Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Budget Fight: Why Don't The Gop De-Fund Medicare / Social Security?


Fergasun

Recommended Posts

'm pondering this "House is going to de-fund Obamacare / use debt limit and continuing resolution as a way to delay/de-fund Obamacare".  My question is, I think I've heard the GOP (legislators) for the past couple of years say something like, "Sequestration is good; but we need entitlement reform."  

 

So, instead of de-funding Obamacare which everyone pretty much knows has no hope of getting *de-funded* in reality, why doesn't the House GOP make a statement and de-fund Social Security and Medicare?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to lighten things up some (and to ignore the troll). Saw a bumper sticker the other day.

 

Obama is not a brown-skilled, anti-war,

socialist who gives out free health care.

You're thinking of Jesus.

----------

Seems like a good thread to hijack into a general "budget fight thread".

NPR: House Votes To Slash $40 Billion From Food Stamp Program

 

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted Thursday to slash $40 billion from the federal food stamp program.

GOP lawmakers cited what they said was widespread abuse of the program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which is intended to help poor individuals and families buy groceries.

The vote to cut food stamps came on a party line vote of 217-200.

"It's wrong for working, middle-class people to pay" for abuse of the program, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said.

Democrats cited Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would deprive 4 million needy people of SNAP benefits in 2014. The $40 billion cut — $4 billion a year over the next decade — amounts to about 5 percent of the total program cost.

More at the link, but I think I quoted all the important parts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not trolling at all, just being brutally honest.  Why are people who don't want insurance being forced into it or pay a penalty?

For the greater good, just like SNAP

 

just think of it as your Christian duty (but don't dare call it that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not trolling at all, just being brutally honest.  Why are people who don't want insurance being forced into it or pay a penalty?

 

It's a tax our government is legally allowed to set up taxes when certain certia and conditions are met, it's akin to why certain types of income are taxed differently then others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not trolling at all, just being brutally honest.  Why are people who don't want insurance being forced into it or pay a penalty?

Because when an severe illness or injury happens they usually don't have anywhere close to the funds needed to pay for their treatment.  So society as a whole ends up picking up their slack in higher premiums and fees.  It's really ironic when you think about it.  Most of those who oppose this are die hard anti government assistance types, but the reality is when if something does happen more times than not society ends up picking up their tab. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medicare works the same way (see Hall vs. Sebelius, DC Circuit Appeals Court).  I don't see the GOP up in arms over Medicare.  While we may be a "capitalist" country; we're also a democratic country and Medicare / Social Security certainly are programs that are untouchable in our democracy. 

 

If the GOP wants to over-turn Obamacare the solution is to work and elect 51 Senators (at least) and a President who will over-turn Obamacare.  I see them (like McConnell) give floor speeches pointing to polling about how unpopular Obamacare is and making a (what I think is false) connection between the state of the economy and Obamacare. Unfortunately, they are about a year too late in making the case, and I'm still skeptical that the law will be the disaster opponents claim it to be.  

 

Furthermore, the GOP Is giving up ground if they really want entitlement reform by making the focus on Obamacare.  The truth could be they really don't want any type of entitlement reform.  Additionally it appears entitlement reform would provide some relief to the sequester and it appears the GOP doesn't want to give any cuts to domestic agencies to gain relief for Defense (which seems to be the only constitutency hurt by sequestration). 

 

This is all political BS.  The GOP/TEA party to their constituencies should be, "Be happy with sequestration, work harder if you want to get rid of Obamacare."  People concerned about the debt are about 17 years too late (I think that was when we passed $5T national debt) as it was obvious then where this was headed.  

 

They should also try to de-fund the Supreme Court too while their out it for being so "unconstitutional". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So no longer having the CHOICE to obtain insurance is a good thing?

 

Do you have a choice about having car insurance? No. You are required to have liability in case you do damage that will cause someone else harm or expense. 

 

Obama care is the same thing. If you "drive" your body around and get into an accident or get sick, who is going to pay?

 

You may not *think* you need insurance but you do. We all do. And in todays market, if you are a low income worker without it and become seriously ill or hurt, not only are you screwed, you cant afford the doctor bills which hikes the rates for everyone else and you just became a burden on society in need of food stamps and social security to survive. You know... a lazy entitled bum who some tea party person such as yourself wants off of the system. Have a nice life.

 

Obamacare is in effect forcing every american to pay for their own health care so they will NOT be a burden on others. And you think that's socialist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are against ACA citing freedom of choice, in order to have an intellectually consistent position, you have to support the proposition that no healthcare provider will be required to provide any care (including emergency care) to uninsured or underinsured. I don't think Americans are willing to be that cold, but as I will be paying for health insurance either way, I don't really care. Up to those not wanting insurance. Same deal with towns that have fees for firefighting service. If you don't pay the fee that shares the risk, don't get mad while the fire department sits by and watch your house burn down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are against ACA citing freedom of choice, in order to have an intellectually consistent position, you have to support the proposition that no healthcare provider will be required to provide any care (including emergency care) to uninsured or underinsured. I don't think Americans are willing to be that cold, but as I will be paying for health insurance either way, I don't really care. Up to those not wanting insurance. Same deal with towns that have fees for firefighting service. If you don't pay the fee that shares the risk, don't get mad while the fire department sits by and watch your house burn down.

 

And if that house is next to yours and the blaze gets so big it burns yours down too, I'll be the guy standing in the crowd laughing my ass off. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are against ACA citing freedom of choice, in order to have an intellectually consistent position, you have to support the proposition that no healthcare provider will be required to provide any care (including emergency care) to uninsured or underinsured. I don't think Americans are willing to be that cold, but as I will be paying for health insurance either way, I don't really care. Up to those not wanting insurance. Same deal with towns that have fees for firefighting service. If you don't pay the fee that shares the risk, don't get mad while the fire department sits by and watch your house burn down.

 

You do know premiums are going to rise for everybody as a result of ACA, not just the uninsured, right?

Obamacare is in effect forcing every american to pay for their own health care so they will NOT be a burden on others. And you think that's socialist?

 

In the sense that there are escalating taxes for those who voluntarily choose not to get it, yes.

 

Hoping that Congress has the courage to shut this down.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do know premiums are going to rise for everybody as a result of ACA, not just the uninsured, right?

I don't think anyone knows.  Early returns from the states have them coming in lower than expected.  Also with covering pre-existing conditions you figure they would go up some. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do know premiums are going to rise for everybody as a result of ACA, not just the uninsured, right?

 

A valid criticism of ACA is that it does not do enough to rein in medical cost and premiun cost (as the ACA caps profit percentage for insurance companies, rise in premium is the result of rise in medical cost). The reason for that however is not the mandatory insurance requirements. You don't think hospitals passed on the cost of caring for the uninsured to paying customers and government subsidies?

Health care reform must do two things: redistribute the cost burden of health care to all who are in a position to seek health care and lower the cost of health care services. ACA may fall short on issue two. If opponents of ACA has better solutions, I'm all ears. Defunding ACA is saying it doesn't do enough so let's get rid of the whole thing without doing anything else to address the problem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do know premiums are going to rise for everybody as a result of ACA, not just the uninsured, right?

 

That's the Republican media machine feeding you a line. 

 

Rates for many will go down (or not go up as fast, at least).  Rates for many others will go up.  Particularly people who are all of: young, healthy, employed with a large business, and insured.  There is no "everybody" here by a long shot.

 

You're predicting the future.  Generally not advisable.

 

 

What you have here is the GOP doing it's best to sabotage the track so they can then point to the train wreck.  And they're doing it in a myriad of ways.  Through false info like your comment above is one.  Defunding HHS so they can't publicize it as easily is another.  Targetting for harassment the people who are supposed to serve as counselors to help people use the system is yet another.

 

I'm very interested to see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link?

There have been numerous articles about this over the last few weeks.

 

I just came home for lunch and was watching the cnn coverage on this issue.  The house republicans are really making themselves look bad on this.  They are claiming that the American people have spoken and don't want obamacare.  If so, how did he get re-elected?  The GOP's whole campaign was based on repealing obamacare, and Obama won easily.  I would so the American people have spoken alright, but they aren't saying what the republicans think they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone knows.  Early returns from the states have them coming in lower than expected.  Also with covering pre-existing conditions you figure they would go up some. 

 

 

Well I went from having a no premium fully covered, employer self insured plan to a health savings plan as a result of this crap.     Our insurance was too good so the company would be penalized for providing such good coverage.  What total freaking crap that is.    It's still good and my out of pocket maximum is tolerable, but now I pay out the ass for prescriptions that were no cost before.     I wouldn't even mind that If I believed this mess of a law would actually reduce overall public medical expense in this country.  This will be far more expensive to us all.       I have a friend who owns a flooring business.  He axed a department with 15 people because the profit margin they generated was not going to be enough to cover the forced health care costs.   You think they'd rather have free coverage or a job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easier. ACA hasn't taken hold yet. Not completely.

 

Social Security has. If you were to defund it, everyone who has paid in to it would effectively lose their money. Same thing with Medicare. So, in reality, defunding the ACA is the most reasonable solution. Not to mention, ACA isn't really that good and will end up costing people more in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...