HuskerLuke

Among the many shutdowns during the Reagan administration, one occurred because the Democrats tied their desired Contra funding levels and their anti-talk radio Fairness Doctrine (in other words, stuff that had little if anything to do with the budget) to the continued funding of the government. As I said, nothing new under the sun. Now, do you or do you not condemn the Wisconsin and Indiana Democrats for shutting down the legislative process when they didn't like the result of an election? You seem happy to blast Republicans for childish obstructionism. What about criminal obstructionism? Yes I can think of other factors, namely Obama wanting this to hurt as much as possible. Same situation as the others, just more stark: here we have a park that the federal government doesn't spend a dime on. The park provides all of its own staff, and yet the NPS sent agents to kick people out and send workers home.

I could be potentially won over to some sort of state by state single payer system, but never a federal one. Looking at the two major federally funded health care programs we have now --- Medicare and Medicaid (shared) --- neither fulfill the holy trinity of a good healthcare system. Medicare has good healthcare outcomes and decent access, but its so expensive it's the single largest driver of current and future deficits, and it's projected to double as a share of overall US GDP in the next 25 years. Medicaid does a good job controlling costs, but it achieves those low costs by having a doctor/hospital network so small that access is terrible and the health outcomes aren't any better than being uninsured.

Content - Nebraska wins going away, 49-14. Armstrong looks great in the offense, but more importantly the defense holds Illinois under 300 yards and forces a couple turnovers. Encouraged - Nebraska wins a solid 38-21 type game where Illinois doesn't hit 400 yards. (insert what I expect to happen right here) Disappointed - Defense struggles and we have to outscore them 42-38. Outraged - I think everyone can guess what goes here.

Obama's still a Muslim. Before anything blows up, I wasn't being serious.

Obama's still a Muslim.

God Bless America.

It's really not fair to knock our health care system for people's life expectancy. Americans are 2 to 3 times more likely to be obese than citizens of other developed nations. Say what you want about McDonalds, but that's not our healthcare system's fault. Our murder rate is 2-4 times that of other developed countries. Say what you want about our police, gun laws, or urban decay, that's not our healthcare system's fault. Our motorists are 1.5-4 times more likely to be killed in an auto accident than other developed countries. Say what you want about the driving skills of Council Bluffs residents, but that's not the fault of our healthcare system. Additionally, the complaint about infant mortality is largely (although not completely) a statistical glitch, as the United States uses a more liberal definition of what constitutes a "live birth" than most other countries. Basically, let's not overreach in condemning our health care system. There are access issues and there are cost issues. There are not quality issues. The issue I take with Krugman is that he merely assumes and never asks why health care is so expensive. The thing is, the market works with health care. I'm sure you've heard of medical tourism. Foreign hospitals are increasingly able to compete with - and win - against US hospitals on cost while matching quality. Passing a law requiring hospitals to openly publish procedural costs would do wonders to the price inflation that plagues the US health care market. Similarly, health care insurance is prohibitively expensive because insurers largely do not have to compete with each other. BCBS of Nebraska owns an 85% market share in this state, which constitutes a monopoly. Sure, regulation keeps some of the abuses in check, but there's no substitute for a serious competitor. Life or death competition can do wonders for a bloated, inefficient company, which certainly describes many insurers.

The organization I work for operates on a hub and spoke model. Our affiliates are supposed to provide health insurance to their employees and the national organization sponsors a health plan. There's some fear that because most of our employees aren't paid a lot (we're a non-profit, local affiliates don't pay well), that the healthcare law's plans after subsidies would be cheaper for the affiliates than our organizations national healthcare plans. If the national plan loses too many enrollees, it will implode and force the rest of us into the health care exchanges. Will this come to pass? I have no idea, I'll know more in 6 months, but it's certainly a topic of discussion right now.

Of course both sides will make a stand, there will be positioning, and eventually both will make a deal. I know the GOP isn't going to repeal the health care law altogether. Their strategy should be and is death by a thousand cuts. What I mean by public backing is popular sentiment in the country. Delaying the individual mandate of Obamacare leads keeping it in place, 56-26. That's what I mean by public backing: pick an unpopular part of the law and make Democrats repeal it or defend it. The Democrats may hold the line and make the Republicans blink and pass the debt ceiling increase, but they would do so at the cost of very publicly defending a part of the law that a large majority of people dislikes. There's a reason this isn't a new strategy. It puts your opponents in a very difficult position.

I interpreted his call for "moderation" and describing how I was speaking - reminiscent of OBL - as directed toward my behavior (something mods are tasked to control), not a particular belief set. Since nobody else read it that way, I'll assume my interpretation was wrong, and I apologize for dragging his moderator status into it.

Congress approved back pay after the mid-90s shutdowns. That's not a guarantee for this time around, but I'm guessing they will.

I don't believe I ever accused knapp of abusing his position. I expressed concern that his political leanings were compromising his ability to be a fair moderator on this (political) sub-forum. That may have been an overreaction on my part, I don't know, I've pretty clearly laid out what I think the problem is, and I'll look forward to hearing what he has to say tomorrow. Like I said earlier, I do not take issue with most of his posts. I never said anyone made death threats, "I'm going to kill x," is different from "I hope x gets hit by a car." They're both pretty awful things to say. "Teabagger" is absolutely a sexual slur and it shouldn't be allowed on this forum. But you're right, neither are a big deal --- until he bizarrely called me out as a person who needed to behave better. If he explains why something I said was out of bounds, fine, but I've never been warned or sanctioned by a moderator before on any forum I've been a member of and in light of the conversations we had today, the fact that I was the one called out makes it look to me like a politically-motivated double standard.

Agreed, it's an excellent description. I might disagree in a couple areas where I think certain outcomes are more incidental rather than intentional, but the fact that the two major parties jealously guard their joint power monopoly and overwhelmingly draw their donations from large corporations/organizations and very rich individuals isn't disputable.

I have no problem at all with moderators engaging in debate and having opinions. I do have a problem with moderators flaming, getting called on it, and doubling down. It's also pretty distressing that there's been no effort on his part to curb the out of control rhetoric coming from the posters I linked above. There should be no place for slurs on this forum, nor should posters get away with wishing for the death of political opponents. A moderator's responsibility is to put a stop to this sort of behavior, not pile on. I have nothing against knapplc as a person, I enjoy his posts on other areas of the forum, but if he can't see what's wrong with comparing me to America's #1 enemy of the last decade over a fairly mundane disagreement on legislative strategy.......that's a pretty big problem for a moderator to have.

Then you need to step down as a moderator, because you have completely let your bias interfere with your ability to effectively police this forum. Me advocating a legislative strategy that has been indisputably used by both parties to great effect is the same as Osama bin Laden advocating suicide bombing? Absurd. Sexual slurs and wishes of death against conservatives? Ignored. I'm serious, you need to be done as a moderator in this forum.

I believe the S&P has lost ground something like 8 of the last 10 days. It's not a big deal, I'm sure there will be a rally the moment a deal goes through.

I'm going duck hunting this weekend and I was looking for water reports on federal land near Geneva. Couldn't do it because the US Fish and Wildlife Service website has been disabled. My IRA and 401k have taken small hits due to what I presume is market discomfort with the situation in Washington right now. That's the extent to which I've been affected.

Weren't you the one that compared me to Osama bin Laden?

There's no chance at all that the debt ceiling would not be raised. Defaulting is unthinkable. That's why parties only dare go there when their cause has popular backing (GOP's spending cuts in the last debt ceiling debate, both parties forcing Carter to abandon an oil import fee in 1980). Should Republicans make a stand on the debt ceiling, Obama will cut a deal. He would have no choice.

I hope this shutdown is resolved before innocent people suffer undue hardship. Do you consider people being forced to miss work and not get paid an undue hardship? I do, so too late for that. I can't wave a wand and end the shutdown. If people are suffering because of Congress' dysfunction, that is unfortunate. I'm not sure what else you want from me.

Small but important correction: I said Republicans should've done this on the debt ceiling instead. I don't want to re-litigate this point, but the debt ceiling is a much better target for this sort of stand because the odds of people getting hurt are far lower and the odds of gaining policy ground are much greater. Could I get a categorical denunciation from you for what Wisconsin and Indiana Democrats did (fled to Illinois so the Republican majorities couldn't pass their agendas)? In case you were wondering, what Congressional Republicans are doing is unorthodox. What state Democrats did in Indiana and Wisconsin was actually illegal.

High fives for the IRS being out of commission? As far as individual impact, I suspect that the consequences of a shutdown are pretty minimal for most of the first week (e.g. states can keep WIC going for that long without federal help), and dramatically start to get more serious after that. Same with federal employees: a week's furlough shouldn't put anyone under, but after 3 weeks....that's gonna hurt. Economic damage is really hard to gauge, because while decreased government expenditures will necessarily diminish GDP and are fairly trackable, the economic splash damage to, say, the tourist industry of Jackson, Wyoming due to Yellowstone being closed for 2-3 weeks is much more difficult to get a grip on. Either way, it's not good for the economy, and it's in everyone's best interest that the shutdown not go on for long. I will express skepticism with some of the individual analyses of the various departments, particularly intelligence and defense. They have an obvious interest in saying that any reduction in funding is going to jeopardize their operations. I have a feeling that this nation (which is not known for skimping on defense) is not particularly vulnerable even when the DoD and DHS are operating on a "skeleton staff."

THANK YOU. That's really all I wanted to hear. Hyperbole and breathless accusations of how evil the other side is seems to get results better than reasoned discussion for some reason..

Harry Reid on kids with cancer: let'em die. Closing national parks? Necessary. Helping kids with cancer? Why would we want to do that? This is your Democratic Party, folks.

Here we go again: