Forest? What forest? All I see is trees.
The vehemence with which a conservative denies the veracity of this particular advertisement is directly proportional to their awareness that it speaks to the truth that occupies their nightmares: that so many millions of people will genuinely benefit from the Affordable Care Act that it’ll become increasingly difficult to elect Republicans. The brown people who once populated their nightmares have been replaced by roaming hordes of healthy Americans who appreciate the legislation that saved their lives. These people will pull the lever for Democratic candidates because they feel indebted to the party. But they’re even more frightened by another group of people: those who have lost loved ones due to dropped coverage or lifetime limits. Why?
Because it’s impossible to defend a system in which corporations invest in the deaths of their clients to the relatives of the deceased. Rationing works according to a terrible but understandable rationale: “You must die so that others may live.” But the current system works according to a singularly grim calculation: “You must die so that others might profit.” That’s not a winning argument and those responding to this advertisement know it. They need to transform its message into something palatable. For example:
Knowing what we know now about the timeline of all this, what’s left of the accusation in the original smear ad? What is it, precisely, that Bain is being faulted for doing or not doing? They shouldn’t have closed down the plant because it was unfair to expect the workers who were laid off to ever find new jobs with insurance? It was negligent not to predict that some workers’ wives might get laid off too and wouldn’t find a new job for years before they became ill? There appears to be no actual policy or business critique here.
There only “appears to be no policy or business critique” because someone’s afraid that confronting it will remind people of the substantial policy and business critiques that are always at play: that relying on an insurance system that’s only affordable when partially subsidized by an employer leads to a situation in which chronic unemployment is tantamount to a death sentence. They can’t even bring up that fact to refute it without ending up defending an untenable argument. So they deflect:
Romney left Bain’s day-to-day operations two years before the evil plant closing. The plant was in financial trouble before Bain ever got involved.
Because if they focus on the specific facts presented in this particular argument they might not be compelled to defend the current system on principle. They might be able to avoid the unpleasant truth that the emotional appeal of the advertisement comes from the manner in which it militates the facts of a life against the callousness of a corporate culture. Remove Bain from the equation and the appeal is no less effective. Conservatives know and fear this: they know that they’ll be running against stories like this and they know that the only humane response to them is to discredit the particulars. If they can convince the electorate that this tragedy didn’t happen as advertised they might not have to discuss the many millions that did. So this argument will be about the administration’s reluctance to distance itself from the advertisement. Or it’ll be about whether Romney’s personally responsible for this man losing his job. Or it’ll be about how unions are culpable in the closing of the plant that employed him.
It’ll be about any and everything except what it’s about: the fact that the impoverished and unemployed have a better chance of living a full life than they did before Obama was elected.
This is why I have so little patience for the firebaggers who scream that Obama is worse than 9 Hitlers because ACA didn’t include a public option. Obama was smart to realize that passing healthcare would put the opponents into a rather unpleasant position. As time goes on, Republicans will have to defend these things (people dying from lack of coverage) openly with greater frequency as it dawns on the populace that contrary to GOP scare tactics, ACA did some very good things, and Republicans wanted to deny them those things at every step of the way.
The funnest part is going to be in the longer term, when ACA is incredibly popular and we’ll get to watch Republicans try to rewrite history in a manner that de-emphasizes their vehement opposition to it.
You have a very, very optimistic view of the American public to imagine that they’ll remember the GOP position on Obamacare.
As soon as the GOP stops making noise about Obamacare, half of the public will go back to voting on God, guns and hatred just like the good little serfs they are.
Or, to paraphrase the Republican voter in 2009, “Keep your government hands off my ‘bamacare!”
Of course in the short-term Republican scaremongering on the ACA and a shitty economy elected the craziest rightwing House of my lifetime in 2010.
A public option could’ve given it a major selling point to run on.
We took the castle (a universal right to health care as a right of citizenship, a government duty to ensure health care coverage, however you want to phrase it.)
Now, the Republicans are trying to take it back. They are storming the walls.
We need to break them on those walls – to deal them a major blow over Obamacare. Then, when that are sent reeling, we drive them off some more territory.
I’m not sure what this means, but I just re-read this to make sure it all still made sense and noticed that, somehow, I wrote this entire post without using a single comma.
I, am jealous, jealous.
You should be: I am become Anti-Shatner Destroyer of Commas.
so you’re not commatoes?
Maybe you’re just bored:
Dear Mary
I love you tragically.
A.T. Tapman, Chaplain
This just shows that the rationing has already started.
That’s because you use colons where you ought to ue commas.
Colonics?
That’s because you use colons where you ought to ue commas.
Is that really the sentence you want to use to get in a grammar war with me? Because if it is, well, it’s on! IT’S ON! Is it on? IT’S ON!
Please let me know which side belittles the use of the Oxford comma, so I know which side needs mocking.
This is gonna be better than a Campos BMI post…
I just read that using Victor Borge’s pronounced punctuation.
It certainly should be a winning argument and, if we would only return to the better days when the franchise was preserved for those white men who could afford it, it would be. Has not the Peasant died in order that Decent Folk might profit throughout human history? Why does the liberal fascist seek to overturn the established way of things?
I’d be satisfied with returning to a world in which I didn’t momentarily doubt the sincerity of your satire.
Well, the vehemence with which we conservatives denied the authenticity of the Rathergate documents was proportional to our awareness that it spoke a greater truth occupying our nightmares: that W was a draft-dodging daddy-boy wuss.
So instead we focused on the truth that Rather and Mapes were lying pieces of shit hacks, thereby turning a losing issue into a winner.
Stupid ad. Unlike the one attacking Romney for sending our American jobs to the Brownies, er, I mean India, China, and Mexico…this one doesn’t necessitate an understanding of something as counter-intuitive as comparative advantage in order to debunk.
The dumbest guy in town can see the idiocy here. You can quote Kenneth Arrow to get to the greater truth all you want, but ain’t nobody going to understand that.
And once again Manju demonstrates that it is dark inside his ass and he can’t see anything but shit with his head up there. Go home and have your mommy tell you another bedtime story, little boy.
The sad thing is that one out of every 20 or so of your posts are worth reading. And now I have to read 19 posts of crap like this if I want to find those good ones.
Oh how I hate you for that.
Ask for your money back.
Word salad. I understand Joyce better than this.
I read it last night, and could not quite figure out if Manju was drunk, or if I was.
But not Suzanne?
I don’t understand why Manju’s comment is so difficult to follow.
The Republicans successfully used the kerning on the fake TANG document to rebut the entire “Bush was a draft dodger” accusation, even though the existence of the fake document did nothing of the sort. They didn’t have to get into the actual merits of the charge (which was irrefutable and strongly supported by the evidence) because they could howl like a kicked dog about the unfairness of the evil liberal media doing them wrong.
In this case, he’s saying, they can do the same thing – ignore the actual, underlying truth and turn the debate into a whine-fest about some minor factual dispute.
I don’t think the comparison holds up all that well, though, because while the TANG document actually was a fake, the story this guy is telling is essentially true (and not just in the sense of “gets at a larger truth,” but of the specific story being factual.) The charge of truth-stretching is extremely tenuous and, oh yeah, it’s not the first half of the 00s and Republicans don’t automatically get the benefit of the doubt anymore.
!. Bingo.
I mean, I do try to jazz things up when I’m off my signature subject, but I’m not sure what threw people off? Maybe Comparative Advantage/Kenneth Arrow?
Anyways, the newest development is that the Romneyu camp responded to the add by saying that the Guy’s wife would’ve been fine under MA’s Romneycare.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79482.html?hp=l5
So I may have to reverse my assessment. This ad may very well be brilliant, as in Zaire, 1974…all over again.
I don’t see how that happens. Even if the ACA works exactly as planned under the most optimistic assumptions, it was designed in such a way that most of its benefits will remain hidden from view. This seems to have been a conscious choice of the admin, and was not limited at all to health care. The best case scenario is that it delivers what it promised, and Democrats don’t get much electoral benefit.
The many college students I know disagree. Even the openly conservative ones realize that when their favored policies entail making their classmates pay for birth control, they’re not going to win that argument. I don’t mean to say that I have privileged access to the next generation of voters, but I do think I have unique access to how the next generation of voters try to sell their arguments to each other, and it’s heartening.
Fair enough – that provision is a good example of the ways it is visible. And the Dems have done a better job at really highlighting that one as a benefit of the law, as far as I can tell. Still, the experience of college students whose parents have insurance isn’t universal. I’m a good deal more skeptical that we’ll see the same for many other provisions. At the very least, it will take work from elected officials and advocates to make the case. I don’t think it will happen automatically.
I have personally already saved a couple hundred dollars on routine blood tests now covered by the preventative care provision. I think that a lot of other people are going to be very pleased to see those procedures fully covered.
Yeah, I think the preventative stuff is going to be huge in a lot of people’s minds, as they learn about it and begin to use it. In my crowd, pretty much everybody but the couple who were millionaires in their 40s has had lasting pain and trouble from medical problems that could have been solved much more cheaply and easily if detected earlier. Some large fraction of us Americans is living with unnecessary pain we’ll get to stop feeling in the next few years. That’ll matter.
There’s a lot to criticize in the ACA, but we do have it, and it is going to do some real good.
Let’s not forget that contraceptive coverage is “preventive care.” That’s a widely-visible benefit.
My normally $15 cholesterol test that was free on Tuesday agrees! I prefer a world where I don’t have to pay the vampires for the pleasure of sucking my blood.
No snark intended. How did the ACA eliminate your co-pay for this test?
Because the ACA prohibits co-pays for a wide variety of preventative tests.
Here is a list.
Excellent. Thanks for the link. I never go to the doctor (knock on wood), so my recent co-pay experiences are limited to the high co-pay I have to pay my kids’ pediatrician when my wife brings them in for every sniffle only to be told its “viral.”
Given that list, I’m somewhat amazed Campos wasn’t opposed to the ACA: both “obesity screening and counseling” and “diet counseling” are covered and BMI measurements are covered for kids!
Yeah, and given that list, I really have no excuse now for my current plan of relying upon the blood thinning capabilities of alcohol to keep me healthy.
I imagine it would be hard to find anyone who doesn’t know someone with a pre-existing condition.
Depending on your definition of “know,” reading this site means “knowing” someone with a pre-existing condition. Last I checked I could buy private insurance for the low, low price of $1,900/month.
I’ll sell you insurance for half that!*
*Subject to restrictions. Not valid in all countries. Location of medical treatment at insurer’s discretion. Co-pays to be determined by insurer at time of service. Fees shall apply for all electronic and paper transactions. All legal proceedings under the Code of Ur-Nammu, for which the insured will be deemed “slave”, the insurer deemed “master”. Judge or arbitrator serves at insurer’s pleasure. Legal decisions will be in insurer’s favor. Court costs are responsibility of the insured.
When can I sign you up? It’s not really much more one-sided than your garden variety Blue Cross plan, and think of the money you save!
*Primary Care Physicians may be located in Mexico.
Any SoCal residents know if Blue Cross/Blue Shield is still offering the Baja HMO plan? That’s what it was called back in 2005.
The GOP assures me that this is a mere pittance for the privilege of enjoying the Greatest Healthcare In The World™
Gosh, my friends, this post certainly does include many words, and a wide variety of them, which Ann and I are always so happy to see. We just love words, sure the long, complicated ones, but also the short, everyday words that you so often use in order to communicate with other human beings, either in a verbal sense or, as in this case, in writing down words that can then be consumed by a reader. If President Obama were not so busy apologizing for words and taking away their basic freedoms, he might even agree with us!
But I don’t think these words are the right sorts of words, are they? These seemed like 7-11 varieties of words when I had them read to me. My friends, the important facts here are that I had long since retired from Bain, which I did after these events took place, but retroactively to before they happened. I cannot be blamed for any of these events simply because I was still technically the CEO, Chairman, and sole owner of Bain during the period in question because, again, retroactively I was never any of those things.
And oh by the way, as one of my various spokespersons has already pointed out, if Mr. Soptic had desired health insurance despite having lost his job, then he could have simply taken his trust fund monies or whatever people have these days and moved his family to Massachusetts, where while I was never verifiably governor I allegedly signed into law a health care reform bill that I now agree violates the very essence of human freedom and that I will overturn nationally immediately upon my inauguration.
Thank you, my friends, and stay strong.
Best Wishes,
Mitt “Mitt” Romney
P.S., Mr. SEK, do you pronounce your name “seek” or “sheik”? I’m having a lot of trouble with those sorts of word sounds these days.
If my words aren’t just the right height, you can hit Ctrl-+ or Ctrl– and adjust accordingly.
Holy shiznit. Ctrl plus and minus? Who knew this?
The people in control.
What an age of wonders we live in! Why, just the other day, I happened upon a picture of a rather frisky young lady sans culottes on this typewriter-television apparatus that I am writing on even now.
Link or it didn’t happen.
oh man the postscript well done well done
Keeping kids on their parents’ insurance is helpful, but mostly for the insurance companies. And, BTW, if those kids of 24-25 happen to have children of their own? They’re most likely out of luck.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/07/children-under-26-on-parents-health-plans-may-not-qualify-for-maternity-coverage/
There’s also the matter of doctors not covering additional Medicare payments in the states that will adhere to the Medicare expansion.
With the ACA Obama and the Dems did what they could… to keep insurance companies in charge and profiting. That’s kind of the problem with our health care system in the first place. While I get the whole “public option was never realistic given the crap Congress we have” argument, I’ll never understand why some libs insist on cheering for the miserably inadequate ACA that was designed to be miserably inadequate.
My daughter has benefited. The children of my friends have benefited. If you wish to join the Republicans in demanding that I choose between believing you and my lying eyes, so be it. Don’t expect me to take you seriously.
If insurance companies and providers aren’t forced to internalize the cost of your benefits, then your benefits will be short lived, if not illusory, as the costs are slapped right back down on you.
TANSTAAFL
There is such a thing as a maximum medical loss ratio.
There is now, anyway. As it turns out, not only is it possible for lower profits to come out of the hides of the owners and top management, but we can actually enforce it.
Mwah ha ha!
MWAH HA HA!
MWAH HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Donalde! We missed you!
Well, not really, actually.
No, that was totally me, trolling Brad.
I miss libertarian abuse from time to time.
I believe that there’s a phone sex service for that.
There is a phone sex service for anything you can imagine and several you do not even want to imagine.
I do love libertarian and republican insistence that all costs will be passed through to the consumer. They really need to look again at the tax incidence literature. Even in a perfectly functioning market, pass through isn’t always (is rarely?) 100%. Through in all sorts of market failures, and who knows where the incidence will fall?
But libertarians always assume it falls on the end-consumers because it’s convenient for their anti-regulatory arguments.
And health insurance companies are only accomplished consumer fuckers when it supports regulatory arguments?
No. I’m sure they’ll pass on a good chunk of the costs to consumers. Just not all of it. And I’m sure they’d pass on even more if the ACA didn’t include regulations limiting how much they can pass through.
But my point is broader than the ACA: this is a common trope whenever regulations is brought up and it depends upon a massive assumption that even the dream econ 101 market of the libertarian world does not support. It’s possible it’s closer to correct in the health care market than other markets (I can easily be persuaded that demand elasticity for health care is higher than it is for many other products) but even in this market, insurance companies aren’t going to pass through 100% of the costs. My savings from my free cholesterol screening probably wasn’t the full $15 that it used to cost me, but I’m quite positive the savings was larger than $0.
Which won’t even come close to covering insurance premiums from other parts of the reform.
Plus, true to form, the health insurers will and already have trimmed the low-hanging fruit: cutting broker commissions. The brokers then either cut staff or increase direct broker fees.
Plus, true to form, the health insurers will and already have trimmed the low-hanging fruit: cutting broker commissions. The brokers then either cut staff or increase direct broker fees.
Okay, you do know that brokers charge fees to carriers, not subscribers, right (possible this does not apply in states less sensible than MA)? So you have just claimed that insurance companies will force brokers to cut their fees, which will force brokers to raise their fees.
And at least is Massachusetts, increased numbers of employers offering plans actually lead to brokers ramping up staff (at least according to the anecdata supplied by our broker at the time).
Broker commissions are included in the administration portion of the MLR.
Yes, and you said they would be rising. At least the way brokers work in MA, they can’t.
No, I said broker’s commissions would fall, causing brokers to begin charging and increasing fees directly to the customer.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703612804575222291352083452.html
Then I urge the poor benighted states that are not Massachusetts (or, from a quick google, NC, TN, or WV) to join the civilized places that ban the practice.
They are statutorily limited to charging no more than 20% over actual payments for treatment. If you think they already don’t, you have not seen all the stories about getting refund checks from their insurance companies.
Well, it would have been nice to get real health care reform. All that could be managed was health insurance reform, which is a bummer. But it’s real reform nonetheless, and most importantly: the insurance companies have submitted to the yoke of oversight and regulation. It’s not impossible to plot a course from where we are now to where Germany is. The political will may not exist, but it’s certainly feasible.
I’ll never understand why some libs insist on cheering for the miserably inadequate ACA that was designed to be miserably inadequate.
Let me try to explain.
Because it is better than what existed at the time ACA was enacted, because millions of people’s lives will be better than they would be without it and doing stuff like that is what ‘some libs’ are all about.
Does that help at all?
There is a long-term problem with the ACA though that I never see get much play. Those subsidized high-risk pools are going to cost a lot of money, and the fact that the program’s costs will be recorded while the savings will not might become a big political problem.
We’re essentially going from a healthcare system on the brink of collapse to one that will teeter on the cliff depending on who is in power in Washington.
Of course the other problem is the Republicans will seek to throw the over 65 crowd into the inferior ACA-governed health system.
Incorrect. They want to throw those who are not yet 65 under the bus when they turn 65.
People over 65 vote the right way, they are deserving of GOP largess.
My initial reaction is, the Republicans would never be that stupid and suicidal, but then I think of the Delaware and Nevada Senate primaries in 2010.
Because it is better than what existed at the time ACA was enacted, because millions of people’s lives will be better than they would be without it and doing stuff like that is what ‘some libs’ are all about.
You are absolutely correct. However, I suspect that it was the process rather than the result which pisses “some libs” off. Did you ever have the sense that Obama even cared if the Act included a public option or understood how important a public option was for controlling costs? He sure as hell never fought for one. If he had actually fought for what was his based believed in before capitulating, there would be much less griping on the left. I know the votes weren’t there, bully pulpit, blah, blah, blah. But for fuck’s sake, I’m over 40 now, and I have yet to witness a democratic president fight for his base. Clinton brought us fucking welfare reform and a balanced budget. Obama insurance reform, an extension of the Bush tax cuts, a troop increase in Afghanistan, and more drone attacks. If they weren’t constantly being sold out by the party they support, I suspect “some libs” would better appreciate the enactment of ACA.
No, there wouldn’t. You would do what you always do, pretend he hadn’t fought whenever he doesn’t win (or when he only gets most of what he wanted), and then bitch about it.
How did he fight for a public option?
And I’m talking from my own personal experience here. Putting aside for now whether he could have gotten the votes, the people I often discuss politics with and I never had the sense that he fought for, or cared about getting, a public option. And that jaded our opinions, although we recognize that the ACA is better than nothing.
He used the bully pulpit. He advocated for it for years before and after the election, trying to make it popular enough among the public that they would bring pressure to bear on elected officials to support it, and among elected officials themselves.
It didn’t work, and you forgot it happened.
I recall tepid support at most. He did mention it in a few speeches, but such speeches were episodic at best. Perhaps I downplay his support in hindsight because I had viewed a public option as a compromise to a single payer system. Whatever. I don’t want to get into this pissing match. What’s done is done, and ACA is better than nothing. I’m just trying to explain why “some libs” (and I know many of them, and I am sometimes one of them) weren’t excited about his ability to pass ACA with a democratic majority.
Wow.
Consider your mission accomplished. I think you have done an unimpeachable job giving us some insight into the reason for that response among that segment of Americans.
President Barack Obama, in an interview with The Washington Post, said on Tuesday that in the two years leading up to his election he “didn’t campaign on the public option” for insurance coverage.
As much as I might not recall Obama fighting for a public option, I suspect that you are overstating his support. The truth is surely somewhere in between.
As much as I might not recall Obama fighting for a public option …
You can always blame your blood thinners.
Thanks, FDL. Now you’re bitching about a small subset of people who won’t be getting access to coverage under ACA?
Last time I checked, you were all apoplectic about the ACA not bending the cost curve, and apparently all of those poors now able to access coverage could go hang as punishment to Obamney for not singlehandedly imposing single-payer on an one day grateful public.
You people have moved the goalposts on this and every issue you’ve been after Obama for so many times that you’re not even in the county where the game is being played anymore. Seriously, go crawl back under your respective rocks and continue feeding yourselves on your collective bile.
Hush, now. You know that the only option if the pony that you get isn’t exactlylike the one of your dreams is to send it to the glue factory and keep on wishing on that star.
So, the rebuttal is: Yes, all of the things that happened in the ad happened, but they happened over a longer time period than the ad implies.
Wow, that’s a crushing rebuttal.
No, the rebuttal is that that particular steel plant was part of a larger steel company that was hemorrhaging money and engaging in mass layoffs for years due to cheap foreign competitor products.
After the buyout the factory lasted another 8 years that it probably wouldn’t have, and several other steel plants were rescued and made profitable.
If you really want to blame someone for that woman losing her health insurance, go with the Chinese and their cheap steel.
The leveraged buyout had nothing at all to do with the company being unable to service debt. Nope, let’s blame foreigners.
Can you link me to a summary of the events?
Sure.
Can you show me where GST failed because Bain loaded it up with debt that it could not service?
Brad, Bain’s business model revolved around LBOs, and left trails of bankruptcies. How about you show me how loading up the company with high debt and fees did not contribute to their downfall?
I can show you how it didn’t cause others to fail, and how plenty of other steel companies (nearly half, apparently) closed their doors without high debt loads.
So, you can’t show it helping. Good to know.
Let’s examine the track record.
So, really, explain to me how high debt and high fees are likely to help. Explain it to me like I’m someone who can’t read a Balance Sheet.
The president of GST’s union apparently did.
No, the rebuttal is that none of the facts are accurate.
1) Romney didn’t close the plant.
2) The plant closing didn’t cost the woman her health care [even if we grant the stupidity of being unable to tell the difference between health insurance and health care.]
3) She didn’t get sick a short time later.
4) None of that had anything to do with her death.
There is no doubt that there will be folks who are appreciative, but if there are is a noticeable uptick in premiums, you may have roaming hoards of middle class folks chanting tea-party slogans.
Or in healthcare exchanges, which will someday soon replace this system with single payer
Are we talking 50 different single payer systems like Vermont or one big federal system?
I find it doubtful people that believe the current Republican line are going to care/notice any advantage of the ACA.
What’s to make them see reason now? They’re down with budgets that “reduce deficit” while not saying how and in reality increasingly it massively (Paul Ryan), Torture (Bush), and tax plans that are mathematically impossible (Romney).
I tend to agree, especially since there is no reason to believe that premiums will not continue to rise at a rate above inflation. Their vehement opposition will surely die down as the republican talking points are exposed as bold-faced lies, but I doubt that anyone will be switching sides for the small benefits provided by the plan.
But half the country isn’t voting these days. Some of us – me, at least – are thinking about the people who may lean vaguely in a Democratic direction but haven’t found the motivation to vote. They include some people (we’re thinking) who will notice the ACA’s effects and vote in response.
Getting even a few percent more folks to the polls could make a difference sometimes, and without relying on the chances of converting those who’ve been brainwashing themselves for decades.
Fair point, and I hope you are right. But I doubt that people who are too apathetic to vote in the first instance will be able to discern the many subtle advantages of the ACA and attribute them to the Democratic Party.
And you will also have to counter that with the number of young, self-employed risk-takers who will resent being forced to purchase insurance.
I would concede this is a good argument. We’re not trying to convince Republicans, but people who don’t vote. Hopefully they realize “Wow, the Republican party is really shafting me! I should go vote Democrat”, instead of the normal “they’re both ruining America and there is nothing I can do…” line.
Actually that’s still a win if they stay home instead of voting Republican.
It’s as if Bain closing the plant is the waving red cape, and the ACA is the sword hidden behind it.
This is why Mitt Romney is the perfect candidate for the Democrats to run against this cycle. The personal is political, as it were. His weaknesses as a candidate, the problems with his brand, match up perfectly, in case after case, with the most important issues in our politics today.
They shouldn’t have closed down the plant because it was unfair to expect the workers who were laid off to ever find new jobs with insurance?
I’m pretty sure the answer here is “yes, you sociopath, that is exactly what they shouldn’t have done”.
Corporations actually, in fact, should not throw long-term employees out into the streets and tell them to fend for themselves. This is in fact not, at all, morally justifiable. No, not even if they made a profit of some sort from doing it. That does not actually justify killing humans.
No, really, you sociopath, it really really doesn’t.
And here’s an example of a company taking a different tack
I’m pretty sure that you’re an economically and morally illiterate nut. Corporations morally owe nothing to employees beyond the compensation agreed to for work performed. Cancer killed this woman. Romney did not, Bain did not, and “profit” did not.
The people still arguing about politics are the same people that do not know that death is eternity inside the Sun. Funny tho….