4 ms·

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 s

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.

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.