Having come back after a good night’s sleep, is the conservative position in this thread really that people don’t need or benefit from health care?
Or maybe just get each of them $50 worth of fentanyl-laced smack? So they can play OD roulette. 'Course, with Grandma’s crepey old veins, gonna be tough getting a good spot to inject. Maybe one of the kids can do it, they’ve got sharp vision, good eye-hand coordination from texting and video games. Unless they get all teary-eyed…
AFAICT, Hurricane Ditka thinks a little death rate increase is no big deal and D’Anconia is merely fretting about the rhetoric being used and hasn’t actually taken a position.
Hurr has a point, the death rate will not go up, it is fixed at one per customer. Its only hysterical emotions that get out of control, a clear-eyed, hard-headed point of view scoffs at such nonsense. Life isn’t fair, why should we expect death to be otherwise?
By the way, who do you like for this week’s Medicine Games? I think that sharp-eyed country girl with the archery skills has the inside track…
So, in other words, you expect the number in reality not to be enough to jog your conscience while you’re deciding what to do with that cool quarter million. Not your problem, right?
But boy, when it comes to allowing people the choice of abortion, which wouldn’t approach those numbers, you get all moralistic. Of course, you’re not directly profiting from that.
I notice you ignored the second part of my question.
Correction: the “1-2%” is on the order of 50,000. The total # of abortions per year in the US is on the order of 700,000.
OK, granted. At least now we have some numbers to work with. (Of course, that number includes medically necessary abortions, but we’ll set that quibble aside.) 50K isn’t significant enough, but 700K is. Narrows things down, anyway.
It grates on my soul to blanket-equate abortions (most of which aren’t dealing with anything resembling a human) with shall-we-say inducing the premature death of an actualized adult or child, but if we can get some sort of bound at which human death is bothersome that would indeed be a start.
Look at this https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs-data-visualization/deaths-in-the-us/
It’s only up to 2013 - I could not find any data past that. But: it shows steadily declining death rates and steadily increasing life expectancy - both before ACA (2010) and after. Yes, 3 years after 2010 is not enough to gauge it. But if you can show me a graph from some authoritative source that shows a spike in life expectancy or a bigger than expected dip in death rates after 2010, that would bolster your arguments…
1% is statistical noise in that graph.
Lots of people are dying all the time, so it’s okay to intentionally cause the deaths of a few more?
Strawman. “Statistical noise” does not mean “intentionally caused deaths”.
This thread is about a republican bill which, if passed, absolutely will cause some people who currently have health care to not have health care, and some percentage of those people absolutely will die (and a significant remainder of them will suffer increased hardship, not that that matters). This is the thing we’re talking about, a thing which will cause deaths, and which the people working to passing is know will cause deaths.
There is nothing strawman about it.
You’re taking it as a given that ACA reduced death rates. I am saying show me proof.
Actually, I personally am not. I don’t care what the ACA did, if anything. I’m talking about what the AHCA would do.
Even if we supposed that the ACA doubled the death rate, that wouldn’t make killing even more people okay.
If ACA did not reduce death rates, then removing ACA (or parts of it) wouldn’t increase them.
Are you seriously suggesting that someone’s life expectancy is independent of their ready access to medical care? :dubious:
You have been shown data that illustrates that removing people from health insurance, which the AHCA will do, will cause deaths. I get that you consider 50,000 or so premature deaths to be statistical noise, but we disagree about this.
In fact, what question are you even asking now?
The bill will cause premature deaths - in response to your query about what deaths, show me the deaths. Answered.
The American people are not in favor of the bill - in response to your assertion that these premature deaths are fine because we also let people drive cars and carry guns. Answered.
What’s left? What are we discussing? I can’t tell what you are debating at this point.
Do we each get an allotment? “I’ve got a little list,” now how many do I get to bump off without penalty? 
You have a little list? I admire your restraint.
I’m curious what kind of evidence there is about the effects of the ACA at this early date!
In my ignorance, I think that claims that the ACA didn’t reduce death rates should be viewed very skeptically. I know there’s the Oregon study finding that Medicaid access had no statistically significant effect on health outcomes (correct me if I got that summary wrong), but without a causal mechanism explaining why that would be so, I’m reluctant to put much evidentiary weight on one small study.
As a side note: Matt Yglesias of Vox pointed out, very sensibly, that even if having Medicaid (or subsidized ACA coverage) doesn’t make you healthier than having no health coverage at all – and again, this claim seems pretty sketchy without more evidence – it has a huge benefit at another, fundamental level: you have more money left in your pocket after getting healthcare. In other words, even if it doesn’t make you healthier, it makes you richer.
If you’re poor. And as I see it, that’s what this debate really comes down to: attitudes about redistribution.