Live data from Hacker News

On the devastating effects of a year in space

brisbanetimes.com.au

131–135 of 135 posts

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... then profits will be lower. Ah, you see, when you remove profit as the primary motivator a lot of problems go away. Here (Canada) the insurance is public, but the hospitals are private, the doctors are self-employed. The insurance companies (plural since each province has their own singular insurer) regulate prices so costs are predictable. If a knee replacement is $X and they expect to do Y of them per year ba…

But the question then would be: what If I want to pay more for even better care? Why wouldn't I be allowed to? Assuming I would be allowed to (unless there is a law against paying more), then providers should be allowed to deliver it (unless there is a law against better). At that point, some will get worse care than others, and because the line is qualitative (since politicians mostly know nothing about care), then…

Here (Canada) you have some options, but are limited. You can't pay to get to the head of the queue for some operation, you can't skip your place in line for replacement organs. Sure, if your name is literally on the hospital building because you've made a gigantic donation to it they might grease the wheels a bit in your favour, but generally you're just like everyone else.

You can go internationally for treatment but it's on your own dime. Some people, irate at wait times, will hop across the border for treatment at US hospitals. These stories show up in the paper from time to time, but the "intolerable" wait these people endure is more often than not pretty minor. Waiting six months for a hip replacement, which is not a life-threatening procedure, is not uncommon. You'll survive.

Meanwhile if you're feeling really ill and step in to the emergency wing, then they realize you're suffering from a massive cardiac problem and need to get you into the operating room immediately, you won't be stuck in line, you may not even fill out any paperwork, you'll be given all the attention they can spare until you're stabilized.

"Two-tier" health care, where you can pay to get better service than everyone else, is something politicians of the conservative bent flirt with from time to time as a way of "fixing" our health-care system. It's always shouted down because people know they're just looking for ways that their billionaire buddies can jump the queue.

It's disruptive, it creates a rift between the rich and poor and puts a lot of stress on people who may not have the money but believe they need the superior treatment.

Consider: When the Canadian medical system fails someone, when they fall through the cracks, it is front page news and the media has a field day. This happens so frequently in the US that it doesn't even surface as a story. "Old lady didn't get hip replacement, insurance wouldn't pay, stuck in old-age home forever" is not news in the US, but it would be here because people would be pissed off she didn't get fair treatment.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the US, there are people who can't access healthcare at all - not because there's not enough providers, but simply because they don't have enough money. That's not true. We have public hospitals, and we also have Medicaid.

Nope. I know plenty of people personally who are in the situation where they make too much money to be on Medicaid, but not enough to be on health insurance that'll actually cover anything without a deductible in the thousands. Obamacare made things better, but it's still very far from covering what universal healthcare covers for many. Public hospitals do not treat people for free.

Public hospitals don't treat people for free officially, but the reality is most of the people don't pay and they won't refuse to treat you.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. I know plenty of people personally who are in the situation where they make too much money to be on Medicaid, but not enough to be on health insurance that'll actually cover anything without a deductible in the thousands. Obamacare made things better, but it's still very far from covering what universal healthcare covers for many. Public hospitals do not treat people for free.

Public hospitals don't treat people for free officially, but the reality is most of the people don't pay and they won't refuse to treat you.

The only situation in which a hospital is required to treat you - public hospitals included - is if you go to ER and are not in a stable condition. They will not provide e.g. medicine for lifelong chronic conditions, or the tests required to make sure that medicine isn't killing you until you're practically already dead. They won't provide necessary surgery unless you're literally about to die from not having it. They won't provide psychiatric help. It is not a treatment option for anything except a car crash or severe acute illness.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#134
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had been somewhat under the impression that current colonization plans were one-way deals. Agreed that it'll be an issue once we have the infrastructure and desire to return to Earth.

Prior to colonization, I'd expect there to be visits which do not result in permanent residency on Mars.

It's an interesting question whether the first person to set foot on mars will expect to return to earth.

I expect it would be easy to find people willing to make a one-way trip. However, I have two reservations. The first is the acceptance of society of sending someone to their death. The second is whether it is responsible to use essentially suicidal people for such a mission. These missions take a lot of mental resilience, and generally, we consider being suicidal to be a mental illness.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that lack of gravity seems to be a major risk factor for well-being I'm surprised a static structure like the ISS doesn't yet have a rotating centrifuge-like structure ala 2001: A Space Oddysey to at least ward off the effects during sleep and downtime

The ISS is, primarily, our single microgravity laboratory. Giving it gravity would make it unfit for that role. (NASA could duplicate the radiation and confinement here on Earth relatively easily, if not for the ethical issues. These seem to not matter as much when compensated with the privilege of going to space. But making gravity on space just to hack an ethically acceptable experiment would start to get ridiculou…

> The ISS is, primarily, our single microgravity laboratory. Giving it gravity would make it unfit for that role.

Centripetal force is not truly gravity. This is useful because a station simulating gravity by spinning can still have areas that are isolated from this force (the center).

Post reply on HN