Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-14-2020, 08:21 PM
Reply's Avatar
Reply is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,686

Does the Republican party kill more Americans than terrorists?


Trying to wrap my head around the numbers. 9/11 killed some 3,000, with a few more isolated incidents in the years since then adding to the total.

What about Republican policy? Inadequate healthcare, the death penalty, militarized law enforcement, gun control, immigration deaths, air pollution, insufficient nutrition, homelessness, climate change, anti-vaccinations... how many Americans are killed by those every year?

Trying to keep this GQ... good luck
  #2  
Old 01-14-2020, 08:37 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reply View Post
Trying to keep this GQ... good luck
No way in hell. Off to Great Debates.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator
  #3  
Old 01-14-2020, 08:48 PM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 5,950
Deaths due to lack of healthcare: studies say 26,000 per year or 45,000 per year, and I'm sure other studies say other numbers. A lot, anyway.

I would query your addition of anti-vax to the list ... that seems to be cross-political nuttery as far as I can tell
__________________
Science created the modern world. Politics is doing its best to destroy it.
  #4  
Old 01-14-2020, 08:55 PM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspidistra View Post

I would query your addition of anti-vax to the list ... that seems to be cross-political nuttery as far as I can tell
Homelessness is also probably a bi-partisan failure.
  #5  
Old 01-14-2020, 10:11 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
No way in hell. Off to Great Debates.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Hell, it is poisoned even for GD. If a homeless guy dies, how did the Republican party kill him?
  #6  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:06 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If a homeless guy dies, how did the Republican party kill him?
Probably not with kindness. Budget cuts, I'll say - machete-deep slashes to a tattered "safety net". You know the GOP health plan: Don't Get Sick. Austerity programs world-wide kill people. In the US, cutting preventative care and affordable housing kills people. Ethnic discrimination kills people. A party backing such shit kills people. Hi there, GOP!
  #7  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:06 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,745
At best, I suppose one could do a comparative study between the United States and Canada and try to control for political differences to see the effect on poverty- and health-care-inadequacy preventable deaths.
  #8  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:21 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,261
This should probably be divided into two categories: Direct deaths and indirect deaths.

Terrorists, such as al-Qaeda on 9/11, kill their victims pretty directly. The 2,000+ people who burned to death, or jumped to their death, or got rammed by the plane impact, were directly terrorist-caused deaths.

If Republicans oppose Obamacare, though, and that indirectly leads to this or that ripple effect that prevents some lives from being saved, that is an indirect death; ditto for climate-change deaths.


That being said, if the OP is counting since the year 2001, then yes, perhaps more Republican actions led to deaths since the number of U.S. soldier deaths since 2001 in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere has surpassed 3,000. In addition, Republican states also execute some condemned people, although that number is much smaller.
  #9  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:37 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Probably not with kindness. Budget cuts, I'll say - machete-deep slashes to a tattered "safety net". You know the GOP health plan: Don't Get Sick. Austerity programs world-wide kill people. In the US, cutting preventative care and affordable housing kills people. Ethnic discrimination kills people. A party backing such shit kills people. Hi there, GOP!
Spending on indigent healthcare, social welfare, and housing programs have increased every year since they have been enacted. Ethnic discrimination is illegal at all levels of government and in the private sector. Is it your contention that anyone who is not in favor of more, more and more of that ad infinitum (because anything less won't be enough for someone) is guilty of killing people?

Because that seems to be the implication of the OP.
  #10  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:45 PM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,013
Going with the flow of this thread, how many Americans did the Dems kill in Vietnam? How many Americans did Bill Clinton kill with his very public McDonalds habit? Or Mr Obama and his tobacco addiction?

My only conclusion is that American politicians are genocidal mass murderers. The horror.
  #11  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:51 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,861
I have a hard time equating deaths caused by inaction with deaths caused directly. If you insist on comparing the two, then you should attribute a lot of indirect deaths to terrorists in addition to the people they killed directly. For example, if Al Qaeda hadn't attacked the United States on 9/11, the United States wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan. So we could count the approximately 100,000 people who have died as a result of the Afghanistan war as deaths caused by terrorists.
  #12  
Old 01-15-2020, 12:39 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I have a hard time equating deaths caused by inaction with deaths caused directly. If you insist on comparing the two, then you should attribute a lot of indirect deaths to terrorists in addition to the people they killed directly. For example, if Al Qaeda hadn't attacked the United States on 9/11, the United States wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan. So we could count the approximately 100,000 people who have died as a result of the Afghanistan war as deaths caused by terrorists.
Wait: so you're saying that was the start of it all? That the terrorists, without provocation, just attacked the largest, most powerful country on the planet?

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 01-15-2020 at 12:41 AM.
  #13  
Old 01-15-2020, 12:43 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Homelessness is also probably a bi-partisan failure.
It's an issue with capitalism/landlords itself, really.
  #14  
Old 01-15-2020, 03:25 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I have a hard time equating deaths caused by inaction with deaths caused directly. If you insist on comparing the two, then you should attribute a lot of indirect deaths to terrorists in addition to the people they killed directly. For example, if Al Qaeda hadn't attacked the United States on 9/11, the United States wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan. So we could count the approximately 100,000 people who have died as a result of the Afghanistan war as deaths caused by terrorists.
Your point is valid, but it leads to rabbit-holes too deep.

In 1951 Iran elected the secular democrat Mohammad Mosaddegh as its President. This would have completely changed the trajectory of the entire Middle East, but Mosaddegh was overthrown in a CIA-sponsored coup d'état. Should we blame many millions of death on President D.D. Eisenhower? Actually the entire past century results from the action of Gavrilo Princip who killed an Austrian Archduke in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914.


Closer to the present, the U.S. commits suicide at a higher rate than other developed countries — 19,000 extra suicide deaths annually compared with the U.K. per capita rate. But even an avid partisan like myself would find it hard to attribute all of these suicides to Republican misbehavior.

Republican sabotage of Obamacare has already cost several thousands of lives, so answering 'Yes' to OP is a no-brainer. But even that can lead to debate. In the early 1970's Congress voted on plans with GOP support that went as far or further than Obamacare decades later, but D's voted No because those plans didn't go far enough!

Last edited by septimus; 01-15-2020 at 03:28 AM.
  #15  
Old 01-15-2020, 04:38 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Closer to the present, the U.S. commits suicide at a higher rate than other developed countries — 19,000 extra suicide deaths annually compared with the U.K. per capita rate. But even an avid partisan like myself would find it hard to attribute all of these suicides to Republican misbehavior.
I mean, Reagan more or less nuked y'alls mental health care system from orbit, and I'm not really sure it has recovered since. So there is that.

Also a lot of the suicidal angst has to do with a) climate grief (that's pretty much squarely on the "global warming is a hoax ! burn more coal !" and all the "fuck y'all millenials, I got mine and I'm gonna die alone, unloved, unmourned" boomers in power, in the US and abroad but mostly on the right) b) absurd wealth disparities and the utter hopelessness of the poor and lower middle class ; also students saddled with uni debts who can't get anything better than unpaid internships at Amazon because fuck unions and c) coming back from the wars ; at least one of which falls squarely on Republican deliberate warmongering (with another upcoming).

That doesn't cover the entire increase, maybe ; but who in their right mind would ever claim Republicans have made living in America better in any way, shape or form ?
  #16  
Old 01-15-2020, 11:50 AM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reply View Post
What about Republican policy? Inadequate healthcare, the death penalty, militarized law enforcement, gun control, immigration deaths, air pollution, insufficient nutrition, homelessness, climate change, anti-vaccinations... how many Americans are killed by those every year?
I am also going to say the link between "Republican policy" and all of the above is too fuzzy to present a hard number. Even something like calculating the number of deaths due to gun control policy requires me to abandon hard statistics - if you had asked for the number of deaths from gunshot wounds, we could talk about numbers.

Another example, it is not clear what you mean by inadequate healthcare and I doubt such a thing as "death due to inadequate healthcare" is going to have a credible statistic. Death by homicide or negligence in healthcare settings, perhaps.

Even something like death by malnutrition isn't clear. Malnutrition is rarely the direct cause of death - that would be starvation. I would expect malnutrition contributes to the severity of other more deadly things like diarrhea.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 01-15-2020 at 11:51 AM. Reason: or negligence
  #17  
Old 01-15-2020, 12:27 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Another example, it is not clear what you mean by inadequate healthcare and I doubt such a thing as "death due to inadequate healthcare" is going to have a credible statistic.
Some GOP state governments have explicitly prevented their citizens from getting Obamacare; these citizens remain uninsured. I think you can find statistics comparing mortality between insured and uninsured.
  #18  
Old 01-15-2020, 12:33 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Wait: so you're saying that was the start of it all? That the terrorists, without provocation, just attacked the largest, most powerful country on the planet?
No. My point is that the OP was making an apples and oranges comparison.
  #19  
Old 01-15-2020, 12:59 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Some GOP state governments have explicitly prevented their citizens from getting Obamacare; these citizens remain uninsured. I think you can find statistics comparing mortality between insured and uninsured.
According to healthcare.gov you can enroll in "affordable, quality health coverage" "no matter what state you live in".

I'm not terribly familiar with the workings of Obamacare since I get my insurance through work. If you give me a list of states, I can try and find out how many uninsured people died.

~Max
  #20  
Old 01-15-2020, 02:37 PM
TheCuse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Wait: so you're saying that was the start of it all? That the terrorists, without provocation, just attacked the largest, most powerful country on the planet?
I don't see where he said that.
  #21  
Old 01-15-2020, 04:02 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
According to healthcare.gov you can enroll in "affordable, quality health coverage" "no matter what state you live in".

I'm not terribly familiar with the workings of Obamacare since I get my insurance through work. If you give me a list of states, I can try and find out how many uninsured people died.
I suspect that the reference is in regards to the states (nearly all of them Republican-controlled) which decided to not expand eligibility for Medicaid -- that expansion was part of the ACA, but wound up being something that individual states could opt out of. This yielded something called the "Medicaid Gap" in those states -- there are people in those states whose income is too high for them to qualify for Medicaid, but who don't make enough to qualify for a subsidy for an ACA policy (making even the least expensive ACA policies effectively unaffordable for them).

Last edited by kenobi 65; 01-15-2020 at 04:04 PM.
  #22  
Old 01-15-2020, 05:12 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,488
No discussion of this kind is complete without including the notion that the Democratic party supports access to abortion.

I am not personally opposed to a woman's right to choose. However, if one is to construct an argument regarding indirect deaths, and who is MORE responsible, then abortion has to be included in the calculations.
__________________
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
- C. Darwin
  #23  
Old 01-15-2020, 05:20 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
No discussion of this kind is complete without including the notion that the Democratic party supports access to abortion.

I am not personally opposed to a woman's right to choose. However, if one is to construct an argument regarding indirect deaths, and who is MORE responsible, then abortion has to be included in the calculations.
Touché.
  #24  
Old 01-15-2020, 05:48 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
I suspect that the reference is in regards to the states (nearly all of them Republican-controlled) which decided to not expand eligibility for Medicaid -- that expansion was part of the ACA, but wound up being something that individual states could opt out of. This yielded something called the "Medicaid Gap" in those states -- there are people in those states whose income is too high for them to qualify for Medicaid, but who don't make enough to qualify for a subsidy for an ACA policy (making even the least expensive ACA policies effectively unaffordable for them).
Oh, that. I feel for our patients in that situation - we have a sort of pseudo-Medicaid called "Medically Needy/share of cost" administered by the Florida Dept. of Children and Families. Basically the patient is uninsured until they meet a monthly deductible, then they get Medicaid for the rest of the month.

Yeah, I have no idea how many people die while on those programs. I imagine nobody is counting since it would be such an embarrassment. Maybe some day I'll make a pit thread about it.

~Max
  #25  
Old 01-15-2020, 08:18 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
I am not personally opposed to a woman's right to choose. However, if one is to construct an argument regarding indirect deaths, and who is MORE responsible, then abortion has to be included in the calculations.
If counting removal of unwanted or nonviable embryos, don't forget all other surgical procedures that remove tissues which could be cloned. If including miscarriages and stillbirths, then consider GOP budget cuts affecting prenatal care and infant mortality.

How do infant, senior, and general death rates compare in states run by either party?
  #26  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:36 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Oh, that. I feel for our patients in that situation - we have a sort of pseudo-Medicaid called "Medically Needy/share of cost" administered by the Florida Dept. of Children and Families. Basically the patient is uninsured until they meet a monthly deductible, then they get Medicaid for the rest of the month.

Yeah, I have no idea how many people die while on those programs. I imagine nobody is counting since it would be such an embarrassment. Maybe some day I'll make a pit thread about it.

~Max
I'm curious, Max. Your tone here and up-thread seems dismissive, yet you go on to lament the Medicaid Gap in Florida, and suggest that it leads to deaths — deaths that could be attributed to the Florida State government. What am I missing?

The Following stats do NOT prove the thesis that Republicanism kills. (For example, perhaps drug addicts, suicidals, and obese people have a propensity to vote R.) But I'm not going to waste Googles on a difficult statistic, so let's start with this:

This page shows 9 states that have age-adjusted mortality above 849 per 100,000 : Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma. Notice anything red/blue-wise? (There are 13 states in the next tier on the same graphic. Any guesses about the red/blue-ness there?)

Another page shows that of the 19 U.S. states with highest infant mortality, 17 have GOP state governments. Of the 9 states with lowest infant mortality, all 9 have Democratic state governments. (Maybe. I'm going by memory about which states are red or blue.)
  #27  
Old 01-16-2020, 12:12 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reply View Post
What about Republican policy? Inadequate healthcare, the death penalty, militarized law enforcement, gun control, immigration deaths, air pollution, insufficient nutrition, homelessness, climate change, anti-vaccinations... how many Americans are killed by those every year?

Trying to keep this GQ... good luck
As others have pointed out, you completely failed to offer any evidence that any of these things are related to Republican policy. "Inadequate healthcare"? Health care in this country is controlled by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed by Congressional Democrats without a single Republican vote and signed into law by President Obama, who's a Democrat. So if you dislike our health care system, complain to the nearest Democrat. "The death penalty"? President Clinton signed the Federal Death Penalty Act, which greatly expanded the number of crimes punishable by death. Was he a Republican or a Democrat? "Militarized law enforcement"? Which President signed the modified version of the National Defense Authorization Act in 1996, which greatly expanded transfers of military equipment to police forces? It was Bill Clinton again.

etc...
  #28  
Old 01-16-2020, 12:30 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
No discussion of this kind is complete without including the notion that the Democratic party supports access to abortion.

I am not personally opposed to a woman's right to choose. However, if one is to construct an argument regarding indirect deaths, and who is MORE responsible, then abortion has to be included in the calculations.
If that's your chosen metric, I'll point out that Republican policies actually increase abortions. Planned Parenthood, by providing family planning advice, free or low-cost contraceptives and affordable women's health services, prevent far more unwanted pregnancies than they terminate (although I accept thet this is difficult to fully quantify). And when women don't have access to legal abortion, they wil resort to the back-alley clinics. And many of them will die too, as they did before abortion was legal.

Republican policies also block comprehensive sex education, which reduces teen pregnancies, and advocate abstinence-only programs, which don't. More abortions.

And even without considering pregnancies, GOP reductions of women's health clinics (in the name of preventing abortion) increases the likelihood of other conditions, like cervical cancer, going undetected and untreated until it is too late.

And of course there are all the other cuts to the social welfare system that increase death and suffering in the poorest members of society (and their children).

If Republicans really cared about reducing abortions they would get down on their knees and thank the God they pay lip service to for Planned Parenthood. They would help make women's contraception more available and affordable (and that includes stopping their efforts to keep it from being covered by health insurance). They would advocate for comprehensive sex education. They would improve the support system for poor mothers which would make keeping the baby rather than aborting it a practicable option. In more enlightened countries (as in parts of Scandinavia), the pro-life contingent do all those things, because they understand this. But the "pro-life" Republicans don't do any of that.

In fact, if you look at what the GOP do (rather than what they claim to be doing), all they want is to act self-righteous while punishing women for having sex and children for being poor. That's the primary outcome of their actual policies. Where they can't stop abortions, they will introduce horrific policies like intravaginal ultrasounds or the (decidedly unmedical) requirement to re-implant ectopic pregnancies. There is no other explanation other than the desire to torture women. And if they get want they really want, worse will follow.

So yes. Let's consider the indirect deaths caused by the parties' respective abortion platforms.
  #29  
Old 01-16-2020, 12:38 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
As others have pointed out, you completely failed to offer any evidence that any of these things are related to Republican policy. "Inadequate healthcare"? Health care in this country is controlled by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed by Congressional Democrats without a single Republican vote and signed into law by President Obama, who's a Democrat. So if you dislike our health care system, complain to the nearest Democrat.
Funny how you failed to mention that several red states deliberately blocked Medicaid expansion which prevented or delayed wider implementation and access for poorer Americans, nor that while PPACA increased insurance coverage for tens of millions, subsequent proposed Republican efforts will result in millions losing coverage again.

So while "let's blame the Democrats for what the Republicans do" is always a fun game, I prefer to place the blame where it is deserved.
  #30  
Old 01-16-2020, 12:51 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,342
What a dumb debate.
  #31  
Old 01-16-2020, 12:59 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,482
I'm quite sure they do. Their "pony up or die" approach to Health Care alone should easily do the job.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #32  
Old 01-16-2020, 01:00 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,482
I'm sure they do. Their "pony up or die" approach to Health Care should easily do the job all by itself.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #33  
Old 01-16-2020, 03:07 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Funny how you failed to mention that several red states deliberately blocked Medicaid expansion which prevented or delayed wider implementation and access for poorer Americans,
The Democrats chose to have Medicaid continue to be partially controlled and partially funded by both federal and state governments. They could have chosen to make it a totally federal program like Social Security and Medicare, for which state governments do not decide which groups are eligible.

That said, the really important fact that's rarely discussed is that Medicaid is incredibly shitty insurance. It pays doctors at much lower rates than most other insurance programs, which means that many doctors don't take Medicaid patients, which means that many Medicaid patients struggle to get services they need. Data on health outcomes for Medicaid recipients is mixed. If any party really wanted to save poor people's lives, then junking Medicaid and replacing it with something better would be a top priority.
  #34  
Old 01-16-2020, 04:03 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,413

Does the Republican party kill more Americans than terrorists?


Yes.

So do cigarettes, alcohol, cars, Democrats, drowning, animal attacks, and accidental falls.

Regards,
Shodan
  #35  
Old 01-16-2020, 04:09 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
The Democrats chose to have Medicaid continue to be partially controlled and partially funded by both federal and state governments. They could have chosen to make it a totally federal program like Social Security and Medicare, for which state governments do not decide which groups are eligible.

That said, the really important fact that's rarely discussed is that Medicaid is incredibly shitty insurance. It pays doctors at much lower rates than most other insurance programs, which means that many doctors don't take Medicaid patients, which means that many Medicaid patients struggle to get services they need. Data on health outcomes for Medicaid recipients is mixed. If any party really wanted to save poor people's lives, then junking Medicaid and replacing it with something better would be a top priority.
Your argument would be more persuasive if your facts were correct. The medicaid expansion was not supposed to be under the control of the states until a Republican SCOTUS decided it was an intrusion on states' rights. And the funding was overwhelmingly federal. In Maine a referendum to expand was adopted by the voters and the Republican governor chose to ignore it. I assume the new governor has implemented it.
  #36  
Old 01-16-2020, 09:38 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,685
I think that for your comparison to be fair, you also have to include deaths that are indirectly caused by terrorism - deaths due to the drug trading that funds terrorists, deaths of people fleeing governments that have been co-opted by terrorists, and deaths caused by our war on terrorism.
  #37  
Old 01-16-2020, 09:47 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
The Democrats chose to have Medicaid continue to be partially controlled and partially funded by both federal and state governments. They could have chosen to make it a totally federal program like Social Security and Medicare, for which state governments do not decide which groups are eligible.

That said, the really important fact that's rarely discussed is that Medicaid is incredibly shitty insurance. It pays doctors at much lower rates than most other insurance programs, which means that many doctors don't take Medicaid patients, which means that many Medicaid patients struggle to get services they need. Data on health outcomes for Medicaid recipients is mixed. If any party really wanted to save poor people's lives, then junking Medicaid and replacing it with something better would be a top priority.
My mother is on Medicaid for nursing home care. She is getting the exact same care at the exact same facility she was in when she was a private patient. And the outside practitioners that she sees there.... dentists, therapists, doctors, all seem pretty willing, actually eager, sometimes even aggressively eager, to provide their services at the Medicaid reimbursement rate. She gets excellent care and the Medicaid program saved her life and saved us from financial ruin.

So please don’t do me any favors and take that away.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 01-16-2020 at 09:50 PM.
  #38  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:29 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
So do cigarettes, alcohol, cars, Democrats, drowning, animal attacks, and accidental falls.
In Ted Kennedy's case, all at once.
  #39  
Old 01-17-2020, 08:25 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
The Democrats chose to have Medicaid ... If any party really wanted to save poor people's lives, then junking Medicaid and replacing it with something better would be a top priority.
The Democrats had, during the height of the Obama Administration, only 59 votes and it takes 60 votes to defeat a Republican filibuster. (Your post shrieks ignorance but I hope you don't need a cite for that.) To get past the filibuster a 60th vote was needed. With (as you point out) zero Republicans available, the 60th vote came from Lieberman, Senior Senator from Insurancecticut.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
Health care in this country is controlled by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed by Congressional Democrats without a single Republican vote and signed into law by President Obama, who's a Democrat. So if you dislike our health care system, complain to the nearest Democrat....
And the ignorance here dazzles! You yourself, got the gist of it — Zero Republican votes. The GOP knew ACA was going to pass, but rather than making any effort to improve it, they concentrated on sabotaging it. Any flaw that could be exploited, they exploited. Any attempt to fix a flaw, they filibustered. Stated differently, you've got it exactly backwards: The GOP gets full credit for all the flaws in ACA.

And you still neglect to acknowledge that the Democrats simply lacked the votes to pass ACA. To get a version passed favorable to rent-collecting GOP donors from Big Pharma and Big Insure, a 60th vote was needed. You can call him a "Democrat" if you wish. You can call a pig a horse, but calling it a horse doesn't make it a horse. Wikipedia: "However, after his speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention in which he endorsed John McCain for President, [Lieberman] no longer attended Democratic Caucus leadership strategy meetings or policy lunches."

Does this help?
  #40  
Old 01-17-2020, 08:59 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
What a dumb debate.
It is, but we've debated dumber things.

septimus: Don't forget Blue Dog Ben Nelson, who also demanded various concessions for his support. Lots of insurance companies based in Omaha. And it didn't do him a damn bit of good; he got turfed out at the next election anyway.
  #41  
Old 01-17-2020, 09:20 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I think that for your comparison to be fair, you also have to include deaths that are indirectly caused by terrorism - deaths due to the drug trading that funds terrorists, deaths of people fleeing governments that have been co-opted by terrorists, and deaths caused by our war on terrorism.
How many Americans have been killed fleeing governments that have been co-opted by terrorists?
  #42  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:30 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,261
There is also a difference between "killing people" and "not saving additional lives that could be saved."

Since the American healthcare system is pretty screwed-up, let's use Canada as a hypothetical example instead. Canada has a pretty fine universal healthcare system; nevertheless, like any system, it's probably only A-. Now, suppose some Canadians propose a new healthcare reform that would go far above and beyond the current system - a true "A+" system - a truly gold-plated healthcare system that would go to all lengths to save all possible lives and not only that, but rigorously intervene in everyone's lives - everyone's diet, habits, exercise, etc. - to ensure as long-living lives of all Canadians as possible. This healthcare plan would save additional lives, no doubt, but it would also be very socially intrusive and colossally expensive.

Now, suppose that one Canadian political faction felt that the expenses of such a healthcare reform were simply too high, and such a plan just so intrusive, that they opposed it, and the bill was shot down. Does this therefore mean they are morally responsible for the "killing" of 10,000 Canadian lives that might have otherwise have been saved by such a plan?
  #43  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:13 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,326

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
What a dumb debate.
Can’t argue.

Off to the Pit
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017