very stupid article. An engineer is not what the author wants to be; an engineer is someone that applies maths and science into practical problems.
And the difference in process between a civil engineer and a software engineer is because the nature of them is quite different. A bridge is expensive to change, meanwhile software is designed to change.
Basically they are cards delivered by Bankia (an important 'Caja', sort of a bank but politicians are in the board) without any limit and the expenses were charged to different expeses(e.g. a failure of a server)
yeah, but the Spanish rulers cannot see further than 4 years, so they are taxing the entrepreneurs and introducing stupid regulations meanwhile they support the friendly big companies with tailored laws. All of that while the corruption is rampant.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, but people are stupid and especially so when greed kicks in! I always explore Internet phenomenons and try to put myself in the shoes of the affected. I've spent days playing Mafia Wars to see what the hell makes people waste so much time with that crap and I think got it. I did everything a Bitcoiner does for a few months, BitcoinWisdom.com charts are now burnt into my retina, I had nightmares about crashes (some were real when I woke up), and I know first-hand how your mindset changes. Anyway, everybody's in for a quick lazy profit! I got totally disgusted by Bitcoin thanks to people like Barry Silbert (this guys is like an open book), the Winklevii, potheads like Chalie Shrem (http://www.vocativ.com/12-2013/night-bitcoin-millionaire-pro...) who some are now trying to turn into a hero, and even Fred Wilson who was totally arrogant and deceitful during the NYDFS hearing.
We, the startupers, of course, like to make money, too, but we know it is not easy, it's actually a lot of work, skills, and luck, and money is almost never top priority - it's just a nice added bonus, a reward if we do good! We want to change the world, but not to change the world so that we get rich from the hoarded coins!
I do like the innovation that Bitcoin brought, I like that it brought the attention to some of the problems it's claiming to solve (almost many are false promises - like micropayments), but I don't think it can be sustained for much longer!
I agree. It wasn't so much a pro Bitcoin statement as it was angst with the world economy at large. People just want to make money, and I know people have to make money, but people don't have to just want to make money. Startupers want to make money, but it's like you say, they want to do so in being innovative, productive, creating valuable things (not to generalize - I'm sure there are some people here just for the money). There are people like this in the cryptocurrency community too, but the accessibility of Bitcoin attracted plenty of asshats as well. It will prove to be a game changing experiment somehow, but if it doesn't become a world-saving currency or whatever, I won't care or be surprised.
Not always the best technology is the one which success. If that better bitcoin is invented too late, bitcoin can have a large infrastructure and accepted by a large proportion of merchant to be switched. Just think about VHS and Beta or OS/2
Altough strange, it might be because in Spain many of the developers work for consultancy firms with Up or Out policy, so once devs get experience jump to the management level.
Speaking for myself, I know first-hand just how powerful a force this inner rage is, that the article talks about. I grew up in a largely similar situation where I, too, was teased and bullied - to the point where I lost control and lashed out violently.
I often see in myself the capability of performing such an awful act as Adam did. Not for any particular reason, but simply because I've bottled up immense rage over the years; rage that I somehow manage to keep under tight control. A so-called "Irish temper," if you will.
Honestly, I find it surprising that things like this don't happen more often among us "nerds;" that more of us don't lash out at society.
And the difference in process between a civil engineer and a software engineer is because the nature of them is quite different. A bridge is expensive to change, meanwhile software is designed to change.