Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 280 posts

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#111

Post by a3n »

dangrossman wrote: post #106
a3n wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> contemplate the possibility that human lives are worth saving. Here fucking here. What do we want to accomplish with the most advanced civilization history has ever seen? Advertising? A flourishing human condition? Fart apps? All? None? Anarchic meritocracy? It's all on the table.

"Hear hear", imploring people to listen to someone. /pedantic

Thanks. I was actually thinking about that when I wrote it, but opted for full-on indignation of the moment, rather than calm and contemplative dictionary checking.

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#112

Post by danielharan »

pg wrote: post #92
ekidd wrote: post #31

I'm delighted to hear that this child is doing well, and I'm utterly appalled at Tim Armstrong's attitudes towards the lives of his employee's children. Apparently it's possible to pay a programmer $100K/year, but spending ten times that to save the life of one of his employee's children is absolutely unacceptable. I'll be sure to keep that in mind the next time I hear from an AOL recruiter. The whole point of insura…

"I'm utterly appalled at Tim Armstrong's attitudes towards the lives of his employee's children. Apparently it's possible to pay a programmer $100K/year, but spending ten times that to save the life of one of his employee's children is absolutely unacceptable." Did he say that?

Not said, but isn't that exactly what his cost cutting implies?

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#113

Post by judk »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #80
ForHackernews wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Healthcare for distressed infants is certainly not an example of inelastic demand where people have to pay for it themselves Are you kidding me? If it was a question of saving my child's life, I'd spend every last cent I had and then go sell a kidney.

I gave you an example. Mothers uncertain of their ability to raise an infant will abandon it to die (this is traditionally called "exposure"). It's a practice at least as old as humanity. And it conclusively demonstrates that the demand for infant care is not inelastic; these mothers aren't killing themselves trying to preserve their nonviable children. Rather, they're killing the children so that they don't die them…

"So that they don't die themselves" != "because they are unable to raise an infant"

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#114

Post by paul »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #87
bluthru wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily agree, but I don't think your opinion should be downvoted. Consider this: We as a society have more than enough wealth to give ICU care to every infant that needs it. Our medical system is what makes it expensive.

A minor point: > We as a society have more than enough wealth to give ICU care to every infant that needs it. I'm not particularly informed here, but this is a claim I'm willing to accept. > Our medical system is what makes it expensive. This isn't right. Giving intensive care to extremely premature infants is inherently expensive, in much the same way that mining is expensive because you have to move tons and tons o…

How many tons of dirt do you need to move to give intensive care to an infant? I spent quite a bit of time in the NICU and was never able to locate the $10,000/day expense. Medical expenses have more to do with billing codes and reimbursement rates than anything fundamental.

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#115

Post by ericd »

danielharan wrote: post #112
pg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm utterly appalled at Tim Armstrong's attitudes towards the lives of his employee's children. Apparently it's possible to pay a programmer $100K/year, but spending ten times that to save the life of one of his employee's children is absolutely unacceptable." Did he say that?

Not said, but isn't that exactly what his cost cutting implies?

No, because he wasn't cutting the medical benefits at all.

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#116

Post by lmm »

icebraining wrote: post #19
MattBearman wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

left her to die and her family in a permanent state of medical bankruptcy. I can't get my head round this, as someone born and raised in the UK, America's health care system (or lack there of) is the single thing that will stop me ever wanting to live in the US.

What about cases like this: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/aug/24/avastin-too-e... ? I'm not a fan of the US system either, but I live in a country with State-run healthcare, and cost decisions like those are made every day.

A national healthcare system doesn't take away any of the things you get in the US. Many employers offer private medical insurance, and one can choose to pay for individual treatments privately if one wishes. So if you're wealthy or have a good employer, you're in just as good a position as you are in the US (and if you're poor, you're better off).

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#117

Post by [deleted] »

danielharan wrote: post #112
pg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm utterly appalled at Tim Armstrong's attitudes towards the lives of his employee's children. Apparently it's possible to pay a programmer $100K/year, but spending ten times that to save the life of one of his employee's children is absolutely unacceptable." Did he say that?

Not said, but isn't that exactly what his cost cutting implies?

[deleted]

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#118

Post by leviathant »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #94
alexjeffrey wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You place more importance on $1M than on a human life? What if it was your child, would you be doing a cost/benefit analysis and turning to your wife and saying "sorry honey, it will cost more than $100,000 to save our child. might as well get her put down"?

This depends on how much I need $100K (odds are I can pull this together if I'm attached to the child), and, crucially, on the age of the child. I place essentially no value on a child at negative eighteen weeks old. I mean, would you personally pay a million dollars to save my child? I'm no more attached to a new nonviable fetus than you are to my (imaginary) 11-year-old.

Your clearly limited imagination can't even begin to give you an idea of what having an 11-year-old child will do to how you live and think.

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#119

Post by judk »

pavlov wrote: post #36
bigchewy wrote: post #25

Tim Armstrong has an incredible ability to say the wrong thing. The underlying topic, however, is fascinating. I do healthcare analytics for a living so I see how often a single neonatal ICU incident can consume 30% of an entire company's healthcare budget for the year (note: if you don't really understand healthcare, e.g. what self insuring means, please don't respond with comments that the insurance company pays th…

The race to keep younger and younger babies alive is fueled with ego and dollars. If you actually look at the global data on neonatal mortality [1], that doesn't seem to be true. Countries like Finland, France and Cuba perform better than the United States on this metric. These countries offer completely free healthcare to babies and pregnant mothers. Frankly, I find your assumption borderline offensive. Maybe you sh…

Google search [Premature]
Post reply on HN