Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by subverter 3299 days ago
Woah, woah – you're telling me people voluntarily help each other pay their medical expenses without the government forcing them to?!
7 comments

Crowdsourcing medical expenses is a point of national and economic embarrassment, not pride.
I always find it sad that people have to raise money for for surgeries or serious health issues. It's great that people donate but this should simply not be necessary in an advanced society.
This is not an argument.
If not, then neither is the post I'm responding to.
Well, some of them - the popular ones, or ones with friends with money - get help. It's kind of like high school, but some of the losers die!
You might be interested in reading about the free rider problem. This is a well known phenomenon in economics. Also consider that there are no instances of charities providing for the basic needs of a nation's poor. It was with government programs that things like universal education and healthcare became a reality.
Don't be silly. Sardonic libertarians don't believe in the free rider problem!
Nobody is arguing that charity care doesn't exist. The question is whether charity care substitutes for a functioning health system.
Some people voluntarily help some other people with some costs. There's a lot of people who don't get the care they need for whatever reason, even in a system where there's a lot of volunteers.

To get the best deal for everybody, governments in most countries step in to create a system where everybody pays in and the best deal for everybody is made (with the option for extra private care if you can afford it). You get a basic guaranteed level of healthcare in return for your taxes, as part of your participation in society. Corporations are prevented from deciding they need to charge you more than your annual income for the medication keeping you alive, while you're free to change jobs and start businesses when you wish, because you're not trapped in an insurance plan that you'll lost the moment you do something else.

Only in America is this seen as wrong. Everywhere else gets cheaper bills with zero chance of personal bankruptcy just because you got the wrong disease/got ill before/etc.

You're telling me that a representative government would help people afford healthcare, even if it cost money? But the AHCA currently has a 17% approval rating and will get passed anyway? http://www.businessinsider.com/quinnipiac-poll-shows-17-perc...
What about those that don't have many friends?
Or what about our own proven biases?

Pretty versus ugly, young versus old, white versus black, man versus woman, overweight vs average weight, high school dropout versus university graduate, religious versus non-believer, etc., etc., the ability to look past all of these things and donate purely based on need is not something crowds have ever been good at doing.