Hacker News Reader

Comment by anonymars | Hacker News Reader

> You quite clearly came in to defend someone who did, though

> "I already have universal healthcare here in Canada"

I don't think I'm the one misreading the discussion as it is.

If you take a deep breath and re-read, maybe you'll understand the point I've been trying to make is you're jumping down people's throats that aren't disagreeing with you, which at best does your own arguments a disservice. To put words in someone's mouth and say this is the fault of 'people like you' is out of line.

Have a good one

View on HN

Please don't tone police on HN. If you agree with me but think I'm an asshole, the polite thing to do is just to keep quiet and not troll a discussion by convincing me you disagree.

But I'm very happy you agree that health care policy in the USA is among the most directly partisan issues and know who to vote for given those priorities.

If you think I'm merely "tone policing" then you still miss the point. I don't agree with your translation of "Washington didn't make it a voteable decision" to "both sides are the same" (with the added irony of accusing others of strawmanning).

Edit: and even now you still put words in my mouth with your edit (so that's every message in this thread that does so). Best of luck to you

Oh, come on. That edit was a clarification added like 40 seconds after the post. Really, it seems like you're the one getting bent out of shape. Again, I thought (and still think) you agree with me on the partisan nature of the issue, right? That's not putting words in your mouth, that's your opinion.

You just don't think I shouldn't have engaged with advocacy around the issue or taken offense that you and upthread commenters feel that this isn't something that can be... I guess "achieved by voting"[1]. I think that's a weird thing to troll a discussion this deep about, but OK.

[1] Does that match your understanding of the point? Genuine question! I think it's bonkers and wrong, but you seem attached to it and I'd like the opportunity to convince you.

I do believe it's mostly partisan. I don't believe it's exclusively partisan nor the most partisan

In the 2020 debate, Joe Biden said he would veto Medicare for all*. Just this week, Hakeem Jeffries said he did not support Medicare for all and wouldn't vote for it. You already mentioned Joe Lieberman

None of what I just said implies "it's not partisan" nor does it imply "both sides are the same" -- multiple things can be true at the same time

It sure does, however, reinforce the original, plain statement: "The issue is that the people in Washington won’t make it a 'votable' decision."

*By April 8, 2020, Biden was the "presumptive Democratic nominee" -- at that time, 22 states still hadn't yet held their primary elections. As such, for those 22 states it was quite literally not a votable decision

That being said: the whole thing is a complicated clusterfuck. Someone's health care spending is someone else's income. If one just snaps their fingers and enacts whatever ideal healthcare plan, what happens to those now-redundant workers? How does provider capacity ramp up to match the increased demand? I can understand why politicians might be hesitant to jump into such a woodchipper

As the joke goes, "how did God create the universe in 7 days? No installed base"

> Joe Biden said he would veto Medicare for all

Oh for... Joe Biden was literally the tiebreaker vote in the senate when the public option was still part of Obamacare and was stumping for it like crazy. MfA is one particular proposal from one particular faction of the party. We aren't talking about MfA specifically, and that's quite clear all the way upthread.

This kind of dissembling and trickery is what's driving me crazy in this thread. You just don't seem to be arguing in good faith. No, Joseph Biden Jr. is very clearly not opposed to government-provided health care, nor is any democrat in office right now that I'm aware of.

"Mostly" partisan. Good grief.

I wandered into a stupid thread that said "single-payer healthcare." The article/study that spawned this thread is about single-payer healthcare

Public option is not single-payer/universal healthcare. Medicare for All is generally used as a synonym for single-payer healthcare in the US. The article stated it models the results of implementing a plan like Medicare for All

"Public option" still results in a vast bureaucracy of "paying for healthcare machinery", and so is scarcely comparable. Note: that does not mean a public option would be a bad thing. But it is not the same thing

I've already wasted way too much time on this, against my better judgement. I tried to leave twice, but third time will be the charm. Be well

Oooph. So this is all down to dithering on whether the public option qualifies as "single payer"? Like, is the "single" applied to everyone or just to the beneficiary? I'll point out that Medicare (the global archetype for this kind of coverage!) isn't "single payer" by this definition either, as senior citizens exist with private coverage or self-coverage.

Indeed you've wasted too much time on this. And I still have no idea what it is you really are trying to argue about. You agree with me on everything I've tried to pin you down on, and want to dither over tone and jargon when challenged.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com