Post New

Largest federal workers union calls for an end to the shutdown, putting pressure on Democrats
In a statement first shared with NBC News, the American Federation of Government Employees' president calls on Congress to pass a "clean continuing resolution."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/afge-lar...

“Both political parties have made their point, and still there is no clear end in sight,” American Federation of Government Employees President Everett Kelley wrote in a statement first shared with NBC News. “It’s time to pass a clean continuing resolution and end this shutdown today. No half measures, and no gamesmanship.”

The statement could increase pressure on Democrats to budge from their stance. Senate Democrats have insisted that they won’t vote to reopen the government without a commitment from Republicans and President Donald Trump on extending health care subsidies through the Affordable Care Act, which are set to expire at the end of the year. Without them, health insurance premiums on Obamacare markets will skyrocket for many individuals and families.

Pressure is building on Democrats and Republicans, of course.

Amazing that people still don't understand why it takes 60 votes. Willful ignorance?

AFGE union calls FOR shutdown end...

Amazing that people still don't understand why it takes 60 votes. Willful ignorance?
****

Sheeple said that lack of common knowledge of American civics is no big deal.

I have long said -- it will hurt "democracy".


:) I'm pleased to see the results.

Flew from New Orleans yesterday. Airports are getting froggy.

More and more TSA and air traffic controllers are calling in sick and not reporting to work.

The lines are TSA resemble air travel right after 9/11 now. Only this time…they’re more or less waving people through. There’s very little scrutiny of anyone boarding an airplane.

Think about that.

The lines are TSA resemble air travel right after 9/11 now.

And we haven't even gotten to the holiday crush yet. What incentive does his nibs have to end it? He said out loud he's going to use the shutdown to permanently close departments and end programs he doesn't like.

Steve

Election was lost due to Bubble Mentality PronounBullying, and snobbery.


Was it worth it?

I wonder if anyone wants to sort of tweak things -- and win

And we haven't even gotten to the holiday crush yet. What incentive does his nibs have to end it? He said out loud he's going to use the shutdown to permanently close departments and end programs he doesn't like.

The Schumer Shutdown needs to be ended by the democrats in the Senate. The House GOP has done its job already.

There was also a ground stop at LAX yesterday due to a lack of ATC people. I'm glad I'm not flying again for a while.

I wonder if anyone wants to sort of tweak things -- and win

No, they don't.

Ponder this: the little d's have 1 sane voice in their party: Jon Freaking Fetterman.

The guy that had a major stroke is the only sane democrat in the entire country right now.

The Schumer Shutdown needs to be ended by the democrats in the Senate.

Question asked previously, is Schumer "fighting" for the small minority of the population that benefits from ACA subsidies, or is he fighting for the insurance companies that fear they'll lose 20M customers if the subsidy ends, at the expense of 42M on SNAP, at the expense of the government workers who are forced to work without pay?

Steve...wrong hill

Question asked previously, is Schumer "fighting" for the small minority of the population that benefits from ACA subsidies, or is he fighting for the insurance companies that fear they'll lose 20M customers if the subsidy ends, at the expense of 42M on SNAP, at the expense of the government workers who are forced to work without pay?

The answer is probably neither. Or both. Whichever.

The Democrats needed to hold back their vote for the CR, and healthcare is one of the few major areas where voters trust Democrats more than Republicans to be in charge. And the subsidies are popular. That's why the Democrats are making the subsidies their ask.

Question asked previously, is Schumer "fighting" for the small minority of the population that benefits from ACA subsidies, or is he fighting for the insurance companies that fear they'll lose 20M customers if the subsidy ends, at the expense of 42M on SNAP, at the expense of the government workers who are forced to work without pay?

Neither, really. He's "Fighting" to show relevance on the national stage. The problem is he's trying to win the pot with a pair of 3's. He has very bad cards to play and very little leverage.

There’s very little scrutiny of anyone boarding an airplane.

Think about that. - Dope

---------------

Remember when the noble illegals could fly without an id at all and sometimes could skip TSA altogether. That was fun.

Remember when the noble illegals could fly without an id at all and sometimes could skip TSA altogether. That was fun.

Yup. And now...just about everyone has that privilege!

Was getting on my plane yesterday and the folks in front of me were remarking how many people they saw buzzing the metal detectors and just being waved through. If the democrats don't regain their senses soon, something's going to happen.

That's why the Democrats are making the subsidies their ask.

---------------

Lets not forget that there is a lot more stuffed into the dem bill than just ACA subsidies. eg restore NPR funding, restore overseas DEI programs, and the like. Even if you like subsidies for illegals, there is good reason to oppose this sneaky proposal.

Steve...wrong hill

What's the right hill Steve? What would your strategy be if you were leading Dems in Congress, eying 2026 and 2028, and attempting to put your party in a good position? Easy to criticize, hard to make a call in Congress and have it work out the way you want it. Maybe we should call it the SNAP ballroom? The SNAP and Obamacare ballroom? It's easy to see that the Repubs will blame it on Dems. How do you underscore that the Repubs are the party of taking things away from the lower class? As an exercise, become a party captain and tell us how we should turn around what you see happening.

As an aside - I did ask on a Dem FB group and decided they were all inexperienced as it was their first time grappling with it and seemed surprised Dems could be blamed. Later I found out I was talking to a group of women in their twenties.

Later I found out I was talking to a group of women in their twenties. - Lapsody

-------------

LOL, that must have been surreal...glad you made it out...

What's the right hill Steve?

"Plan Steve" has been offered, more than once, in threads about this shutdown: don't filibuster the GOP bill. Dems vote "present" not aye or nay. Let the GOP wear the consequences. If the mob likes the consequences, then the Dems need to reevaluate their values. If the mob doesn't like it, the Dems have an entire year to rub it in, before people go to the polls. As it is now, the Dems are hurting a lot more people then they would help, if they prevailed.

Steve

"What's the right hill Steve? What would your strategy be if you were leading Dems in Congress, eying 2026 ..................."

I'm not Steve, but I disagree with him on this being the wrong hill.
Trump and MAGA sure as hell ain't gonna negotiate a healthcare
agreement after a CR is passed. And I am somewhat amazed that anybody
thinks they will act in good faith after a CR is passed. So yeah, this
is a hill to die on. MAGA gonna have them die post-CR agreement anyways.

Hate to say it, take no pleasure in my fellow Americans getting hurt,
but the voters need to really feel what their vote for Trump and MAGA
has done to their life.
Trump is President, the buck stops with the President. If things have
gone to Hell in a Handbasket, that noose needs to hang around Trumps
neck ( I mean that as a metaphor, but wouldn't bother me to see Trump
meet the same fate as Mussolini ).

ACA and SNAP cuts are going to hit what, 60+ Million Americans ??
A bunch of them voted for this. They need to feel it.

Will Trump be able to baffle these voters with his usual line of inane
bullshite ? That's what we are all going to find out, in about a year.

( assuming elections are not rigged by Trump and the MAGA junta by 2026 )

Hate to say it, take no pleasure in my fellow Americans getting hurt,
but the voters need to really feel what their vote for Trump and MAGA
has done to their life.

How does that help if they end up blaming the Democrats for it when it happens?

Trump and the GOP are going to blame the shutdown for the ACA and SNAP cuts. They're going to claim that the interruption to SNAP was caused by Democrats refusing to fund the government, and they're going to (eventually) cut a deal with the Democrats after the shutdown is over restoring the ACA subsidies. So they'll have a nice, easy set of ads to run in 2026 pointing out that if the Democrats had only just passed the clean CR (as they have every time before), none of those bad things would have happened.

And enough of your fellow Americans might believe it to spare them much electoral pain, because the party that is trying to use the shutdown to get substantive policy changes usually gets blamed for the shutdown. So while there's always the chance that this works out for Democrats, it's hardly a sure thing....

As it is now, the Dems are hurting a lot more people then they would help, if they prevailed.

Are they? The gov't shutdown means 1.4 million gov't workers will go without pay. But ballooning healthcare premiums will affect 24 million.

https://www.npr.org/2025/10/24/nx-s1-5581505/gover...
https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/aca-market...

Whatever is happening now will happen whether or not the Democrats give the MAGA party what it wants in legislation. Trump has shown he has no respect for law and the MAGA controlled House and Senate do not have the courage to rein him in. If the Democrats go along with any part of this then they will bear some of the blame. If they hold firm, whatever happens will be entirely Trump's and the MAGA party's doing. That's how I see it.

"As it is now, the Dems are hurting a lot more people then they would help, if they prevailed."

Are they? The gov't shutdown means 1.4 million gov't workers will go without pay. But ballooning healthcare premiums will affect 24 million.

From your KFF link:
KFF now estimates that, if Congress extends enhanced premium tax credits, subsidized enrollees would save $1,016 in premium payments over the year in 2026 on average

$1,016 a YEAR, on average. $85/month.

Dare I say it? That doesn't seem like a lot to me*. Worth 1.4 million gov't workers will go without pay? Friend of ours has vowed to find another job. Tired of being treated like this.

*Mine will be a lot more - about $1300/month...but I can afford it.

... Ah, but I forgot about SNAP benefits, whose loss during the shutdown could affect up to 42 million. In the short term some states will make up the shortfall, but long term it seems that all 42 million would be hit?

So now I'm not sure which is worse for more people for longer: the shutdown or passing the CR as is.

I'm not Steve, but I disagree with him on this being the wrong hill.
Trump and MAGA sure as hell ain't gonna negotiate a healthcare
agreement after a CR is passed.

Of course Trump won't. Just like most of the "JCs" I worked for. They would ask me to fall on my sword, for their benefit, now, for promises of great things for me later. When "later" came, they always had an excuse why they couldn't deliver, and, by the way, they wanted me to fall on my sword, for them, again.

Hate to say it, take no pleasure in my fellow Americans getting hurt,
but the voters need to really feel what their vote for Trump and MAGA
has done to their life.

Right. And the only way that is going to happen, is let the GOP give them what they voted for. And, if the mob doesn't like it, the GOP wears it.

Steve

... Ah, but I forgot about SNAP benefits, whose loss during the shutdown could affect up to 42 million. In the short term some states will make up the shortfall, but long term it seems that all 42 million would be hit?

So now I'm not sure which is worse for more people for longer: the shutdown or passing the CR as is.

The SNAP benefits will be restored, presumably, as soon as the shutdown ends. The health care benefits will be gone permanently.

The SNAP benefits will be restored, presumably, as soon as the shutdown ends. The health care benefits will be gone permanently.

That CR was only supposed to fund the government until 11/15, two and a half weeks from now. Then they go through this kabuki dance again.

Defunding SNAP would be an attractive target for the next go around, except they lose their enforcement mechanism for their forced labor scheme.

Defunding Medicaid would be attractive, except that would, again, remove their enforcement mechanism for their forced labor scheme.

Steve

"Plan Steve" has been offered, more than once, in threads about this shutdown: don't filibuster the GOP bill. Dems vote "present" not aye or nay. Let the GOP wear the consequences. If the mob likes the consequences, then the Dems need to reevaluate their values. If the mob doesn't like it, the Dems have an entire year to rub it in, before people go to the polls. As it is now, the Dems are hurting a lot more people then they would help, if they prevailed.

I partly agree with you, but with different tactics. The current CR funds the govt only until 11/21. So let it pass, force Mike Johnson to reconvene the House and swear in Adelita Grijalva, pass the discharge petition for the Epstein files, and then shut the government down again on 11/21 to demand restoration of the ACA subsidies. This assumes that congress won't pass its regular budget for FY26 by 11/21, which is a virtual certainty.

Trump has shown he has no respect for law - Pucksfool

-----------------------

Not so. Whenever he gets a restraining order, he obeys it until he defeats it court. He has a pretty good track record in winning in court too.

"Even if you like subsidies for illegals...." - BHM

You continue to use sources of information that make you look stupid. Why?

"How does that help if they end up blaming the Democrats for it when it happens?"

lol, of course they are going to blame the Dems. Trump is still blaming
Obama for stuff,lol, not to mention Biden. Rational people don't buy
that BS. Trump and MAGA control Executive, Legislative ( both Chambers),
and they own the Judicial. And according to you they bear no
responsibility ??????

Make all the excuses you want for Trump, MAGA, and the voters, but
Trump owns this. In the words of Harry Truman, the buck stops here
( the Presidents desk ). Let the pain begin.

Make all the excuses you want for Trump, MAGA, and the voters, but
Trump owns this. In the words of Harry Truman, the buck stops here
( the Presidents desk ).

It's not "excuses." It's just past experience. The voters don't always blame the President for shutdowns. They didn't blame Obama for the shutdown in 2013, or Clinton for the shutdown in the mid-1990's.

restore NPR funding, restore overseas DEI programs, and the like. Even if you like subsidies for illegals, there is good reason to oppose this sneaky proposal.

What's sneaky about that? NADA. Your subsidies for illegals means clinics, etc., get reimbursed for childbirth costs by illegal immigrants. I don't want a mom turned away at that moment and want those costs reimbursed. NPR? Well, bargaining chips you can give away are needed. :) DEI overseas means girls get to go to school, and have financial access. My wife's half-sister is an entrepreneur, and while having a spot of trouble now, has been very successful. The greatest and largest pirate fleet in the world was run by a Chinese woman.

Ching Shih : the world's most feared pirate (who was a woman)
The Red Flag Fleet, led by the powerful pirate queen Ching Shih (also known as Zheng Yi Sao). After marrying the pirate Zheng Yi, she took command of his already large fleet following his death, uniting numerous pirate groups under her leadership. At its peak, the fleet consisted of approximately 1,800 ships and tens of thousands of pirates, making it the largest pirate confederation in history.

>>restore NPR funding, restore overseas DEI programs, and the like. Even if you like subsidies for illegals, there is good reason to oppose this sneaky proposal.<<

What's sneaky about that? NADA. Your subsidies for illegals means clinics, etc., get reimbursed for childbirth costs by illegal immigrants. - Lambo

=================

Nothing. But what IS sneaky is talking about the dem proposal as being ONLY about medicaid and never mention the long list of other odious funding that rides along in the bill.

Are they? The gov't shutdown means 1.4 million gov't workers will go without pay.

Just prior to the shutdown I talked to a MAGA about Gov workers might not be paid, but he dismissed it because they always get back pay. This time, with T calling the shots, I think there's a fair chance they don't get paid.

and never mention the long list of other

And what did I tell you? Ya gotta have bargaining chips, the Democrats get to brag about what they saved, and the Republicans get to brag about what they took away.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/10/28/c...

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer brushed off calls Tuesday from the biggest federal workers’ union for Congress to end the shutdown and pass a “clean” continuing resolution.

“We can do both and we need to do both — have federal workers get paid in every way and negotiate a way to resolve Americans’ pain in the health care crisis,” the New York Democrat told reporters at his weekly press conference Tuesday afternoon, when asked whether the American Federal of Government Employees’ stance would change his party’s position.

Democrats are indeed publicly signaling they have no plans to adjust their posture, specifically that they won’t vote to reopen the government until Republicans come to the negotiating table to avert price hikes in Affordable Care Act premiums, which could come as soon as Nov. 1.

Schumer predicted that GOP lawmakers will be the ones under increased pressure in the coming days, as Republicans hear from constituents “aghast at their [health care] bills.”

Federal workers are NOT getting paid. TSA and air traffic controllers are not getting paid, and that could have dangerous consequences.
This is an extremely shoddy way to treat our public servants.

Republicans can still get the blame for price hikes in Affordable Care Act premiums, even if the shutdown ends today. Though why they should when it's simply the expiration of a TEMPORARY measure put in place by Democrats without Republican support, I do not know.

Federal workers are NOT getting paid. TSA and air traffic controllers are not getting paid, and that could have dangerous consequences.
This is an extremely shoddy way to treat our public servants.

Republicans can still get the blame for price hikes in Affordable Care Act premiums, even if the shutdown ends today. Though why they should when it's simply the expiration of a TEMPORARY measure put in place by Democrats without Republican support, I do not know.

No real reason for me to stick my oar in here, but when has that ever stopped me before?

On behalf of all decent Americans (of whom Bruce Springsteen reminds us that there are three for every Donald Trump supporter), my simple message to Republicans regarding the impending health care apocalypse is:

"You broke it——you bought it."

Federal workers are NOT getting paid. TSA and air traffic controllers are not getting paid, and that could have dangerous consequences. This is an extremely shoddy way to treat our public servants.

Agreed. Far more people are being hurt now, than would be hurt by an end to the ACA subsidies, and the GOP ending the subsidies gives the Dems a campaign issue.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer brushed off calls Tuesday from the biggest federal workers’ union for Congress to end the shutdown and pass a “clean” continuing resolution.

Again, who is Schumer "fighting for"? The Proles who benefit from the subsidies, or the insurance companies that are worried about losing 20M customers?

The thing about ending ACA subsidies and SNAP, the GOP probably figures it will motivate the Proles to ask for more hours at work. The "JCs" need to replace all the illegals that have been deported. Starving Proles into working more hours would be their natural way to go.

Steve

On behalf of all decent Americans (of whom Bruce Springsteen reminds us that there are three for every Donald Trump supporter), my simple message to Republicans regarding the impending health care apocalypse is:

"You broke it——you bought it."

Serious question: what of the ACA have Republicans broken?

I ask this as a 10-year user of the ACA, with another 10 years to go.

I ask this as a 10-year user of the ACA, with another 10 years to go.

Wait 3 more days till November 1 and then check prices in ACA marketplace.

Some have even begun receiving notification of price increases.

Wait 3 more days till November 1 and then check prices in ACA marketplace.

Some have even begun receiving notification of price increases.

Sure. Mine is going from $1,487/mo (about 50% subsidy) to approximately $3,345/mo (no subsidy).
I'm not happy about it, obviously.

Prices are going up because the enhanced subsidies expire in 2025.
They were introduced by the Democrats, with no Republican votes, in 2021 as a TEMPORARY measure to help during the pandemic.
They were extended by the Democrats, with no Republican votes, in 2022, with an expiration date of 2025.

Why is this somehow the Republican's doing?
They say they are willing to talk about it, which is obviously not to be trusted, but that can be used against them if they do refuse.

Democrats are using this as an excuse to push back. As Steve says, it's the wrong hill...

Some have even begun receiving notification of price increases.

And why are prices increasing in the first place?

Does it seem odd to you that something labeled as "Affordable Care"...requires subsidies to make it work at all?

Also, friendly advice - citing a couple who voluntarily retired early in their low 50's and who pull in >$100K/year as a pity story for more subsidies isn't going to fly very high.

Does it seem odd to you that something labeled as "Affordable Care"...requires subsidies to make it work at all?

No. Subsidies make things more affordable, ask Elon.

Why is this somehow the Republican's doing?

It's mostly always been a Rep thing, since the original ACA passed 15 years ago. As you say, "no Republican votes".

If I apply the legal standard of sharing the blame, I would say that it's 80% Republican, and 20% Democrat. The Dems shouldn't have put in an expiration date. That's on them. But that the Reps want to ignore it, or even kill the whole thing, despite how much harm it will do is on them. And that they won't even discuss it is also on them.

“If I apply the legal standard of sharing the blame, I would say that it's 80% Republican, and 20% Democrat. The Dems shouldn't have put in an expiration date. That's on them. But that the Reps want to ignore it, or even kill the whole thing, despite how much harm it will do is on them. And that they won't even discuss it is also on them.”

I’d go 80/20 the other way. Did the Democrats put in the expiration date so they could use it as a political football, if they lost the 2024 election?

Republicans say they will discuss it, after the gov is reopened. Hold them to it. But reopen. This has gone on too long already.

Republicans say they will discuss it, after the gov is reopened. Hold them to it. But reopen. This has gone on too long already.

How do you "hold them to it"? They have no respect for the law. What makes you think they'll have respect for a "handshake" arrangement?

I do agree this has gone on too long. And that this is even an issue is astounding. We seem to have this battle every six months, instead of forcing Congress to pass an actual budget. Don't let them go home until they do, recesses be damned.

At this point, I'm not sure what will be more damaging to the Dems. Do they capitulate (and almost certainly not get discussion about the subsidies)? Or do they hold until the Reps flinch (which a few of them are doing)? One is bad optics. The other may be bad politics. I don't think either is good, exacerbated by neither side wanting to talk to the other (and one side claiming the other side are "evil" -hint: it wasn't the Dems that said it).

Having an irresponsible POTUS makes it worse.

I have doubts about the "football" theory. But maybe some bonehead thought that was a good approach for that reason? I don't see any advantage to it. I figured it was some sort of compromise that wouldn't raise the ire of too many voters.

I’d go 80/20 the other way. Did the Democrats put in the expiration date so they could use it as a political football, if they lost the 2024 election?

The Dems can't keep quiet about a strategy. They're too transparent, and that's a problem that doesn't afflict the Repubs

Republicans say they will discuss it, after the gov is reopened.

What is said by the Republicans and what they do are worlds apart.

Hold them to it.

The party led by a POTUS whose criminal defense attorney became Atty General, said "And if some court should issue an order preventing that, we may have to consider telling that court, "fuck you."'

https://www.courthousenews.com/new-evidence-suppor...

Hold them to it ..how?

I’d go 80/20 the other way. Did the Democrats put in the expiration date so they could use it as a political football, if they lost the 2024 election?

No, the 2d extension was a compromise.

Republicans say they will discuss it, after the gov is reopened. Hold them to it. But reopen. This has gone on too long already.

They're fragmented, but observers think they are being hit much harder than Dems, so hold on a bit and hope for a taco.

I’d go 80/20 the other way. Did the Democrats put in the expiration date so they could use it as a political football, if they lost the 2024 election?

Remember the two rounds of "temporary stimulus" Bush tax cuts? The moment they were enacted, the drumbeat started for them to all be made permanent. Ultimately, the cuts for all but the wealthiest were made permanent.

Routine tactic in DC. Claim it's a temporary measure to address an extreme situation, then make it permanent.

Cue Sir Humphrey "camel's nose"..."thin edge of the wedge".

Steve

“Mine is going from $1,487/mo (about 50% subsidy) to approximately $3,345/mo (no subsidy).”

Shit, you can afford &40,000 health insurance!?!

How do you "hold them to it"?

By campaigning on it, constantly. There's no other way. Elections have consequences. Democrats put up terrible candidates with a record of promoting unpopular policies and lost to Trump. Again!

See the Deciding to Win document:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000019a-262b-d83c-...

I do agree this has gone on too long. And that this is even an issue is astounding. We seem to have this battle every six months, instead of forcing Congress to pass an actual budget. Don't let them go home until they do, recesses be damned.

Absolutely agree. Is part of their job to make sure the government is functioning? They aren't doing that. Congress' job rating is at 15%. How is it even that high?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/696722/congress-job-r...

I have doubts about the "football" theory. But maybe some bonehead thought that was a good approach for that reason? I don't see any advantage to it. I figured it was some sort of compromise that wouldn't raise the ire of too many voters.

It was probably due to the reconciliation process. They have to find savings to offset extra spending. Like the recent cut taxes/cut Medicaid dance.

But still, you get my point - Democrats are upset that Republicans won't extend a benefit the Democrats introduced. And almost every Democrat thinks the Republicans have shut down the government. I can't even...

Shit, you can afford &40,000 health insurance!?!

Yes. What's the alternative?

Bronze plan. Family of 5. MAGI over $150,600.

This is what it costs with no subsidies. Welcome to non-government funded healthcare in America.

This is not directed at you on a personal level, but your post brings to mind that one of the many peculiarities (or "economic irrationalities") of the ACA is that there is no asset-testing to qualify for the subsidies.

You mentioned your family income level. You did not mention your net family asset level. That's because assets are irrelevant to eligibility for ACA premium subsidies. (I'm not suggesting you disclose your financials here.)

One of the FIRE or early retirement strategies for people who stop working before Medicare eligibility is to manage their reportable income (there are a number of levers that provide flexibility in this regard) so as to remain eligible for ACA subsidies while getting their health insurance from an ACA marketplace plan.

So you could be a multi-millionaire early retiree and yet still be eligible for substantial ACA subsidies based on how you manage your reportable income.

There are many other issues with the way the ACA was constructed which raise a lot of questions about it that need to be looked into.

Democrats' refusal to pass the continuing resolution seems to represent a fundamental strategic error on their part.

It seems as if Schumer,concerned about being primaried by AOC, figured he had nothing to lose by keeping the government shut down, but that if he didn't shut it down, he would definitely lose the primary to AOC. So it's completely understandable why he would take the position that he has taken (and taking the rest of the Senate Democrats along with him, as Senate minority leader.) A politically very high risk tactic makes sense if it is perceived that the failure to take the risk will definitely have a negative outcome for the politician--as Schumer evidently believes, according to many pundits.

Strategically, and aside from Schumer's personal political future, it makes no sense at all. The Democrats backed the Republicans into a corner that they were comfortable staying in longer than the Democrats would be, and this should have been anticipated by the Democrats from the get-go.

All the Republicans have to do to "win" is to...wait. The only downside politically is if Schumer and the Dems can make the blame for the shutdown "stick" to the Republicans including Trump.

But if you even have people like Jake Tapper calling out the strategy, you have to wonder who is making Schumer's decisions for him.

Possibly the same people that were running the country during the Biden administration? (Obama et al.?)

But if you even have people like Jake Tapper calling out the strategy, you have to wonder who is making Schumer's decisions for him.


Chuck Schumer likes being a Senator. He knows the price his party is paying writ large and he knows that he will have to do a bunch of damage control after this is over *and* he also knows that the longer this drags on the worse it gets for his caucus...but he also knows that if he doesn't stick with this thing that he'll get a primary challenge from his left. Given the prevailing winds of New York State politics - winds that are about to blow an unabashed socialist into the Mayor's office in New York City - he can guess how that election would go for him.

So...he goes forth.

Schumer's best case scenario is if enough red-state democrat Senators break ranks and vote for the clean CR. Already Fetterman (PA), King (ME) and Cortez-Masto (NV) have defected. Five more need to vote for the clear CR.

Two obvious candidates are both Senators from Georgia, Warnock and Ossoff. They're from a very red state and can't afford to be lumped into the AOC wing of the democrat party. That leaves 3.

Some candidates could be Hickenlooper from Colorado, Mark Kelly from Arizona, perhaps a few others.

It seems as if Schumer, concerned about being primaried by AOC, figured he had nothing to lose by keeping the government shut down, but that if he didn't shut it down, he would definitely lose the primary to AOC. So it's completely understandable why he would take the position that he has taken (and taking the rest of the Senate Democrats along with him, as Senate minority leader.) A politically very high risk tactic makes sense if it is perceived that the failure to take the risk will definitely have a negative outcome for the politician--as Schumer evidently believes, according to many pundits.

I used to believe my own side - the "good guys" - wouldn't do this crap, wouldn't put personal gain (or loss) above the country and its people. The Biden administration disabused me of that romantic notion. Would Schumer do that, though? I hope not.

But if you even have people like Jake Tapper calling out the strategy, you have to wonder who is making Schumer's decisions for him.

I saw the Tapper piece. He said the party that refuses to vote for the clean CR is, by custom, the one deemed responsible for shutting down the government. I agree.

Tapper isn't the partisan you might think he is. He wrote a book on the Biden disaster, after all.

Tapper isn't the partisan you might think he is. He wrote a book on the Biden disaster, after all.

Tapper played defense for the Biden admin until the bitter end and released his book only after it was politically safe for him to do so. No credit to him for this.

The WaPo is basically telling the dems they own this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/10/29...

A turning point in the government shutdown
Piecemeal bills are a waste of time. Just fund the whole government.

The right answer is to reopen the government with a clean funding bill, ideally for a full year, to get food stamps flowing and federal workers back in the office, and then have a debate about ACA subsidies. Democrats openly acknowledge that they refuse to do this because it would mean giving up their leverage. If they persist, it could mean families start to go hungry.

Which is a remarkable thing for the WaPo to come out and even hint at. Maybe the worm is finally turning in the mainstream media.

Adrian, I think you're off the track-

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday said the GOP’s accusation that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) shut down the federal government to stop himself from being challenged in a primary election was “such an insane suggestion.”

“In fact, it speaks to how desperate [congressional Republicans] are,” Ocasio-Cortez said at a CNN town hall with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). “This claim has been — House Speaker Mike Johnson‘s (R-La.) been saying this, [Senate Majority Leader] John Thune (R-S.D.) has been saying this. They are saying this because they are refusing to do their job. They‘re grasping for straws.”

Adrian, I think you're off the track-

Hope so. I hope Schumer wouldn't be doing it to stop from being primaried.

But, back in March, Schumer said:
"I have said many times there are no winners in a government shutdown".

“I believe it is my job to make the best choice for the country, to minimize the harms to the American people. Therefore, I will vote to keep the government open and not shut it down.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday said the GOP’s accusation that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) shut down the federal government to stop himself from being challenged in a primary election was “such an insane suggestion.”


------------

Note that she did not pledge to stay out of the Senate race if Schumer stays in it.

Note that she did not pledge to stay out of the Senate race if Schumer stays in it.

Note this: BFD

But, back in March, Schumer said:
"I have said many times there are no winners in a government shutdown".

“I believe it is my job to make the best choice for the country, to minimize the harms to the American people. Therefore, I will vote to keep the government open and not shut it down.”

Times change and his caucus probably showed a need to be seen as "doing something", and the gambit is that Dems aren't harmed and the Republicans look bad. So far it's that way, but it can't go on much longer without switching.

Is part of their job to make sure the government is functioning? They aren't doing that. Congress' job rating is at 15%.

I have often mused that a simple ballot change will fix a lot of this. Have a box for "none of the above". If "none of the above" wins, all candidates on that ballot for that office are disqualified, and there has to be a new election with different candidates.

As it is, the job rating doesn't matter because on election day, you have very little choice. You vote for the bums with the low ratings, or you don't show up to vote at all (which is arguably worse).

Democrats are upset that Republicans won't extend a benefit the Democrats introduced.

I don't think that's quite right. They're upset that the Reps won't even discuss it. Neither side is talking to the other right now. They just point fingers at each other. I just read that Thune(?) exploded saying words to the effect of "we had 13 votes, and your team voted 'no' every time". What's the definition of insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result? If you aren't even talking to them, trying to reach some compromise, then you're just bullying or insane (or both). Government used to be about compromise. Give a little to get a little. No more, apparently.

Yes. What's the alternative?

Self-fund. It's a bit risky, depending on the health of your family. But, at some point, it may be worth it to pay yourself those premiums in a "safe" account that pays a bit of interest or dividend, and draw money from it as needed for medical stuff. Keep adding to it year after year, using it only for medical stuff. The longer you do that, the less risk you have as the account builds up enough to cover major medical expenses.

Would you be eligible for an HSA? Don't know the details about self-employment. That would have tax advantages.

Self-fund. It's a bit risky, depending on the health of your family. But, at some point, .... ...at some point it's going to bankrupt a constant, huge number of households.

A bit risky is a bit of an understatement.

Cancer has been one of the top two leading causes of death in the United States for over 75 years. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), nearly 40.5% of all Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives.

I stopped trying to count the probable cost of my wife's oncologic expenses. Thank dog she had Kaiser through her job. Even in remission there are biannual labs and onc visits, thank dog for Medicare and our Private supplemental insurance. Whatever it goes up to through Covered California, it'll be worth it.

A lot of people in our Lymphoma/Leukemia social media support groups are/were not as fortunate, losing everything in their fight for remission, pleading with the drug companies for a break on mibs and mabs. Tapped out, some write a wistful "Now what do I do". Some just stop posting, and we know what that means.

40.5% !

A bit risky is a bit of an understatement.

As I said, depending on the health of his family. Plus, as I recall, he is approaching Medicare age (maybe a few years behind me?).

In your case, it would be crazy to do it. In my case, as well. And there is the risk of the unexpected (e.g. accident, stroke, whatever).

In the end, it's all a gamble. You're betting you're going to get sick, and the insurance is betting you won't (with odds adjustments via premiums).

$40K per year is a lot if everyone is healthy. It may also be worth it for his peace of mind. I won't speak for him.

I don't know all his details, but if I were him, I would push my wife to move back to England. They get actual medical care there when needed, regardless of ability to pay. Just read an article yesterday that for many expats, once they lived somewhere else (e.g. attended university overseas) they couldn't imagine coming back here to this hellhole (guns and shootings, no healthcare, a political system that is broken and possibly can't be fixed, etc).

onepoorguy: Self-fund. It's a bit risky, depending on the health of your family. But, at some point, it may be worth it to pay yourself those premiums in a "safe" account that pays a bit of interest or dividend, and draw money from it as needed for medical stuff.

That reminds me of Steve Martin's opening monologue for the 2003 Academy Awards (which I stumbled across a week ago), a year when the industry was facing layoffs. Martin advised the audience at one point that they should be like Tom Cruise: “You should do what Tom Cruise does. At the end of each week, he takes a million dollars and just puts it away. And then at the end of the year, you’ve got a little cushion.”

Here's what self-funding gets you with an advanced cancer: docetaxel (a chemotherapy drug), degarelix, and zoledronic acid run about $27,000 a month. Add in darolutamide at $15,000 a month and you're looking at $42,000 a month until your six rounds of chemo are done. Then you're only paying $30,000 a month for the next 24-30 months. After that, you're still paying $15,000 a month until darolutamide stops working.

Now add in office visits (weekly for at least the first few months), other prescriptions, bloodwork and the occasional MRI or PET scan (up to $14,000, depending on where you live) and, well, umm, you get it, right?

Self-funding only works if you don't have a major medical event.

Or you're Tom Cruise.

Would you be eligible for an HSA? Don't know the details about self-employment. That would have tax advantages.

Yes. We all dislike the OBBB, yet there is one good thing - it allows us finally to have an HSA account with our high-deductible Bronze plan. Previously our plan's deductible was *too high* to qualify for an HSA. Go figure.

Others gave good arguments against self-funding. Short anecdote: my former business partner wasn't sick but was worried about health insurance. He decided to take a job with one of our clients, a government entity. Some years later he developed kidney, then lung cancer, and early-retired. His current medication costs over $30k/month. The few hours a month he still works for me, when he feels up to it, isn't going to cover that.

A catastrophic plan might be an option if it gives us the provider discounts we get now.
Example: lab work: billing $360, insurance paid $0 (deductible not met), we paid $73 (insurance rate for the service).

Moving to the UK? Not an option. Kid 1 is an M1 (med school). Kid 2 sophomore. Kid 3 will be a freshman next year. Mrs.C. doesn't like the food! Or the climate.

My wife has also struggled with lymphoma. We’re on five years now. She was hospitalized for two months before her first diagnosis (if they sent her home she’d be dead). She was hospitalized for a month during her BMT to treat her recurrence. In between she was hospitalized dozens of times for chemotherapy and complications. I have a record of billing that brings the total cost to close to a million.

This seems exceptional, but no. My brother had lymphoma too. It was unresponsive to standard treatment, so Car T cell therapy saved him. One tiny bag of genetically engineered cells costs over $100,000. He too is a million dollar man. Lymphoma is one of the most common, and most treatable, cancers.

You cannot self fund health insurance unless your plan is to never get cancer.

My wife has also struggled with lymphoma. We’re on five years now.

We got the DX in '03 when we were middle-aged. The Kaiser onc said 6 years! Occasional Rituxan has kept it in check.... but not CR.

22 yrs later, we're officially old. She just took off to the beach to meet her fast lady friends for their daily 5 mile fast walk.

We thought Rituxan was pricey at $15k a pop... CAR-T averages $500k ?

Jackie Kennedy Onassis lived 5 yrs after she was dx'd. All the kings horses and all the kings men at her disposal couldn't do what cancer research did in the next 20 years (fuck trump).

Down a rabbit hole: I'd urge all y'all to check out the wiki bio of Jackie O for the work she did to preserve and improve the historical value of the White House and its contents! It's quite relevant to current events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Kennedy_O...

Moving to the UK? Not an option. Kid 1 is an M1 (med school). Kid 2 sophomore. Kid 3 will be a freshman next year. Mrs.C. doesn't like the food! Or the climate.

If freshman and sophomore in college, that doesn't seem to be a problem. Dorms, roommates...that seems easily solvable. Move the kids, and that is probably even better. UK has some great schools. Just read a story by a guy who went to the UK for school, and by the time he graduated he never wanted to return to the US. Your kids might experience the same. Good healthcare, little risk of being shot, good transit (so save money on a car)...I forget the other stuff he talked about.

And the food in the UK has improved substantially. You can get almost anything there now (except good Mexican food...at least I didn't find any). We've visited London a few times, and there is wonderful food to be had. From traditional fish & chips to Italian to Indian...we even found a Nepalese place that was really good.

Climate is another matter. But with this country flushing itself down the toilet, and healthcare becoming unaffordable, one may have to compromise for practicality. If I could move, I would. Canada, UK, maybe even Portugal. But nobody wants retired Americans because they are generally older, and will require more healthcare (which we haven't paid into their system in our working lives). At the minimum we'd have to put up a bond to cover medical for several years (I believe Canada has that option, since our buying stuff in Canada would result in us paying VAT, which is how they fund their system...so eventually we would contribute "enough"). The bond is not insignificant (something like half a mill USD).

If things keep going as they are, we could end up in a situation of the Jews fleeing Germany in the early 30s. Get out while you can, or be trapped (or worse). Right wing authoritarians don't suffer liberals -or any opposition- for long.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.