When the ACA was being discussed (over the course of a year of hearings and amendments and debates), there was this weird obsession from its opponents with "Death Panels." The idea was that, well, money is finite, and potential medical care demands were infinite, so sooner or later the Big Bad Gubbiment was going to have to decide Who Would Live and Who Would Die.
Never mind that, under the status quo ante, the "Death Panels" of limited money vs infinite demand were in the hands of private, for-profit insurance companies (as anyone who ever sat on the phone with an insurance company begging for "approval" of an expense can testify). The Right was convinced that the ACA would lead to Grandma being sentenced to death — or at least asserted that would be the case.
It hasn't happened so far, of course, and maybe because of that, the Right is now much more death-curious regarding their own proposals for health insurance reform, the AHCA. Such that we get folk like the yahoo referenced below asserting (as I paraphrase), "There's no way to tell how many people will actually, really, truly die when they get kicked off of health insurance, so we should ignore any of those arguments against the AHCA. Besides, we're all going to die anyway, sooner or later."
"We all deserve to die" is a fine sentiment for a Sweeney Todd, but it's maybe not the basis for health care policy, don't you think?
Fox News host argues stripping coverage from millions is no biggie since ‘we’re all going to die’
That’s one way to look at it.
Maybe we should all take up the Death Panel cry.
+John Bump Oh, that's so 2009.
Fox News isn't known for their well thought out arguments.
Will the real Death Panel please stand up?
From Fox's latest healthcare correspondent, Hugo Furst.