US Government shutdown

Which comment about the Federal Government?

Let me ask you this question. I voting in Florida (mailing address live here for over half a year) population of ~19 million have a 2 senators and 29 Representatives(you only get to vote for one of these) in Washington.

So going by Bing you have a population of ~23 million that would give you 2 Senators and (edit)35(7) Representatives. How much would you trust these (edit)37(9) people and a president to accurately represent you?

The Florida Senate alone has 40 members. The House of of Representatives has 140.

Do you think there is more or less chance of corruption if your government was limited to that 39 people from what you actually have.

Personally I think it is much more likely my State representatives is more likely to represent the views of the people who elect them. Not some lawyer, corporation or political action committee.

Funny thing about foreign tourism personally I could care less. Funnier thing every Australian I meet on the road seems fairly thoughtless. Don't think all Australians are. But that would make sense from what you say only the ignorant Australians would come to America. Again I could care less. Am I pissing away free money probably. But your concerns about tourism affect how I vote not in the slightest.

T2M

Edit: About tourism.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/25/health ... rcing.html

Daryl wrote:T2M your comment about the US Federal Government shows up the contrast between the US and other developed countries. We want to have an effective national system that does stuff, where as your country appears to be defensive about the government having too much control.
Back to the medical situation, it is interesting that travel medical insurance has varying charges. For we Australians it is quite cheap if we are going to Western Europe and the UK, expensive in the second and third worlds, and very expensive in the US. Is this due to the greed of the medical fraternity, the lawyers regarding malpractice suing, or the inefficiency of your system? Whatever it does inhibit tourism, in that you can get a year's multi trip coverage for $X without the US but $X + $lots if you include the US.

T2M the comment was "Why did the US Federal Government have to do this? In your opinion."
Most non US people wouldn't understand that as they would just know it should be the feds.
I'm sure the US won't be affected by people choosing not to go there because of the higher medical costs. I just used that insurance point to illustrate how expensive your current medical system appears to be, why would it affect how you vote?
As to how many politicians our 23m have, the short answer is way to many. Our city has 9 on the council, the state has 89, and the nation has 150 members plus 76 senators. Do they have their snouts in the trough? Absolutely. Are they corrupt in a serious way that hurts the nation? Rarely.
Concerning your comment about how thoughtless Australian tourists seem, we have our full share of idiots and doubtless you have met some, but I believe that the impression may be due more to our national sport of "Taking the Mickey". We enjoy winding up others and US citizens do tend to take themselves and their country seriously so are easy targets (along with Germans). Sorry, we love puncturing pomposity.
I confess to doing it here at times, and know that the joke is often lost in translation.

There in lies the difference. You think more representatives is a bug, I think it is a feature.

So which way is a better representative democracy? A few presenting many or many representing fewer each?

Most the early American Presidents were for limiting the power of the President until they got to be President. Our Current President is the same. Look at his speeches as a Senator and his actions as a President.

As long as things are a person is the dictator no problem with an authoritarian government. But when you aren't there is.

Before I always attributed the tourist thing to the "Ugly American" syndrome. Yours seemed to give it a monetary reason. <shrug> Not that it matters much to me just struck a chord. Maybe a rational reason. <shrug>

Read the link I added in it is about medical tourism. Seemed fitting.

T2M

Daryl wrote:T2M the comment was "Why did the US Federal Government have to do this? In your opinion."
Most non US people wouldn't understand that as they would just know it should be the feds.
I'm sure the US won't be affected by people choosing not to go there because of the higher medical costs. I just used that insurance point to illustrate how expensive your current medical system appears to be, why would it affect how you vote?
As to how many politicians our 23m have, the short answer is way to many. Our city has 9 on the council, the state has 89, and the nation has 150 members plus 76 senators. Do they have their snouts in the trough? Absolutely. Are they corrupt in a serious way that hurts the nation? Rarely.
Concerning your comment about how thoughtless Australian tourists seem, we have our full share of idiots and doubtless you have met some, but I believe that the impression may be due more to our national sport of "Taking the Mickey". We enjoy winding up others and US citizens do tend to take themselves and their country seriously so are easy targets (along with Germans). Sorry, we love puncturing pomposity.
I confess to doing it here at times, and know that the joke is often lost in translation.

Personally, T2M, I think limiting the resources the government controls is a much better option than limiting the politicians. People will choose their own professions. By reducing the demand to be a politician, we can keep opportunists, scammers and thieves out of office. There will always be some, but the more limited the resources to attract those undesirables, the fewer that choose to be a politician.

thinkstoomuch wrote:There in lies the difference. You think more representatives is a bug, I think it is a feature.

So which way is a better representative democracy? A few presenting many or many representing fewer each?

Most the early American Presidents were for limiting the power of the President until they got to be President. Our Current President is the same. Look at his speeches as a Senator and his actions as a President.

As long as things are a person is the dictator no problem with an authoritarian government. But when you aren't there is.

Before I always attributed the tourist thing to the "Ugly American" syndrome. Yours seemed to give it a monetary reason. <shrug> Not that it matters much to me just struck a chord. Maybe a rational reason. <shrug>

Read the link I added in it is about medical tourism. Seemed fitting.

T2M

Daryl wrote:T2M the comment was "Why did the US Federal Government have to do this? In your opinion."
Most non US people wouldn't understand that as they would just know it should be the feds.
I'm sure the US won't be affected by people choosing not to go there because of the higher medical costs. I just used that insurance point to illustrate how expensive your current medical system appears to be, why would it affect how you vote?
As to how many politicians our 23m have, the short answer is way to many. Our city has 9 on the council, the state has 89, and the nation has 150 members plus 76 senators. Do they have their snouts in the trough? Absolutely. Are they corrupt in a serious way that hurts the nation? Rarely.
Concerning your comment about how thoughtless Australian tourists seem, we have our full share of idiots and doubtless you have met some, but I believe that the impression may be due more to our national sport of "Taking the Mickey". We enjoy winding up others and US citizens do tend to take themselves and their country seriously so are easy targets (along with Germans). Sorry, we love puncturing pomposity.
I confess to doing it here at times, and know that the joke is often lost in translation.

Daryl wrote:T2M your comment about the US Federal Government shows up the contrast between the US and other developed countries. We want to have an effective national system that does stuff, where as your country appears to be defensive about the government having too much control.
Back to the medical situation, it is interesting that travel medical insurance has varying charges. For we Australians it is quite cheap if we are going to Western Europe and the UK, expensive in the second and third worlds, and very expensive in the US. Is this due to the greed of the medical fraternity, the lawyers regarding malpractice suing, or the inefficiency of your system? Whatever it does inhibit tourism, in that you can get a year's multi trip coverage for $X without the US but $X + $lots if you include the US.

Why do all of the people outside the US refuse to understand that their low out of pocket expenses and low insurance costs are primarily the result of government subsidies and government controls on medical expenditures?

Also, why do you refuse to understand thatnthe vast majority of the uninsured in the US were illegal aliens.

Finally; Obamacare is not a FUBAR because of compromises with Republicans. No Republicans were involved in writing it and idiot Pelossi even in sited that we had to pass the legislation before we could find out what was in it.

Obamacare is already destroying the current US system of private, usually employment based,
insurance. It will force almost everyone out of insurance but there will be no Federal system with the budget to provide healthcare. It will be devastating to most Americans. The venile,
viscious motives are astounding.

Daryl wrote:T2M your comment about the US Federal Government shows up the contrast between the US and other developed countries. We want to have an effective national system that does stuff, where as your country appears to be defensive about the government having too much control.
Back to the medical situation, it is interesting that travel medical insurance has varying charges. For we Australians it is quite cheap if we are going to Western Europe and the UK, expensive in the second and third worlds, and very expensive in the US. Is this due to the greed of the medical fraternity, the lawyers regarding malpractice suing, or the inefficiency of your system? Whatever it does inhibit tourism, in that you can get a year's multi trip coverage for $X without the US but $X + $lots if you include the US.

May be the US medical establishment intentionally overcharges tourists from certain foreign countries just to keep the riff raff out?

Seriously.

In UK and Europe, medical care is massively subsidized so it appears to be cheap to the patient. It isn't cheap for the tax payers that pay for it.

In developing countries, there is less public subsidy of medical care which makes it more expensive. However; the limited medical infrastructure and much lower compensation to far fewer doctors and nurses makes it less expensive than it would be.

In the US you have absolutely top notch medical infrastructure as well as more doctors and
nurses who are well paid. The US does not have any mechanism to subsidize medical care for foreigners, so it is expensive for you.

Don't like the US medical system?

Stay home rather than screw it up for your convenience.

http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-efficient-health-care-countries

http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5143

Although the medical system elsewhere is subsidised, it still costs less overall. For example, Japan spends almost 60% less than the USA, and yet has an average lifespan 4 to 5 years longer than the US, and has a better return on that money in terms of what they get.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13497&page=3 notes that of the 17 1st wolrd countries studied, the US was the worst in almost every aspect except expenditure. yet you still have poor healthcare, while the more socialist systems spend less overall and get better care. Maybe its time the US tried a more leftwing approach to healthcare.

namelessfly wrote:

Daryl wrote:T2M your comment about the US Federal Government shows up the contrast between the US and other developed countries. We want to have an effective national system that does stuff, where as your country appears to be defensive about the government having too much control.
Back to the medical situation, it is interesting that travel medical insurance has varying charges. For we Australians it is quite cheap if we are going to Western Europe and the UK, expensive in the second and third worlds, and very expensive in the US. Is this due to the greed of the medical fraternity, the lawyers regarding malpractice suing, or the inefficiency of your system? Whatever it does inhibit tourism, in that you can get a year's multi trip coverage for $X without the US but $X + $lots if you include the US.

May be the US medical establishment intentionally overcharges tourists from certain foreign countries just to keep the riff raff out?

Seriously.

In UK and Europe, medical care is massively subsidized so it appears to be cheap to the patient. It isn't cheap for the tax payers that pay for it.

In developing countries, there is less public subsidy of medical care which makes it more expensive. However; the limited medical infrastructure and much lower compensation to far fewer doctors and nurses makes it less expensive than it would be.

In the US you have absolutely top notch medical infrastructure as well as more doctors and
nurses who are well paid. The US does not have any mechanism to subsidize medical care for foreigners, so it is expensive for you.

Don't like the US medical system?

Stay home rather than screw it up for your convenience.

Don't tell them to do that!! They have helped build three hospitals and 6 clinics in my home county. They are also helping to build three or four hospitals in surrounding counties. The same hospital groups that run the two main hospitals in Billings are expanding service to smaller communities. All paid for by Canadians coming down here for cardiac and oncology visits. They don't count as "medical tourists" because they are officially here on a shopping trip. That is because of the lower prices and especially the lower taxes. (No sales tax.)

Well there's the example that I shared with SpaceKiwi. I have never been able to find anyone who could name what actual value the insurance industry adds to the healthcare, nor have I been able to come up with one. The insurance industry has been a big contributor to increased health costs. Insurance companies have had the power to dictate which treatments doctors use.

Yes, as a whole the Federal Government is fairly non-functional. However there are some agencies that are functional, an example of this is Medicare which falls under the Department of Health and Human Services (http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/)

thinkstoomuch wrote:Please Define broken?

IMO the Federal Government is much less functional than the medical system.

You commented earlier about how extremes on both sides are driving stuff from the link I posted. What I got out of it, the leaders are there to remain in power. To remain in power they have to keep there party in line or run in front of them.

T2M

Donnachaidh wrote:I think the Federal government had to do this because the system is broken, the market wasn't fixing it, and almost none of the states were fixing it.

You're ignoring the waste from the health insurance industry (both money and time) and the way it's encourage increasing healthcare costs to increase it's profits.

Here's an example of why it is necessary:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/21/was-obamacare-guinea-pig/?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=10+Things+In+Tech+You+Need+To+Know&utm_campaign=Post+Blast+%28sai%29%3A+10+Things+You+Need+To+Know+This+Morning+In+Tech
If you are unable to get insurance through your employer it has been prohibitively expensive for many years. Most people are unaware of this because their employer does provide health insurance. Because of the Affordable Care Act, companies with more the 50 full time equivalent employees must provide an affordable option (defined as 9.5% of wages) (though they do not have to provide an affordable family option) that pays a minimum of 60% of covered costs. https://www.healthcare.gov/what-is-the-employer-shared-responsibility-payment/


I never said it was a compromise, I said it was what they thought would get through the Senate without a filibuster.

According to the Cato institute (libertarian think tank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute), only 12.28% of the uninsured are illegal immigrants, while 9.65% are uninsured legal immigrants. That totals 21.93% of the uninsured are immigrants of any sort, which is hardly a majority.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/who-are-uninsured

namelessfly wrote:Why do all of the people outside the US refuse to understand that their low out of pocket expenses and low insurance costs are primarily the result of government subsidies and government controls on medical expenditures?

Also, why do you refuse to understand thatnthe vast majority of the uninsured in the US were illegal aliens.

Finally; Obamacare is not a FUBAR because of compromises with Republicans. No Republicans were involved in writing it and idiot Pelossi even in sited that we had to pass the legislation before we could find out what was in it.

Obamacare is already destroying the current US system of private, usually employment based,
insurance. It will force almost everyone out of insurance but there will be no Federal system with the budget to provide healthcare. It will be devastating to most Americans. The venile,
viscious motives are astounding.