It's not "old stuff is better" as much as "I'm better than you."
For a long time, that was by having sharper, higher-quality pictures. Your friend had some Kodak Instamatic and you had a Hasselblad and you could assert your dominance over them.
But nowadays, the phones in everyone's pocket take such outstandingly sharp pictures that there isn't really meaningful room for improvement. So, people now differentiate themselves by getting vintage digital cameras which are hard to find, cost extra money, break frequently, etc., so that they can demonstrate their uniqueness.
When I first had got my nexus 4, my first upgrade over another Android phone that I can't remember, I was astonished by the improved fidelity of the pictures.
Then after I got my next phone I looked back and saw that the pictures had terrible artifacts that weren't hard to find. Now I'm on a Pixel N after having a handful of earlier Pixels and I can see the shortcomings of the photos it takes (and all its predecessors have taken) without much difficulty. Just zoom into the picture a little.
Of course. People are never genuine in their interest or preference of things. It's always about status, wealth, and their standing among their peers. /s
That's an outrageous take. Should they be disqualified for screening and treatment for glaucoma, cataracts, or macular degeneration as they age? What about diabetic retinopathy? There's plenty of conditions that are obviously unrelated to such a procedure where the obvious cause is age. We don't deny breast cancer screening or treatment to women who have had silicone implants, or testicular cancer treatment to men who have had vasectomies. Or treatment for throat and lung conditions to smokers, or diabetes treatment to people who have eaten shit food their whole adult life. Or skin cancer treatment to people with tattoos
If they are willing to pay for this kind of eye surgery out of pocket, then I suppose it is not too much asked that they pay a treatment for glaucoma, cataract or macular degeneration out of pocket.
I'm pretty sure the idea that older people should be denied treatment for conditions that are common at their age [1] because years or decades earlier they did something that has no relation whatsoever to that condition is in fact controversial.
[1] Nearly a quarter of people have cataracts before 70 and 10% of people have some form of age-related macular degeneration by 50.
Medicare isn't "welfare", it's the standard American health system for people over the age of 65. Moreover, there's no good-faith way to call it "welfare". Please stop doing this here; you have other venues for this kind of rhetoric.
> Moreover, there's no good-faith way to call [Medicare] "welfare".
For some context, Wikipedia says:
> In the United States, depending on the context, the term "welfare" ... can also include social insurance programs such as unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Medicare.
Medicare is obviously welfare! It’s a socialized system that involves society paying for medical care for old people, instead of leaving old people or their families to pay for it themselves.
Medicare is obviously welfare! It’s a socialized system where society pays for medical care for old people, instead of leaving old people or their families to pay for it themselves.
Of course whenever you have taxpayers paying for something for individuals, those taxpayers may properly decide to exclude undeserving individuals from receiving benefits.
Well over 90% of Americans aged over 65 are Medicare beneficiaries, most of them having paid into the program throughout their whole lives. I think this argument is probably better suited to your twitter TL.
Say a 68 year old veteran went to a VA doctor for a facial skin cancer, and was denied treatment because when he enlisted 50 years earlier he got a tattoo of his unit on his buttocks.
Do you really believe that denial would not be controversial?
What if he was a retired farmer, the 50 year old tattoo was to commemorate the year he led his high school football team to the state championship, and it was Medicare denying coverage for a facial skin cancer because of that old buttocks tattoo?
About 1/3 of Americans have a tattoo [1]. Of the people without tattoos 66% say seeing a tattoo on someone gives them neither a negative or positive opinion of the person.
A tattoo on the buttocks will not cause skin cancer on the face. (There is a small association between tattoos and skin cancer but that is skin cancers at the tattoo sight, and it is not so much that they cause the cancer but rather make it harder to notice the cancer so it tends to be farther along before detected).
So I don't see how it could not be controversial to cut of Medicare to someone over something that a solid majority don't care about and that almost certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with their skin cancer.
How are age-related conditions the consequences of their actions? And how is someone collecting disability because they can't work because they have a condition that could be (or could have been) treated better than someone being able to work and pay taxes? What you're defending benefits nobody, it's just punishing people for doing something you find distasteful.
The fact you call that opinion outrageous is outrageous itself. Here you have people getting cosmetic surgery which sets them up for risk and yet it’s shocking to you that someone has a different opinion than you? That they’d prefer the money they are forced to contribute NOT go to people who intentionally do risky surgeries? The fact you can’t even see the reasonable difference is insane to me.
It's outrageous because the government pays for medical care so that people don't suffer. It's an inherently compassionate reason. I can't imagine a justifiable position where you think someone should suffer because they can't afford care that the government would otherwise pay for, regardless of the reason for their ailment and regardless if it's a stupid reason. And doubly so if the reason you're denying them care is because they had an elective or cosmetic procedure that almost certainly didn't contribute to their risk factor for the condition they're suffering from. Triply so if it's something debilitating, like blindness.
Even from a common sense perspective, someone who is blind and on disability because they had a risky procedure is unquestionably worse for the country and society than someone who is able to return to work and pay taxes.
What you're advocating for is literally just pettiness. It doesn't benefit anyone. It's not saving the taxpayers money. It's not reasonable in any way.
>It's outrageous because the government pays for medical care so that people don't suffer. It's an inherently compassionate reason.
I don't see why universal or government provided healthcare has to be for "compassionate" reasons. It's perfectly consistent to interpret it as an insurance program, where you pay a premium to avoid catastrophic costs. Indeed in many countries that's how healthcare is structured (eg. [1]).
Is avoiding catastrophic costs not a compassionate reason? Why should someone not be eligible/worthy to avoid catastrophic costs? If someone is paying their premium (be it from a Medicare/Medicaid plan or from their tax dollars), why should they not be covered?
Should we also refuse to rescue people who went hiking in deep wilderness or boating in unsafe waters? Or negotiate the release of citizens taken prisoner by hostile foreign regimes or gotten seriously ill while vacationing against government advice? Since when is it good policy to refuse help to people who have made poor choices or taken risks?
>Is avoiding catastrophic costs not a compassionate reason?
Different people can have different reasons for supporting a program. The fact that you think government provided healthcare is "compassionate" doesn't mean that other people can't think that it's a purely transactional arrangement similar to home or car insurance. A grocery store providing food is arguably "compassionate", in the sense that it stops you from starving, but no one would claim "grocery stores are inherently compassionate".
>Why should someone not be eligible/worthy to avoid catastrophic costs? If someone is paying their premium (be it from a Medicare/Medicaid plan or from their tax dollars), why should they not be covered?
Most other forms of insurance often contain a clause saying that it doesn't cover intentional or negligent damage. If you're doing doughnuts in a parking lot and crash into a pole, that won't be covered by your car insurance.
>Should we also refuse to rescue people who went hiking in deep wilderness or boating in unsafe waters?
AFAIK in some circumstances people get billed for those rescues, so it's not as good as an example as you think it is.
> Or negotiate the release of citizens taken prisoner by hostile foreign regimes or gotten seriously ill while vacationing against government advice? Since when is it good policy to refuse help to people who have made poor choices or taken risks?
At some point.. yes? These sorts of scenarios exist on a spectrum. The state department is probably not going to send in Seal Team Six to extract some kid who traveled to Syria to join ISIS but got cold feet. On the other end of the spectrum are stuff like "preventable" car accidents: most car accidents are arguably preventable (eg. rear ending a car because you were following too close), however such accidents are nonetheless covered by car insurance. Drawing the line at "elective cosmetic surgery" isn't "outrageous".
Everyone takes risks. It's as outrageous as saying that if an elderly person gets in a car accident they should have Medicare coverage dropped. It's impossible to live a risk-free life and that stance comes from a punishment mindset.
The suggestion was that if they get cosmetic eye surgery that should be cut off from screening and treatment for all future eye conditions, not just eye conditions that might have been caused or exacerbated by that cosmetic surgery.
Smoking for example, even though I consider smoking a terrible habit I would never advocate that society should not help pay for their lung cancer treatment.
We already heavily tax cigarettes anyway, so anyone who smokes is basically already paying for their future healthcare needs in small installments.
Besides, I like having an alcoholic beverage every now and then so I need society to help pay for my future liver/colon/throat cancer treatment.
In which case, and I know this is the antithesis of far left ycombonator, maybe everyone ought to be paying their own way and bearing the cost of their own choices. I’m not the person you replied to but I share their outlook on this specific viewpoint.
Adventure insurance is a thing - esp. for mountaineering, scuba diving, skydiving, etc. Alot of healthcare plans wont' cover things like this. They usually cover expenses related to search/rescue or a helicopter ride out from remote areas. I don't think people on government subsidized healthcare are involved in these activates so its not a big deal. To clarify, public health care shouldn't cover complications related to elective or vanity procedures, because they are not necessary.
What about food addicts? It’s well understood that drive negative health outcomes and costs and are under the control of anyone with a decent income. Want ozempic to treat your diabetes? Submit your grocery store purchase history for analysis.
> Submit your grocery store purchase history for analysis.
why not? when you file for unemployment, you need to prove that you're looking for a job. if you want weight lose drugs that cost $1k+/month, you should show proof you aren't being a glutton. we have the technology, just not the political will.
I mean, there's a case to be made there. More often than not, anti-depressants are the first option given when someone is presenting those symptoms. There is little to no effort to address the root cause. It should be a last resort. Sadly young people, esp young girls, are being given these drugs like candy. It should be medical malpractice.
Do you know how those weight loss drugs work? They reduce your appetite. They're literally designed to "fix" the problem of "being a glutton." They don't magically burn more calories or whatever you think they do, they just make you eat less.
You and others with this take are why I'm staunchly against single-payer healthcare. It's seems impossible for it to not get politicized in this manner and be used to effectively control other's behavior in ways that would be flagrantly unconstitutional otherwise.
Folks desperately need to understand the dignity of risk before we can talk about health policy. You're advocating for diet eugenics. There is very little moral hazard to justify your rules because having serious medical problems is awful even without the bill.
I don't live in a socialized-medicine country, but I think this is a solved problem where capitalism still allows one to pay for private health insurance that will cover eye color change surgery.
While I appreciate your effort to avoid constitutional violations related to health care, we already walk all over (and have historically simply ignored) the constitution with regards to zoning, taxation, bank loans, voting, protests, free speech, etc, that this seems like a silly hill to die on, especially given the upsides to single-payer healthcare.
And to be clear, all those constitutional violations are abhorrent and should be actively legislatively and judicially worked against (not executive-ly because that branch almost by definition works against the constitution). But given our history of red-lining, voter suppression, un-banking, rich tax exceptions, NIMBY zoning, etc, I'm okay with single-payer, so long as there are private options if you think surgically modified eye color can make you more employable or improve your quality of life.
I think it's fine that single-payer doesn't pay for cosmetic procedures, it's the parent's take that getting an elective procedure or apparently engaging in any behavior they deem too risky locks you out of healthcare for medical-necessity seemingly forever.
where in the constitution does it say I have to pay for someone's drug addiction rehab or cosmetic eye surgery? i don't expect anyone to cover my vices or vanity. not wanting to fund vice/vanity is not "controlling behavior" .. by all means, kill yourself with substance abuse or change your eye color, but expecting your fellow citizen to bail you out is certainly a form of "control".
Drug-addiction rehab — yes, because that's a medically necessary therapy for people suffering from addiction.
Cosmetic procedures — no, wouldn't be covered.
Locking you out of public healthcare as described by the parent if you have ever engaged in behavior deemed too risky, absolutely not. That is the part that is controlling.
The constitution places limits on the government. Unless you're telling me that you are literally The United States Federal Government, it doesn't apply to you.
Actually, the federal government doesn't interrupt the Constitution, the courts do. Fortunately with the Chevron deference, unelected bureaucrats and "experts" can no longer do whatever they please. Congress, who directly represent the People, will have to craft laws/policy and not the smug busybodies of DC. This is Democracy.
> the federal government doesn't interrupt the Constitution, the courts do
I'm hate to be the one to inform you, but the court system is part of the government. Indeed courts pertaining to federal laws are part of the federal government.
Again, unless you are literally the federal government of the United States, the constitution doesn't constrain your actions.
No need to be obtuse. The judiciary is obviously one of 3 branches of the government, but the federal government as a whole operates within the framework of the Constitution as interpreted by the courts/judiciary. This was established by Marbury v. Madison in 1803: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madis...
In the context of this thread, I was replying to a comment saying that it was "unconstitutional" to "control" public healthcare funded elective procedures, as a form of "eugenics" ... quite ridiculous.
No, you were making a literal statement about the constitution in a way that wasn't logically valid.
It's a common tactic to make an egregious error and the dial it back until with hedges and constraints until the other person concedes. It's embarrassing.
There are plenty of valid ways to make your point. Choose one of those instead.
It’s probably decent policy to simply fire any pilot who ejects. The cost of training a pilot is much lower than the cost of an aircraft and it will make people really think hard about whether they need to eject.
I would bet 90% of people here have at least another laptop if they have a gaming PC, if you’re concerned about being compromised by rootkits, just do your taxes on that.
It wasn’t just Nielsen saying this. Pretty much anybody who knew anything about usability or accessibility was telling people not to use “click here” for links since the 90s, and once Google arrived with PageRank, SEO people started saying the same thing. This has been best practice for at least a quarter century for multiple reasons.
For a long time, that was by having sharper, higher-quality pictures. Your friend had some Kodak Instamatic and you had a Hasselblad and you could assert your dominance over them.
But nowadays, the phones in everyone's pocket take such outstandingly sharp pictures that there isn't really meaningful room for improvement. So, people now differentiate themselves by getting vintage digital cameras which are hard to find, cost extra money, break frequently, etc., so that they can demonstrate their uniqueness.