The Story of Bageshwori, Watsi's First Patient
blog.watsi.org
blog.watsi.org
http://media.tumblr.com/c8a33a98917d46ca8d3220183dfd6e5e/tum...
because I know I'll click on it accidentally a few times a day.
I do it to remind me that there are more important things than whatever fire I'm currently fighting, and also simply because it makes me happy.
You are making a lot of impact in these people's lives and they will let you know how much they appreciate it. On a website these people are somewhat distant story but talking to them is when you really share their experience. It will make you feel good (and somewhat worried) about what you are doing.
My wife and I sponsored a heart surgery for a child in Ethiopia with an organization we work with. The child's mother wouldn't let the child travel to get the needed surgery and that child ended up dying. Tragic.
They used the funds for another child, Kidest, and her photo is on our fridge for the same reason.
"Am I really funding medical care for the patient? Yes. Your donation directly covers the cost of care for the patient you choose. Medical Partners provide care to patients accepted by Watsi operating under the guarantee that the cost of care will be paid for by donors. In this sense, Watsi operates much like a traditional health insurance company. When you go to the doctor, your doctor calls your health insurance provider to ensure they’ll cover the cost of care. Your doctor then provides care operating under the guarantee that it will be paid for by the insurance company."
(And thank goodness they don't wait! That would be pretty scary.)
This is a bit different, I think, from the thing people found confusing about Kiva ( http://blogs.cgdev.org/open_book/2009/10/kiva-is-not-quite-w... ) which was that they were inviting investments in microloans which had already been disbursed. But it may be similar enough that you find it interesting if you like to "follow the money".
Whats I find even more interesting is that by end of year I'll donate $1,200. Which turns out to be roughly the amount of 1 life saving surgery in Nepal. So basically I'll save 1 life by the end of the year.
I love what you guys are doing and hope you can fund hundreds of these at a time. But, right now there's only six people who I can donate to. I want to support the organization as well, to make sure you guys can keep helping people.
How about a "fund our operations" button, or at least some pool that I can donate to if there aren't any people left who need a treatment right this second (as occurred the last time I left this comment).
Otherwise, cheers. I just made another donation. I think what you're doing is spectacular.
But we're about to push some new features (Stripe integration, optional "tips" to Watsi, and a General Fund). They're coming soon, we promise! (Teasers below)
Payments & Tips: http://i.imgur.com/ZRzTvhj.jpg General Fund: http://i.imgur.com/fUCM4za.jpg
Well done!
As it is operated by a not-for-profit company, never making a dollar is part and parcel of its purpose. Hopefully it also helps many people in the process.
Watsi seems to personalise charity to a level I have never seen before. It's very exciting!
Watsi looks absolutely amazing and I want them to succeed more than any other startup.
Done. This is amazing.
I'm donating today, and saving the link for the next person that bitches to me about another Kickstarter delay.
I agree and was thinking maybe tear-jerker stories on HN should be marked as NSFW. How am I supposed to keep my stoic German personae?
Slowly pound the desk with your fist as you cry.
Basically people buy themselves peace of conscience by donating a small amount of money that doesnt hurt them to feel good about helping somebody (yay, 2% of my yearly income saved a life!). Then go back to surfing the web on their made-in-china-under-miserable-working-conditions macbook pro. You get the idea, i am guilty of this myself.
I mean of course its a wonderful thing that somehow we can help these people and it has to be done (i do too), but we shouldnt forget that many of these sufferings are symptoms of our excessive lifestyle in the western world.
There are some arguments that any charity is doing more harm than good, but I always feel that's a reasoning too cruel to follow.
But the smile on her face, especially in that last photo, is really something. And especially at $1125, the chance that she'll contribute more than that back to the global GPD some day is good.
And it might even be enough for me that she might live a normal life.
ayn rand teaches incredible things, but there are big gaps
A human life is worth more than its economic output.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanujan
The importance of someone's life is not correlated to their wealth, or to the environment they're born into. That both factors are used as a metric for who gets to live is shameful.
Nyaya Health, the partner this blog post is about, uses the same funding model, where all donations made are 100% used for patient care in Nepal (unless you explicitly want your donation to be used for US staff/operations)
Bravo to both.
http://amhf.us/, https://secure.cure.org/curekids/donate, http://rickhodes.org/ricks-patients/, http://www.csc.org/donate.php, http://www.nyayahealth.org/donate/
This makes me worry that this is not direct donation, but through one or more layers of brokering.
[Links taken from the transparency document, https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Ah...]
However, AMHF and other partners that play this role (Hope For West Africa in Nigeria also does this for a new pilot partner Faith Alive) do not take any cut of donations despite the enormous amount of work they do to help coordinate patient care and manage funds (a huge benefit, since foundations often have more experience with international transfers and disbursement than on-the-ground hospitals do).
Because of this, donating via Watsi is arguably as efficient (and possibly even more efficient from a donor's perspective because we pay the credit card processing fees) as donating to one of our partners directly.
With regard to the the fact that some of our partners also fundraise on a patient-by-patient basis themselves, we think that's awesome! Watsi is proving that truly transparent peer-to-peer giving is better than traditional "Donate Now" forms of giving, and we're ecstatic that our partners are adopting the model. In fact, down the line, we'd like to white label our platform so that partners can feature patients on their sites as easily as they can feature them on Watsi (CURE being the one exception, since they've done a great job of p2p giving or a while now).
One feature I'd love to see is the ability to setup a regular donation. Doing it via credit card is fine. You can give it to a random person as it makes no difference to me. The option to donate to the operating costs would also be great and then I could do both. The key feature is to make it regular and automatic. In my case, I get paid fortnightly so you could take $25 every two weeks and split it between patients and operating expenses. Will the upcoming Stripe integration allow this?
My only request of the site would be to make it easier to see the outcome of the patients even for those who haven't funded the procedure for that person. Currently it requires finding the transparency document, and checking the link there for each patient - it might be useful to show more info for the ones that have been fully funded so people know how many people have been treated - that their money is going to make a difference.
Could I get the same surgery here in the USA for $171233 (median income in the US assumed about $50,000)?
Is there some sort of balancing feedback function thats stretching the cost of a certain level of medical care to a certain predictable multiple of a local year's median wage?
It would at least be an interesting rabbit hole to descend.
That would be pretty interesting though.
The first trap is the self-sustainability one. See the comments, everyone loves that their money is going 100% to the patient, they are glad they can be 100% sure you are not frauds. But no one cares about how are you going to survive or how much money will you need to be active in 10 years, reaching hundreds times more patients. This, as I see it, is a problem of anchoring. If you are a non-profit, they anchor you on Mother Teresa, you should be a volunteer, have a vow of poverty, be a saint. Anything less than that, you are a simply a fraud, no middle ground, you only deserve the rocks. On the other side, if you a regular startup, aiming for profit, they anchor you on Gordon Gekko, so you just try to be cool and "do no evil" and that's it, they love you. That is the trap also of personalizing the donation. People donate more when they see a face, but then they only care about that face. If you go bankrupt in about a year, they don't care. They only care that THEY saved a life (they did, writing a check, painless, easy, they saved a life with a few clicks, not your hard work, they did) and blame you for not being competent enough. So, the trick is to keep the donation personal and transparent, while raising awareness in donors that your work is relevant (and tough, and expensive).
The other trap, is more a conceptual one. IMO P2P donations are a great tool to connect very different words. When you put a face on it, third world health problems are not just statitics from Gates Foundation reports, they are real problem for real people. This is a great change of empathy level for donors. The trap here is to let that be enough, and fade. As behavioral economics shows, a good action give ones self-indulgence enough to neglect further involvement. It is important to educate people about why this donation is necessary. Explain how big are the health system problems in the country of the patient, explain more about the local conditions of the patient's family, neighborhood, hospital and doctors. Explain why a "cheap" surgery is not already covered. Explain how things might be better in the future, explain how they might be worse. Educate donors so they understand the world we live in. It would be a great service and potentialize the social impact of Watsi.
* X is sweet, smart, precious, etc
* X has Y condition, that means Z
IMO, stuff like this is unhelpful:
* "The doctor who submitted X case to Watsi describes her as “"
* "X's parents adore her. "
* "to loving parents "
(but tests are better than MO)
I wouldn't want to be the one sorting through the cases deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't.
rock on
Has anyone else had this experience?