4 ms·

This is an ignorant and aggressive comment.

by dvdhnt 9y ago

raverbashing 9y ago
Less aggressive than considering C-sections "preexisting conditions"
- dvdhnt 9y ago
  Regardless, attacking entire groups of people because elitists are doing so is childish and doesn't help the conversation.
- nojvek 9y ago
  I wonder Whether this will take 4 years to implement at billions of dollars of taxpayers cost. Then we switch presidents and the cycle begins again. This is where one would say "God save America"
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Who knows what gets through the Senate and conference. In any case, a single party Democratic government isn't real likely anytime soon, so anything that gets passed will be somewhat durable (Senate races in 2020 and 2022 will be hotly contested though).
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Republicans are trying to transfer wealth from the sick and poor to the rich and well. Aggressiveness is going to be a natural response to that.
- dvdhnt 9y ago
  That's understandable but this really isn't the place for that. Personally, I've been talking about how ridiculous it is in the office. Also, my parents are poor and directly affected, but blaming Christians isn't beneficial to anyone except the elitists who passed this bill.
- throwaway170504 9y ago
  Honest question: how is it transferring wealth from the poor who by the very definition don't have wealth? Other factors aside, it seems to me more that it's halting the subsidy. The insurance cost is not the core of the problem. It never was. The problem is that healthcare costs have become so prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of the population that it is effectively bankrupting to undergo anything other than a simple outpatient procedure.
zorpner 9y ago
Not really, no. It's been an explicit strategic point of the Republican party since the days of Nixon to use the language of evangelical Christianity to codify racist othering as a tactic to get people of lower economic strata to vote for politicians primarily interested in promoting policies which serve to increase economic inequality. This is more of the same, at a higher intensity.
humanrebar 9y ago
Agreed. HN is usually more thoughtful and evenhanded than not, but these comments are horrible so far. I can have this sort of discussion on facebook.
Daishiman 9y ago
Explain how it's less aggressive than the travesty of law that just got voted in to make the entrenched interests of American health care even more entrenched.
- dvdhnt 9y ago
  That's besides the point. I don't agree with the law and I'm not a Republican, but categorizing large groups of people don't benefit anyone but those in power. Such nearsightedness belongs on Facebook and Twitter, not HN.
therobot24 9y ago
>> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

This is an ignorant and aggressive comment.

by dvdhnt 9y ago

This is an ignorant and aggressive comment.

raverbashing 9y ago

Less aggressive than considering C-sections "preexisting conditions"

dvdhnt 9y ago
Regardless, attacking entire groups of people because elitists are doing so is childish and doesn't help the conversation.
nojvek 9y ago
I wonder Whether this will take 4 years to implement at billions of dollars of taxpayers cost. Then we switch presidents and the cycle begins again. This is where one would say "God save America"
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Who knows what gets through the Senate and conference. In any case, a single party Democratic government isn't real likely anytime soon, so anything that gets passed will be somewhat durable (Senate races in 2020 and 2022 will be hotly contested though).

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Republicans are trying to transfer wealth from the sick and poor to the rich and well. Aggressiveness is going to be a natural response to that.

dvdhnt 9y ago
That's understandable but this really isn't the place for that. Personally, I've been talking about how ridiculous it is in the office. Also, my parents are poor and directly affected, but blaming Christians isn't beneficial to anyone except the elitists who passed this bill.
throwaway170504 9y ago
Honest question: how is it transferring wealth from the poor who by the very definition don't have wealth? Other factors aside, it seems to me more that it's halting the subsidy. The insurance cost is not the core of the problem. It never was. The problem is that healthcare costs have become so prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of the population that it is effectively bankrupting to undergo anything other than a simple outpatient procedure.

zorpner 9y ago

Not really, no. It's been an explicit strategic point of the Republican party since the days of Nixon to use the language of evangelical Christianity to codify racist othering as a tactic to get people of lower economic strata to vote for politicians primarily interested in promoting policies which serve to increase economic inequality. This is more of the same, at a higher intensity.

humanrebar 9y ago

Agreed. HN is usually more thoughtful and evenhanded than not, but these comments are horrible so far. I can have this sort of discussion on facebook.

Daishiman 9y ago

Explain how it's less aggressive than the travesty of law that just got voted in to make the entrenched interests of American health care even more entrenched.

dvdhnt 9y ago
That's besides the point. I don't agree with the law and I'm not a Republican, but categorizing large groups of people don't benefit anyone but those in power. Such nearsightedness belongs on Facebook and Twitter, not HN.

therobot24 9y ago

>> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html