> This is the government that did the Tuskegee experiment.
This is not even closed to comparable. So far off that I begin to suspect everything else you said.
The Tuskegee experiments were a limited horrible experiment undertaken by the US government fully aware of the fact that they were performing horrific experiments on the people in the study specifically to see how bad things would get.
The vaccines being rushed through trial are sourced from multiple labs in multiple countries with the hope they will help the entire population. The primarily role the US government plays is to ease the rules and to provide some funding. They are not pushing a particular vaccine, type of vaccine, the trial groups, or any of the other details.
I do. Post your prices online. Make these prices be the non-discounted prices. The chaff will balk at the price and move on. The wheat will call you to find out what more you can do.
I hate calling only to find out you're selling for triple the price of comparables because of "magic beans" reasons.
What about unique circumstances? Say a child or an animal ran out in the road and you changed lanes to avoid them but didn't have time to signal. Or any one of a hundred of these unique but not uncommon situations.
Would there be a mechanism in place to remove your fines and points? Would that system be automated? Would it be susceptible to lying? How long would it take to get the record corrected? Would the effort cost more than the fine?
Just from a technical/automated point of view, removing the moral and societal aspects, the real world is currently just way to complex and ambiguous to automate things like this.
With perfect enforcement, the fine could be small enough (e.g. $2) to be insignificant for most of us (maybe I need to swerve around an animal once per year) but significant enough to deter persistent offenders (who would rack up $20 in fines per journey).
what about someone making $50 / day? Lets imagine you are making just enough to get by and now government wants to roll out an automatic way to take money from your account for minor infractions. How unhappy would you be?
Also on a side note: "...the fine could be small enough (e.g. $2) to be insignificant for most of us..." -> I once said something like that to someone and he pointed out that statements like that was very hurtful to hear, especially coming from someone who does not understand his financial struggles.
That's the phrase that caused people to read negativity into your post. You didn't mean it when you were typing but to those reading the phrase has come to mean, "there's something wrong with the {thing}" or even "that {thing} shouldn't be." Could your paragraph have omitted that sentence and conveyed your meaning or is people knowing you don't understand integral to what you were trying to say?
I also appreciate the humor of @jppope using that same sentence as the lead for his/her comment.
Congratulations on completely not understanding the entire issue of weight gain and obesity research that's been happening for the last 15 years. You win all the prizes.
We ban accounts for being uncivil like this (and below), so please don't do this again. Instead, please (re)-read the following, and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
I have read the guidelines but they don't cover this situation. There doesn't seem to be a way for me to respond (or, especially, not respond) other than like I did. How should I, assuming the following:
-- The literal part of the comment was misinformation.
-- The subtext of the message was flamebait, implying that people are fat simply because they cram too much food down their throats.
-- No response would have just left the false information hanging thus validating the idea. Therefore no response was not a useful option. (Think anti-vaxers. Don't want to leave misinformation alone because it propagates.)
-- A response that talked to the points made in the comment would have validated both the text and subtext even further.
My response pointing out I was aware of the misinformation and the subtext to let the poster know I wasn't going to validate it nor accept it seemed to be the appropriate solution.
What would have been the proper response that would nullify both the misinformation presented in the comment AS WELL AS the subtext?
Comments to HN need to be civil and substantive. The comment was neither. Here's how I look at it:
"Congratulations on completely not understanding" --> snark and personal swipe—definitely uncivil.
"the entire issue of weight gain and obesity research that's been happening for the last 15 years" --> ok, but just mentioning this isn't the same as saying anything substantive about it.
"You win all the prizes" --> more snark and personal swipe
Civility is most important, so if you'd dropped the first and third bits and kept the second, we wouldn't have chided you. But if you wanted to post a good comment, it could have begun like this:
Obesity research for the last 15 years has shown there's a lot more to this. For example, ... and then add something specific.
Don't you understand?! Anything specific would legitimizing the comment and subtext of the posters comment. This feeds into a false narrative that's been going on for years.
Anything without snark would have made the commentator's message seem legitimate! Only the snark shuts down false "scientific sounding" narrative and the fat shaming subtext.
KirinDave's reply, while well intentioned, still feeds into this narrative and allows the commenter to continue arguing that fat people just need to buckle down and stop shoveling food in order to balance calories.
We'll disagree on this. I think a lack of civility and the addition of snark is indeed called for in these types of comments. However, I understand your comments and realize that the mods make the community. Time for me to step away I guess.
It's not really the same thing unless you're thinking of a different bonus than I am. The bonuses I get are typically a couple times a year after a long slog through a difficult or time sensitive part of a project.
A server gets their tips probably about once an hour or so and the amount from one customer may differ with essentially the same service for another customer. Esentially random and arbitrary.
Get outa here. These are red states in red districts. They've been controlled by right wing agenda for years now. If change is going to happen it's going to happen at the local and state level, not at the national level. If nothing's been done it because the republicans choose to do nothing.
It's that mentality that lost the election. A lot of these "red" districts used to be blue not that long ago, especially in the north and midwest.
The modern Democratic party caters so exclusively to urban elites that these people are mostly unrepresented, so they stay home on election day.
It's not so much that they voted for Trump (his numbers were worse than those of Romney and McCain even though the population is larger now), it's that they didn't vote for Clinton.
These are rational people making a decision for themselves if the pain relief is worth and side effects or other Iissues. Let the people of WV make up their own minds and let the market speak for itself.
Seriously though, 'rational' people can also be misinformed by a large corporation and a system which does not necessarily incentivize getting people healthy, and only wish to make their shareholders happy. The 'market' will always try to optimize for profits even at the expense of everything else.
If you allow the young and healthy to purchase plans at one third the price then the old and ill are going to have to pay three or more times more. How are they supposed to afford that after a lifetime of working just above minimum wage?
Without the young paying in during the early years they're going to have annual premiums of $40-50,000 as they approach their 60s.
Might seem backwards, but the goal here would be to turn patients back into customers. Right now, there is no visibility for the individual into prices for services. Without it there is no competition at all to find common, realistic prices for services.
Lower prices should reduce premiums for everyone, since insurance companies have strict margins per the ACA. Lower premiums should increase those that are covered by insurance, hopefully.
Nothing wrong with turning patients into customers. Lower prices will only happen for the young and healthy. Higher prices will be the only possible future for the old and those with pre-existing conditions. The insurance companies are not going to cover a particular class at a loss. They'll just walk away, as they should.
The ACA is going away. Please don't use it as a crutch.
Lower premiums mean higher deductables. We see that now and we saw it before the ACA. Healthcare costs $18,000 per person this year regardless of how you divide the premium and deductable. Take away the young and the price goes up for everyone else. And this is with a cap in place by the ACA. Only going to get worse with the regulations removed.
This is not even closed to comparable. So far off that I begin to suspect everything else you said.
The Tuskegee experiments were a limited horrible experiment undertaken by the US government fully aware of the fact that they were performing horrific experiments on the people in the study specifically to see how bad things would get.
The vaccines being rushed through trial are sourced from multiple labs in multiple countries with the hope they will help the entire population. The primarily role the US government plays is to ease the rules and to provide some funding. They are not pushing a particular vaccine, type of vaccine, the trial groups, or any of the other details.