Show HN: Healthcare Is Dumb - <AUTHOR> https://healthcareisdumb.com/ <comment><USER2> Before my father qualified for Medicare he figured out this hack.

He has a severe chronic condition.

Health insurance for him as a self employed person at the time was $4k/month

Tuition at the local public college at the time came with a senior discount for folks in his age group and insurance for $10k/year.

He loved the classes and saved a bundle on health insurance.

He needed a life flight and weeks of hospitalization related to his chronic illness. The insurance had him covered. I think it was a non-trivial payout for the insurance company.

The following year the insurance company changed the terms with the university to charge more if you didn't live on campus.

My father went to a different school with a different insurer after that.

He's finally on Medicare.

We shouldn't tie healthcare coverage to employment in our country.

It's stupidly expensive.

<comment><USER3> Tying health insurance to your employer is incredibly dumb. It means insurarers compete for your employers business, not yours, which influences their incentives. It means if you don't like your insurance company, your only option is to change jobs. It disincitives people from being self employed, because then health insurance is prohibitively expensive.

<comment><USER4> It's not dumb, it's smart for employers who want to trap employees.

<comment><USER5> How does it trap employees? If I'm considering switching jobs, wouldn't my new employer offer the benefit also?

<comment><USER6> Not all providers and plans are the same, so some treatment for some health condition you have that is 75% paid for by insurance might go down to 25% or even 0% (not covered) with your new employer's health insurance plan. You also might just not have another job to go to immediately, like what happened at the beginning of Covid-19, in which you'd either need to pay for your previous insurance in full or cancel treatment.

<comment><USER7> This happened recently to someone I know. They were offered a significant pay bump and a leadership position in a well-respected organization that lines up with their personal goals, but the new employer doesn't offer insurance.

They eventually decided to take the job, but having to even _consider_ healthcare access in that calculus is ridiculous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I find it sad, yet interesting, how many things/institutions/processes have built up in a way that you would never actively choose as an option.

As in, if given the choice between building the current system and some alternative, there is no way you'd say, "for sure, build again what we have now, it's great".

Yet that's what we kind of do every year implicitly by continuing through inertia. Healthcare, financial/banking, transportation, rocket launches, etc.

I guess that's how a country gets old and slow -- too many legacy things that have to be supported or can't be changed without disruption to people's established habits or ways that they've come to rely on. (or make a profit from)

And it's not until some outside actor shows you it's possible that you're shocked into knowing that it can be done differently. Or forced to do it differently out of necessity now.

<comment><USER9> I am currently in government. I would say that most processes are not really designed at all. They are the sum of a lot of other decisions kludged together.

We are currently putting together a software system for managing parking contracts and in doing so are excruciatingly copying how those contracts are currently handled (often to an absurd level). Nobody thinks the current process makes sense, but here we are baking it into a mega project.

<comment><USER10> Here's a whole article about that! "Kludgeocracy in America" (2013)

[https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/kludgeoc...](https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/kludgeocracy- in-america)

<comment><USER10> Posted in its own thread:

Kludgeocracy in America (2013) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24310523](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24310523)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I built a spreadsheet showing how many credits you have to take at a school to qualify for their health insurance plan. In many states, the cost of taking the class + health insurance costs is actually lower than monthly premiums for a plan within the state.

<comment><USER11> What would this do to the university or state's finances if a ton of people did it? Would it make budget shortfalls? Or do insurance companies just make less from those plans?

<comment><USER12> Perhaps college plans are inexpensive in part because those insured are generally younger and healthier than the overall population? If a representative sample of the general population did this, presumably the prices would adjust upward.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is part of it, however there's positive price pressure from "anti- selection".

Basically healthy young students are more likely to already be insured or be on their parents plans so they opt-out more frequently.

Wrote a thread with more deets the other day: [https://twitter.com/AnthonyCastrio/status/129870277198685798...](https://twitter.com/AnthonyCastrio/status/1298702771986857989)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's wild that less than $500/month for health insurance is a win in the United States

<comment><USER14> For comparison, in the UK we spent £197.4 billion in 2017, or approximately £2,989 spent per person [0]. Which works out as:

~£250/per person/per month. Which is $330. Or $350 adjusted for inflation since 2017.

That covers _everything_ : emergency room, ambulances, giving birth, cancer treatment. Everything: no copays (except very small ones (<£10) for prescription medicines). And it covers the entire population.

* Except dentistry. For some reason that is separate.

[0]: [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/bulletins/ukhealthaccounts/2017#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20spending%20on%20healthcare,equal%20to%209.7%25%20of%20GDP).

<comment><USER15> The median salary in the UK is £24,400 (ONS, 2018)

        +£2,033 paid per month
        -£  149 national insurance (healthcare, welfare, etc.)
        -£  198 income tax
        =£1,686 take home pay (=$2,224)

The median salary in the US is $49,764 (BLS, 2020)

        +$4,148 paid per month
        -$  317 social security
        -$  357 federal tax
        =$3,474 take home pay

=$1250 per month in favour of the US median earner.

$1250 per month should go a fair way to covering health insurance premium, deductible, co-pays & drugs (these are all £0 in scotland)

<comment><USER16> If you make too much below the median salary in the US, you probably still can't afford health insurance.

Also consider that everything isn't covered when your employer pays for your health insurance. Americans still have a lot of out-of-pocket costs.

And remember that there are a lot of people who are unemployed or underemployed, or work under arrangements that don't provide them health insurance at all. They also probably make a bit less than the median salary. So sure, maybe 50+% of the US could afford their own health insurance, but is it ok there's some percentage, regardless of how small, that can't afford it and has to do without? I say no.

<comment><USER17> If you make too much below the median salary in the US, you either qualify for Medicaid (at best) or direct ACA subsidies (at worst).

<comment><USER16> Sure, but there are several bands of income levels where you're basically screwed. The ACA subsidies have some phasing in/out based on income levels, but they're far from perfect, and depend on often-unreliable definitions of the "poverty line".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> While I think this project and the data are interesting, one thing that becomes problematic is that you actually DO have to invest time in whatever courses you register for at most colleges and universities (or at least the ones that I've seen).

Generally, if you aren't making adequate progress in a course, you can be dropped by the instructor mid-semester/quarter or placed on academic probation, both of which can cause you to fall below the minimum number of credits needed to be eligible for healthcare coverage.

So while you may save some money on health insurance, you lose a potentially large amount of time due to having to keep up with coursework to maintain eligibility.

That being said, this may not be a problem if they are courses you are actually interested in and can dedicate time to completing.

<comment><AUTHOR> 100%

This works out best if you're taking classes that are relevant to you so that you're getting value from the time spent as well.

Otherwise your goal should be to find the easiest most phone-in-able class possible.

<comment><USER19> > _Otherwise your goal should be to find the easiest most phone-in-able class > possible._

Thanks, COVID!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> $500/MONTH is considered cheap? gosh damn, I'm sorry USA but you really, deeply fucked yourself over on this one..

<comment><USER21> How much do you pay per month for health insurance where you live? (Or if you don't know, how much does your country spend per capita on healthcare?)

My wife and I pay way less than $500/month, but her employer pays some of it so I'm not sure what the total cost is. When I was looking for it on my state's healthcare exchange it was also considerably cheaper than $500/month, but then since I was unemployed at the time, it ended up being free.

Healthcare in the US is a real problem that needs to be resolved, but it's not a simple situation.

<comment><USER22> The US _government_ spends around as much or more on healthcare per capita as any country with socialized healthcare. Every penny that you pay and your employer pays on your behalf is due to graft/rentseeking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The data here may not be totally accurate, but the sentiment is right. For my local school it's showing the marginal cost of the first credit hour, but the average cost per credit hour is substantially lower once you get to the minimum number of credit hours to qualify for insurance. After correcting for that mistake it cut the monthly cost for tuition+insurance for my local school in half. In addition, some schools offer insurance for spouses and children as well, which usually drives the cost per person down even further. For our situation, the total cost of tuition (9 credit hours per semester) plus insurance (2 people) is about $870 per month. A comparable ACA-compliant insurance plan would be about $1,000 per month.

Even with a "gold level" insurance plan we ended up spending around $4,000 for an accident that occurred on campus that required an ambulance to the University hospital (1 mile away) and about 4 hours in the emergency room to get stitches and confirm that a head injury was not a concussion. It's hard to visualize how much money has been legally stolen from the American people over the last few decades due to the giant scam that is the health insurance industry. The combined salaries of every single doctor in America could be paid for with 8% of what we spend on healthcare every year. If you add in the salaries of nurses, pharmacists, drug researchers, etc. it's probably under 25% of what we pay. Unfortunately there are literally millions of middlemen and unnecessary administrators who soak up a very large percentage of healthcare spending without really doing anything.

Canada and Australia spend less than half as much per capita as we do on healthcare despite having similar levels of GDP per capita and better average life expectancies. If the US could save 50% on healthcare we could probably solve climate change single-handedly. This is not even an exaggeration, it's an illustration of just how much we spend on healthcare.

<comment><USER24> Eastern/Western Washington State University is listed...

[https://cougarhealth.wsu.edu/studentinsurance/insurance- cove...](https://cougarhealth.wsu.edu/studentinsurance/insurance-coverage- assistance/)

[https://inside.ewu.edu/bewell/optional-medical- insurance/](https://inside.ewu.edu/bewell/optional-medical-insurance/)

This spreadsheet is inaccurate, at best. Also, what kind of insurance matters. I can get you 50$ a month insurance that wont cover anything. Without context, this spreadsheet is a big list of rumours for you go look up and be disappointed.

<comment><USER25> I'm curious how one would actually sign up for $50/mo insurance that doesn't cover anything. How is it marketed? Where is this sort of thing found?

(The argument being that there's got to be some kind of fraudulence-meets- loophole sort of thing going on for this to work at all.)

<comment><USER24> Getting foreign car insurance is pretty common, which gets you nothing when you try to make a claim in the US. For healthcare it goes down to 30$ (that I've found, I assume it's more like 50 per employee with their business healthplan), again with the vast majority of claims being rejected - eg Apria Healthcare. You might need to learn to speak some Tagalog.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I wonder how many of those schools would kick you out for never showing up and failing all your courses every quarter.

Maybe you could filter this list for those schools.

Or perhaps you could subcontract our your schooling online and just pay people to do the minimum required to get a passing grade. :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> If you don't show up to class then technically you won't qualify for a lot of these plans.

In the policy they require in-person classes.

How that's going to work this year with online-only classes is an open question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Looking at the first plan on the list, Auburn: [https://www.uhcsr.com/uhcsrbrochures/Public/BenefitSummaryFl...](https://www.uhcsr.com/uhcsrbrochures/Public/BenefitSummaryFlyers/2020-38-1%20Summary%20Brochure.pdf)

On first blush, this looks like _phenomenally_ good coverage for the cost. $1970 for the year. $7150 out of pocket maximum. 80% coinsurance after a $250(!) deductible.

The ACA limited how much cost discrimination insurance companies can do by age, and I am wondering if college plans are a workaround - it's not _age_ descrimination, per-say. But the risk associated with students is much, much lower than on the marketplaces.

<comment><AUTHOR> College plans are considered "special-risk" plans and therefore aren't obliged to follow ACA guidelines at all.

So they can do tricky stuff ACA banned like have low lifetime maximums, exclusions, and kick you off the plan when you drop out of school because you're too sick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> OP actually confirms my long term suspicion. Thanks!

For the longest time, one of my early retirement plan is to simply go back to school, learn everything that excites me and enjoy the health insurance offered by the school.

</comment><comment><USER29> I think this math is off, as it assumes a single semester lasts a full year. For a full year you would need to pay for multiple semesters of tuition, probably 3 at most universities to cover the summer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Let me double check, should be multiplying semester by 2 when necessary.

Annual insurance fee is already calculated annually.

<comment><USER18> Portland State is actually on a quarter system, so you'd need to multiple those values by 3 or 4 (depending on if you include the Summer quarter or not).

Source: I'm a Portland State alumnus.

<comment><USER30> I thought about summer as well. I checked my alma mater's web site. Seems you can get year-round health insurance without registering for summer classes.

The exception is when summer is the first time you attend and you want to start insurance before fall. Then you need to meet minimum hour requirements.

I'd guess most schools are similar because otherwise they'd practically force every student to take summer classes. But it's good to verify.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I just checked, and I paid 189,60 € for my health insurance last month, in Germany.

<comment><USER32> Does that include the healthcare-related taxes you paid? Not being snarky, genuinely wondering.

<comment><USER33> [https://www.krankenkassen- direkt.de/themen/thema.pl?id=47494...](https://www.krankenkassen- direkt.de/themen/thema.pl?id=474948)

The public insurance which covers 88% of the population gets 15 billion tax EUR annually, with total revenue of public insurances being 250 billion.

[https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/192409/umfrag...](https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/192409/umfrage/einnahmen- und-ausgaben-der-gesetzlichen-krankenversicherungen-in-deutschland/)

So most money comes from the insured people. The maximum you pay for the public insurance is 703€ per month, and it covers your children and non working spouse.

<comment><USER34> Note that the cost is split with your employer. So the maximum you will have to pay is €365/month I think. Less if you income is not high.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> So many things in healthcare are screwed up. I was in IT for 20+ years and ready to move into law when a healthcare IT management job fell in my lap. 5 years later I still love healthcare IT because there is SO MUCH OPPORTUNITY to improve things, save money, make things better for users and patients. The entire system needs an overhaul, but the really odd thing is that as a nation (USA) we actually CAN do all the things we need to fix it. It's all payment and administrative stuff we need to fix.

<comment><USER36> It's unrolling the entire system of economic incentives that needs to be fixed. This is going to be monstrously difficult... there is lots of potential to improve healthcare but actually trying to achieve it is a bit Quixotic.

<comment><USER35> Nah, we can fix it chunk by chunk. It's actually doable. People IN healthcare WANT it, so that helps a lot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> You can do something similar in Germany to get access to cheap public transport.

Just enroll in an University which cost around 280€ for half a year. This will get you a ticket which you can use in busses and trains for quite some distance. Usually a whole Bundesland (County or whatever the US equivalent is).

This is a fraction of the cost of a regular ticket and nobody checks if you pick an unpopular field like physics.

I know people doing this for many years.

And yes the US should totally get a proper public Healthcare system...

<comment><USER38> Where I lived (Kraków, Poland; but arguably, similar schemes apply across the country), you'd get half-priced tickets if you're a student under 26. After finishing their 5 years at the uni, many people then sign up with whatever private school offers the cheapest nonsense course in underwater basket weaving or whatnot, and continue to use the public transport for half the price (as well as using many other discounts for things like trains, cinemas, etc., for which a student card makes you eligible).

<comment><USER39> My friend did something similar - he started studying _something_ at the University of Warsaw's Faculty of Education - really easy to get in and since this is UW, academic progress is judged on an annual basis.

He even showed up there a few times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Where can I find more stories like this where someone who has a familiarity with a system finds some form of leverage that is often overlooked? stuff like this excites me

<comment><USER41> In the UK there is moneysavingexpert.co.uk that sometimes goes to ludicrous lengths to save a quid (a British pound)!

Think sign up for a credit card using a cash back site to buy an easy jet plane ticket using a promo code to fly for free kind of thing!

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I guess you have to actually try to pass the class as well, right? Otherwise you trash your academic record and/or jeopardize your ability to do this again next year.

That not only requires your time, it might also require you to spend money on textbooks, etc.

Although maybe not if there are schools that let you drop all your classes but stay eligible for health insurance for the rest of the term.

<comment><AUTHOR> You don't have to pass the class you just can't get kicked out of the school.

One BIG caveat with these plans is that coverage ends if you leave school.

That's how the insurers cover their asses. They're able to provide cheaper plans because many of the sickest will drop out.

It's dumb.

Read this article by Charles Gaba for deeper insights than I can muster: [http://acasignups.net/20/08/26/updated-how-much-can-risk- poo...](http://acasignups.net/20/08/26/updated-how-much-can-risk-pools-vary- heres-stunning-real-world-example)

<comment><USER42> That's not dumb, that's evil.

<comment> kube-system Or neither dumb or evil, but just an expected result of the way group insurance works.

1\. University: Has group of people they want to insure

2\. Insurer: Measures risk of that group

You're either in the group or your not. Sick people drop out of school not because insurance is making them drop out, but because academics is hard to do when your health issue prevents you from doing so.

The people at fault are your representatives, who forgot about university group plans when drafting COBRA.

<comment><USER42> As long as it exists, private health insurance will incentivize providers to cherry-pick, lemon-drop, and sell insurance that they have every intention of not making good on. Those are the core "innovations" they are in a position to deliver, and they are the core innovations that get delivered. The concept is evil, the act of carrying it out is evil, and regulators are to blame precisely to the extent that they allow private health insurance to exist in the first place. They are complicit, to be sure, but "simply following incentives" does not absolve the private side of this equation from moral responsibility. Legal responsibility, yes, moral responsibility, no. Hence: evil.

<comment> kube-system What would a moral insurance company do to fulfill their moral obligation in the above example?

<comment><USER42> Are they a company that maximizes their profit or are they moral? In this case, the profit motive points in the wrong direction, so they can't be both.

<comment> kube-system The implied "all for-profit companies are evil" argument is radically oversimplified, IMO. It is possible to maximize profit by efficiently providing value.

Most of the downward pressure to cut corners in any industry is not from profiteers but from customers themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> That...is actually kind of clever.

Wonder how long before these loopholes get shut down.

<comment><AUTHOR> In the ideal world this loophole would be made irrelevant by universal healthcare.

Realistically the minimum credit hour requirements might be increased at some schools, but otherwise if you take advantage of this system you're pretty much using the system as designed.

Insurers already account for the fact that healthy and insured students are less likely to opt-in for their student health plans.

<comment><USER44> That was the ideal with ACA (since taxpayer funded healthcare is such a bad word for many US voters), but the voters got up in arms about having to pay for others' healthcare so they got to keep their silo'd school/church/employer health insurance pools.

<comment><USER45> It probably was insurance companies that got up in arms about it rather than voters since insurance companies are incentivized to silo their clients as much as they can. Also insurance companies are the ones who have actual say in the matter of writing the law compared to the voters.

<comment><USER44> I remember people being pissed off their premiums went up because people with pre existing conditions and pregnancy and whatnot had to be covered now.

People are still pissed off about having to pay increased premiums so more people can get more healthcare.

Insurance companies, by statute, can earn up to 15% to 20% of healthcare expenses they pay for, so increasing the population they cover is in their interest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> One of these is a medical school. Can you imagine?

You apply, you get admitted, you go to your first class. You meet young bright-eyed students.

"I want to be an oncologist! My aunt's battle with cancer really inspired me."

"I want to be a neurologist. The brain is just so fascinating!"

"I wanted health coverage."

<comment><USER47> A Soviet Russia joke goes:

A toy factory worker wanted to get his son a nice toy for Christmas, but couldn't afford it. So he sneaks out a single component from the factory every day. When he assembled it, it turned out to be a machine gun.

The topical American joke would be:

At a medical school graduation party, the whole class started discussing their future career prospects. It turns out that none of them would become doctors; all of them joined for the healthcare coverage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Any idea what level of coverage you get for these rates? It's hard to compare these options to exchange plans, some of which are significantly cheaper. I tried doing it for Rutgers, but the site they use won't let me see plans without a student ID number.

<comment><AUTHOR> Most of the plans you can find on the school website's with some digging.

Some common gotcha's are low lifetime maximums and exceptions. Also, the the sickest students are most likely to drop out of school and lose their coverage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Are you eligible for health insurance with these universities if you live out of state?

</comment><comment><USER50> The monthly cost for health insurance through using Cal Maritime ($627) is more than what I spent for health insurance for a single person via COBRA ($494.36) in California from 2018 - Spring 2019.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you qualify for COBRA or Medicaid that might be a better option.

California is also an odd bird in general and a lot of their public schools didn't offer a student health plan for part time students that I could find.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I'm sorry USA that this site needs to exist for you guys. Hope you get affordable healthcare soon :-(

It should be $0 and no hack required, for all, ideally at point of care (so no invoice).

</comment><comment><USER51> When I quit my job a couple of years ago, I bought my own insurance for about $400 a month. This was not done via COBRA.

I don't fully understand the need for this. Can someone explain?

</comment><comment><USER52> Won't this drive up the costs for students in the long run?

<comment><AUTHOR> Mentioned in another reply, but insurers already take into consideration the fact that sicker students are more likely to need their insurance. This is mitigated by lower maximums than normal and the fact that the sickest students will tend to drop out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I might be misunderstanding this chart, but it appears the author is saying that by enrolling for the minimum number of credits, you will receive the associated insurance for free. For at least one university listed -- Penn State -- that is not true. You must also purchase the insurance plan.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, you also have to opt-in and pay the annual premium.

This is included in the cost calculation (see notes section at the bottom for details).

<comment><USER53> OK, I did misunderstand. The numbers make more sense now. I believe step 3 "enroll, get that cheap insurance" should make this a little more clear. (It's not just the act of enrollment that gets you the insurance.)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a good point, and also kind of an unintentional pun since enroll could refer to either enrolling in school or enrolling in the healthplan.

Some (many?) schools you are enrolled automatically to the healthcare plan unless you opt-out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> > US Healthcare Is Dumb FTFY

</comment><comment><USER55> this is kinda brilliant.

</comment><comment><USER56> > Health insurance in the United States is expensive (duh). Healthcare through > a university is less expensive. Using this website you can find insurance > for less than

...

> $500 per month.

 _jaw drops to the floor_

The fact that "just" paying $500 per month (in premiums, I assume?) is considered an improvement...

</comment><comment><USER57> Its this a big issue for most on HN? If even junior engineers are making $200k these days they should have pretty nice health plans.

<comment><USER58> I'm a mid-level engineer making half that. Please point me towards these entry-level jobs that are offering $200k.

<comment><USER57> My comment was mostly a poke at the claim on HN and elsewhere that starting engineers make a vast amount of money.</comment></comment></comment>


Estelle Caswell breaks down rap music in a nerdy wonderful way - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11701976/rapping-deconstructed-best-rhymers-of-all-time <comment><USER2> Rakim doesn't show up until #37, accuracy doubtful.

<comment><AUTHOR> ha! i have no idea who Rakim is but I take your word for it.

<comment><USER2> You've got some listening ahead of you: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6aAFkP0BGU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6aAFkP0BGU) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TN- kDEKxF0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TN-kDEKxF0)</comment></comment></comment>


Why being told you are wrong is a gift - <AUTHOR> http://nosrednahsoj.com/post/138470134726/why-being-told-you-are-wrong-is-a-gift <comment><USER2> I agree that having someone tell me I'm wrong is useful, but it seems to me that we couldn't possibly all be dependent on someone telling us before we know. What about the scientific method?

Reminds me of a famous video clip, "Feynman on the scientific method". "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong"

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. Maybe it isn't always a human that tells us. Something or someone informs us we are wrong. We just have to pay attention and keep an welcome the information.</comment></comment>


How far can an untrue rumor spread?  Outer space music, indeed.  Ha, Ha - <AUTHOR> http://time.com/4232274/apollo-10-music-moon/?xid=homepage <comment><USER2> <It is true that the Apollo 10 astronauts did hear something they could not quite explain cutting through the crackle in their headsets when they were on the far side of the moon. It is true too that they called it "music"...>

OK, but why does the author open with the canard about a cassette recorder?</comment>


Ask HN: Do you reply to recruiter emails? - <AUTHOR> Is it rude to just ignore them? Do you use canned responses? I used to reply to each of them individually but it doesn't scale. Now I tend to ignore them but it only seems to make the problem worse as some recruiters send multiple follow up pings. <comment><USER2> My rules of thumb:

This is business - it's never rude to just ignore something that you're not interested in, unless it's from someone you know personally.

I always ignore the ones that seem like form letters. They are very generically worded notices for a short-term contract in a faraway city (eg. "Immediate opening for Ruby with ITStaffingPros at Portland, OH"). These people don't usually ping twice, and if they do, they all look the same to me anyway. They actually look so similar that I have filters in my email for keywords that I've learned to associate with low-quality job notices to go straight to spam.

I tend to answer or return cold calls only when I'm actively looking. Otherwise I just ignore them, or at most I shoot them an email saying I'm not currently in the market.

When I get a message from a recruiter who seems like they've actually done some research on me as an individual (and not just someone spamming to a database of leads), I'll usually respond to them even if I'm not actively looking. I've noticed these recruiters tend to be the ones with the best positions so I like to have them in my network.

I never speak in an impolite or rude way to a recruiter.

<comment><USER3> I do a lot of consulting, so I'm always looking for short contracts, especially if they are mostly remote.

I respond to almost every recruiter (even the generic emails) with something like:

"Hey _____, I would like to discuss this project further. A little about myself: I own a small consulting firm with 2 employees and depending on the work load 1-10 contractors. When you hire me, you are actually hiring my firm. We bill at $100 per hour plus T&E. If you would like to discuss this possibility further, you can schedule an appointment with my assistant (her email). Shoot over a few times, and she will get back with you if it works."

It gets rid of most of the riffraff and I don't have to put much thought into proposals. I've only gotten 3 gigs this way, but I have grown my network of contacts a bit.

BTW - My "assistant" is my sister-in-law who edits books and stories for a side business of mine, and the only other W-2 employee beside myself (2 employees).

<comment><USER4> That's honestly pretty fantastic. How do you generally find your consulting work? Do you just use your existing network of contacts?

<comment><USER3> Yeah, or I reach out to product developers I like to see if they need any support, and sometimes product developers reach out to me thanks to my HN and Quora comments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I respond with something along the line of "I'm not looking right now but thanks for thinking of me." if it's a recruiter I know or if they sending me a targeted email. I ignore the spammers.

I _never_ add recruiters to my Linked network for the simple reason is that it would give me a lot of 2nd level connections with people I have nothing in common except that we both were contacted by the same recruiter once.

<comment><USER6> I treat my LinkedIn connections like my Facebook friends list in the sense that I delete people that reduce the quality of the service for me. In LinkedIn's case, I will initially connect to avoid the InMail charges to talk to them. However, if nothing happens because of the communication, I will remove them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yes and even though I'm happy with my current position, I typically inquire if the position comes with a semi-unreasonable but still believable salary to help move the needle on wages for my fellow engineers.

<comment><USER8> holy shit this is amazing, thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> They are sending hundreds of thousands of templates that all basically the same thing.. I doubt they care if you respond or not. They are trying to recruit you for their commission.

On LinkedIn, where recruiters are a dime a dozen, I am always willing to network with anyone, BUT ... we're approaching the year 2018. If you don't have a photo, I am suspicious of you on LinkedIn... no excuse to be a on professional service and not at least have a photo of yourself.

</comment><comment><USER6> I glance at them, but only respond if they've actually taken the time to reach out in a personalized fashion. If the email reads like a mail merge, it's going into the spam folder.

I've also learned the hard way to do my own homework. I will never reply to a cold email until I have had a chance to look up details about the company, the recruiter themselves, etc.

</comment><comment><USER10> Ignore completely if they get the skill match wrong or don't address me by name, auto-delete filter set up if they chase up still with the wrong skills/name.

Canned response if they don't list: Permanent role, Required skills, Location, Salary, Perks/Benefits, Paid time off

Personal response if they do list those, the job looks interesting, and pays well

</comment><comment><USER11> No, nor do I speak to people who cold call.

<comment><USER12> This.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > only seems to make the problem worse as some recruiters send multiple follow > up pings.

It's an amusing problem, so many bozo recruiters – – only one of you. If you ever aspire to a leadership role; pay attention to the 'good ones'. You may want to enlist their services to build your team.

<comment><USER14> Even if you don't aspire to leadership, pay attention to the good ones. You may want a new job someday. (I keep them in a file for exactly this reason. Haven't used it in a long time. But if the day comes when I need it, I'll be very glad to know some non-bozos.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Business is business and if the recruiter knows both his sh*t and mine (from my profile) then game on.

</comment><comment><USER16> I mostly read, but ignore them. I have a hard enough time getting back to friends and family. I do feel a little guilty about it and feel I should be more proactive about it sometimes.

</comment><comment><USER17> Usually not. Most are generic and or automated. If I am contacted in a way that makes it feel it is a unique and personal contact then yes. Otherwise no.

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't think it is rude to ignore them. They are probably mass messaging people anyway. If I do want to respond I use a short non-canned response.

</comment><comment><USER19> I always respond to linkedin inmail because you're going to get deranked in employer searches if you don't. Paying to contact someone is a decent gatekeeper and means they were at least somewhat serious. I don't currently care about inmail but I see the usefulness of the service and don't want to be ranked out of it for being unresponsive.

</comment><comment><USER20> I generically but politely decline the ones I don't care for and respond to the interesting ones. If I had ignored them all, I wouldn't have my current job.

I also try to be open-minded about opportunities by occasionally interviewing for positions I don't think I want. This helps me practice my interview skills and keeps me open to surprises of fortune.

</comment><comment> juicy-fruit If an Amazon recruiter emails you, just ignore them. Don't waste your time.

I've had three Amazon recruiters reach out to me (I have no idea how they found my email since I never applied to Amazon), and every time I reply that I AM interested, they never reply.

</comment><comment><USER21> yes, why not? i keep it polite. they are just doing their job

</comment><comment><USER22> I ignore them. In the past, whenever I've politely responded no, it seemed to be a signal for them to keep trying to talk to me, or to try again in three months, when the whole point was to get them to stop talking to me.

Worst, though, is when they somehow get ahold of your phone number (or, in a recent case, call, then text about how they've just called). This is just straight up creepy as I don't lightly give my phone number out. In these cases I do take the time to ask them to please stop.</comment>


Chilling the Messenger – Keeping ego out of software-design review - <AUTHOR> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2962575 <comment><USER2> I've run up against this time and time again. Here's what you need to do:

1\. Realize that bad code < interpersonal relations.

You have to realize that even if you win, you can loose. Turning something into an argument (ESPECIALLY when you know you are right) can end up creating animosity and division in the team. Realize that most managers will refuse to do anything about technical arguments. They hear:

"blah blah blah blah. Your wrong" "blah blah blah blah. No your wrong."

Which (in their mind) translates into "These two can't get along". There is NOTHING worse in the mind of a manger than two SE's that bicker over what they see is a 'trivial' argument.

Your always going to have that 'special' engineer that you simply can't stand at your job. However, when that guy puts forth a terrible idea, let him/her sink or swim on it. You can put forth your own idea, however, if you get shot down, let him/her (and the manager) own the results.

A manager that sees that you can accept something without argument, even when you disagree, is worth more to him/her than the 'right' technical solution.

2\. Working code > 10x meetings.

When ever you have technical differences - write working code to show the solution! Meetings with managers over technical problems never work because managers frequently don't understand the merits of what is being discussed. The entire point of these meetings is to see if you + other can resolve your differences.

Forget the talk sessions. Write up a working example and then show it off. Frequently managers don't understand the technical implications of something, but they DO understand that working code, gets them to delivery faster. Make the case, that your solutions is faster + easier.</comment>


Can You Build A Successful Company "Outside the Bubble"? - <AUTHOR> http://www.erica.biz/2012/austin-vs-silicon-valley/

<comment><USER2> Being from Texas I've always wanted to do a start up in Austin, but as the article mentions, there's this pervasive notion that you have to be in SF/SV in order to get any real traction or attract any real talent. Is anyone familiar with the Austin scene and is the article right in saying the community is really starting to materialize into a competitive threat to the Silicon Valley? I'm stuck between trying to go to grad school (Computer Engineering) at Stanford/Berkley or at UTAustin and this article has made UTAustin sound much more appealing.</comment>