General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHad we expanded Medicare, we wouldn't be in this predicament, right?
Since Medicare is covered under the FICA taxes, the funds would still be available and the R's would not be able to pull this stunt.
The increasingly likely shutdown of the US government could have far-reaching effects throughout the US. If Congress fails to reach an agreement to avert a shutdown by midnight ET Monday, some services – mail delivery, Social Security and Medicare benefits – would not be affected.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/29/us-government-shutdown-services-affected
Yet another reason for Medicare for All, now, seems to me.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)the funds for the ACA are not being touched by shutting down the Government either. The pukes are linking Obamacare to the continuing resolution purely for political gain.
Obamacare starts as scheduled tomorrow no matter what the human Oompa Loompa and his merry band of psycho skidmarks decide to do.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)the Oompa Loompa and his merry band of psycho skidmarks...
demosincebirth
(12,719 posts)skidmarks."
sarge43
(29,119 posts)You're right. If not this, then something else.
OP is right, too. Single payer health care for everyone.
TBF
(33,493 posts)But make no mistake .. these ridiculous lunatics that we call representatives will fight if Obama says "ketchup". In return they'd yell "mustard". They truly will fight anything he says just to be disagreeable.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The ACA is mandatory spending. This budget battle is over discretionary spending. Even if the government is shut down, the ACA continues.
The only way they can stop the ACA is by passing new legislation to repeal it. Which isn't going to happen as long as Obama holds the "veto" stamp.
So the Republicans are trying to delay implementation until after the 2016 election, in the hopes that a Republican wins the Presidency and they can repeal it. (Karl Rove spilled the beans on O'Riley)
If you replaced the ACA with "Medicare for all" starting in the same timeframe, the same strategy could be applied. And likely would be applied for the same reasons.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)doesn't contribute to the deficit. Logic doesn't matter to that bunch.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Within 5 minutes, I was able to convince even the most stubborn Conservative that it would be a good thing if everyone had the "option" to BUY Medicare.
That is because almost ALL of them had family members ON Medicare.
They weren't afraid of it.
More choices = Good for America!
...but a 2000 page Comprehensive Health Care Reform was easy to demonize (the unlearned lesson from HillaryCare) and brand as BIG Government Take Over.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)that said their taxes would be raised? (Cause that would have to happen in order to fund a Medicare for all system; FICA would have to rise substantially).
They don't like them thar taxes, you know.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)I find that line of reasoning works well with local repugs too.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)How do you think they would have allowed an expansion of Medicare to all Americans in the first place?
I guess what I'm saying is, the question is totally moot. It was hell to get even this compromised (but ten-thousand times better than the status quo) bill passed. There was never any way that a massive ramp up of Medicare was ever going to happen.
Plus, as others have said, the shutdown will not affect the implementation of Obamacare. So on that level, the shutdown is the same no matter which program was enacted.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)hate Medicare for all because ya'know the Kenyan in the WH suggested it.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and the debt ceiling debate/REP extortion would still be happening, but under the guise of another project they don't like that is unrelated to discretionary spending.
ETA your OP is nothing more than another flame throwing event at Obama. It gets old.
RC
(25,592 posts)Why?
Responses objecting to not praising Obama, when he wasn't even mentioned get old too.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)this op has a history, and the topic of Socialized, or Universal Medicine or Medicare for all has 100% of the time degenerated into Obama's fault.
Frankly your response is quite predictable.
RC
(25,592 posts)He did NOT mention or even allude to Obama. YOU brought Obama up.
Frankly, it looks like you are seeing things that do not exist in reality.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and the MO suddenly doesn't apply?
Maybe in your world.
eta...perhaps you could clarify for me who else should have implemented medicare for all in the OP's world? The extrapolation here isn't really all that difficult
RC
(25,592 posts)Once guilty, always guilty every time after that? I didn't see it here. The only evidence I have is the OP you are reading things into.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)just as believable of a scenario as yours.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
pnwmom
(109,405 posts)as a hostage someday. They could refuse to lift the debt ceiling unless we either eliminated Medicare or put it on means-testing (which would greatly reduce support among the general public, and would be the beginning of the end.)
SunSeeker
(53,289 posts)I want Medicare for All, but we just didn't have the Dem votes for it in Congress. I support the ACA because it was the best we could get under the circumstances, and it is an important step toward single payer. The government shutdown will not shut down or defund the ACA, as others have pointed out up the thread.
Your post amounts to useless ankle biting that only serves to divide Dems at a time when we must hold strong against the Republican attacks on the ACA.
Trying doing something constructive.
Today I emailed and called (at both his DC and local office) my idiot Republican House Representative, Dana Rohrabacher. I told him that the ACA will save 45,000 American lives each year and he needs to stop trying to defund it. I told him to pass the budget and the debt ceiling increase without any conditions.
I know he won't listen to me, but my calls and emails get tallied, and if we all did this, it would be very clear the Republicans don't speak for their constituents. They won't be able to argue they speak for the American people.
I will never forget when Senator Heidi Heitkamp defended voting against the Senate gun background check bill, that 90% of Americans support, by pointing out that the calls to her office were "at least 7 to 1 against the bill."
Mass
(27,315 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)and then wouldn't vote for it.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)I think we'd have flying cars, too.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)If you count Joe Lieberman, which I do.
http://www.healthreformvotes.org/congress/roll-call-votes/s2010-105
http://www.healthreformvotes.org/congress/roll-call-votes/h2010-165
So why couldn't we have passed a Dem Program instead? They'd be screaming about it anyway and threatening the shutdown, as evidenced by them fighting their own idea.
Oh, and look who voted against it...our WH Friend Blanche Lincoln! You know, the one Rahm Emmanuel said we were "Fucking Retards" to have primaried and whose bacon they saved?
grantcart
(53,061 posts)House Republican picnic and showed them his new car.
Then immediately after the slaughter run up and have a quick vote on expanding Medicare for all.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)
