Hacker News Reader

Comment by gmisra | Hacker News Reader

Serious questions:

1. Do you think there may be selection effects in this type of donation model? How do you plan on preventing discrimination against the less photogenic?

2. Do my dollars, etc actually go directly to specific individuals, or is there a layer of intermediation a la Kiva (over which there was some confusion and "controversy" [1])

3. In a world where watsi-like treatment model becomes successful, do you believe that creating these individual-to-individual dependencies is a net positive improvement for society?

[1] http://pages.kiva.org/fellowsblog/2009/11/11/kiva-transparen...

View on HN

Great questions.

>Do you think there may be selection effects in this type of donation model?

In short, no, because we leave patients posted until they are fully funded. More detail here: http://b.qr.ae/109DseY

>Do my dollars, etc actually go directly to specific individuals?

100% of your donation goes to the Medical Partner for the purpose of covering the cost of care for that specific person. In Watsi's case, however, sending money to the hospital is actually more efficient than sending money to the patient directly, because that's where the funds will ultimately end up. We talk more about operations in our FAQ: https://watsi.org/faq and in this blog post: http://bit.ly/Ynug55

>Do you believe that creating these individual-to-individual dependencies is a net positive improvement for society?

I believe systems like Watsi are the future of healthcare. There are roughly 200 countries in the world, and approximately 40 have functioning healthcare systems. In each of those 40 systems, healthcare is paid for by individuals, for individuals (either through taxation or insurance premiums). We're universalizing those same dynamics in a more transparent and accessible way.

Hi Adam

Do you do any benchmarking of the costs (and trends in costs) of Watsi-funded treatments with medical partners vs comparable standards of treatment in the same regions funded in other ways? I'm conscious that costs of treatment with private healthcare companies in the US vary hugely according to who is paying, and that aid can have both positive and negative side effects.

(an expansive answer might be better as a blog post than here, but I'm interested either way)

A "random" button (super smash bros style) which picked a random from page then post donation confirm showed you who was picked would help address the photogenic issue.

Also, some UK localization allowing gift aid would help you scoop up my tax with the donation. (Unless I missed it already, I'm only browsing on mobile.)

Thanks for the UK idea. Luckily we can also chat with Prizeo, one of the companies in our YC batch.

re: UK localization - mind emailing us connect@watsi.org about this? I'm curious to learn more about how the UK handles donations, especially if there is a tax (VAT?) involved. Thanks!

From what I've read in the past, It's intermediated (sort of?) like Kiva. Everyone an end-user sees is already promised funding by Watsi. The "pick a person" is sort of a feel-good, and perhaps a way for Watsi to refine their process for choosing "fundable" candidates.

To me, the photos are problematic: They increase funding, no doubt, but for all the wrong reasons. Donors shouldn't care about patient photos, except as part of some general evidence to reassure users that Watsi is not running or becoming the victim of a scam.

One of our goals is to facilitate an emotional connection between donors and patients. If good photos help us raise more money faster, then we may even have a moral obligation to use photos. We need donors to trust us, so yes, the photos are also there to reassure them that there is a person on the other side of the transaction.

Can you imagine any crowdfunding site out there, especially Watsi, without photos?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com