Hacker News Reader

Other issues that are way more important than hacking and startups:

* 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.)

RE: the article not being "intellectually gratifying".

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?

If you find an article that "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" on those topics then please submit them. Don't conflate HN with only startup news. It has never had that restriction, it's more of a primary focus.

HN is not /r/StartUps. There are no hard rules here on specific content, only community consensus via voting and occasional hands-on moderation.

There's nothing whatsoever 'intellectually gratifying' about this article. It's a way to tug at people's emotions in order to attempt to sway their opinions.

And I say that as someone who agrees with the point of the article.

I disagree. Tugging at emotions and learning something aren't mutually exclusive. As someone who lives outside of the US, I had never envisioned this scenario before. It's jarring every time, and you never really wrap your head around the horrible possibilities.

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.

I actually do see articles in the above veins often, and they are very interesting and appreciated. They often get called off topic too, but the guidelines for HN clearly allow them and actually encourage them.

This comment is an excellent example of why we don't want articles like this on HN. Quotes like this are pure garbage and have no place in any place of intellectual discourse:

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.

> Sorry, but providing basic free healthcare is no more a political issue than adopting the metric system or providing clean drinking water.

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?

The other poster stopped acting like a mature adult, and I do feel this is entirely out of place on HN, but hey, I've been up for 20 hours so why not.

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).

> The other poster stopped acting like a mature adult,

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assista...

An excellent example of how the government can help those in need, without taking over the entire industry. I've yet to see a reasonable explanation of why something similar couldn't work with health care.

> Lest you misunderstand me

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.

Please stop or leave. These kinds of name-calling and rude attacks on people that you disagree with are completely unbecoming and counterproductive to any rational discussion.

I don't have rational discussions about settled issues such as the above, much like my example topics. Just like if someone asked me "Why do blacks have all these rights?" I just simply won't entertain the thought long enough to form an argument, I'm just going to write you off.

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.

> My reply had a snide tone, however that was completely intentional

You are acting like the poster child for why we try and keep articles like this off of HN.

I've already discussed my motivation and justification with you at length. If you feel I'm not contributing, just downvote and move on please. Follow your own advice and flag the article without promoting further discussion.

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.

Wrong, it was flagged and removed almost immediately. And judging by the downvotes, your immature comments aren't terribly welcome either.

> Wrong, it was flagged and removed almost immediately.

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.

I'm just going to write you off.

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.

What insults? Quote one, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

> 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.

Sorry for not being clear; I was talking about the abolition of slavery and the height of the civil rights movement, which occurred long before I was born. I agree that it's pretty ludicrous today to have a discussion about why different races deserve equal rights under the law. But you're treating universal healthcare as being on the same level in terms being a settled issue, and it's not.

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.

> 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.

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.

Nobody is debating this outside the US

This couldn't be more false.

So provide examples. What other developed nations still haven't introduced universal healthcare of some form and are seriously debating maintaining that quality standard?