There are two pretty simple ways of narrowing the wealth divide. Obviously, one is less poors. Well, then, there you have it! The Trumpcare solution is the intellectual marriage of supply-side economics and Social Darwinism, and a reduction of the number of poors is clearly the goal, and the result!
Regrettably, the other part of narrowing that divide is somewhat lacking: there is no mechanism to increase the numbers of persons in the winner’s circle, on the other side of the velvet noose. But it will more securely ensure their status, so, there’s that! Money to be invested, at a handsome rate of interest, rather than frittered away on food and medicine for the undeserving.
Look to private prisons and gated communities as the sterling investments for America’s future! Because you can always hire half the poor to protect you from the other half. Unless they catch on.
Less access to health care will lead to higher mortality rates. Since you don’t seem to think that means anything there really is no point trying to prove anything to your satisfaction.
Less access to healthcare means more deaths per year. That’s not rhetoric. Your sole argument is enacting legislation that leads to higher mortality is not the same as killing. Who cares?
What does it mean, what I’ve heard on the news, that if it doesn’t get done by June 30… then what? Is that something procedural or just some general target date? It can be voted upon at any old time, right?
The causal link between Trumpcare and reduced access to medical services is established in the CBO report. The causal link between reduced access to medical services and increased mortality is established by the demographic statistics of the past few centuries. Brought to you by the letters “Q”, “E”, and “D”.
It can be voted on any old time. The Republicans were worried that the longer the bill is in the news, the more people will find things in it they don’t like and will pressure their Senators/Reps* to vote against it. The week of July 4 will be off so that’s a whole week for opponents of the bill to mobilize against it.
The House needs to approve the amends to the original bill, right?
I cited three studies (from places like the CDC and Harvard) that show that lack of insurance results in at a minimum a few thousand, and most likely several tens of thousands of deaths.
Then you said, “Nuh-uh!”
In your world, what is the burden of proof required to overcome “I don’t want to face the reality of policy positions that I support?”
Lack of insurance may very well increase mortality rates, as your cites say. But that’s not the same thing as saying that a bill before Congress is going to kill people.
I asked this before and never got a satisfactory answer. Has there been any noteworthy change in the trends / statistics that define our national health since Obamacare went into effect? Life expectancy / infant mortality / deaths per year / etc. Have all those statistics pretty much continued on the trend line they were on before, or has there been some noticeable improvement at the national level? Or maybe (it would be even better) among the states that have gone further in adopting Obamacare than others? Anyone know?