
Ten years ago when he was campaigning in Iowa the man who twice became president said he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and wouldn’t lose any votes. You might ask yourself whether he would lose any if he shot 51,000 people a year on Fifth Avenue. We now have the answer. He would not.
We have proof, both of the number of people who will die every year because of the president’s Big Beautiful Bill, and the polling that followed. Polling shows that while the bill is opposed by more Americans than support it, the numbers are similar to the president’s negative approval rating, which never kept him from twice getting elected. And if you knock off the polling from disloyal pinko communist states like Vermont, New York and the West Coast’s Treasonous Three, he comes out ahead. Lock and load.
In June, researchers from the Yale School of Public Health sent a letter to the Senate summarizing their analysis of the Big Beautiful Bill’s effects on healthcare. They found that withdrawing or making Medicaid and Affordable Care Act coverage more restrictive will cost 51,000 lives a year by 2034, including nearly 9,000 lives just from restrictions on Obamacare and 13,000 lives from the rollback of minimum staffing rules in nursing homes (we could call it the Shirley Jackson Lottery Rule).
It’s one way to reduce the government’s liability for lives on the dole. Don’t just remove them from federal benefits. Eliminate them. Kill them off. They’re all poor and probably minorities anyway. It’s like reviving the eugenics movement of 100 years ago, the eugenics movement that luminaries such as Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes defended.
Our word “eugenics” comes from the Greek word “eugenios,” meaning nobility of birth, or well-born. The word’s modern application is less noble. It is, as Merriam-Webster defines it, “the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the populations’ genetic composition.” The word got its English coinage from Francis Galton–Charles Darwin’s first cousin–in 1883, but was nowhere more enacted than in the United States.
A hundred years ago the Babbitts of America thought they were on the glory side of history when they thought of eugenics as groundbreakingly essential as we think of, say, AI today. The Immigration Restriction League founded by Harvard racists to keep out shithole country migrants loved eugenics. A character in Sinclair Lewis’s Arrowsmith advocated for a Secretary of Health and Eugenics cabinet post in the White House. Theodore Roosevelt was a big fan, “for the real question is encouraging the fit, and discouraging the unfit, to survive,” he wrote in 1916, calling it “the capital sin of civilization” when men of “good birth” had their gonads snipped.
We’re coming up on the centennial of one of Holmes’s most famous majority decisions, when he ruled forced sterilization constitutional: “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime,” he wrote, “or to let them starve for imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind….Three generations of imbeciles is enough.” It wasn’t throwing defective babies against rocks as in the days of Sparta so much as the codification of natural selection Holmes could be proud of while sipping his afternoon Madeira.
Thirty states enacted sterilization programs. California’s was so successful that Hitler used it as a model. What we’re doing with health care is not as explicit, just as the president isn’t standing in the middle of an avenue mowing people down. But the end result is the same or worse. People will die unnecessarily every year so the wealthy can get their tax cuts and the ideologues can cut costs as indifferently as they cut down lives implicitly considered less necessary.
The Yale researchers’ grim actuarials don’t include the draconian cuts to SNAP, the food stamps program, the cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency and the deregulation of safety from planes to trucks to pollution and greenhouse gas-belching factories, the cuts to scientific research and to the National Institutes of Health, all of which dig their own mass graves.
The cover story of a recent Economist was about the great successes in the war on cancer, that war Richard Nixon declared in 1971 just before he declared the less successful one on drugs. Childhood leukemia went from a near-death sentence to a 90 percent survival rate. Cervical cancers and the kind of throat cancer I had are approaching eradication simply through vaccines. Those successes have resulted in large part from the billions of dollars the U.S. government has invested in the National Institutes of Health and in American universities, both of which have been on the cutting edge of life-saving discoveries. But those investments, too, are getting slashed.
The administration’s fans call it doge. More accurately, it’s turning back the clock to preventable mass deaths. It’s like living through a cold civil war, the chosen ones on one side, the losers on the other. That’s the land of opportunity for you. It is not even Holmes. It’s back to Sparta, and not just with babies.
Pierre Tristam is the editor of FlaglerLive. A version of this piece airs on WNZF.
Jackson says
How can one lunatic hold more than 300m Americans to such ransom?
JimboXYZ says
That’s one model of predictive outcomes, others predict no more/no less than who are supposed to die is the net actuals ? One thing is for certain, no Congressionals will ever be adversely affected for outcomes by legislation. How do they know what the next POTUS will alter the legislative landscape for wars, healthcare, etc.. If anyone said that Biden-Harris would result in more Covid deaths with 3 vaccines ? What about the Biden-Harris legacy wars for casualties ? Or the next Terrorism attacks or even the domestic mass shootings ? The inflation of financial hardships & suicides ? The random wild fires, tornadoes, TS/Hurricanes ? The next random crimes from any illegal immigration criminals ?
Question says
Do you “writer” think there is fraudulent activity in the current enrollment of Medicare/medicaid recipients?
And if the Democratic Party was in position, and they recommended the same strategy to get rid of the “fraud” in the system, would you still “write” the same article?
Deborah Coffey says
You’ve outdone yourself with this one, Pierre…a truth-telling summary of exactly our current situation.
Laurel says
This is still the old war of the “haves and have nots.” What most of the Trump supporters still don’t understand, is that they are not wanted on the golf course. The magas are in for a big wake up call.
R.S. says
And this is the guy who’s got a hankering for a Nobel Peace Prize!!! Geeeez!
Sherry says
Regarding DOGE. . . just more lies from the trump administration. This from Politico today:
The Trump administration’s claim that it is saving billions of dollars through DOGE-related cuts to federal contracts is drastically exaggerated, according to a new POLITICO analysis of public data and federal spending records.
Through July, DOGE said it has saved taxpayers $52.8 billion by canceling contracts, but of the $32.7 billion in actual claimed contract savings that POLITICO could verify, DOGE’s savings over that period were closer to $1.4 billion.
Despite the administration’s claims, not a single one of those 1.4 billion dollars will lower the federal deficit unless Congress steps in. Instead, the money has been returned to agencies mandated by law to spend it.
DOGE’s latest figures on contract cuts ticked up to $54.2 billion in an update posted on Tuesday.
POLITICO’s findings come on top of months of scrutiny of DOGE’s accounting, but the magnitude of DOGE’s inflated savings claims has not been clear until now.
Even so, President Donald Trump claimed hundreds of billions of dollars had already been used to reduce the federal deficit. The former head of DOGE, Elon Musk, initially promised the organization would reduce the deficit by $2 trillion.
Pierre Tristam says
“I” do “not” buy “the” “tactic” that “it” is “necessary” to “des”troy “the” village “to” save “it.”