Suicide is Cheaper
geo-geek.blogspot.com.au
geo-geek.blogspot.com.au
Through my wife's 2x emergency c-sections, a broken arm, my physically disabled daughter, an eye socket infection thanks to a mosquito bite, an umbillical hernia operation and an ingrown toe nail, its been perfect and cost no excess, insurance begging or legal intervention.
I'm not afraid to call an ambulance in case it costs money.
I grew up in Canada and spent time living in the states. I don't agree with most government expenditure, but I have no problem paying taxes for healthcare.
There are much more wasteful things governments spend our money on.
The problem with government funded health care is what you can't see. True market based competition leads to lower prices and greater innovation in all observable areas over time. That would mean more access for more people in the case of health care, but instead with deep government intrusion for decades, we have seen ever increasing prices and sluggish innovation.
Libertarian philosophy has a lot to do with a belief in sound market principles. Why should all that go out the window for health care?
The problems facing health care today, in my view, are largely a result of the free market being trampled on. People who don't really understand market principles will tell you the exact opposite, that health care has been nothing but a free for all, totally unregulated. Do you believe that?
It sounds like you might generally agree with libertarian ideas and some research on scholars like F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises might help focus your libertarian perspective.
There is no reason why, in a society which has
reached the general level of wealth ours has, the
first kind of security should not be guaranteed to
all without endangering general freedom; that is:
some minimum of food, shelter and clothing,
sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any
reason why the state should not help to organize a
comprehensive system of social insurance in
providing for those common hazards of life against
which few can make adequate provision.
Where, as in the case of sickness and accident,
neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the
efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule
weakened by the provision of assistance – where,
in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks –
the case for the state’s helping to organize a
comprehensive system of social insurance is very
strong. There are many points of detail where those
wishing to preserve the competitive system and those
wishing to super-cede it by something different will
disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is
possible under the name of social insurance to
introduce measures which tend to make competition
more or less ineffective. But there is no
incompatability in principle between the state’s
providing greater security in this way and the
preservation of individual freedom.
To the same category belongs also the increase of
security through the state’s rendering assistance
to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as
earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can
mitigate disasters against which the individual can
neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision
for the consequences, such communal action should
undoubtedly be taken.
I try to pick my battles. In order to affect change, I personally want to focus on the what is clearly and rationally broken in our current economic model (which are plentiful in our society).
I'm yet to be convinced that a pushing for a market-based model is ideal for healthcare in the USA given almost everything I've read about how healthcare is operating in other countries.
But these analogies in Europe, Canada and the USA are all in the context of a mixed economy and not pure-state or pure-markets.
Therefore, what I would debate between given the option of having center-left healthcare (Canada/Europe) vs center-right healthcare (USA), I would most certainly support center-left; while simultaneously fighting to reduce government in most other areas.
1) Don't upvote it.
2) Don't comment on it.
3) Don't read the comments on it, because you clearly wont be able to hold yourself back from responding.
These simple guidelines will help you in many circumstances, and can be summarized with: dont feed trolls
(come on? health care debate? again? this is flame bait)
If the community feels it needs to be flagged, then it will. I wouldn't get your hopes up.
We found it was quite a bit of work, especially multi-state. Talking to entrepreneurs in other countries, not having to deal with healthcare for employees really let them focus on their product and their company, and not how to insure a small growing team across state lines.
Unfortunately the average voter wants both "free" healthcare, and doesn't want the government running it, so every employer ends up being an insurance broker as well.
I'm not fully familiar with it but I've never heard it described that way.
There is at least one lady who makes a living by suing telemarketers that violate the law. There are individual cases of people suing debt collectors for violating the law. Here is one recent case: http://consumerist.com/2012/10/12/disabled-vet-says-debt-col...
Perhaps someone can come up with a business idea that will put debt collectors in check?
He was across the street from the hospital. The ER entrance was about 40 yards away, just up a little hill.
I had a cousin in a rural town who drove himself to the hospital 40 miles away in the middle of a heart attack. Because there wasn't anybody else. He could easily have ended up the same way.
Anyway, he probably could have gotten a neighbor to drive him. Not sure why he didn't. Most likely the neighbors were drunk, since once hunting season is over that's what passes for entertainment. Not that they don't get drunk while they're hunting. Probably the only thing worse than driving yourself to the hospital during a heart attack is having your drunk neighbor crash the car in which you're having a heart attack.
The funny part of the story is he got someone to call ahead so the hospital was expecting him. He gets to the emergency room and the ER nurse (there's only one) says "Have a seat. We have an emergency case coming in any minute." He sits down wondering what kind of shape you have to be in to bump a heart attack patient. But he figured after 40 minutes he was still alive, so it probably wasn't going to kill him. He's kind of a stoic guy, too, so he didn't protest. Just sat down.
Five minutes later the nurse runs back into the waiting room with wide eyes, points at him and says "It's you!"
Just because there are a handful of countries that still try to justify their backwards ridiculousness under the thin veneer of "politics", much like those who try to take civil rights away, doesn't mean this isn't a settled issue for 99% of the world and fair game to discuss.
I would love to see the responses to a Muslim extremist who pops into the comments on an article about stoning an adulterer to death to mention that "we should probably be avoiding politics".
Something tells me other commenters would tear his head off, and rightfully so. Just because you can find a place that's still ridiculous enough to try and defend the practice doesn't instantly make it an untouchable political issue.
* Wars.
* Human rights.
* The fact that people die of hunger.
And yet, those are all not really on-topic for this site either.
It would be extremely easy to crowd out all the 'on topic' stories with things that are vastly more important "in the grand scheme of things", yet it would ruin the nature of this site.
Articles about stoning women are also, IMO, off topic, so the problem with the 'muslim extremist' simply shouldn't happen.
(BTW, I much prefer the health care situation here in Italy than in my native US, but discussing it is just not what this site is about.)
The situation sounds enormously distressing but the author's writing style isn't overwrought at all.
Even on a purely intellectual level, this is a devastating rebuttal of the point that "nobody dies from lack of health insurance". On the level of common decency, what is wrong with treating the people in the story as regular human beings with social ties, rather than some sort of people in the abstract?
HN is not /r/StartUps. There are no hard rules here on specific content, only community consensus via voting and occasional hands-on moderation.
And I say that as someone who agrees with the point of the article.
Of all the problems I'm aware of with the US healthcare system, I never thought of someone refusing life-saving treatment because their kids would have to deal with the bill. Deferring treatment, sure. But I figured if you're dead, you're dead.
The fact that they chase your relatives for the bill after you die is really disgusting and something I hadn't thought about until this article painted that picture for me, and now I'm involved in multiple discussions about it.
I would say I found it intellectually gratifying.
how disgustingly backwards any non-universal healthcare system is
backwards ridiculousness under the thin veneer of "politics", much like those who try to take civil rights away
Regardless of how you feel about universal healthcare, it's not true that it's a settled issue for 99% of the world (even within the countries that have it), that it's remotely the same as taking away civil rights, or that there's no discussion to be had about the economics and policy implications of universal healthcare.
But like a lot of other issues, this is apparently one of those things that makes people on both sides get pants-on-head stupid and start insulting the other side and accusing them of pure malice. There are plenty of places for you to vent about this (/r/politics would love you), but HN isn't it.
Americans have to pay for their drinking water just like they have to pay for their healthcare.
Lest you misunderstand me: Why shouldn't "food" be included, as well? And heat?
Food is pretty much already included. Food stamps, soup kitchens, etc. Almost nobody in the US or any other first world country will die of hunger without options to abate it. I wouldn't mind having everyone in a country just get a foot stipend from taxes though. While I am traditionally libertarian, I have this strange thing about the fundamental belief one of the reasons we erect society and prosperity is to attempt to eliminate the inherent inequalities and mortalities born into our existence.
I live in PA, and I know there is an electric subsidy on households below the median per capita income. I'm pretty sure if you went unemployed you could get an electric rate around 1 cent a kilowatt, which is around 20% the normal rate.
Healthcare is an outlier, in that if (by circumstances beyond your control) you need others to save your life, without health insurance you are basically getting a free bankruptcy card. And there goes any credit for anything for a decade at least. If your house is on fire, the fire department will come and attempt to extinguish it and save your life without footing you a bill. Police don't charge you for their emergency services.
So should those whose houses burn have to pay the bill for firefighters putting it out? (fire insurance on the house is independent of it, and I mean that instead of everyone paying taxes to cover the costs of fires, individuals pay when they possess something firefighters need to be called for).
I love that giving credence to such a stupid argument is apparently acting like a mature adult. I never realized humouring people was so noble.
It's impossible to misunderstand you. You're so clearly a republican/libertarian American trying to draw me into a carefully constructed argument as to why I should deny something the rest of the world decided long ago is a basic human right.
Sorry, not interested. I also am not open to discussions on switching Canada to the imperial system, instituting Sharia law, re-enslaving black people, or any other ridiculous throwbacks. The rest of the world has moved on, feel free to join us whenever you get your act together.
I don't see any name calling, unless you consider "American", "Republican" or "Libertarian" to be insults. My reply had a snide tone, however that was completely intentional and I stand by it. If you feel it's a negative contribution to the community overall then you're more than welcome to to downvote me and the discussion will naturally die out.
However I'm not going to "stop or leave" because of your melodramatic plea.
You are acting like the poster child for why we try and keep articles like this off of HN.
If you feel this is the wrong topic for HN, you're only fanning the flames by continuing to discuss it with me. I'm also not sure who "we" is. I'm a member of the HN community too, thanks. My account is over 1k days old.
So if you mean "me" then just say so. Don't try to disguise your motivations as those of the community, which incidentally has upvoted this and not flagged it for removal overall.
Congratulations.
I'm up 20 overall from this comment string which maintained the same tone and point throughout, so I think I'm plenty welcome thanks.
No, you're apparently going to just hurl insults, which does nothing but entrench both sides. Thank goodness that someone had the foresight to make a rational argument for civil rights at some point, or we'd still be contending with that issue as well. Hearts and minds, and you're doing nothing for either.
> Thank goodness that someone had the foresight to make a rational argument for civil rights at some point...
How is trying to placate racists "foresight" exactly? Also, which "rational argument for civil rights" got you? I can picture you, all riled up and ready to be a racist...
...then someone tells you a black guy invented x and you have to sit down for a moment and re-think your philosophy on life. Give me a break.
I find it incredibly offensive that you equate someone believing that non-universal healthcare might be better economically for larger groups of people to someone thinking that enslaving black people is ok. Actually, I find it almost impossible to believe that you think they're equal. Do you seriously not recognize that there is substantial debate in the field of economics about this?
Mostly I just find it disappointing that you apparently can't do anything in defense of your ideas other than sling mud, because you lack either the ability or the inclination. You claim it's the latter; I'm happy to take you at your word, but I'd still prefer you not do it here.
Good, maybe you'll think about it for two seconds then.
> Actually, I find it almost impossible to believe that you think they're equal. Do you seriously not recognize that there is substantial debate in the field of economics about this?
Nobody is debating this outside the US, much like Libertarianism, it's something that only exists in the dreams of those so far-gone to the right in the US that they don't know which way is up.
> Mostly I just find it disappointing that you apparently can't do anything in defense of your ideas other than sling mud
You aren't even partially aware of what name-calling or slinging mud are. I haven't once insulted anyone here. Nor have I attacked a poster.
I wrote off my interest in the argument entirely because to me, it's a settled issue akin to slavery. That's offensive to you?
You taking offense is offensive to me. We're talking about a basic human right everyone except the US has agreed upon and you're going to throw an economic argument at me? Yeah, go ahead and be offended all you want. It's pretty clear here who has empathy and who doesn't.
This couldn't be more false.
I don't think you can actually separate discussion of health care (even though its a political hot button) from discussion of running a small business, given the challenges in getting insurance as an individual or for the employees of a small business. Honestly, in the U.S., one of the major things that turns me off from working on a small start-up is the health insurance situation. Even if you're ok now, then the chance of a double whammy (job loss plus development of a pre-existing condition that makes it hard to regain insurance) is non-negligible and you can end up in the bad situation where you have no job, health problems (maybe even precluding work), and no way to get back into the health insurance system.
If you're lucky enough to maintain continuous employer coverage, you're ok, or if you have enough free cash that you can maintain COBRA or individual coverage, then you're probably ok for some time, but that isn't always the case.
I can't quantify how much this biases people towards working for established companies with good health plans and job security versus risky companies, but it must be a pretty large effect - it certainly would make me think twice about taking a job at a startup, versus, say, Google.
* Taxes - both on labor, capital gains, value added, and so on.
* Labor laws.
* Industry specific rules and regulations.
There's a lot of material there. While I agree it's all important stuff... it tends to lead to discussions about politics that go around and around.
In England the debts belong to the debtor. When they die their estate pays any debts. If the estate has no money then the creditors don't get paid.
I knew a guy in California that was gritting his teeth the entire six month waiting period for a divorce because his soon-to-be ex was maxing out her credit cards, getting more credit cards and maxing those too.
Unfortunately for her the rules change a little once you file for a divorce even if it isn't final.
The research doesn't really support this. People without insurance are much more likely to die in the E.R. once they get there, even after controlling for relevant health factors.
But I'm interested in how they controlled for hesitance to go in the first place delaying treatment? Same condition, but you spent an extra half hour deliberating before going.
[1] YC selects for younger people: they need to be willing to relocate for 3 months, work on a high-risk project for most of their waking hours, and otherwise dedicate their lives to success. Does PG keep stats on age of founders? Age of successful founders? Any correlation?