Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

There are disagreements over opinions and there are disagreements over basic facts, and I'm just done with arguing with crazy people who have their own weird realities.

Even in the face of basic facts, people are still not very forthcoming in wanting to engage in a rational discourse.

For instance, people who lost their minds that Bush misled the public on the WMD's in Iraq, were just fine arguing the fact that Obama lied when he said if I like my doctor, I can keep my doctor or when he said my health care costs would go down $2,500/year. I'm sorry, but you can't accuse one party of lying, then defend your guy when he lies.

The problem with where we are now is that people's realities are too closely tied with their political views. So even when they are presented with facts, it's hard for them to accept it as being true or reliable.

I think most people would agree "ObamaCare" is a disaster. Most rational people could look at it and go "Yeah, we should do something differently".

"Republicans" say rip it out, go back to what we had before, don't adopt anything from it.

"Democrats" say to keep it and try to fix it.

Can it be fixed? Who knows. But ripping something out because it isn't perfect after two years is completely insane.

The US has a completely broken healthcare system and handing it back to corporations isn't going to fix it.

> I think most people would agree "ObamaCare" is a disaster.

Except that people like a lot of the individual provisions of Obamacare, like no denying based on pre-existing conditions, kids staying on parents' health insurance until they're 26, etc.

It just doesn't do much to control costs. The current healthcare system has neither a single-payer forcing hospitals to keep costs down, nor much in the way of market incentives to keep costs down (since most people pay for healthcare indirectly via health insurance, and even that is controlled by their employer).

The other thing is that it's the first thing they want to do now that they have both houses of congress and the white house.

Problem is, they don't have anything to replace it with yet.

I don't think the Republicans want to go back to what it was before. I think they want to keep some of the good things about it like being covered for preexisting conditions. I also know Republicans want to allow insurers to sell across state lines which would increase competition and drive down costs. People on both sides of the aisle have been saying this for years.


Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.


There's actually some other good ideas in there too.

This always happens, one party rarely destroys the previous party work, what they often do is claim to completely undo it, but in reality they simply build on top of it. It's a marketing game. This way, you can claim the previous party was completly 100% wrong and did nothing good. And we rebuilt from scratch and deserve all the credit. Then you can say: See, we should have been the elected party all along.

You'll have to define lies. To me one sounds more like a hypothetical, this is the plan and this is what we hope the outcome will be like. While the other is more of a standard lie, like, I know this isn't true, but I'm telling you otherwise.

Maybe if you had more similar examples?

One thing we have to be careful about is wrong associations, equating two things that actually differ subtly. As they say, the devil is in the details.

I can see people losing their minds about a lie that leads to war compared to overselling a change to medical insurance. I would like politicians (or anybody) not to lie about anything, but the consequences of those seem to be in completely different ballparks.

Everyone needs to break out of their own bubble to some extent, though other equally misinformed people may not be the best source.

My advice is to read the most informed, reasonable representatives of different viewpoints you can find, and then see why they disagree. Often people will play fast and loose with the facts in order to convince people they consider less educated, but when directing their words towards those they consider their peers, they will be more honest.

An example from the right is the many economists who should know better refuse to distance themselves from the idea of the "Laffer Curve", the idea that you can raise revenue by lowering taxes. Even though they know the Laffer Curve is bullshit, they don't want to refute it because it is a useful rhetorical tool.

An example from the left is that most moderate liberals agree that black Americans commit much more crime (EDIT: I meant "per capita", personally I think a reasonable reading of this comment as a whole would take that as implied) than white Americans. However, they don't want people to hear this fact except in the context where it's already agreed that the main cause for this is structural factors (i.e. a cycle of poverty, crime and lack of education). So in liberal circles this fact is "obvious" and "uninteresting" since the real question is how these structural factors operate. And yet at the same time, outside liberal circles this fact is considered "racist" and liberals do nothing to clarify that it is in fact true.

Whites were arrested for 276,460 violent crimes in 2015. Blacks were arrested for 169,612.

Source: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=datool&surl=/arrests/index.c...

> Whites were arrested for 276,460 violent crimes in 2015. Blacks were arrested for 169,612.

Do you think there are the same number of blacks and whites in America?

Of course not, but it's not relevant to the claim that was made: "that black Americans commit much more crime than white Americans".

I meant "per capita". I'm wondering if you are really being fair in interpreting my comment the way you did. E.g. a progressive article uses the exact same language[0]:

It is also common to hear the supposedly neutral statement that “black people commit more crimes than white people.” This “fact” is used to justify a belief that black people have a natural criminal propensity, or that a “culture of violence” is to blame for problems faced by black people in America.

...even though there are roughly five times as many white people as black people in this country, blacks and whites are incarcerated in equal numbers. But the fact that black people are incarcerated five times as frequently as white people does not mean black people commit five times as many crimes.

(incidentally this is exactly the kind if article that moderate liberals should be refuting, and in turn the article should acknowledge that moderate liberals also believe blacks really do commit more crime).

[0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-...

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact