4 ms·

Which part is an exaggeration? The death? Hardly. It usually takes some time to get someone to an emergency room, so if their heart fully clogs, the outcome

Which part is an exaggeration? The death? Hardly. It usually takes some time to get someone to an emergency room, so if their heart fully clogs, the outcome is often death. Or that people will usually forego seeking treatment because they can't afford to rack up huge bills? Again, not really an exaggeration. If you have a house that you live in with your spouse and child, then you need that house, and people will often make decisions with the best chance of preserving it. If you go bankrupt, you can lose your house except in some specific circumstances (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lose-home-file-chapter-7-bankruptcy.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lose-home-file-chapte...). It's easy to forget, as programmers, that most people don't enjoy the same benefits we do. Most people are living paycheck to paycheck with little savings and children.

pdabbadabba 12y ago
It is an exagerration to say that the situation you described was typical (though "too common" might fit). You implied that you could not obtain treatment if you cannot afford it. And now you're adding the largely fictional risk of losing your home into the mix. Yes, it is possible to lose your home in bankruptcy but only if the equity in your home exceeds your state's homestead exemption (often, but not always, $50,000) by an amount large enough to make it worth selling. This will not often be the case for a person who is driven into bankruptcy by medical bills. I do agree (as I said) that people should not be put in the situation of having to choose between preserving the lives they have built for themselves, and obtaining healthcare. But I think it's important to be scrupulously accurate and responsible on this topic since the discussion itself could influence somebody's decision not to seek treatment.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  The important thing to note here is that the scaremongering is precisely what contributes to more deaths. If you're marching around saying lives will be ruined if you seek treatment , then YOU, not some other person, are the problem. Think carefully if the point you imagine you're making is worth that.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Right. I'm "scaremongering" by explaining the situation faced by many middle class families in the US on a forum for programmers, and I'm personally contributing to more deaths, not the poor healthcare system. Okay. While it's true you may not lose your house (which I clearly articulated in my previous comment), there's more to life than a house. If you can't drive to work because you no longer have a car, then that's a huge problem. If you're putting your children through school, then suddenly you're jeopardizing their life by seeking to preserve your own unless the doctors know quickly and precisely what's wrong with you. I don't understand why this is so controversial: People make suboptimal decisions, especially when the choices don't have clear outcomes. Here's some evidence that this actually happens in practice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8551522 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8551522
    - waterlesscloud 12y ago
      Yes. You're scaremongering. You're (by your own admission) using an extreme situation to make a point. If you choose to emphasize this extreme situation, as you did, then yes, you own some personal responsibility. If you don't like that, then don't use extreme cases to make whatever point you want to make.
      - sillysaurus3 12y ago
        Hm. Actually, I think I love it. I'm going to go out of my way to use the most extreme situations in order to contribute to as many deaths as possible, simply by having conversations on the internet. Bonus points if my rhetoric influences the death of a small malnourished Dachshund. Thank you for pointing out my previously-unknown power over life and death. This is awesome! You're (by your own admission) using an extreme situation to make a point. No, the situations aren't extreme. Like I said, people typically live paycheck to paycheck and can't afford trips to the hospital. The fact that someone on HN had direct evidence of this shows us how common the situation actually is. We should choose not to like that, and do something about it through voting.
    - pdabbadabba 12y ago
- serf 12y ago
  >And now you're adding the largely fictional risk of losing your home into the mix. Yes, it is possible to lose your home in bankruptcy but only if the equity in your home exceeds your state's homestead exemption (often, but not always, $50,000) by an amount large enough to make it worth selling. So what about this is fiction? As the proud owner of a 1-million-dollar spinal cord injury treated within the US, I don't understand where the fiction starts. Also, I was insured. (also, is 'largely fiction' synonymous with 'rarely'?) "The risk of a head-on-collision during city driving is largely fictional." doesn't sound quite right.

pdabbadabba 12y ago

It is an exagerration to say that the situation you described was typical (though "too common" might fit). You implied that you could not obtain treatment if you cannot afford it. And now you're adding the largely fictional risk of losing your home into the mix. Yes, it is possible to lose your home in bankruptcy but only if the equity in your home exceeds your state's homestead exemption (often, but not always, $50,000) by an amount large enough to make it worth selling. This will not often be the case for a person who is driven into bankruptcy by medical bills. I do agree (as I said) that people should not be put in the situation of having to choose between preserving the lives they have built for themselves, and obtaining healthcare. But I think it's important to be scrupulously accurate and responsible on this topic since the discussion itself could influence somebody's decision not to seek treatment.

waterlesscloud 12y ago
The important thing to note here is that the scaremongering is precisely what contributes to more deaths. If you're marching around saying lives will be ruined if you seek treatment , then YOU, not some other person, are the problem. Think carefully if the point you imagine you're making is worth that.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Right. I'm "scaremongering" by explaining the situation faced by many middle class families in the US on a forum for programmers, and I'm personally contributing to more deaths, not the poor healthcare system. Okay. While it's true you may not lose your house (which I clearly articulated in my previous comment), there's more to life than a house. If you can't drive to work because you no longer have a car, then that's a huge problem. If you're putting your children through school, then suddenly you're jeopardizing their life by seeking to preserve your own unless the doctors know quickly and precisely what's wrong with you. I don't understand why this is so controversial: People make suboptimal decisions, especially when the choices don't have clear outcomes. Here's some evidence that this actually happens in practice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8551522 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8551522
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    Yes. You're scaremongering. You're (by your own admission) using an extreme situation to make a point. If you choose to emphasize this extreme situation, as you did, then yes, you own some personal responsibility. If you don't like that, then don't use extreme cases to make whatever point you want to make.
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      Hm. Actually, I think I love it. I'm going to go out of my way to use the most extreme situations in order to contribute to as many deaths as possible, simply by having conversations on the internet. Bonus points if my rhetoric influences the death of a small malnourished Dachshund. Thank you for pointing out my previously-unknown power over life and death. This is awesome! You're (by your own admission) using an extreme situation to make a point. No, the situations aren't extreme. Like I said, people typically live paycheck to paycheck and can't afford trips to the hospital. The fact that someone on HN had direct evidence of this shows us how common the situation actually is. We should choose not to like that, and do something about it through voting.
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
serf 12y ago
>And now you're adding the largely fictional risk of losing your home into the mix. Yes, it is possible to lose your home in bankruptcy but only if the equity in your home exceeds your state's homestead exemption (often, but not always, $50,000) by an amount large enough to make it worth selling. So what about this is fiction? As the proud owner of a 1-million-dollar spinal cord injury treated within the US, I don't understand where the fiction starts. Also, I was insured. (also, is 'largely fiction' synonymous with 'rarely'?) "The risk of a head-on-collision during city driving is largely fictional." doesn't sound quite right.