That topic should be a non-starter as long as US government policy is to keep shitting in the food bowl. There's way too many communities living under the toxic spill or waste of some unregulated industrial process -- and the country seems perfectly ok with that kind of "lifestyle". I really don't see why we should villify individual lifestyle choices when the entire country is happy with intentionally harmful policy choices.
So, if health insurers want to start charging premiums I suggest they send their bills to Superfund sites first, then to regular toxic cities like Flint, Camden, Hinkley or Picher, then to producers of known-carcinogenic substances (like Chrome-6 or Roundup), and then to advertisers of known-harmful products like alcohol or tobacco. Only when they run out of those targets can we have a discussion on individual lifestyle choices.
OK cute rant but do you have a realistic proposal? I absolutely agree that we should do more to reduce exposure to toxins but there's no legal mechanism for health plans to shift costs that way. Ultimately some of the money spent caring for others with lifestyle-related chronic conditions is going to come out of your pocket through insurance premiums and taxes. This is inevitable. Are you willing to pay more for people who choose to smoke and get lung cancer / emphysema / heart failure / etc? Yes or no?
There's very little tobacco advertising anymore so we're not going to squeeze many dollars out there.
Desk jobs like programming are nearly as bad as smoking based on some of the research I’ve seen. We could just make smokers and programmers pay higher taxes. I guess smokers already do; learned recently that cigarettes are like $10 a pack, a few thousand per year for the average smoker. Not sure how best to tax programmers though.
Why do you immediately call charging the worst polluters for the bad health effects of their pollution "unrealistic"? Having a sufficient answer to that question seems like a good basis to start your proposal from.
Realistic in this administration? No. They will keep taking and taking from the working class and pitting them against one another. There's no solution there when the government is actively looking to sabatoge the system.
Arguing over tobacco premiums is pennies on the dollar. Pretty much every other civilized country has figured something out with regards to universal healthcare. I'm sure there's dozens of solutions out there to choose from. The only real steps to take right now is to have Americans stop licking the boot and actually push for something that helps them.
Socialized healthcare means that the State has a direct financial incentive to reduce or ban consumption of poisonous goods, and crackdown on pollution.
There is no single root cause in a complex system of checks and balances. Many parts need to fail for things to get as bad as they are now. Trying to reduce everything to a single fault is either stupid populism or blatant propaganda.
IMHO the highest court, which is tasked with delivering timely justice, ought to make their decisions in a reasonable amount of time, and not allow legally questionable executive actions to continue while the legal question is unanswered.
You may consider that populist, but my opinion is that SCOTUS has derelicted their constitutional duty in these trying times.
I agree, but derelicition of duty by SCOTUS during this regime does not explain why a 34-times convicted felon and insurrectionist was even allowed to run for office again. Nor does it explain why the entire Senate keeps rolling over for every wet fart coming from the office of the Pedophile Of The United States.
You can find many other valid issues with the US system listed in this thread. Most of them are valid criticisms, and many of them identify a different underlying cause. Pointing them out or even focusing on a single one is not necessarily populist -- but insisting that there is a singular root cause is.
In what world should the editor double check third-party quotes in an article submitted by a journalist? Do you think the Washington Post phones the White House every time an article quotes the president (ok, bad example, pretend I asked this question about a serious paper in a healthy democracy)?
There's also such a thing as journalistic confidentiality -- the editor may not even know the identity of the quoted source. That doesn't apply to this specific case but your claim was generic, and I think there's a serious misapprehension here if you think it's the editor's job to verify citations in journalists' writings.
/e/OS and Murena are the same company. Initially, they used the name /e/ everywhere, but a single letter is not searchable on the web, so they rebranded to Murena. Everything is now called Murena except the OS itself.
> as we are reaching more and more people and progressively catching interested from a mainstream audience, we have to introduce a new, strong brand, easier to use, easier to refer to and easier to share with people.
reply