this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
1542 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

10923 readers
2530 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago (5 children)

The main reason why it exists is to provide jobs. The number of people who work at the TSA at every airport in every state...no representative wants to cut those jobs.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I fucking hate that this is a thing. "We can't stop doing this useless and/or detrimental thing, look at all the work it makes for other people to do!!!" Absolutely bonkers that it's just a standard political argument.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Agreed. I’d rather they be paid that wage NOT to bother me.

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices 1 points 3 months ago

so, we pay more (fastpass or whatever it is) for the privilege. 😅

[–] not_woody_shaw 9 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Same thing with medical insurance. It shouldn't exist but it pays a lot of people's salaries.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The worst part is if people only worked two or three days a week corporations would still be profitable and everyone would have a job.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

i once heared something like this:

"the idea of having more than those who have nothing is the very only reason shareholders can ever imagine someone would work for at all, thus they also falsely believe they would do something good when enforcing this by removing everything from those who already are vulnerable and thus create a living example of how you would end when you don't help them rob even more."

[–] vonxylofon 1 points 3 months ago (4 children)

It shouldn't exist? I'd like to see you pay for your medical expenses out of pocket.

P. S. No, I am not American.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

Here in the states when we say "medical insurance shouldn't exist" what we mean is "the medical insurance industry shouldn't exist"

Basically the cluster fuck of insurance companies we have now shouldn't exist, we should just have a single payer type system where medical expenses are paid for through our tax dollars. In its current state it's a nightmare to deal with.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

A lot of private insurance in the US amounts to paying a couple hundred monthly to have the insurance and then they deny payment for basically anything and everything. So you pay them to pay out of pocket anyway.

Just got state insurance which covers everything, but very few offices accept it.

So yeah. Insurance in the US is super fucked up and people go without healthcare, even if they have insurance because they simply can't afford it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I do pay for my medical expenses out of pocket, because I can’t keep insurance long enough to ensure consistent cate.

I’ll give an example. Back in 21 I signed up for medicaid because I was poor enough to qualify. I get an email from my psychiatrist’s office “We can no longer treat you at this office because of your new medicaid status. We are not allowed to treat people on medicaid.” I asked, and they’re not even allowed to treat me if I pay out of pocket.

This is a new medicaid rule. Now if you’re on medicaid you can only see medicaid-approved providers.

So I canceled my medicaid. And I continue to pay out of pocket.

I’ve tried using other government-assisted programs before, with disastrous results. I’ve been kicked off the rolls before, at random, and I’ve had to go through the crash involved in stopping my medication, because while these government programs are helpful, they’re also buggy as fuck and can’t be relied upon.

[–] vonxylofon 1 points 2 months ago

That's why you want a national health care program funded by taxes (they call it health insurance, but it's mandatory and based on income, so it's a tax, really). Private insurance is still allowed, but everyone gets a baseline.

Sure, this system has got its share of problems, and they're massive, but if you need care, you generally receive it regardless of your financial situation. Again, bureaucracy happens and there are waiting times etc. etc., but the idea that you may lose everything because you got sick is so alien to me I have no words.

[–] not_woody_shaw 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah I guess the kind of Single Payer model I prefer can be conceptualised as "insurance." But it feels more like health care is taxpayer funded. The similarity to insurance is just details for the detail nerds.

[–] Maggoty 5 points 3 months ago

We could always use more traffic enforcement. Just switch them all over.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I mean if a state removed the TSA and spent the money on something else, surely they could use the money to create as many jobs as they removed but in an actual useful field.

[–] idiomaddict 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But would the TSA workers vote for them?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Probably not, but the people who just got a job maybe would.

[–] idiomaddict 2 points 3 months ago

I don’t mean to be ungrateful, but I wouldn’t vote for a republican who got me a job, and I probably wouldn’t vote for anyone who got rid of my job (unless they were otherwise really great). So at least for me, getting rid of the job means you lose my vote and replacing it doesn’t necessarily gain my vote.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

And people watching this exchange from the outside might vote against because they don’t like the idea of “minus a job for Bob, plus a job for Carl” as even-steven.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Could we pay them to dig a ditch and fill it back in again? It'd be just as useful.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago

No, it'd be more useful just on account of the harm they are not doing. I don't give a rat's ass what they do instead, hell, do a huge UBI experiment and just let them chill. Might as well.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If it’s just for the jobs we can put them to work doing something useful like carrying bags for old people in the airport. Literally anything would be more useful.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

We could pay them to do nothing* that would be just as effective.

*not nothing but do whatever they want