Rich ran the Chicago PHP Users Group for something like a decade, getting a lot of people into web coding or writing better code. He's a generous, kind person who could really use a little generosity himself.
It took me a while to actually see there was a paypal donation button on the right. Perhaps ad-blindness, perhaps just taken in with reading recent updates - in January, Richard was given 3-6 months to live (http://richardlynch.blogspot.com/2014/01/end-game.html). Donation sent - I hope every little bit helps.
Normally I'd jump in on the practicality bandwagon, but this really is not constructive. People who are going to pray will; people who are going to donate will. Your denigration of their faith, justified or not (and we'll never really know until we die), helps no one, particularly in this context.
Nobody's denigrating his faith, as much as his transparent attempt to leverage it for social credibility by advertising his piety on Hacker News while (evidently) doing nothing actually helpful.
If that's not worthy of denigration, take it up with Jesus himself, who said pretty much the same thing.
"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you…"
This is even more cynical than I'm willing to be. Yes, a lot of what goes on on HN is just "hey look at me," but really? Someone says "I'll pray for you" to a guy dying of cancer and your reaction is that he's attempting to "leverage [his faith] for social credibility?"
Maybe you should get out more. Or perhaps just be even a little more generous in your assumptions. Many people do believe in... well, lots of things they pray to. You don't have to; I don't either. But that doesn't mean everyone else's motives are somehow always shallow and selfish.
Sorry, but your comment is a whole lot worse than his.
it's not an attempt for social credibility, it's a way of expressing sympathy. seriously, it's such a common way of saying "i have read about what you say and wish you well" that you have to be particularly cynical to read it as a show of piety.
Magical thinking is probably the single greatest threat to the longterm survival of the human race. I can think of no situation where it is not appropriate to criticise it. Furthermore, illness and death are exactly the times when human beings are most likely to abandon rationalism and cling to magic, so these are the very times when the fight is most important, and we shouldn't shy away from that just because it makes us uncomfortable to tell the dying their fairytales are untrue.
The only person you are trying to benefit when you are trying to convince the dying of atheism is yourself. We should let people live their final days believing whatever they want. Even as an atheist, its clear to me that the right thing to do is allow the dying to be happy and comfortable, however they want that. Furthermore, there are many, many threats to longterm survival, not just mysticism.
I work for Crowdtilt -- if someone who knows Richard can contact me (lebel at crowdtilt dot com), I can help get a campaign set up with all fees waived.
A few weeks ago we started an organization called Capacity 2 Care (http://cap2care.org) for situations just like this -- it's in the early stages so we only have a few hundred members at this point, but I posted it to the Facebook group to see what we can do...
It's so sad that the country where Richard lived, worked and paid taxes for about 30 years can't provide for him. I'm glad to be able to help. But what happens to those that don't reach the front page of HN? No one enduring the stress of a terminal cancer should have to stress about getting ends to meet during their last months alive. EVER
This is certainly terrible news. I cannot imagine being in that situation. My thoughts with him and his family.
Just to answer the question above, the US provides SSDI insurance as part of the social security program to cover people with disabilities who cannot work. And many (most?) professionals also have additional long term disability insurance to cover the difference between SSDI and what their normal living expenses are.
Yeah, that's the pretty answer, kind of like "Cops are there to protect you" or "Poor smart kids get scholarships." That stuff exists in theory, but whether it materializes for you is arbitrary. The government can fight you for any length of time to refuse or minimize benefits, or they can make you provide prohibitive amounts of documentation you can never fulfil. People have to get lawyers to get benefits. Or you might luck out and deal with an SS office that's more accommodating.
SSDI is heavily means tested. Almost no one under the age of 55 is eligible. Almost no one with a university degree is covered. Making $750 in any calendar month disqualifies.
Per the article you linked [1], the wifi is funded by a donation from the Fuhrman Family Foundation, not public funds. Additionally the quote from Bloomberg included substantially more than the Knicks and Nets: "Our new Harlem wireless network brings critical connectivity to residents and visitors, giving them 24/7 access to everything from education materials for kids, to information about Harlem’s rich history and attractions, to everyday needs like paying bills, checking library hours — or even just keeping tabs on the Knicks and Nets"
In USA it's still much better. In many countries including India for example, people pay taxes for their whole life but if they lack money in the end, there's no health/food/shelter security - you are basically on your own. Legislative Bills are there, but they are just that - dormant bills. Nothing exists in reality.
Here in Fiji we've always had universal healthcare. When people need surgery/treatment they can't get here, the government sends them to India (Used to be Australia/New Zealand, but not any more).
Yeah. Thanks to India's affordable health care, we don't have to be dependent on this national scam called health insurance. We just go to doctors, they give us treatment, we pay money, that's it. I remember how here in US I had to go to a doctor to be told "You don't have any disease, that happens to everybody" (no diagnosis) and charged $400. Insurance paid $300, I paid $100.
Right.. That "national scam" is working great all over Europe. It's cool when you can pay your treatments, but cancer treatments are in the 6 figure range - enjoy paying that from you bank account.
The funny thing is, at least here in the US, even if you have medical insurance you are totally ripped off your pockets if you have something like cancer. Mostly, you just don't pay the price which was anyway artificially inflated by this scam I'm talking about. There was an article only a few days back about this guy who had his appendix treated:
http://imgur.com/a/WIfeN
He had to pay $11k out of the total $55k bill, rest was paid by insurance. ($7000 for a CT scan? $4500 worth of Anesthesia? I'd be surprised if one still doesn't think these are artificially inflated prices)
I'm not sure how much would he be charged if this whole insurance thing was not there - may be ~$11k?
(Just for the curious: In India, that operation in the best of hospitals would have cost him may be around $1600 without insurance. With insurance, he'd save most of even that. )
>On the other hand, if you adjust the costs for purchasing power, the unfortunate result is that most of the people are pretty much fucked.
They are not. As I said, this was the cost in the best of hospitals. In government hospitals, poor people get medical care for a fraction of it. Of course, the health care system is still not good, but I'm convinced that a US like system of insurance is not a solution either. Canada and some other countries have it much better.
>In fact the US would look cheaper for the majority of the population.
No, it's not. Had this system been working, millions of Americans wouldn't go outside USA to get basic treatment (many of them go to India). Something is fundamentally wrong here ([1], [2], [3], [4]).
I agree with some of your points here, but this has to be noted.
It's not 7.5 million US residents per year, it's 750,000.
And this:
"The nonpartisan Fraser Institute reported that 46,159 Canadians sought medical treatment outside of Canada in 2011, as wait times increased 104 percent — more than double — compared with statistics from 1993."
Calculated upwards, that would be 404,000 or so on a population equal basis with the US. A lot of Canadians are seeking treatment abroad too.
Humm ... That's a mistake on my part. But this is because I'd seen another article from 2009 [5] which clearly said it was 6 million. And this article was from 2014 so I quickly read that as 7.5 million.
That image is insane. $7,500 for a couple of hours in a recovery room. Not sure how that can be justified, they're clearly just getting as much money out of people as possible. As the services are not exactly optional.
See my reply to markdown for context on his/her comment (if you're not aware).
You should clarify your comment by mentioning what state and city you live in, how much you earn a year, and how many multiples that is of the average income in India, and in your state.
Healthcare in India is operated by the states; there is no national program. Care is not consistent. [0]
In India, can doctors provide food? I'm serious. 42% of Indian children are malnourished [1] - a frighteningly higher rate than the average malnourishment rate of sub-Saharan African countries.
This is but one figure representing India's overall healthcare system (or lack thereof), and unhealthy populace.
Health care in India has a lot of issues, but it's affordable for most part. And if you read my reply to plaguuuuuu below, I wrote that it's still not good - but going the US way of insurance lobbying is not a solution either (because certainly, it's not working). Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who don't even have money to pay food, understandably they won't have money to pay for medicines. They get free government treatment in many cases (though no free food). There is a new Food Security bill passed late last year which is made to tackle those 42% undernourished children and other poor people. Implementation of that, in a populous country like India will take time. Poverty is a complex problem to solve.
Context: Australian and NZ relations with Fiji have seriously deteriorated (expelled diplomats, aid cuts, trade sanctions) since the military coup in 2006, and the resulting dictatorship there. [0]
Despite the diplomatic meltdown between Fiji and the western world, Australia and NZ continued to offer healthcare to Fijians. It was a decision by the Fijian government to start sending people to India instead. [1]
Also, Fiji has very large ethnic ties with India. [2] The country has a history of deep social and religious divisions as a result. [3]
I don't think there's any suggestion or indication that it's actually preferable to have surgery or treatment in India rather than Australia or NZ.
As an Australian, I'm sorry that Fijians can't come here anymore under their healthcare program.
The choice to send patients to India is purely based on financial, rather than political reasons. Even with the higher airfares, it often turns up significantly cheaper to send patients there. Of course in outlier cases where its thought that there is a higher chance of survival in Aus/NZ, patients are sent there instead.
Australia and New Zealand only deny medical visas for people in the Fiji government and military (and their family).
I am also from a developing country (Uruguay) but if any of my family ever has cancer all our concern will be in the emotional issues, the economic issue are already resolve: basically the health system coveres all diseases that you could get.
I do not understand the countries that don´t have this, it is just logical that if you pay when you are healthy you must be 100% covered when you are sick (without excuses or having to justify anything). The most strange thing is that what I pay for my health insurance is less of what I heard it is pay in USA (I pay 70 USD per month) but the difference is big: I live assured that whatever happens I'll be covered, no disease will make me lose my house.
The problem is not about beeing a developing country or not, it is about political decisions that obligate insurances to do what they must do.
Uruguay isn't really a developing country. Not like India, that's for certain. Anyway, the health care system in the US isn't something that was willed into existence. It came from a series of accidents and circumstances.
There are medications I need that cost an entire order of magnitude more in the US than in Canada. I'm not exaggerating. They're about $80 full price from Canada and $800 here in the US.
That's the pharma industry's 'America pays' system. Canada receives subsidized costs on medications like much of the world, and America picks up the tab.
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. The pricing on the medication was exceedingly high, about $200/dose, but as far as I can tell, that is the same price as in the USA:
The cost of the drugs was just picked up by the medical system instead of my pocketbook.
I have seen this argument before; American health care is expensive because everybody else is a slacker who can't pay. It's obviously false. US pharma companies aren't subsidizing Canadian drugs, the Canadian government is. That Canadian drug prices are lower is more a function of the broken US medical system than anything else.
I am a Canadian who occasionally complained about long (several hour) emergency waits for broken limbs from mountain bike downhill racing. The triage system prioritizes people who are dying, not adrenaline addicts.
... However ...
I got diagnosed with Cancer (lymphoma) in 2008. I was xrayed, CT scanned, blood tested and ultrasound guidance biopsied so fast that my head spun. From initial lump discovery to the onset of chemo was only a couple of weeks. Quality of care was first rate, and it's been 5 years. My experience with Canadian health care for a life threatening condition was extremely good.
I should also note that the cost of my medication was a significant $100k+ figure, not including chemo drugs, and this was all covered to an out of pocket of under $1k.
I was a working as a contractor, and didn't have any private medical insurance of any kind.
Needless to say, looking at the cost of treatment, and the ruinous effect it would have had on my (and my wife's) finances, I am very glad I live in Canada.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I went from "Hmm, that's a weird lump" to chemo in just over two weeks. The quality of care was stunning, and the success rate is one of the highest in the world.
My family is one of them (stressing about getting ends to meet).
My momma, 55, otherwise ridiculously healthy, has terminal brain cancer among other things. She was diagnosed five days before her 55th birthday (10/25) this year -- [seemingly] out of the blue.
While her and my father have insurance (through United Health Group), there's no smooth sailing because her treatments are so "specialized".
I, at 22, cleaned out my savings and checking just to make sure that her treatments will be paid for, and additionally hire a wicked-awesome in-home PCA to make sure that she's living comfortably when I'm not able to be there.
I won't get into the logistics of why my father / her husband won't pay for things.
Never been so proud to eat Ramen Noodles.
Edit: you guys make me tear up. Thanks for the support and kind words.
You need to contact a lawyer. If you're clearing out your savings to pay for her treatment (but not for the in-home PCA), there's a good chance her insurer is committing a number of violations regarding her coverage. For many insurers, having a lawyer breathing down their necks about coverage decisions also tends to be a good way to get them to approve treatment without giving you the runaround.
So they would have spent that money on a lawyer instead. It doesn't matter what you do, you can't escape the astronomical cost of healthcare in the US.
As someone who has been in this situation, I can attest the only difference between the two situations is that if you go to a lawyer your mom doesn't get all treatments in the meantime.
Fortunately for me, the people at Mayo Clinic are amazing and gave treatment they knew we couldn't even start to dream to pay for. Not everyone is so lucky.
Ended up dropping the whole thing though. And lawyer said it was slam dunk malpractice, but reality bites and it's amazing what hospitals can do.
You're barely older than me, and I can't begin to fathom how I would handle that situation. Your actions demonstrate incredible selflessness, and a startling degree of competence in the face of something no one your age should have to consider.
Your efforts are truly amazing. I hope one day in the face of such challenges I could be half the person you are now.
You (and the downvoters) don't get it: my surprise is that bestham's first reaction was not human sympathy for someone suffering; his first reaction wasn't to try to help; his first reaction was to score a cheap political shot.
That's awfully sad, albeit not as sad as the fact that it was successful.
You're right, I don't get it. We're not politicians, we're developers. He's pointing out the fact that he's paid taxes for $x years and in the moment he needs the most help, his government is not here to provide for him.
He's not saying Obama or Bush or Clinton or Bush or $foo, he's saying the government.
My first reaction was to provide some help for him, I did and boy am I sorry for him and everyone in his predicament. While doing that I could also identify an underlying problem in the way he has to beg for help and how unfair a system like this is to everyone that is suffering from similar diseases, terminal or not.
If Richard and his family would not have to care about the money, this thread could be about nothing else beside him and his achievements.
Not to be rude, but that doesn't obligate the government to provide that particular service. Just because I pay taxes doesn't obligate the government to provide me a house. Why is that the case for health care?
To answer your question seriously and without any implied political bent, the reason is: healthcare in the first world has become considered a right or entitlement. It's really no more complex than that.
>To answer your question seriously and without any implied political bent, the reason is: healthcare in the first world has become considered a right or entitlement.
That's the thing though. It has only become a right or entitlement in the places that provide it. I'd wager people would feel the exact same way if their government provided housing when compared to countries that don't provide housing.
It's a purely subjective priority issue, is what I was saying. All things that are entitlements only become such because they're first provided, naturally (can't have an entitlement without it first existing). I suppose your implication is meant to be that if it weren't provided, it could have never become an entitlement - that's true, but it wouldn't prevent the population from looking across the border or oceans and yearning for the entitlements others have in first world nations.
No doubt entitlement priorities vary based on the development level of the country, the culture, and so on ad infinitum. There is hardly a social safety net in China for example, the population is heavily expected to handle its own savings. Most likely their population will gradually demand more entitlements, looking to copy what others have done.
There are obviously all sorts of arguments that focus on bankruptcy, high costs, the burden of being without a job, and so on when it comes to healthcare - that sound far more reasonable than other entitlement arguments (eg should everyone be given a free yacht).
America of course does provide free and or heavily subsidized housing (not free house ownership mind you), in every state in the union in fact (along with federal programs). Mostly it's a matter of what you qualify for, and where (varying based on what's available in your location, and what your income is, etc). I don't think all entitlements are created equal in terms of demand or import; the population of a country is going to regard some as far more important than others.
Well, it's in the best interest of society as a whole to keep people in good health. For many reasons but in particular public health, because if people don't get vaccines or don't cure infectious diseases it can spread and potentially affect everyone.
This is why in France we have universal healthcare, that goes beyond legal residents but also benefits illegals (with AME, Aide Médicale d'État).
1) Larger risk pools are better. Let's say you have your ten closest family members and friends, and they're willing to spend an arbitrary amount to save your life. Despite that, a diagnosis like brain cancer or a severe heart attack with complications is likely to bankrupt all of them. Make it hundreds of millions of people, and the bumps are smoothed out to oblivion.
2) Lots of people are embedded in communities that have fewer resources available than other communities. You're damning them to die--or, in this case, die in a significantly less dignified way without proper palliative treatment--just because their friends and family happen to be poorer.
3) What about the people who don't have many family members or friends? Do we just want to condemn them to suffer, merely because they thrive with only a few friends instead of many?
Private insurance helps with these problems. Some people, however, aren't willing, knowledgeable, or rich enough to purchase health insurance. Even if you hold them in contempt and think that they deserve to die because of their lack of insurance, as a society we don't like that. So we can either (a) provide everyone with public health insurance/care or (b) require everyone to purchase insurance. Some countries go with (a), some with (b), most a mixture of the two.
It's best that whatever country we're in, we look at the countries that have had the best results in health outcomes and copy them as best we can in new local contexts.
A point i think is important that hasn't been explicitly raised in any other reply to you is that a a societal reliance on friends and family as the measure of last resort is significantly less egalitarian than nation state support could be.
This should absolutely not be necessary in a civilized society. I don't know Richard or his work, but I donated. I'm proud to do so, and ashamed that the nation I call my home does not provide adequate support.
The fact that this is currently #1 on HN makes me really proud of our community. I don't know Richard, but I chipped in a few bucks anyway. Let's get this guy a chair lift.
Just read his series of post over his ordeal. He really has had a rough time.
Guys (and gals) of HN, let see if our little community can get to together to help Richard enjoy his last days (and maybe provide a bit for his family if we do really well).
Most of us can miss $20, and Richard and his family need it more than must of us do..
I was pretty surprised at how easy PayPal has made it. I know that people prefer other services and the reasons they do, but at least PP has been moving forward in their ease of integration. Noticed it on Bandcamp recently as well. Just type amount, enter email and password then confirm and done (assuming you've got PP setup already).
I work with PayPal and to be honest my dislike doesn't come from the user experience but the developer side, the api, the tools, the interface, they are all broken, it is amazingly demotivating.
I worked with it years ago and had a similar experience. I guess I was try to say the recently I had a few pleasant, easy transactions. Upon further inspection, that might not be something to be too excited about.
I work with PayPal and to be honest my dislike doesn't come from the user experience but the developer side, the api, the tools, the interface, they are all broken, it is amazingly demotivating.
I don't know Rich but anyone who makes as much of a commitment to the web as he has deserves a lot of respect. I donated and am looking forward to see how the HN community helps out in a few weeks.
I was feeling for him & those that knew him, but purely observing, as I was well outside his circle of influence. Then I read your comment and snapped back to humanity, remembered that this was a person and I was a person and I'm doing OK enough to extend some cash, regardless of the separation of our worlds. Thanks for posting your comment.
Ditto. I have benefited immensely from PHP and very much appreciate the contributions from people like Richard. Very sorry to hear this happened to him and hopefully donations help take some of the stress off his family in this very difficult time.
Don't have much to give right now, but it's a great cause. Such a shame to see anyone like this, especially someone as kind and active in the community (judging by people who know him). Wishing him all the best.
You may be able to contact him (and family) via comments on the post in question - potentially less intrusive than unsolicited personal email, particularly if he's not necessarily reading his own email these days.
I attempted to donate with a credit card and was rejected; I'm not sure if it's because it was previously (and not currently) registered with PayPal or whether a donation request can't be filled by credit (my successful donation was via debit). Just something to be aware of for others trying to donate.
Just because it is called insurance doesn't mean it actually is. The health care industry is pay by activity/procedure/items consumed, and everyone has a vested interest in others not knowing what is paid while (usually) increasing activity. In general everyone is spending someone else's money.
"insurance" doesn't cover catastrophic stuff (there is some) but also covers everyday things like checkups. (The analogy is car insurance covering oil changes and tire rotations.) You'll pay a deductible (eg $30), the insurance company will pay the health provider, you'll get half a rain forest full of numbers in the mail, none of which reflect who actually paid what to whom. (There are extra negotiated charges and discounts between various parties.) The health care providers try to make their numbers as large as possible.
"Insurance" companies won't make money if they pay out, so they have all sorts of limits. For example there may be annual or lifetime limits which are trivial to hit in cases like this.
The various estimates are that around 70% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills and that 75% of those are people who had insurance. Example story http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
>"Doesn't the insurances cover with these expenses in USA?"
Insurance companies are like ISPs. You're fine until your usage pattern significantly exceeds the average.
At that point, the insurer will do any and everything in their power to drop your coverage and/or hasten your demise by denying or delaying treatment.
On a related note, this is why some of the people who are unable to keep their misleadingly cheap plans post-ACA should actually be happy. They would simply have been dropped anyway - when they actually needed that coverage.
Still confused...this is a terrible reputation for the insurance of this fellow. Aren't any insurance provider covering these kind of things? If so, why anyone would take a insurance that doesn't?
Sorry, but I cannot understand how a high skilled worker in a high income country has to beg for money because medical problems.
Due to a couple of historical accidents, most Americans have health insurance through their employer--which means they get their employer's choice of insurer. And employers are not incentivized to pick an insurer based on how well the insurer works with cases like this.
It's a whole range of things. I don't have a comprehensive link at hand and these questions are so heavily politicized right now in the US that searching is all but pointless.
>Aren't any insurance provider covering these kind of things?"
On paper, yes. In reality, no. I'm not aware of any sources of data on which, if any insurers are better in this regard. The insurers obviously have no reason to divulge this and the folks who experience are likely dead or dying.
>"If so, why anyone would take a insurance that doesn't?"
As the other comment points out, most people receive insurance through their employers, limiting their options. It's possible to self-insure, but prohibitively expensive for many people.
Even among those who are well-paid. The costs are high enough that it's quite common for married couples, particularly those who have or plan to have children, who could otherwise live on one income to maintain a one job "for the benefits".
Finally, there's an incredible amount of misinformation about how these things work in practice and about legislation like the Affordable Care Act aka "Obamacare" which aims to address some of the worst parts of it.
>"Sorry, but I cannot understand how a high skilled worker in a high income country has to beg for money because medical problems."
Medical care in general and cancer treatment in particular is atrociously expensive. Paying out of pocket you'd be looking at several thousand per month for drugs, thousands per day for hospitalization and tens of thousands for major surgery.
Even with insurance the co-pays and deductibles (amount the insured is required to pay) can range up to a significant percentage of those costs.
Unless you're fabulously wealthy, a terminal illness generally means living exactly as long as your insurance and/or the generosity of others allows.
read the comment about his life in chicago - giving money to bands as one example. he's spent much of his life helping the larger communities around him - php and music are just two that have been mentioned.
We've got no idea what Richard earned, but saying "six figures" can make it sound fabulously wealthy. $999,999 is six figures. So is $100,000. $100k in suburban Chicago raising a family is quite possible, but likely isn't going to leave a whole lot of room for savings. He may have had moderate savings that were wiped out in 2008. He may have had savings and needed to drain those to pay for another medical situation in his family earlier. We just don't know the details.
> 1%? Hardly. Someone earning $100k might be in the top 10%
I said top 1% of the world, not US. Someone earning $100,000 is probably in the top 0.1% actually.
But yeah, the rest of your comment is fair. I wasn't being judgemental about his request for donations; Merely pointing out how disturbing it is that despite his relative wealth, he needed help. This isn't a jab at him, but at the state of the world we live in.
There are all sorts of different health insurance plans. Most of them have a deductible, so you have to pay the first few thousand dollars yourself every year. Many plans cover a large percentage of costs after that deductible... say 80% ... which means that he'd still have to pay for the remaining 20% of some pretty expensive bills. (some plans cover 100% after deductible)
Some plans have maximum out-of-pocket costs per year... say $20k, some have no maximum. Some plans have maximum benefit... so the insurance company will only pay up to a certain amount... say $1M
These are just some of the choices, your history and where you live affect how much each of these costs. People choose their level of coverage and it's cost (or their employer does)
There are some cases of insurance companies trying to screw people out of what they are rightfully owed, but there are lots of cases where the coverage just isn't adequate for the issue and the bills are still very expensive.
Wow. Can't even imagine what that's like. My $20 are a drop in the bucket, but hope that bucket is getting more full.
He mentioned that he suffered a seizure and that led him to be taken into the ER. Does he mention any other previous symptoms that might have led up to it? In general, what symptoms do exist for this sort of thing?
The brain is remarkably plastic, and can compensate for all sorts of damage ... right up until the point that it can’t. This is a tautology, but the point is that there usually aren’t any symptoms until these are fairly far developed, which is a big contributor to the fairly terrible prognoses, and the fact that deterioration after the first noticeable symptom is rapid. The effect is magnified in the young and those otherwise in good health, as they have more effective reserve.
It looks like a Novocure TTF System. A fairly brilliant piece of technology that unfortunately is only useful in patients with glioblastomas that are past the point of surgery or chemotherapy.
It applies an alternating electrical field to the brain to prevent cellular replication. It must be worn for 18 hours/day for several months to see 'better' outcomes. I scare-quoted 'better' since the therapy improves a 0% survival rate at 36-months to a 10% survival rate, which is obviously an improvement, but just highlights how awful glios are.
Does anyone know how to contact Mr. Lynch or someone associated with him? I attempted to comment but don't want the extra accounts created, and would happily create and host Stripe (or whatever other payment gateway) donation forms might help people that can't or won't go through PayPal (assuming, of course, someone on the other end creates the appropriate accounts and provided they're legitimately associated with him).
Could someone he trusts and someone capable of setting up a cryptocurrency account do so for him? I imagine a community like Dogecoin would help any way that they can.
In a large enough sum, almost any crypto-currency is worth the hassle involved in conversion. For Doge's current position, I'd argue that it is worth it.
In fact, if HN really wanted to make a dent, maybe 'mining for Richard' would be a worthy campaign given the mining power likely at the community's disposal.
Richard called me back and asked that we use his wife's e-mail -- sunshinysmile08@att.net -- if you want to setup a wallet or e-mail her instructions on how to setup a wallet that would be awesome!
I don't have money to give but it pains me to see stories like this. I think there is more that can be done to prevent this type of suffering (though I don't know much about cancer per se). I have a different serious medical condition, as does my oldest son. We have figured out how to get well. What I can't seem to figure out is how to constructively share info on what we did. Any suggestions?
(Please consider emailing me. I am not trying to derail this discussion. It is just that I have spent years talking about this and I am usually pilloried. It is very frustrating.)
Can we pay him to get treatment in another country? I'd do that if I was in as bad of shape as this guy. At least there'd be some money left over for my heirs.
314 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 283 ms ] threadI think the atheist would say you won't know then, either.
[0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos&t=2m25s
If that's not worthy of denigration, take it up with Jesus himself, who said pretty much the same thing.
"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you…"
Matthew 6:5-6
There's just so much assumption and ill will in this subthread. Get a grip, people.
Maybe you should get out more. Or perhaps just be even a little more generous in your assumptions. Many people do believe in... well, lots of things they pray to. You don't have to; I don't either. But that doesn't mean everyone else's motives are somehow always shallow and selfish.
Sorry, but your comment is a whole lot worse than his.
Wonderful argument good sir!!!
Straight from his thanks page at the very top.
Who is trying to do that?
Furthermore, there are many, many threats to longterm survival, not just mysticism.
Mysticism prevents us from dealing with those other threats rationally, and that makes it #1 on the list of mental bugs to fix.
You. Stop it.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/cap2care/
I am Not in good $ituation now but as someone who had similar problems in the past(medical bills and no money) I do feel it.
Life sometimes sucks but we can make it a little better.
Donate if you feel like it is ok to donate even small amounts.
Just to answer the question above, the US provides SSDI insurance as part of the social security program to cover people with disabilities who cannot work. And many (most?) professionals also have additional long term disability insurance to cover the difference between SSDI and what their normal living expenses are.
[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/largest-free-public-wi-fi-...
He had to pay $11k out of the total $55k bill, rest was paid by insurance. ($7000 for a CT scan? $4500 worth of Anesthesia? I'd be surprised if one still doesn't think these are artificially inflated prices)
I'm not sure how much would he be charged if this whole insurance thing was not there - may be ~$11k?
(Just for the curious: In India, that operation in the best of hospitals would have cost him may be around $1600 without insurance. With insurance, he'd save most of even that. )
In fact the US would look cheaper for the majority of the population. Which is comparing against a low bar.
I don't think you could classify that as a working system.
They are not. As I said, this was the cost in the best of hospitals. In government hospitals, poor people get medical care for a fraction of it. Of course, the health care system is still not good, but I'm convinced that a US like system of insurance is not a solution either. Canada and some other countries have it much better.
>In fact the US would look cheaper for the majority of the population.
No, it's not. Had this system been working, millions of Americans wouldn't go outside USA to get basic treatment (many of them go to India). Something is fundamentally wrong here ([1], [2], [3], [4]).
[1] 7.5 Million US residents travel abroad for care each year: http://www.cdc.gov/features/medicaltourism/
[2] Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study : http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
[3] Why U.S. Health Care Is Obscenely Expensive, In 12 Charts : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/health-care-costs-_...
[4] 'Medical tourism' draws Americans to India : http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/traveler...
It's not 7.5 million US residents per year, it's 750,000.
And this:
"The nonpartisan Fraser Institute reported that 46,159 Canadians sought medical treatment outside of Canada in 2011, as wait times increased 104 percent — more than double — compared with statistics from 1993."
Calculated upwards, that would be 404,000 or so on a population equal basis with the US. A lot of Canadians are seeking treatment abroad too.
[5] http://news.health.com/2009/04/08/traveling-treatment/
You should clarify your comment by mentioning what state and city you live in, how much you earn a year, and how many multiples that is of the average income in India, and in your state.
Healthcare in India is operated by the states; there is no national program. Care is not consistent. [0]
In India, can doctors provide food? I'm serious. 42% of Indian children are malnourished [1] - a frighteningly higher rate than the average malnourishment rate of sub-Saharan African countries.
This is but one figure representing India's overall healthcare system (or lack thereof), and unhealthy populace.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_India
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_India#Health_iss...
Despite the diplomatic meltdown between Fiji and the western world, Australia and NZ continued to offer healthcare to Fijians. It was a decision by the Fijian government to start sending people to India instead. [1]
Also, Fiji has very large ethnic ties with India. [2] The country has a history of deep social and religious divisions as a result. [3]
I don't think there's any suggestion or indication that it's actually preferable to have surgery or treatment in India rather than Australia or NZ.
As an Australian, I'm sorry that Fijians can't come here anymore under their healthcare program.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Fijian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat...
[1]: http://www.fiji.gov.fj/Media-Center/Press-Releases/FIJI-LOOK...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indians_in_Fiji
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indians_in_Fiji#Religious_and_...
Australia and New Zealand only deny medical visas for people in the Fiji government and military (and their family).
I do not understand the countries that don´t have this, it is just logical that if you pay when you are healthy you must be 100% covered when you are sick (without excuses or having to justify anything). The most strange thing is that what I pay for my health insurance is less of what I heard it is pay in USA (I pay 70 USD per month) but the difference is big: I live assured that whatever happens I'll be covered, no disease will make me lose my house.
The problem is not about beeing a developing country or not, it is about political decisions that obligate insurances to do what they must do.
No system is without its problems. I'm just glad in the US it's not about quality or quantity of care, just funding.
http://breastcancer.answers.com/medications/the-cost-of-neup...
The cost of the drugs was just picked up by the medical system instead of my pocketbook.
I have seen this argument before; American health care is expensive because everybody else is a slacker who can't pay. It's obviously false. US pharma companies aren't subsidizing Canadian drugs, the Canadian government is. That Canadian drug prices are lower is more a function of the broken US medical system than anything else.
... However ...
I got diagnosed with Cancer (lymphoma) in 2008. I was xrayed, CT scanned, blood tested and ultrasound guidance biopsied so fast that my head spun. From initial lump discovery to the onset of chemo was only a couple of weeks. Quality of care was first rate, and it's been 5 years. My experience with Canadian health care for a life threatening condition was extremely good.
I should also note that the cost of my medication was a significant $100k+ figure, not including chemo drugs, and this was all covered to an out of pocket of under $1k.
I was a working as a contractor, and didn't have any private medical insurance of any kind.
Needless to say, looking at the cost of treatment, and the ruinous effect it would have had on my (and my wife's) finances, I am very glad I live in Canada.
Imagine not getting treated for cancer for 3 years after being diagnosed.
My momma, 55, otherwise ridiculously healthy, has terminal brain cancer among other things. She was diagnosed five days before her 55th birthday (10/25) this year -- [seemingly] out of the blue.
While her and my father have insurance (through United Health Group), there's no smooth sailing because her treatments are so "specialized".
I, at 22, cleaned out my savings and checking just to make sure that her treatments will be paid for, and additionally hire a wicked-awesome in-home PCA to make sure that she's living comfortably when I'm not able to be there.
I won't get into the logistics of why my father / her husband won't pay for things.
Never been so proud to eat Ramen Noodles.
Edit: you guys make me tear up. Thanks for the support and kind words.
That's one of the most powerful statements I have heard in a long time - I'm sure she's proud of you. Good on you.
Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
A great doctor bought us three good years - far longer than anyone expected.
I always say, if I can give anyone one piece of advice it's "Don't wait!". There's no telling how long any of us have left.
Fortunately for me, the people at Mayo Clinic are amazing and gave treatment they knew we couldn't even start to dream to pay for. Not everyone is so lucky.
Ended up dropping the whole thing though. And lawyer said it was slam dunk malpractice, but reality bites and it's amazing what hospitals can do.
Paraphrasing from a a recent movie "Every one should live by a code...glad to know that yours is Family."
Your efforts are truly amazing. I hope one day in the face of such challenges I could be half the person you are now.
I'm not sure why your first instinct is to think that he should rely on his country rather than on his family and friends.
That's awfully sad, albeit not as sad as the fact that it was successful.
He's not saying Obama or Bush or Clinton or Bush or $foo, he's saying the government.
If Richard and his family would not have to care about the money, this thread could be about nothing else beside him and his achievements.
That's the thing though. It has only become a right or entitlement in the places that provide it. I'd wager people would feel the exact same way if their government provided housing when compared to countries that don't provide housing.
No doubt entitlement priorities vary based on the development level of the country, the culture, and so on ad infinitum. There is hardly a social safety net in China for example, the population is heavily expected to handle its own savings. Most likely their population will gradually demand more entitlements, looking to copy what others have done.
There are obviously all sorts of arguments that focus on bankruptcy, high costs, the burden of being without a job, and so on when it comes to healthcare - that sound far more reasonable than other entitlement arguments (eg should everyone be given a free yacht).
America of course does provide free and or heavily subsidized housing (not free house ownership mind you), in every state in the union in fact (along with federal programs). Mostly it's a matter of what you qualify for, and where (varying based on what's available in your location, and what your income is, etc). I don't think all entitlements are created equal in terms of demand or import; the population of a country is going to regard some as far more important than others.
This is why in France we have universal healthcare, that goes beyond legal residents but also benefits illegals (with AME, Aide Médicale d'État).
1) Larger risk pools are better. Let's say you have your ten closest family members and friends, and they're willing to spend an arbitrary amount to save your life. Despite that, a diagnosis like brain cancer or a severe heart attack with complications is likely to bankrupt all of them. Make it hundreds of millions of people, and the bumps are smoothed out to oblivion.
2) Lots of people are embedded in communities that have fewer resources available than other communities. You're damning them to die--or, in this case, die in a significantly less dignified way without proper palliative treatment--just because their friends and family happen to be poorer.
3) What about the people who don't have many family members or friends? Do we just want to condemn them to suffer, merely because they thrive with only a few friends instead of many?
Private insurance helps with these problems. Some people, however, aren't willing, knowledgeable, or rich enough to purchase health insurance. Even if you hold them in contempt and think that they deserve to die because of their lack of insurance, as a society we don't like that. So we can either (a) provide everyone with public health insurance/care or (b) require everyone to purchase insurance. Some countries go with (a), some with (b), most a mixture of the two.
It's best that whatever country we're in, we look at the countries that have had the best results in health outcomes and copy them as best we can in new local contexts.
Does that make sense?
reddit.com/r/igotout
Guys (and gals) of HN, let see if our little community can get to together to help Richard enjoy his last days (and maybe provide a bit for his family if we do really well).
Most of us can miss $20, and Richard and his family need it more than must of us do..
It takes seconds and you won't even miss the 3 lattes it could buy you.
EDIT: I live in Chicago and believe Rich does as well. Looking to help.
Can someone explain to me why is he asking for donations? Doesn't the insurances cover with these expenses in USA?
"insurance" doesn't cover catastrophic stuff (there is some) but also covers everyday things like checkups. (The analogy is car insurance covering oil changes and tire rotations.) You'll pay a deductible (eg $30), the insurance company will pay the health provider, you'll get half a rain forest full of numbers in the mail, none of which reflect who actually paid what to whom. (There are extra negotiated charges and discounts between various parties.) The health care providers try to make their numbers as large as possible.
"Insurance" companies won't make money if they pay out, so they have all sorts of limits. For example there may be annual or lifetime limits which are trivial to hit in cases like this.
The various estimates are that around 70% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills and that 75% of those are people who had insurance. Example story http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
This was my experience just trying to get some blood tests http://www.rogerbinns.com/blog/gplus/the-first-rule-of-the-a...
Insurance companies are like ISPs. You're fine until your usage pattern significantly exceeds the average.
At that point, the insurer will do any and everything in their power to drop your coverage and/or hasten your demise by denying or delaying treatment.
On a related note, this is why some of the people who are unable to keep their misleadingly cheap plans post-ACA should actually be happy. They would simply have been dropped anyway - when they actually needed that coverage.
Sorry, but I cannot understand how a high skilled worker in a high income country has to beg for money because medical problems.
It's pretty messed up.
>Aren't any insurance provider covering these kind of things?"
On paper, yes. In reality, no. I'm not aware of any sources of data on which, if any insurers are better in this regard. The insurers obviously have no reason to divulge this and the folks who experience are likely dead or dying.
>"If so, why anyone would take a insurance that doesn't?"
As the other comment points out, most people receive insurance through their employers, limiting their options. It's possible to self-insure, but prohibitively expensive for many people.
Even among those who are well-paid. The costs are high enough that it's quite common for married couples, particularly those who have or plan to have children, who could otherwise live on one income to maintain a one job "for the benefits".
Finally, there's an incredible amount of misinformation about how these things work in practice and about legislation like the Affordable Care Act aka "Obamacare" which aims to address some of the worst parts of it.
>"Sorry, but I cannot understand how a high skilled worker in a high income country has to beg for money because medical problems."
Medical care in general and cancer treatment in particular is atrociously expensive. Paying out of pocket you'd be looking at several thousand per month for drugs, thousands per day for hospitalization and tens of thousands for major surgery.
Even with insurance the co-pays and deductibles (amount the insured is required to pay) can range up to a significant percentage of those costs.
Unless you're fabulously wealthy, a terminal illness generally means living exactly as long as your insurance and/or the generosity of others allows.
He would be in the wealthiest 1% of the entire world population, yet needs donations. What does that mean for the billions of others?
We've got no idea what Richard earned, but saying "six figures" can make it sound fabulously wealthy. $999,999 is six figures. So is $100,000. $100k in suburban Chicago raising a family is quite possible, but likely isn't going to leave a whole lot of room for savings. He may have had moderate savings that were wiped out in 2008. He may have had savings and needed to drain those to pay for another medical situation in his family earlier. We just don't know the details.
1%? Hardly. Someone earning $100k might be in the top 10% - http://www.financialsamurai.com/how-much-money-do-the-top-in... - still obviously towards the top, but the phrase "1%" has other "occupy" connotations that simply don'y apply to Richard.
I said top 1% of the world, not US. Someone earning $100,000 is probably in the top 0.1% actually.
But yeah, the rest of your comment is fair. I wasn't being judgemental about his request for donations; Merely pointing out how disturbing it is that despite his relative wealth, he needed help. This isn't a jab at him, but at the state of the world we live in.
Some plans have maximum out-of-pocket costs per year... say $20k, some have no maximum. Some plans have maximum benefit... so the insurance company will only pay up to a certain amount... say $1M
These are just some of the choices, your history and where you live affect how much each of these costs. People choose their level of coverage and it's cost (or their employer does)
There are some cases of insurance companies trying to screw people out of what they are rightfully owed, but there are lots of cases where the coverage just isn't adequate for the issue and the bills are still very expensive.
He mentioned that he suffered a seizure and that led him to be taken into the ER. Does he mention any other previous symptoms that might have led up to it? In general, what symptoms do exist for this sort of thing?
The button was a little hard to see for me on the site (particularly on mobile).
The URL that the button sent me to (I forget whether Paypal makes this useless or not, but I'm hoping it works):
https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=Q...
Sigh Someday the govt & banks will catch up with the 21st century.
If someone can put a little extra in the bin on my behalf, I'll look for a chance to pay it forward. Thanks
Good video: http://www.novottftherapy.com/patients-about.php?ID=3
It applies an alternating electrical field to the brain to prevent cellular replication. It must be worn for 18 hours/day for several months to see 'better' outcomes. I scare-quoted 'better' since the therapy improves a 0% survival rate at 36-months to a 10% survival rate, which is obviously an improvement, but just highlights how awful glios are.
Paper which led to FDA approval: http://www.virtualtrials.com/pdf/Stupp_NovoTTF.pdf
I can be reached at: reportemp@gmail.com
Can anyone confirm that this is his twitter? https://twitter.com/LynchRichard
We can send Dogecoins via Twitter.
In fact, if HN really wanted to make a dent, maybe 'mining for Richard' would be a worthy campaign given the mining power likely at the community's disposal.
http://foundation.dogecoin.com/
(Please consider emailing me. I am not trying to derail this discussion. It is just that I have spent years talking about this and I am usually pilloried. It is very frustrating.)