Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 64 posts

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#41

Post by lol768 »

Liquid_Fire wrote: post #39
dfcowell wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Australia at least you can claim a tax rebate if you have private health insurance. I imagine the UK would have a similar system.

In the UK, private insurance usually requires you to use the public health system as a first stage, and only fall back to the private one for things not covered by the NHS. So you don't get a tax rebate because you are still relying on the public system.

Even in cases where you're using a private GP service and theoretically not costing the NHS anything at all; there's no tax rebate.

To be clear though, I'm fine with this - the NHS is for everyone and it should be funded for everyone.

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#42

Post by harimau777 »

saagarjha wrote: post #13
hvdfhbj wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the fact that the BBC felt compelled to add pictures to this story at all, for the benefit of readers who might be unfamiliar with what a swimming pool or glass of water would look like.

For some reason, lots of writers seem to feel that useless pictures are better than no pictures. I see this all the time with programming blog posts too; they’ll stick some stock art of HTML or a computer on a desk or something like that. With news it’s not just burning through my data plan but sometimes it can be actively misleading, like when they pick a picture to represent something but it’s not the actual thing…

Not being a designer; whenever I make a site as a side project I struggle with making it look like anything. I don't mean making it look good; just making it not look like an ultra utilitarian 90's style blocks of text page.

I wonder if there could be a similar situation here. Without some sort of image it's difficult to make the page not look empty or sterile.

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#44

Post by karmakaze »

BeniBoy wrote: post #26
polm23 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's actually a really specific reason for this. If you have an image it gets shown in link preview on social sites like Facebook and Twitter - this will also work for the article overview on the site if they have one. Links with image previews get shown larger in the feed and get more clicks. So many writers will always try to have an image, no matter how arbitrary.

You could just put the image in the relevant meta tag, there is no need to actually display it in the article.

But then when you clicked on the picture and didn't see it on the displayed page might wonder if it's the right article, especially if the title was missing or editorialized in the reference.

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#45

Post by augustk »

saagarjha wrote: post #13
hvdfhbj wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the fact that the BBC felt compelled to add pictures to this story at all, for the benefit of readers who might be unfamiliar with what a swimming pool or glass of water would look like.

For some reason, lots of writers seem to feel that useless pictures are better than no pictures. I see this all the time with programming blog posts too; they’ll stick some stock art of HTML or a computer on a desk or something like that. With news it’s not just burning through my data plan but sometimes it can be actively misleading, like when they pick a picture to represent something but it’s not the actual thing…

This got me thinking of articles by Joel Spolsky. Here is an example:

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-...

Text-wise his articles are often very interesting though.

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#46

Post by watwut »

Freak_NL wrote: post #27
BeniBoy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could just put the image in the relevant meta tag, there is no need to actually display it in the article.

This is a lost battle. Every news website does this now. Even reputable newspapers who would never consider adding a pointless photograph in print have it as a requirement for every online version of the same articles. I find it insulting to me as reader. Perhaps they should offer a toggle for it in the user settings.

I cant comprehend why would you find it insulting. I mean, this is not even nano-aggression, it really says nothing at all and even less something bad about you.

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#47

Post by karmakaze »

I got curious and started to search out some other reading[0]:

> The pathogenesis of [aquagenic urticaria] AU is poorly understood at this time, and it appears to be mediated in both a histamine-dependent and independent manner. [...] Currently, the first-line therapy for AU is an oral administration of nonsedating, second-generation H1 antihistamines, but many patients may require further interventions to have adequate symptomatic control. In this review, we discuss the diagnostic and management challenges of AU.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5136360/

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#48

Post by dredmorbius »

voldacar wrote: post #14
ivraatiems wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, because markets where there is competition work so well? I can't think of an insurance company in the US that'd cover this. Can you?

it's a serious stretch to call the US healthcare system an open market in any meaningful sense of the term

Incomplete coverage, no competition, an addiction factory, and an inability to competently address a widespread health emergency. Quad-win!

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#49

Post by ClumsyPilot »

dfcowell wrote: post #30
lostlogin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then you are paying for both private and public healthcare, so it isn’t really competition.

In Australia at least you can claim a tax rebate if you have private health insurance. I imagine the UK would have a similar system.

The problem I see with that, is that if my private insurance is with my employer, I am making no public contribution while I am healthy but earning money.

Then while I am on pension I am back on the public system, I am making no contribution but using it most.

That would basically be a system designed to bancrupt the public but lucrative for private insurers.

Post reply on HN