They cut funding for essential healthcare to give money to people who are already rich. This is not disputable. While they may have had other alleged motivations, we can only infer those; the bill, if passed, will kill Americans and make rich people richer.
These are facts. And if you’re ready to concede the battle on facts, truth, and knowledge, then they have already won, and you certainly don’t belong on **this **messageboard.
The only difference is that they did it this time with an expectation that the President would support them. But your argument is that these Reps had already established their evil credentials? I’ll count that as agreeing with my debate proposition.
We can’t give anything to you, you’re poor and therefore irresponsible. So we’ll give even more money to your boss and maybe, just maybe, he’ll throw a little something your way.
Yeah, he doesn’t ID that money coming in to see if it came from his district. Bet he doesn’t check the IDs of lobbyists who come through his door either.
But here’s the deal: they could easily educate themselves about this, and one could make an argument that they’re morally obligated to do so. Representing people in their districts who are living this sort of life is, after all, part of their day job.
IMHO, that they choose not to is a moral failing on their part, obligation or no.
And the numbers on the earlier version of the AHCA were pretty stunning: loss of coverage for ~24 million people. And the version that passed the House is clearly worse than the version that they didn’t bring up for a vote several weeks ago. They have no excuse for failing to realize the harm that this bill will cause if it becomes law.
What happens when we calculate the death rate after excluding all external causes of morbidity (ICD-10 codes for deaths caused by drugs, alcohol, assault, suicide, and accidents — in short, anything that is not due to an internal illness)? For the decade 2004-2013, the death rate is 247.4 people per 100,000 population. It is more stable than the all-cause death rate, with a low of 244.7, a high of 249.9, and a standard deviation of 1.7.
With Obamacare extending insurance to 15 million more people, this death rate should fall to 238 per 100,000. The 2014-15 data show the actual reported death rate among U.S. adults, excluding external causes, is … 252.9.*
Facts > Scare Mongering
This is damn near a sensible article, right up until he goes to interpret the statistics, where he goes fucking snooker loopy. We’re going off one year of data seeing a very minor increase in a noisy chart, and claiming causation based off of a weak correlation that makes no sense on its face - not so much “vaccines cause autism” as “vaccines cause shaken baby syndrome”. The headline is, of course, complete crap.
Meanwhile, news sources not pushing an agenda actually look at potential causes that are:
A) In the data
and
B) not fucking nuts:
Facts are absolutely > Scare Mongering. Your post is a perfect example of the latter, complete with cherry picked stats. The author took almost 40% of the population out of his sample (only included 15-64). He used only a decade for his standard deviation. Fixing both of those and using ALL of the CDC’s data, gives you a mean mortality rate, without external causes, of 765.8, with a standard deviation of 21.9. 2015’s mortality rate is less than half a standard deviation from the mean.
The author also dropped this conveniently ignored bit in too:
[QUOTE=Dope’s Scare Mongering “Cite”]
We know that the same year Obamacare’s insurance expansion provisions took effect, there was** a pronounced, and statistically significant, surge in U.S. adult mortality**. We know the surge in mortality remains after removing drug-related deaths,and other external morbidity causes, from the statistics. That is all we know. The rest is speculation. But it is fascinating speculation.
[/QUOTE]
Bolding mine. That statement requires a “for certain statistics” added on. An article that openly states correlation does not equal causation, then ends by all but openly blaming Obamacare, isn’t exactly a unbiased view. Does it raise a valid point for study? Yes. Does it support your view in any way, shape, or form? Not by the longest of shots.
