Maybe your argument works for a few specific cases, what about those that do not meet that? What about someone with stage 4 cancer who needs radiation and will likely live a year or two longer without treatment? Without treatment they can't recover, without recovering they can't go to work; their body is literally dying.
With treatment they might be able to live, work and recover. That is what the article is saying. Without insurance people die from cancer. With insurance some people do not die. If we cut their insurance due to more red tape, we're condemning those to death.
The policy being argued exempts such people from the work requirement.
People who are not exempt can meet the work requirements through a variety of different activities from part-time work earning $580/month, or 80 hours through a combination of part-time work, volunteer work, and care giving to dependents.
They would meet the requirements to not have to work. Having nothing to do with terminally ill status and everything to do with the things you just listed. The article doesn't say anyone is proposing to change that.
Evil. Just evil. Terminally ill patients can't work, they're on deaths door. If they don't get treatment, they are dead. Let's let the medical decisions be handled by doctors and not some politician.
Honestly things like this show me the President has to much power. There should be government agencies where no political party can touch it without significant oversight and approval from both the president and both houses of congress.
Medicare, Medicaid, FBI, FCC, FAA, The Fed, and more all should be outside admin control of the president and any single party or group of individuals. Only when you have a 2/3s majority of both the houses and the president should you be able to make such broad sweeping policy changes.
> Honestly things like this show me the President has to much power.
Not just the executive, but the federal government in general has way too much power. There are so many things that the federal government does which it wasn't meant to do, all justified by an extremely bad faith reading of the commerce clause. It is a significant source of problems for our nation, because it makes federal elections (and in particular the election for president) super high stakes for people. We would be much better off without the various perversions of the constitution that FDR pushed through, but I suspect there's no political will to walk it back (because people love getting money from the government).
The person you are responding to wants for agencies to be able to exist, not to destroy the US government & society.
"Significant source of problems" that what, we have health care and clean air? You indicate your desire to tear it all down & that's what we are seeing everywhere, but why, and for what? It's so unfathomable, so unclear that "we would be much better off" to not have the world's best institutions as we do, the greatest science the best education, the world's leading medicine.
It's so unclear what drives this destructive anti-government fervor to me. You've given me not even a single remote small hint. Neither had this administration as they have, as barbarians, come in and chainsawed as much as they can down. For what? What makes people so opposed to a society? Wanting so badly to make sure there is no government, no services, no help, no collective will?
With treatment they might be able to live, work and recover. That is what the article is saying. Without insurance people die from cancer. With insurance some people do not die. If we cut their insurance due to more red tape, we're condemning those to death.