DOJ Asking Courts to Strike down ACA, Protections for Preexisting Conditions, etc

[AeneasBK]

So, what you are really saying, is that you want crime to spike?

I fleshed it out a bit more. I could understand the correlation between higher poverty and higher crime. Less healthcare and higher crime is too nuanced so in turn you might wanna explain what you mean.

[DarkTZeratul]

I know I'm not picking a popular position; and for whatever reason people would rather have access to healthcare than education. I just think that's a syptom of the lack of the latter :P

If people can't afford education, they'll have fewer opportunities in life. If people can't afford healthcare, they'll die. No shit people would rather have access to healthcare than education.

[AeneasBK]

If people can't afford education, they'll have fewer opportunities in life. If people can't afford healthcare, they'll die. No shit people would rather have access to healthcare than education.

I mean, I don't know what mortality rates are like where you're from but I'm guessing most people get through most of their lives without needing life-saving treatment.

Maybe I'm part of the super lucky margin of people who weren't struck down with fatal illness before I hit 30. Otherwise, hyperbole much? I'd also imagine (note I'm fully away this is all 'in my head') that a better educated society is more likely to be a healthier one and a more health conscious one.

I'm not trying to suggest this is a society that has done away with healthcare altogether.

[Jastall]

. . .The ones who are too poor. . .

I get that its a contemptible position to hold. Like I say though I'd compensate the social contract by offering in it's stead the best education available to all, and the safest environment to raise children or be raised in. Give people the best opportunities to make something of their lives (which frankly a lot of state education systems do not manage); rather than promising to keep them alive if they get sick but they're gonna stay poor all their life.

Yes I'm probably ignorantly correlating education and opportunity. Its obviously a much more complex topic than I should approach. It's like the "would you rather be blind or deaf" I know I'm not picking a popular position; and for whatever reason people would rather have access to healthcare than education. I just think that's a syptom of the lack of the latter :P

Like Orbitus say, you just created a massive crime spike, and if you think the average joe is contemptuous of politicians now, wait until they tell him he's too poor to matter and it's fine if he or his kids die of preventable diseases, but hey, we just invested more in police and free universities or whatever! And that's just scratching the surface of the dire consequences this would have.

So yeah, you can have your opinions and it's your right, but I sure hope nobody takes said opinions into account.

[Powerogue]

So...right after Barr actually managed some degree of damage control with his Mueller sparknotes, Trump decides to go and render it meaningless by doing one of the few things guaranteed to ensure he will be unelectable in 2020.

Yep. Sounds about right.

"I could go out and shoot someone and not lose voters." It seems like he's putting that to the test. I wonder how many of his followers will actually be insane enough to die before considering that maybe, possibly, he lied to them a little bit.

[AeneasBK]

Like Orbitus say, you just created a massive crime spike, and if you think the average joe is contemptuous of politicians now, wait until they tell him he's too poor to matter and it's fine if he or his kids die of preventable diseases, but hey, we just invested more in police and free universities or whatever! And that's just scratching the surface of the dire consequences this would have.

So yeah, you can have your opinions and it's your right, but I sure hope nobody takes said opinions into account.

So this crime spike is literally just "people would riot if you took free healthcare away" or is there actually data or evidence that a less healthy society is a more criminal one (as opposed to the blanket "a less wealthy society is a more criminal one")?

Yes, and by perpetuating a two tiered education system they are telling them that they are too poor to matter, and its fine if they spend their entire lives and their children spend their entire lives at the bottom of the heap, because all the places further up the ladder are reserved for the ones with better options.

All it's saying btw is if he wants his kids to not die of preventable diseases he's going to have to pay for the treatment himself.

[DarkTZeratul]

I mean, I don't know what mortality rates are like where you're from but I'm guessing most people get through most of their lives without needing life-saving treatment.

Maybe I'm part of the super lucky margin of people who weren't struck down with fatal illness before I hit 30. Otherwise, hyperbole much? I'd also imagine (note I'm fully away this is all 'in my head') that a better educated society is more likely to be a healthier one and a more health conscious one.

Do you go to the doctor regularly? Do you take medicine for any light illnesses that you have? Because if you do, then you've probably fixed a lot of minor health problems before they became life-threatening problems.

And, of course, that's just on the low end for things that are relatively inexpensive that a lot of people can usually manage to afford. Anything that is life-threatening is absolutely unaffordable for anyone who either doesn't have insurance or isn't incredibly rich. Rolled a 1 on the cancer lottery? Well, you either spend tens of thousands of dollars on treatments, or you die. Being better educated about your cancer will do fuck all to fix that.

All it's saying btw is if he wants his kids to not die of preventable diseases he's going to have to pay for the treatment himself.

It is absolutely abhorrent to advocate that people - not just people, but fucking children - deserve to die for being poor.

[AeneasBK]

Do you go to the doctor regularly? Do you take medicine for any light illnesses that you have? Because if you do, then you've probably fixed a lot of minor health problems before they became life-threatening problems.

Well no, and that's probably an element as to how I can hold this position.

And, of course, that's just on the low end for things that are relatively inexpensive that a lot of people can usually manage to afford. Anything that is life-threatening is absolutely unaffordable for anyone who either doesn't have insurance or isn't incredibly rich. Rolled a 1 on the cancer lottery? Well, you either spend tens of thousands of dollars on treatments, or you die. Being better educated about your cancer will do fuck all to fix that.

But having insurance shouldn't have to be (and isn't, really) a privilege of the incredibly rich. I don't know enough about the individual health services offered in every Western country; but I'm assuming not all the private systems are as messy as the American ones. I'm not trying to advocate that there isn't health services available.

It is absolutely abhorrent to advocate that people - not just people, but fucking children - deserve to die for being poor.

Hey, I'm not advocating for people to die, and you can argue that witholding health services is tantamount to pulling the trigger; but I don't buy it.

Its an incredibly simplistic conversion. Rather than spend X tax budget on acceptable healthcare and Y on substandard education, with options to go private in both areas for the best services, I'd make it Y on substandard healthcare and X on acceptable education, with options to go private in both areas for the best services. I feel like substandard education does more 'harm' than the alternative.

Anyway this is a thread specifically about the American system so rather than continue off topic, I'm happy to bow out knowing I'm too simple to really discuss these sorts of things.

[Grapemask]

I mean, I don't know what mortality rates are like where you're from but I'm guessing most people get through most of their lives without needing life-saving treatment.

I feel like there's a very subtle implication, maybe even unknown to yourself, that people who do need lifesaving treatment somehow chose to need it.

[Nadiru]

Reminder that using college student loan money to pay for a program that forced college students to buy its product is dubious, at best.

[AeneasBK]

I feel like there's a very subtle implication, maybe even unknown to yourself, that people who do need lifesaving treatment somehow chose to need it.

If so I certainly didn't intend it I was thinking more a numbers game. If I was indeed advocating a "there are no options for you" for those who need life saving treatment; I would be arguing that those cases are in a small enough minority it would be offset by the benefits gained by everyone else. Everyone needs an education; but not everyone needs healthcare, sort of thing (I think the term is utilitarian, but that just probably shows me up further )

Which is, when stripped away, a callous "tough shit for you" attitude. I get that.

[Zaydin]

Just gotta love how Trump handed the Democrats a new bat to beat him with on a silver platter. Bonus points for the fact that it's entirely self-inflicted, too.

[DarkTZeratul]

Everyone needs an education; but not everyone needs healthcare, sort of thing.

Sooner or later (in fact, especially later), everyone needs healthcare.

[Edge-]

Sooner or later (in fact, especially later), everyone needs healthcare.

I'd love to know who these fictional people are who never get seriously ill, who have no longterm health conditions, who don't injure themselves by accident, etc. where they'd incur significant, or even proportionally significant (someone with $1000 in their savings is pretty screwed if they break an arm without insurance), medical costs.

[Bullettime]

If so I certainly didn't intend it I was thinking more a numbers game. If I was indeed advocating a "there are no options for you" for those who need life saving treatment; I would be arguing that those cases are in a small enough minority it would be offset by the benefits gained by everyone else. Everyone needs an education; but not everyone needs healthcare, sort of thing (I think the term is utilitarian, but that just probably shows me up further )

Which is, when stripped away, a callous "tough shit for you" attitude. I get that.

All your posts have done is admit you're a complete sociopath detached from the actual reality that people face because you've been lucky in life so far to not need it.

Everyone eventually needs healthcare, even if you're only one freak accident away from needing it. One freak accident can wipe out a lifetime worth of gains in this country if you're not the ultra rich. Some people develop conditions over time that they had no control over. Some are born with issues. As people age, healthcare becomes even more important as your DNA begins to breakdown and fail to replicate healthy cells, causing a slew of health issues.

Healthcare is and should be crucial to the pursuit of happiness by allowing people the ability to pursue their dreams and contribute to society despite a defect they have no control over. People will resort to crime before they willingly drop their medications and roll over and die for the rich which is what you're advocating; a position that the poor would be better off dying if they can't afford treatment.

[Jastall]

So this crime spike is literally just "people would riot if you took free healthcare away" or is there actually data or evidence that a less healthy society is a more criminal one (as opposed to the blanket "a less wealthy society is a more criminal one")?

Yes, and by perpetuating a two tiered education system they are telling them that they are too poor to matter, and its fine if they spend their entire lives and their children spend their entire lives at the bottom of the heap, because all the places further up the ladder are reserved for the ones with better options.

All it's saying btw is if he wants his kids to not die of preventable diseases he's going to have to pay for the treatment himself.

I mean you could have public education and healthcare, if that's so important ya know. That's kind of what we also do here, and by and large it works even if it taxes public finances, but what else are we gonna spend the tax money on, an army that we never use and would get crushed anyway because no money in the world will make a country of 37M people relevant? A safer country via more police when we're one of the safest on the planet in the first place? Infrastructure which we're already spending lots on because thanks Mr. Winter?

Ya'll gotta sort your shit out, same as us. Don't expect magical, half-thought out solutions to work, however.

Also, literally everyone needs healthcare at some point or another, unless you believe you'll never age.

[Grapemask]

If so I certainly didn't intend it I was thinking more a numbers game. If I was indeed advocating a "there are no options for you" for those who need life saving treatment; I would be arguing that those cases are in a small enough minority it would be offset by the benefits gained by everyone else. Everyone needs an education; but not everyone needs healthcare, sort of thing (I think the term is utilitarian, but that just probably shows me up further )

Which is, when stripped away, a callous "tough shit for you" attitude. I get that.

I think it's about the opposite. Everyone needs healthcare. But not everyone needs education. As much as our society requires people in higher educated roles, it also requires people in lower educated roles. Someone has to be a garbageman just like someone needs to be a computer programmer. But both of them need to be alive, and whether or not you need healthcare today, it's a fact of life that every single person alive will need healthcare at some point, and the garbagemen can't afford it. Hell, even the programmers can barely afford it - speaking as a programmer making about 6 figures that avoids healthcare because the only insurance affordably available to me has a high deductible, so the only way a visit doesn't wreck my wallet is if I make sure I get hit by a car before I go in.

[Wermys]

I mean, I don't know what mortality rates are like where you're from but I'm guessing most people get through most of their lives without needing life-saving treatment.

Maybe I'm part of the super lucky margin of people who weren't struck down with fatal illness before I hit 30. Otherwise, hyperbole much? I'd also imagine (note I'm fully away this is all 'in my head') that a better educated society is more likely to be a healthier one and a more health conscious one.

I'm not trying to suggest this is a society that has done away with healthcare altogether.

Working in Healthcare I am so flabbergasted by this statement. One, Its not a hyberbole. You really have no clue on the numbers of people who are diabetic? Or have MS? Or contracted aids because there partner lied? People who get injured in a car accident and have decades of treatment that is needed involving various continuous medications? Or those that are mentally stable because they receive medications that allow them to function that they would not be able to afford? Thanks to the ACA we have a lot wider range of coverage then in the past. Is the ACA perfect? No, but it is a damn site more functional then any previous healthcare system that we had. The American model of healthcare would work best if there was a single payer which is what will eventually happen. That doesn't mean insurance companies or private corporations go away in healthcare. It just pools all the money for that spending into one pot and lets capitalism run its course. But going back to what was happening before the ACA is cruel. Will crash the economy. Will cause decrease in wages and spending on benefits. Increase cost of treatments for EVERYONE except for a few and create a situation where rising wages will stop in its tracts. And those few will then be kicked off there healthplan the following year if it wasn't from a workplace OR there new work won't cover them because of preexisted conditions for a time. People will no longer be able to do startups as easily. Nor will they be able to change jobs. Why would an insurance accept someone who is sick when they know treating them will cost them more money? That is what was happening before the ACA was around. Preexisting conditions made it so any insurance company can REFUSE to provide services and coverage. Oh and if you make a law that says insurance can't do that? Well I hope you like skyrocketing premiums? Solution? Oh I know the mandate so once again everyone has to have insurance again. You might not like the current system but it is the best system we have had. And it can be improved significantly. But to say that oh too bad no healthcare for you because of something that wasn't your fault? Healthcare is a fucking necessity. Not a fucking luxury. Give me a break. The same analogy can be used on the highway system. Or radio waves regulations. God I hate Ayn Rand worshippers.

[AeneasBK]

I think it's about the opposite. Everyone needs healthcare. But not everyone needs education. As much as our society requires people in higher educated roles, it also requires people in lower educated roles. Someone has to be a garbageman just like someone needs to be a computer programmer. But both of them need to be alive, and whether or not you need healthcare today, it's a fact of life that every single person alive will need healthcare at some point, and the garbagemen can't afford it. Hell, even the programmers can barely afford it - speaking as a programmer making about 6 figures that avoids healthcare because the only insurance affordably available to me has a high deductible, so the only way a visit doesn't wreck my wallet is if I make sure I get hit by a car before I go in.

But why can't a garbage man also be better educated, it isn't as though they spend the majority of their time at work. A better education system doesn't necessarily have to be centered on STEM; it could encompass a much wider scope, very different from maybe how it is structured today; to ensure it produces well balanced productive happy (healthier) people. But thats a different topic I guess.

And I guess I also find the idea that people have an entitlement to good health weird. As someone said - your DNA breaks down anyway. Like, where does the breakthrough in medical technology etc. come from if not the well educated. . . Thats not meant to sound like everyone should be taught to the level that they can self-diagnose and treat, but arguably a better educated society would accelerate the rate at which medical advances are made, or reduce the cost of existing ones.

- - - Updated - - -

Working in Healthcare I am so flabbergasted by this statement.

You're not alone, but no one has actually provided anything other than "It happens to everyone". Fair cop I'll take it on the chin if it turns out that 95% of people need regular medical treatment by the age of 50 or w/e but if you're already reaching to "Have contracted aids because their partner lied" by the third example I'm not sure that it can really be that commonplace. Unless that shit is rife in the USA I had no idea (a common thread to my posts w/e :P)

And again, I shouldn't have brought this up in a thread specifically about the American system because obviously the alternative over there seems to literally be "Just pick your morgue".

[Stormspark]

Honestly, at this point, I hope they do it. The republicans think the poor people will just roll over and die rather than costing rich people money when they get sick. I'm looking forward to seeing open revolts.