Modern_medicine_isnt @ Modern_medicine_isnt @lemmy.world

Posts

22

Comments

1,234

Joined

2 yr. ago

So you missed my point. Many of those things that the feds pay for just wouldn't happen if the state was paying. Politics is tricky like that.

I think you underestimate how much the "save" from denying claims the way they do. Thier net income is about $2.25 million per hour. I don't know where the $3000/hour came from, but that is a drop in the ocean to them

The sad thing is that I am sure they will pass the cost onto the customers.

Apparently they did start approving more right after it. And now they are getting sued by blackrock, a majority shareholder, for hurting profits. As much as I dislike these CEOs, the system breeds them to be this way. And there will always be more to take thier place. But holding them accountable will also mean that doing the right thing becomes good for the shareholders.

I think it maybe time to change the dynamic of the USA. Maybe instead of 2 levels, maybe three. Federal, regional, and state. Where the federal hands over some powers to the regional government. I am not sure how that could happen, but it might be a good direction.

Well you probably don't realize the things the federal government does give cali. Interstate highways are one. Coast guard. Bridges. And clearly funding to the universities. Now the balance is lopsided, in that cali gives more back. But that doesn't mean cali would have given you those same things.
That said... determining if CA would be better with our without the feds is a complicated question. For one, they would probably need to fund thier own military, as they would be a ripe target given thier economic prosperity.

I guess the real question is about what the intent of the hate crime law in texas. Is it intended to punish people who's only motive was hate of a protected class? Is it to enhance punishment of people where the hate is a partial motive? Could also just be to enhance punishment of people who hate protected classes even if that wasn't part of the motive.
In the end it is probably easier to prosecute without it. And the guy is old enough he won't get out anyway.

Hm. Checking my glasses I think there is something on the top too. I can see distance ever so slightly clearer looking out the top. If I remember right, I have a minus .25 in one eye. Always been told it didn't need correction, but maybe it is in this pair. I should go get some off the shelf progressive readers and try those.

Yeah, my wife got me something that claimed to auto focus. Was just a pair of progressive readers.

I can go buy readers when I don't need them. I've been told that using a higher power than you need is bad for you as well. And you can buy glasses online with no script. So I don't think that reason would be valid.

I hope you are right. But I don’t have a perscription. So I would need clear by default, and only autofocusing for reading. I shouldn't need a script for that.

When I play a board game and need to read the cards I need glasses. But if I want to look at the player across the table I have to take them off. Squinting doesn't seem to help.

Is that the same as Progressives? I have them. I hate the areas that don't work on the sides. People get used to them I guess, but I don’t have to wear mine most of the time. And even if you are used to it, that means you have some distorted peripheral vision when you wear them.

I thought you got at least 2 years...

Sure, but I shouldn't have to. Seems like more of a reason that requiring perscriptions isn't really about anything but money.

Can't you buy colored contacts with no correction? Seems like if you can do that, the issue with your ryes being unsuitable isn't the reason.

Well, I have tried multiple sets of reading glasses at different magnification. They all work fine. So I don't think it needs to be that exact to match the person. And I would think some sort of calibration, either by manual means or plugging them into a smartphone and using an app should cover that. I doubt it corrects for things like astigmatism that are more complex.

And prescriptions for glasses in general bug me. The only argument for requiring them and having them expire I have heard is that the wrong perscription could be dangerous while driving and such. But heck, we don't make you retake the drivers test every 2 years, and people's driving skills certainly decrease with age. So why prescriptions? Seems like another one of those good for business and not for people laws.

She's still hot. And I bet some people find her hotter because she is clearly stupid too. Lol.

Sadly I agree. It probably only ends when one side achieves complete victory. The Israeli hardliners probably see it that way too. And they have decided to end it now.