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

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

#211

Post by dlokshin » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 9:59 PM UTC

balloot wrote: post #168

dlokshin wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK they give services, and reasses on an ongoing basis, so different than the French. Added some info for under 37 weeks, where the US comes out on top.

So are you admitting that your original point about single payer healthcare is totally BS? Because the UK has single payer and apparently you think they do a decent job with this situation.

My first comment was directly pertinent to the French model, but same for UK--US survival rates are higher for sub 37 week old babies.

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

#212

Post by malandrew » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 9:59 PM UTC

scrabble wrote: post #126

thaumasiotes wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do think our medical system needs some rethinking though. You probaby don't want to hear it, but if I were running a medical system I'd decree that gestating one-and-a-half-pound globs (from the article: "One doctor, visibly shaken, described [the fetus's skin] as 'gelatinous'") outside the womb is a waste of resources. To me, if miscarriages aren't the end of the world, neither are "babies" that die of natural c…

It is impossible to do a cost-benefit analysis on something like that. It is worth any amount of money if the child can be saved. I'd go to the ends of the earth for my children. Who knows what these children could end up being or doing as adults? Who knows what value they could end up bringing the world? What they might invent? What health issues they could solve? What priceless works of art they may create?

No it's not. We're dealing with the scarcity of goods and services here. Healthcare needs are unlimited and supply of the goods and services is constrained. Whatever the amount of money needed to save that child's life, you need to consider how many more children, not your own, could be saved instead had the money been spent on other people's children with life-threatening issues that are cheaper to treat.

Who knows what those other children who didn't get treatment so that this one could end up being or doing as adults? Who knows what value they could end up bringing the world? What they might invent? What health issues they could solve? What priceless works of art they may create?

What if this couple had been given the choice to forgo saving their own child's life and instead donate that $1 million to saving many children's lives in some other country that don't have the resources we have here in the US. Every time society chooses to save one life at considerable cost, it is also choosing to condemn others. What if you had to make the same choice, what would you do?

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

#213

Post by clavalle » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 10:03 PM UTC

selmnoo wrote: post #210

clavalle wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My father in law is a neonatologist and was given an ownership stake of the NICU he started in a midwestern hospital. He makes around $4 mil/year. Granted, he does sometimes stay at the hospital for two weeks at a time with only very brief visits home but at this point he also owns apartment complexes, office buildings, a gentleman's ranch with a few dozen horses and staff and on and on. I think it is shameful, perso…

Speaking as someone who is also familialy-related to a neonatologist and a cardiologist -- both of whom earn more than a few million per year, I'd say they deserve every last dollar of it. They had to go to school for some while, and work under very tiring schedules. Hell, their schedules are still to this day pretty sucky -- they often tell me how much they envy me for my startup I'll-do-whatever-I-want-whenever-I-w…

It's a good thing for them and the people selling them things but it is not so great for everyone else struggling to pay for decent insurance.

I am sure those people would be happy to spend that money and keep it flowing as well.

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

#214

Post by ekidd » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 10:03 PM UTC

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?

I wrote in haste while the mother's article was fresh in my mind and I was still assimilating Armstrong's latter statements, and it colored my reaction. I went back to rewrite exactly that part 10 minutes later and I was locked out by noprocrast. Consider my post retracted (and feel free to moderate as you wish, up to and including deleting my account).

I still have deep problems with his statement, and I haven't figured out how to articulate them better yet. But for now, my apologies to Tim Armstrong—whatever he said does not justify my hasty and unacceptably uncharitable reading.

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

#215

Post by Shivetya » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 10:06 PM UTC

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 figure I am going balls deep into an internet tickle fight, but so be it.

Its not AOL's or his responsibility. If anything you can put the cost onto society as a whole. This is the type of insurance the ACA should have been instead of the crap we got. It should have covered catastrophic care, which means million dollar babies provided they can be saved.

No company should feel guilty not keeping up benefits because one or two cases blew the bank. They are not there to fix everything. Insurance is a benefit and benefits can be exhausted or become so costly that the cost of doing business means not being in business.

So yeah, it sucks. Welcome to the world. The solution is to put catastrophic care into the hands of government and let them decide who gets the care. Let employers and everyday people shop for the best care for non catastrophic care and do it across state lines. Put them all on equal footing.

So summary. 1) Government takes care of catastrophic care. They set the limits, the decide who. If you want more you buy it on the secondary market. 2) Individuals and business buy insurance from any/all provides regardless of state. The only rule is, preexisting conditions do not disqualify you. They can however put you into rule #1

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

#216

Post by yscale » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 10:06 PM UTC

luckydude wrote: post #209

yscale wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's entitled to his (ignorant) opinions, but he's not entitled to be so pointlessly rude and cruel with his method of expressing it. If this was a dinner party, I'd quietly ask him to excuse himself, and he'd never be invited again. His choice of language was pointlessly cruel and outrageous.

I suspect he didn't view it as being rude, he viewed it as doing the right thing. He probably truly believes what he is saying, I used to think stuff sort of like that. My guess is he is somewhere between 23-32 years old, that was my stupid range :) I guess the point is don't assume he's being an asshole, a real asshole would troll harder. I think he believes what he is saying. Yeah, it's rude but I'm not sure I'd be…

He wrote the following to a father: "the cost of replacing the thing is much, much lower." That's rude. A lot of his other beliefs (such as his belief that being a brother is just like being a dad) just show ignorance and naivte, but "replacing the thing" is a cruel, inhuman, and astonishingly horrible way to express an already thoughtless opinion.

I've met a lot of assholes, but I've never, in my entire life, met somebody who would think that's a fine thing to say.

Fuck him.

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

#217

Post by shasta » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 10:08 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #199

shasta wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand how anyone can lump a real child with whom you have years of shared experiences, who you've loved and taught and who has a personality of its own in with a lump of cells that's yet to have a coherent thought.

I'm assuming you'd be annoyed if you had a hand or foot amputated? And they're just lumps of cells that have never had a coherent thought.

Did you really think my argument was that anything that is a lump of cells that has never had a coherent thought has no value?

I can understand a sense of loss in losing an infant at birth. You make plans for the child and are excited to meet the person they will become. It's a miscarriage. A similar loss is learning that your spouse can't get pregnant in the first place. It's not the same as losing a child of 3, 6, 12 or 24.

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

#218

Post by selmnoo » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 10:23 PM UTC

clavalle wrote: post #213

selmnoo wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as someone who is also familialy-related to a neonatologist and a cardiologist -- both of whom earn more than a few million per year, I'd say they deserve every last dollar of it. They had to go to school for some while, and work under very tiring schedules. Hell, their schedules are still to this day pretty sucky -- they often tell me how much they envy me for my startup I'll-do-whatever-I-want-whenever-I-w…

It's a good thing for them and the people selling them things but it is not so great for everyone else struggling to pay for decent insurance. I am sure those people would be happy to spend that money and keep it flowing as well.

You're worrying about the wrong things. The problem here is not the pay of heart surgeons and neonatologists, the problem is with insurance companies, our healthcare system, etc. etc. Focus directly on fixing those issues, large salaries for surgeons is only a red herring.

But large incomes for people like Zuck is a problem. That makes no sense to me.

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

#219

Post by therobot24 » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 10:24 PM UTC

a3n wrote: post #97

therobot24 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not disagreeing with anything here, nor did i in the previous post, merely a light anecdote relating to how thick the writer is 'laying it on'

I think the writer can be forgiven for laying it on thick, since the writer is the mother of one of those distressed babies. And I think it's very useful for our empathy muscles to occasionally listen to "biased" people like this mother.

so i lack empathy because i think an article that primarily uses empathy can be manipulative? classy...

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

#220

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 10:30 PM UTC

a3n wrote: post #97

therobot24 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not disagreeing with anything here, nor did i in the previous post, merely a light anecdote relating to how thick the writer is 'laying it on'

I think the writer can be forgiven for laying it on thick, since the writer is the mother of one of those distressed babies. And I think it's very useful for our empathy muscles to occasionally listen to "biased" people like this mother.

[deleted]