Gao Bohan wrote:Estimates vary, but somewhere between 40,000-100,000 people currently rely on the ACA for coverage. The nearly inevitable Republican victory in court may lead, quite literally, to thousands of children and adults dying from lack of regular medical care.
Gao Bohan wrote:I mean, dead as a doornail. I don't think it's a particularly shameless, or for that matter shameful claim to say that out of 40,000-100,000 Americans currently enrolled in the government's high risk pool, that were the law to be repealed "in toto" and their insurance revoked, some percentage may die as a result.
Fine, fine, fine, so the "quite literally" was originally meant to suggest a direct cause and effect between "Republican victory" and the deaths of 40-100,000 "children and adults", but you are hesitating a bit now. Good for you. So, let's get to brass tacks. Never mind the number, pick any you like. One death is too many, isn't it? Will repeal of this "law" cause even a single death? Literally or otherwise?
After all, there quite literally is probably a child in India right now who will not receive a meal and will most possibly die of literal starvation in the near to distant future, because I just spent NT$43 on one of those delicious 7-11 fruit platters instead of sending it to a charitable organization. Is that the degree of literalness we are talking about here?
I mean, don't run back to your numbers. You are literally trying to blame opponents of your particular agenda for the death of children, aren't you? A "Republican victory", you call it, quite literally clever, I grant you. Have the common courtesy or brazen demagoguery to say so and spare us the charade of 'objective analyst'.
Were the Court to let the "law" slide, that could quite lead to the deaths of millions of children and adults and probably dogs and cats, too, as the constitutional basis of our democracy were further eroded, making the law a mere plaything of majorities aroused by exceptional claims your tidy little studies pronounce. Forty to a hundred thousand they say? I wouldn't have put it under 120,000, if it were enacted before FY2016, particularly if the unemployment rate remains above 7.5% throughout the next seven quarters. Know what I mean?
Gao Baohan wrote:No, not really. I don't get the "slippery slope" argument regarding health care. Laws are passed through an arduous and highly public process. I don't believe that Congress is going to turn around and ride roughshod over civil liberties just because the individual mandate is upheld. I think it's fairly obvious that the individual mandate is necessary to fund the rest of the bill...it's not a celebration of totalitarianism. And Obamacare (it's time to reclaim this word from the Right) will create jobs in the health care sector, so I don't see the connection with the unemployment rate.
I am afraid my sarcasm was supposed to bite, not chew. Do you hail from the Midwest?
I will speak more literally. The Constitution binds our republic together. Not religion, not race, not even language, nor geography. This is not the slippery slope argument. The Constitution is the only thing we all have in common. And, the Constitution deserves respect, because it was designed so that any major change in our society that a majority had in mind has to jump a number of hurdles. That is why we have a federal system of government. That is why we have a bicameral legislature. That is why one branch is apportioned by state and not by population. That is why individual members of that branch are elected every six years. That is why the President, who is elected by an electoral college that is apportioned according to a combination of the two legislative chambers' respective apportionment criteria, has to ratify most legislation, unless it can be passed by a supermajority. But, that's not all. Wisely or unwisely, the Supreme Court was given final say within the government over the constitutionality of legislation. And, changes to the Constitution have a specific "arduous and highly public process" that this legislation did not endure. If the president were so confident of the popularity of his legislation, he would take it through the constitutional process, which was designed to test just how genuinely popular a piece of legislation is.
The term "judicial activism"--I am just going to pretend as if I believe that neither you nor the President knows better--refers to those instances where the court steps beyond its constitutional mandate: to check "legislative activism" and "executive activism". Not to rubber stamp the governing party's agenda like a two-bit dictatorship. But, the President did not simply (and preemptively) question this particular Court's aptitude to judge this particular case. That would have been bad enough. Rather, he deliberately drew attention to its supposed lack of democratic legitimacy (never mind that each and every one of the appointees went through an "arduous and public process", although they were nominated and confirmed by the next two least democratic elements of the gov't, the president and the senate) and called any attempt to negate legislation "unprecedented".
He was ever so careful to describe his pet legislation as "duly constituted". Well, so is the third branch of government. If people like you and the President intend to threaten the constitutional pact, to simply steamroll the only branch of power that you do not control, what do you think the result in the long run will be? A breakdown in voluntary social cohesion. Your very attempt to force people more closely together in a society that is increasingly culturally and ideologically disparate will only result in a further collapse of social trust in the long run.
Once that break in trust occurs, there is no policy that will fix it, no matter how many political "scientists" and eminent academics you hire to concoct policy papers and studies and conjure up statistics. It takes generations to restore, if ever, and usually after each side has exhausted all its strength, usually in blood.
I am not worried about "totalitarianism", as you called it. I am worried about the unfettered competition that ensues when all power is concentrated in any single entity, whether it be president, congress, court, party, clergy, region, or economic interest. Countries usually turn to dictatorship for relief from that ceaseless striving for power. That's what is becoming increasingly worrisome about this entire episode. If we allow the rules of our society to be set by fleeting majorities, then each side will continually ratchet up the rhetoric and demonize the opposition and run roughshod over legitimate constitutional opposition.
When the Republicans were in power, they did the same thing when it came to national security. Opposition to unconstitutional wars and unlawful detentions of citizens was met with aggressive questioning of one's patriotism and attempts to deny the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Guantanamo.
And, this already seems to be happening with you. Otherwise, why suggest your opponents of "literally" being responsible for the deaths of children?