
Captain Crunch needs your help - substa
https://www.qikfunder.com/crowdfund/help-john-draper-captain-crunch
======
eps
Is there a way to check if this is legitimate?

------
cyphunk
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.

~~~
cyphunk
oh man have no idea how this comment wound up here and not the HFT thread.
odd. Sorry

------
itry
How does the healthcare system work in the USA? You have to pay hospital out
of your pocket? Somebody who has not enough funds will not be treated?

~~~
davidw
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.

~~~
rtpg
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.

~~~
byEngineer
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.

~~~
VikingCoder
I'll take your numbers at face value...

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.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mor...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate)

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.

~~~
byEngineer
> 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?

~~~
VikingCoder
> If you are homeless - they won't treat you?

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.

