The culture of dismissiveness relates to people saying sexual harassment isn't rampant or doesn't happen as much in the tech industry as people say.t.
Because that's the nature of news and storytelling. A story of one event gets repeated 1000 times. It's still one event, not 1000. It's news because it's rare, not because it happens to everyone 50 times a day.
Despite article after article, complaint after complaint, despite all the documented evidence, people, yourself included, either make excuses for why it happens or dismiss the accounts outright.
Myself included in fucking what?. I neither made excuses for [sexual harassment] nor dismissed any accounts of [sexual harassment] outright or otherwise.
Maybe people dismiss you and others like you because you casually make false accusations.
People in high responsibility positions like VCs tend to think they're right about things. That's not dismissiveness, that's playing the odds. Odds are, these people understand their own business better than random bystanders. The race or gender of the random bystanders doesn't change that.
Race or gender or other difference probably makes it harder to communicate and change someone's understanding though. That's not a fault, that's humanity.
If they can't make rules that last for 90 or 120 days, then "government screening and vetting procedures" are irrelevant because they can't make rules to screen anyone out after that either. The courts (some of them anyway) were effectively saying the State Department no longer had the authority to decide who gets a travel visa and who doesn't.
Calling someone a racist doesn't help anything. I know that's what you guys live your life for, but if you actually wanted to help people you'd stop pointing fingers first, last, and always, and you might actually try to get along with people and help them out.
Along with locating in high crime areas, they'd also want to stop policing much of the "behavior" that's illegal but doesn't hurt anyone -- and actually "protect and serve" the community instead.
The option to go on Medicare is being taken from them by force of law.
That's a really warped way of saying "not eligible for Medicare". Medicare is a government giveaway program to non-workers over 65. Everyone has the option to go on it after they turn 65.
I wonder if you think lottery prize money is being "taken from you by force of law" because you never won the lottery.
Because health care workers in the US are much better paid than other countries (relative to other trades). This is partly because education costs are out of control, partly because supply of health care workers is artificially restricted, and partly because we've collectively decided we can (and will) afford it.
We also have the best (and most expensive) treatments readily available where some other countries impose waiting lists or deny treatment to some. You will hear a lot of exaggeration on both sides of that though, from "no way, never" to "they waitlist everyone until they die". Neither exaggeration is true.
You should both stop thinking there are quick fixes that the other side is evilly preventing. There aren't. Health care is going to continue to be expensive in the US.
People probably aren't going to agree to any big changes either. Because most people are satisfied with their health care situation. And even if most people weren't, there's not enough trust for a compromise plan to be enacted or for a Democrat plan or Republican plan to be accepted.
But if either one of you wants to be compassionate, do it with your own money.
I'm not sure I'm parsing your response correctly, but are you saying that the high overhead of 13% doesn't matter
Sure it matters. Lots of things matter. I don't think people will give up their choices and agree to a government-only answer to save 13-1.5=11.5%. Do you think they will?
Or are you saying that people should be ok with paying more, because they get "choices", whatever those are?
I'm not telling anyone what they should be ok with. They can decide for themselves what they're ok with. Lots of people are happy to pay extra for things when given a choice to have what they want though.
[silly ad hominems about them naaasty republicans deleted]... extending Medicare to everybody would not cause any problem,
...the overhead of private insurance companies is about 13% in the USA.
And that's 2 or 3 years worth of inflation in health care. Do you think you can get voters to give up all their choices for a 3 year interruption in cost increases?
The goal of a health care system is not to make money. It is to improve health.
Individuals don't care about the "health care system" and are only vaguely interested in aggregate metrics of health. Individuals want choices for themselves and their family, regardless of whether that meets someone's academic policy goals. They're not willing to have their care redistributed by government edict.
The US spends twice as much on healthcare as comparable economies for similar outcomes. Is that inevitable and if so, why?
Read the linked articles. It wasn't inevitable if we'd spent the last 70 years keeping costs from rising. The only thing we need to do to avoid it is to go back in time 70 years and then make different choices through time up to now.
No country has gone from high costs to lower costs over time. Certainly not the U.K.
Tell us your plan for us to go from high costs to lower costs. If anyone (e.g. health care workers) loses out significantly in your plan, please include why you think you would be able to win a policy argument and get lawmakers and voters to support you instead of them.
It appears to be inevitable because it is the result of what voters and politicians want.
Yeah, also humble -- because I don't think my favorite programs should rule over everyone else's and increase while everyone else's favorites should lose out and get cut.
Slashdot Mirror
The culture of dismissiveness relates to people saying sexual harassment isn't rampant or doesn't happen as much in the tech industry as people say.t.
Because that's the nature of news and storytelling. A story of one event gets repeated 1000 times. It's still one event, not 1000. It's news because it's rare, not because it happens to everyone 50 times a day.
Despite article after article, complaint after complaint, despite all the documented evidence, people, yourself included, either make excuses for why it happens or dismiss the accounts outright.
Myself included in fucking what?. I neither made excuses for [sexual harassment] nor dismissed any accounts of [sexual harassment] outright or otherwise.
Maybe people dismiss you and others like you because you casually make false accusations.
Everyone should read PopeRatzo's comment and understand it.
Then think about how much better off you'd be without any of the products or services that were backed by VCs or motivated by profits.
WTF does that mean?
People in high responsibility positions like VCs tend to think they're right about things. That's not dismissiveness, that's playing the odds. Odds are, these people understand their own business better than random bystanders. The race or gender of the random bystanders doesn't change that.
Race or gender or other difference probably makes it harder to communicate and change someone's understanding though. That's not a fault, that's humanity.
There are other, nicer places with better culture.
Uninhabited Pacific islands disagree. They yearn for someone to populate them and clean up the plastic bottles.
If you aren't a religious environmentalist, your bottled water isn't a sin.
"Experts" say "non-experts" are wrong about something.
If they can't make rules that last for 90 or 120 days, then "government screening and vetting procedures" are irrelevant because they can't make rules to screen anyone out after that either. The courts (some of them anyway) were effectively saying the State Department no longer had the authority to decide who gets a travel visa and who doesn't.
Helps no one.
Calling someone a racist doesn't help anything. I know that's what you guys live your life for, but if you actually wanted to help people you'd stop pointing fingers first, last, and always, and you might actually try to get along with people and help them out.
So station them in high crime areas and have them drive 20 minutes to direct traffic at the stadium or whatever other non-emergency thing you need.
Ok, but 90+% (98% ?) of people don't need police at all.
Along with locating in high crime areas, they'd also want to stop policing much of the "behavior" that's illegal but doesn't hurt anyone -- and actually "protect and serve" the community instead.
Having strangers drive in from afar isn't better. Residents would start to trust police if police showed themselves to be trustworthy over time.
So move it there then.
If you know which areas are high crime areas, why not locate the police precinct there?
The option to go on Medicare is being taken from them by force of law.
That's a really warped way of saying "not eligible for Medicare". Medicare is a government giveaway program to non-workers over 65. Everyone has the option to go on it after they turn 65.
I wonder if you think lottery prize money is being "taken from you by force of law" because you never won the lottery.
Because health care workers in the US are much better paid than other countries (relative to other trades). This is partly because education costs are out of control, partly because supply of health care workers is artificially restricted, and partly because we've collectively decided we can (and will) afford it.
We also have the best (and most expensive) treatments readily available where some other countries impose waiting lists or deny treatment to some. You will hear a lot of exaggeration on both sides of that though, from "no way, never" to "they waitlist everyone until they die". Neither exaggeration is true.
You should both stop thinking there are quick fixes that the other side is evilly preventing. There aren't. Health care is going to continue to be expensive in the US.
People probably aren't going to agree to any big changes either. Because most people are satisfied with their health care situation. And even if most people weren't, there's not enough trust for a compromise plan to be enacted or for a Democrat plan or Republican plan to be accepted.
But if either one of you wants to be compassionate, do it with your own money.
I'm not sure I'm parsing your response correctly, but are you saying that the high overhead of 13% doesn't matter
Sure it matters. Lots of things matter. I don't think people will give up their choices and agree to a government-only answer to save 13-1.5=11.5%. Do you think they will?
Or are you saying that people should be ok with paying more, because they get "choices", whatever those are?
I'm not telling anyone what they should be ok with. They can decide for themselves what they're ok with. Lots of people are happy to pay extra for things when given a choice to have what they want though.
[silly ad hominems about them naaasty republicans deleted] ... extending Medicare to everybody would not cause any problem,
Except higher taxes, adverse selection, increased cost shifting to non-Medicare patients, severe hospital budget problems, etc.
[more weird, ranty, hate-fueled conspiracy nonsense deleted]
What is it with you people? Why is "oh no, some insurance company made a profit" worth the frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?
You think hate-fueled screeds are going to convince anyone of anything (other than not to listen to you)?
You're free to start your own charity if you don't like the way churches operate theirs.
Let's just compromise and say that neither one of you understand anything about the healthcare system.
you must be going blind because you missed this part:
I disagree with that part.
...the overhead of private insurance companies is about 13% in the USA.
And that's 2 or 3 years worth of inflation in health care. Do you think you can get voters to give up all their choices for a 3 year interruption in cost increases?
The goal of a health care system is not to make money. It is to improve health.
Individuals don't care about the "health care system" and are only vaguely interested in aggregate metrics of health. Individuals want choices for themselves and their family, regardless of whether that meets someone's academic policy goals. They're not willing to have their care redistributed by government edict.
The US spends twice as much on healthcare as comparable economies for similar outcomes. Is that inevitable and if so, why?
Read the linked articles. It wasn't inevitable if we'd spent the last 70 years keeping costs from rising. The only thing we need to do to avoid it is to go back in time 70 years and then make different choices through time up to now.
No country has gone from high costs to lower costs over time. Certainly not the U.K.
Tell us your plan for us to go from high costs to lower costs. If anyone (e.g. health care workers) loses out significantly in your plan, please include why you think you would be able to win a policy argument and get lawmakers and voters to support you instead of them.
It appears to be inevitable because it is the result of what voters and politicians want.
You should add humble to that list. -_-
Yeah, also humble -- because I don't think my favorite programs should rule over everyone else's and increase while everyone else's favorites should lose out and get cut.