Hacker News Reader

Comment by grogenaut | Hacker News Reader

Is this the common cost or is this an outlier blog story that hit it off. Talk real data to me. I don't get excited about any individual anecdote (unless it's me personally of course).

No people shouldn't be bankrupted for a short cab ride that's not needed. I'm not arguing that.

View on HN

Well over a decade ago, it was $6500 for a couple mile ride to the nearest hospital, no emergency medical care necessary (just supervision). This was in the Bay Area, in California.

I can’t imagine it’s gotten cheaper.

That's wild. According to the website of my local ambulance organisation, a full on ambulance ride with all medical supervision etc runs between 400 and 900 euros. Typically this would be reimbursed by the (mandatory in this country) health insurance. This is in a large city in western Europe, I would expect it's cheaper in places with lower cost of living.

EDIT: their own website states "If the ambulance only comes and stabilizes you on the spot but you don’t need to be transported, there are no costs." https://ambulanceamsterdam.nl/information-in-english/

Yeah my mom got billed 9k a few months ago from SFO to one of the south sf hospitals. Neck brace and supervision was all that was needed. Basically an expensive uber ride.

He covered that in the article fairly thoroughly. Did you read it?

The anecdote illustrates the issue then he dives into the analysis.

It’s pretty common.

I know that John Oliver is a bit of a “lightning rod,” for many folks, but he (or his staff, really) does his homework. He did a segment on it, some time ago: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ezv8sdTLxKo

He’s a lightning rod only because some people get unnecessarily triggered by facts that don’t fit their world view.

There’s a thin line between satire, which can convince, and sneering, which can only turn off. John Oliver, unfortunately, does end up on the wrong side of it from time to time, and can (together with his core audience) be something of a bully when he does.

I’d also be careful about his facts: they’re usually well-researched, but by the nature of the format he only ever presents those which fit his argument, and that’s just not good epistemology. I can think of a few times when the show made me feel safer about my beliefs than I should have been feeling.

The time for this debate was 100 years ago. Now only people who can't be convinced aren't convinced, so there's no point convincing.

So why not make fun of them? There's no downside.

>So why not make fun of them? There's no downside.

...except the populist right backlash, triggered in part by their resentment at coastal "elites" (think yuppies, not people who fly to davos annually) sneering at them.

The "coastal elites" they resent are made up by conservative media. No behavior changes by the yuppies can affect the ever-increasing resentment people feel in response to this sneering bully, because the bully is made up and the tendency of RW media to use ever-more-dire portrayals of supposed societal ills.

As an aside, I think the culture which produces this result is related to people in the US always thinking crime is increasing, regardless of actual crime trends.

They will do that anyway. No amount of pandering will change their minds.

He’s a comedian that some people take too seriously.

You’re not supposed to shape your political views from entertainment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com