11–20 of 21 posts
If people are unhappy with the outcome, blame the system, not the individual.
If he bribed someone that would be a very different matter. But he didn't, and there is no suggestion that he did.
It just shows how much that health (insurance) system is in need of repair.
Gaming the system implies he did something most people wouldn't do. I don't think that's the case. Does being rich give you a better shot at a new liver? Yes. Would most people take advantage of their wealth to lengthen their life? Yes. I would like to feel high and mighty about this, but I can't. If I had Jobs' money, you can be sure I'd be getting myself on as many lists as I could too.
I disagree that gaming the system implies most people wouldn't do it. It is just manipulating the rules in place in a way to give yourself an advantage. Basically, following the letter but breaking the spirit of the law. Tons of people do that everyday. So yes, Steve gamed the system. But I don't begrudge him for it. Gaming systems for personal gain is the hacker way, honestly.
(downvotes for this comment, here they come)
Even if Apple has muscled in, Slate must not have any strength in their convictions/gossiping.
To all those people thinking that gaming the system this way is fine and they'd do it : Let's not say it's you with a cancerous liver, let's say it's your mom, child, or sibling. and they're near death. And let's not say that they'd get a liver by gaming the system, but let's say instead that the doctor just provided you with the news that your loved one will not be getting a liver in time because someone wealthy cut…
He just increased his chances across the board by putting himself on waitlists everywhere. Of course, that is still "gaming the system," and I can see why it would bother people, but there's no victim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree that gaming the system implies most people wouldn't do it. It is just manipulating the rules in place in a way to give yourself an advantage. Basically, following the letter but breaking the spirit of the law. Tons of people do that everyday. So yes, Steve gamed the system. But I don't begrudge him for it. Gaming systems for personal gain is the hacker way, honestly.
I wonder how these comments would look like if instead of Jobs it was about some Goldman Sachs exec. (downvotes for this comment, here they come)
Indeed, it's a lot easier to justify this as "fair" when it's someone you like. I admit that I'd have a harder time defending the GS exec, but I don't see how what they did is against the rules. It may not be "fair" because poorer people don't have that opportunity, but it's still legal. The focus should be less on fair/unfair and more on fixing the current broken system in which many people die.
I fully support anyone who puts the time, effort and resources into gaming any system to their own advantage. If people are unhappy with the outcome, blame the system, not the individual. If he bribed someone that would be a very different matter. But he didn't, and there is no suggestion that he did.