|
Sinteres posted:23 million people aren't going to die because of it, ,jfc. I hate the Republican healthcare plan too, but this is obvious hyperbole. . . . You don't really "get" healthcare, so you? Edit: Sinteres posted:You realize not everyone who loses health insurance dies as a result, certainly? Call it whatever you want, but the idea that you're being coolly rational rather than provocative when you call it genocide is absurd. Lol, nope.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
Thaddius the Large posted:. . . You don't really "get" healthcare, so you? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:You realize not everyone who loses health insurance dies as a result, certainly? Call it whatever you want, but the idea that you're being coolly rational rather than provocative when you call it genocide is absurd. Good to know slightly less people might die as a direct result.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:That is not clear from the text of the amendment itself: Right. Legally speaking, for either impeachment or the 25th, the Rs need to be on the opposite side most are now. And really, Trump's slowly doing it to himself -- he's been doing it since his campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Poor and old isn't a race, and some people will die in the long run as an indirect result of a policy isn't genocide. "Genocide" does not refer to racial or ethnic extermination exclusively. It simply means the death of a large number of people. So yes, the AHCA is genocidal. Fight that if you want, but be aware you're carrying water for people who don't care about the distinction you're trying to promote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
buglord posted:What's the expectation for tomorrow's testimony from sessions? We had a pretty good idea with Comey since that document came out the day before he spoke. But his testimony in person was a bit more damning, which was nice. Sessions appears way more buddy-buddy with trump so he'll probably lie through the whole thing? Can he get in trouble for lying? I am calling it as "I have recused myself from the investigation, I can not comment" and "I can not comment on that, as it regards executive privilege/national security measures" He can't comment on any meetings between him and agents of Russia because that involves national security discussions. As to why he previously testified during his confirmation that he never met with the Russians, it just slipped his mind because it was so minor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:You realize not everyone who loses health insurance dies as a result, certainly? Call it whatever you want, but the idea that you're being coolly rational rather than provocative when you call it genocide is absurd. The government has to only kill like 100 people to be more lethal than the sum of all recent terror attacks (which Americans poo poo their pants about constantly).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
The Republican plan is cruel and will hurt people, and yes kill some of them, but you guys are firmly in alternative facts territory here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Nope, sorry. 23 million people is the short term estimate of health insurance losses. Long term death toll is actually likely to be much higher. 10,000 a year extra deaths is what I heard bandied about before the AHCA failed the first time. There's a reason absolutely no-one with anything to do with healthcare supports this insanity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Okay you don't like the 23M number. Will you accept one million? Because that's still genocide and you're still going to bat for murderers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
You have to also account for which 23 million people will lose health insurance. It won't be the healthy, wealthy demographic that can get by to some degree without it, it will be the old, the poor, and the already ill who will absolutely die without it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The 25th is perfectly applicable here and its use would absolutely be appropriate. The problem is that it was drafted assuming an unconscious president not one whose competency is a subject of potential argument. It would turn into a giant clusterfuck as Trump contested it and the political fallout among Trump's base would be immense. Firmly disagree Section 4 clearly imagines the case where the President contests the claim of disability and grants Congress the ability to decide on the ability of the President to discharge their powers and duties. Notably the bar here is set higher than impeachment since it requires 2/3rds of both the House and Senate. Ignoring the political likelihood, the 25th amendment is clearly not designed solely for an unconscious president.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Seriously, yo, search "genocide definition" on Google. Semantics derails are the worst.quote:Search Results So yes, like Russia slowly starving the Ukraine in years past, according to the CBO it'd literally be a genocide by the Republican Party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
If we assume that only 1/10th of that 23 million die as a result of the bill, that's still 2.5 million. That is more than twice the amount of people who died in the Porajmos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Please enlighten us of the data you've collected that conflicts with the CBO. You should also send that info to the Heritage Foundation or something since that's got to be worth a few mil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Also let's not forget people like me, who will merely suffer crippling pain and have long-term diseases that will get worse due to being unable to use the expensive treatments that control them. I won't die, but I'm gonna be pretty loving unhappy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
mdemone posted:"Genocide" does not refer to racial or ethnic extermination exclusively. It simply means the death of a large number of people. quote:The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group". It usually means trying to destroy an identifiable group of people
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:The Republican plan is cruel and will hurt people, and yes kill some of them, but you guys are firmly in alternative facts territory here. What number of people need to die before it matters enough to you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:The Republican plan is cruel and will hurt people, and yes kill some of them, but you guys are firmly in alternative facts territory here. It's not like Republicans will be setting up death panels oh wait 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
mdemone posted:"Genocide" does not refer to racial or ethnic extermination exclusively. It simply means the death of a large number of people. The person, Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide disagrees with you: quote:By ‘genocide’ we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing)…. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group” (80)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
mdemone posted:"Genocide" does not refer to racial or ethnic extermination exclusively. It simply means the death of a large number of people. Genocide requires targeting a class of people for extermination. I really dislike calling the AHCA genocide. By the standard implied by people here anything that causes a net increase in aggregate mortality is an act of genocide. That nearly nullifies the term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
gently caress SNEEP posted:What number of people need to die before it matters enough to you? I said it matters, it's just not loving genocide. Stupid slapfights demanding people to use incorrect terminology or they're the real Hitlers are unbelievably stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Mattis; acting President https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiZuqsDrcGs
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Lefty circular firing squad caused by semantic bullshit, never saw that before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
the key word is deliberate and while this isnt an argument I'm going to win here, the deliberate purpose of the ahca isn't to kill poor people (that's just a side effect of making rich people richer. If they could get more money by not killing people, most of them would take that option, because it would be easier to get votes for)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:the key word is deliberate and while this isnt an argument I'm going to win here, the deliberate purpose of the ahca isn't to kill poor people (that's just a side effect of making rich people richer. If they could get more money by not killing people, most of them would take that option, because it would be easier to get votes for) I'm legitimately no longer convinced this is true about them. At a certain point it becomes kinda clear that 'killing and causing the suffering of the poor' is a plus for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:It usually means trying to destroy an identifiable group of people  United Nations Fine whatever. This group of people is identifiable as "poor and old", semantics solved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
still lmaoing at sinteres thinking likely millions of people dying is just "some people"
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:If we assume that only 1/10th of that 23 million die as a result of the bill, that's still 2.5 million. That is more than twice the amount of people who died in the Porajmos. While he is loving stupid and the acha is garbage, lets not blow this out of proportion and look rediculous. Two million people are not going to die as a result of the acha. The majority of people slated to lose care didn't have care before the ACA was passed and they lived through that (albeit shittier lives). Estimates from actual healthcare professionals put the count at closer to 10,000 per year. That should be horrifying enough without having to get into hyperbole that Trump is going to somehow kill 0.5% of the country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I said it matters, it's just not loving genocide. Stupid slapfights demanding people to use incorrect terminology or they're the real Hitlers are unbelievably stupid. Don't get whip lash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:You realize not everyone who loses health insurance dies as a result, certainly? Call it whatever you want, but the idea that you're being coolly rational rather than provocative when you call it genocide is absurd. As above -- depending on how you slice the numbers, it's tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of deaths in the short to near term, and yes, millions of deaths in the long term if the law isn't changed. ( See, e.g., https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/14/14921962/ahca-mortality-gun-homicides ; I think that article severely underestimates the numbers of dead because Medicaid patients tend to have shorter lifespans and more severe medical needs, due to poverty and the other factors correllated with poverty). So let's look at uses of the term "genocide" -- how many deaths does it take? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll 800,000 people died in the Rwandan genocide; 8,000 in the Bosnian genocide. Does genocide have to have a racial component? Well, quote:Medicaid covers over half of Black children (51%), helping to substantially fill their gap in private coverage. Medicaid plays a much more limited role for Black adults, leaving more than a quarter uninsured (26%). These coverage patterns reflect the fact that states have significantly expanded children’s eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP, while Medicaid eligibility for adults remains very limited in most states. http://www.kff.org/disparities-policy/fact-sheet/health-coverage-for-the-black-population-today-and-under-the-affordable-care-act/ African-Americans are also disproportionately represented in the Medicaid rolls; they make up 13.2% of the US population, but 19 percent of medicaid enrolees. The republican health care bill qualifies on death count, it qualifies on racial bias, it's a goddam genocide. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Jun 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:the key word is deliberate and while this isnt an argument I'm going to win here, the deliberate purpose of the ahca isn't to kill poor people (that's just a side effect of making rich people richer. If they could get more money by not killing people, most of them would take that option, because it would be easier to get votes for) They all know its going to be a side effect, so by doing nothing yes its deliberate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Look guys I hate Trump too but you're dead wrong on the twenty-fifth amendment. Incompetence is a political question, the twenty-fifth amendment isn't meant to deal with that. Unless you think any president who makes policy you disagree with is "disabled", but that's an insane interpretation that would destroy the Twenty-fifth, an important part of the constitution for continuity of the executive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
In the long term, it is cheaper to house the homeless than to police them; to provide healthcare than to treat epidemics. Republican policies are less compatible with naked greed than they are with malice. A person motivated solely by greed would not behave like a Republican. Greed is part of their motivation, certainly, but if you don't think harming people is another one of their goals than you are deluding yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I said it matters, it's just not loving genocide. Stupid slapfights demanding people to use incorrect terminology or they're the real Hitlers are unbelievably stupid. Sinteres posted:I said it matters, it's just not loving genocide. Stupid slapfights demanding people to use correct terminology or they're the real Hitlers are unbelievably stupid. Are you glad you started this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Lol who cares about a piddly million dead when climate change will kill billions if we don't change our ways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:In the long term, it is cheaper to house the homeless than to police them; to provide healthcare than to treat epidemics. That's like Reaganomics 101: short term gains above all else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:That is not clear from the text of the amendment itself: You are correct that "disability" is not defined in the amendment. What constitutes disability is also a political question. You could use the twenty-fifth to get rid of presidents that are merely incompetent. But it would be very unwise. You shouldn't politicize a part of the constitution put in place to deal with things like assassinations and terrorist attacks. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Jun 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ELLEmagazine/status/874428342191214592 https://twitter.com/yashar/status/874420764149039105
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
mdemone posted:Are you glad you started this? Genocide's an important word which has a specific meaning and shouldn't be thrown around lightly. Callous indifference and partial reversion to the healthcare status quo of eight years ago isn't genocide. Is Obamacare genocide because it's not single payer and could save more lives if it were?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 03:44
|
|