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

Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–65 of 65 posts

Re: Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers

#61

Post by dragonwriter »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #59
datadrivenangel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. They get reused, and people can get new ones or sometimes multiple at the same time...

Source? From what I can gather they're supposed to be unique and they don't reuse them. If two people have the same number then it's a mistake.

> From what I can gather they're supposed to be unique and they don't reuse them. If two people have the same number then it's a mistake.

Yes, it is a mistake for two people to be issued the same number and it is unusual for multiple to be issued to the same person.

However given the very large volume and the conditions under which things have happened (not just currently but back to 1936!) both mistakes and unusual conditions exist in numbers that cannot be ignored.

Re: Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers

#62

Post by freen »

roenxi wrote: post #54
n4r9 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what exactly is the upper limit of care being provided to someone for "cancer"? It is very vague. It is light on detail but that feels tangential to me? Much like private insurance schemes, state healthcare systems necessarily have a limit on care/expense. > He clearly isn't advocating for what would be called universal state-funded healthcare in the modern context ... He appears to be talking about ... certain rar…

We're talking about one vague paragraph in a book that was making a lot of heavy arguments against any level of government planning. It isn't at all clear he was talking about any of those specific things. "common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision " does not technically include arthritis, diabetes, cancer and so on. Most people can make adequate p…

What, pray tell, is Hayek in fact advocating for in that section?

Re: Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers

#63

Post by freen »

msgodel wrote: post #45
b3ing wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they won't fund it properly, thats the plan, underfund things or reduce funding to make them break, then people will say to get rid of it entirely.

When something pretty clearly isn't working I don't think the answer is more of it.

Hmm… maybe go check every other reasonable wealthy western democracy and evaluate your statement.

The people in power WANT the social safety net to fail. That is why it fails!

Re: Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers

#64

Post by freen »

roenxi wrote: post #18
n4r9 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In "The Road to Serfdom": > There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. .... There can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ... Nor is there any reason…

That doesn't read like support for universal government funded healthcare. He's talking insurance in the more traditional meaning of the word where it involves unexpected catastrophes as opposed to the weird modernism in healthcare where it means paying for things that are likely to happen (or even volunteered for). Eg, that quote doesn't involve government covering medical costs for someone in their old age. He migh…

Look, you doubted that the quote could be sourced.

Maybe check your epistemology: perhaps other folks know more and better?

Re: Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers

#65

Post by roenxi »

freen wrote: post #62
roenxi wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about one vague paragraph in a book that was making a lot of heavy arguments against any level of government planning. It isn't at all clear he was talking about any of those specific things. "common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision " does not technically include arthritis, diabetes, cancer and so on. Most people can make adequate p…

What, pray tell, is Hayek in fact advocating for in that section?

I have a policy of not responding when I feel like writing some variant of "read what I just wrote". I'm going to make an exception here because this is an otherwise dead thread.

I spent 3 quite long comments explaining what I think Hayek is advocating for and why it isn't accurate to call it "universal, government funded healthcare". If you can't come up with a more specific question after reading all that then I am at a loss on how to assist you.

Post reply on HN