Hacker News Reader

Comment by Glyptodon | Hacker News Reader

I suspect this is probably more complicated. My family members who live in small towns and rural areas have been having larger health issues and more trouble getting care even if they want to for years if not decades compared to my relatives who live in major urban areas, and particularly those who live in more affluent areas. Like I'd go so far as to estimate that affluent areas metro adjacent are +7 years vs. non-affluent metro areas, which are also like +7 years vs. rural/small town areas or slum/poor metro areas. But I also think the kind of care and non-care my relatives in smaller/rural areas leads to exhaustion, loss of faith in the system, and interest in alternative options.

But I also don't doubt that adding the modern conservative delusions and paranoia on top of it all only worsens everything.

View on HN

Of interest to that point:

The Unlucky Country: Life expectancy and health in regional and remote Australia (2023) - https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2023-0...

  Life expectancy in Far West NSW is almost six years lower than in Sydney, with the divide getting worse.
  Those in the Far West are twice as likely to die prematurely compared to those in Sydney, and ‘potentially avoidable’ deaths are two and a half times more likely.
  Suicide is twice as likely for residents in the Far West, with rates trending up.

Why Australia? -

* Sidesteps the US Dem V Rep preconceptions.

* Highlights Rural V. Urban resource differences.

* Similar Political division in that AU regional tends more conservative (by AU standards) than AU urban.

It's absolutely multi factor, but likely more strongly tied to health assets, funding, and reach of public messaging than to political leanings (although asset distribution, funding, and messaging policy are, of course, tied to politics).

It's well documented that healthcare providers in rural US are diminishing, and yet, they continue to vote for right wing candidates.

It is important to point out though, that the last opportunity to establish single-payer healthcare in the US was prevented by the democratic party.

The famous Hillary quote: "Single payer is off the table"

This is why the RNC has hated on the Clintons so much, and especially Hillary: they were muscling in on republican turf.

> It is important to point out though, that the last opportunity to establish single-payer healthcare in the US was prevented by the democratic party

It is only (possibly) important to point that out if single-payer healthcare is necessary for an affordable, high quality, universal healthcare system.

That is clearly not the case since there are several examples of first world countries with such systems that are not single-payer, such as Germany, France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.

In all fairness they also have very little in the way of very low population density areas compared to the US. For example, Montana is bigger than Germany and has like 7 people per square mile overall.

> The famous Hillary quote: "Single payer is off the table"

Her point was that getting that passed would be politically unrealistic at the time, and she was almost certainly correct.

Your framing is either ignorant or deliberately deceptive.

The democratic party controlled the house, the senate, and the presidency at that point in time.

My point is that the democratic party blocked public health care for the US.

This is neither ignorant nor deceptive.

> My point is that the democratic party blocked public health care for the US.

That's not what you wrote. You specifically referred to Hillary and "the Clintons", not the Democratic Party as a whole.

Hillary was simply observing the practical reality that they would not have been able to get the necessary votes to pass single payer. Conservative Democratic and "centrist" (codeword for conservative) senators like Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus and others would not have supported single payer. They didn't even support a much milder public option.

Are you just trolling?

> It is important to point out though, that the last opportunity to establish single-payer healthcare in the US was prevented by the democratic party.

There is some ambiguity in that sentence: by "last", I don't mean that it was the final opportunity, I mean it was the most recent previous opportunity.

Also, to your last point:

> Hillary was simply observing the practical reality that they would not have been able to get the necessary votes to pass single payer. Conservative Democratic and "centrist" (codeword for conservative) senators like Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus and others would not have supported single payer. They didn't even support a much milder public option.

We're totally in agreement on that, and that was my intended point: the DEMs, and specifically the Clinton's were representing the right-wing perspective on the issue.

The DNC has become even more right-wing since then, following the RNC right, as it went off the cliff into MAGA fantasy land...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com