutdown about? Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter being mad at him because Trump made a deal, the senate passed it 100-0 and a show of "leadership" he changed his mind despite insurances. The entire shut down is about Trump being scared of Co president Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

[Toppy]

Republicans don't want to go along with a Democrat president? Shutdown is Republicans' fault.

Democrats don't want to go along with a Republican president? Shutdown is Republicans' fault.

If this is your thinking, you aren't actually thinking. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with a given party, what matters is the process. If Congress is to blame for not cooperating, that holds true whether they are right or wrong.

Hypocrites.

Not really, you're grossely over simplifying.

The ACA shut down very much was largely a republican ran thing. There was a clear party divide and they were refusing to cooperate.

This current shut down, the Republican president has said he is to blame for it multiple times. Likewise people from BOTH parties are against what he's calling for.

People aren't hypocrites just because you dont feel then need to take a few minutes to educate yourself.

[exochaft]

Just to toss in an anecdote, my best friend would be dying if not for the ACA. He had no access to affordable health care, and ended up with cancer. He is alive today because of the ACA.

I know someone that got kicked off their plan during treatment for cancer and had to stop treatment for a year, but I'll let that one slide as it's not a personal story.

My family got kicked off our plan that wasn't allowed to exist under the ACA that was pretty much full coverage for $300/month with $250 deductibles, only thing comparable in coverage after ACA implementation was $4000/month with $1000 deductibles. Had to get the one-size-fits-all plan that many practitioners don't even take because it was the only thing affordable, and fortunately(?) I had the VA to fall back on... although if you want the model of inefficiency and long wait times, the VA is for you if you need anything other than a regular check-up. I got constantly get told by VA practitioners, "I'd like to give you X treatment which would likely work well for you, but I'm not allowed to, so you'll get Y treatment and hope for the best." The result was that I had to stop getting treatment from the private facilities (which didn't take the new plan) and is likely the direct cause of my ability to walk declining to potentially not being able to walk anymore since I can't get the treatment I need.

However, both are not really the point I'd like to make about this. The goal of the ACA was to insure more people, but it didn't, it shifted who got covered more than anything else (shifted them into Medicaid if I recall, where they took funds to make the ACA seem more cost-effective, but that's another discussion). So while we may have stories of people who got life-saving treatment due to the ACA, there are just as many stories of people who lost life-saving treatment due to the ACA. In reality, the ACA didn't fix anything or even its initial goal while giving the government more control over healthcare/insurance matters and adding more taxes.

The ACA was originally designed as a single-payer healthcare system akin to Canada's (where the cost of drugs, doctor visits, and hospital stays are factually lower than in the US). The GOP managed to get 182 amendments to the bill that turned it into a sloppy half-measure system that ultimately turned health coverage into another mandated captive market like car insurance, allowing healthcare providers to jack up their insurance rates and blame it on Obamacare (ignoring that insurance rates were already skyrocketing beforehand and Aetna only gouged their prices so much because they were throwing a tantrum at Congress blocking a merger on antitrust grounds).

The ACA was designed more as a regulation of health insurance, not healthcare, which gets confused quite often. Everyone in the US has access healthcare, you can walk into the ER or a MinuteClinic/Redi-med/etc. and get healthcare, it's just a matter of what you want to pay. The ACA did have some parts taken from single-payer systems as it was likely the end-goal in later legislation, but the problem is that single-payer systems likely won't work with large population countries at all, and I'd argue that it's not the responsibility of the US government to even run such programs to begin with. Even the 'clean' version of the ACA was a mess, as most lawmarkers who passed the law admittedly didn't read it, can't blame them because it was massive. Doesn't help that even officials in the administration admitted to lying to people about the content and effects of the ACA (if you have to lie to get something passed, it probably shouldn't be passed). If people wonder how such a bill came together so quickly despite being so large while no one reading the entire thing, it's usually because K Street lobbyists have pet legislation always written up for when they can get a politician to push their agenda, so the bill was probably mostly written prior well before the ACA topic even came up. Massachusetts tried something similar with MassHealth, and it's just a much a mess and always operating in the red every year and the deficit keeps going up according to their own state government reports annually. Medicaid is another example (which is likely what people get when they get the "free" healthcare due to the ACA), where in my state most places don't even accept it.

In reality, most people don't need healthcare insurance as sold by daily narratives, especially if you're young. If you're low risk and want to protect yourself from major accidents or sudden serious illnesses, that's what catastrophic plans are for (and why they're cheap as most people don't even need those). As one gets older, you might consider more robust healthcare plans as the chances of health issues come up. What I find rather interesting is that people have this notion that you need insurance for regular wellness visits or yearly check-ups, but that's not true at all. This is actually a much more recent phenomenon, and likely the reason people don't see price increases because it all happens in the background. Most people would likely save money in the long by just paying out of pocket for the simple medical care and have catastrophic insurance versus having insurance paying for such mundane visits as those monthly premiums still exist despite most people forgetting about them at the check-out counter.

I get that there are many problems with the insurance system and prices of care, but the solution is not to have government say that they can do it better (look at the VA, it's terrible compared to private care while servicing barely anyone compared to the national population size). The government or a panel of 'experts' cannot and will not have the efficiency and intimate detailed knowledge required for individuals to get the best care they need, which is why such matters are best left as close to the individual as possible. If anything, I'd venture that many insurance problems and price of care issues are the result of government intervention/regulation and cronyism with politicians over the years. It's pretty common that there are staunch defenders who blindly follow one political faction in these forums, but consider this: do you really want to leave such important matters in the hands of the supposedly evil/inept/corrupt/<insert negative descriptor> of your opponents? The reality is that you should never consider the federal government your friend and trust them as a whole, even if you like those in power, as the federal government was considered a necessary evil when the US Constitution was made due to all of human history showing what happens with large centralized governments in general. People should ask themselves if they want the federal government to tell them what they want and need, or if they themselves would know what they want and need better than the federal government.

As a slight aside, since ancient times it has been known that the easiest way for a government to exert control over a populace is through government-controlled healthcare (was discussed by Plato even). People praise the governments for caring and having a heart while those in control are slipping them into shackles. At that point, you have to pray those in power of the government won't abuse control over you. Trying to think of the exceptions, the most popularly known authoritarian dictatorships actually have universal healthcare for their countries. This was something even the Nazis wanted for their own people, since people love talking about Nazis nowadays. The ruse is always the same: blame the private insurance companies and/or hospitals for having too high of prices, convince the people that their magnanimous government will take over and solve all their problems because it's their right, sound familiar? That isn't to say everyone has an evil agenda and that prices can't be high (and typically, the prices were high because of government involvement anyways), but once the government has control over every facet of your life, it only takes one evil person to abuse that power.

[Draco-Onis]

So he promise a wall, gets elected and now still demand to build a wall.
He really dont understand politics your not supposed to keep your election promises.

Only if you ignore that MEXICO WAS GOING TO PAY FOR IT NOT THE US TAX PAYER.

[Toppy]

Only if you ignore that MEXICO WAS GOING TO PAY FOR IT NOT THE US TAX PAYER.

Dont forget how China has paid us billions in tariffs, somehow.

I think we can just admit that he doesn't know how economies works and call it a day.

- - - Updated - - -

I know someone that got kicked off their plan during treatment for cancer and had to stop treatment for a year, but I'll let that one slide as it's not a personal story.

My family got kicked off our plan that wasn't allowed to exist under the ACA that was pretty much full coverage for $300/month with $250 deductibles, only thing comparable in coverage after ACA implementation was $4000/month with $1000 deductibles. Had to get the one-size-fits-all plan that many practitioners don't even take because it was the only thing affordable, and fortunately(?) I had the VA to fall back on... although if you want the model of inefficiency and long wait times, the VA is for you if you need anything other than a regular check-up. I got constantly get told by VA practitioners, "I'd like to give you X treatment which would likely work well for you, but I'm not allowed to, so you'll get Y treatment and hope for the best." The result was that I had to stop getting treatment from the private facilities (which didn't take the new plan) and is likely the direct cause of my ability to walk declining to potentially not being able to walk anymore since I can't get the treatment I need.

However, both are not really the point I'd like to make about this. The goal of the ACA was to insure more people, but it didn't, it shifted who got covered more than anything else (shifted them into Medicaid if I recall, where they took funds to make the ACA seem more cost-effective, but that's another discussion). So while we may have stories of people who got life-saving treatment due to the ACA, there are just as many stories of people who lost life-saving treatment due to the ACA. In reality, the ACA didn't fix anything or even its initial goal while giving the government more control over healthcare/insurance matters and adding more taxes.



The ACA was designed more as a regulation of health insurance, not healthcare, which gets confused quite often. Everyone in the US has access healthcare, you can walk into the ER or a MinuteClinic/Redi-med/etc. and get healthcare, it's just a matter of what you want to pay. The ACA did have some parts taken from single-payer systems as it was likely the end-goal in later legislation, but the problem is that single-payer systems likely won't work with large population countries at all, and I'd argue that it's not the responsibility of the US government to even run such programs to begin with. Even the 'clean' version of the ACA was a mess, as most lawmarkers who passed the law admittedly didn't read it, can't blame them because it was massive. Doesn't help that even officials in the administration admitted to lying to people about the content and effects of the ACA (if you have to lie to get something passed, it probably shouldn't be passed). If people wonder how such a bill came together so quickly despite being so large while no one reading the entire thing, it's usually because K Street lobbyists have pet legislation always written up for when they can get a politician to push their agenda, so the bill was probably mostly written prior well before the ACA topic even came up. Massachusetts tried something similar with MassHealth, and it's just a much a mess and always operating in the red every year and the deficit keeps going up according to their own state government reports annually. Medicaid is another example (which is likely what people get when they get the "free" healthcare due to the ACA), where in my state most places don't even accept it.

In reality, most people don't need healthcare insurance as sold by daily narratives, especially if you're young. If you're low risk and want to protect yourself from major accidents or sudden serious illnesses, that's what catastrophic plans are for (and why they're cheap as most people don't even need those). As one gets older, you might consider more robust healthcare plans as the chances of health issues come up. What I find rather interesting is that people have this notion that you need insurance for regular wellness visits or yearly check-ups, but that's not true at all. This is actually a much more recent phenomenon, and likely the reason people don't see price increases because it all happens in the background. Most people would likely save money in the long by just paying out of pocket for the simple medical care and have catastrophic insurance versus having insurance paying for such mundane visits as those monthly premiums still exist despite most people forgetting about them at the check-out counter.

I get that there are many problems with the insurance system and prices of care, but the solution is not to have government say that they can do it better (look at the VA, it's terrible compared to private care while servicing barely anyone compared to the national population size). The government or a panel of 'experts' cannot and will not have the efficiency and intimate detailed knowledge required for individuals to get the best care they need, which is why such matters are best left as close to the individual as possible. If anything, I'd venture that many insurance problems and price of care issues are the result of government intervention/regulation and cronyism with politicians over the years. It's pretty common that there are staunch defenders who blindly follow one political faction in these forums, but consider this: do you really want to leave such important matters in the hands of the supposedly evil/inept/corrupt/<insert negative descriptor> of your opponents? The reality is that you should never consider the federal government your friend and trust them as a whole, even if you like those in power, as the federal government was considered a necessary evil when the US Constitution was made due to all of human history showing what happens with large centralized governments in general. People should ask themselves if they want the federal government to tell them what they want and need, or if they themselves would know what they want and need better than the federal government.

As a slight aside, since ancient times it has been known that the easiest way for a government to exert control over a populace is through government-controlled healthcare (was discussed by Plato even). People praise the governments for caring and having a heart while those in control are slipping them into shackles. At that point, you have to pray those in power of the government won't abuse control over you. Trying to think of the exceptions, the most popularly known authoritarian dictatorships actually have universal healthcare for their countries. This was something even the Nazis wanted for their own people, since people love talking about Nazis nowadays. The ruse is always the same: blame the private insurance companies and/or hospitals for having too high of prices, convince the people that their magnanimous government will take over and solve all their problems because it's their right, sound familiar? That isn't to say everyone has an evil agenda and that prices can't be high (and typically, the prices were high because of government involvement anyways), but once the government has control over every facet of your life, it only takes one evil person to abuse that power.

tl;dr:

I dont know how statistics work. I have no knowledge of how health care works outside of the US and indeed my immediate bubble. Fuck poor people. And the ACA was bad because many health companies (and employers) went out of their way to make it look bad out of spite, but I'm going to blame all this on Obama because BoTh SiDeS

[zenkai]

Obama shut it down for ACA and the raising of the debt ceiling. However if you want to focus on the ACA, it was already law by the time this shutdown took place, funding for the wall is not. Also Paul Ryan was pretty adamant when he said that even ceasing funding to certain aspects of Obamacare would likely not stop it.

You're comparing apples to bowling balls, and per usual purposely omitting information to fit a narrative.

I see you ignored the question.

[Captain N]

I see you ignored the question.

I didn't ignore the question. I clarified the differences in the two you and Frogguh were attempting to omit from your narratives.

The Obama shutdown for an already passed law and the raising of the debt ceiling is not the same as a temper tantrum for a border wall.

Especially when said thrower of temper tantrum came right out and took responsibility for the shut down...and not blame Democrats like you're trying to do.

[cuafpr]

cause we have an overgrown child running the country as Commander in chief.
So many people not getting paid...mortgages not getting paid. People might lose their homes etc.

and now Trump administration officials are trying to get a pay raise while the thousands of govt employees that work there , are getting shafted.

How can this man still have supporters when he is f:ing up the country simply because he wants billions for a wall that can easily be dug under?

I'm sure you were equally upset as the past 4-5+ presidents shut down the gov't?

[Draco-Onis]

I'm sure you were equally upset as the past 4-5+ presidents shut down the gov't?

That is a logical fallacy because that means all shut downs are based on the same thing, this entire shut down is about a wall THAT MEXICO WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR.

[Uncle]

The most surprising thing about trumps presidency is the ruthless incompetence. Like, beyond the pale. You'd expect evil to have some level of self-preservation or a sense of driving a greater end goal. But this is like a drunken chimpanzee falling down a flight of stairs.

Like, I get that's what Russia wants; Trump is a weak president, weak president means weak US, weak US means weak Europe, weak US and EU means that Russia is suddenly less far behind in a global power scale...

Russia is utterly irrelevant in today's world balance; it serves as a scapegoat for american politicians to justifiy their various actions, in the name of "fighting the ennemy"; the fact is Russia is a tier world country since decades and won't come back, we are treating Russia as a great country because it has a now irrelevant chair at UN security council and we don't want ti hurt their feelings, nothing more. If Russia was trying to invade Europe, they would be curb-stomped in a matter of weeks.

[Toppy]

[cuafpr]

That is a logical fallacy because that means all shut downs are based on the same thing, this entire shut down is about a wall THAT MEXICO WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR.

and goal is/was that is paid for my mexico via trade deals... likely wont happen but anyone that thought Mexico was going to cough up petty cash for it was .. well an idiot.

[zenkai]

I didn't ignore the question. I clarified the differences in the two you and Frogguh were attempting to omit from your narratives.

The Obama shutdown for an already passed law and the raising of the debt ceiling is not the same as a temper tantrum for a border wall.

Especially when said thrower of temper tantrum came right out and took responsibility for the shut down...and not blame Democrats like you're trying to do.

You ignored the point of the question

So you agree Obama shut down the government to get his way right? Yes or no

[Draco-Onis]

and goal is/was that is paid for my mexico via trade deals... likely wont happen but anyone that thought Mexico was going to cough up petty cash for it was .. well an idiot.

So you think it's great to shut down the government for something idiotic, also that is not how trade deals work the money is made by private businesses that sell and buy goods /facepalm.

[Toppy]

and goal is/was that is paid for my mexico via trade deals... likely wont happen but anyone that thought Mexico was going to cough up petty cash for it was .. well an idiot.

Counter point:
We would have gotten a new trade deal with or without the wall. Nor does it seem we'll really be getting anything more out of the new deal. At most we're giving Mexico protection from stupid shit that Trump is doing to the rest of the world.... which is costing us billions.

So tell me, how did he expect Mexico to pay for the wall?

- - - Updated - - -

You ignored the point of the question

So you agree Obama shut down the government to get his way right? Yes or no

The republicans shut down the government because they refused to compromise. Obama's administration was constantly being defined by his party trying to discuss while the Republican party sat there going "We refuse to talk". The GOP was infact proud of this.

It has turned into one of the biggest criticisms of his term: that he tried to negotiate with people who refused to negotiate slowing down the whole process.