I find that to be a bit of odd statement; most "new" technologies are expensive at first, until they're later refined/optimized/begin to benefit from economies of scale.
It doesn't sound reasonable -to me- to say "might as well not do any of it, because I probably won't be able to take immediate advantage".
A nice example of the kind of HN response comment that completely flies past being in any way useful, thoughtful or realistic.
As the other response here mentions, even if one has the financial means to just uproot and "move to another country with public healthcare", there's a whole bureaucracy around doing such a thing that makes it hard in the best of circumstances and absolutely grueling if you need medical support for anything resembling a serious and pressing problem.
Even if you're from a country with universal healthcare, but live overseas long enough to be a non-resident of your home country, going back can involve obligatory wait times for rejoining the system. In Canada, for example, i've known this wait time to be something like three months. Imagine managing that while sick and unable to pay for pricey medical assistance.
Is this a realistic option? Say you're an American and go to Canada or the UK (I don't know where else has universal healthcare off the top of my head, maybe nordic countries). Can you get treatment without being a citizen or owning land, do they care if it's a prior condition? I wonder how long and difficult the process would be. Also worth noting that some countries like Japan ban certain medications like Adderall, so depending on what you need, not all countries can give you the same things you can get in the US.
I never know how to feel about modern life-extending discoveries. Whatever it is, chances are super high I won't have the cash for it.
If I get cancer, I die. That's what I can afford.
I find that to be a bit of odd statement; most "new" technologies are expensive at first, until they're later refined/optimized/begin to benefit from economies of scale. It doesn't sound reasonable -to me- to say "might as well not do any of it, because I probably won't be able to take immediate advantage".
Move to any country with universal healthcare
A nice example of the kind of HN response comment that completely flies past being in any way useful, thoughtful or realistic.
As the other response here mentions, even if one has the financial means to just uproot and "move to another country with public healthcare", there's a whole bureaucracy around doing such a thing that makes it hard in the best of circumstances and absolutely grueling if you need medical support for anything resembling a serious and pressing problem.
Even if you're from a country with universal healthcare, but live overseas long enough to be a non-resident of your home country, going back can involve obligatory wait times for rejoining the system. In Canada, for example, i've known this wait time to be something like three months. Imagine managing that while sick and unable to pay for pricey medical assistance.
Is this a realistic option? Say you're an American and go to Canada or the UK (I don't know where else has universal healthcare off the top of my head, maybe nordic countries). Can you get treatment without being a citizen or owning land, do they care if it's a prior condition? I wonder how long and difficult the process would be. Also worth noting that some countries like Japan ban certain medications like Adderall, so depending on what you need, not all countries can give you the same things you can get in the US.
"Could" is a very charged word in a sentence like that.