Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage • Hacker News Board

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#301

Post by kelnos » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 10:36 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #210

kelnos wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that there are consequences if an Uber/Lyft driver blows off a confirmed ride, and even if they do, you can request another one immediately. In the case of taxi dispatch, a car may never show up, and you won't know until you get tired of waiting, and there are no consequences for the taxi company or driver if they do this. Pre-Uber, in SF, the normal quoted wait from a taxi dispatcher was on the order…

> In the case of taxi dispatch, a car may never show up, and you won't know until you get tired of waiting, and there are no consequences for the taxi company or driver if they do this. depends on the country and the taxi company. England has a reasonably effective regulatory regime for taxis and cabs.

Sure, but both the article and my comment are both about the US, where there are no consequences for no-shows. I'm not sure our government(s) here are the best places to regulate that sort of thing. Uber/Lyft-style accountability seems to be working really well, though, and the mode of operation eliminates the possibility that a driver will cancel on you and you won't know about it.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#302

Post by kelnos » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 10:43 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #155

kelnos wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is something where individual US states need to blaze a trail. California passed a (light-on-details) single-payer healthcare bill through the state Senate, though unfortunately the matter has been tabled for now by the Assembly, and funding it would require creative use of Medicare dollars that a) would require federal approval, and b) may not even exist much longer if the GOP gets its way. I agree that…

> [Medicare dollars] may not even exist much longer if the GOP gets its way. Has the GOP actually suggested eliminating Medicare? That doesn’t seem to be accurate at all.

Eliminating, no, but definitely slashing funding. The proposal in CA would have required federal Medicare funding to make it viable, and less of that would probably kill it.

The thing that pisses me off is that the GOP wants to slash funding for a ton of public services, but not materially lower taxes for people. So if states want to bring back those public services, they need to raise taxes, which overall causes a person's tax rate to be higher.

I'd be fine with the federal gov't even entirely killing Medicare if that would cause my effective federal tax rate to drop by several percentage points, points that I'd be happy to turn around and give to CA for them to implement something like single-payer.

(The downside, of course, is that residents of less progressive states get screwed, which is why I'd rather the federal gov't leave things alone, but give states like CA more latitude in how they use those dollars.)

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#303

Post by notyourday » Fri, Jan 05, 2018, 5:15 PM UTC

notfromhere wrote: post #300

notyourday wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets make a non-profit model. Lets take entire USA. 350 million people. 50% chance of cancer. 175m will get it. Payment to make it go away is 10MM USD. Should it be covered?

You're setting up a strawman to prove your own argument that human life isn't worth preserving under some notion of 'logic'.

Yes, the idea that every human life is priceless is utter nonsense that needs to be disposed of.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#304

Post by notfromhere » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 11:00 PM UTC

notyourday wrote: post #296

notfromhere wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your lifetime odds for cancer are like 50%. If insurance doesn't cover life threatening illnesses and life-saving treatments, what's the point in paying for insurance?

Back to the question rather than the la-la land answer. 10MM USD today payment => cancer cured. Patient's lifetime earning => 2MM USD Should the patient expect cancer to be cured by his or hers insurance payment? P.S. I love the downvotes. Downvotes is like a child stomping his foot in a toy store "Mom, but I want that toy!"

Yes, because human life has value beyond their earning potential.

Re: Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage

#305

Post by notyourday » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 2:47 PM UTC

notfromhere wrote: post #304

notyourday wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back to the question rather than the la-la land answer. 10MM USD today payment => cancer cured. Patient's lifetime earning => 2MM USD Should the patient expect cancer to be cured by his or hers insurance payment? P.S. I love the downvotes. Downvotes is like a child stomping his foot in a toy store "Mom, but I want that toy!"

Yes, because human life has value beyond their earning potential.

Let's presume that it the case. What is the multiplier that you would like to assign as a max?