What do you think are scams?

[MultiMillionMiler]

Wait are you talking about the insurance companies or the doctors themselves? I think Doctors and even nurses earn every penny. With the amount of debt you accrue and decade+ of your life studying/going to med school and running 80 hr shifts in residency, and very high malpractice insurance, I think their salaries should be much higher. I mean tik tok influencers can make 6x the salary of a neurosurgeon, so that aspect alone is justification for higher pay. I would say you have a right to make what your Job deserves, which is often way more than minimum wage. And that doesn't just go by skill level. A fast food worker in NYC can be extremely stressed out all day on the job having to flip from one customer to another extremely fast without a break, whereas a computer programmer can finish their project or whatever early and just relax in the cushy office the rest of the time. The same reason truckers can make 6 figures. For an extremely high IQ person "high level jobs" can be just as easy as an average person with a minimum wage job, even without the exhaustion factor. But why is selling fossil fuels in the same category of killing orphans and endangered wildlife?

[abefroman329]

It's little mystery why funerals are so expensive...

Well, all of that and the fact that three companies hold a near-oligarchy on all of the funeral parlors in the country.  And the fact that you have to buy the casket from the funeral parlor.

I know way too much about this, having worked on a class-action lawsuit brought against the three companies about fifteen years ago.

[Duke87]

Remember, I live in Oklahoma. We get a lot more of that profit tantrum behavior here than in New York, where they tell people like that to grow up and think of someone other than themselves.

My oh my is THAT a rose-tinted view of how things work in New York.

[Scott5114]

Remember, I live in Oklahoma. We get a lot more of that profit tantrum behavior here than in New York, where they tell people like that to grow up and think of someone other than themselves.

My oh my is THAT a rose-tinted view of how things work in New York.

Eh, I've never been there. 🤷

[kalvado]

Wait are you talking about the insurance companies or the doctors themselves? I think Doctors and even nurses earn every penny. With the amount of debt you accrue and decade+ of your life studying/going to med school and running 80 hr shifts in residency, and very high malpractice insurance, I think their salaries should be much higher. I mean tik tok influencers can make 6x the salary of a neurosurgeon, so that aspect alone is justification for higher pay. I would say you have a right to make what your Job deserves, which is often way more than minimum wage. And that doesn't just go by skill level. A fast food worker in NYC can be extremely stressed out all day on the job having to flip from one customer to another extremely fast without a break, whereas a computer programmer can finish their project or whatever early and just relax in the cushy office the rest of the time. The same reason truckers can make 6 figures. For an extremely high IQ person "high level jobs" can be just as easy as an average person with a minimum wage job, even without the exhaustion factor. But why is selling fossil fuels in the same category of killing orphans and endangered wildlife?

"To each according to his contribution" was one of basic  principles of society operation promoted by the Soviet Union...  Just saying

[US 89]

Remember, I live in Oklahoma. We get a lot more of that profit tantrum behavior here than in New York, where they tell people like that to grow up and think of someone other than themselves.

My oh my is THAT a rose-tinted view of how things work in New York.

Eh, I've never been there. 🤷

In New York, if you have a lot of money, you can simply tell the government to shut up and they will do so. At least that is my understanding.

[thspfc]

A fast food worker in NYC can be extremely stressed out all day on the job having to flip from one customer to another extremely fast without a break, whereas a computer programmer can finish their project or whatever early and just relax in the cushy office the rest of the time.

To get his job, the computer programmer needed 4+ years of college, which he probably paid tens of thousands for. The fast food worker needed a week of training.

If the computer programmer quits his job, the pool of possible replacements is exponentially smaller than the pool of possible replacements if the fast food worker quits his job.

If the computer programmer stops working, the entire project stops for days, weeks, or perhaps permanently depending on how valuable he was to the team. To replace him, they have to hire from a much smaller pool and train that hire for much longer than in the fast food situation. If the fast food worker stops working, orders might take an extra minute or two until they hire someone else from a large pool and train him in a few days.

If the fast food worker, who needed no prior education and is fully trained within a week, is paid more than the computer programmer who needed to spend thousands on 4+ years of college, given the two options, is anyone going to choose to be a computer programmer? Nope. What happens then? With no computer programmers, we don't technologically advance as a society.

(I know we have a lot of users on here who want to go back to more basic times, but quality-of-life indexes disagree.)

The point is, supply and demand defeats feelings every time. Does the fast food worker have a harder job? Depending on how you look at it, maybe. (In my opinion, absolutely not - the average person would do far better working fast food than they would programming computers) But even if he does, the supply is higher and the demand is lower. That means less pay.


There are also a lot of jobs that require a college degree that simply don't pay enough. In my opinion, this an area where our education system falls way short. Kids are told that going to college is a good option, which in general I agree with. But what they're not told is that some college majors are, to suit the thread, scams. Art, theater, graphic design, culinary arts, fashion design, athletic training, etc. - sure, there are well-paying jobs to be had in those areas, but a large chunk of people who major in those things will end up with a job that doesn't pay enough to dig them out from under a mountain of student debt.

[kkt]

I know of no non-intoxicating recreational uses for weed. You don't smoke it because you like the aroma. You smoke it to get high.

Nonsense - in fact, if you use medical cannabis as prescribed, you won't get high.

There's no such thing as using medical marijuana as prescribed.  It's illegal for doctors to prescribe it in the United States.  Some doctors may recommend it, but that recommendation is not a prescription.  As a schedule 1 substance, even doing medical research that might lead to confirming medical benefit for mariuana is illegal.

[kalvado]

A fast food worker in NYC can be extremely stressed out all day on the job having to flip from one customer to another extremely fast without a break, whereas a computer programmer can finish their project or whatever early and just relax in the cushy office the rest of the time.

To get his job, the computer programmer needed 4+ years of college, which he probably paid tens of thousands for. The fast food worker needed a week of training.

If the computer programmer quits his job, the pool of possible replacements is exponentially smaller than the pool of possible replacements if the fast food worker quits his job.

If the computer programmer stops working, the entire project stops for days, weeks, or perhaps permanently depending on how valuable he was to the team. To replace him, they have to hire from a much smaller pool and train that hire for much longer than in the fast food situation. If the fast food worker stops working, orders might take an extra minute or two until they hire someone else from a large pool and train him in a few days.

If the fast food worker, who needed no prior education and is fully trained within a week, is paid more than the computer programmer who needed to spend thousands on 4+ years of college, given the two options, is anyone going to choose to be a computer programmer? Nope. What happens then? With no computer programmers, we don't technologically advance as a society.

(I know we have a lot of users on here who want to go back to more basic times, but quality-of-life indexes disagree.)

The point is, supply and demand defeats feelings every time. Does the fast food worker have a harder job? Depending on how you look at it, maybe. (In my opinion, absolutely not - the average person would do far better working fast food than they would programming computers) But even if he does, the supply is higher and the demand is lower. That means less pay.


There are also a lot of jobs that require a college degree that simply don't pay enough. In my opinion, this an area where our education system falls way short. Kids are told that going to college is a good option, which in general I agree with. But what they're not told is that some college majors are, to suit the thread, scams. Art, theater, graphic design, culinary arts, fashion design, athletic training, etc. - sure, there are well-paying jobs to be had in those areas, but a large chunk of people who major in those things will end up with a job that doesn't pay enough to dig them out from under a mountain of student debt.

My justice and your justice are not necessarily the same thing. What you say is totally true from the programmer's perspective (who would likely to faint out in the kitchen), but not from an overworked burger flipper's perspective who failed that damn computer class in high school twice.
Fun fact: as far as I know, McDonalds required everyone in HQ to spent some time (a day a year? every few years?)  as a regular restaurant crew. I have a picture of my friend, a high-level database designer, actually flipping burgers...

Mother nature is neither about justice, political correctness or anything like that. It's about the survival of the fittest.  MCPH1 is probably the most insulting thing ever existed - by today's standards...

[thspfc]

A fast food worker in NYC can be extremely stressed out all day on the job having to flip from one customer to another extremely fast without a break, whereas a computer programmer can finish their project or whatever early and just relax in the cushy office the rest of the time.

To get his job, the computer programmer needed 4+ years of college, which he probably paid tens of thousands for. The fast food worker needed a week of training.

If the computer programmer quits his job, the pool of possible replacements is exponentially smaller than the pool of possible replacements if the fast food worker quits his job.

If the computer programmer stops working, the entire project stops for days, weeks, or perhaps permanently depending on how valuable he was to the team. To replace him, they have to hire from a much smaller pool and train that hire for much longer than in the fast food situation. If the fast food worker stops working, orders might take an extra minute or two until they hire someone else from a large pool and train him in a few days.

If the fast food worker, who needed no prior education and is fully trained within a week, is paid more than the computer programmer who needed to spend thousands on 4+ years of college, given the two options, is anyone going to choose to be a computer programmer? Nope. What happens then? With no computer programmers, we don't technologically advance as a society.

(I know we have a lot of users on here who want to go back to more basic times, but quality-of-life indexes disagree.)

The point is, supply and demand defeats feelings every time. Does the fast food worker have a harder job? Depending on how you look at it, maybe. (In my opinion, absolutely not - the average person would do far better working fast food than they would programming computers) But even if he does, the supply is higher and the demand is lower. That means less pay.


There are also a lot of jobs that require a college degree that simply don't pay enough. In my opinion, this an area where our education system falls way short. Kids are told that going to college is a good option, which in general I agree with. But what they're not told is that some college majors are, to suit the thread, scams. Art, theater, graphic design, culinary arts, fashion design, athletic training, etc. - sure, there are well-paying jobs to be had in those areas, but a large chunk of people who major in those things will end up with a job that doesn't pay enough to dig them out from under a mountain of student debt.

What you say is totally true from the programmer's perspective (who would likely to faint out in the kitchen)

Would he be likely to faint out in the kitchen though? Nah. Chances are, unless he works really slowly or poorly under pressure (traits that are not common for computer programmers), he would be just fine after a few days of training. The fast food worker would still be hopelessly lost at computer programming after the same amount of training in that field.

who failed that damn computer class in high school twice.

And whose fault is that?

Fun fact: as far as I know, McDonalds required everyone in HQ to spent some time (a day a year? every few years?)  as a regular restaurant crew. I have a picture of my friend, a high-level database designer, actually flipping burgers...

I think that's a great idea, but it doesn't refute my point.

[J N Winkler]

A nationalized single-payer healthcare system would cost less per person and have fewer complications than the absolute clusterfuck we deal with. I had to go through so many hoops to get Medicaid coverage for a relative, which should in theory be simple because it's all in-house...but nope, the private carriers lobbied their way into screwing up the public market.

In Britain, the NHS, which provides cradle-to-grave coverage free at the point of use (aside from modest copays for prescription drugs, dentistry, and vision care), allocates about 10% of GDP.  Our severely dysfunctional system allocates 20% of GDP yet struggles to provide good, worry-free care to patients who don't have goldplated insurance.  Life expectancy is longer in Britain than in the US.

One thing to keep in mind is a profit to be made.

This is true.  And I realize there has been a debate upthread about whether there is a right to make a profit in any given sector of the economy.  From an economist's point of view, however, profit is monopoly and monopoly is profit.  There is abundant precedent for regulating monopolies in all sectors of the economy to promote competition, as well as for capping rate of return in industries (generally utilities) where the returns to scale are so compelling they are defined as natural monopolies.

Significant cost and significant profit are associated with novel drugs treatment of hard to treat, deadly problems like HepC or oncology. Development costs are mind blowing, and patents don't run long. So the common strategy is to release in US at astronomic price, then later in Europe at huge price, then after few years drug becomes relatively affordable across the globe - but an even better one is released at astronomic price...

It is a stylized fact that pharmaceutical firms expect to recoup drug development costs in the US market.  And it is also true that socialized health care systems sometimes restrict expensive treatments that physicians in the US would otherwise prescribe, because the benefits are not considered to justify the costs (e.g., five figures for a drug that buys at most one additional month of very low quality of life for end-stage cancer patients).  However, we in the US pay far too much even for well-established drugs like insulin, and pharmaceuticals in general are only a facet of the problem with our health care system.

I am not sure about life expectancy, but given we are talking about WW2 generation expiring, and baby boomers reaching that point, demographics of Europe vs US may be part of the real. Would be interesting to look up data ..

The US has a much higher Gini coefficient for per-capita income than any major European country.  I think that goes some way toward explaining bad health care outcomes for us.

[kalvado]

A fast food worker in NYC can be extremely stressed out all day on the job having to flip from one customer to another extremely fast without a break, whereas a computer programmer can finish their project or whatever early and just relax in the cushy office the rest of the time.

To get his job, the computer programmer needed 4+ years of college, which he probably paid tens of thousands for. The fast food worker needed a week of training.

If the computer programmer quits his job, the pool of possible replacements is exponentially smaller than the pool of possible replacements if the fast food worker quits his job.

If the computer programmer stops working, the entire project stops for days, weeks, or perhaps permanently depending on how valuable he was to the team. To replace him, they have to hire from a much smaller pool and train that hire for much longer than in the fast food situation. If the fast food worker stops working, orders might take an extra minute or two until they hire someone else from a large pool and train him in a few days.

If the fast food worker, who needed no prior education and is fully trained within a week, is paid more than the computer programmer who needed to spend thousands on 4+ years of college, given the two options, is anyone going to choose to be a computer programmer? Nope. What happens then? With no computer programmers, we don't technologically advance as a society.

(I know we have a lot of users on here who want to go back to more basic times, but quality-of-life indexes disagree.)

The point is, supply and demand defeats feelings every time. Does the fast food worker have a harder job? Depending on how you look at it, maybe. (In my opinion, absolutely not - the average person would do far better working fast food than they would programming computers) But even if he does, the supply is higher and the demand is lower. That means less pay.


There are also a lot of jobs that require a college degree that simply don't pay enough. In my opinion, this an area where our education system falls way short. Kids are told that going to college is a good option, which in general I agree with. But what they're not told is that some college majors are, to suit the thread, scams. Art, theater, graphic design, culinary arts, fashion design, athletic training, etc. - sure, there are well-paying jobs to be had in those areas, but a large chunk of people who major in those things will end up with a job that doesn't pay enough to dig them out from under a mountain of student debt.

What you say is totally true from the programmer's perspective (who would likely to faint out in the kitchen)

Would he be likely to faint out in the kitchen though? Nah. Chances are, unless he works really slowly or poorly under pressure (traits that are not common for computer programmers), he would be just fine after a few days of training. The fast food worker would still be hopelessly lost at computer programming after the same amount of training in that field.

who failed that damn computer class in high school twice.

And whose fault is that?

Fun fact: as far as I know, McDonalds required everyone in HQ to spent some time (a day a year? every few years?)  as a regular restaurant crew. I have a picture of my friend, a high-level database designer, actually flipping burgers...

I think that's a great idea, but it doesn't refute my point.

Who's fault is that John has IQ of 140 and Jim is only 90?  That Jay suffers from muscular degradation and Jack can win heavy lifting competition with little training? That Bob struggles with hand-eye coordination, and Tom can thread the needle with his eyes closed?
I don't know how to answer those questions. I don't know how ideal society would look like. 
I am very willing to provoke others to express their thought though

[kalvado]

A nationalized single-payer healthcare system would cost less per person and have fewer complications than the absolute clusterfuck we deal with. I had to go through so many hoops to get Medicaid coverage for a relative, which should in theory be simple because it's all in-house...but nope, the private carriers lobbied their way into screwing up the public market.

In Britain, the NHS, which provides cradle-to-grave coverage free at the point of use (aside from modest copays for prescription drugs, dentistry, and vision care), allocates about 10% of GDP.  Our severely dysfunctional system allocates 20% of GDP yet struggles to provide good, worry-free care to patients who don't have goldplated insurance.  Life expectancy is longer in Britain than in the US.

One thing to keep in mind is a profit to be made.

This is true.  And I realize there has been a debate upthread about whether there is a right to make a profit in any given sector of the economy.  From an economist's point of view, however, profit is monopoly and monopoly is profit.  There is abundant precedent for regulating monopolies in all sectors of the economy to promote competition, as well as for capping rate of return in industries (generally utilities) where the returns to scale are so compelling they are defined as natural monopolies.

Significant cost and significant profit are associated with novel drugs treatment of hard to treat, deadly problems like HepC or oncology. Development costs are mind blowing, and patents don't run long. So the common strategy is to release in US at astronomic price, then later in Europe at huge price, then after few years drug becomes relatively affordable across the globe - but an even better one is released at astronomic price...

It is a stylized fact that pharmaceutical firms expect to recoup drug development costs in the US market.  And it is also true that socialized health care systems sometimes restrict expensive treatments that physicians in the US would otherwise prescribe, because the benefits are not considered to justify the costs (e.g., five figures for a drug that buys at most one additional month of very low quality of life for end-stage cancer patients).  However, we in the US pay far too much even for well-established drugs like insulin, and pharmaceuticals in general are only a facet of the problem with our health care system.

I am not sure about life expectancy, but given we are talking about WW2 generation expiring, and baby boomers reaching that point, demographics of Europe vs US may be part of the real. Would be interesting to look up data ..

The US has a much higher Gini coefficient for per-capita income than any major European country.  I think that goes some way toward explaining bad health care outcomes for us.

Well, but how do you suggest to fund drug development, when 1 out of 1000 promising candidates makes in through long and expensive testing and vetting process to the pharmacy? So far, it is essentially a venture capitalist or a big company funding 1000 candidates with the hope to get 1 successful to pay for all of them.  Sure its possible to make that a government function. I am not sure it will be way more efficient or cheaper. And well, not paying for development isn't a better choice in a long run. After all, even with very basic treatment life expectancy would be much better than 100 years ago.

As for "very expensive treatment"... Human life is priceless**. So standard criterion of $50k/year of quality life isn't too unreasonable, at least for me as a relatively healthy person. Possibly my opinion would be different if I had a different health situation. That is in the ballpark for annual GDP per capita as well....
______________________
**"priceless" is between $1M and $10M for engineering calculations.

[Scott5114]

A good number of medical developments are already funded through government grants. My reading of that article makes it seem to me like the current model is that government-funded researchers do the initial science work and then the capitalists do feasibility research afterward that leads it to becoming a product.     

[J N Winkler]

Well, but how do you suggest to fund drug development, when 1 out of 1000 promising candidates makes in through long and expensive testing and vetting process to the pharmacy? So far, it is essentially a venture capitalist or a big company funding 1000 candidates with the hope to get 1 successful to pay for all of them.  Sure its possible to make that a government function. I am not sure it will be way more efficient or cheaper. And well, not paying for development isn't a better choice in a long run. After all, even with very basic treatment life expectancy would be much better than 100 years ago.

We do already have significant government involvement in pharmaceutical development--much of the basic research occurs in government labs.

As much of the cost of bringing a new drug to market is incurred in clinical trials, I think giving Medicare negotiating authority (which, per current legislation, it does not have) would lead to the price finding a level between the US and other First World countries that have stringent drug licensing.

And yes, it is true making health care more accessible to a previously underserved population with easily controllable problems (as community rating tried to do for people previously considered all but uninsurable, like Type I diabetics) is one way to boost life expectancy.  I see this as a feature rather than a bug of socialized health care systems.

As for "very expensive treatment"... Human life is priceless**. So standard criterion of $50k/year of quality life isn't too unreasonable, at least for me as a relatively healthy person. Possibly my opinion would be different if I had a different health situation. That is in the ballpark for annual GDP per capita as well....
______________________
**"priceless" is between $1M and $10M for engineering calculations.

I think this is more or less how Britain's NICE evaluates cost-effectiveness.  The key criterion is cost per quality-adjusted life year gained.  One example might be Avastin as part of a third-line treatment for Stage IV colon cancer which has ceased to respond to first- and second-line therapies.  At that stage the patient might be barely conscious, so it would not be considered a good use of resources to spend, say, $30,000 for an additional month in a coma followed by death, which the quality adjustment would dial down to no additional lifetime gained.

[MultiMillionMiler]

I know of no non-intoxicating recreational uses for weed. You don't smoke it because you like the aroma. You smoke it to get high.

Nonsense - in fact, if you use medical cannabis as prescribed, you won't get high.

There's no such thing as using medical marijuana as prescribed.  It's illegal for doctors to prescribe it in the United States.  Some doctors may recommend it, but that recommendation is not a prescription.  As a schedule 1 substance, even doing medical research that might lead to confirming medical benefit for mariuana is illegal.

Yeah well that federal scheduling classification should be abolished. Schedule 1 is "a potentially high risk for addiction, narcotic, with no accepted medical use.

Literally all 3 parts of that statement are wrong. Anyone imprisoned for Marijuana even in thr past, should get compensated for any time served. Absolutely absurd and asinine that anyone was ever arrested for smoking a harmless, naturally growing, plant.

[kalvado]

A good number of medical developments are already funded through government grants. My reading of that article makes it seem to me like the current model is that government-funded researchers do the initial science work and then the capitalists do feasibility research afterward that leads it to becoming a product.   

Pretty much true. There is also much more open information produced by general-purpose research than companies would release. "Qualified workforce" (aka students who work for pennies to gain certain professional standing) is another outcome of such government-sponsored work. 
Fine lines between fundamental science, R&D, pre-production qualification - and probably a few more stages.
There are reasons, IMHO, to keep at least part of the process out of dark hole of proprietary-secret-confidential.
I don't think government-run vetting and production would be great. If nothing else, clinical trials are about someone proving to the government that the drug work, and production oversight is again proving things to government inspectors. Having two offices of government work against each other - and probably ultimately reporting to the same appointed official...  They are here to help, run away as fast as you can!

[Scott5114]

I don't think government-run vetting and production would be great. If nothing else, clinical trials are about someone proving to the government that the drug work, and production oversight is again proving things to government inspectors. Having two offices of government work against each other - and probably ultimately reporting to the same appointed official...  They are here to help, run away as fast as you can!

Do you feel the same way about the Department of Transportation?

[kalvado]

And yes, it is true making health care more accessible to a previously underserved population with easily controllable problems (as community rating tried to do for people previously considered all but uninsurable, like Type I diabetics) is one way to boost life expectancy.  I see this as a feature rather than a bug of socialized health care systems.

Sometimes I am flirting with idea of tiered healthcare, where different levels of care are socialized or privatized.
Any child with tonsilitis or pneumonia should get antibiotics without a problem. Appendicitis,  broken limb are also cheap enough to treat socially. 
$10000/day stage 4 cancer treatment may be reserved to the Rockefeller family. They would definitely pay a lot...
But where to draw lines in between? Just as a harsh thought - maybe socialize <$5k/year-of-life treatments, for example? How big %% would that be in terms of overall spending, I wonder?

[kalvado]

I don't think government-run vetting and production would be great. If nothing else, clinical trials are about someone proving to the government that the drug work, and production oversight is again proving things to government inspectors. Having two offices of government work against each other - and probably ultimately reporting to the same appointed official...  They are here to help, run away as fast as you can!

Do you feel the same way about the Department of Transportation?

Can you be more specific? I certainly have less than great (and actually less than unfavorable) opinions about the engineering work of certain DOTs. But who is going to hold them responsible until there is a headline-worthy scandal? Even then, it appears to be a search for the guilty and punishing the innocent...
More competitive operation could be more efficient (or even more mismanaged, but that is a different story)

[webny99]

Also any rewards program from a retailer is a scam.

Absolutely not. For IHOP in particular, I think they're actually losing money on me. Other restaurants, like UNO, Outback, and Friendly's, are 1 in 16, 1 in 14, and 1 in 15 back, respectively.

I agree, but many rewards programs require such a high degree of loyalty that they're only worthwhile to regular customers. Many of our local pizza chains have some sort of rewards program (like fake "bucks" or a magnet pizza slice) for each transaction that can be redeemed for a pizza. But the rewards are often time sensitive, and in the case of Guida Bucks, also location sensitive. And if you have to go there 6-8 times or more which could take months, keep track of them yourself, and actually remember to use them when you have enough, if they still have the program going by then, is it really even worth your time and energy? More often than not I would say no.


Meanwhile, a few months ago Dunkin' overhauled their app/rewards program and watered it down considerably. To explain a bit... It used to be 200 points for a free drink of any size, 10 points per dollar spent, and 100 bonus points for ordering ahead on Mondays most weeks. For me that worked out to about one in every three drinks being free while paying for the other two drinks and the occasional breakfast.

Now, rewards aren't limited to just drinks. You can get anything on the menu, but it's a tiered points system, starting at 150 points for an expresso shot or 3-pc munchkins on up to 800 points for breakfast sandwiches and 900 points for signature drinks. The specialty drink I usually get is now worth 700 points, and it's more annoying to redeem because I have to wait longer to earn enough points, then choose the specific item and remember to apply it to my order (rather than just scanning a generic barcode at the point of sale). They've tried to compensate by offering "boosted status" for regular customers which makes every dollar spent worth 12 points instead of 10. Even so, it's a lot less valuable than it used to be. I've stuck with it because I'm a regular and probably would be even without the rewards, but it's not very appealing to anyone who only goes there once in a while.


The TL;DR version: Most rewards programs are fine if you use them regularly, know how it works, and remember to use them, but can seem like a scam if you don't use them often enough. Rewards programs that seem too good to be true usually prove to be so one way or another and are eventually changed or replaced.

[Rothman]

I don't think government-run vetting and production would be great. If nothing else, clinical trials are about someone proving to the government that the drug work, and production oversight is again proving things to government inspectors. Having two offices of government work against each other - and probably ultimately reporting to the same appointed official...  They are here to help, run away as fast as you can!

Do you feel the same way about the Department of Transportation?

Can you be more specific? I certainly have less than great (and actually less than unfavorable) opinions about the engineering work of certain DOTs. But who is going to hold them responsible until there is a headline-worthy scandal? Even then, it appears to be a search for the guilty and punishing the innocent...
More competitive operation could be more efficient (or even more mismanaged, but that is a different story)

Engineering work of certain DOTs...and yet a lot is contracted out through competitive bidding...

[kalvado]

I don't think government-run vetting and production would be great. If nothing else, clinical trials are about someone proving to the government that the drug work, and production oversight is again proving things to government inspectors. Having two offices of government work against each other - and probably ultimately reporting to the same appointed official...  They are here to help, run away as fast as you can!

Do you feel the same way about the Department of Transportation?

Can you be more specific? I certainly have less than great (and actually less than unfavorable) opinions about the engineering work of certain DOTs. But who is going to hold them responsible until there is a headline-worthy scandal? Even then, it appears to be a search for the guilty and punishing the innocent...
More competitive operation could be more efficient (or even more mismanaged, but that is a different story)

Engineering work of certain DOTs...and yet a lot is contracted out through competitive bidding...
Who specifies the layout, for example? Of course there is a public hearing, where two options of a poorly thought of roundabout and a very poorly thought of roundabout are presented.
Who is getting held responsible for a poor design? I thought we discussed it a few times, and the answer was "meh"

[jeffandnicole]

I don't think government-run vetting and production would be great. If nothing else, clinical trials are about someone proving to the government that the drug work, and production oversight is again proving things to government inspectors. Having two offices of government work against each other - and probably ultimately reporting to the same appointed official...  They are here to help, run away as fast as you can!

Do you feel the same way about the Department of Transportation?

Can you be more specific? I certainly have less than great (and actually less than unfavorable) opinions about the engineering work of certain DOTs. But who is going to hold them responsible until there is a headline-worthy scandal? Even then, it appears to be a search for the guilty and punishing the innocent...
More competitive operation could be more efficient (or even more mismanaged, but that is a different story)

Engineering work of certain DOTs...and yet a lot is contracted out through competitive bidding...
Who specifies the layout, for example? Of course there is a public hearing, where two options of a poorly thought of roundabout and a very poorly thought of roundabout are presented.
Who is getting held responsible for a poor design? I thought we discussed it a few times, and the answer was "meh"

Things you don't like aren't scams.

In that case, mushrooms are scams.

[kalvado]

I don't think government-run vetting and production would be great. If nothing else, clinical trials are about someone proving to the government that the drug work, and production oversight is again proving things to government inspectors. Having two offices of government work against each other - and probably ultimately reporting to the same appointed official...  They are here to help, run away as fast as you can!

Do you feel the same way about the Department of Transportation?

Can you be more specific? I certainly have less than great (and actually less than unfavorable) opinions about the engineering work of certain DOTs. But who is going to hold them responsible until there is a headline-worthy scandal? Even then, it appears to be a search for the guilty and punishing the innocent...
More competitive operation could be more efficient (or even more mismanaged, but that is a different story)

Engineering work of certain DOTs...and yet a lot is contracted out through competitive bidding...
Who specifies the layout, for example? Of course there is a public hearing, where two options of a poorly thought of roundabout and a very poorly thought of roundabout are presented.
Who is getting held responsible for a poor design? I thought we discussed it a few times, and the answer was "meh"

Things you don't like aren't scams.

In that case, mushrooms are scams.

I didn't say "scam".
But if you will, the lack of accountability in any government office is an open door for scams. On one hand, it makes sense to have at least some degree of government immunity. The other side of the coin, though...
Not that promoting away incompetent people is unique for the government as well....
UPD: "too big to fail" may be on the same page.