I am not exaggerating, and I am currently praying my current stomach issues don’t mean I’m one of the ones killed.
This is what I mean when I keep saying that politics fucking matters. It’s not like your favorite ice cream flavor.
And the only reason I’m not being even stronger in my rhetoric is that I don’t know what counts as Warnable in this forum anymore.
Emptiness and despair equals life minus joy plus death.
Yeah, he kinda is exaggerating. Just to start, neither the ACA, nor it’s potential replacement, provide health care to anyone.
Even the Dems on the Hill have dialed that nonsense back, using the phrase health coverage/insurance or similar instead.
Really? Healthcare is a common shorthand for a lot of reasons. Health insurance provides healthcare. Removing health insurance removes healthcare. Furthermore many healthcare providers, like say Kaiser Permanente, refer to themselves as healthcare providers, even though they are also an insurer. The larger industry is called the healthcare industry. This seems a petty nit to pick.
Sorry, but I prefer preciseness in language. Like I said, even the Congresscritters have dialed it back, being careful enough to say health coverage, instead of health care.
What does AHCA stand for again? American Health Care Act. Everyone uses the term healthcare when discussing this bill, and these issues.
Really? Here’s what your cite says:
Did anyone give a shit about the increase in deaths from 2014 - 2015? Did you?
I can’t shake the feeling that what we have here is a massive loss of perspective. How do you feel “if you like your plan, you can keep it” stacks up compared to “we’re not going to cut medicaid”, “We will have insurance for everybody”, or “Our healthcare will have lower premiums and deductions”? Given that those three are kind of the core of what the republicans ran on with regards to healthcare, I think it’s kind of meaningful that they aren’t fulfilling any of them. They aren’t even trying.
Maybe they should be. Thousands will die because of this legislature, unhinged denouncements of some people who can’t figure out cause and effect notwithstanding. Its purpose is essentially to take money away from health care for the poor and sick in order to pay for a tax cut for the super-rich. This is the kind of legislature you’d expect from Prince John and Sir Hiss, and the kind of thing you’d expect Robin Hood to step in against.
Yes, it’s a smaller number when you look at per 100,000 then at the country level. Remarkable.
Why are you asking me about whether I cared about the increase in the national death rate between 2014 and 2015? We are discussing the AHCA. If the cite confuses you, it was provided to back up the math you asked for.
More precisely, that’s what the political right keeps insisting it’s for, and it’s perfectly reasonable to hold them to that position and require them to either accepts its full implications or explicitly renounce it.
Several posts back, I said that splitting hairs over “killed” versus “died as a result of” was a stupid debate. You then accused me of directing an insult to you personally. That sure didn’t seem like you were respecting preciseness in language!
Since you posted statistics that are basically Google vomit, your weak attempt to draw a conclusion about ACA coverage isn’t convincing in the least. I would just assume that overall death rate is a mishmosh of societal trends, from more people living longer because cars are safer, medicine is better, and smoking is down, and more people dying because the massive baby boomer population increase is starting to age out.
Seriously, we have many studies - including ones mentioned in the WaPo fact check article you mentioned - that provide good data that lack of health insurance results in deaths. It is silly to try to cherry pick one overall statistic and infer from it that ACA didn’t save lives. Shall we submit your posts on this line of argument to the fact checker?
A more accurate name would be “wealth care”, don’tcha think?
It sounds Orwellian to call this a healthcare bill, since it takes healthcare away from 22 million people. Wealthcare is more accurate.
Paul Krugman hit the nail on the head in a series of Twitter posts:
Because you said “A 1-2% increase in annual deaths is non-trivial.” We had an increase in annual deaths in that range between 2014 and 2015, and AFAICT, most people didn’t think it was particularly terrible or tragic or even noteworthy. In a word, you might say they thought it was ‘trivial’.
My guess is that some variations occur from year to year based on maybe the virulence of that year’s flu virus or weather-related factors or the change in demographics. Maybe such variations make a percent or two difference in the number of deaths. We don’t worry about them because for the large part they’re unavoidable. But when you raise the death rate by a significant amount just because you want to give tax cuts to the richest among us, that’s where the outrage should be.
How many preventable deaths need to occur before you personally believe it’s worth caring about?
Question for conservatives who are arguing that expanded health care coverage doesn’t save lives:
Do you have health insurance?
If yes, would you be pleased if you and your family lost coverage? Isn’t it just a waste of money anyway since it won’t save your life?
Its going to get complicated. Your brother in law calls to beg money for your niece’s medical expenses, your sister wants money for your Grandma’s dementia. You’ve got a spare $100. Do you give them each $50? Well, what if your nieces condition is treatable, even curable, whereas your Granny’s dementia can only be slowed, treated but not cured?
Where would you go for information, so that you can make the most efficient investment?
And the effect on social media? How long will anyone attend to Facebook when it is page after page of heart-rending pleas for funding? If you think those TV ads for preventing cruelty to animals are obnoxious…honey, you ain’t seen nothing yet!
Yeah, it is interesting that Republicans have completely given up pretending that after they pass this bill people will have lower premiums, better coverage, and more people will be covered.
I mean, some of them will just say that it will, but they don’t bother to pretend to explain how.
Because the Republican vision for health care in America is higher premiums for everyone, worse coverage for everyone, and fewer people covered. And why? So that the Koch brothers can get a tax cut.
Aren’t you Republicans worried about what’s going to happen when working class people in red states lose their health insurance? Even young healthy people have elderly and sick friends and family. So just because a particular voter doesn’t lose their health insurance, how are they going to feel when their Mom gets tossed on the scrap heap?