HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Actual op-ed headline: 'E...

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 11:50 AM

Actual op-ed headline: 'End Obamacare, and people could die. That's okay.'

Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 07:17 AM PST
Actual op-ed headline: 'End Obamacare, and people could die. That's okay.'
by Laura Clawson

Making the case that it's okay if repealing Obamacare kills people appears to be the new front in pro-repeal arguments. The American Enterprise Institute's Michael R. Strain takes that one to the op-ed pages of the Washington Post, hinging his case on the notion that if the government really cared about keeping people from dying, the speed limit would be 10 miles per hour. The speed limit goes much higher than 10 mph, so therefore the government also should be fine yanking health care from millions of people. Because zomgnannystatestrawman:

Consider this question: Should society have as its goal that the government prevents all deaths from any health-related ailment other than natural causes associated with ripe old age? The notion is absurd to both conservatives and liberals. There are limits to the proper amount of scarce resources, funded by taxpayers, that Washington should redirect toward health care.


The notion is absurd! Ignore that it's not what we're talking about when we talk about Obamacare. We're talking about people not dying or being forced into bankruptcy by illnesses or injuries that our medical system can absolutely cure or manage. If you can afford it. Which many, many people could not until the passage of Obamacare.

Strain's whole argument boils down to "screw the little people," though he works hard to erect enough straw men and redirections to pretend that what he's really talking about is a viable replacement that would bring FREEDOM and not direct so many scarce resources to useless crap like health care. Obviously, stuff like this goes unmentioned:

The end of the year finds the uninsured rate 30 percent lower this year than in 2013. And healthcare spending grew slower in 2013 than it had in the past 53 years. Oh, and the law helped save 50,000 lives because it's made hospitals safer. Enrollments have outpaced expectations, and it looks like the uninsured rate could reach historic lows by the end of this enrollment period.


But, look. Why pay attention to little things like that when you could be embracing the idea that we could repeal Obamacare and be okay with the resulting deaths?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/26/1360233/-Actual-op-ed-headline-End-Obamacare-and-people-could-die-That-s-okay

39 replies, 3716 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply Actual op-ed headline: 'End Obamacare, and people could die. That's okay.' (Original post)
FourScore Jan 2015 OP
think Jan 2015 #1
WinkyDink Jan 2015 #24
DetlefK Jan 2015 #2
merrily Jan 2015 #5
merrily Jan 2015 #3
randome Jan 2015 #4
merrily Jan 2015 #6
randome Jan 2015 #9
merrily Jan 2015 #14
winter is coming Jan 2015 #7
forsaken mortal Jan 2015 #8
n2doc Jan 2015 #10
Jim Lane Jan 2015 #13
Enthusiast Jan 2015 #20
FiveGoodMen Jan 2015 #11
procon Jan 2015 #12
rafeh1 Jan 2015 #15
WinkyDink Jan 2015 #26
hifiguy Jan 2015 #16
Enthusiast Jan 2015 #22
FiveGoodMen Jan 2015 #29
TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #34
FiveGoodMen Jan 2015 #35
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2015 #17
skypilot Jan 2015 #18
Enthusiast Jan 2015 #23
20score Jan 2015 #19
Madmiddle Jan 2015 #21
Mnemosyne Jan 2015 #30
TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #36
old guy Jan 2015 #25
NoJusticeNoPeace Jan 2015 #27
SpankMe Jan 2015 #28
sulphurdunn Jan 2015 #31
father founding Jan 2015 #32
Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2015 #33
Bill USA Jan 2015 #37
winter is coming Jan 2015 #38
Glaisne Jan 2015 #39

Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 11:57 AM

1. Spend every penny on the military and don't worry about those who die from lack of healthcare....

 

sigh....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 02:53 PM

24. And don't worry about dead soldiers, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:01 PM

2. "No one has the guts to let poor people die."

From June 2014. Letting poor people just die off will surely teach the rest a lesson.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/indiana-gop-candidate-no-one-has-the-guts-to-let-poor-people-wither-and-die/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:13 PM

5. Said John Johnston, Indiana GOP candidate, pictured wearing camo.

And then, he defended his comment.

http://posttrib.chicagotribune.com/news/porter/28000445-418/gop-house-candidate-defends-facebook-comment-about-poor.html#.VMZmTC67nLU

The good news is that Dem Chuck Moseley defeated him.

When, O, when will Democrats learn that going left in a red state like Indiana is electoral suicide? After all, Obama only won it once, after many years of going all red in Presidentials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:04 PM

3. As if having health insurance prevents all deaths.

There is no end to how easily people who don't focus on politics can be fooled.

Someone who earns a living driving a shuttle between Massachusetts General Hospital and its satellite neighborhood health centers asked me in 2012 who I was voting for for President. Then, she started dissing Obamacare, on the ground that no one wants government providing health care.

I pointed out that it was not about government providing health care, but about health insurance. Also pointed out that this driver's shuttle was filled all day long with people on Medicare, on state and federal government provided employee health insurance and on privately provided health insurance and none of them were getting health care from government. Rather, they were getting it from one of the highest rating hospitals in the world.

She semi-nodded. I am not sure she got it. Even though some part of her knew that what I said was true, she still seemed to feel that I must be wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:05 PM

4. Even a 10 MPH speed limit wouldn't 'save' everyone so we should all ditch our cars, right?

Nothing the government does will be 100% effective so yes, this is a straw man of 'Burning Man' proportions.

You should never stop having childhood dreams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:15 PM

6. It's not even about govt. Before or after Obamacare, health insurance did not prevent all deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:29 PM

9. You're right. It's a straw man for the wrong topic, even! A double-fake straw man!


You should never stop having childhood dreams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 01:29 PM

14. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:17 PM

7. Funny how the people who think it's okay aren't the ones who'll be doing the dying. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:24 PM

8. Freedom

How does the government ensuring that only the very wealthy can obtain healthcare equate to freedom? How about having freedom from disease to the greatest possible extent for all people? How how about freedom from hunger and freedom from the abusive and exploitative tactics that asshole employers use everytime they can? How about the freedom to get an education without having to worry about being financially wiped out? How about freedom from the political/societal/environmental destruction the sociopathic greed of the very wealthiest is imposing on the rest of us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:43 PM

10. Saw that. Let's apply that same logic to ending the War on Terror, shall we?

Consider this question: Should society have as its goal that the government prevents all deaths from any terror-related cause? The notion is absurd to both conservatives and liberals. There are limits to the proper amount of scarce resources, funded by taxpayers, that Washington should redirect toward defense.

Now that I can agree with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 01:07 PM

13. Excellent point!

You expose the straw-man nature of the argument very well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 02:47 PM

20. +1 a whole bunch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:52 PM

11. In any sane nation, his days would be numbered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:54 PM

12. I read it; my takeaway is that he was skirting around the Eugenics Movement

By labeling everyone they deem as unworthy and undeserving as moochers, leeches and parasites who should be terminated, this writer is spouting the latest version of the old Eugenics Movement. There's something chilling in reading that deranged bit of conservative wisdom.

I imagine this is what sociopaths sounds like; choosing a preventable and horrible, lingering death is the preferred choice over healthcare. I need to wash my eyeballs before the next 'normal' GOPer lacking any sense of moral responsibility or social conscience tries to drag the next perversion out of the dank cellars of the John Birch Society and twisted teaching of Ayn Rand.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 02:05 PM

15. this was addressed 200 years ago

this was addressed 200 years ago
By jonathon swift in his epic a modest proposal

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rafeh1 (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 02:57 PM

26. I always liked the "fricasseed" line!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 02:09 PM

16. It won't be much longer before the reichwingers

 

come out and actually say what they mean: It's time to kill off the underclasses. They're getting very close to that already and it has always been the tenth-percenters dream: Liquidate the "useless eaters."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 02:49 PM

22. Reichwingers is the proper term too.

Nazi-like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 10:05 PM

29. Well ... they'll be fine letting many suffer and die, but

they don't really want the underclasses to die off.

They are clearly planning the return of slavery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 27, 2015, 03:53 PM

34. No, slavery is far too much of an investment and a responsibility.

They want a similar arrangement without the strings of actual ownership, best to toss the wage slave a couple of coppers and let them figure out how to eat and find shelter and replace them with no purchase required if they don't maintain production instantly.

They already have working models of this in Vietnam and India and are aggressively moving in the same direction in the first world, particularly here in the good old US of A.

Independent contractors will segue nicely to day wage slave. Human property would take on the obligations of a pack animal or a tractor and capital isn't up for all of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 27, 2015, 03:55 PM

35. Your point is well taken.

I'd just call what's coming a different flavor of slavery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 02:18 PM

17. The republican alternative to government rationed care is rationing by ability to pay.

 

I had day surgery last month, the total bill was nearly $50,000. It worked out to about $8000 per hour. Luckily, I am insured, therefore the actual amount paid by the insurance company is something like $9000.

Without insurance, the "revered doctor patient relationship" asymmetric though it is (pay what I demand or die) would have bankrupted me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 02:28 PM

18. I think I just found my new "sig line".

From the WP comments section on this article:

"Conservatives are never more sociopathic than when they are pretending to be rational."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skypilot (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 02:50 PM

23. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 02:32 PM

19. What a terrible human being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 02:47 PM

21. If we don't have healthcare

 

than politicians can't have it either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madmiddle (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 11:08 PM

30. It should work that way, with 3 months minimum wage living required before taking office.

A belated welcome to DU, Madmiddle!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mnemosyne (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 27, 2015, 05:40 PM

36. Too short. Give me a solid and hard line year but I'm more generous. I'll give them

the Democratic line of $10.10 after completing 90 days at "welfare" levels. They would just have to "slide by" at what they have graciously legislated as our "overly generous" safety net. We'll see what they come up with for shelter with the Section 8 wait times for their districts and states and safety and availability of emergency housing.

While I don't really like term limits I feel comfortable with regular recertification of this requirement with a 3 month period (one month at "welfare" level two at the minimum wage at the end of the next session of Congress after passage) after either two terms in the House for each subsequent Senate term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 02:54 PM

25. They don't even try to hide anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 03:11 PM

27. This has been coming for some time now...Ernst and the others are preparing people for

the new "tough love".

That some of us simply have to die as there are not enough resources and even if there are, if you dont deserve help you wont get it, etc.


I had a teaparty optician tell me that we have to just accept that there isnt enough health care to go around to everybody, and that some will have to die or suffer as a result.

He said it in a very compassionate manner, prefaced it by saying he wasnt necessarily against ACA or similar, BUT, etc...etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Mon Jan 26, 2015, 03:17 PM

28. I don't entirely disagree with Strain's basic point of balancing costs with rates of mortality.

What the airbag refuses to admit, however, is that the trade-offs of lives saved vs. the costs/mandates of the ACA had been processed and debated, and the decision was that IT WAS WORTH IT!!! For fuck's sake!

Also, his comparisons between ACA cost/benefit and things like "...then why don't we reduce the speed limit to 10 mph to save lives..." are wholly nonparallel ones.

If he thinks the lives saved by ACA isn't sufficient to justify it's costs, then how the fuck can he justify the TRILLIONS we're spending on homeland security-invasions of privacy-TSA body cavity searches-NSA spying and all of the other sacrifices of the new American security state, as balanced against the few hundred (if that) lives per year that would be otherwise lost to terrorism?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Tue Jan 27, 2015, 02:15 PM

31. The temple of reason

 

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy: "if the government really cared about keeping people from dying, the speed limit would be 10 miles per hour. The speed limit goes much higher than 10 mph, so therefore the government also should be fine yanking health care from millions of people." By this logic, if the government really cared about keeping people from dying it wouldn't let new ones be born. Soon after, there would be no more deaths.

Straw Man fallacy: "Should society have as its goal that the government prevents all deaths from any health-related ailment other than natural causes associated with ripe old age?" Who's making this argument other than Mr. Strain? Conservative propagandists are masters of logical fallacy. There is no other way they can posit their soulless arguments without revealing the pathology behind them. People like Strain traffic in logical money changing. They should be laughed out of the temple of reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Tue Jan 27, 2015, 03:14 PM

32. Tit for Tat

 

Using the same logic, If the heirs of the wealthy go broke because they didn't Inherit all of the estate, that's OK too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Tue Jan 27, 2015, 03:38 PM

33. This reads like it was written by the King of the Wood Elves,...

 

"Big deal, they're dying. They don't matter anyway."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Tue Jan 27, 2015, 05:47 PM

37. surprised WaPo would publish such RW non-fucking-sense. Loaded with false premisses.

Last edited Tue Jan 27, 2015, 06:21 PM - Edit history (1)

the Conservative dick says: "I doubt Obamacare supporters would argue for a society that spends half or two-thirds of its national income on health care in an attempt to ensure that every person with a treatable disease or injury avoids death."

by which he is insinuating that that is exactly what Obamacare supporters are willing to support. This is of course utter conservative bullshit. Obamacare, Mr. Conservative dick, Strain, is entirely about getting a better return for LESS expenditures for adequate health care - for the nation as a whole. This is a worthy goal as before Obamacare our healthcare system was the most expensive in the World (about double the average per capita expenditures for OECD nations) yielding barely mediocre results - for the nation as a whole, relative to OECD nations. After Obamacare, rather than the rapidly increasing costs for healthcare we saw from 2000 -2008, we have seen the slowest rate of increase in healthcare expenditures since such costs have been recorded *. And in 2012 "health spending as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) declining to 17.2 percent, the third consecutive year that health spending has held steady or declined as a share of the economy".{NOTE: 17.2% of GDP is ~20% of National Income which vastly better than the 2/3rds of National Income for Health care expenditures which Conservative dick, Strain insinuated Obamacare supporters are really prepared to spend on Healthcare. (National Income is ~86% of GDP.}

Obamacare's success flies in the face of the insinuation by Conservative dick, Strain that the ONLY way to improve healthcare for the nation as a whole is to vastly increase spending (which would be the case in the former system of profits being more important than healthcare results). Obamacare is improving quality and controlling the costs of healthcare.



* http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/01/06/new-report-shows-2012-continued-trend-slow-growth-health-care-spending
New data released today by the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services today shows that national health expenditures grew by just 3.7 percent in 2012. That means that the years 2009 to 2012 saw the slowest growth in U.S. health care expenditures since the government started collecting this information in the 1960s

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Tue Jan 27, 2015, 05:52 PM

38. I'd rather see: Increase taxes on the 1% and they'll only have 1 mansion. That's okay." n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:20 PM

39. So much for conservatives

being pro life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread