Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Seriously?

The difference in your "every day" scenarios is recoverability. Your actual health put at risk means you die, unrecoverably.

Then there is always people not being able to spend. So they just die?

A poll on that policy would be instructive.



The every day scenarios can result in permanent effects. Not everyone going through a stop sign is in a protective cage.

Obviously the advanced directive solution is largely irrelevant in a 100% coverage/public system. The insurer then makes those decisions for you. But for as long as you have a system with uninsured, there’s value in having decisions made in advance as a “just in case”.


Real value is health care as human right. That we do not do it, and worse, can't even get a basic like water right is an embarrassment at the least, and rock solid cause for reform all day long.

In simpler times, a city able to provide clean water was a city of note. Worthy destination. This has been true for ages.

Flint fucked for how long now?

Our national priorities are insane! Bat shit wrong and health care, food, water, housing are all right at the top of reform agendas for damn good reason.

We can do better, and we need to.

The uninsured are uninsured because they are unable to spend. Put whatever the fuck anyone wants on that paper and it does not matter one lick.

Might as well write, "yeah, let me die, k?"

Frankly, there is zero value in the idea, and a lot of harm potential in the norms being changed for the worse: "but they consented..."

Anyone who wants to make a directive can do so today. Expecting people to do it because our system is fucked makes zero sense.

It is long past time we get our priorities in order so conversations like this are laughable, not morbid.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: