I'm really surprised people don't understand that this is simply lib handwringing. He's saying "This is awful! Something should be done!" It's yet another example - in this case a NYT columnist - of a lib seeming to be reasonable. This is the lib stock in trade. He's not actually advocating for universal healthcare. Maybe in the article he actually advocates for something but I'm not going read the 1,000s of words because I doubt he said much of anything at all.
Is it any more hand-wringy than us Chapos complaining in a more ironic fashion on a negligibly small Reddit clone?
The author is saying the same thing you are, that cost-based rejection of universal healthcare is nonsensical. What they advocate for is quite clear: universal healthcare in the US.
The slightly objectionable aspect of this article is that it’s another framing of the issue as passive “access” to healthcare that merely needs to be granted, without resolving the rampant structural issues with regulatory capture, insurance, etc which makes healthcare so expensive in the first place. Means of payment is only half of the problem, and not really the causal half.
I can get on board with criticizing NYT editors if that trend can be shown. Not seeing a problem with this one particular op-ed author or this paragraph in isolation. Unless the author has actually argued against this point in the past then why are we calling out the author, by name, as the problem? I don’t like liberal hand-wringing either but we need not flatten all non-socialists into a monolith. It’s lazy and boring.
I'm really surprised people don't understand that this is simply lib handwringing. He's saying "This is awful! Something should be done!" It's yet another example - in this case a NYT columnist - of a lib seeming to be reasonable. This is the lib stock in trade. He's not actually advocating for universal healthcare. Maybe in the article he actually advocates for something but I'm not going read the 1,000s of words because I doubt he said much of anything at all.
Is it any more hand-wringy than us Chapos complaining in a more ironic fashion on a negligibly small Reddit clone?
The author is saying the same thing you are, that cost-based rejection of universal healthcare is nonsensical. What they advocate for is quite clear: universal healthcare in the US.
The slightly objectionable aspect of this article is that it’s another framing of the issue as passive “access” to healthcare that merely needs to be granted, without resolving the rampant structural issues with regulatory capture, insurance, etc which makes healthcare so expensive in the first place. Means of payment is only half of the problem, and not really the causal half.
There is a massive difference between us and a nationally syndicated newspaper.
When election time comes, either they or their editors will get right back on the 'but who will pay for it?' bandwagon.
I can get on board with criticizing NYT editors if that trend can be shown. Not seeing a problem with this one particular op-ed author or this paragraph in isolation. Unless the author has actually argued against this point in the past then why are we calling out the author, by name, as the problem? I don’t like liberal hand-wringing either but we need not flatten all non-socialists into a monolith. It’s lazy and boring.