Hacker News Reader

Comment by akiselev | Hacker News Reader

Universal healthcare means that any required medical treatment is free at the point of use but it does not usually pay for every possible quality of life intervention like a part/full time caregiver. Given the side effects from cancer treatment, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Kim had to go to work but didn't want to leave his wife at home, weak and helpless, for the duration of his absence. Even if universal healthcare paid for a part time caregiver, they likely would not have been there most of the day, requiring quite a bit of money to pay for a private provider.

View on HN

Caregiving, in-home nursing care, rehabilitation and long-term care (assisted living/nursing home/hospice) should be provided by a different social safety net department because of it's specialized and complex nature that also requires licensure and auditing (making sure elderly and disabled aren't abused or neglected).

Single-payer, universal healthcare should also include (all but cosmetic and elective procedures):

- prescriptions

- mental care including therapy, psychiatry, rehab and commitment

- dental care

- vision care and prescription glasses

- hearing aids (avg cost is $3000 USD)

- mobility and safety aids for disabled and elderly

- gym memberships for people below a certain income level

- smoking, drinking and substance abuse intervention, counseling and cessation assistance (medications, tools, relocation assistance)

- weight-loss for obesity/significantly overweight with effective, tailored, holistic approaches

> gym memberships for people below a certain income level

why? this is a luxury. You don't need a gym membership - just jog around, it's free. Tax dollars are meant to pay for things that can't be free or have a free substitution.

Jogging around would not provide the same benefits as a proper strength training program. Theoretically bodyweight exercises could but that would require a level of gymnastics training that most people don't have.

> Jogging around would not provide the same benefits as a proper strength training program.

it is not the tax payer's responsibility to provide a proper strength training program for those who cannot afford it themselves. It is the tax payer's social responsibility to provide a service when said service is important (like healthcare) but is difficult for the poor to fund themselves.

Exercising is important, but it's free to do, so should not require a tax burden to provide anything of this nature for the poor. Health care cannot be free (nobody works for free). Therefore, it's important for the tax payer to fund it.

Hearing aids are insanely overpriced for being a glorified microphone and earphone. $30 in parts.

If you know they are overpriced, and assuming you are interested in earning money, why are you not selling hearing aids for cheaper than the incumbents and taking their margin?

If you’re not interested in earning money, then there are quite a few firms that are, so if you release the schematics and details of the hearing aid, surely they will run with it.

It's not the parts that are expensive, it's the R&D and the initial and ongoing adjustments that drive up the price.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com