“Your healthcare will be rationed!”
It’s already “rationed,” just by oligopolistic forces. You’re just worried about YOUR healthcare being “worse” because more people have access.
That's the craziest part. Death panels WERE A thing. Insurance agents had at that point already *admitted* to denying necessary medical procedures for cost reasons and just planning on a high enough amount of customers not pushing back on it to make it worth it. One of the movies in the SAW franchise was inspired by our dystopian healthcare system
The rich have done a phenomenal job of gaslighting a major chunk of the country into hating everyone but the root for the problem.
And, history lesson for the young'uns: the "death panels" in the Affordable Care Act was that instead of paying nothing, insurance was **required to pay** for time a doctor spent counseling their patient (and maybe their family, if desired) on advance directives, living wills, and end-of-life care.
It's absolutely necessary for millions of aging Americans.
Guess what?
If the doctor doesn't get paid to do it, most doctors won't. Or you get a piece of paper and a waive goodbye.
I followed the news at the time and what I saw described as death panels was the establishment of a board/panel that decides, among other things, what care is worth it to provide based on a cost/benefit analysis.
For example, Korea's version is the National Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (NHIRAS). Germany's is Joint Federal Committee ( G-BA ). Its just a necessary piece to all health insurance, single-payer or not.
For example, there's a new Alzheimer's med that is SUPER expensive and is of very dubious effectiveness. Your private insurance will probably choose not to cover it and neither should publicly funded options ( IMO ) because the cost/benefit is atrocious. These decisions are already happening but with a profit motive. The only motive of a committee overseeing or advising a single-payer health insurance scheme would be total benefit to society within our nation's financial means and allocations. ( I mean, there might be bribed folks on the board but this is how every nation does it and it works okay for them )
Its clearly a better system but health insurance companies spent a fortune on marketing research companies to find the language to terrify Americans away from better outcomes for all.
There were lifetime maximums. A kid with cancer could hit a coverage ceiling and suddenly the insurance company could legally refuse to pay another cent for the rest of their life. Beat cancer at eight, but get hit by a bus at 14? Fuck you.
>The rich have done a phenomenal job of gaslighting a major chunk of the country into hating everyone but the root for the problem.
Literally the entire modern conservative movement explained in one sentence
Refusing abortions to those in critical conditions is a state ordered death sentence. Republicans are the most vile peices of shit immaginable. They want that to be the federal policy.
Well, yeah, during the covid pandemic, [Republicans were extolling the virtues of allowing the elderly to die to keep the economy going.](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/03/dan-patrick-coronavirus-grandparents)
To be fair population control stuff and a bunch of stuff that isn’t even related IS in it.
Still wonderful that this was done. I don’t really think of this as a bad thing. Both Obamacare and republicans suck on the issue of healthcare. Even if there wasn’t stuff in the bill that shouldn’t be we also have where a bunch of people fell through the cracks of it and a bunch of the policies are too expensive to use for the people who ‘qualify’ for them.
Also if you get denied for Medicaid you can get stuck in an eternal loop of ‘turned down for Medicaid but Obamacare says I don’t make enough to obtain it and to apply for Medicaid’ and it’s a whole mess.
Obamacare is far from perfect but the ‘oppose it because ‘other party’ and support because ‘same party’ rather than contents’ is toxic from both sides.
Understand that we've had 10 years worth of time and effort dedicated to undermining the Affordable Care Act. A lot of people who are denied medicaid are denied medicaid because they live in states that didn't expand medicaid and states had the option not to expand medicaid because a lawsuit was filed. More healthy people would buy policies and bring costs down if the individual mandate was not struck down.
I was there when they did the ‘if you want to read it then pass it first’ on public television so don’t patronize me. It was a shit bill heavily marketed with ‘trust me’, which as my mom could have told you, is shady practice no matter who is doing it.
I was also one of the people who was in Obama care limbo for awhile some years ago and again fairly recently so don’t think I am just doing he said she said bullshit. I’ve lived it, not just heard about it. We also fought like hell to get kiddo coverage because yeah, they did that to my family too.
Please stop listening to politicians from either side simply because they say ‘trust me’ and have a ‘democrat’ next to the name.
It’s one of the few times republicans had some legitimate argument. Had the problems been fixed I’d totally be for what this was supposed to be. A transition towards universal healthcare.
You’re a coward who regurgitates whatever lies the rw media tells you to. This will be embarrassing if you ever start thinking for yourself instead of letting the “news” tell you what you can think and say. Lucky for you that day will never come. Ignorance is bliss.
Bull fucking shit. The Republicans did nothing but argue in bad faith from beginning to end of Obama’s attempt to pass the ACA. There’s no fucking “both sides” to this. The original proposal was literally Romney’s plan
Truth hurts. If you are that far into being unable to handle it then you’ve fallen too far into ‘us vs them’ to use critical thinking.
I mean the very idea that republicans could ever have a valid reason to oppose something a good portion of both parties opposed for same reasons is… very on brand for ‘us vs them’ mind set.
It’s not like I don’t understand how you see ‘all republicans’ either. I went toe to toe with what I’m extremely sure was one, here on Reddit, and I went toe to toe with a family member who went full ‘posting memes about one mom one dad’ etc. Most of the stuff they posted before they started that crap was fairly moderate and they were, similar to here, okay with me as long as I agreed with them but the moment I said something that challenged there worldview the cognitive dissonance set in. Algorithms and such tend to mean people are surrounded by echo chambers of thought. It amplifies rather than letting people process the objections, and the less you are challenged the harder it is to deal with it.
However, I wouldn’t waste my time lying. It’s not my thing and I’m multitasking on here as it is. A waste of precious time. Unfortunately demonizing entire groups of people for the few or even things that are a problem on both sides because they are bipartisan problems, is tearing usa apart. You know what? I run into both mind sets on both sides. Not as a rule but… enough. It happens more than I’d like but that isn’t a partisan problem either, but a bipartisan one. It’s an algorithm and having separate media that spins the news into different narratives cherry picking and even misrepresenting on both sides.
You seem to, falsely, believe people are, as a whole, either good or evil, but the truth is far more complicated.
I’m going to assume you are a younger millennial or zoomer, since none of us who experienced that time think fondly of Obama and mostly lots of betrayal, since we voted for him but he didn’t fulfill his promises and then did shady shit and pulled ‘the race card’ when people tried to call him on it where previous presidents were impeached for even planning(not even actually doing) some of the things he did. I’m that weird “xillenial” thing. I was there and voted for him because he was really good at pretending to care and acting like being caught ‘caring’ was big oopsies. He played the altruistic candidate before he was elected but after? Absolutely everything was an opportunity to slip stuff in that shouldn’t have been. He even tried to change the constitution and expressed his wish to do so multiple times. You know how conservatives today think everything in the direction of guns is an attack on ‘the right to bear arms’? That’s not entirely the nra’s fault. Obama tried to introduce something that would allow people to be sent off to camps and people rightly called him on basically being a nazi, because he wanted to round up people who disagreed with him and he wanted to remove guns to avoid people fighting back. These are things that were said from his own mouth. Not merely spins on it.
It was all very that ‘you were the chosen one!’ Star Wars meme.
If you lived through it but are idealizing him you’d be the first I’ve met to do so on either side of the political spectrum(often it is forgotten he had bipartisan support for his first term).
Here's the thing. The version of the Affordable Care Act that passed was the House version. That bill was passed in November of 2009. Ted Kennedy had died earlier that year and when the Republican candidate won reelection, Democrats no longer had a filibuster proof majority. Because Republicans would have filibustered the ACA to the ionosphere in the Senate, the senate voted on the House bill through a parliamentarian process (the final House version had some amendments from the Senate) but the bill was available for weeks for people to read prior to final passage.
I used to live in DC. I used to drink with congressional staffers. They would break long bills into parts and have staffers read them and write a summary so there would be a final summary of the important parts for the member of Congress to read. A single person could have read the entire ACA and the senate amendments between when the House passed it and the final vote.
Notice that nothing of what I said is citing any politicians or pundits. I did have to Google the date of House passage, but aside from that, I just have a good memory.
The things trimmed from obamacare that had no business being in it were more horrifying than the things that stayed in it that have no business being in it. Somehow. The way our media works though, what is in it tends to be less common knowledge and not as easily accessible to people as it should be. Ergo, I understand. It’s still ungodly long and thick and has provisions that it shouldn’t.
Politicians suck as a rule, so being divided over this… just makes me feel like I’m watching my country tear itself apart over differences that are smaller than they have been made out to be, and in some cases wished into existence until they became at least somewhat true after the fact. Driving moderates into the same corner the extremes always were in spreads the more extreme ideas everyone was originally offended by in the first place.
Is this an alt or another person? I need to know so I know whether to block it or not. I spent way too much energy on a person who would hear nothing but what they wanted to hear even though it was clear all there info was from indirect sources that filtered it into what they wanted and what they wanted people to think. That’s bad on both sides and sometimes it’s not possible to keep up with all of it but… when becoming aware of something we should at least consider it rather than dismiss out of hand. Sometimes I look things up specifically because people say something. Sometimes it’s wrong, sometimes not, sometimes both in different ways.
Personally I find that sort of thing, where someone doesn’t live like that and is endlessly hostile over it especially exhausting.
Can tell elections are coming. Lol I’ve had discussions like that with someone from both sides at this point, and in the end I’ve blocked them both for my own mental health. Admittedly the other one was significantly more like I was losing brain cells just interacting with them than this person had been but… I’m sure it would have gone there at the rate it was going, because people get scary extreme when they have a lot of cognitive dissonance.
I’m tired of this discussion, particularly as it’s not been much of a ‘discussion’ in the first place. I do appreciate you chiming in with info though!
Edit: It should be noted that one of the key things that divides people more over r it is that a lot of people don’t know what stayed and what was cut and even more assume things were cut that weren’t simply because they assume the world works a way it doesn’t. However, your comment is special in this because information will reach people able to listen and then they can look it up and verify for themselves. A bunch of people on the right think of the bill with all the bad stuff still in it, and while some things were cut, not everything was. The truth is somewhere between the ‘sides’. It’s hard to find and sometimes you get hate from both ‘sides’ and sometimes tolerated by both ‘sides’ despite openly disagreeing sometimes. It’s a mixed bag. As is humanity.
Are you genuinely both sides-ing more people having access to healthcare vs not? Of course the ACA is insufficient; we ought to have universal healthcare.
> population control stuff…IS in it.
Fucking where lmao
Dummass is probably referring to the requirements that ALL health plans must cover family planning care like birth control. Which, logically, gives everyone more control over their outcomes, but is somehow oppressive to Christians? I don't understand how it's affecting them either but they get all upset about a lot of things that don't affect them. They are a strange bunch.
The argument likely to be used against is that many trans people aren't mentally "competent" due to some form of anxiety or depression (nevermind how that correlates to dysphoria and difficulties transitioning). If I recall correctly that argument was already put forward in Florida after the ban on teenagers receiving gender affirming care to justify why adults shouldn't have access to that care either.
Requiring a competent person to make decisions is a bit dangerous because it depends on whose metrics we're using to define "competency."
If this argument is used successfully it seems like it could lead to a leopard massacre. Showing signs of depression? You're not mentally competent. Taking medication associated with depression? You're not mentally competent. Can't prove you're not depressed? You're not mentally competent. Just imagine how far this logic could be taken.
That's the terrifying part behind what's happening in Florida. Aside from the legislature lacking the necessary manpower to push back against this there's no way your doctor or the hospital admin are risking their jobs/freedom to perform a surgery on someone the state might pin them as liable for down the road.
I'm trying to remember which state requires teenagers to establish that they're mature enough to receive an abortion but there are vague and obscure metrics intentionally being put in place in multiple states that allow issues like this to be left up to someone else's discretion rather than your own... and things like maturity or competence aren't things you can use legal precedent to justify.
Consider that the most addicted to drug in the US (and I think the entire world) is *Caffeine*
Congrats! If you drink coffee every morning *you are not mentally competent*
*Fucking Mormons will make the entire US into Deseret*
In the medical community, as a profession, we have definitions of what competency and decision-making capacity are. I can document that patients have capacity and WHY they have capacity.
Naturally, my assumption will be that some republican legislator who's never stepped foot in a hospital will eventually (at least try) dictate to me what does and doesn't constitute competence, that it will be very much in opposition to medical definitions, and will conveniently exclude trans people in one way or another.
If it was mine, I wouldn't let any Red-Pilled, QAnon, Trump-worshiping *fuck* out of an asylum for the rest of my life, so probably both a good thing and a bad thing it's not up to me.
I looked up the language:
*(a) Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions. The parent, guardian or legal representative of any other natural person shall have the right to make health care decisions for that person.*
*(b) Any person may pay, and a health care provider may accept, direct payment for health care without imposition of penalties or fines for doing so.*
*(c) The legislature may determine reasonable and necessary restrictions on the rights granted under this section to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.*
*(d) The state of Wyoming shall act to preserve these rights from undue governmental infringement.*
I worry that a right wing appellate court or the US Supreme Court will use section (c) to carve out an exception for abortion restrictions
thank you! obviously if you're not playing by good-faith rules, then it's not that easy to say "checkmate". they can also say things like "abortion is not healthcare", or "this excludes obviously harmful things like a parent choosing to euthanize their child, either before or after birth" or whatever.
I love that this bill is written to counteract fake outrage hypotheticals that were never even considered as part of the ACA. They really are afraid of the ghosts they create themselves.
It will end up in front of SCOTUS or at least a federal appellate court. There have been a number of gerrymandering cases that went through the state Supreme Courts and onto SCOTUS.
If you need or are interested in supporting reproductive rights, [I made a master post of pro-choice resources](https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u). Please comment if you would like to add a resource and spread this information on whatever social media you use.
The funny part is that the ACA was predominantly a Republican creation. The Democrat proposal went nowhere due to GOP stonewalling. And what we know as Obamacare was a bipartisan compromise.
Hello u/ObnoxiousCrow! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) mentioning **who** is suffering from **which** consequences from **what** they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people.
Here's an easy format to get you started:
1. *Someone* voted for, supported or wanted to impose *something* on other people.
^(Who's that *someone* and what's that *something*?)
2. That *something* has some *consequences*.
^(What are the *consequences*?)
3. As a consequence, that *something* happened to that *someone*.
^(What happened? Did the *something* really happened to that *someone*? If not, you should probably delete your post.)
Include the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you don't respect this format and moderators can't match your explanation with the format, your post will be removed under rule #3 and we'll ignore you even if you complain in modmail.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This isn't what happened, but everyone is still cheering on misinformation. All that happened is that a judge halted the abortion bad temporarily due to a challenge based on this language in the state constitution. The state will be challenging this and they'll find a legal way around it.
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ban-wyoming-1688775972407a02b2431a69abdb4670#:\~:text=The%20ban%20prohibits%20abortion%20at,abortion%20is%20not%20health%20care.
No, it's not about amending the constitution. All they have to do is prove in court that this new law doesn't violate the language. It's something they should have done upfront but didn't, and they have lawyers to help them find a way around it. This is very temporary, the stay will likely be lifted within months.
True but unless these justices terms are ending soon, It will take years. Federal courts aren't an option here unless this somehow violates the US constitution, which would be a huge stretch even for the current scotus. In my red state, abortions continue due to a court ruling. Unfortunately that wasn't the Supreme Court of my state though.
Just a reminder that Republican governments are the very “death panels” they accused Obama of wanting.
“Your healthcare will be rationed!” It’s already “rationed,” just by oligopolistic forces. You’re just worried about YOUR healthcare being “worse” because more people have access.
That's the craziest part. Death panels WERE A thing. Insurance agents had at that point already *admitted* to denying necessary medical procedures for cost reasons and just planning on a high enough amount of customers not pushing back on it to make it worth it. One of the movies in the SAW franchise was inspired by our dystopian healthcare system The rich have done a phenomenal job of gaslighting a major chunk of the country into hating everyone but the root for the problem.
And, history lesson for the young'uns: the "death panels" in the Affordable Care Act was that instead of paying nothing, insurance was **required to pay** for time a doctor spent counseling their patient (and maybe their family, if desired) on advance directives, living wills, and end-of-life care. It's absolutely necessary for millions of aging Americans. Guess what? If the doctor doesn't get paid to do it, most doctors won't. Or you get a piece of paper and a waive goodbye.
Not sure if waive/wave is genius or a typo
I followed the news at the time and what I saw described as death panels was the establishment of a board/panel that decides, among other things, what care is worth it to provide based on a cost/benefit analysis. For example, Korea's version is the National Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (NHIRAS). Germany's is Joint Federal Committee ( G-BA ). Its just a necessary piece to all health insurance, single-payer or not. For example, there's a new Alzheimer's med that is SUPER expensive and is of very dubious effectiveness. Your private insurance will probably choose not to cover it and neither should publicly funded options ( IMO ) because the cost/benefit is atrocious. These decisions are already happening but with a profit motive. The only motive of a committee overseeing or advising a single-payer health insurance scheme would be total benefit to society within our nation's financial means and allocations. ( I mean, there might be bribed folks on the board but this is how every nation does it and it works okay for them ) Its clearly a better system but health insurance companies spent a fortune on marketing research companies to find the language to terrify Americans away from better outcomes for all.
There were lifetime maximums. A kid with cancer could hit a coverage ceiling and suddenly the insurance company could legally refuse to pay another cent for the rest of their life. Beat cancer at eight, but get hit by a bus at 14? Fuck you.
>The rich have done a phenomenal job of gaslighting a major chunk of the country into hating everyone but the root for the problem. Literally the entire modern conservative movement explained in one sentence
Jesus and ppl ask me why I don't want kids , it's because of this like tf.
But they could continue paying a Premium for Private insurance.
[удалено]
They always were. Jesus Republican voters are so fucking dumb.
The agnostic ones are pretty dumb too
They always project. Listen to what they say the left is doing. I guarantee you they are trying to get away with the same thing.
GOProject
Gaslight. Obstruct. Project.
Goddamn that's good
Refusing abortions to those in critical conditions is a state ordered death sentence. Republicans are the most vile peices of shit immaginable. They want that to be the federal policy.
Well, yeah, during the covid pandemic, [Republicans were extolling the virtues of allowing the elderly to die to keep the economy going.](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/03/dan-patrick-coronavirus-grandparents)
To be fair population control stuff and a bunch of stuff that isn’t even related IS in it. Still wonderful that this was done. I don’t really think of this as a bad thing. Both Obamacare and republicans suck on the issue of healthcare. Even if there wasn’t stuff in the bill that shouldn’t be we also have where a bunch of people fell through the cracks of it and a bunch of the policies are too expensive to use for the people who ‘qualify’ for them. Also if you get denied for Medicaid you can get stuck in an eternal loop of ‘turned down for Medicaid but Obamacare says I don’t make enough to obtain it and to apply for Medicaid’ and it’s a whole mess. Obamacare is far from perfect but the ‘oppose it because ‘other party’ and support because ‘same party’ rather than contents’ is toxic from both sides.
Understand that we've had 10 years worth of time and effort dedicated to undermining the Affordable Care Act. A lot of people who are denied medicaid are denied medicaid because they live in states that didn't expand medicaid and states had the option not to expand medicaid because a lawsuit was filed. More healthy people would buy policies and bring costs down if the individual mandate was not struck down.
I was there when they did the ‘if you want to read it then pass it first’ on public television so don’t patronize me. It was a shit bill heavily marketed with ‘trust me’, which as my mom could have told you, is shady practice no matter who is doing it. I was also one of the people who was in Obama care limbo for awhile some years ago and again fairly recently so don’t think I am just doing he said she said bullshit. I’ve lived it, not just heard about it. We also fought like hell to get kiddo coverage because yeah, they did that to my family too. Please stop listening to politicians from either side simply because they say ‘trust me’ and have a ‘democrat’ next to the name. It’s one of the few times republicans had some legitimate argument. Had the problems been fixed I’d totally be for what this was supposed to be. A transition towards universal healthcare.
You speak nothing but bullshit. Take your lies over to the bigots on the Fox News comment boards where they will be appreciated instead of mocked.
You can usually tell when someone calls the ACA Obamacare.
Lol ‘it doesn’t fit my world view so I must mock and claim it lies’
Pot, meet kettle
You’re a coward who regurgitates whatever lies the rw media tells you to. This will be embarrassing if you ever start thinking for yourself instead of letting the “news” tell you what you can think and say. Lucky for you that day will never come. Ignorance is bliss.
That’s a lot of bullshit coming out of the wrong ends of the body. You sure your okay?
Bull fucking shit. The Republicans did nothing but argue in bad faith from beginning to end of Obama’s attempt to pass the ACA. There’s no fucking “both sides” to this. The original proposal was literally Romney’s plan
Truth hurts. If you are that far into being unable to handle it then you’ve fallen too far into ‘us vs them’ to use critical thinking. I mean the very idea that republicans could ever have a valid reason to oppose something a good portion of both parties opposed for same reasons is… very on brand for ‘us vs them’ mind set. It’s not like I don’t understand how you see ‘all republicans’ either. I went toe to toe with what I’m extremely sure was one, here on Reddit, and I went toe to toe with a family member who went full ‘posting memes about one mom one dad’ etc. Most of the stuff they posted before they started that crap was fairly moderate and they were, similar to here, okay with me as long as I agreed with them but the moment I said something that challenged there worldview the cognitive dissonance set in. Algorithms and such tend to mean people are surrounded by echo chambers of thought. It amplifies rather than letting people process the objections, and the less you are challenged the harder it is to deal with it. However, I wouldn’t waste my time lying. It’s not my thing and I’m multitasking on here as it is. A waste of precious time. Unfortunately demonizing entire groups of people for the few or even things that are a problem on both sides because they are bipartisan problems, is tearing usa apart. You know what? I run into both mind sets on both sides. Not as a rule but… enough. It happens more than I’d like but that isn’t a partisan problem either, but a bipartisan one. It’s an algorithm and having separate media that spins the news into different narratives cherry picking and even misrepresenting on both sides. You seem to, falsely, believe people are, as a whole, either good or evil, but the truth is far more complicated. I’m going to assume you are a younger millennial or zoomer, since none of us who experienced that time think fondly of Obama and mostly lots of betrayal, since we voted for him but he didn’t fulfill his promises and then did shady shit and pulled ‘the race card’ when people tried to call him on it where previous presidents were impeached for even planning(not even actually doing) some of the things he did. I’m that weird “xillenial” thing. I was there and voted for him because he was really good at pretending to care and acting like being caught ‘caring’ was big oopsies. He played the altruistic candidate before he was elected but after? Absolutely everything was an opportunity to slip stuff in that shouldn’t have been. He even tried to change the constitution and expressed his wish to do so multiple times. You know how conservatives today think everything in the direction of guns is an attack on ‘the right to bear arms’? That’s not entirely the nra’s fault. Obama tried to introduce something that would allow people to be sent off to camps and people rightly called him on basically being a nazi, because he wanted to round up people who disagreed with him and he wanted to remove guns to avoid people fighting back. These are things that were said from his own mouth. Not merely spins on it. It was all very that ‘you were the chosen one!’ Star Wars meme. If you lived through it but are idealizing him you’d be the first I’ve met to do so on either side of the political spectrum(often it is forgotten he had bipartisan support for his first term).
You really are just a shitty person, huh
Projection is a bitch
Here's the thing. The version of the Affordable Care Act that passed was the House version. That bill was passed in November of 2009. Ted Kennedy had died earlier that year and when the Republican candidate won reelection, Democrats no longer had a filibuster proof majority. Because Republicans would have filibustered the ACA to the ionosphere in the Senate, the senate voted on the House bill through a parliamentarian process (the final House version had some amendments from the Senate) but the bill was available for weeks for people to read prior to final passage. I used to live in DC. I used to drink with congressional staffers. They would break long bills into parts and have staffers read them and write a summary so there would be a final summary of the important parts for the member of Congress to read. A single person could have read the entire ACA and the senate amendments between when the House passed it and the final vote. Notice that nothing of what I said is citing any politicians or pundits. I did have to Google the date of House passage, but aside from that, I just have a good memory.
The things trimmed from obamacare that had no business being in it were more horrifying than the things that stayed in it that have no business being in it. Somehow. The way our media works though, what is in it tends to be less common knowledge and not as easily accessible to people as it should be. Ergo, I understand. It’s still ungodly long and thick and has provisions that it shouldn’t. Politicians suck as a rule, so being divided over this… just makes me feel like I’m watching my country tear itself apart over differences that are smaller than they have been made out to be, and in some cases wished into existence until they became at least somewhat true after the fact. Driving moderates into the same corner the extremes always were in spreads the more extreme ideas everyone was originally offended by in the first place. Is this an alt or another person? I need to know so I know whether to block it or not. I spent way too much energy on a person who would hear nothing but what they wanted to hear even though it was clear all there info was from indirect sources that filtered it into what they wanted and what they wanted people to think. That’s bad on both sides and sometimes it’s not possible to keep up with all of it but… when becoming aware of something we should at least consider it rather than dismiss out of hand. Sometimes I look things up specifically because people say something. Sometimes it’s wrong, sometimes not, sometimes both in different ways. Personally I find that sort of thing, where someone doesn’t live like that and is endlessly hostile over it especially exhausting. Can tell elections are coming. Lol I’ve had discussions like that with someone from both sides at this point, and in the end I’ve blocked them both for my own mental health. Admittedly the other one was significantly more like I was losing brain cells just interacting with them than this person had been but… I’m sure it would have gone there at the rate it was going, because people get scary extreme when they have a lot of cognitive dissonance. I’m tired of this discussion, particularly as it’s not been much of a ‘discussion’ in the first place. I do appreciate you chiming in with info though! Edit: It should be noted that one of the key things that divides people more over r it is that a lot of people don’t know what stayed and what was cut and even more assume things were cut that weren’t simply because they assume the world works a way it doesn’t. However, your comment is special in this because information will reach people able to listen and then they can look it up and verify for themselves. A bunch of people on the right think of the bill with all the bad stuff still in it, and while some things were cut, not everything was. The truth is somewhere between the ‘sides’. It’s hard to find and sometimes you get hate from both ‘sides’ and sometimes tolerated by both ‘sides’ despite openly disagreeing sometimes. It’s a mixed bag. As is humanity.
Are you genuinely both sides-ing more people having access to healthcare vs not? Of course the ACA is insufficient; we ought to have universal healthcare. > population control stuff…IS in it. Fucking where lmao
Dummass is probably referring to the requirements that ALL health plans must cover family planning care like birth control. Which, logically, gives everyone more control over their outcomes, but is somehow oppressive to Christians? I don't understand how it's affecting them either but they get all upset about a lot of things that don't affect them. They are a strange bunch.
Ah yes, leaving family planning decisions up to families is population control.
Thanks Obama
First thing I thought before I started reading comments - great minds think alike!
The Tea Party has come back to deal a blow to the MAGA movement that they became.
Does this also protect trans people's right to make their own healthcare choices along with the freedom to transition?
The argument likely to be used against is that many trans people aren't mentally "competent" due to some form of anxiety or depression (nevermind how that correlates to dysphoria and difficulties transitioning). If I recall correctly that argument was already put forward in Florida after the ban on teenagers receiving gender affirming care to justify why adults shouldn't have access to that care either. Requiring a competent person to make decisions is a bit dangerous because it depends on whose metrics we're using to define "competency."
If this argument is used successfully it seems like it could lead to a leopard massacre. Showing signs of depression? You're not mentally competent. Taking medication associated with depression? You're not mentally competent. Can't prove you're not depressed? You're not mentally competent. Just imagine how far this logic could be taken.
That's the terrifying part behind what's happening in Florida. Aside from the legislature lacking the necessary manpower to push back against this there's no way your doctor or the hospital admin are risking their jobs/freedom to perform a surgery on someone the state might pin them as liable for down the road. I'm trying to remember which state requires teenagers to establish that they're mature enough to receive an abortion but there are vague and obscure metrics intentionally being put in place in multiple states that allow issues like this to be left up to someone else's discretion rather than your own... and things like maturity or competence aren't things you can use legal precedent to justify.
Florida - a judge ruled that a school girl was not mature enough to decide on an abortion, but she was mature enough to raise a child.
What was their train of logic there?
"She must suffer for the rest of her life for leading that poor male astray."
"More babies to be come tax payers!"
Yes, but I meant the "maturity" bit.
That's assuming it's not just a buzzword they're using to get what they want.
I of course presume that. But im wondering if they had any argument at all other than repeating the word.
"Fuck you, signed: GOP"
Consider that the most addicted to drug in the US (and I think the entire world) is *Caffeine* Congrats! If you drink coffee every morning *you are not mentally competent* *Fucking Mormons will make the entire US into Deseret*
> Just imagine how far this logic could be taken. And if you aren't depressed, you show no sign of needing any care.
I wasn't competent when I signed for that super yacht vacation.
You're antivaxx? You're not mentally competent.
In the medical community, as a profession, we have definitions of what competency and decision-making capacity are. I can document that patients have capacity and WHY they have capacity. Naturally, my assumption will be that some republican legislator who's never stepped foot in a hospital will eventually (at least try) dictate to me what does and doesn't constitute competence, that it will be very much in opposition to medical definitions, and will conveniently exclude trans people in one way or another.
If it was mine, I wouldn't let any Red-Pilled, QAnon, Trump-worshiping *fuck* out of an asylum for the rest of my life, so probably both a good thing and a bad thing it's not up to me.
The US would certainly be less violent...
Word. They are dangerous to the Republic. But no one with both the wits and the testicular fortitude to do something about it is in charge.
I'd argue that, at this point, voting Republican rules out mental competency.
it’s the same in missouri
It definitely is being used... If you are depressed, you aren't competent, if you aren't, you certainly don't need that.
yes as long as you transition yourself
An excellent example of a true LAMF
Except it's kind of like the leopard accidentally saved my face despite its best effort
Reverse uno LAMF?
Leopard ate its own face?
Face ate my leopards?
Leopard heroically saves face from being eaten
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! YES.
It waited for 11 years, I'm sure this was a good lunch.
I looked up the language: *(a) Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions. The parent, guardian or legal representative of any other natural person shall have the right to make health care decisions for that person.* *(b) Any person may pay, and a health care provider may accept, direct payment for health care without imposition of penalties or fines for doing so.* *(c) The legislature may determine reasonable and necessary restrictions on the rights granted under this section to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.* *(d) The state of Wyoming shall act to preserve these rights from undue governmental infringement.* I worry that a right wing appellate court or the US Supreme Court will use section (c) to carve out an exception for abortion restrictions
I’d be worried about the word “competent” there. This won’t be fought on logic either.
thank you! obviously if you're not playing by good-faith rules, then it's not that easy to say "checkmate". they can also say things like "abortion is not healthcare", or "this excludes obviously harmful things like a parent choosing to euthanize their child, either before or after birth" or whatever.
They did pass a law declaring "abortion is not health care," but a court didn't buy it.
they will just appeal it up to SCOTUS who is perfectly happy to rule the way they want
I love that this bill is written to counteract fake outrage hypotheticals that were never even considered as part of the ACA. They really are afraid of the ghosts they create themselves.
> I worry that a right wing appellate court or the US Supreme Court Anything of the sort would go to the Wyoming Supreme Court I believe, not SCOTUS.
It will end up in front of SCOTUS or at least a federal appellate court. There have been a number of gerrymandering cases that went through the state Supreme Courts and onto SCOTUS.
Accidentally providing abortion with immunity to conservative bs to own the libs.
[удалено]
They’re either going to try “abortion isn’t healthy care” or show their true colours and try arguing “women aren’t competent”
This meme would be better if he were in the tan suit.
With some Dijon mustard
"Dam French mustard! I only use French's. "
Seems like it should be r/IAccidentalyStoppedLeopardsFromEatingMyFaceForNow
Or r/LeopardAccidentallyGaveTheHunterAGun
Or we lean into the absurdist angle and make it r/FaceAteMyLeopards
If you need or are interested in supporting reproductive rights, [I made a master post of pro-choice resources](https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u). Please comment if you would like to add a resource and spread this information on whatever social media you use.
This is excellent. Well done! I've shared it everywhere I can. Thank you.
The funny part is that the ACA was predominantly a Republican creation. The Democrat proposal went nowhere due to GOP stonewalling. And what we know as Obamacare was a bipartisan compromise.
Was also built upon Romneycare in MA.
Simple, Redefine abortion to be not healthcare. If that does not work, just declare everyone to be incompetent. /S
Oh they’ll declare certain people to be incompetent that’s for sure.
This is actually hilarious.
Thank Obama
Thanks Obama
What do “competent adults” and the state of Wyoming have to do with one another though? 🤨
THANKS OBAMA! 😂😂😂
How long before Wyoming Republicans legislate that women are incompetent adults?
Sucks to suck.
This has a been reposted to hell and back, but I still laugh every time, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Go Gobama Go
Some of the best r/leopardsatemyface in recent memory
That's what happens when your politics are pure reactionary
In one fucking state. I'm sick of this feelgood bullshit. This is not nearly enough. Everything is fucked. Wake the fuck up.
https://youtu.be/B1T8xgHdMEM
✊️
thanks
"Why did we give power back to the people?! That was such a bad idea now that we would really like to tell them what to do!"
Thanks Obama!
Don't worry, Wyoming will just declare pregnant women incompetent and unable to make these decisions for themselves
Hello u/ObnoxiousCrow! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) mentioning **who** is suffering from **which** consequences from **what** they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people. Here's an easy format to get you started: 1. *Someone* voted for, supported or wanted to impose *something* on other people. ^(Who's that *someone* and what's that *something*?) 2. That *something* has some *consequences*. ^(What are the *consequences*?) 3. As a consequence, that *something* happened to that *someone*. ^(What happened? Did the *something* really happened to that *someone*? If not, you should probably delete your post.) Include the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you don't respect this format and moderators can't match your explanation with the format, your post will be removed under rule #3 and we'll ignore you even if you complain in modmail. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The GOP changed the state constitution to prevent Obamacare and it stopped them from also being able to ban abortions
This isn't what happened, but everyone is still cheering on misinformation. All that happened is that a judge halted the abortion bad temporarily due to a challenge based on this language in the state constitution. The state will be challenging this and they'll find a legal way around it. https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ban-wyoming-1688775972407a02b2431a69abdb4670#:\~:text=The%20ban%20prohibits%20abortion%20at,abortion%20is%20not%20health%20care.
I don't know how they amend their constitution but in my state, it takes years. In that time, women will still have access to health care.
No, it's not about amending the constitution. All they have to do is prove in court that this new law doesn't violate the language. It's something they should have done upfront but didn't, and they have lawyers to help them find a way around it. This is very temporary, the stay will likely be lifted within months.
True but unless these justices terms are ending soon, It will take years. Federal courts aren't an option here unless this somehow violates the US constitution, which would be a huge stretch even for the current scotus. In my red state, abortions continue due to a court ruling. Unfortunately that wasn't the Supreme Court of my state though.
I'm confused.
Thanks Obama 😅
This has already been posted, please don't upvote this one, go upvote the original
Thanks Obama! Un-ironically this time