![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsI hate tweetstorms. I'm too wordy for it. So let me expand on this:
Rothman's contention is that, somehow, the Democrats have managed to coerce the GOP into a situation where the latter cannot admit that it's real, "principled" stance is that the goverment cannot and should not provide universal health care.
Let's consider the argument against "cannot" as a given. Arguing out of ignorance is no excuse.
The "should not" is different. In 1986, Reagan pushed for, and Congress passed, The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). It did this not out of love for America's citizens, but out of shame. As cable news spread, a spate of news articles throughout Reagan's administration highlighted a phenomenon that had only once been a local issue: people dying in hospital parking lots, unable to pay. White people. White women giving birth in the back of cars in hospital parking lots, and then dying of completely treatable complications. The EMTALA exists because it was shameful to see in this, the greatest nation on Earth, the wealthiest nation on Earth, our ordinary citizens dying with an "Emergency Room" sign in the background.
The problem the GOP has is that, if they took Rothman at his word, we'd go back to that. We'd go back to people dying in hospital parking lots. Instead, what we have now is a weird, artificial distinction between acute and chronic conditions. Right now, they're perfectly happy to let people die where no camera is watching.
We have cameras everywhere. People are still dying of completely treatable causes, and now they're taking selfies of themselves as it happens.
Rothman's case is an absolute one: America should embrace the vision of people dying in parking lots as a sign of America's real moral value: If you're not rich, or can't demonstrate an ongoing return on investment to the rich, you may as well just die.
I really don't understand why the GOP can't just come out and say that.
That's funny... you just did. How did you ever manage without the liberal viking ninja samurai finding you? https://t.co/7nQQRDiiaU
— Eλf Sternberg (@elfsternberg) March 12, 2017
Rothman's contention is that, somehow, the Democrats have managed to coerce the GOP into a situation where the latter cannot admit that it's real, "principled" stance is that the goverment cannot and should not provide universal health care.
Let's consider the argument against "cannot" as a given. Arguing out of ignorance is no excuse.
The "should not" is different. In 1986, Reagan pushed for, and Congress passed, The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). It did this not out of love for America's citizens, but out of shame. As cable news spread, a spate of news articles throughout Reagan's administration highlighted a phenomenon that had only once been a local issue: people dying in hospital parking lots, unable to pay. White people. White women giving birth in the back of cars in hospital parking lots, and then dying of completely treatable complications. The EMTALA exists because it was shameful to see in this, the greatest nation on Earth, the wealthiest nation on Earth, our ordinary citizens dying with an "Emergency Room" sign in the background.
The problem the GOP has is that, if they took Rothman at his word, we'd go back to that. We'd go back to people dying in hospital parking lots. Instead, what we have now is a weird, artificial distinction between acute and chronic conditions. Right now, they're perfectly happy to let people die where no camera is watching.
We have cameras everywhere. People are still dying of completely treatable causes, and now they're taking selfies of themselves as it happens.
Rothman's case is an absolute one: America should embrace the vision of people dying in parking lots as a sign of America's real moral value: If you're not rich, or can't demonstrate an ongoing return on investment to the rich, you may as well just die.
I really don't understand why the GOP can't just come out and say that.
