Hacker News Reader

Comment by cookingrobot | Hacker News Reader

This doesn’t seem like a bad rule - but I’m surprised to being agreeing with something this administration is trying to do. Is there some argument against this that I don’t see?

View on HN

Or may be, well, not everything current administration is trying to do is bad.

Exception to the rule

I dislike trump probably more than the median american (and have and will continue to put my money where my mouth is) but let's see:

1) lobbied for criminal justice reform (first step act)

2) has at least tried to make peace with north korea

3) pulled back some hawks from war with iran (and in three years has not initiated a new foreign war - by this time in his presidency Obama had already started to bomb Libya)

Ruling by executive fiat isn't necessarily bad, but it's a hell of a trend. Should you be able to sidestep Congress to implement mandatory listing of drug pricing (especially when you also control one chamber of Congress)? Should you be able to sidestep a Supreme Court ruling by issuing an executive order? What legislative issue is the administration working around exactly?

Sometimes you do need someone with a vision to make the calls instead of a consensus. Especially when that consensus involves people on the receiving end of lobbying.

Which is to say, maybe we can start making lobbying less of a thing.

The way the article reads seems to suggest that this is like the bare minimum the administration can do to appear to be doing something about health care costs. The judge is probably right though. America's congress is broken and so healthcare in this country :( Hopefully they help with something soon..

I did think the exact same thing you did though when I read the headline.

Just the usual stuff over federal/corporate overreach paid for by big pharma; the party of either the judge or the president is kinda irrelevant in this context. I'm surprised some higher up didn't lean on the judge to throw out the case however; the optics of this whole thing are horrendous for the Democrats considering all the noise Trump makes over the deep state and whatever

There is probably more you'd agree on, but only the inflammatory stuff really makes the news. I see that the news did actually cover Trump going into North Korea last week, but it sure was buried -- did you see that it happened?

Also regarding drug prices, Trump is trying to do a sort of most-favored-nation status for the prices, and/or allow reimporting. That too will be fought in court I'm sure, even if it goes through congress. If it survives court challenges, then Americans no longer pay more for drugs than the rest of the world.

The visit was pretty widely covered on cable news, after all this was the first president to enter the DPRK. Why did no president before now want to visit the DPRK, and what public good did this administration secure in exchange for doing so?

It's diplomacy. It's a gesture. Not everything has to be transactional when it doesn't cost anything but a couple hours of time.

Sure, and it's objectively a diplomatic win for North Korea. But what diplomatic outcome is expected for the U.S. for visiting the DPRK for the first time?

Time will tell. Instead of a hostile approach, a little gesture on both ends could go a long way... Or nowhere... But it is an attempt, no?

An American president visiting the DPRK is not a little gesture, it is a big gesture.

There was just a bipartisan bill passed to make it harder for the IRS to seize bank accounts that was signed by Trump that didn’t make the news but the North Korea visit did.

But I wonder how long it will take both parties to realize the ridiculousness of the current health care system the same way that they are both slowly turning back government overreach when it comes to being “tough on crime”.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com