5 ms·

Sadly before I even opened the article, I knew this was going to be the result of the lack of a proper healthcare system in the US. :(

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
fusiongyro 14y ago
Shut up and give this guy $10.
- dnlhoust 14y ago
  Unnecessarily rude. I suggest you think twice before posting again, Daniel.
  - fusiongyro 14y ago
    This guy needs our charity, not our political opinions.
    - dnlhoust 14y ago
      Given s_henry_paulson's sadness enough to comment, I'd say it's likely he has donated. Funnily enough I don't see why it's necessary for you to be outright rude to him. Edit: I'm glad you've dropped the threat nonsense.
    - roguecoder 14y ago
      He is planning on relying on both Medicare and Medicaid. He already has our political opinions, and thank goodness he does. Individuals shouldn't have to rely on popularity contests to be cared for when tragedy strikes: as a society we should care for everyone in the same situation. Charity, while good for the individual, is bad for society because it takes away from the importance of providing equally-available support.
      - fusiongyro 14y ago
        It's a reasonable argument, but he has problems that need solving now. If someone's hungry, you give them food; a philosophy lecture is not edible.
        roguecoder 14y ago
        Actually, that's not what this sounds like at all. He's protecting his assets for his children and preparing so he can receive public assistance; he's not about to starve or be kicked out of his home or taken off life support or have to file for bankruptcy. He isn't even raising money for immediately necessary expenses; he is raising money for foreseeable care expenses in the future. Your hyperbole is rather baffling; I don't see the purpose behind it.
einhverfr 14y ago
Why is it that when I suggest we emulate Canada's system (which is province-by-province single payer) the Democrats accuse me of being a Ron Paul right-winger (Nooo... not the States!) and the Republicans accuse me of being a socialist (Nooo... not single payer!)? Not only is the US healthcare system broke and broken, but nobody in power is willing to imagine a solution that might work better (probably because such as system would require tackling the major corporate interests across the board, like big pharma) :-( I wouldn't be optimistic that we'll get things fixed.
- protomyth 14y ago
  Probably because it violates both their parties beliefs. The problem for some of us in the USA is that we have seen government health care run the USA way. I lived under IHS (Indian Health Service) for a big chunk of my life. They came about 6 hours from killing my Dad and my brothers records "disappeared" and he has a mis-diagnosed back. Google "don't get sick after june" for the typical problems. I myself had a botched root canal (3 surgeries afterwords) and lesser back problems. Given this, I don't see how they can be more competent with more people under the system. If you cannot get it right for 1.2% of the population, you are not going to get it right for the rest. That said, there are some things government could do that would help everyone. A "cataclysmic" insurance modeled on flood insurance to take care of costs over a certain dollar figure payed out of the taxes we already pay. Cut the cost of drug approval and work out longer term cheaper payments beyond the patent life. Tort reform for drug approved for the FDA. Scholarships for every nurse and doctor keeping a decent average. Reduce the cost of filling out government paperwork. Loans to needy individuals to pay their healthcare bill, payed back to the IRS. I'm not very optimistic because I haven't heard any politician looking at what the actual input costs are for health care and trying to reduce those. They seem to accept health care costs will stay high.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    IHS is bad, but it's not just that though. As a way of controlling costs, Medicare is a dismal failure. This may be similar wrt IHS, but basically government health care means, in the US, underfunded doctors, and money channelled to large corporate interests, like big pharma. If we just look at taxpayer dollars spent in the US on health care, we still outspend the rest of the world. If our government could control costs, they would have. States are powerless because a very large minority of expenditures are regulated primarily by the feds, and they actively avoid cost control outside IHS. We have a system which is so structurally broken I just don't know what you can do without starting with huge structural changes, which would be scary to those on things like Medicare.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
mindcrime 14y ago
Could we skip the political discussion about this for now? HN really isn't "about" politics, and I have a feeling that the crowd here is just as divided as the general population when it comes to debating what should be done about healthcare. Us bickering about it here isn't likely to lead to any change, IMO.
- earl 14y ago
  No, you're exactly wrong. People who don't support health care for all need the outcome of their preferred policy position rubbed in their face as often as possible. And it's this: a man is begging over the internet for enough money to live his remaining years in what comfort he can, while hopefully destroying his family's future as little as possible. And what of the people who aren't drupal devs, or don't have an emotional connection with a community of people? They're just sol.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

fusiongyro 14y ago

Shut up and give this guy $10.

dnlhoust 14y ago
Unnecessarily rude. I suggest you think twice before posting again, Daniel.
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  This guy needs our charity, not our political opinions.
  - dnlhoust 14y ago
    Given s_henry_paulson's sadness enough to comment, I'd say it's likely he has donated. Funnily enough I don't see why it's necessary for you to be outright rude to him. Edit: I'm glad you've dropped the threat nonsense.
  - roguecoder 14y ago
    He is planning on relying on both Medicare and Medicaid. He already has our political opinions, and thank goodness he does. Individuals shouldn't have to rely on popularity contests to be cared for when tragedy strikes: as a society we should care for everyone in the same situation. Charity, while good for the individual, is bad for society because it takes away from the importance of providing equally-available support.
    - fusiongyro 14y ago
      It's a reasonable argument, but he has problems that need solving now. If someone's hungry, you give them food; a philosophy lecture is not edible.
      - roguecoder 14y ago
        Actually, that's not what this sounds like at all. He's protecting his assets for his children and preparing so he can receive public assistance; he's not about to starve or be kicked out of his home or taken off life support or have to file for bankruptcy. He isn't even raising money for immediately necessary expenses; he is raising money for foreseeable care expenses in the future. Your hyperbole is rather baffling; I don't see the purpose behind it.

einhverfr 14y ago

Why is it that when I suggest we emulate Canada's system (which is province-by-province single payer) the Democrats accuse me of being a Ron Paul right-winger (Nooo... not the States!) and the Republicans accuse me of being a socialist (Nooo... not single payer!)? Not only is the US healthcare system broke and broken, but nobody in power is willing to imagine a solution that might work better (probably because such as system would require tackling the major corporate interests across the board, like big pharma) :-( I wouldn't be optimistic that we'll get things fixed.

protomyth 14y ago
Probably because it violates both their parties beliefs. The problem for some of us in the USA is that we have seen government health care run the USA way. I lived under IHS (Indian Health Service) for a big chunk of my life. They came about 6 hours from killing my Dad and my brothers records "disappeared" and he has a mis-diagnosed back. Google "don't get sick after june" for the typical problems. I myself had a botched root canal (3 surgeries afterwords) and lesser back problems. Given this, I don't see how they can be more competent with more people under the system. If you cannot get it right for 1.2% of the population, you are not going to get it right for the rest. That said, there are some things government could do that would help everyone. A "cataclysmic" insurance modeled on flood insurance to take care of costs over a certain dollar figure payed out of the taxes we already pay. Cut the cost of drug approval and work out longer term cheaper payments beyond the patent life. Tort reform for drug approved for the FDA. Scholarships for every nurse and doctor keeping a decent average. Reduce the cost of filling out government paperwork. Loans to needy individuals to pay their healthcare bill, payed back to the IRS. I'm not very optimistic because I haven't heard any politician looking at what the actual input costs are for health care and trying to reduce those. They seem to accept health care costs will stay high.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  IHS is bad, but it's not just that though. As a way of controlling costs, Medicare is a dismal failure. This may be similar wrt IHS, but basically government health care means, in the US, underfunded doctors, and money channelled to large corporate interests, like big pharma. If we just look at taxpayer dollars spent in the US on health care, we still outspend the rest of the world. If our government could control costs, they would have. States are powerless because a very large minority of expenditures are regulated primarily by the feds, and they actively avoid cost control outside IHS. We have a system which is so structurally broken I just don't know what you can do without starting with huge structural changes, which would be scary to those on things like Medicare.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

mindcrime 14y ago

Could we skip the political discussion about this for now? HN really isn't "about" politics, and I have a feeling that the crowd here is just as divided as the general population when it comes to debating what should be done about healthcare. Us bickering about it here isn't likely to lead to any change, IMO.

earl 14y ago
No, you're exactly wrong. People who don't support health care for all need the outcome of their preferred policy position rubbed in their face as often as possible. And it's this: a man is begging over the internet for enough money to live his remaining years in what comfort he can, while hopefully destroying his family's future as little as possible. And what of the people who aren't drupal devs, or don't have an emotional connection with a community of people? They're just sol.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]