
Suicide is Cheaper - Abundnce10
http://geo-geek.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/suicide-is-cheaper.html
======
meaty
This is one of the fortunate things about living in the UK. I live in a crappy
part of London but the hospital is good and 100% included in my tax.

Through my wife's 2x emergency c-sections, a broken arm, my physically
disabled daughter, an eye socket infection thanks to a mosquito bite, an
umbillical hernia operation and an ingrown toe nail, its been perfect and cost
no excess, insurance begging or legal intervention.

I'm not afraid to call an ambulance in case it costs money.

~~~
dmix
I consider myself a libertarian and I still support public health insurance.

I grew up in Canada and spent time living in the states. I don't agree with
most government expenditure, but I have no problem paying taxes for
healthcare.

There are much more wasteful things governments spend our money on.

~~~
ericingram
I consider myself a Libertarian also.

The problem with government funded health care is what you can't see. True
market based competition leads to lower prices and greater innovation in all
observable areas over time. That would mean more access for more people in the
case of health care, but instead with deep government intrusion for decades,
we have seen ever increasing prices and sluggish innovation.

Libertarian philosophy has a lot to do with a belief in sound market
principles. Why should all that go out the window for health care?

The problems facing health care today, in my view, are largely a result of the
free market being trampled on. People who don't really understand market
principles will tell you the exact opposite, that health care has been nothing
but a free for all, totally unregulated. Do you believe that?

It sounds like you might generally agree with libertarian ideas and some
research on scholars like F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises might help focus
your libertarian perspective.

~~~
tzs
Hayek doesn't fit in well with most Libertarians nowadays. From his "The Road
to Serfdom":

    
    
        There is no reason why, in a society which has
        reached the general level of wealth ours has, the
        first kind of security should not be guaranteed to
        all without endangering general freedom; that is:
        some minimum of food, shelter and clothing,
        sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any
        reason why the state should not help to organize a
        comprehensive system of social insurance in
        providing for those common hazards of life against
        which few can make adequate provision.
    

and

    
    
        Where, as in the case of sickness and accident,
        neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the
        efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule
        weakened by the provision of assistance – where,
        in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks –
        the case for the state’s helping to organize a
        comprehensive system of social insurance is very
        strong. There are many points of detail where those
        wishing to preserve the competitive system and those
        wishing to super-cede it by something different will
        disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is
        possible under the name of social insurance to
        introduce measures which tend to make competition
        more or less ineffective. But there is no
        incompatability in principle between the state’s
        providing greater security in this way and the
        preservation of individual freedom.
    
        To the same category belongs also the increase of
        security through the state’s rendering assistance
        to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as
        earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can
        mitigate disasters against which the individual can
        neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision
        for the consequences, such communal action should
        undoubtedly be taken.
    
    

Post that in many Libertarian forums nowadays and you'll be called a leftist
or statist.

------
shadowmint
If you dont think the article is appropriate because of its 1) non technical
nature, 2) political nature or 3) some other reason then:

1) Don't upvote it.

2) Don't comment on it.

3) Don't read the comments on it, because you clearly wont be able to hold
yourself back from responding.

These simple guidelines will help you in many circumstances, and can be
summarized with: _dont feed trolls_

(come on? health care debate? _again_? this is flame bait)

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Even better, flag it.

~~~
shinratdr
Exactly. Why not take your own advice instead of harassing me in the comments?

If the community feels it needs to be flagged, then it will. I wouldn't get
your hopes up.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
This story was flagged off the homepage almost as soon as it appeared. I don't
see it anywhere in the first five or six pages of results, logged in or logged
out.

------
bcx
I don't love the political tone of this article. But while on the topic of
healthcare, did any of you guys have an amazing time getting healthcare for
your companies?

We found it was quite a bit of work, especially multi-state. Talking to
entrepreneurs in other countries, not having to deal with healthcare for
employees really let them focus on their product and their company, and not
how to insure a small growing team across state lines.

~~~
orangecat
Libertarians and socialists agree that having employers provide health
insurance is a staggeringly idiotic system. Libertarians would replace it with
individual policies, and socialists would replace it with single payer. I
favor the former (with subsidies for people who can't afford it due to poverty
or preexisting conditions), but either would be much better than what we have
now.

Unfortunately the average voter wants both "free" healthcare, and doesn't want
the government running it, so every employer ends up being an insurance broker
as well.

~~~
guelo
Obamacare is basically the system that you say you favor.

~~~
orangecat
Obamacare increases the burden on employers, and generally prohibits high-
deductible health insurance policies that are actually insurance (as opposed
to comprehensive policies which cover minor and predictable expenses). It's
probably still better than the status quo, but it means we lose the option of
going with a plan that's actually good like Wyden-Bennett
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Americans_Act>).

------
Casseres
Is this article against debt collectors, or politics that make paying for
medical treatment one's own responsibility?

There is at least one lady who makes a living by suing telemarketers that
violate the law. There are individual cases of people suing debt collectors
for violating the law. Here is one recent case:
[http://consumerist.com/2012/10/12/disabled-vet-says-debt-
col...](http://consumerist.com/2012/10/12/disabled-vet-says-debt-collector-
told-him-you-should-have-died/)

Perhaps someone can come up with a business idea that will put debt collectors
in check?

~~~
navpatel
The article is against the absurd health system the US is running. A business
idea to put debt collectors in check is not even a bandaid for this problem.
There are very legitimate ways people are being screwed in this country. The
title is literal and true; it should be very easy to spot how screwed things
are when "Suicide in Cheaper"

------
pragone
I remember one call I did in the middle of winter a few years ago - cardiac
arrest, on the side of the road. Got there and the guy was frozen and long
dead.

He was across the street from the hospital. The ER entrance was about 40 yards
away, just up a little hill.

~~~
tsotha
That may have had nothing to do with money though. Maybe he just didn't make
it.

I had a cousin in a rural town who drove himself to the hospital 40 miles away
in the middle of a heart attack. Because there wasn't anybody else. He could
easily have ended up the same way.

~~~
nullc
They didn't have ambulances in your cousin's town?

~~~
tsotha
Nope. It's one of those little towns in western Pennsylvania where there are
no jobs and the young people move away as soon as they can. By now the average
age must be over 60. There must be about 50 people living there, though there
were thousands a few generations ago when it was an oil town. In theory there
are ambulances that cover the county, but there's really no point in waiting
40 minutes for the ambulance to get there so you can wait another 40 minutes
as they drive back.

Anyway, he probably could have gotten a neighbor to drive him. Not sure why he
didn't. Most likely the neighbors were drunk, since once hunting season is
over that's what passes for entertainment. Not that they don't get drunk while
they're hunting. Probably the only thing worse than driving yourself to the
hospital during a heart attack is having your drunk neighbor crash the car in
which you're having a heart attack.

The funny part of the story is he got someone to call ahead so the hospital
was expecting him. He gets to the emergency room and the ER nurse (there's
only one) says "Have a seat. We have an emergency case coming in any minute."
He sits down wondering what kind of shape you have to be in to bump a heart
attack patient. But he figured after 40 minutes he was still alive, so it
probably wasn't going to kill him. He's kind of a stoic guy, too, so he didn't
protest. Just sat down.

Five minutes later the nurse runs back into the waiting room with wide eyes,
points at him and says "It's you!"

------
davidw
Articles about politics should probably be left to other sites.

~~~
shinratdr
If you see any, be sure to alert the community. I was all caught up in this
touching article about how disgustingly backwards any non-universal healthcare
system is. Sorry, but providing basic free healthcare is no more a political
issue than adopting the metric system or providing clean drinking water.

Just because there are a handful of countries that still try to justify their
backwards ridiculousness under the thin veneer of "politics", much like those
who try to take civil rights away, doesn't mean this isn't a settled issue for
99% of the world and fair game to discuss.

I would love to see the responses to a Muslim extremist who pops into the
comments on an article about stoning an adulterer to death to mention that "we
should probably be avoiding politics".

Something tells me other commenters would tear his head off, and rightfully
so. Just because you can find a place that's still ridiculous enough to try
and defend the practice doesn't instantly make it an untouchable political
issue.

~~~
davidw
Other issues that are way more important than hacking and startups:

* Wars.

* Human rights.

* The fact that people die of hunger.

And yet, those are all not really on-topic for this site either.

It would be extremely easy to crowd out all the 'on topic' stories with things
that are vastly more important "in the grand scheme of things", yet it would
ruin the nature of this site.

Articles about stoning women are also, IMO, off topic, so the problem with the
'muslim extremist' simply shouldn't happen.

(BTW, I much prefer the health care situation here in Italy than in my native
US, but discussing it is just not what this site is about.)

~~~
shinratdr
If you find an article that "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" on those
topics then please submit them. Don't conflate HN with only startup news. It
has never had that restriction, it's more of a primary focus.

HN is not /r/StartUps. There are no hard rules here on specific content, only
community consensus via voting and occasional hands-on moderation.

~~~
davidw
There's nothing whatsoever 'intellectually gratifying' about this article.
It's a way to tug at people's emotions in order to attempt to sway their
opinions.

And I say that as someone who agrees with the point of the article.

~~~
shinratdr
I disagree. Tugging at emotions and learning something aren't mutually
exclusive. As someone who lives outside of the US, I had never envisioned this
scenario before. It's jarring every time, and you never really wrap your head
around the horrible possibilities.

Of all the problems I'm aware of with the US healthcare system, I never
thought of someone refusing life-saving treatment because their kids would
have to deal with the bill. Deferring treatment, sure. But I figured if you're
dead, you're dead.

The fact that they chase your relatives for the bill after you die is really
disgusting and something I hadn't thought about until this article painted
that picture for me, and now I'm involved in multiple discussions about it.

I would say I found it intellectually gratifying.

------
DanBC
> Debt collectors can't legally go after anyone but spouses (and in some
> states not even that) in a case like this, unless it was the kids/grandkids
> that signed the hospital admissions. This does not stop unscrupulous debt
> collection agencies from trying however, and many people do not understand
> their legal rights. (Also, families can be put in the position of supporting
> the person who is trying to pay the debt, which is a whole other ball of
> wax.)

In England the debts belong to the debtor. When they die their estate pays any
debts. If the estate has no money then the creditors don't get paid.

~~~
Dylan16807
Are you implying a difference? If so, what. Is the person signing the
admissions not the debtor?

~~~
kennywinker
OP says debt collectors can go after the spouse. DanBC is perhaps implying a
difference there?

~~~
tsotha
They can go after the spouse because in most states (maybe all of them) your
debts are your spouses debts and vice versa.

I knew a guy in California that was gritting his teeth the entire six month
waiting period for a divorce because his soon-to-be ex was maxing out her
credit cards, getting more credit cards and maxing those too.

Unfortunately for her the rules change a little once you _file_ for a divorce
even if it isn't final.

------
Alex3917
"But it's not because no one will take them."

The research doesn't really support this. People without insurance are much
more likely to die in the E.R. once they get there, even after controlling for
relevant health factors.

~~~
nullc
I guess I can see how they could control for differential access to
preventative care resulting in ER visits with worse outcomes, or dilution by
people with insurance visiting the ER with less serious problems... Even how
they could control for early treatment in an ambulance vs a drive in.

But I'm interested in how they controlled for hesitance to go in the first
place delaying treatment? Same condition, but you spent an extra half hour
deliberating before going.

------
softgrow
Even when health care is free people will still refuse. Former volunteer EMT
from Australia read the post expecting the normal straight out refusal. People
would refuse treatment, relatives wring hands, but at least you could start
talking about having them certified insane. That always worked except for one
case were we started the process and it dawned on the gentleman that he would
rather go to hospital than be labelled mad. People would also want to avoid
some hospitals and with little choice we would take them further and a fair
part of the time they would have a worsening of the chest pain or worse still,
arrest. Glad we didn't have to worry about hospital bills. Would be really
frustrating to have to remove equipment/treatment, drive away and hope for a
worsening.

------
dsr_
Why is Y Combinator focused on relatively young entrepreneurs? [1] Because
they have fewer worries about health care and similar long term costs. If
health care costs were not an issue, one major barrier for older entrepreneurs
would be removed.

[1] YC selects for younger people: they need to be willing to relocate for 3
months, work on a high-risk project for most of their waking hours, and
otherwise dedicate their lives to success. Does PG keep stats on age of
founders? Age of successful founders? Any correlation?

------
jayfaley
Sometimes it's better to just die. Or so I've been told. And unless you
haven't experienced the dark that some unfortunate people do, you nor I can
really say otherwise, can we?

~~~
zanny
His reasons were not due to a lack of a will to live, but due to a desire not
to harm others through burdening them with his debt. An ambulance ride alone
can cost upwards of $800 in the US.

------
ryanwaggoner
Debt collectors constantly break the law when collecting for auto debt as
well; does that mean the government should pay for people's cars?

------
anovikov
Let the government do all the nice things it must naturally do for society,
and you will find youself in Gulag, where everyone has a job, and housing,
education, entertainment and healthcare are all free and equal for everyone.

~~~
mcantelon
Yeah, it's certainly like that in other countries with universal healthcare,
although their state media does a good job covering up the fact they've
enslaved the population. /s

------
naturalethic
Free up doctors to work without the guild bullshit. Ron Paul treated people
for free all the time.

