[tablespoon]

> If this were anywhere but Hacker News, I'd think you were joking, but... you're being serious, aren't you?

How did you come to that conclusion? I mean, there is a lot of earnest extreme libertarianism on HN, but not nearly so much that you can assume a comment like the GP isn't sarcastic.

The correct interpretation is somewhere between "sarcastic" and "too ambiguous to tell" without digging into comment history.

[blitzar]

Hell I can clear it up.

> the patient's trust in the company to rip them off on lifesaving drugs

So is it dont trust the company to a) have drugs that will save your life (i.e. rip you off by giving you sugar pills) b) make you pay a price that is "not worth it" (i.e. a higher price than your life is worth).

My reference to freedom is literal, nothing to do with government or any other agenda - perhaps other interpretations are loaded with an agenda. IF you dont trust a product, dont use it. You dont have to - you are free to make theses choices. Many people, especially at very advanced ages or sickness opt to forgo expensive treatments that would offer them an extra 6 months of life because it 'isnt worth it'. Some people dont believe that conventional treatments will cure them - see Steve Jobs.

As for my personal political view which seems to be the real attack vector here - for those that fall into neither category, i.e believe the medication will save their lives, feel it is worth it but do not have the money for it. Well in the civilized world, their countries agree with them that their life is worth it and that is how they get their medication and we collectively have healthcare.

[kerkeslager]

> My reference to freedom is literal

Yes, and that's the problem.

If your options are "do what someone else wants you to do" or "die", that's not freedom. Literally not freedom. Whether you trust or don't trust the person, is completely irrelevant to the fact that your very survival is conditioned on obedience.

And sure, it does seem like somehow you arrive at the conclusion that people who can't pay for life-saving healthcare should have collective help.

But, in a way, not understanding what freedom is, is actually more fundamental than that. Even if people can pay for life-saving treatments, why is it acceptable that they would have to? In what context would it be acceptable to threaten to kill someone if they don't pay you a ransom?

Freedom does not exist if all the options are obviously terrible.

[WorldMaker]

HN downvotes enough unmarked sarcasm as a culture that most regular "non-green name" commenters on HN prone to (good) sarcastic tones learn quickly to try to mark it (/s, ~, </sarcasm>, however you prefer). I know I also generally assume that unmarked text is not sarcasm nor ambiguous on HN.

[kerkeslager]

Well, admittedly it was a guess, but it was an educated guess based on past experience with HN, and as you can see from blitzar's followup post, I guessed correctly.