can't towers be replaced by ground tethered blimps? seams cheaper and more versatile. minor to major sway could be adjusted for electronically by tracking position in relation to the next node and adjusting either orientation of blimp or of dishes.
It's complicated, and it's been abundantly discussed on the internet, if you'd care to use a service like Google to research it. Let's keep this thread about helping this one guy, rather than debating the merits of various health care systems.
Is there a real debate? Literally every other highly-developed nation in the world does not have this problem.
A significant portion of HN are US-based software engineers or related. That probably means significant amounts of disposable income and some possibility of changing this.
We should help this guy, but we should also be donating to political candidates not afraid to tackle this problem.
We should be as loud as possible about how as a country, we have failed to create an environment where people can exert their right to a modicum of healthcare access without first having to lose everything they own (through bankruptcy or otherwise). Look at these cases straight-on and acknowledge that this is an absolute disgrace.
Please, please, please don't look on healthcare just from money perspective (i.e. affordability). Look on it from life saving efficiency too. Actually foremost.
Renial Cancer I was suspected of having had chances of recovery in Germany of 60%. In the US over 90%. Yes, in Germany it is funded by taxpayer. Yes in the US I would be bankrupt. But I think it is obvious which system is much better in that particular case. I think that all of us would rather be bankrupt than dead. And this is big issue that just isn't discussed in the politics and media.
That's great that Germany gave you a free 60% chance of recovery!
If you couldn't afford the 90% chance in the US, your chance of recovery was probably 0%.
So, presenting it as 60% or 90% is a false comparison.
Nothing prevents you from spending more on your recovery, if you have the money. What you fail to understand is that many people in the United States would like the same 60% chance funded by the taxpayer that you enjoy in Germany.
To quote some other numbers at you, Infant Mortality rate (deaths per 1,000 live births) by the CIA 2013 estimate in the United States is 5.2, in Germany it's 3.48.
So, it's not like healthcare is uniformly better in the United States than other countries, and it absolutely is inaccessible to many of our citizens. Not something I'm proud of.
> That's great that Germany gave you a free 60% chance of recovery!
sales tax of 19%, gas taxed at 100%, state taking away well over 50% (some countries in EU closer to 70%) of your salary, etc. - this is not free. It is paid by taxpayers, exactly as I said. Yes that's really great that for all these money I had 40% chances of dying vs 10% in the US for the cost of 300usd a month.
> If you couldn't afford the 90% chance in the US, your chance of recovery was probably 0%.
That's something I honestly don't know. If you are homeless - they won't treat you? Are you sure? How do you know?
> So, presenting it as 60% or 90% is a false comparison.
It is very true when you are diagnosed with stage 2 renal cancer. Let's not generalize. The cancers and many other diseases have the best chances to be treated in the US.
> What you fail to understand is that many people in the United States would like the same 60% chance funded by the taxpayer that you enjoy in Germany.
At the cost of others - like me - who are just middle class (~100k/year) having now 60% chances instead of 90%. Typical in socialism: let's make it worse for everyone and call equality. Because now chances off everyone are just 60%. How is that better?
>To quote some other numbers at you, Infant Mortality rate (deaths per 1,000 live births) by the CIA 2013 estimate in the United States is 5.2, in Germany it's 3.48.
I can see that. You see that's my point. EU is great at being mediocre. USA has the lowest valleys and the highest peaks. It has the worst and the best. So then it comes down to "taste" really. Not that using "taste" in morality is fine, but it's about the world view really. Do you think that you should work hard, save, invest, have good education, pay for great health coverage? Or do you think that everybody should have the same chances no matter what they do in their lives? I don't think that EU model is that great after living here for a while. It's like living in a golden cage. You are slave of the state that decides for you and robs you from most of your money. In my personal view selling my freedom for safety isn't a solution. Some people like that and don't care. What I don't understand is why these people don't immigrate to Canada or Western Europe as many Europeans who believe in freedom do choose to live in the US. Put your foot where your mouth is!
> So, it's not like healthcare is uniformly better in the United States than other countries, and it absolutely is inaccessible to many of our citizens. Not something I'm proud of.
Is it? I mean that's something I truly don't know. A homeless person gets cancer. He/She goes to the hospital. They deny them entry? How does it look like "technically" ? I truly curious.
Was at the ER once for aniphalictic reaction. I remember labels next to beds informing that you don't need to reveal information about your healthcare insurance. Also labels stating that is you feel you are treated worse because of your healthcare insurance status then there is a free phone number to a government agency. It looked to me, like they would have to treat someone whether they have money or not. Am I missing something here?
If you do not have insurance, do not have means of payment, yes they will not provide treatment. You cannot be denied in an emergency room, but you're not looking to get emergency room cancer treatment.
> The cancers and many other diseases have the best chances to be treated in the US.
If you can pay for treatment. That's why it's a false comparison.
> How is that better?
Do you want capitalism? Then the cost is that you have to pay to get the 90% chance. I'm highlighting, this is what you said you wanted, and you have it available to you.
I'd ALSO like to have 60% chance to people who can't pay the outrageous fees involved.
> EU is great at being mediocre.
No. Absolutely incorrect. EU is great at being mediocre, if you as an individual can't afford more.
You absolutely have the opportunity to achieve the highest peaks of the United States. You can BUY that 90%, if you can afford it.
So, EU has a mediocre low (taxpayer provided), and the highest peaks (if you can afford it.)
The US has the lowest valleys, and the highest peaks (if you can afford it.)
> Or do you think that everybody should have the same chances no matter what they do in their lives?
You're presenting the false alternative. If you can afford better treatment, you can buy better treatment.
> Put your foot where your mouth is!
I vote.
> They deny them entry? How does it look like "technically" ?
Roughly like what it looks like when you order a Big Mac at a McDonalds and can't pay.
> Was at the ER once
The ER is different, they can't deny you treatment.
We've all three been here long enough to know what the guidelines are trying to say. It drives me nuts that they won't update them. In the meantime: we're all on the same page on this, so this is probably a fake discussion.
This isn't raising money for just direct medical expenses; if you work as a contractor, consultant, speaker, etc., and for some reason can't work for a few months, it doesn't really matter if all your medical expenses are paid 100% -- you have no income, and for a lot of people, that means paying regular bills becomes difficult. It's not like your rent expenses at home go away just because you're staying in a hospital instead.
Getting disability insurance is strongly encouraged for contractors and others in the US (we have both short term and long term).
There are actually federal (and some state) programs to pay disability if a worker is disabled, but enrollment takes some time, and generally the support is at poverty level, not based on salary.
A serious complication for people who freelance, contract, etc. is that aside from Social Security Disability (SSI, generally for long-term disability), the programs are related to unemployment insurance, which is related to wage income. If you, for instance, are bootstrapping a company from savings and not paying yourself a salary, then get in an accident, even if your medical insurance covers 100% of medical costs, you're probably screwed on everything else.
For things like this, yes. If you land in the emergency room with an acute emergency (heart attack, stroke, car accident, etc.), anyone will be stabilized regardless of ability to pay, but that doesn't apply to things that aren't stabilization of an acute emergency, like rehabilitation or chemotherapy. The case here is in the 2nd category.
If you have insurance, your insurance needs to cover the treatment recommended by your doctor. In many cases it will be covered without and issue, but some treatments will not be covered in favor of other (usually less expensive) services. Having insurance is usually the only feasible way to get preventative care.
Even with insurance you are often still responsible for a portion of your care, at least until a certain amount. This obligation to pay renews every year in most cases, so even if you reach the limit of your obligation this year, next year you will have to reach it again.
If you are not insured, you will have to pay out of pocket. Hospitals cannot deny you care if you are in an emergency condition, but they are only required to get you to a stable condition. I believe you are still required to pay, but they aren't allowed to deny you care if you can't.
Surgery for cardiac arrest is far more expensive than $5000. The cost of such a surgery (without insurance) is easily over $100K and if you said "it was $1M" people would be like "that's a little high" rather than "impossible!"
This must be for incidental costs incurred or for recovery not covered by insurance. (Like: Some insurances might only cover physical therapy twice a week. They probably cite some study saying that is sufficient for recovery. But other people might argue more frequent sessions are better, so this money could cover the more frequent sessions.)
He has medicare advantage plus according to his comments on his personal site -- so his care + rehab was covered. He talks a lot about billable work though, I have a feeling this is more for personal expenses and making it so he doesn't feel like he always needs to work and he can work until its not enjoyable and then relax and recoup.
