Hacker News Reader

Comment by kcorbitt | Hacker News Reader

This legislation is a complete mess. That said, I'm bleakly optimistic that if it succeeds in breaking healthcare for enough people badly enough, the pushback may give us an actual shot at a single-payer healthcare system in the US in my lifetime.

View on HN

But according to Nancy Pelosi, single-payer healthcare isn't on the Democratic Party platform, either:

> Vice News Correspondent Evan McMorris-Santoro noted that Pelosi told him that single payer health care should be designated as a solution for states to provide on their own and that the political reality is that Congress isn’t ready for single payer health care.

http://observer.com/2017/05/nancy-pelosi-rejects-single-paye...

Thousands of people will die in the process, it's a high price to pay for a political win.

Single payer is not a political goal, it objectively saves and improves lives.

Saving and improving lives IS a political goal.

Then everything is a political goal, and there's no point on you classifying anything as a political goal as to measure its value.

"Too high price for a political goal" and "everything is a political goal" are not compatible.

So, tell me, what's your point really?

the point is, one party values not redistributing money over saving peoples lives.

the other does not.

one of them got elected by poor rural people who really need the ACA.

i dont think that political goals have value. theyre about the last thing to have "value". "Exterminate all jews" was a relatively popular political goal just a couple decades ago. As far as "valuable things" go, political goals range relatively low on that totem pole.

Hah! I tried hard to avoid bringing the Holocaust reference as a political goal, but I guess it clearly shows that saying something is a "political goal" is a moot point, which you seem to agree with anyway :-)

why try so hard?

Godwin's

It is a political goal. It maybe shouldn't be a divisive, partisan political goal for the reasons you describe, but in fact it is that, too.

Then the argument of "too high for a political goal" is moot, because everything is a political goal.

This is why I hoped Trump would win over Clinton. Look - even a lot of Republicans are repulsed by this administration. I knew (because of how large the Bernie or Bust movement was) that Clinton would lose if she won the nomination.

I myself wrote Bernie in, simply because I wanted to see how things played out, and I dislike the Clinton's w/ a venomous hatred, and feel back-stabbed by DNC.

But I also felt that perhaps we need the Republicans to take power with the WORST leader imaginable for 4 years -- nobody can ruin the republican party brand better than Trump can. After 4 years, democrats might just start looking like the party of conservatism, and values that help more people. If anything more people will be hurting after a Trump presidency and be open to progressivism...

Here's a good article that shows though that Neoliberalism as an ideology is over, and the winds of change are pushing for Nationalism or Egalitarianism to come in and take over...

https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/10/why-bernie-sanders...

Trump is a short-term win for GOP, but a long term win for dems, because he will ruin their image/brand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com