https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

He's previously made statements in favor of at least universal healthcare, and it seems incredibly unlikely that he doesn't support sick leave policies.

https://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-research-universal-healthcar...

Also, you shouldn't refer to universal healthcare/single-payer as a concept with "Medicare for All." Medicare for All is a compromised American policy proposal inferior to what most countries have had for years.

Watsi is more akin to GoFundMe for care in the developing world, which, while admirable, has little to do with creating a universal healthcare system anywhere.

Sam is looking for projects that can help with the crisis that’s happening now and have a meaningful impact within weeks/few months.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/opinion/coronavirus-pelos...

That bill is an embarrassment. Doing something about that is kind of exactly what I’m talking about.

America has the most uplifting and free-spirited legacy, but it has been transformed in the past decades into the most primitive form of greed and selfishness possible. Covid-19 is only the eye-opener.

FTR: I believe the US will lose 5% of its population to the coronavirus in 2020. Not being panicky, just multiplying.

COVID-19 is going to hit us hard, but I believe deeply in America's ability to adapt and pull together. We are fractured and almost-leaderless today, but the United States tends to do very well against a common challenge, once the scale of the challenge is understood.

Italy exceeded that limit in the last two days, so now they have to decide who has the highest chance of survival, and those people get intensive care, if it is available.

well, you have to take measures weeks and months ahead, or else it doesn't matter...lungs need oxygen.

Yes... and the number of dead people will also obviously be higher - because the disease has not yet run its course in all of the reported cases.

Here is Lancet from 12 March estimating 5.7% final mortality rate among confirmed cases.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...

Happy to formalize it and bet for real, if you'd like.

If enough people like him did that to our world leaders you can be damm sure it would make a difference.

Edit: To clarify there is a wide array of opinions about “what government are for” and “what governments should do” ... I think it is important to acknowledge that when expressing an opinion about what you think.

FYI, countries routinely provide free health care [2] during pandemics because it typically is an existential crisis for it's civil society and economy.

[1]: https://www.ccn.com/coronavirus-death-rate-soars-to-7-in-ita...

[2] : announcement about US COVID-19 testing and treatment:

For USA -

Where to get COVID-19 test?

Enter your zip code to find out the nearest COVID-19 test site. (from US HRSA.gov website) https://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/

1. Go to clinics instead of crowded large facilities.

2. Fees: Testing and Treatments are free.

If confirmed, home isolation for 14 days, please help stop spreading COVID-19. Proactive screening to stop the spreads.

Please don't use such misleading figures. Spreading fear is dangerous. This number is known as a "naive case fatality rate", with the emphasis on naive. And you're even quoting just for one country - cherry-picking.

The UK CMO has said the mortality rate for COVID-19 is likely 1% or less.

Please, act responsibly. The situation is serious and difficult enough.

Resiliency of healthcare systems also clearly has a major impact. It might be well under 1% in a "first world" country where hospitals can keep up, and well over 10% in a "third world" country where they can't.

While a 7% mortality rate certainly isn't some kind of objective fact, it's unfortunately not out of the realm of possibility for us in a worst-case scenario where the healthcare system is completely inundated. It's better to face up to that possibility than downplay it even if it scares people, because we urgently need people to act so it doesn't get that bad. While I agree that people shouldn't fear-monger, it's far more irresponsible at this point to downplay the risk than to (arguably) overstate it.

> Please, act responsibly ..

I suggest you practice what you preach, and read someone else's well intentioned, informed opinion without attributing malice or intent to spread falsehoods.

Most of all, the false narrative that a universal health care system somehow handles pandemics any better is clearly being proven wrong in the case of Italy, which is what I was trying to point out

Free/almost free good enough healthcare, and education in similar vein are cornerstones of any society that would like to call itself fair, just and overall good place to live, not only for few elites. Everybody benefits from it, whole effin' mankind benefits from it long term.

Heck, even though I am relatively young and properly healthy, so I don't need to spend a cent on healthcare, I am happy to pay (swiss) one so that other benefit. Fuck society that doesn't do that.

Those who don't want a socialized medical industry can live in the USA. Those who want it can live almost anywhere else in the world.

Choice is good. Make your choice. (seems you did, picking Switzerland?) Don't deny me my choice.

Shifting costs to employers (mandatory paid sick leave) is generally immoral.

If people want to provide a benefit, do it with government spending, and remind yourself it is your money (taxes) that funds it.

If you are still willing to do it, at least you are putting your money where your mouth is.

Universal health coverage in this situation is meant to treat everybody in equality for same problem and I would say it doesn't matter who pays for it as long as everybody will get treated in a similar way.

Agree on European governments did not the right thing, but again, not sure if that has something to do with universal health.

On universal health coverage, the major difference is what the recovery looks like (potentially after the vaccine in countries where it's too late for containment). If there's any silver lining to this pandemic, hopefully it's that politicians who oppose universal health coverage become unelectable.

The people who profit from the current system know that there is a presidential election in November. They can't afford to let public opinion go against them. Ironically, I think that this event will cement the current system more.

This has been said about testing and coverage for testing is included in the bill that passed the house. But I’ve seen it nowhere reported that this is true for treatment. What’s the source for this claim?

> I am sure that there will be free/low cost options for people without any insurance.

The only provision currently on the table is Medicaid expansion to states for treatment, but the amount of people who are or will be ineligible for Medicaid (assuming they got laid off) is quite large. I’m not certain how you can be “sure” of this.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/12/politics/fact-check-copays-co...

I think the federal government should buy or acquire by fiat the rights to produce remdesivir and contract, immediately, with multiple vendors to start mass production. If the trial pan out, the US alone may need enough to treat a few million people. If the trials don’t pan out, some money is lost.

(I’m not saying Gilead shouldn’t be fairly compensated. By all means, pay them a few billion dollars. But don’t allow them to extract $50k per case. And don’t allow them to delay widespread availability while negotiating.)

FWIW, China appears to be doing this right now. A Chinese company is manufacturing the drug now and is essentially ignoring the patent.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2001/oct/23/anthrax.bus...