I case anyone ins wondering why that name sounds familiar.
She’s the sister of former YouTube CEO Susan wojicki (who apparently died since stepping down from YouTube)
Is it still considered a start up? Haven’t they been around for like 10 years no
If it doesn’t have positive cash flow then it’s still considered a startup.
The company was founded almost 20 years ago. At what point is it no longer a startup?
When they are profitable I’m guessing. Usually startups are suppose to grow as fast as they can even if it means running a deficit. Pretty ridiculous imo.
I worked for a company that was roughly 15 years old at the time and still very much in startup mode. In the end, it was a mechanism to shovel lots of money into the pocket of the CEO and some of the investors. It’s why they never grew, aside from incompetence.
I think they are confused on thinking that any private company is a startup.
There’s a company in Brazil that advertise itself as a “100 years old startup”, completely ridiculous.
I suspect that’s the point?
I guess the point is talking about how they’re still disruptive and innovative, buzz words associated with startups.
It’s like when you have a shitty kid that never grows up and is still pissing the bed 20 years later.
Wow don’t call me out like that dude
The bedwetting is probably a symptom of trauma inflicted by shitty parenting. Usually is.
Are we psychoanalysing Anne Wojcicki
Don’t worry, the data will get bought up by the healthcare industry and start using it to deny coverage or to increase premiums.
“You’ve been randomly selected for a rate increase! For no reason at all! Definitely random!” - Your insurance in 2 years, probably
Health insurance industry.
Most people in healthcare hate them too.
I’ve never thought about it like that, but you raise an interesting point. From the point of view of patients insurance is an inextricable part of health care. I’m not so sure you can separate them that easily. Even in Western Europe the trend is towards privatization so when something happens to me health wise my first concern is insurance, never mind the actual problem. It’s a tragedy. Let’s just go back to setting up a mandatory fund and paying out from that without the profit seeking middlemen. We don’t need them.
You know what’s really stupid?
Every American who has private insurance right now, could pay that exact same amount instead to the federal government and let it pay our medical bills, and it would result in more people getting care and less cost for the healthcare industry.
Of course, for some reason, some people are strongly opposed to the destruction of a multi-billion-dollar rent-seeking middleman industry and also opposed to healthcare going to certain, shall we say, melaninistically-blessed Americans.
Every American who has private insurance right now, could pay that exact same amount instead to the federal government and let it pay our medical bills
That’s called a single-payer healthcare system, and it’s a good idea. The government can negotiate pricing for the entire country, rather than having a lot of small insurance companies that are all in it to make a profit.
Australia has a hybrid public/private system where everyone has public health care (so you can see a doctor and get treated even if you don’t have any money), but you can choose to get private insurance if you want to. It’s a decent idea.
Every American who has private insurance right now, could pay that exact same amount instead to the federal government and let it pay our medical bills
Probably pay less and get more access to a wider range of medical services.
Mine costs my employer and myself $15,000 yearly. Colorado marketplace insurance for a “silver” plan (probably very expensive to actually use) is over $8k.
If we all just pooled that money it’d make Medicare for All a reality.
Could a citizen created “Robin Hood” health insurance company incorporate and steal all their lunch?
I think we need the power of the state behind it.
That would be nice, but I can’t see lobbyist allowing it. It state power really essential?
Maybe s co-operative insurance company could fit inside the current framework without legislative change.
(Obviously, I’m just spitballing here)
I’d be really interested to know my heritage but this scenario actively is stopping me from doing so.
It’s okay, you can just be like me and have both your parents do it! They may not know my exact data, but they’ve got enough to guess.
I really don’t get this. I know where my parents and grandparents came from. Should I care if I have Irish or African blood? It baffles me that anyone does. How would that information would change my life? We should be judged by our actions, not by the origin of our distant ancestors.
I think you get disease risk data, which does give you some useful info.
Knowing whether I have First Nations blood on my mother’s side would have real legal benefits for me (my mom is estranged from her family and so has never told me much about them, but there’s some possibility there given their historical context). I know a friend who had to prove he was 1/8 Metis in order to get a job as a web designer with a particular company.
I think it’s ridiculous and flat out racist, frankly, but there are indeed benefits in this day and age from having particular ancestry.
Holy fuck, how is this legal?
There are lots of special considerations for a legal standpoint concerning Native Americans because technically they compromise several semi-sovereign nations within the US’s borders. Some of the treaties the US signed with them during westward expansion are still enforceable.
“Good intentions”, I presume.
My position has always been “if there are people who are disadvantaged then pass laws to help disadvantaged people rather than making the assumption that everyone with a particular set of genetics need help.” I guess it’s just easier to take that shortcut though.
Ah, understood, thanks
I’m of the same mind. Luckily my entire family is fairly skeptical of things like this. While we want to know more about our ancestry (we know the culture we’re from as it’s pretty well documented, we would like to hone down where exactly we’re most likely from. Our last name hints at it in the region but it’s still unclear.) I would rather travel across the ocean and do manual research than give my DNA to any of the ancestry companies.
The people who most benefit from DNA ancestry are people who want to know where they came from but documentation is scarce or non-existent. In the US that group is primarily composed of the descendents of slaves. It can also help people descendent of native groups who only know that they are from some native people of North America identity a particular tribe.
Great point. I can see that being a big draw.
Devils advocate.
If you’re significantly more likely to get cancer, why shouldn’t you pay a higher rate? It’s not fair to me who doesn’t have same likelihood.
Angels advocate.
All you are really saying is “sucks to suck” which isn’t so much a position on policy as it is a statement that under a failed social safety net you believe you would be fine.
Let me tell you something about your future, your body will (hopefully) fall apart slowly. It will be an awful, painful ordeal. Do you want the society you are in to target you as it is happening because your body is breaking down or semi-permanently injured?
Let me answer that one for you, you don’t.
It’s all about stats though, rates. If you have two separate groups that are under insurance umbrellas. Say two separate companies all insured together. One tests with high likelihood for cancer, so across the large group of 5000 people you can be pretty sure about 500 will get cancer and or heart disease. The other only 100 out of 5000.
Those diseases don’t account for all insurance expenses, so we’ll say 5 times the cancer rate means 3 times the total expense. If it’s costing three times as much to insure one group as the other, where should that money come from then? They either need to start paying more overall or folks will start being denied care since the funds aren’t there. Why shouldn’t the group pay more. But then, if it’s more expensive at group a, why wouldn’t those who are not predisposed jump over to group b?
If the US nationalizes healthcare, it also seems unfair that California has to pay for the greatly increased heart disease and obesity rates of Oklahoma and Mississippi.
I acknowledge this is a criticism of insurance as a whole, but we’re seeing these effects across healthcare but also home insurance from climate change.
If I own a house in a forest that’s dried out and dying from bark beetles, sudden oak death, and drought, my insurance is going to cost like 5 times the average. And rightfully so.
You have used many words and referenced many concepts and yet you haven’t changed your argument at all, you are still just saying your position is “it sucks to suck”.
If you don’t care about ethics and empathy and rather subscribe to a rugged individualism where all problems are framed as failures of individuals and our responsibility to care for others only extends so far as the suffering person “deserves”, what is there to discuss?
Your position is you don’t care, one day when your turn comes to be one of those people who needs more help than others your tune will change mighty fast… but if we listen to voices like yours it will be far too late for you then.
I would prefer to point out how foolish your position is and build a world that will care for you when the day comes that you suddenly need more help than you ever thought you would.
I’m not saying don’t give care to folks. Just adjust premiums based on risk. If I picked up smoking my life insurance rates would go up nearly 5x. If I moved to a dead tinderbox forest my home insurance would increase 4x. If I get in an accident or get a DUI my car insurance doubles.
It’s important to take risk into account for insurance premiums, because if you have more claims than you’re prepared for you run out of funds to pay for all the care. Whether it’s nationalized or a private insurance provider, the funds need to be there for the statistical average of care or reimbursement needed.
If the funds aren’t there you end up with situations where folks just get booted off the insurance, or companies refuse to pay. That’s worse. That’s much worse than just paying more.
You just equated doing things that you have at least semi active control over to someone’s genetics predisposing them to certain medical conditions, which they have 0 control over. In their markets, risk is supposed to balance out and make people make less risky choices. You can’t derisk your alleles.
Health insurance is a fundamentally flawed idea, and not because of preexisting conditions, but because of profiteering. We should just optimize the health of our citizens directly by taxing wealthy individuals and companies and paying for the most effective healthcare for everyone. It’s more cost effective for society at large and also serves the greatest cross section of our community, but there just won’t be a profit motive (well there is a motive that by doing better healthcare for everyone in more cost effective ways you lower the overall cost of healthcare for the society, which isn’t so much maximizing profit as it is minimizing cost-benefit ratio).
And by the way, it may be a paper next year finds an allele you have increases your risk of some horrendous disease. The people in this thread are arguing with you that you should still be able to afford healthcare. You’re arguing you shouldn’t.
It’s also not fair to the people who are more likely to get cancer. People don’t choose their genes and the point of society is to reduce the negative effects of things people don’t choose.
Is there a non-paywalled link for this?
I run uBlock and NoScript, no paywall for me. Just nice text.
deleted by creator
Cool. Will it be savable before or after the Nazis use that list of Ashkenazi Jews hackers got from your company as a kill list?
Honestly probably only before, you know?
