Anonymous #1 3d

It’s fully political. They have about $6 billion in emergency funds and had to be sued by half the states for them to use it.

10

Anonymous OP 3d

it’s not purely political. There are real legal and budgetary limits on what the USDA can do without congressional appropriations. The Antideficiency Act strictly prohibits spending unappropriated money, and violating it can bring criminal liability for officials.

1

Anonymous OP 3d

I agree with you. It’s wrong and abhorrent benefits are pulled under the rug, but let’s make sure blame is properly dished out to ALL those responsible for it. The president has influence yes, but the congress ultimately holds the key in passing resolution to end the shutdown and provide future allotments for continuing SNAP funding in the event of a shutdown. Congress does not get enough blame.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

It’s not a both sides issue though. The opposition party is just opposing the budget to get funding for programs that help their constituents. The majority is refusing to compromise, create a bipartisan resolution, or even call a vote while they’re using every federal government website to attack and blame the other side.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

The Republican Party could compromise for their demands of ACA and SNAP extensions but are choosing not to. They have sent the exact same bill to the floor to vote on 13 times and are expecting a different response/using it as a talking point. They are trying to hold poor people hostage to make democrats sign a partisan budget bill

1

Anonymous OP 2d

The democratic party could compromise on their demands as well. One could use the same argument.

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Is this a fight really worth fighting for ?

1

Anonymous #1 2d

Compromise to cutting Medicaid for millions of Americans? That will end up killing thousands and bankrupting mostly rural hospitals whose main source of income comes from Medicaid. The democrats have one demand they want and it is not cutting Medicaid!

1

Anonymous OP 2d

The issue is Medicaid for those with non legal status.

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Again , it is never simple as blaming ONE. Your claims simplifies some nuance. For instance You need to fully capture the procedural and institutional constraints (Senate 60-vote threshold, filibuster rules, internal GOP caucus divisions). Can you specify which demands for ACA/health care Republicans are insisting on — the “compromise” is vague.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

Illegal immigrants cannot get Medicaid! The republicans have not given any other bill to vote on besides the original bill. That is not compromising at all.

1

Anonymous OP 2d

My mistake I should clarify. Those with illegal status are ineligible. Right. However, there are limited exceptions where federal funds can still indirectly pay for their care. Some Hospitals can be reimbursed through Medicaid for emergency room treatment of anyone regardless of status. So technically, a portion of federal Medicaid dollars can end up paying for emergency medical costs of undocumented immigrants & other Public health programs linked to Medicaid. That’s where the contention is.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

And do you disagree they shouldn’t be able to receive healthcare? They have to pay for it btw and if they can’t some states will mandate that they be arrested and possibly deported. Having the option for emergency healthcare no matter status shouldn’t be a debate and it’s a minuscule amount of the budget that would go to them.

1

Anonymous OP 2d

They should receive it yes in my personal opinion. What I’m trying to do is represent the issue as fully as I can. Ensuing that people understand the complexity that is the US government. Things are never as simple as. “it’s because [insert opposition] is evil” The Senate is one body and everyone involved takes some blame..

1

Anonymous #1 2d

I get that you don’t want your party to be attacked but the republicans are the ones wanting to cut Medicaid by ~1 trillion over the next ten years. This will effectively kill thousands and bankrupting hundreds of hospitals. Blaming it on both sides when one opposes this doesn’t make sense. Maybe there should be more regulations around it but cutting funding is not how you regulate it

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Firstly I am not a Republican, nor a Democrat. I am of my own beliefs. Cooperation over partisanship. Now you’re right, the GOPs position is to reduce funding. But I think it’s worth asking what does that mean, how is money going to be cut and where does it apply. We need to understand the full scope. Their position cannot simply be explained “They want to cut Medicaid by billions”. There’s more, so much more complexity, and people need to understand.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Their argument is philosophical, fiscal and ideological

1

Anonymous #1 1d

by converting Medicaid into block grants or per-capita caps, Republicans argue: “States will innovate, reduce waste, and make the program more efficient.” They believe this would slow the growth of entitlement spending, reduce the federal deficit, and give states flexibility to design programs tailored to their populations.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Medicaid now covers ~85 million Americans and makes up over 10% of the federal budget. So the $1 trillion reduction is framed not as a “cut” in existing benefits, but as a slower growth rate meaning future spending would increase, just not as quickly.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Whatever you want to frame it as if the “cut” goes through along with all other insurance policies insurance costs will double-triple. Also the states will indicate idea is about as stupid as trickle down economics, they will just cut people or reduce money per person if they are given less money.

1