> Finally, as a report which is not really in-depth, not really independant of the organizations it is advocating for, provides little in the way of citations and data, I am somewhat dubious of its value being posted to HN at all, other than to act as a punching bag around which everyone can throw the usual jabs at the US healthcare system as a whole.
Nowadays a large fraction of upvoted HN posts don't contain much genuinely substantive discussion at all. The farther away the post is from a purely technical topic, the higher the likelihood of this.
Instead they are often filled with what I call pseudo-substantive discussion, meaningful superficially, but that don't make much sense, or based on faulty assumptions, once anyone tries to investigate or question a bit.
Nowadays a large fraction of upvoted HN posts don't contain much genuinely substantive discussion at all. The farther away the post is from a purely technical topic, the higher the likelihood of this.
Instead they are often filled with what I call pseudo-substantive discussion, meaningful superficially, but that don't make much sense, or based on faulty assumptions, once anyone tries to investigate or question a bit.