7 ms·

Hi, I am from Barcelona, and I was there. Stallman is a great man. I dont know what happened at the end, but when we were in the talk the organizers told us tha

Hi, I am from Barcelona, and I was there. Stallman is a great man. I dont know what happened at the end, but when we were in the talk the organizers told us that the talk is suspended because Stallman was not well. The medical service arrive 20 minutes after Stallman ask for attention. This delay was used by him to say: "Son los recortes, Rajoy nos quiere matar a todos", meaning: The delay is because of the cuts in the spanish health systems, Rajoy (the president) want to kill us". :-).

planetguy 14y ago
Wow, if only he were in the United States where you don't have to rely on the Government for medical care...
- Tloewald 14y ago
  ...can't rely on the government for healthcare...
- me_myselft 14y ago
  Yes, but in US you have to have a lot of money for receiving a very basic and fundamental human right: medical care...
  - ryanhuff 14y ago
    Inflammatory statement, and not true. I happen to know doctors in the US who do not refuse care for those who cannot pay.
    - malkia 14y ago
      I happen to know doctors in the US who would refuse to take care for those who cannot pay.
  - jdminhbg 14y ago
    I wasn't going to respond to this to avoid prolonging this burgeoning off-topic health care flamewar, but I figured that in the name of cross-cultural understanding, I'd correct you: Hospitals in the US are obligated to treat any emergency patient regardless of whether they can pay.
    - brudgers 14y ago
      They then charge those people least able to pay a higher rate, add interest, and turn it over to a collection agency. http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/15/new_york_hospitals_saddle_uninsured_patients http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/15/new_york_hospitals_sad... http://www.democracynow.org/2004/1/7/state_secret_why_are_uninsured_patients http://www.democracynow.org/2004/1/7/state_secret_why_are_un... [somehow Democracy Now seems appropriate for a Stallman discussion]
      - ismarc 14y ago
        This isn't entirely true and varies from state to state and hospital to hospital. We had a trip to the hospital last year (non-ambulance, but was an actual emergency). Prior to checking out, we refused to sign anything from the hospital itself until checkout time. (quick sidebar, I've never seen anything as sleazy as an administrator trying to get someone who's heavily sedated and mediated but hasn't been fully diagnosed yet (triage and stabilization only) to sign paperwork related to billing and insurance, and then to authorize a room change to long term and the to an overnight room...all before they even knew what was going on). At checkout time, they had no insurance info...if we had no insurance, they would consolidate the fees from all groups (contracted doctors, anasthesiologists, equipment use, medications, etc.) and waive 2/3 of it and set up a payment plan (non-loan style, so no interest, or fees). This total was lower than if we used insurance and paid what was remaining on the deductible for the year and happened late enough that we wouldn't have benefited from using the insurance. I have no idea if it was attitude, handling it like business, persistence or just how they do business, but it greatly impressed me.
    - ashayh 14y ago
      Medical Care != ER
  - alwillis 14y ago
    As I mentioned here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3955537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3955537), living in Boston, Massachusetts, we have the best of both worlds when it comes to access to health care at some of the best healthcare organizations in the world. I should also add that even if you don't have money, you still have access. I was seen at a clinic at Mass General (http://www.massgeneral.org http://www.massgeneral.org) recently by making an optional $2 donation.
  - ajross 14y ago
    It's coming. The law is a mess, and phasing in slowly. But it passed, and it's real. It will no doubt have to be fixed over the coming decades, but universal health care in the USA is a reality. But the "lot of money" thing is just reality: health care costs a lot of money, period. And it must be paid. Coming up with a regime to do so without leaving people out or inappropriately burdening them is a hard problem, and frankly no entity, government or private, can claim to have solved it "well".
    - Peaker 14y ago
      In the US the "lot of money" is somehow a lot more than in every other state, even though most western states have better quality care than the US.
  - cglace 14y ago
    Why is medical care a fundamental right?
    - mindcrime 14y ago
      It can't be, because if it's a fundamental right (read: entitlement) then someone else is obligated to provide that care. So, in a hypothetical world where no one chooses to go into the medical profession, we'd have to put guns to people's heads and force them to become doctors, because, after all, medical care is a "fundamental right." There's an obvious paradox in that. Medical care is a "right" in the sense that it's something you shouldn't have to ask for permission to seek, but we aren't entitled to it. It's a service that can be provided and bought on the free market like all other services.
      - icebraining 14y ago
        That argument is perfect in a theoretical world where no one choose to go into the medical profession. Back in real life, that doesn't happen. At most, you have to hire foreign doctors. So yes, it's a right, which like any other right, it's subject to the constraints of reality.
        mindcrime 14y ago
        Real world / hypothetical world / thought-experiment aside, the point stands: treating a service as an entitlement entails imposing an obligation on somebody else to provide that service, OR to pay for that service, etc. If granting one person a "right" means violating someone else's rights (that is, their right to choose how to direct their energy and the fruits of their labor) then it's unjust.
        icebraining 14y ago
        I don't think it's unjust to make people contribute to society through taxes if they want to live in it. They're free to opt-out from that implicit contract by going to live elsewhere. There's plenty of inhabited places on Earth still. In any case, rights can and are sometimes eclipsed by others. The idea of natural, absolute rights is just ridiculous.
- ews 14y ago
  I came here expecting a troll :) in Europe you don't have to rely on Government for health care: you have an array of options in the private sector, which are usually much better (in my experience) than the US private hospitals since they have to compete with a free and good-enough option. Most of the population prefer to use the free, government subsidized health system though.
  - muyuu 14y ago
    By free, you mean that we prefer to use the system we're already paying anyway ;-) (when we can afford the wait).
    - rbanffy 14y ago
      If you can't afford the wait (if it's an actual emergency) they'll take it in account.
  - rogerbinns 14y ago
    The health system is not free nor is it government subsidised. It is paid for from taxes, which people pay according to their income. There is no additional charge to then use the system other than paying taxes. (IMHO this is a good thing and it is fair.) In the US it is a complete mess. Half of all healthcare spending is done by the government anyway (Medicare, Medicaid, government employees, army/veterans etc) and hence paid for by tax payers according to their income but not available to most taxpayers. The other half is paid for by charities, individuals, companies and by taxpayers (the government chooses not to collect tax on premiums paid by companies). Add in "insurance" companies which act as middle men between the payments and the healthcare delivery, plus a lot of regulation, and a large number of people whose jobs are to try and increase or decrease payments from the other groups and the whole thing is an unholy mess.
    - Tichy 14y ago
      It's not the same in all European countries. I think in the UK it is like you describe. I was quite shocked, however, when I heard about the typical wait times for things like broken teeth or bones (weeks - that was 18 years ago, though, don't know the current state). In Germany there are specific health insurances you have to pick. However it has become mandatory to have health insurance a couple of years ago, and the public insurers may not reject you.
- te_chris 14y ago
  I'm nervous about moving to the states because of just that. Here in New Zealand it's easy because we're all guaranteed access to a great public health system, no matter what. You can buy private insurance and expedite certain things if you want, but the public system is always there and available to everyone. Moving to the US and having to deal with health insurance makes me nervous.
  - mhurron 14y ago
    > Moving to the US and having to deal with health insurance makes me nervous. Don't worry, your nervousness will be replaced by anger soon enough.
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      That's hardly fair. You might feel anger, or you might feel despair. If you're a misanthrope, you'll feel pleasure in watching who can't afford their medical bills fall into complete financial ruin.
      - 3143 14y ago
        Or you might get a health plan that you're perfectly satisfied with, as many people do, and not think about it very much.
        MartinCron 14y ago
        You're totally right. I forgot the solipsists. But I don't feel too bad, because they always forget about me, too.
- dasil003 14y ago
  Or better yet, where if you don't have a job with a group plan you just might find it impossible to get insurance at any cost, and if you pay the medical system directly you'll pay 3 times what the insurance companies pay, and 10 times what you would pay in the second most expensive country in the world.
- alwillis 14y ago
  I live in Boston, Massachusetts, where we have universal health care and some of the best doctors and hospitals in the world. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
  - aerique 14y ago
    Why doesn't the rest of the US use Boston's approach?
    - ars 14y ago
      Massachusetts, not Boston. The way the US is setup each state is different - if you want that kind of health care, you move to Massachusetts. If you want fierce independence there are states that do that, there are states that heavily promote gun ownership, and those that discourage it. Some places have high income taxes, some property taxes, some no taxes, etc. You can pick where you want to live based on what you like. A state in the US is almost as big as many countries, so you can think of the US as a conglomerate of many countries. However Massachusetts is having some adverse selection going on as people who otherwise could not afford health care are going there and putting a drain on the system. They are also having a shortage of family doctors. What is making the states very upset at the current federal plan is that they loose the opportunity to decide for themself how they want the state to run.
      - aerique 14y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. From the outside (I'm from the Netherlands) it is easy to forget the US is made up of many states which still have at least some sort of independence. Same goes for Europe and its member states I guess.
  - omaranto 14y ago
    I live in Boston too, and I have to say the system does seem pretty good for American citizens and foreigners who are permanent residents; but it's not so hot for foreign families on student visas who are poor by US standards. Schools give health insurance to the student and offer the option of buying very expensive health insurance for the rest of the family, other private health insurance companies won't take the rest of the family without the student signing up as well but the student's school doesn't usually let him or her opt-out of the school's insurance, the goverment run health insurance programs don't take the family because being here for 5 years on a student visa makes them "visitors" and thus ineligible. One affordable but risky option for a healthy family seems to be to not have health insurance and pay for all medical care directly, plus pay the fine for not having the mandatory health insurance --it is a small fraction of the cost of the health insurance.
elemeno 14y ago
As much as I appreciate all that Stallman's done over the years (though I don't always agree with him), that just strikes me as a remarkably dickish comment to make. To my mind, 20 minutes is hardly an unreasonable delay when you're not an emergency. To make a snide remark about it when you're a guest in the country and getting the advantages of their free health services is just poor taste and bad manners.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- muyuu 14y ago
  It was obviously a joke and I seriously doubt anyone would be offended by that. I know I'm not and I'm relatively understanding about the austerity measures.
  - jsprinkles 14y ago
    Actually, if you know anything about Richard Stallman, he was probably dead serious.
    - muyuu 14y ago
      I've been following Stallman since forever. Even in the article it states that it was said in jest.
  - elemeno 14y ago
    You'd have to point me at something that would suggest it was said in jest then, since I don't see anything that would support that assertion. Frankly, there's a reason why I used the word 'appreciate' rather than 'respect' and that's because while RMS has done much good for the world, he's also an extremist and a fundamentalist who's publicly held convictions in some areas indirectly damage the cause he's fighting for.
    - ternaryoperator 14y ago

planetguy 14y ago

Wow, if only he were in the United States where you don't have to rely on the Government for medical care...

Tloewald 14y ago
...can't rely on the government for healthcare...
me_myselft 14y ago
Yes, but in US you have to have a lot of money for receiving a very basic and fundamental human right: medical care...
- ryanhuff 14y ago
  Inflammatory statement, and not true. I happen to know doctors in the US who do not refuse care for those who cannot pay.
  - malkia 14y ago
    I happen to know doctors in the US who would refuse to take care for those who cannot pay.
- jdminhbg 14y ago
  I wasn't going to respond to this to avoid prolonging this burgeoning off-topic health care flamewar, but I figured that in the name of cross-cultural understanding, I'd correct you: Hospitals in the US are obligated to treat any emergency patient regardless of whether they can pay.
  - brudgers 14y ago
    They then charge those people least able to pay a higher rate, add interest, and turn it over to a collection agency. http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/15/new_york_hospitals_saddle_uninsured_patients http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/15/new_york_hospitals_sad... http://www.democracynow.org/2004/1/7/state_secret_why_are_uninsured_patients http://www.democracynow.org/2004/1/7/state_secret_why_are_un... [somehow Democracy Now seems appropriate for a Stallman discussion]
    - ismarc 14y ago
      This isn't entirely true and varies from state to state and hospital to hospital. We had a trip to the hospital last year (non-ambulance, but was an actual emergency). Prior to checking out, we refused to sign anything from the hospital itself until checkout time. (quick sidebar, I've never seen anything as sleazy as an administrator trying to get someone who's heavily sedated and mediated but hasn't been fully diagnosed yet (triage and stabilization only) to sign paperwork related to billing and insurance, and then to authorize a room change to long term and the to an overnight room...all before they even knew what was going on). At checkout time, they had no insurance info...if we had no insurance, they would consolidate the fees from all groups (contracted doctors, anasthesiologists, equipment use, medications, etc.) and waive 2/3 of it and set up a payment plan (non-loan style, so no interest, or fees). This total was lower than if we used insurance and paid what was remaining on the deductible for the year and happened late enough that we wouldn't have benefited from using the insurance. I have no idea if it was attitude, handling it like business, persistence or just how they do business, but it greatly impressed me.
  - ashayh 14y ago
    Medical Care != ER
- alwillis 14y ago
  As I mentioned here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3955537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3955537), living in Boston, Massachusetts, we have the best of both worlds when it comes to access to health care at some of the best healthcare organizations in the world. I should also add that even if you don't have money, you still have access. I was seen at a clinic at Mass General (http://www.massgeneral.org http://www.massgeneral.org) recently by making an optional $2 donation.
- ajross 14y ago
  It's coming. The law is a mess, and phasing in slowly. But it passed, and it's real. It will no doubt have to be fixed over the coming decades, but universal health care in the USA is a reality. But the "lot of money" thing is just reality: health care costs a lot of money, period. And it must be paid. Coming up with a regime to do so without leaving people out or inappropriately burdening them is a hard problem, and frankly no entity, government or private, can claim to have solved it "well".
  - Peaker 14y ago
    In the US the "lot of money" is somehow a lot more than in every other state, even though most western states have better quality care than the US.
- cglace 14y ago
  Why is medical care a fundamental right?
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    It can't be, because if it's a fundamental right (read: entitlement) then someone else is obligated to provide that care. So, in a hypothetical world where no one chooses to go into the medical profession, we'd have to put guns to people's heads and force them to become doctors, because, after all, medical care is a "fundamental right." There's an obvious paradox in that. Medical care is a "right" in the sense that it's something you shouldn't have to ask for permission to seek, but we aren't entitled to it. It's a service that can be provided and bought on the free market like all other services.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      That argument is perfect in a theoretical world where no one choose to go into the medical profession. Back in real life, that doesn't happen. At most, you have to hire foreign doctors. So yes, it's a right, which like any other right, it's subject to the constraints of reality.
      - mindcrime 14y ago
        Real world / hypothetical world / thought-experiment aside, the point stands: treating a service as an entitlement entails imposing an obligation on somebody else to provide that service, OR to pay for that service, etc. If granting one person a "right" means violating someone else's rights (that is, their right to choose how to direct their energy and the fruits of their labor) then it's unjust.
        icebraining 14y ago
        I don't think it's unjust to make people contribute to society through taxes if they want to live in it. They're free to opt-out from that implicit contract by going to live elsewhere. There's plenty of inhabited places on Earth still. In any case, rights can and are sometimes eclipsed by others. The idea of natural, absolute rights is just ridiculous.
ews 14y ago
I came here expecting a troll :) in Europe you don't have to rely on Government for health care: you have an array of options in the private sector, which are usually much better (in my experience) than the US private hospitals since they have to compete with a free and good-enough option. Most of the population prefer to use the free, government subsidized health system though.
- muyuu 14y ago
  By free, you mean that we prefer to use the system we're already paying anyway ;-) (when we can afford the wait).
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    If you can't afford the wait (if it's an actual emergency) they'll take it in account.
- rogerbinns 14y ago
  The health system is not free nor is it government subsidised. It is paid for from taxes, which people pay according to their income. There is no additional charge to then use the system other than paying taxes. (IMHO this is a good thing and it is fair.) In the US it is a complete mess. Half of all healthcare spending is done by the government anyway (Medicare, Medicaid, government employees, army/veterans etc) and hence paid for by tax payers according to their income but not available to most taxpayers. The other half is paid for by charities, individuals, companies and by taxpayers (the government chooses not to collect tax on premiums paid by companies). Add in "insurance" companies which act as middle men between the payments and the healthcare delivery, plus a lot of regulation, and a large number of people whose jobs are to try and increase or decrease payments from the other groups and the whole thing is an unholy mess.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    It's not the same in all European countries. I think in the UK it is like you describe. I was quite shocked, however, when I heard about the typical wait times for things like broken teeth or bones (weeks - that was 18 years ago, though, don't know the current state). In Germany there are specific health insurances you have to pick. However it has become mandatory to have health insurance a couple of years ago, and the public insurers may not reject you.
te_chris 14y ago
I'm nervous about moving to the states because of just that. Here in New Zealand it's easy because we're all guaranteed access to a great public health system, no matter what. You can buy private insurance and expedite certain things if you want, but the public system is always there and available to everyone. Moving to the US and having to deal with health insurance makes me nervous.
- mhurron 14y ago
  > Moving to the US and having to deal with health insurance makes me nervous. Don't worry, your nervousness will be replaced by anger soon enough.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    That's hardly fair. You might feel anger, or you might feel despair. If you're a misanthrope, you'll feel pleasure in watching who can't afford their medical bills fall into complete financial ruin.
    - 3143 14y ago
      Or you might get a health plan that you're perfectly satisfied with, as many people do, and not think about it very much.
      - MartinCron 14y ago
        You're totally right. I forgot the solipsists. But I don't feel too bad, because they always forget about me, too.
dasil003 14y ago
Or better yet, where if you don't have a job with a group plan you just might find it impossible to get insurance at any cost, and if you pay the medical system directly you'll pay 3 times what the insurance companies pay, and 10 times what you would pay in the second most expensive country in the world.
alwillis 14y ago
I live in Boston, Massachusetts, where we have universal health care and some of the best doctors and hospitals in the world. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
- aerique 14y ago
  Why doesn't the rest of the US use Boston's approach?
  - ars 14y ago
    Massachusetts, not Boston. The way the US is setup each state is different - if you want that kind of health care, you move to Massachusetts. If you want fierce independence there are states that do that, there are states that heavily promote gun ownership, and those that discourage it. Some places have high income taxes, some property taxes, some no taxes, etc. You can pick where you want to live based on what you like. A state in the US is almost as big as many countries, so you can think of the US as a conglomerate of many countries. However Massachusetts is having some adverse selection going on as people who otherwise could not afford health care are going there and putting a drain on the system. They are also having a shortage of family doctors. What is making the states very upset at the current federal plan is that they loose the opportunity to decide for themself how they want the state to run.
    - aerique 14y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. From the outside (I'm from the Netherlands) it is easy to forget the US is made up of many states which still have at least some sort of independence. Same goes for Europe and its member states I guess.
- omaranto 14y ago
  I live in Boston too, and I have to say the system does seem pretty good for American citizens and foreigners who are permanent residents; but it's not so hot for foreign families on student visas who are poor by US standards. Schools give health insurance to the student and offer the option of buying very expensive health insurance for the rest of the family, other private health insurance companies won't take the rest of the family without the student signing up as well but the student's school doesn't usually let him or her opt-out of the school's insurance, the goverment run health insurance programs don't take the family because being here for 5 years on a student visa makes them "visitors" and thus ineligible. One affordable but risky option for a healthy family seems to be to not have health insurance and pay for all medical care directly, plus pay the fine for not having the mandatory health insurance --it is a small fraction of the cost of the health insurance.

elemeno 14y ago

As much as I appreciate all that Stallman's done over the years (though I don't always agree with him), that just strikes me as a remarkably dickish comment to make. To my mind, 20 minutes is hardly an unreasonable delay when you're not an emergency. To make a snide remark about it when you're a guest in the country and getting the advantages of their free health services is just poor taste and bad manners.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
muyuu 14y ago
It was obviously a joke and I seriously doubt anyone would be offended by that. I know I'm not and I'm relatively understanding about the austerity measures.
- jsprinkles 14y ago
  Actually, if you know anything about Richard Stallman, he was probably dead serious.
  - muyuu 14y ago
    I've been following Stallman since forever. Even in the article it states that it was said in jest.
- elemeno 14y ago
  You'd have to point me at something that would suggest it was said in jest then, since I don't see anything that would support that assertion. Frankly, there's a reason why I used the word 'appreciate' rather than 'respect' and that's because while RMS has done much good for the world, he's also an extremist and a fundamentalist who's publicly held convictions in some areas indirectly damage the cause he's fighting for.
  - ternaryoperator 14y ago