Comment by wahnfrieden 3 hours ago
Where is the rule that comments must stay on topic and avoid diversion? It was a more interesting and informative comment than yours that you've restated here (particularly given that being "very covered by Medicare" does not even counter what you originally replied to, as it will not cover all or perhaps even most costs)
“Avoid generic tangents” is up to interpretation. Incidentally, so is “don’t be curmudgeonly”
Also Medicare does not cover long-term care, so if someone gets sick and develops the need for it, they’re paying out of pocket. It is a possibility that a lot of people plan for financially, which is reasonably in the realm of relevance here.
What’s not really relevant here are your personal opinions on what medical costs are or are not generally worth planning for financially.
I found their aside relevant to my interests as a fellow HN reader. The guidelines also advise against fulminating; you made your point, and I think it’s fair that theirs also stands.
I am happy that you are concerned with the guidelines, and I don’t want to protest too much. I appreciate your contributions to HN more than my own most days, and I do hope I don’t rustle your feathers.
> That's fine
seems to conflict with your concerns about the upthread conversation being derailed to a certain reading:
> This doesn't have anything to do with the thread, and hashing this out would tilt a story about Kryptos sharply towards a story on health policy.
As the auction proceeds would ostensibly fund healthcare costs, it seems on topic to muse about the costs being covered by Medicare, or not. If they would be covered by Medicare, the claims of healthcare costs not being met are all the more interesting and discussion-worthy.
This is literally in the guidelines.