US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5887

On July 31 2026 19:53 oBlade wrote:

I looked at the actual 400 page primary document the editorialized far-left propaganda was based on. I searched "terminal." There were 0 results. I was then left wondering what this obvious bullshit was based on. So I searched "cancer" and got 4 results.


What does this mean?

It means just because the paper with a diagnosis says "cancer" or "HIV" (entirely livable disease which is not a death sentence at all in 2026, and thinking this is the 80s when it was, just to make up the lie that cruel Blumpf wants to work AIDS patients to death or something, would border on ignorant homophobia), that's not sufficient for the enrollee's condition to meet the level of exclusion from the work requirement. That's the whole fucking point. The disease is not terminal per se.



Their attempt to regulate the statute they're applying could hardly be more reasonable. You can't just say everybody with any cancer is exempt just as you can't say nobody with any diabetes is exempt. Every case will ultimately be different and there is no one-size-fits-all rule.

And I actually did this before it having been suggested to me that it's physically impossible for a man with stage 1 skin cancer to find work indoors. Because you have to be gullible to just swallow an article like that.

Now if the issue becomes, but unemployed adults of working age WITHOUT severe conditions should be guaranteed federal health insurance also, or 100% Marketplace subsidies under ACA, and there is confusion why people under the federal poverty line have to depend on Medicaid expansion to begin with, I would refer you to the people who passed the ACA.

On August 01 2026 17:43 oBlade wrote:

Really?

More costly? In what way?

Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA cost ~$2 trillion a year for the people on them. About $13,000 per person per year. Does the government need more than $13,000 to check someone's W-2? I can't imagine how many W-2s I could check for $13,000 lol but I think it'd be enough to find at least one invalid applicant or beneficiary.

If you scaled everyone in the US to the same average it'd be about $5 trillion.

$5 trillion (just giving) seems more expensive than $2 trillion. So your claim, prove it or source it.

And is this just true for healthcare, or also for housing and unemployment and food stamps? If so, why not just give everyone unemployment benefits without doing the silly old charade of "work testing" them for whether they need unemployment benefits or not. Why not give everyone Section 8 without checking whether they have a house or job already.


"Universal" does not mean "free."

It's not guaranteed in developed nations that if you just, say, elect to be unemployed you don't have any obligations towards the healthcare system.


The person who got the "billion dollars" worked for it. Their taxes pay for the judicial system and police too, probably a lot more than yours have. They can tell the person they're giving it to to get a job first if they want. It's their money. What did you think this was? My friend gave me a birthday present but there's no work requirement attached to it wow such unfair.


Do you know what "prevent" means?

Once you have an illness, the "preventable"ness of it is completely moot.

Otherwise whatever point you were trying to make, 80 hours of work in a month is probably not enough to work to death people who are outside the explicitly defined and exempted category of "medically frail or otherwise have special medical needs."

Okay let's think about what you're saying. Someone paid taxes, some of which goes to Medicare. Which is for seniors. Do they deserve Medicare at 40?

Someone paid taxes which go to Medicaid and then checked out of life. Do they need it because they're disabled? No. Do they need it because they're poor and can't work? No. Because they fell on hard times and there's no jobs, but are still trying to contribute by volunteering or doing childcare? No. Because they chose to? Yes? Then they don't need welfare do they. The requirement passed in 2025 is an extremely basic pulse check. Like is this person alive, breathing, not just a phantom paper fraud, and are they doing anything at all, or are they provably too incapable to do anything? Then they get benefits.

Everyone pays taxes all their lives. The fact of paying taxes is not an out that society has no rules and you can do whatever you want. My taxes paid for the sidewalk but I can't just dig up bricks from it when I want to build something. My taxes contribute to public transportation but I still have to pay the fare. My taxes paid for a park ranger but I can't shoot a bald eagle and roast it when I'm hungry. My taxes pay for the fire department but I can't hijack a truck to create a makeshift water park in my backyard on a hot summer day. Your taxes paid for public schools but you can't just walk in and audit elementary school civics even though it would behoove you to.

The rules exist so we have a functioning society, not so everyone can get theirs and squeeze the fruit of the free shit tree dry.

Is it long covid? Then it's not real. Germs? Cancer isn't one but okay.

But if someone's really worried, suspicious of federal healthcare, they can join and use one of the many well-established socialist mutual aid organizations out there from people who put their money where their mouth is.

We do tax the rich. Everyone who wants to tax wants to tax the rich, because that's where money is. Socialists just want to destroy them. Fell the free shit tree and freeze to death after the ensuing bonfire dies out.

You're pro-workers right? "Workers of the world, unite!" "Yes, if you're poor, literally work just a little bit if able, even if you cost far more than you contribute, and you can get literal free healthcare." "Omg fascism."

The only problem I have is you need to also standardize assets in means testing. A rich person who can work and just gets Medicaid because they're zero income also needs to be pruned.

It was coercive because states voluntarily joined Medicaid under a certain framework. Forcing change later with the threat of withholding all funding whatsoever if a state doesn't comply, would probably be coercive yeah. It's "I'm altering the deal." On the other hand, creating a new Fedicaid program and just running it federally, like the VA, would have been a non-coercive way for the ACA to achieve its goals. Or again just subsidized those people on beautiful Marketplace plans, since the Marketplace was so successful and efficient.

But you think it's not coercive, no problem, I'll make a note: LightSpectra thinks the federal government withholding or threatening to withhold funding from specific states is not coercive. Just in case that ever comes up again.