Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

aaronstannard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 431 posts

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#421

Post by tptacek »

hellotomyrars wrote: post #416
tptacek wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say Medicare For All was bad. I said a large cohort of existing insured people would be worse off under it. Those are different claims. Whether or not I think it's good has nothing to do with whether or not what I said was correct. What I think is funny about this is, if I had left a one-line comment saying "this CEO's story about his health insurance costs tells me we all need M4A", nobody would have blinke…

Well you can’t prove a negative so I’m not sure how useful a theoretical one line comment about a CEO saying his insurances means we need M4A would be received. Regardless if you’re not willing to support your argument that’s fine, but at the same time if you’re going to put something out there and and then be upset if other people being skeptical of your skepticism then I don’t know what to tell you. I still don’t r…

What argument did I not support? The one you assumed I was making, but did not actually make? You still haven't responded to the actual argument I did make.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#422

Post by greenavocado »

array_key_first wrote: post #378
greenavocado wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have more than 200,000 miles accident free and my kids are doing fine. Living in a city with unhinged maniacs on drugs was way more dangerous.

Right, except it wasn't, like objectively. Like factually. As in its not up to your opinion. Driving is more dangerous, and it's not even close. For example, in NYC you're over 100x more likely to die in a car on the roads above the subway than on the subway.

I'm glad we understand that risk isn't evenly distributed and this also applies to driving

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#423

Post by hellotomyrars »

tptacek wrote: post #421
hellotomyrars wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you can’t prove a negative so I’m not sure how useful a theoretical one line comment about a CEO saying his insurances means we need M4A would be received. Regardless if you’re not willing to support your argument that’s fine, but at the same time if you’re going to put something out there and and then be upset if other people being skeptical of your skepticism then I don’t know what to tell you. I still don’t r…

What argument did I not support? The one you assumed I was making, but did not actually make? You still haven't responded to the actual argument I did make.

I agree by the way that a one line comment of “show your work” is not useful or constructive, much like your original one line comment. (I don’t mean that as a slam against you either, I appreciate that you actually followed up with additional information)

I disagree that I’m not responding to your actual argument and am specifically asking you to clarify the terms of what “worse off” means so that I can address it with more specificity or at least understand what you’re saying.

I still think citing an opinion poll to argue that people are happy with their employer insurance while also making an argument about how opinion polling is deeply flawed is a very strange way to back up your own argument.

I have yet to actually hear anything that supports the idea that people with employer provided insurance will be worse off because of M4A other than you saying they the way the costs would be less obscured means people would be more upset. This wasn’t even an argument about the real cost of M4A vs Prost insurance, it was just a statement saying that the money looks different.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#424

Post by tptacek »

hellotomyrars wrote: post #423
tptacek wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What argument did I not support? The one you assumed I was making, but did not actually make? You still haven't responded to the actual argument I did make.

I agree by the way that a one line comment of “show your work” is not useful or constructive, much like your original one line comment. (I don’t mean that as a slam against you either, I appreciate that you actually followed up with additional information) I disagree that I’m not responding to your actual argument and am specifically asking you to clarify the terms of what “worse off” means so that I can address it w…

Sorry, I can't follow any of this. It sounds like you want to have an argument about whether M4A is better than our current system. I'm not a good debate partner for that.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#425

Post by hellotomyrars »

tptacek wrote: post #424
hellotomyrars wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree by the way that a one line comment of “show your work” is not useful or constructive, much like your original one line comment. (I don’t mean that as a slam against you either, I appreciate that you actually followed up with additional information) I disagree that I’m not responding to your actual argument and am specifically asking you to clarify the terms of what “worse off” means so that I can address it w…

Sorry, I can't follow any of this. It sounds like you want to have an argument about whether M4A is better than our current system. I'm not a good debate partner for that.

I literally asked you what worse off means so that I can specifically respond to the claim you made, but okay.

Have a nice day.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#426

Post by array_key_first »

greenavocado wrote: post #422
array_key_first wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, except it wasn't, like objectively. Like factually. As in its not up to your opinion. Driving is more dangerous, and it's not even close. For example, in NYC you're over 100x more likely to die in a car on the roads above the subway than on the subway.

I'm glad we understand that risk isn't evenly distributed and this also applies to driving

It does, but not much. When you drive, your life is in thousands of people's hands.

Only the most naive of the naive can believe being a safe driver means they won't die in a car wreck.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#427

Post by tomhow »

GeoAtreides wrote: post #358

[flagged]

WTF? We can't have you sneering at/about fellow community members like this, no matter how much (or little) karma they have. This comment breaks multiple guidelines, notably:

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.

Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Please don't post shallow dismissals...

Someone doesn't get to 400k karma (almost double the second-ranked user) without contributing a lot of value to the community over a long time.

It's fine to disagree with someone, of course. There'd be nothing to discuss otherwise. But we need you to engage with the substance of the comments you're replying to, and not sneeringliy attack somone's character or motivations like this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46119115 and marked it off topic.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#428

Post by tptacek »

tomhow wrote: post #427
GeoAtreides wrote: post #358

[flagged]

WTF? We can't have you sneering at/about fellow community members like this, no matter how much (or little) karma they have. This comment breaks multiple guidelines, notably: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling n…

I mean, you get to 400k karma by having a problem. But you're directionally right! I'm definitely not karma farming. I wish it was that intentional. ;)

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#429

Post by tomhow »

tptacek wrote: post #428
tomhow wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WTF? We can't have you sneering at/about fellow community members like this, no matter how much (or little) karma they have. This comment breaks multiple guidelines, notably: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling n…

I mean, you get to 400k karma by having a problem. But you're directionally right! I'm definitely not karma farming. I wish it was that intentional. ;)

”Someone is wrong on the internet” can get you surprisingly far.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#430

Post by tptacek »

tomhow wrote: post #429
tptacek wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, you get to 400k karma by having a problem. But you're directionally right! I'm definitely not karma farming. I wish it was that intentional. ;)

”Someone is wrong on the internet” can get you surprisingly far.

ISWYDT.
Post reply on HN