5 ms·

Um, you're a millionaire. Why don't you put up the money? Someone is paying for it. This is literally an ultra-wealthy person complaining that someone else won'

by darawk 9y ago

Um, you're a millionaire. Why don't you put up the money? Someone is paying for it. This is literally an ultra-wealthy person complaining that someone else won't pay for her friend's million dollar medical treatment. It's fine if you want to argue for single payer healthcare. But where do you get off berating a non-charitable institution about covering their costs? They have their longevity to think about. If they simply gave everyone infinite treatment for free they wouldn't exist anymore.

bsder 9y ago
You are defending the position that we should let someone die because they don't have enough money to pay for medical treatment. Are you really sure you want to go there? Now, if you want to argue I would argue that why is this CEO letting a "friend" go without healthcare when CoveredCA has platinum plans at about $7000/year for an individual?
- icebraining 9y ago
  Are you really sure you want to go there? This is just bullying, regardless of how disagreeable you find someone's position.
- candiodari 9y ago
  And she is defending that effectively tax money should pay for medical treatment. ANY medical treatment, with the only limitation that it prolongs life. It is already the case that millions people lost ~20% of their disposable income because of insurance increases. In many cases it is lower a LOT of people who would normally be comfortably above the poverty line back down to the poverty line (those are the people losing the most in the individual mandate and subsidy system). And we all know that anything less than 2x the poverty line definitely feels like poverty and already cannot be escaped through savings and/or good financial sense. So there is a choice to be made. A choice between the cost of the individual mandate and coverage on families and the fact that we want everyone to be "saved" from health problems. This is further complicated by the fact that anyone saved from a health problem increases healthcare demands both linearly (very few health treatment really fixes things, so future demands on healthcare by the same patient will on average be higher), and exponential (a LOT of health problems are inheritable), because people demand the genetics of their kids be "respected" even when known problems exist. Afterwards, of course, it is unfair to blame the kids or the parents, even in entirely predictable problem cases. And then you have 5 kid families, where the parents were warned long before anything happened, which all have severe genetic problems resulting in brain defects. 2 cannot survive a single day without medical care and only 1 will ever live independently. But 3 would like to marry and have kids themselves (I don't blame the kids, however the parents should have known better, also we need to figure out the very sane policy of 100% refund of fertility treatments for couples without fertility problems for this reason) ... At what point is it not reasonable anymore ?
  - jonhendry18 9y ago
    Insurance premium increases were increasing and erasing real wage growth for years before the ACA was passed.
- darawk 9y ago
  > You are defending the position that we should let someone die because they don't have enough money to pay for medical treatment. > Are you really sure you want to go there? Yes, I absolutely am. Grown-ups in the adult world have to make choices. We have limited resources and time, and yes, sometimes that means that we can't give life saving treatments to every person that needs it.
  - grk 9y ago
    This sounds extremely weird when you read it in Europe.
    - duncanawoods 9y ago
      Doesn't to me. Deploying limited resources effectively is critical to all care-giving. There is no "costs don't matter" in Europe. The US aspect that is weird is when the discussion is not really about maximising value, its actually about maximising profits.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      We in Europe have the same choices to face. For example, " In June, Nice said the £48,000 per year price tag of the drug, which could benefit 450 women a year, could not be justified." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11785840/NICE-refuses-to-fund-ovarian-cancer-drug.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11785840/NICE-refuse...
    - holenda 9y ago
      No it does not. There are treatments that are deemed to expensive and will not be provided. Typically it will be a trade off between how effective the treatment is and how expensive it is. European healtcare systems does not have infinite money.
    - darawk 9y ago
      You know that in Europe you don't automatically get any lifesaving treatment that exists, right? https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-cost-of-nhs-health-care-deciding-who-lives-and-who-dies-10096784.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/20/drug-giants-hefty-prices-nhs-vital-medication-pharma-profits https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/20/drug-giants-... http://jme.bmj.com/content/27/3/179 http://jme.bmj.com/content/27/3/179
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
codecamper 9y ago
Super rich person that does not want to pay for a friend. Nice! Now I don't feel so bad that Sergey left her.
onetimemanytime 9y ago
Yp! Why should the hospital bear the entire cost of his treatment? People will die, others will go hungry, others sleep under the bridge and so on. But these problems need to be solved by the society in general, i can't berate e restaurant because they serve food and many people around it go hungry. If hospitals cured people for free they'd close their doors within months. Anne: >>What kind of morals are reflected in our society when you know you can save someone’s life but refuse to do so bc of payment?! Anne Wojcicki should put her money where her mouth is...she is worth, what hundreds of millions or a few billion (was married to Sergey) and has 123and me. What kind of morals does she have when she could help thousands and thousands of people with her money, yet she doesn't. Shame on her...
threatofrain 9y ago
Yes, if someone should be paying for random medical tragedy, that's a discussion that should happen at government-scale such as with subsidized insurance, not something pushed around like an externality or hot potato.
sjg007 9y ago
Stanford is a non-profit. It is also charitable. It sounds like this guy wasn't given his options properly. Clearly he found insurance and was treated. I actually think that the social workers and financial workers at Stanford do a very poor job and this is from experience. I am sure that goes all the way up the executive chain. Imagine if you are a poor immigrant. Imagine if you don't have a rich friend to advocate for you.
- darawk 9y ago
  > Stanford is a non-profit. It is also charitable. Yes, but even non-profits have to manage their resources.
  - sjg007 9y ago
    So? What’s your point here?
    - darawk 9y ago
      My point is that if they eat the cost of everyone's treatment, they will not continue to exist.

by darawk 9y ago

bsder 9y ago

You are defending the position that we should let someone die because they don't have enough money to pay for medical treatment. Are you really sure you want to go there? Now, if you want to argue I would argue that why is this CEO letting a "friend" go without healthcare when CoveredCA has platinum plans at about $7000/year for an individual?

icebraining 9y ago
Are you really sure you want to go there? This is just bullying, regardless of how disagreeable you find someone's position.
candiodari 9y ago
And she is defending that effectively tax money should pay for medical treatment. ANY medical treatment, with the only limitation that it prolongs life. It is already the case that millions people lost ~20% of their disposable income because of insurance increases. In many cases it is lower a LOT of people who would normally be comfortably above the poverty line back down to the poverty line (those are the people losing the most in the individual mandate and subsidy system). And we all know that anything less than 2x the poverty line definitely feels like poverty and already cannot be escaped through savings and/or good financial sense. So there is a choice to be made. A choice between the cost of the individual mandate and coverage on families and the fact that we want everyone to be "saved" from health problems. This is further complicated by the fact that anyone saved from a health problem increases healthcare demands both linearly (very few health treatment really fixes things, so future demands on healthcare by the same patient will on average be higher), and exponential (a LOT of health problems are inheritable), because people demand the genetics of their kids be "respected" even when known problems exist. Afterwards, of course, it is unfair to blame the kids or the parents, even in entirely predictable problem cases. And then you have 5 kid families, where the parents were warned long before anything happened, which all have severe genetic problems resulting in brain defects. 2 cannot survive a single day without medical care and only 1 will ever live independently. But 3 would like to marry and have kids themselves (I don't blame the kids, however the parents should have known better, also we need to figure out the very sane policy of 100% refund of fertility treatments for couples without fertility problems for this reason) ... At what point is it not reasonable anymore ?
- jonhendry18 9y ago
  Insurance premium increases were increasing and erasing real wage growth for years before the ACA was passed.
darawk 9y ago
> You are defending the position that we should let someone die because they don't have enough money to pay for medical treatment. > Are you really sure you want to go there? Yes, I absolutely am. Grown-ups in the adult world have to make choices. We have limited resources and time, and yes, sometimes that means that we can't give life saving treatments to every person that needs it.
- grk 9y ago
  This sounds extremely weird when you read it in Europe.
  - duncanawoods 9y ago
    Doesn't to me. Deploying limited resources effectively is critical to all care-giving. There is no "costs don't matter" in Europe. The US aspect that is weird is when the discussion is not really about maximising value, its actually about maximising profits.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    We in Europe have the same choices to face. For example, " In June, Nice said the £48,000 per year price tag of the drug, which could benefit 450 women a year, could not be justified." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11785840/NICE-refuses-to-fund-ovarian-cancer-drug.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11785840/NICE-refuse...
  - holenda 9y ago
    No it does not. There are treatments that are deemed to expensive and will not be provided. Typically it will be a trade off between how effective the treatment is and how expensive it is. European healtcare systems does not have infinite money.
  - darawk 9y ago
    You know that in Europe you don't automatically get any lifesaving treatment that exists, right? https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-cost-of-nhs-health-care-deciding-who-lives-and-who-dies-10096784.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/20/drug-giants-hefty-prices-nhs-vital-medication-pharma-profits https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/20/drug-giants-... http://jme.bmj.com/content/27/3/179 http://jme.bmj.com/content/27/3/179

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

codecamper 9y ago

Super rich person that does not want to pay for a friend. Nice! Now I don't feel so bad that Sergey left her.

onetimemanytime 9y ago

Yp! Why should the hospital bear the entire cost of his treatment? People will die, others will go hungry, others sleep under the bridge and so on. But these problems need to be solved by the society in general, i can't berate e restaurant because they serve food and many people around it go hungry. If hospitals cured people for free they'd close their doors within months. Anne: >>What kind of morals are reflected in our society when you know you can save someone’s life but refuse to do so bc of payment?! Anne Wojcicki should put her money where her mouth is...she is worth, what hundreds of millions or a few billion (was married to Sergey) and has 123and me. What kind of morals does she have when she could help thousands and thousands of people with her money, yet she doesn't. Shame on her...

threatofrain 9y ago

Yes, if someone should be paying for random medical tragedy, that's a discussion that should happen at government-scale such as with subsidized insurance, not something pushed around like an externality or hot potato.

sjg007 9y ago

Stanford is a non-profit. It is also charitable. It sounds like this guy wasn't given his options properly. Clearly he found insurance and was treated. I actually think that the social workers and financial workers at Stanford do a very poor job and this is from experience. I am sure that goes all the way up the executive chain. Imagine if you are a poor immigrant. Imagine if you don't have a rich friend to advocate for you.

darawk 9y ago
> Stanford is a non-profit. It is also charitable. Yes, but even non-profits have to manage their resources.
- sjg007 9y ago
  So? What’s your point here?
  - darawk 9y ago
    My point is that if they eat the cost of everyone's treatment, they will not continue to exist.