It might not be a constructive term, but nothing about this situation is constructive or moral.
situations themselves are not inherently constructive or otherwise generally. the question is more what makes good policy, when it comes to doing taxation and centralizing these kinds of resources to government.
as for moral...it's hard to make a case either way. assuming one accepts the premise of a government doing taxes and implementing policies at all, the phrases:
- "the government does not pay for some things i believe it should"
- "the government also pays for things i believe it should not"
probably hold for every person in this thread. maybe for every person who thinks about it at all. which things will vary person to person, and so will the reasons they believe the government should or shouldn't pay. and to what extent payment should cover. it's not so simple as to say "well obviously the state should pay for everything". that's not how it works, we're not post scarcity. constituents choose what they want their government to pay for, and what they do not. at least in principle. the system is pretty badly run, so frequently this does not happen.
the problem with centralizing health care (and many other aspects of individual life) into government is that people are then dependent on the whims of a single entity, with no capability to defect to competition. the government chooses what is best for you, even if its choice is not yours. usa fortunately does have the layer of states with different policies, so it is still possible to defect between state governments at least, even if it sucks. if i had it my way, there would be a lot less state-controlled/subsidized x/y/z thing with private interest groups dictating which things more than voters. but alas, us government isn't my burger king either.
this is all in stark contrast to genocide, where the victims of that don't have the option to defect/leave in any capacity.
No one gave a damn when AIDS was ravaging the gay community. Hundreds of thousands of gay men died because of social stigma.
quoted is an awful analogy. people don't randomly get aids. they get it by sleeping with other people who have hiv. that is voluntary, in a way that i understand being trans is very much not voluntary.
i would rather use an analogy of whether or not the government covers some unusual medication that the person who needs it couldn't control that they needed.
suicide is a very broad problem, increasingly so. a particular group having a higher suicide rate does not *necessarily* mean it's good policy, or even the most moral allocation of funds, to address it in the context of that group. just as an example, the us government in various states implemented policy that predictably led to a significant increase in suicides generally, at scale, in the name of the greater good. not only did it not pay for care to alleviate a medical condition, it actively hindered the lives of people in a way that was statistically guaranteed to result in increased suicides.
many of the same people in this thread willing to inaccurately call this policy genocide backed said policy. and like you said, there's no direct tracing. no "but for this policy, x would be alive today". we don't know. but i do know that the same people who told me the government can and should pay to actively implement such a policy, are now telling me that the government not paying to cover something is somehow genocide. unsurprisingly, i'm not convinced.