[jjmorrison]

Great article. This is always the tension on the political left. Adding restrictions to protect a group accidentally creates downstream effects of hurting this group.

The right is no better and can tend toward abusive and unfair advantages.

Neither is side correct or better, we all need to feel our way on this edge and be clear minded enough not to fall into a tribal LEFT > RIGHT or RIGHT > LEFT.

[helen___keller]

> Neither is side correct or better, we all need to feel our way on this edge and be clear minded enough not to fall into a tribal LEFT > RIGHT or RIGHT > LEFT.

It might be more accurate to say, scarcity issues are worst when neither party advocates for abundance.

In housing, neither party advocates for densification nor deregulation on the front of zoning; instead party lines revolve around subsidized housing, mortgage industry regulation, etc.

In medicine neither party talks about increasing the supply of doctors(or the ability for hospitals to deliver care more efficiently without being hamstrung by insurance), party lines are fought over who pays for it.

In education the two sides might bicker over affirmative action and how Harvard decides which high school seniors get to attend; but not whether it’s OK that the worlds foremost university accepts only 2000 undergrads a year.

None of these are easy problems to solve, but the common theme is that both parties accept the status quo. Housing is scarce, desirable education is scarce, medical care is scarce.

On the other hand, food or gas prices start moving and it becomes a priority political issue for the current administration guaranteed. It’s night and day.

[DenisM]

One could conclude the entire point of such debate(s) is to make sure nothing of importance gets changed.

[dylan604]

This is the result we are seeing now. Nobody wants to fix the issue because then you wouldn't have the issue to berate the other side. It's better to campaign and raise money with that issue than to actually solve the issue.

[DenisM]

That's still a lot more charitable than my take.

Imagine you are someone who does not want the healthcare problem to be solved. Wouldn't you want to pay both sides of the aisle to drum up pointless bickering?

[renewiltord]

Haha, this reminds me of that James Roswell character https://www.protocol.com/policy/w3c-privacy-war

Transparently stalling browser standards over privacy stuff but couched in different language.

[dylan604]

Point of view I guess. I'm suggesting the politicians don't want to fix anything.

You seem to be implying that private companies--BigPharma--are more interested in keeping conditions chronic with medication than curing people.

They seem equally shit in my book

[hamolton]

For housing, like many issues, it's definitely partisan. One party is anti-density and one is a big-tent umbrella. Elizabeth Warren was on the podium saying, "build, build, build!" during primary debates, while both Trump & traditional Republicans grumble about liberals "destroying the suburbs."

[helen___keller]

Disagree, the fact that individual politicians support certain policy does not mean that policy is partisan. Neither party pushes the issue, which is why for example lots of blue states never advance on density.

I’d say all in all the progressive left sub party could be considered pro density but doesn’t wield enough power to do anything about it except in small municipalities like Somerville MA.