Unnecessary shutdowns

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The federal government is shutting down a lot of things that are either don't need to be shut down (because they cost no money to operate) or actually cost more to shut down than they do to keep operating. These include both national parks and government agency websites.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/84362-13-national-parks-impacted-government-shutdown/
http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/02/government-will-shut-down-websites-even

We're at the point where the government is just being petty and working on zooming well past that point.

For those who think it's justified because the Republicans won't budge on Obamacare, that just doesn't fit the facts.



As a libertarian, I'm fine with permanently cutting 800,000 federal workers and I think it's nice that they've identified the agencies we can do without, but I'd rather it happen with at least the standard 2-week warning for people. Pretty much all politicians in office right now are acting like children, but that's what happens when the electorate is also.

Comments

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

That is the problem, as there are pieces of it that they could compromise on, if they got their heads out of their asses.

It was passed into law in 2010 after 14 months of negotiations and compromises. It was challenged at the SCOTUS level and found valid. The President who campaigned on it and signed it into law was re-elected. There's no need to compromise on an existing law that has already passed every valid legal challenge. Everything else is spoiled grapes.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

The thing is, it is being changed, and the time for parts to be implemented are being extended.

Honestly, if this "kurfluffle" works out the way the dems hope it will (in the arena of public opinion) I will have to say it was a brilliant political strategy, and the republicans are "doomed" in the '14 election. How good it is for the country, we will just have to wait and see.

Further opinion, I believe Ted Cruz put himself before the country, and I'm sorry he is a republican.

[paft.livejournal.com]

g: Honestly, if this "kurfluffle" works out the way the dems hope it will (in the arena of public opinion) I will have to say it was a brilliant political strategy

Those dastardly dems, FORCING the Republicans to shut down the government by refusing to change a law that was passed and supported by the Supreme Court!

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Sure there is, because there are a lot of pieces to it. Just because it's valid doesn't mean it's the best it can be. To assume it's perfect as it is and needs no tweaks, especially in the face of it already being tweaked by Presidential order, is patently absurd. There are several things that could be compromised on. I see no reason why the Dems rejected the removal of the medical devices tax when they supported that in March. I see no reason why (other than the usual politician mindset) they wouldn't accept having to live under the same rules as everyone else and get no special subsidy for health care, especially the ones who claim they aren't getting it in the first place. I see no reason why they wouldn't even consider delaying the individual mandate when they are delaying the employer mandate. The only reason for it that I can see is because they are throwing a childish temper tantrum that the Republicans dare question anything about ACA.

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

The only part of the employer mandate that has been delayed are the paperwork requirements. Because the regs were confusing and companies were having difficulty understanding how to comply. That's it. the tax on medical devices goes to defray some of the cost of setting up the exchanges that the federal government takes on because states decided they didn't want to cover poor people under the ACA. And since more sates than expected went in this direction Democratic representatives who were in favor of the repeal changed their position, because it would have been fiscally irresponsible not to.

Otherwise - its green light all the way. Minimum coverage requirements, minimum amount of premiums to be used for actual care not for insurance executives bonuses requirement, elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, elimination of dollar limits on certain types of care, elimination of exclusions for contraceptives, elimination of lifetime maximums all done and gone.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

"I see no reason why the Dems rejected the removal of the medical devices tax"

I thought libertarians and conservatives like balanced budget. The medical services tax is to help pay for Obamacare. If you remove that, what do you replace the funding with?

"they wouldn't accept having to live under the same rules as everyone else and get no special subsidy for health care"

They were uniquely forced off of their employer-provided plan onto the exchange and given a subsidy only to match the support they'd already been getting. You're demanding they and their staff get a several thousand dollar pay-cut.