It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Yes, the Republican Obamacare Strategy Will Kill People

page: 1
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Yes, the Republican Obamacare Strategy Will Kill People

nymag.com...

There is a consequence to the reckless attempt to abolish Obamacare

I know some people don’t want to hear or accept it but it us an established fact, just please take your time and read below and go to the link

The abstract reality of peoples philosophy won't prevent people dying when and if they abruptly cut off Obamacare

People just have to understand and see the consequences of their acts

Think Supreme Court, the Ted Cruz's of the world so anxious to do this...at the expense of innocent peoples lives


By Jonathan Chait Follow @jonathanchait
There is a famous thought experiment called the trolley problem, and it goes like this: A runaway trolley is headed toward five people bound on the tracks. You are standing before the switch that could divert it onto another track, where it would kill only one person. Do you pull the switch?

The problem is a way of grappling with the moral responsibility of actively killing a person for some larger end, a problem that lurks behind much of the role of the state, from policing to Harry Truman dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. The trolley problem is the most flattering possible way to think about the conservative movement’s fanatical commitment to repealing Obamacare. That is, if you ignore the obvious elements of partisan spite, callousness, and self-deception, one can posit a commitment to abstract moral principles about the role of the state. Conservatives’ abstract principles, like most people’s, can come attached to specific costs. If they pull the switch and repeal Obamacare, or if they persuade five Republican Supreme Court justices to cripple it, they will spare America from the evils of mandates, taxes, regulation, and what they imagine to be European socialist horrors. They will also kill what are now identifiable human beings.




One of those human beings is David Tedrow, who, in a harrowing first-person account published in the Washington Post, writes of his fight with non-alcoholic cirrhosis, crediting Obamacare with saving his life. “Without insurance and the subsidy I would simply die,” writes Tedrow, “because I could not afford my drugs and my body would reject my liver.

Last night I linked to the story on Twitter, writing, “The Republican Party is trying to kill this man.” The description was slightly hyperbolic in the sense that killing Tedrow is not the Republican Party’s goal — they would be perfectly happy if, after they have repealed Obamacare, a generous philanthropist stepped in to save Tedrow’s life — but rather the direct and inescapable result of their behavior. He is collateral damage in the service of a larger goal, like the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the imaginary stranger on the railroad track.




My tweet set off a backlash so furious it was catalogued by Twitchy, which is the inadvertently apt name for a right-wing aggregator of reflexively hostile Twitter reactions. The fascinating thing about the response was its uniform, fervent denial of the possibility that crippling or repealing Obamacare would have the effect Tedrow describes. It is true that Tedrow’s previous insurance was canceled in the fall of 2013, when new regulations phased out many previous plans. But it is also true, as he explains, that his previous insurance was unaffordable, and that pre-Obamacare insurance plans were routinely canceled. The individual insurance market before 2014 was dominated by adverse selection, which is an incentive for insurance companies to shed expensive customers.




The fundamental problem is that, for millions of Americans, the cost of medical care exceeds what they can afford, either because their incomes are low or because their medical expenses are high, or both. Government can give them affordable insurance by spending money directly, though this violates the conservative commitment to raising taxes for any purpose. Government can also make insurance available to sick people by preventing insurance companies from charging market prices to sick customers, though these regulations, which result in higher process for young and healthy customers, also turn out to offend conservatives. This is why the Republican health care program expressed through a series of repeal votes, budgetary frameworks, and innovative legal challenges, all involve restoring the pre-Obamacare status quo.




What makes the conservative denial of Tedrow’s story so bizarre is how utterly banal the story is. You can find plenty of examples of people who, if not for Obamacare, would not be able to afford necessary medical care. Such stories feature heavily in Jonathan Cohn’s masterful book about the health care system. One can also see this demonstrated in the aggregate in Massachusetts, where a state-level version of Obamacare produced a drop in the mortality rate.




That it is dangerous and potentially fatal to lack health insurance is hardly an exotic or complex theory. People generally understand this. The fact that repealing Obamacare will kill some people does not settle the question of whether Obamacare is better than some imaginary alternative Republican health-care plan, or even whether it is better than the pre-reform status quo. Conservatives are within their rights to prefer freedom from taxes and regulation even at the cost of David Tedrow’s well being. But any morally serious position has to account for the brutal realities embedded in this trade-off. Truman’s war strategy involved killing a lot of Japanese civilians. The Republican health-care strategy is to flip a switch whose immediate effect will be to impoverish and kill a lot of people. Is there a single conservative who will admit this?



edit on 11-11-2014 by Willtell because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

But haven't the republicans already admitted it's here to stay?


+30 more 
posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Why wasn't there a concern when millions lost their insurance with the enactment of obamacare?


+15 more 
posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
There is a consequence to the reckless attempt to abolish Obamacare

I know some people don’t want to hear or accept it but it us an established fact, just please take your time and read below and go to the link

The abstract reality of peoples philosophy won't prevent people dying when and if they abruptly cut off Obamacare

People just have to understand and see the consequences of their acts

Think Supreme Court, the Ted Cruz's of the world so anxious to do this...at the expense of innocent peoples lives


Like the lives lost when they enacted Obamacare? Are the people that will die from abolishing Obamacare somehow more important than the ones who died when their insurance was yanked out from under them because it suddenly didn't comply with what High and Mighty Commander in Chief thought it should?

Nobody bothered to care about the consequences of their acts when millions were left without insurance were they? Nope. Collateral damage is what they were. Now all of a sudden it's time to think about it more humanely?


edit on 11/11/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: nukedog
a reply to: Willtell

But haven't the republicans already admitted it's here to stay?


Obama care is here to stay! The insurance companies that are the real profiteers from the ACA won't let the GOP
threaten the profits for their stockholders and the nice bonuses for the executives. Health care for profit is here to stay.
I doubt if there will be any restructuring of the ACA by the republicans and if it is restructured it will favor the corporate investors and certainly not the taxpayers.

This blustery talk of dismantling the ACA by the conservatives is just talk to rally their constituents.

It never fails to astonish me how people can let their ideologies cloud their common sense when it comes to the way government really works.

We have the best government money can buy; might as well get used to it. Savvy investors are doing a happy dance!!!


edit on 11-11-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   


This is an emerging line by Republicans: More people have “lost” health insurance or have “canceled plans” than who have gained it through the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. “Obamacare.” But Democrats have cried foul, with the House Energy and Commerce Committee minority staff estimating that, as a result of the law, no more than 10,000 people do not have health insurance coverage at the start of the year. So, who’s right? Much of it depends on what you count, how you count it and how carefully the attack line is phrased.


www.washingtonpost.com...


In reality, many people who received notices that their plans were canceled were told they would be automatically enrolled into another plan by the same insurance company. (Here’s an example of such a letter, courtesy of our colleagues at PolitiFact.) In other words, the person’s health plan was “canceled” but the person was not left “without coverage,” as the Daily Caller asserted. There likely was a seamless transition from one plan to the other, though the premiums might have increased because the ACA requires all plans to have the same basic level of benefits. This all goes back to President Obama’s pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it.” The Fact Checker gave that claim Four Pinocchios and placed it at the top of the biggest Pinocchios of the year. Of course, not everyone ended up with essentially the same plan — or liked the options, either from their insurance company or the Obamacare exchanges. Under intense political pressure, the White House ordered an administrative fix that, depending on the actions of individual states, allowed as many as 2.3 million people with “canceled plans” to simply stay on their old plan for at least another year. Thus they also did not lose coverage, contrary to the Daily Caller’s claim.

(Before the controversy ever erupted publicly, many states allowed “early renewals” that in effect allowed people to keep their old plans, usually through the end of 2014. Administration officials thus argue it was not a new concept but basically an extension of an existing timeline.) Just before the holidays, the administration announced a new catastrophic exemption to fill any remaining gaps in coverage — estimated to affect as many as 500,000 people.


Do your research folks

Just don't read something somewhere and lap it up



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

The Supreme court can cripple it.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Beezzer:

How many of the millions who lost their (substandard) insurance got better coverage under Obamacare?

How many millions who didn't have any heathcare now have heathcare?

Kangaruex4Ewe:

Would it be too much to ask for specifics on the people you are referring to with "lives lost when they enacted Obamacare"?

Isn't it more than a little bit hyperbolic to imply that anyone's insurance was yanked out from under them because of some specific decision of President Obama?

And finally, why would anyone make the comparison of some value difference between lives lost when Obamacare started and those that would be lost if it ended? Human lives are human lives and equally valuable.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell
Ever Google's "Kathleen Death Panel Sebelious"?
court orders KS to suspend death panel on 10 year old girl

edit on 11-11-2014 by Granite because: added one example for OPs ed.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
People Who Are Alive Today Because Of Obamacare Beg Court Not To Take Their Health Insurance Away




David Tedrow believes that Obamacare saved his life. Near the end of 2013, he was suffering from end-stage liver failure and needed a transplant or he would die. Unable to afford the transplant or the expensive follow-up care without insurance, David was able to obtain the health plan he needed to pay for his treatment through the Affordable Care Act’s insurance exchange in North Carolina, and this allowed him to remain on a transplant list he would have been taken off of if he was uninsured.

Last April, David received the transplant that saved his life. He believes that he is still here today because of Obamacare. David is one of several individuals with life-threatening health conditions that joined an amicus brief filed Monday in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The brief asks the court to reject a claim brought by opponents of the Affordable Care Act seeking to cut off health subsidies to people entitled to receive them in nearly three dozen states. Other signatories to this brief include Jared Blitz, a man born with a heart condition who is able to afford life-saving heart surgery because of the Affordable Care Act, Jennifer Causor, a woman with cystic fibrosis whose story ThinkProgress told here, and Steve Orofino, a chemist and cancer patient who says that “I would have had to declare bankruptcy or I could be dead by now if it weren’t for the Act.”




The theory behind the lawsuit, known as Halbig v. Burwell, is that a passage of the Affordable Care Act should be read out of context in order to strip health insurance from millions of Americans. The Act gives each state a choice. They can either operate their own health exchange, where the state’s residents may buy subsidies health insurance, or they may allow the federal government to operate this exchange for them. The plaintiffs latch onto a provision of the law that appears to restrict subsidies to individuals who obtain insurance through “an Exchange established by the State,” though, as we explain in detail here and here, the bulk of the law contradicts the Halbig plaintiffs’ reading. Moreover, Supreme Court precedent instructs courts not to read individual passages of a law out of context. “[A] reviewing court should not confine itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation,” the Court explained in 2007, as the “meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context.” Much of the threat Halbig presents to people like David, Jared, Jennifer and Steve is obvious. If the courts agree to cut off subsidies in most of the states, the out-of-pocket cost of health insurance premiums will skyrocket for many individuals because their premium will no longer be paid in part through Obamacare. As the amicus brief points out, however, Halbig is actually considerably more dangerous than an initial look at it might suggest.


Just reporting the facts. I know people don't want to hear facts but its important to get the truth out
edit on 11-11-2014 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

You are correct in that we will never get rid of Obamacare.

The one key solution that is never discussed by anyone on any "side" is silent.

The actual "key" would have been to look at ways to reduce medical costs so that everyone could afford healthcare, regardless if they were insured or not.

But that would take away power from the government.

And now the GOP has it. They won't give it up.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Anything based on lies and deception is doomed to fail.

There are a few good ideas in Obamacare.

Pre-existing conditions.

Letting kids stay on their parents plan.

We could start there... But, the way it's setup is a disaster.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Obama won't sign away ObamaCare.

Will he?



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   
The best policy would have been single payer like ALL civilized countries but the GOP would never have it.

They had to settle for this Republican think Tank plan called Obamacare

If the country would have listened to the progressives like Bernie Sanders we would have a decent plan


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

For someone who complains that the WHOLE political system is corrupt, it amazes me that you STILL complain that one party is evil, when even in your past posts you have admitted that they are both corrupt!

So WHAT IS IT?

Either they are BOTH corrupt, OR your BSing!

Don't pick sides if you make a choice to say they both SUCK!



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Include these facts with those facts then...

spectator.org...

This guy chooses death because his ACA is not quite A...

www.freerepublic.com...

Cancer patients paying out the yin yang..

nypost.com...

For every link each of us can provide, the other can find one more that sounds worse.

I do not doubt that people will suffer if Obamacare was tossed. My bone to pick is that nobody cared about those they were hurting when it went into affect. We can just keep pretending that nobody was hurt, that nobody lost coverage if that's what everyone wants, but it's not the truth.

And for the one above asking why compare human lives? Why indeed? Why turn a blind eye to those hurt or dying when they went without only to now recognize those who will do the same if the Obamacare you love is scrapped?

My point is, they both matter, but it's funny how it only matters NOW and not so much back then. So SOMEBODY obviously thinks one set of folks is more valuable than another.

edit on 11/11/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
People Who Are Alive Today Because Of Obamacare Beg Court Not To Take Their Health Insurance Away




David Tedrow believes that Obamacare saved his life. Near the end of 2013, he was suffering from end-stage liver failure and needed a transplant or he would die. Unable to afford the transplant or the expensive follow-up care without insurance, David was able to obtain the health plan he needed to pay for his treatment through the Affordable Care Act’s insurance exchange in North Carolina, and this allowed him to remain on a transplant list he would have been taken off of if he was uninsured.

Last April, David received the transplant that saved his life. He believes that he is still here today because of Obamacare. David is one of several individuals with life-threatening health conditions that joined an amicus brief filed Monday in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The brief asks the court to reject a claim brought by opponents of the Affordable Care Act seeking to cut off health subsidies to people entitled to receive them in nearly three dozen states. Other signatories to this brief include Jared Blitz, a man born with a heart condition who is able to afford life-saving heart surgery because of the Affordable Care Act, Jennifer Causor, a woman with cystic fibrosis whose story ThinkProgress told here, and Steve Orofino, a chemist and cancer patient who says that “I would have had to declare bankruptcy or I could be dead by now if it weren’t for the Act.”




The theory behind the lawsuit, known as Halbig v. Burwell, is that a passage of the Affordable Care Act should be read out of context in order to strip health insurance from millions of Americans. The Act gives each state a choice. They can either operate their own health exchange, where the state’s residents may buy subsidies health insurance, or they may allow the federal government to operate this exchange for them. The plaintiffs latch onto a provision of the law that appears to restrict subsidies to individuals who obtain insurance through “an Exchange established by the State,” though, as we explain in detail here and here, the bulk of the law contradicts the Halbig plaintiffs’ reading. Moreover, Supreme Court precedent instructs courts not to read individual passages of a law out of context. “[A] reviewing court should not confine itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation,” the Court explained in 2007, as the “meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context.” Much of the threat Halbig presents to people like David, Jared, Jennifer and Steve is obvious. If the courts agree to cut off subsidies in most of the states, the out-of-pocket cost of health insurance premiums will skyrocket for many individuals because their premium will no longer be paid in part through Obamacare. As the amicus brief points out, however, Halbig is actually considerably more dangerous than an initial look at it might suggest.


Just reporting the facts. I know people don't want to hear facts but its important to get the truth out


TRUTH?

What is the truth, when there is no TRANSPARENCY? The truth is quite the opposite of what we hear from ANY MSM news source!

Some days I think you are getting it Willtell, but days like this, I think your reverting back to the drone that the government depends on..........



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
The best policy would have been single payer like ALL civilized countries but the GOP would never have it.

They had to settle for this Republican think Tank plan called Obamacare

If the country would have listened to the progressives like Bernie Sanders we would have a decent plan


True, even though the right wing likes to crucify obama as the brains behind ACA...he was just a puppet of the real
designers of the plan; the neo con corporatists.

americablog.com...

I know most will ignore this because its just so much fun to blame Obama for everything; they need to scapegoat to hang their BS ideologies on and engage in conservative backslapping circle jerks.

edit on 11-11-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Willtell
The best policy would have been single payer like ALL civilized countries but the GOP would never have it.

They had to settle for this Republican think Tank plan called Obamacare

If the country would have listened to the progressives like Bernie Sanders we would have a decent plan


True, even though the right wing likes to crucify obama as the brains behind ACA...he was just a puppet of the real
designers of the plan; the neo con corporatists.

americablog.com...



So your admitting Obama is a puppet?

Mark this one down folks!

EDIT: I must say Olaru, it is refreshing to hear someone who adamantly has supported this president call him a "puppet" since me and many others on ATS have been bitching about the 2 party system being nothing more than 2 wings on the same bird! But your own admission of calling Obama a puppet should be enough for you and anyone else who supports him OR any other past president based upon their party affiliation realize how ridiculous it is for these partisan arguments!

Time for folk to grow the hell up and realize it is US versus them!

We are being played!
edit on 11-11-2014 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Willtell
The best policy would have been single payer like ALL civilized countries but the GOP would never have it.

They had to settle for this Republican think Tank plan called Obamacare

If the country would have listened to the progressives like Bernie Sanders we would have a decent plan


True, even though the right wing likes to crucify obama as the brains behind ACA...he was just a puppet of the real
designers of the plan; the neo con corporatists.

americablog.com...



So your admitting Obama is a puppet?

Mark this one down folks!


Try and keep up! I called this when he reratified the Patriot act during his first term. Find where I ever defended him!!!
edit on 11-11-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join