Hacker News Reader

Comment by anonymars | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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