4 ms·

Meanwhile, in America, the government is shut down to try to stop poor people from receiving subsidies on their private health insurance.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago
This is not an appropriate venue for chanting political slogans.
- rickjames28 13y ago
  oh bullshit. this is a political forum. these leftist/socialists made it. fight the socialists. they're scum.
- wavesounds 13y ago
  I stated a 100% true fact that is a direct comparison to the article in question. It's sad people would try to silence facts by dismissing them as 'political slogans'
  - md224 13y ago
    I think it's political because it reduces the debate over healthcare policy to a caricature. I lean left (hell, I voted for the Green Party in the last presidential election) but even I don't believe that every Republican is twirling their moustache and cackling "bwah ha ha, I love oppressing the poor."
  - CrankyPants 13y ago
    Meh, it's your view. There are plenty of people who oppose PPACA for reasons besides trying to stop poor people from receiving subsidies on their health insurance.
    - wavesounds 13y ago
      Listen to Boheners reasoning when he refused to allow a vote on the senate bill[1]. He sites employers not wanting to hire people because they have to subsidize their insurance, and a medical device tax that goes towards providing subsidies to individuals. 1. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/153432/Speaker_John_Boehner_Speech_To_House_About_Government_Shutdown_93013/ http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/153432/Speaker_John_...
      - CrankyPants 13y ago
        Which sounds awfully different from saying that poor people shouldn't get subsidies. But, since you bring it up, why should or shouldn't healthcare be coupled to employment? One could argue it's the cause for much of the trouble we're in, with a lack of portability, increasing costs (same reason sports seats have become prohibitively expensive for many individuals), so what's inherently evil about employers admitting that increased labor costs will almost necessarily impact their hiring? For that matter, why is or isn't a medical device tax the best way of funding those subsidies? Those are the kinds of things that we could be discussing–tho probably not as comments to this particular article article–not doing what you are. To be specific, you're preemptively ascribing the worst possible motives to anyone who disagrees with you on a pretty charged political issue, in a fairly off-topic quip in response to nobody, which is a pretty bad way of raising the level of debate. Debate the issues if you want, but your original comment is going to be difficult for you to justify as anything but partisan politics. People who disagree with you may not be inherently evil. Hard to believe, sometimes, but no matter what side of an argument you're on, it's not a very productive or proper default assumption. Assuming bad faith won't help anyone, whatever the side of almost whatever the issue.
        Daniel_Newby 13y ago
        The medical device tax is a good example of malicious bureaucracy. How can services be subsidized by the goods applied by the services? The first-order cynical answer is that medical devices are primarily used by rich Republicans who can easily afford a few percent extra on their artificial knees. It requires no imagination to see why a left wing moonbat would vote for such blatant pandering. The second-order cynical answer is that poor minorities have worse health, and a huge unfulfilled need for medical devices. Thus the device tax is a ghastly unintended consequence of well-meaning liberals. The third-order cynical answer is that it is an intended consequence. They want Lashonda's artificial pancreas to pay for little Cindy's counseling. Much like lotteries exist to get poor people to send rich kids to college. The fourth-order cynical answer is that the whole thing is secretly a ploy to generate plot material for someone's Dune/Washington, D.C. crossover fan fiction.
  - clarky07 13y ago
    you stated an opinion. while i think the gov't shutdown is stupid and it's a lame attempt at killing Obamacare, it is not in fact about "trying to stop poor people from receiving subsidies on their private health insurance."
  - cabalamat 13y ago
    No-one is trying to silence you. But what you said is off-topic for the subject under question. I probably agree with your political sympathies; but I don't think you should have said it here.
  - mattchew 13y ago
    You did some sloganeering that was at best tangentially related to the article in question. The resulting discussion? Just what you'd expect. Par for the HN course these days, but no need to pat yourself on the back over it.
- crygin 13y ago
  The GP is not a "political slogan", it's a statement of fact. If you'd like to rebut, which seems fairly unlikely, please provide both evidence of sloganhood (slogan, of course, means something specific: in part, that the aforementioned phrase has been used verbatim as a form of promotion. Cite the promotion) and additionally an actual rebuttal to the GP. That would actually be what this is an appropriate venue for, not your contentless dismissal.
  - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
    Poor Americans receive a wide range of subsidies, which have broad popular support. Obamacare is being fought because it is a byzantine bureaucratic tar pit written in secrecy by industries lobbyists and passed by the worst sort of political manipulations. If someone could manage to put forward a sensible national health system, including the necessary constitutional amendment, it would get a landslide victory.
    - CrankyPants 13y ago
      Its cost controls are weak, at best. There's no way the country will come out the other side of this with cheaper healthcare. There will be, of course, (truly) great stories about people who were suffering because of the evil practice of dropping customers from coverage when they get sick, and their finally getting the treatment their agreement with the insurance company should have entitled them to, but the total costs, and the costs for nearly everyone, will increase considerably, and some nice examples aside, it's unlikely to improve the quality of care, either. It's a bad bill. We didn't have a good bill on the table, either–the whole system is fundamentally flawed–but it's a bad bill, functionally speaking. Whether it's really Romneycare, Obamacare, Heritagecare, etc., is irrelevant–it's a horrible system, and people who spend a good amount of their day trying to optimize things really surprise me when they don't acknowledge its numerous and deep flaws.
      - Steko 13y ago
        "Its cost controls are weak, at best. There's no way the country will come out the other side of this with cheaper healthcare." Thankfully the cost controls are existant, at least, which is by inspection better than the status quo. This existence also renders your conclusion on costs a complete non sequitur. Trivia: as much as conservatives hate Obamacare (spoilers: a lot), they can't resist using the cost savings it generates in their stunt budgets because the numbers don't work without the Obamacare savings.
- noarchy 13y ago
  This entire thread is political. That much is clear from the get-go. It will come down to the usual polarizing arguments that you see here every day.
  - CrankyPants 13y ago
    That a story is about one political topic doesn't really seem to justify bringing up a fairly tangential political topic, and certainly not in that fashion.
rickjames28 13y ago
you wanna play that? fine.. the socialist in the whitehouse admitted to the WSJ that they don't care..."they're winning" Bring it on. There's nothing wrong with shrinking the size of government. Government oppresses homes.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago

This is not an appropriate venue for chanting political slogans.

rickjames28 13y ago
oh bullshit. this is a political forum. these leftist/socialists made it. fight the socialists. they're scum.
wavesounds 13y ago
I stated a 100% true fact that is a direct comparison to the article in question. It's sad people would try to silence facts by dismissing them as 'political slogans'
- md224 13y ago
  I think it's political because it reduces the debate over healthcare policy to a caricature. I lean left (hell, I voted for the Green Party in the last presidential election) but even I don't believe that every Republican is twirling their moustache and cackling "bwah ha ha, I love oppressing the poor."
- CrankyPants 13y ago
  Meh, it's your view. There are plenty of people who oppose PPACA for reasons besides trying to stop poor people from receiving subsidies on their health insurance.
  - wavesounds 13y ago
    Listen to Boheners reasoning when he refused to allow a vote on the senate bill[1]. He sites employers not wanting to hire people because they have to subsidize their insurance, and a medical device tax that goes towards providing subsidies to individuals. 1. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/153432/Speaker_John_Boehner_Speech_To_House_About_Government_Shutdown_93013/ http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/153432/Speaker_John_...
    - CrankyPants 13y ago
      Which sounds awfully different from saying that poor people shouldn't get subsidies. But, since you bring it up, why should or shouldn't healthcare be coupled to employment? One could argue it's the cause for much of the trouble we're in, with a lack of portability, increasing costs (same reason sports seats have become prohibitively expensive for many individuals), so what's inherently evil about employers admitting that increased labor costs will almost necessarily impact their hiring? For that matter, why is or isn't a medical device tax the best way of funding those subsidies? Those are the kinds of things that we could be discussing–tho probably not as comments to this particular article article–not doing what you are. To be specific, you're preemptively ascribing the worst possible motives to anyone who disagrees with you on a pretty charged political issue, in a fairly off-topic quip in response to nobody, which is a pretty bad way of raising the level of debate. Debate the issues if you want, but your original comment is going to be difficult for you to justify as anything but partisan politics. People who disagree with you may not be inherently evil. Hard to believe, sometimes, but no matter what side of an argument you're on, it's not a very productive or proper default assumption. Assuming bad faith won't help anyone, whatever the side of almost whatever the issue.
      - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
        The medical device tax is a good example of malicious bureaucracy. How can services be subsidized by the goods applied by the services? The first-order cynical answer is that medical devices are primarily used by rich Republicans who can easily afford a few percent extra on their artificial knees. It requires no imagination to see why a left wing moonbat would vote for such blatant pandering. The second-order cynical answer is that poor minorities have worse health, and a huge unfulfilled need for medical devices. Thus the device tax is a ghastly unintended consequence of well-meaning liberals. The third-order cynical answer is that it is an intended consequence. They want Lashonda's artificial pancreas to pay for little Cindy's counseling. Much like lotteries exist to get poor people to send rich kids to college. The fourth-order cynical answer is that the whole thing is secretly a ploy to generate plot material for someone's Dune/Washington, D.C. crossover fan fiction.
- clarky07 13y ago
  you stated an opinion. while i think the gov't shutdown is stupid and it's a lame attempt at killing Obamacare, it is not in fact about "trying to stop poor people from receiving subsidies on their private health insurance."
- cabalamat 13y ago
  No-one is trying to silence you. But what you said is off-topic for the subject under question. I probably agree with your political sympathies; but I don't think you should have said it here.
- mattchew 13y ago
  You did some sloganeering that was at best tangentially related to the article in question. The resulting discussion? Just what you'd expect. Par for the HN course these days, but no need to pat yourself on the back over it.
crygin 13y ago
The GP is not a "political slogan", it's a statement of fact. If you'd like to rebut, which seems fairly unlikely, please provide both evidence of sloganhood (slogan, of course, means something specific: in part, that the aforementioned phrase has been used verbatim as a form of promotion. Cite the promotion) and additionally an actual rebuttal to the GP. That would actually be what this is an appropriate venue for, not your contentless dismissal.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  Poor Americans receive a wide range of subsidies, which have broad popular support. Obamacare is being fought because it is a byzantine bureaucratic tar pit written in secrecy by industries lobbyists and passed by the worst sort of political manipulations. If someone could manage to put forward a sensible national health system, including the necessary constitutional amendment, it would get a landslide victory.
  - CrankyPants 13y ago
    Its cost controls are weak, at best. There's no way the country will come out the other side of this with cheaper healthcare. There will be, of course, (truly) great stories about people who were suffering because of the evil practice of dropping customers from coverage when they get sick, and their finally getting the treatment their agreement with the insurance company should have entitled them to, but the total costs, and the costs for nearly everyone, will increase considerably, and some nice examples aside, it's unlikely to improve the quality of care, either. It's a bad bill. We didn't have a good bill on the table, either–the whole system is fundamentally flawed–but it's a bad bill, functionally speaking. Whether it's really Romneycare, Obamacare, Heritagecare, etc., is irrelevant–it's a horrible system, and people who spend a good amount of their day trying to optimize things really surprise me when they don't acknowledge its numerous and deep flaws.
    - Steko 13y ago
      "Its cost controls are weak, at best. There's no way the country will come out the other side of this with cheaper healthcare." Thankfully the cost controls are existant, at least, which is by inspection better than the status quo. This existence also renders your conclusion on costs a complete non sequitur. Trivia: as much as conservatives hate Obamacare (spoilers: a lot), they can't resist using the cost savings it generates in their stunt budgets because the numbers don't work without the Obamacare savings.
noarchy 13y ago
This entire thread is political. That much is clear from the get-go. It will come down to the usual polarizing arguments that you see here every day.
- CrankyPants 13y ago
  That a story is about one political topic doesn't really seem to justify bringing up a fairly tangential political topic, and certainly not in that fashion.

rickjames28 13y ago

you wanna play that? fine.. the socialist in the whitehouse admitted to the WSJ that they don't care..."they're winning" Bring it on. There's nothing wrong with shrinking the size of government. Government oppresses homes.