8 ms·

Hate the game, not the player. If it becomes a big enough problem, then EU countries could change their laws to make government-funded medical care conditional

by chroma 7y ago

Hate the game, not the player. If it becomes a big enough problem, then EU countries could change their laws to make government-funded medical care conditional on paying certain amounts of taxes in-country.

sysbin 7y ago
> Hate the game, not the player. I agree with this, I'm not sure why I'm being downvoted for asking though because I think anyone would be curious to read personal testimony of their own situation. I would question myself if taking advantage of being in a country that strips social programs for keeping wages high for skilled employees. It's not like paying taxes negates that reality.
- deanmoriarty 7y ago
  I would encourage you to read the comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20346775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20346775 and answer that.
  - sysbin 7y ago
    Done, also thanks for writing your views. It's nice to read reasoning and more so from tech people because it's somewhat relatable being the same field as myself.
luckylion 7y ago
> Hate the game, not the player. That's a lame excuse for anti-social behavior. "Somebody has to get those kids addicted". Read some Kant, then ask yourself what would happen if everybody acted that way, taking all the benefits and then silently stepping out when it's time to give something back.
- chroma 7y ago
  I know about the categorical imperative, but people aren’t saints. They follow incentives. The fix is to create incentives that make it easier to behave better, not chastise people for doing what benefits them. That said, I fail to see how his behavior is antisocial. He’s creating far more wealth in his current job than he could in the EU. If he ever moves back, he’ll bring millions of dollars with him and inject it into the local economy.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > I know about the categorical imperative, but people aren’t saints It's not about sainthood, it's about ethics. > The fix is to create incentives that make it easier to behave better, not chastise people for doing what benefits them. Breaking the rules will always give him more benefit, unless we "chastise" (that is: punish) that behavior. There's little we can do to make not murdering people that stand between him and riches "better" but making him believe that we will punish him. Clearly, relying on ethics and/or rational acting won't work with that kind of people. > That said, I fail to see how his behavior is antisocial. There would be no society if everybody acted like him. > If he ever moves back, he’ll bring millions of dollars with him and inject it into the local economy. He will, as he stated, only move back if he gets seriously ill and requires the social net to catch him. He will only come back if he's going to cost money.
    - deanmoriarty 7y ago
      I am curious, how would you have acted in my shoes? A few alternative options I can think of: 1) Not even try to move to the US to pursue the dream of a world-class tech career (dream I had since I was 12), stay in my own EU country with a mind-numbing consultancy job (which again, it's the only kind of employment available since the country is mostly rural with a limited software industry) to be fully consistent with morals. This also means I won't be able to financially help my parents as a sign of gratitude for all they've done for me, since my salary will be barely enough to keep me afloat. 2) Move to the US and completely renounce to my EU citizenship, so I won't ever have a way to go back and "take advantage" of my EU country (meaning I wouldn't even be able to see parents and family without an immigration visa). 3) Move to the US, keep the EU citizenship, but completely deny to myself the option of eventually moving back if needed. So, if I get a massive debilitating cancer that will force me to quit my job and lose my health insurance in the US, I'll die without treatment and all alone (loving family is all in EU) but with morals. 4) Move to the US, keep the EU citizenship, keep the possibility of eventually moving to EU, but to be consistent with morals find a way to donate to my EU government a few hundreds/thousands a month to keep contributing to the social safety net even if I'm not a resident there (I don't believe that's even physically possible?). But certainly that wouldn't be enough to cover the expenses my government paid for my education, so I should also find a way to refund that? 5) Move to the US, keep the EU citizenship, and start a countdown mandating that in exactly N years (where N cannot be certainly changed!) I will move back to EU regardless of where I am in my career or health status, so I won't be able to just move to the EU at the most convenient time. I'm asking because it's easy to talk about problems at a philosophical level, but please try to step down from your judging pedestal and come back to the real world with real problems, thinking what YOU would have done in practice.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  >Read some Kant, then ask yourself what would happen if everybody acted that way, taking all the benefits and then silently stepping out when it's time to give something back. I know this comment will trigger a bunch of people, but for me a sign of maturity is when people realize the categorical imperative isn't all it's hyped up to be. I was a big believer of the categorical imperative since my teens - years before I had heard the phrase or heard of Kant. But the more I understood statistics and its role in the world, the more I realized the categorical imperative is only a first order way of looking at things. Once you take into account human psychology, and its inevitable spread statistically, you realize that in many cases, viewing things with a categorical imperative lens is not only futile, but counterproductive. One needs to take that spread into account (i.e. realize that all people will not behave as you do) to get an optimal solution. The question to ask is "What behavior/policy will get the best outcomes given the differing behaviors you will see in society?" Personally, I realized I was dodging difficult issues by invoking the categorical imperative. That's my thought on the categorical imperative in general. Regarding this specific case: Various commenters have already mentioned that some countries do indeed make it hard for you to use their healthcare if you've not been paying into the system all these years. I know one guy who ran into this - he spent most of his career outside making big bucks, and then retired in his country which provides socialized medicine. They told him they will not cover conditions he developed while he was not paying into the system (essentially, pre-existing conditions when he moved back). He has to pay full cost to get treatment for those services. deanmoriarty is not the sole actor here. The US, as well as his country of citizenship are quite capable of ensuring they don't get exploited. If either country thinks this is abuse, they are welcome to modify their policies. And BTW, yes, part of the reason people in the US get paid high salaries may be due to the lack of socialized health care. However, there is no implicit social contract in the US to spend that money for medical care in the US. In fact, I'd argue the social contract is quite the opposite. The US is making the message clear: "We will not provide you with socialized healthcare. You are free to pursue whatever medical care as you wish." Which includes going abroad.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > One needs to take that spread into account (i.e. realize that all people will not behave as you do) to get an optimal solution. The question to ask is "What behavior/policy will get the best outcomes given the differing behaviors you will see in society?" The categorical imperative isn't about "is it likely that everybody will act like me" but "would it be good if everybody acted like me". You'll likely not end humanity if you start murdering your neighbors, because most people will not follow your example. Your murder might not even get noticed, so even the statistics won't change - and yet you'll probably agree that there's an ethical problem involved in murdering your neighbors. I do agree with you that we shouldn't use Kant as the one-size-fits-all solution. Don't rely on telling people (or people understanding!) not to throw their trash everywhere, just put up a trash can so they can throw it in there. It is a solid framework for judging acts, but has it's weaknesses of course. The whole "the murderer is coming for your friend who is hiding in your bedroom, are you allowed to lie to him to save your friend" thing is something where I don't agree for example. > The US is making the message clear: "We will not provide you with socialized healthcare. You are free to pursue whatever medical care as you wish." Which includes going abroad. Sure, externalizing costs will provide advantages.
xyzzyz 7y ago
That's already how it is and has been for a long time in many EU countries, e.g. Poland, when you need to pay NFZ premiums to qualify for NFZ (i.e. state) health insurance.

by chroma 7y ago

sysbin 7y ago

> Hate the game, not the player. I agree with this, I'm not sure why I'm being downvoted for asking though because I think anyone would be curious to read personal testimony of their own situation. I would question myself if taking advantage of being in a country that strips social programs for keeping wages high for skilled employees. It's not like paying taxes negates that reality.

deanmoriarty 7y ago
I would encourage you to read the comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20346775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20346775 and answer that.
- sysbin 7y ago
  Done, also thanks for writing your views. It's nice to read reasoning and more so from tech people because it's somewhat relatable being the same field as myself.

luckylion 7y ago

> Hate the game, not the player. That's a lame excuse for anti-social behavior. "Somebody has to get those kids addicted". Read some Kant, then ask yourself what would happen if everybody acted that way, taking all the benefits and then silently stepping out when it's time to give something back.

chroma 7y ago
I know about the categorical imperative, but people aren’t saints. They follow incentives. The fix is to create incentives that make it easier to behave better, not chastise people for doing what benefits them. That said, I fail to see how his behavior is antisocial. He’s creating far more wealth in his current job than he could in the EU. If he ever moves back, he’ll bring millions of dollars with him and inject it into the local economy.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > I know about the categorical imperative, but people aren’t saints It's not about sainthood, it's about ethics. > The fix is to create incentives that make it easier to behave better, not chastise people for doing what benefits them. Breaking the rules will always give him more benefit, unless we "chastise" (that is: punish) that behavior. There's little we can do to make not murdering people that stand between him and riches "better" but making him believe that we will punish him. Clearly, relying on ethics and/or rational acting won't work with that kind of people. > That said, I fail to see how his behavior is antisocial. There would be no society if everybody acted like him. > If he ever moves back, he’ll bring millions of dollars with him and inject it into the local economy. He will, as he stated, only move back if he gets seriously ill and requires the social net to catch him. He will only come back if he's going to cost money.
  - deanmoriarty 7y ago
    I am curious, how would you have acted in my shoes? A few alternative options I can think of: 1) Not even try to move to the US to pursue the dream of a world-class tech career (dream I had since I was 12), stay in my own EU country with a mind-numbing consultancy job (which again, it's the only kind of employment available since the country is mostly rural with a limited software industry) to be fully consistent with morals. This also means I won't be able to financially help my parents as a sign of gratitude for all they've done for me, since my salary will be barely enough to keep me afloat. 2) Move to the US and completely renounce to my EU citizenship, so I won't ever have a way to go back and "take advantage" of my EU country (meaning I wouldn't even be able to see parents and family without an immigration visa). 3) Move to the US, keep the EU citizenship, but completely deny to myself the option of eventually moving back if needed. So, if I get a massive debilitating cancer that will force me to quit my job and lose my health insurance in the US, I'll die without treatment and all alone (loving family is all in EU) but with morals. 4) Move to the US, keep the EU citizenship, keep the possibility of eventually moving to EU, but to be consistent with morals find a way to donate to my EU government a few hundreds/thousands a month to keep contributing to the social safety net even if I'm not a resident there (I don't believe that's even physically possible?). But certainly that wouldn't be enough to cover the expenses my government paid for my education, so I should also find a way to refund that? 5) Move to the US, keep the EU citizenship, and start a countdown mandating that in exactly N years (where N cannot be certainly changed!) I will move back to EU regardless of where I am in my career or health status, so I won't be able to just move to the EU at the most convenient time. I'm asking because it's easy to talk about problems at a philosophical level, but please try to step down from your judging pedestal and come back to the real world with real problems, thinking what YOU would have done in practice.
BeetleB 7y ago
>Read some Kant, then ask yourself what would happen if everybody acted that way, taking all the benefits and then silently stepping out when it's time to give something back. I know this comment will trigger a bunch of people, but for me a sign of maturity is when people realize the categorical imperative isn't all it's hyped up to be. I was a big believer of the categorical imperative since my teens - years before I had heard the phrase or heard of Kant. But the more I understood statistics and its role in the world, the more I realized the categorical imperative is only a first order way of looking at things. Once you take into account human psychology, and its inevitable spread statistically, you realize that in many cases, viewing things with a categorical imperative lens is not only futile, but counterproductive. One needs to take that spread into account (i.e. realize that all people will not behave as you do) to get an optimal solution. The question to ask is "What behavior/policy will get the best outcomes given the differing behaviors you will see in society?" Personally, I realized I was dodging difficult issues by invoking the categorical imperative. That's my thought on the categorical imperative in general. Regarding this specific case: Various commenters have already mentioned that some countries do indeed make it hard for you to use their healthcare if you've not been paying into the system all these years. I know one guy who ran into this - he spent most of his career outside making big bucks, and then retired in his country which provides socialized medicine. They told him they will not cover conditions he developed while he was not paying into the system (essentially, pre-existing conditions when he moved back). He has to pay full cost to get treatment for those services. deanmoriarty is not the sole actor here. The US, as well as his country of citizenship are quite capable of ensuring they don't get exploited. If either country thinks this is abuse, they are welcome to modify their policies. And BTW, yes, part of the reason people in the US get paid high salaries may be due to the lack of socialized health care. However, there is no implicit social contract in the US to spend that money for medical care in the US. In fact, I'd argue the social contract is quite the opposite. The US is making the message clear: "We will not provide you with socialized healthcare. You are free to pursue whatever medical care as you wish." Which includes going abroad.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > One needs to take that spread into account (i.e. realize that all people will not behave as you do) to get an optimal solution. The question to ask is "What behavior/policy will get the best outcomes given the differing behaviors you will see in society?" The categorical imperative isn't about "is it likely that everybody will act like me" but "would it be good if everybody acted like me". You'll likely not end humanity if you start murdering your neighbors, because most people will not follow your example. Your murder might not even get noticed, so even the statistics won't change - and yet you'll probably agree that there's an ethical problem involved in murdering your neighbors. I do agree with you that we shouldn't use Kant as the one-size-fits-all solution. Don't rely on telling people (or people understanding!) not to throw their trash everywhere, just put up a trash can so they can throw it in there. It is a solid framework for judging acts, but has it's weaknesses of course. The whole "the murderer is coming for your friend who is hiding in your bedroom, are you allowed to lie to him to save your friend" thing is something where I don't agree for example. > The US is making the message clear: "We will not provide you with socialized healthcare. You are free to pursue whatever medical care as you wish." Which includes going abroad. Sure, externalizing costs will provide advantages.

xyzzyz 7y ago

That's already how it is and has been for a long time in many EU countries, e.g. Poland, when you need to pay NFZ premiums to qualify for NFZ (i.e. state) health insurance.