Jim Bunning's Personal Filibuster

[Pangloss]

I love this story -- it's a great example of why I follow politics. Jim Bunning is a 78-year-old very-conservative Republican Senator from Kentucky who's in his second term (following a lengthy stint in the House and long service in local and state politics). He's currently in the midst of a personal, one-man filibuster stopping a $10 billion bill that would provide a simple 30-day extension to continue previously-signed spending on road improvements, unemployment checks for laid-off federal employees, and I believe a few other odds and ends.

 

His objection is that the bill was never paid for. Democrats in leadership procedurally rejected adding the package to the untapped stimulus fund, and Bunning decided to pitch a fit and point out in the most public way possible that this money did not grow on a tree in Michelle Obama's vegetable garden. Unfortunately he ran straight into direct human consequences, which is the sort of thing the media just LOVES to pounce on.

 

Today ABC News' Jonathan Karl cornered Bunning, who is known for his dramatic theatrics, and asked him why he was making unemployed Americans suffer. It was a great scene, very dramatic and fun to watch. The Washington Post's political blog set up a page for it here, which includes the video from ABC's web site (little easier to view it this way, without ABC's ridiculously obtrusive CSS layers):

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/angry-jim-bunning-blows-off-ab.html?wprss=44

 

Bunning is, of course, making a huge mistake here. But what's really interesting about this situation is what's between the lines. A few points to consider:

 

1) Bunning isn't running for re-election.

2) He's not happy about that fact.

3) He actually supports this bill.

 

Bunning is angry because he can't get funding and support from the Republican party right now. His approval rating is very low and he's seen by the GOP as a write-off for this fall's election, and he's really upset about that. Which of course is why Bunning is acting alone -- there's a fair amount of conjecture out there that Bunning is just doing this to hurt the GOP out of revenge.

 

But either way it's a bad thing to do to the country right now. He's making a huge mistake, and this is not the kind of bill he needs to be pulling this sort of move on. The one he should be filibustering is the one they immediately started debating after he filibustered this one -- a $160 billion monstrosity that has even less certainty for payment.

 

But it's certainly great theater!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So this evening Bunning got a concession in exchange for ending his filibuster. What he got was a single up-or-down vote on an amendment that would have paid for the bill he was filibustering with an offset in a tax credit for paper companies on a wood product called "black liquor" (which I'm guessing is this nasty-sounding stuff -- I guess it's an alternate fuel). The vote failed with 43 votes in favor. Gee, we sure wouldn't want to actually pay for a bill, eh?

 

The Senate then passed the extension Bunning had been filibustering, by a vote of 78 to 19. Harry Reid immediately characterized the vote as "Republicans realizing they were wrong". Uh huh. Thank goodness the Democrats are in charge and taking care of business! I don't know what we would do if those evil Republicans were still minding the store.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030300122.html?hpid=topnews

Edited March 3, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[jryan]

Black liquor is a by product of the wood pulping processing and is used by many paper mills as a primary energy source. They also sell the stuff for profit now as it has been found to have a lot of promise as an alternative fuel.

 

But yeah, Bunning is like the anti-Mr. Smith.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yeah, I saw a bit of this on the Daily Show. The only thing they showed the guy say was "I object".

[john5746]

I actually like the idea of paying for it from the stimulus money. I understand you don't want to hold up emergency aid for funding, but when it is "small" and we already have a pool of money sitting there, why keep digging a hole?

[jackson33]

Bunning's point was to show the hypocrisy of the Senate, they had just passed 'Pay-go' (1/28/2010) turning around and legislating an 'Unemployment Extension Bill, (10B$) with out paying for it. "Pay-go", passed 60-40 along party lines, opposed by all Republicans, who in turn would and should have been the only ones that could voted for the bill without being hypocritical.

 

After a tense day of negotiations and days of delay, Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., allowed a vote on a temporary extension of Federal unemployment benefits, highway spending and other programs. The $10 billion package passed 78-19 late Tuesday night. [/Quote]

 

http://www.capitolnewsconnection.org/node/14068

 

The 19 opposed, were all Republicans, meaning every Democrat, just violated their own 'pay-go' bill, not to mention the unspent or returned money from TARP and/or the Stimulus, that was available.

 

China sold a record amount of its US Treasury holdings in December, ceding its place as the world's biggest foreign holder of US debt to Japan.

According to Treasury figures released on Tuesday, Beijing sold off more than $34bn of its holdings in the final month of 2009, cutting its holding of US debt by just over 4 per cent to $755.4bn.

 

Japan now holds almost $11bn more US debt than China, with a total of nearly $769bn. [/Quote]

 

http://english.aljazeera.net/business/2010/02/201021743521113498.html

 

China selling off US Debt, is old news, but doubt anyone here has realized Japan now holds more debt then China, is not in good financial shape them self and we're not really treating their US Business very well.....Somebody better start thinking.

 

I don't know the financial consequences on the States, but generally they pay a portion of unemployment and there is only 'one' State (ND), that will be contributing anything, with out going further into debt.

[iNow]

Bunning's point was to show the hypocrisy of the Senate, they had just passed 'Pay-go' (1/28/2010) turning around and legislating an 'Unemployment Extension Bill, (10B$) with out paying for it. "Pay-go", passed 60-40 along party lines, opposed by all Republicans, who in turn would and should have been the only ones that could voted for the bill without being hypocritical.

The PAYGO law passed does not apply to entitlement or emergency spending, which this was. Sorry, Jackson, but your above claim of hypocrisy shows only your own lack of understanding.

 

 

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2010/02/25/pay-go-budget-rules-do-little-to-control-spending-or-reduce-deficit.html

pay-go does not actually require Congress to cut a dollar for every dollar it spends. Its rules apply only to a fraction of new spending proposals. For instance, programs in appropriations bills (which make up 40 percent of the budget) are exempt. And it has no application to existing entitlement programs, like Social Security and Medicare, which account for another third of the federal budget. In a best-case scenario, it would allow the baseline collision course to continue.

 

Even when pay-go would apply to a new spending bill, Congress has plenty of ways to get around it. "Emergency" spending--like last year's $787 billion stimulus bill--can be determined on an ad hoc basis and is exempt from these rules.

 

 

The extension of unemployment benefits to over 400,000 US citizens who need them is EASILY classed as emergency spending.

[Pangloss]

I actually like the idea of paying for it from the stimulus money. I understand you don't want to hold up emergency aid for funding, but when it is "small" and we already have a pool of money sitting there, why keep digging a hole?

 

Well put.

[jackson33]

The PAYGO law passed does not apply to entitlement or emergency spending, which this was. Sorry, Jackson, but your above claim of hypocrisy shows only your own lack of understanding. [/Quote]

 

iNow; To extend any entitlement, IMO does not warrant the term 'Emergency'. Whether it's 10 thousand or 20 million is of no importance, if the limits had been set. What your saying is, that to the one million, who have been receiving benefits (different time periods per State) are special to the millions of others over 70 years (1935), that were cut off when that limit was reached. Aside from this, think that limit has already been reset more than once, Bush and by Stimulus.

 

Even when pay-go would apply to a new spending bill, Congress has plenty of ways to get around it. "Emergency" spending--like last year's $787 billion stimulus bill--can be determined on an ad hoc basis and is exempt from these rules. [/Quote]

 

iNow, from your site and Bunnings point (spirit of the 'Pay-Go Act'), whom probably understands the rules better than you. Anything can be called an emergency. I'd rather discuss his Baseball career, saw a few of his games.

 

By the way think the bill covers 200k for 30 days, with a lot more coming. Not bad though that's 50k/person for 30 days. The bill, in fairness covers other items really not emergencies...

 

When Sen. Jim Bunning lifted his block, the Senate approved a 30-day extension of federal unemployment benefits. More than 200,000 unemployed Americans were set to lose benefits, half of whom already had stopped receiving unemployment checks. [/Quote]

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0303/Unemployment-benefits-Jim-Bunning-relents-Senate-passes-extension

[swansont]

iNow; To extend any entitlement, IMO does not warrant the term 'Emergency'.

 

entitlement OR emergency spending

 

It was emergency spending because of the deadline involved.

 

Whether it's 10 thousand or 20 million is of no importance, if the limits had been set. What your saying is, that to the one million, who have been receiving benefits (different time periods per State) are special to the millions of others over 70 years (1935), that were cut off when that limit was reached. Aside from this, think that limit has already been reset more than once, Bush and by Stimulus.

 

70 years? 1935? Limit? What are you talking about?

 

By the way think the bill covers 200k for 30 days, with a lot more coming. Not bad though that's 50k/person for 30 days. The bill, in fairness covers other items really not emergencies...

 

Again, what are you talking about?

[jryan]

You know, I heard Bunning interviewed today and he made some good points... the best of which was that Obama reinstated pay-go and then this bill (last straw) floats into congress with absolutely no means of paying for it and he just said "enough's enough".

 

I can certainly see his frustration in such hypocrisy.

[Pangloss]

Whether it's 10 thousand or 20 million is of no importance, if the limits had been set.

 

It's a good point, and it's disappointing to see spending on a new benefit (and unemployment compensation period that did not previously exist) called an "emergency". And this quote from above...

 

pay-go does not actually require Congress to cut a dollar for every dollar it spends. Its rules apply only to a fraction of new spending proposals. For instance, programs in appropriations bills (which make up 40 percent of the budget) are exempt. And it has no application to existing entitlement programs, like Social Security and Medicare, which account for another third of the federal budget. In a best-case scenario, it would allow the baseline collision course to continue.

 

Even when pay-go would apply to a new spending bill, Congress has plenty of ways to get around it. "Emergency" spending--like last year's $787 billion stimulus bill--can be determined on an ad hoc basis and is exempt from these rules.

 

... actually illustrates just how inadequate PAYGO is and how difficult it will be for ANY political party to put the brakes on spending.

 

If we had spending under control then $10 billion "emergency" extensions to compensation benefits wouldn't be a problem. But it isn't under control, there are very few ways to illustrate that fact to the American people, and while I think that this was the wrong action, the right actions are not being performed.

 

Bunning's detractors in Washington are hypocrites, and they haven't earned the right to tell him he's wrong.

[swansont]

Bunning's detractors in Washington are hypocrites, and they haven't earned the right to tell him he's wrong.

 

Bunning is a hypocrite for agreeing to many spending bills and tax cuts without an eye toward balancing the budget, only to start worrying about it now.

[jryan]

Bunning is a hypocrite for agreeing to many spending bills and tax cuts without an eye toward balancing the budget, only to start worrying about it now.

 

While his previous stance of budgets and spending was troubling, the current congressional view on budgets and spending is insane.

[jackson33]

70 years? 1935? Limit? What are you talking about? [/Quote]

 

swansont; The original SS Act, including what has become a number of programs, millions having collected benefits over it's history, with limitations.

 

The original Social Security Act[1] (1935) and the current version of the Act, as amended[2] encompass several social welfare and social insurance programs. The larger and better known programs are:

 

Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance

 

Unemployment benefits

 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

 

Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)

 

Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)

 

State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)

 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

 

 

 

It was emergency spending because of the deadline involved.[/Quote]

 

swansont; As I understand it, the Bill is now back in the House, will be amended requiring another Senate vote....So much for emergency!!!, if Bloombergs morning update is correct.

 

HOUSE TO AMEND $15B SENATE JOBS BILL, SEND BACK FOR ANOTHER VOTE

The U.S. House of Representatives plans to amend a $15 billion bill aimed at spurring job growth rather than simply taking up the Senate version of the legislation, a senior House Democratic aide said Wednesday. [/Quote]

 

http://solutions.dowjones.com/tnt/assets/scottrade/morningbriefing.html#hl2

 

 

Jackson wrote; "By the way think the bill covers 200k for 30 days, with a lot more coming. Not bad though that's 50k/person for 30 days. The bill, in fairness covers other items really not emergencies"... [/Quote]

 

Again, what are you talking about? [/Quote]

 

swansont; The bill covers 200k people per week over a thirty day period, that's the intention of the 15B$ Bill, 5B$ going for emergency(?) road repairs. However you figure the purpose or how many people are involved, 10B$ is an extremely large amount for unemployment alone. The posted article, claims 200k people are involved, which equals out to 50k per person, designed to help for a period of 30 days.

 

http://www.capitolnewsconnection.org/node/14068 (repeat)

 

 

Pangloss; It's my opinion, the passage of 'Pay-Go', was to soften the appearance of the 1.9T$ increase in the debt ceiling, a political ploy in an election year. As for this bill, we're talking State Aid, as ALL States and employers for that matter, pay a portion of what's actually received as Unemployment Compensation. As for Bunning, he accomplished exactly what he wanted to, bring the hypocrisy of Congress (both parties) to years of spending without concerns to how it would be paid for and probable now how it possibly could be paid, at 78 probably his farewell 'swan song' to the Nation.

 

Some are now talking about 7.00 Gas/Diesel, with an addition of a 4 or 5.00$ per gallon tax, while others are floating a value added tax on certain products to all products. In either event, these are taxes on the average family and IMO, would not cover the expected cost of Government as currently expected, if consumption remained the same (it won't) and would draw dollars from the GDP, not increase.

 

The basis of my discussion on any of these threads, is the need for a massive decrease in the Federal Government, which in reality would be easier than most believe and far less complicated than the Federal, trying to handle State Issues for social reform. My opinions....

[swansont]

swansont; The original SS Act, including what has become a number of programs, millions having collected benefits over it's history, with limitations.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

 

Thank you for clarifying.

 

 

swansont; As I understand it, the Bill is now back in the House, will be amended requiring another Senate vote....So much for emergency!!!, if Bloombergs morning update is correct.

 

 

 

http://solutions.dowjones.com/tnt/assets/scottrade/morningbriefing.html#hl2

 

No, that'a a different bill. H.R.4691 was signed into law on the 2nd.

 

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4691/show

 

 

swansont; The bill covers 200k people per week over a thirty day period, that's the intention of the 15B$ Bill, 5B$ going for emergency(?) road repairs. However you figure the purpose or how many people are involved, 10B$ is an extremely large amount for unemployment alone. The posted article, claims 200k people are involved, which equals out to 50k per person, designed to help for a period of 30 days.

 

http://www.capitolnewsconnection.org/node/14068 (repeat)

 

It's $10 billion, for the whole bill, and the cbo says (pdf) 6.725B for the unemployment insurance. It was 200-400k people losing benefits the first week with the whole month estimate at 1.2 million.

[Pangloss]

No, that'a a different bill. H.R.4691 was signed into law on the 2nd.

 

The question however was why it's an emergency when there's another bill on the table, if it covers the same territory.

[swansont]

The question however was why it's an emergency when there's another bill on the table, if it covers the same territory.

 

Because it doesn't. It's a jobs bill, not an unemployment benefits bill.

 

The bill would grant employers an exemption from their 6.2 percent Social Security payroll contribution for every new employee hired through the rest of the year, so long as that employee had been out of work for at least 60 days. It would also make it easier for businesses to write off equipment purchases and would extend federal highway and mass-transit funding programs.

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.jobs05mar05,0,432293.story

 

Even if it did cover the same territory, there were a bunch of outlays that expired on Feb 28th. The deadline was why it was an emergency. Having a bill on the table, with haggling still ongoing, wouldn't put food on the table for people (not) getting unemployment benefits. If Bunning hadn't pulled his stunt, there would have been no interruption of benefits.

[foodchain]

I think hypocrisy can be found in calling government healthcare "death panels" even while its ok for insurance companies to drop or deny coverage. I think its hypocrisy to talk about spending when the cost of current warfare is where its at along with its history.

 

I also think its pointless to muddy topics with such stuff.

 

America is in a recession and things are not going to great. Personally I am glad we have some marginally organized means to lessen how detrimental this could be.

[jackson33]

The 'Job's bill', I referenced through the morning update, was the much talked about, 'bill' Reid single handedly reduced from 85B$ to 15, probably to get Republican support, arguably creating very few jobs (sound familiar, Stimulus 2009). It was my error to introduce it into this discussion. By the way, that bill was passed on through the House, last night, no doubt will be signed by the President....

 

Back on the 'Unemployment Bill' which correctly said, has been passed and now part of the 50 States individual Budgets, as future income, reducing their deficits, adding with out regards to when and how distributed. Both bills, IMO are simply State Bailouts.

 

The only remaining arguments I would enjoy hearing a rebuttal on, is where all that talk of urgency was coming from. Reid could have called for cloture at any point, easily getting the 60 vote requirement and it would have been over. It might be interesting to have a viewpoint linking the 2-400,000, some newly unemployed (IMO eligible) and those that had been receiving and nearing their limits (IMO not eligible), into the same purpose. Note; The bill makes no mention or is it intended to, extend weekly limitation eligibility.

 

By the way 'swansont', States DID NOT halt payments, many publicly stating this nor would they have refused any eligible new applicant, compensation. Frankly, I'm not sure, they are obligated to continue payments, past the limitations of their State.

[swansont]

The only remaining arguments I would enjoy hearing a rebuttal on, is where all that talk of urgency was coming from. Reid could have called for cloture at any point, easily getting the 60 vote requirement and it would have been over.

 

Apparently not.

 

"The Leader could have filed cloture on the bill and brought it to the floor last week...If he had done that, this bill would be signed into law already."

 

Senate rules, however, would have provided for seven days of time before a vote could take place, if Bunning had objected at each point along the way, had Reid needed to go through two rounds of cloture--one to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill, and another to invoke cloture on the actual bill.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/bunnings-blockade-ends/36967/

 

 

By the way 'swansont', States DID NOT halt payments, many publicly stating this nor would they have refused any eligible new applicant, compensation. Frankly, I'm not sure, they are obligated to continue payments, past the limitations of their State.

 

This is a federal unemployment issue, not a state unemployment issue — people in the program have exhausted their state's unemployment benefits. If they did not halt payments, was it because they were going to pay out of their own pocket, or because they knew the reinstatement was imminent? i.e. would they have paid if this bill were thwarted for a longer period of time, or not passed at all?

[jackson33]

I think hypocrisy can be found in calling government healthcare "death panels" even while its ok for insurance companies to drop or deny coverage. I think its hypocrisy to talk about spending when the cost of current warfare is where its at along with its history.

 

I also think its pointless to muddy topics with such stuff.

 

America is in a recession and things are not going to great. Personally I am glad we have some marginally organized means to lessen how detrimental this could be.[/Quote]

 

foodchain; I'm not sure how this fits in with Bunning, but I'll try to link it with his (Bunning) motives.

 

I'll start with this question. Do you think it's the US Federal Governments responsibility, to correct or make good absolutely every problem that is experience by their 310 million people?

 

In the US, every year there are around 6 and 1/2 million auto accidents, around 40,000 killed and another 2 million or so injured, alone. Another 2 and 1/2 million (near 7000 daily) die from hundreds of different causes (natural to some really strange) and I doubt there are any figures on what the average person or family somehow endures, many times during a lifetime. Homes, property and belongings burn from fire, floods, tornado's, hurricanes and hundred of other events can interrupt any number of peoples lives and their is nothing a Federal Government can do to restore every person to their original condition. Point; Socialism or the desire to do just that (the excuse), can only take from people with wealth, reducing them according to the needs.

 

Bunning, in using the futures of his 40 Grandchildren, to demonstrate the problem, could well have used the former Soviet Union, Japan or the current problems in Europe over a common currency (the Euro) for 16 of EU members, National Debt will bring all things down for all people of any society (economic) and in his opinion exactly what's pending, in the US.

 

Greece, slipped over the agreed 10% National Debt Limits of its GDP and was advised/told to CUT BACK, their expenses, already highly socialized (many work for Government or receive benefits) while several other Countries (practicing what's called Social Democracy)are approaching that 10% limit. Anyway you look at the US's current debt, or it's projected debt, it's near now and will go over 10% this year, some suggesting 15% of GDP by 2020. To give an example of how understated the problem is being address, many from both side the argument are saying the Interest on US debt will alone be 800B$ before 2020, not mentioning the interest rates and credit ranking, WILL be going higher, long before that. Also, unlike Japan, whose debt, percentage wise is higher than the US today (around 110% of GDP) BUT self owned, not from other Countries and the US has long been dependent on others.

 

If interest in the Greek Problem, from a business viewpoint, you or anyone might like to read the following article, however I'm bringing it up to you based on this one statement;

 

It’s vulnerable because countries like Greece have been racking up huge debts and perpetrating acts of gross fiscal irresponsibility for years and years.... It gives the appearance of working in good times, but that’s not what matters. What matters is how well the model holds up in bad times. Before now, the euro had never truly been “stress tested.” [/Quote]

 

http://webmail.att.net/wmc/en-US/v/wm/4B913B7C0009512900004BE222230682329B0A02D29B9B0EBF070707010608?cmd=Show&no=16&uid=306160&sid=c0

 

On the 'Death Panels'; Your from California, where your Government has been closing Medical Clinics or shut off financial payment for non-citizens medical care. Hospitals, have been going specialized (Heart/Cancer/Physical Rehabilitation) and Medical personnel have been moving around or changing their business model to prevent certain requirements already or severally limiting service to Medicaid/Medicare patients and the Federal refuses more procedures and experimental practices, than insurance companies ever have. Insurance Companies, through their policy holders, have also taken up the slack from what Government will pay for absolutely every service. Death Panels, need not be 6 people setting around a table, making decisions (not really practical for the thousands made daily) but by regulation and interference on the system. I'll add my major argument, that you cannot sue Congress for any regulation or really even argue your case, but you can with an insurance Company, most likely a real live person in your own home town or where you work.

 

swansont quote;

This is a federal unemployment issue, not a state unemployment issue — people in the program have exhausted their state's unemployment benefits. If they did not halt payments, was it because they were going to pay out of their own pocket, or because they knew the reinstatement was imminent? i.e. would they have paid if this bill were thwarted for a longer period of time, or not passed at all?[/Quote]

 

Every States has their own policy, supplemented by the Federal and/or the employers in their State. Yes, for any newly laid off worker, they would have compensated according to their policy. Having been an employer (five States and different business models), I'd sure like to know how all this will influence future payment for that insurance. My first payments were in cents per person, later in the hundreds of dollars per quarter.

 

Anytime money needs to be borrowed for a cause, it implies "exhausted funds" which includes all States and the current Federal, thought that was what this discussion was over....

 

Think it was you interested in the Euro, some time ago and the introduced site, may be of interest. You will probably disagree, but I don't believe traders can manipulate markets, unless they are vulnerable to manipulation, which means to me a 'good play"....

[foodchain]

foodchain; I'm not sure how this fits in with Bunning, but I'll try to link it with his (Bunning) motives.

 

I think it matters as the hypocrisy aspect of this thread is lame.

 

I'll start with this question. Do you think it's the US Federal Governments responsibility, to correct or make good absolutely every problem that is experience by their 310 million people?

 

In the US, every year there are around 6 and 1/2 million auto accidents, around 40,000 killed and another 2 million or so injured, alone. Another 2 and 1/2 million (near 7000 daily) die from hundreds of different causes (natural to some really strange) and I doubt there are any figures on what the average person or family somehow endures, many times during a lifetime. Homes, property and belongings burn from fire, floods, tornado's, hurricanes and hundred of other events can interrupt any number of peoples lives and their is nothing a Federal Government can do to restore every person to their original condition. Point; Socialism or the desire to do just that (the excuse), can only take from people with wealth, reducing them according to the needs.

 

The amount of deaths in the U.S from issues like guns, cars, and the rest I think only serves to show minimal control on people, unlike how you phrase our future government as a tool for socialism I can and do agree with laws. Not all of them mind you, but I also like aspects of our consitution. I think you would have to argue aspects of it to rid American government with the responsibility for the welfare of its people.

 

Death, sickness, injuries are as much apart of staying alive as eating. I can understand I guess the use of such data to show possible costs, but in regards people being able to get health care there exists and issue. Irregardless of that we don't deny the emergency room, and why should we?

 

 

 

Greece, slipped over the agreed 10% National Debt Limits of its GDP and was advised/told to CUT BACK, their expenses, already highly socialized (many work for Government or receive benefits) while several other Countries (practicing what's called Social Democracy)are approaching that 10% limit. Anyway you look at the US's current debt, or it's projected debt, it's near now and will go over 10% this year, some suggesting 15% of GDP by 2020. To give an example of how understated the problem is being address, many from both side the argument are saying the Interest on US debt will alone be 800B$ before 2020, not mentioning the interest rates and credit ranking, WILL be going higher, long before that. Also, unlike Japan, whose debt, percentage wise is higher than the US today (around 110% of GDP) BUT self owned, not from other Countries and the US has long been dependent on others.

 

That is Greece with such issues. Some countries have lose biotech laws, some allow for pedophiles to be legal, and all kinds of countries have variance in various areas, economically, socially, etc. Again what would occur in America is going to be at the mercy of its environments.

 

On the 'Death Panels'; Your from California, where your Government has been closing Medical Clinics or shut off financial payment for non-citizens medical care. Hospitals, have been going specialized (Heart/Cancer/Physical Rehabilitation) and Medical personnel have been moving around or changing their business model to prevent certain requirements already or severally limiting service to Medicaid/Medicare patients and the Federal refuses more procedures and experimental practices, than insurance companies ever have. Insurance Companies, through their policy holders, have also taken up the slack from what Government will pay for absolutely every service. Death Panels, need not be 6 people setting around a table, making decisions (not really practical for the thousands made daily) but by regulation and interference on the system. I'll add my major argument, that you cannot sue Congress for any regulation or really even argue your case, but you can with an insurance Company, most likely a real live person in your own home town or where you work.

 

I don't live in California, and the last time I went to California the air made me sick.

 

Healthcare as proposed would be held accountable, its not as if because the patient is on obamacare that the doctor can then legally become mengele. Fighting hospitals on criminal behavior already occurs, and deaths in hospitals from various things already kill staggering amounts of people yearly.

 

All obamacare would do is offer a way to remedy a situation in which lots of people have limited to no access to medicine.

 

I think healthcare has its reason to exist, and if the government is to even outlaw drugs and fight a war against them then even more so. The economic side of it is not impossible, nor is really that big considering government spending.

 

The other option is private sector everything, but I think thats a bad choice. Simply because you would have to way to make policy visible to any extent within a democratic populous, would there be a president still or a congress?

 

I actually wonder if you could think of obamacare as something needing to be part of social security, I also imagine that if tax companies were more receptive all kinds of "new deals" could come about.

[Pangloss]

Because it doesn't. It's a jobs bill, not an unemployment benefits bill.

 

Okay.

 

Even if it did cover the same territory, there were a bunch of outlays that expired on Feb 28th. The deadline was why it was an emergency. Having a bill on the table, with haggling still ongoing, wouldn't put food on the table for people (not) getting unemployment benefits. If Bunning hadn't pulled his stunt, there would have been no interruption of benefits.

 

Well you're welcome to think what you like, but personally I can't agree with the categorization of "emergency" for an extension of benefits to people who are not disabled or dealing with an immediate disaster. Recipients should nod and say "thank you", not "hurry up and serve me". And if they have to wait a couple of extra days then they should nod and say "thank you, I'll be happy to wait a little longer for this benefit, which is much appreciated", not "OH MY GOD YOU ARE KILLING MY CHILDREN WITH YOUR EVIL AND UNCARING HEART."

 

Not that anyone here was saying that, of course, and I'm sure most unemployment recipients do their best to adapt as fast as they can. I realize that the benefit ran out for everyone (former federal employees, I gather), not just those who'd been sitting on their derrieres for the requisite 18 months before opening the Want Ads.

 

There have probably been bigger service interruptions due to malfunctioning equipment than due to Jim Bunning and his counter-productive podium-pounding.

[swansont]

Well you're welcome to think what you like, but personally I can't agree with the categorization of "emergency" for an extension of benefits to people who are not disabled or dealing with an immediate disaster. Recipients should nod and say "thank you", not "hurry up and serve me". And if they have to wait a couple of extra days then they should nod and say "thank you, I'll be happy to wait a little longer for this benefit, which is much appreciated", not "OH MY GOD YOU ARE KILLING MY CHILDREN WITH YOUR EVIL AND UNCARING HEART."

 

I agree that this is a conditional definition — you have to decide to do it. If you have decided it's not worthwhile, then it can't be an emergency. But once you have decided that aiding this group was a priority, doing so in a timely manner probably makes sense. However, this has more to do with the attitude of the government vs that of the recipient. One should note that also included in the bill was reimbursement to doctors. It's not inconceivable that doctors would have (or did) restrict the treatment to patients for whom they would lose money due to the reduced reimbursement. It also extended COBRA, which allows unemployed persons to remain insured, without which they might not be able to seek treatment. So it's not out of the question that delayed benefits could have actually cost lives.

 

As far as the recipient attitude goes, I wouldn't mind at all if the benefits were somehow tied into community service of some sort.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Every States has their own policy, supplemented by the Federal and/or the employers in their State. Yes, for any newly laid off worker, they would have compensated according to their policy. Having been an employer (five States and different business models), I'd sure like to know how all this will influence future payment for that insurance. My first payments were in cents per person, later in the hundreds of dollars per quarter.

 

Yes, every state has their policy, and that's completely irrelevant to the discussion, because the bill did not affect state unemployment insurance. It only affected federal unemployment benefits, which kick in after the state benefits run out.

[jackson33]

Death, sickness, injuries are as much apart of staying alive as eating. I can understand I guess the use of such data to show possible costs, but in regards people being able to get health care there exists and issue. Irregardless of that we don't deny the emergency room, and why should we? [/Quote]

 

foodchain; Funny thing is, Hospitals are NOT required to offer FREE Healthcare service, in the US. Medical Physicians, Nurses and others are very protective of their professions 'Hippocratic Oath' and any Hospital or Clinic that wishes to receive payment from the Federal for Medicaid/Medicare/SCHIP, must offer, cannot refuse free service, including having an emergency room.

 

That is Greece with such issues. Some countries have lose biotech laws, some allow for pedophiles to be legal, and all kinds of countries have variance in various areas, economically, socially, etc. Again what would occur in America is going to be at the mercy of its environments.[/Quote]

 

Greece, was a current example of over bloated government, already knee deep in Social and big government programs, not their social/family laws. Were talking about a Country (Greece), that can't handle 12 Million people, under a social government, not one with 310 million. If they can't, how would you expect the US to, economically speaking.

 

I don't live in California, and the last time I went to California the air made me sick.

 

Healthcare as proposed would be held accountable, its not as if because the patient is on obamacare that the doctor can then legally become mengele. Fighting hospitals on criminal behavior already occurs, and deaths in hospitals from various things already kill staggering amounts of people yearly. [/Quote]

 

Thought I answered another post from you, as a Californian. Personally I love California, have traveled the State in every direction many times and wanted to retire there, but I couldn't afford the taxes, even back 10 years, or the then cost of living. As for the Air, yes 20/30 years ago it was a little bad in metro areas (real bad 50 years), but today not bad and the rural areas are as fresh as any air in the US. The point was 'Death Panels' can take on a variety of forms and already a reality. Most all transplants are made at the cost of others and thousands of people die each year because Government/Insurers will not cover certain cost and like it not, government involvement or not it's only going to get worse. Yes, I agree, as quality has gone down for qualified workers, too many people are dieing from simple error, in some medical facilities.

 

As for recourse of a patient or their family in the event of death; If Congress has established a regulation pertaining to the death of any person, it's almost impossible to sue government and their not going to allow arbitrary suits against themselves. Even if a Government agency, misrepresents Congressional Legislation, the process for suit is so time consuming and costly, few could afford the effort and fewer lawyers, would accept the case.

 

All obamacare would do is offer a way to remedy a situation in which lots of people have limited to no access to medicine. [/Quote]

 

Nobody is denied full access to medical service or any other necessity of life, as you say, food, housing, etc., so long as they have a means to pay for it. Then we are all limited you or anybody else, by what's affordable. This notion that any service or quality of that service should be equal to all people cannot be based on logic. Any lawyer, doctor, auto, home or whatever is going to be based on my resources.

 

I think healthcare has its reason to exist, and if the government is to even outlaw drugs and fight a war against them then even more so. The economic side of it is not impossible, nor is really that big considering government spending. [/Quote]

 

Oh yes it is and it's very big; Nearing 1/5th our GDP when you consider all the elements and Government already obligated to more than they can handle. 2.4T$ is spend for personal care each year, and revenue for the entire cost of the Federal Government is not much more than that.

 

The other option is private sector everything, but I think thats a bad choice. Simply because you would have to way to make policy visible to any extent within a democratic populous, would there be a president still or a congress? [/Quote]

 

Actually there are several other options, including the "private sector" and when there was little choice other than the PS, ALL current UHC Countries including the US, ran around 4-5% of GDP for their total. Today they are all up to 8-10% and the US leads the way, at 15%.

 

I actually wonder if you could think of obamacare as something needing to be part of social security, I also imagine that if tax companies were more receptive all kinds of "new deals" could come about.[/Quote]

 

Obamacare, Single Payer or Government Option are extensions of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society, which were based on FDR and his plans for the Great Society, SS and all it contained. The ultimate goal being Socialism of a lot more than medicine. IMO.

 

I don't understand, how this fits into the threads topic, under hypocrisy or anything else, but you spent some time posting on a topic, I don't mind responding to. I hope Pangloss, will avoid the off topic warnings, this one time....

 

 

 

swansont; From the US Department of Labor, your welcome to read through it....If your saying States pay unemployment for -x- number of weeks, then the Federal takes over for -y- number of weeks, I believe your dead wrong and I would call that welfare. Some States refused the Stimulus (2009) funding because it extended the weeks they would be jointly liable for into the future. This includes the first week to the last week of eligibility in any State. Now I don't really know how Union Employees are paid, Government or the private sector, but the unions, as I understand it pay a little different and based on what the States will allow, but that's an entirely different program from the Government.

 

 

Purpose

In general, the Federal-State Unemployment Insurance Program provides unemployment benefits to eligible workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own (as determined under State law), and meet other eligibility requirements of State law.

 

Unemployment insurance payments (benefits) are intended to provide temporary financial assistance to unemployed workers who meet the requirements of State law.

 

Each State administers a separate unemployment insurance program within guidelines established by Federal law.

 

Eligibility for unemployment insurance, benefit amounts and the length of time benefits are available are determined by the State law under which unemployment insurance claims are established.

 

In the majority of States, benefit funding is based solely on a tax imposed on employers. (Three (3) States require minimal employee contributions.) [/Quote]

 

http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/uifactsheet.asp