emmeetslawschool:

aresmarked:

durpacerangerrogjro:

bogleech:

I’ve repeatedly seen British people make fun of American food for apparently always being either “too sweet or too salty” but our cuisine is still pretty mild compared to a lot of other countries, and having repeatedly tried British food, I’m pretty sure the term you’re looking for is “having any flavor at all.”

Britain invaded over half the world for spices and then decided they didn’t like any of them

you’re half-joking but that is legitimately what happened

“Oh, well now that the poors can get it we’ve decided it’s classier and more refined to *not* have the thing” is such an obnoxiously recurring historical trend. For a modern version, see the current “minimalism” and “capstone wardrobe” trends. “Now that poor people can afford to have lots of things, we have decided it’s actually more refined to not have things even though rich people have spent the last hundred centuries gaudily showing off all the shit we can afford.”

tatooinedovah:

shinga-tumblr:

I remember when people first realized how much funnier these comics were just without Garfield’s dialog, which Jon was never able to hear anyway. Garfield only ever communicated to us readers in thought balloons, after all. What we’re seeing here is Jon’s canonical reality.

I’m torn between laughing at these and being deeply worried for Jon lol

this is like 100% what living with cats is like

clatterbane:

Gotta love the proposed solutions to other people’s problems which largely seem to consist of, “Have you considered adopting my set of priorities instead? Because that’s the best way to human.”

Ran across this again, while looking for something else. Always relevant, unfortunately.

Health insurance must pay for exoskeletons #1yrago

anaisnein:

argumate:

mostlysignssomeportents:

An independent review board has ordered an unspecified health insurer in the northeastern USA to reimburse a patient for a $69,500 exoskelton from Rewalk, whose products enable people with spinal cord injuries to walk.

The board found that the exoskeleton was “medically necessary.”

https://boingboing.net/2016/02/19/health-insurance-must-pay-for.html

this is awesome but you know, anyone still wondering why healthcare eats up more and more of GDP

Not that I’ve looked at the math or anything, it’s 2:40 am and no. But unless there’s a digit missing in that pricing, the health economics of that thing have got to be a total slam-dunk. I don’t doubt the payor resisted paying because resisting payment is what payors do. If it’s a novel device that isn’t on approved formulary lists, which probably if new thing and not many candidates, that alone is plenty for at least one line of nope. It doesn’t require an actual rational objection based on the value proposition. SOP would be bog-standard automatic bureaucratic obstructionism framed as a best practice in cost consciousness. It’s only a story because someone got pissed off enough to deploy the courts and a journalist thought the device looked cool.

Try pricing five days in the critical care unit on a ventilator for a dying eighty-seven-year-old with advanced dementia, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, found short of breath and tachycardic in bed at the nursing home, rushed to the hospital, and admitted with sepsis and pulmonary edema. Including imaging and cath lab. Then get back to me about unjustifiable Cadillac expenditures on luxurious medical devices that enable (a very small number of) paralyzed people with normal life expectancies to walk again, for less than it costs to put a remote monitoring device into a heart failure patient’s chest, which, statistically, costs less than *not* doing that because it reduces hospitalizations by just a tad.

fierceawakening:

jaderoxrezi:

jaderoxrezi:

cant believe this still needs to be said but: doesnt matter how much of a reprehensible piece if shit someone is, you never, ever have an excuse to intentionally misgender them. 

cause, yknow, its not about “this person is horrible and deserves no respect.” by misgendering them ur disrepsecting all trans people, ur telling them that your descion to use their prefered pronouns hinges on how much you like them. Thats Bad,

also, cis people don’t suddenly stop being women or men because they’re also assholes, so why would trans people?

antivancrcws:

antivancrcws:

“straight people have never known what it’s like for their love to be illegal!” hey quick question have any of y’all ever heard of anti miscegenation laws in your life

the same month my dad turned five, his aunt was denied a marriage because she was brown and her fiancé was white. this was not that long ago! like, please do call out and talk about straight privilege. but as a queer person of color: i am begging y’all to do it w/o erasing the history of racism

Trump Misadministration wants to decide what food SNAP recipients will get

fierceawakening:

pointlesslypointing:

gingerautie:

justinspoliticalcorner:

Erica Hunzinger, Dan Charles, Maria Godoy, and Allison Aubrey at NPR: 

The Trump administration is proposing a major shake-up in one of the country’s most important “safety net” programs, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. Under the proposal, most SNAP recipients would lose much of their ability to choose the food they buy with their SNAP benefits.

The proposal is included in the Trump administration budget request for fiscal year 2019. It would require approval from Congress.

Under the proposal, which was announced Monday, low-income Americans who receive at least $90 a month — just over 80 percent of all SNAP recipients — would get about half of their benefits in the form of a “USDA Foods package.” The package was described in the budget as consisting of “shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit and vegetables.” The boxes would not include fresh fruits or vegetables.

Currently, SNAP beneficiaries get money loaded onto an EBT card they can use to buy what they want as long as it falls under the guidelines. The administration says the move is a “cost-effective approach” with “no loss in food benefits to participants.”

The USDA believes that state governments will be able to deliver this food at much less cost than SNAP recipients currently pay for food at retail stores — thus reducing the overall cost of the SNAP program by $129 billion over the next 10 years.

This and other changes in the SNAP program, according to the Trump administration, will reduce the SNAP budget by $213 billion over those years — cutting the program by almost 30 percent.

Joel Berg, CEO of Hunger Free America, a hunger advocacy group that also helps clients access food-assistance services, said the administration’s plan left him baffled. “They have managed to propose nearly the impossible, taking over $200 billion worth of food from low-income Americans while increasing bureaucracy and reducing choices,” Berg says.

He says SNAP is efficient because it is a “free market model” that lets recipients shop at stores for their benefits. The Trump administration’s proposal, he said, “is a far more intrusive, Big Government answer. They think a bureaucrat in D.C. is better at picking out what your family needs than you are?”

Douglas Greenaway, president of the National WIC Association, echoed that sentiment. “Removing choice from SNAP flies in the face of encouraging personal responsibility,” he said. He says “the budget seems to assume that participating in SNAP is a character flaw.”

It isn’t clear how billions of dollars’ worth of food each year would be distributed to millions of SNAP recipients who live all over the country, including dense urban areas and sparsely populated rural regions. The budget says states will have “substantial flexibility in designing the food box delivery system through existing infrastructure, partnerships or commercial/retail delivery services.”

Critics of the proposal said distributing that much food presents a logistical nightmare. “Among the problems, it’s going to be costly and take money out of the [SNAP] program from the administrative side. It’s going to stigmatize people when they have to go to certain places to pick up benefits,” says Jim Weill, president of the nonprofit Food Research and Action Center.

Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, called the proposal “radical and risky.” The idea that the government could save money by distributing food itself, she said, is “ill-informed at best.”

It isn’t clear whether the boxes will come with directions on how to cook the foods inside. “It could be something that [SNAP recipients] don’t even know how to make,” notes Miguelina Diaz, whose team at Hunger Free America works directly with families to help them access food aid. “We deal with different people of different backgrounds. Limiting them by providing them a staple box would limit the choices of food they can prepare for their families.”

According to Dean, from CBPP, the Trump administration wants to trim an additional $80 billion from the SNAP program by cutting off about 4 million people who currently receive food assistance. Most of them live in states that have decided to loosen the program’s eligibility requirements slightly. Under the administration’s proposal, states would no longer be able to do so.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in early December that he wanted states to have more flexibility in doling out SNAP, announcing the agency wanted to hear about programs from states that don’t increase the cost of the program and will combat what he said is fraud and waste. At the National Grocers Association conference over the weekend, Perdue said the budget has “common-sense reforms that call for greater consistency across nutritional programs.”

Nutrition programs, including SNAP, made up about 80 percent of the USDA’s budget in the most recent farm bill, making it the largest portion of agency spending. About 44 million people participated in SNAP each month in 2016, at an annual cost of $70.9 billion. Nearly two-thirds were under 18, over 60 or disabled, according to the USDA.

Congress largely ignored Trump’s proposed budget for SNAP last year, when he wanted to cut the funding by a quarter. This time, it’s a farm bill year, meaning many budgetary decisions will be made among the House and Senate agriculture committees.

Several critics we spoke with expressed skepticism that the proposed SNAP changes would pass in Congress. Even so, Weill says, “Whenever you see proposals like this that attack [SNAP] … it harms the program even if it doesn’t pass, in the long term reducing support for the program and stigmatizing people who use it.”

Also WTF are people with eg. coeliac or peanut allergies supposed to eat?

Americans are obsessed with dystopias because they’re living in one

Yep. I don’t think we saw it coming but I think we understood enough to fear it.

Trump Misadministration wants to decide what food SNAP recipients will get

me: *forgets friends birthdays*
me: *confuses memories*
me: *forgets own middle name*
me, also: hey did you know that all pennies minted prior to 1982 are pure copper pennies and not copper plated and are technically actually worth 2 cents