A Cautionary Tale

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

35 Responses

  1. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    rewriting history when it doesn’t suit you is also a cautionary tale. To Wit:

    The Democrats forced their vision of healthcare reform on the country and paid for it with a string of electoral losses.

    Democrats took the the Republican system in Massachusetts, based on Heritage Foundation concepts first developed in response to Hillary Clinton’s universal healthcare plan. Then they spent 13 months meeting with Republicans negotiating the details of the bill, voted with Republicans to add 72 amendments – and then got abandoned by those same Republicans who wanted to prevent a Democrat from getting a legacy legislative achievement. The tell is in the fact that dozens and dozens of repeal votes were never followed by any better, more functional healthcare reform plan. Never mind all the people who now get healthcare access from that Republican concept passed by Democrats.Report

  2. DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    Keep in mind when telling yourself that the PPACA was a Republican Idea that Romney actually vetoed most of it, and those vetoes were overturned by the (Democrat) Massachusetts legislature.

    Also, most of the revenue-generation side of the PPACA has been rescinded by now, and its only lasting effect on most peoples’ lives is that there’s another piece of paper you need to file with your taxes every year. Some people did get coverage who didn’t have it before, but they got it through Medicaid expansions (which were a good thing, but maybe not the “We Fixed Healthcare” that everyone imagines.)

    The only really useful thing the PPACA would have done was a national single-payer system, which was deleted by Democrats in the Senate before the bill passed.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to DensityDuck
      Ignored
      says:

      Force all HC providers to have only one rate and advertise it.Report

    • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
      Ignored
      says:

      Mississippians getting healthcare off the ACA did not get it through Medicaid expansions as our state has not expanded Medicaid. Ditto Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

      Its also worth noting that the expansion – while covering 18.6 million Americans – has nothing to do with the additional 21.4 Million Americans who buy insurance at some cost off the exchanges. I guess over 45 million Americans counts as “some people” getting additional coverage.Report

    • Doctor Jay in reply to DensityDuck
      Ignored
      says:

      If you think PPACA did nothing, I guess preexisting conditions just aren’t on your radar, then?Report

      • DensityDuck in reply to Doctor Jay
        Ignored
        says:

        Medicaid doesn’t ban you for having a preexisting condition.Report

        • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
          Ignored
          says:

          Sure, but until the ACA private insurance could and did. And very few people on private insurance qualify for Medicaid absent a serious change in financial fortune.Report

          • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            Medicaid doesn’t ban you for having a preexisting condition.

            PPACA was a Medicaid expansion, with half of it having a non-Medicaid brand for marketing purposes.Report

            • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
              Ignored
              says:

              PPACA was a Medicaid expansion, with half of it having a non-Medicaid brand for marketing purposes.

              You keep saying that, but massive ongoing repetition doesn’t make it true.

              That aside, the ACA did require all insurance companies to drop all pre-existing exclusions from their insurance. Since, as you may have noticed, the majority of Americans still get health insurance from their employers.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                “You keep saying that, but massive ongoing repetition doesn’t make it true.”

                *shrug* I guess I don’t have a response to “nuh-uh“. But as we’ve established through discussion on this website, what anyone intended when writing the PPACA doesn’t matter, because we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it.Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Well since we have the bill, you need to do the work of providing a citation that shows that private insurance obtained through the exchanges is somehow Medicaid. Cause everything I find says its not.Report

            • DavidTC in reply to DensityDuck
              Ignored
              says:

              I don’t know, is being an adult male a preexisting condition?

              Here are, literally, the requirements for Medicaid in Georgia:

              You think you are pregnant.
              You are a child or teenager.
              You are age 65 or older.
              You are legally blind.
              You have a disability.
              You need nursing home care.

              These are, to be clear, the _current_ requirements for Medicaid. Right now, in 2024.

              Note those _also_ require absurdly low income.

              It is amazing how many Americans, especially those on the right, are flatly delusional about what Medicaid covered without the expansion.Report

  3. Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    Going further back, the Republicans wanted to ban something that the Supreme Court arbitrarily declared to be Constitutionally protected. The Republican leaders didn’t do it until they won the people’s hearts and minds.

    The abortion pill is like the cotton gin: a change in technology that makes a bad thing more common. The increase in abortions isn’t a sign of the pro-choice side winning hearts and minds.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Pinky
      Ignored
      says:

      right, because 67% of American wanting abortion to remain safe and legal through between 22 and 24 week is all about technology advancement.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Pinky
      Ignored
      says:

      It’s not just technological change.

      Forcing women to stay pregnant requires repression and control to make them do what we want.
      Our tolerance towards state repression/control of minorities has gone down.

      Ongoing informed personal consent is also a lot bigger in modern medical ethics than it was.Report

      • InMD in reply to Dark Matter
        Ignored
        says:

        The technology component goes in a bunch of different directions. There were of course back alley abortions but my understanding is that enforcement of the laws was spotty. If someone had cash and a willing doctor there wasn’t any real way to track it or prove what happened. Now everything is digitized and there’s a real prospect of highly intrusive medical monitoring and investigation which people (read: women) understandably hate, regardless of personal feelings on intentionally terminating a pregnancy.

        This all of course isn’t helped by the simple fact that the best thing people most upset about abortion could do to prevent it is hand out contraception anywhere and everywhere, not send cops and prosecutors poking around peoples’ private lives.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          If someone had cash and a willing doctor…

          Black market so-called medical care created lots of horror stories. CDC thought right before Roe we had 130,000 self induced or black market abortions. Every hospital had a care unit to deal with this.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion#Abortion_in_the_U.S._before_1973_(Roe_v._Wade)

          the best thing people most upset about abortion could do to prevent it

          Mostly they’re not interested in preventing pregnancy, they’re interested in forcing people to stay pregnant.Report

          • InMD in reply to Dark Matter
            Ignored
            says:

            I’m aware of the horror stories. The point I’m making is that the pro life movement’s expectations about people’s willingness to tolerate what it would take to do what they want are totally misplaced, and that technology has made that problem for them far more acute.Report

            • Philip H in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              Which is why I keep bringing up the statistics on abortion approval. The anti-abortion crowd lost the hearts and minds side of the debate, so all they have left is state coercion.Report

              • InMD in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                They absolutely failed and I think they ensured they would fail when they put all of their chips in with the party that otherwise treats healthcare as a strictly personal problem and state support of the same as a juicy target of spending cuts. Everyone who thinks about the issue for more than 5 seconds realizes that the sort of every man for himself thinking that animated the Republican party up until about 2016 is the polar opposite of what an actual ‘culture of life’ might look like, and it’s way too late now for them to change course.

                My hunch is that personal feelings on the subject are as muddled as ever. I myself (much to my chagrin) am a semi-practicing Catholic. I think the truly elective terminations of healthy, no extenuating circumstances pregnancies, is, on balance, the wrong thing to do. But I also think trying to do something like criminalizing it in the context of the actual existing American healthcare system and actual existing criminal justice system is also quite self evidently the wrong thing to do, and Americans very understandably will never accept it over the long run.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                There are always “extenuating circumstances” if we use normal rules and ethics.

                Basic pregnancy involves damage to the woman’s body that is deeply illegal/unethical for one person to inflict on another without consent. Basic pregnancy is a deeply life changing event.

                Basic medical ethics prevent me from being forced to give blood, even to save a dying child. That’s the normal standard.Report

              • InMD in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                This is a hopelessly shallow understanding of things.

                To use your hypothetical I don’t think the state should force a person to give blood to a dying child. I also do not think that the healthy adult who refuses to do it has made the right choice. Not sure why that’s so complicated for some people. As if the state is somehow the source and foundation of human morality. It isn’t and never can be.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Dark Matter
            Ignored
            says:

            Your link indicates a fatality rate of .03% in 1972, using black market 1972 technology.Report

        • Pinky in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          “the best thing people most upset about abortion could do to prevent it is hand out contraception anywhere and everywhere”

          Did they stop doing that a few years ago? Because the abortion rate went up.Report

  4. Doctor Jay
    Ignored
    says:

    For what it’s worth, in 2022, Roe v. Wade was no longer the controlling precedent. Planned Parenthood v. Casey had taken over that role. Because, as you say, the basis for Roe was not that solid.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Doctor Jay
      Ignored
      says:

      Roe became a totem. It didn’t matter what it said. It doesn’t even matter that it was poorly reasoned.

      Roe == Abortion.
      When Roe was overturned, it wasn’t “returned to the states” (whatever the hell *THAT* means), it means that Abortion was overturned.Report

  5. Grung_e_Gene
    Ignored
    says:

    This is a whole host of bad faith and disingenuous post hoc reasoning which is all Republicans have; keep lying to yourself that being against Abortion is being Pro-Life, what we’ve seen in just 2 years is the Republicans salivating at the thought of women dying and being in pain and ecstasy at the thought of chaining women into sexual slavery. Any claims to the contrary of that is sophistry and lies.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *