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

Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 448 posts

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#381

Post by wizofaus »

dudul wrote: post #376
andsoitis wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When does a human life start? When you take your first breath.

This has the merit of being pretty clear, in a way I like it, but then abortion can happen up until the day of the birth?

In principle, that's legal in much of the developed world (with various restrictions in place). But it simply never happens, as there's no practical way to abort a pregnancy that close to term without severely harming the mother (which would be criminal). Abortions in the 3rd trimester are a tiny % of the total (typically https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortion...

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#382

Post by BrandoElFollito »

anon9001 wrote: post #364
silisili wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, typically employers pay for most or all of your family's health insurance. Yes, it's absurd. Losing your job means losing your insurance. US also has laws requiring up to 3 months of leave for having children. So, if you have a child, the company must accept or pay for your leave, depending on policy, and their health insurance costs for you go up.

I don't think non-Americans appreciate the complexity here. To anyone unfamiliar with our health care system for typical employees: Once a year, most companies have a "benefits training" session that explains this year's crazy health care situation. They're boring and I only go to the first one when I join a company. But it's 2022 and we have youtube, so I found Ohio State's training in public: https://www.youtube.co…

Our system is not that simple either.

- you have mandatory health insurance which is a percentage of your income

- you have an extra insurance (called mutuelle) which you may not have if you are not salaried (but that you get anyway), or it may be compulsory if you are salaried.

Doctors can be in one of the two groups: 1 or 2. 1 means that your costs are fixed and regulated by law. This is for instance 25€ for a general/family doctor visit. n% of this is reimbursed by the compulsory insurance, and the other one reimburses the rest. n depends on the medical act - for instance for the visit to the MD n=70.

The group 2 fixes their prices as they wish. This is usually for specialists (but not always, there are plenty of specialists that are in the group 1)

The extra insurance covers up to M times the regular cost. M depends on the act and on the insurance.

Generally speaking - the more serious the act, the more you are reimbursed. A heart operation will be free no matter what, but something simple may cost a lot (more that the extra coverage). It is very rare, though, to go over that extra coverage.

Dental is not covered very well - it is OK for small things but implants fo instance are notoriously expensibve (you may pay, say, 1000€ out of 6000€). So is optical (you can always get glasses for free but they will not be the best ones).

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#383

Post by dlss »

pseudo0 wrote: post #335
dlss wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-bruce-effe... If animals do it in nature, and humans do it with dangerous methods when denied access to safe methods, it's going to be with us until the end of time, regardless of law. Let's face it, this is just another drug war. An opportunity for Republicans to deny Americans personal autonomy and liberty. A justification for state aggression against your neighbors…

Monkeys also engage in cannibalism, sometimes even of their own dead young, and lions regularly commit infanticide. Appeals to nature are not compelling in the slightest when it comes to morality.

My inference from nature supported a non-moral point, namely "[abortion is] going to be with us until the end of time, regardless of law."

As for my moral argument, I invite you to read about the history of abortion, the history of abolition, and/or the history of America's war on drugs. I expect you will find abolition the easiest example to grok, since it's no longer a political issue. Note the moral arguments for abolition still stand, and yet it's no longer law.

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#384

Post by woodruffw »

refurb wrote: post #307
woodruffw wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the person you’re replying to agrees with you; they were trying to intentionally be absurd. The only problem: a fetus is not a child, and this entire rhetorical strategy requires us to ignore that fact.

A fetus not a child, but concluding that it deserves no protection isn’t a foregone conclusion. I mean people who injure a pregnant woman and it results in fetal death are criminally charged. So in that case we do consider it worthy of protection under the law.

Fetal death in those cases corresponds (or ought to correspond) to a projection of the actual victim’s wishes: harm to the fetus is exactly coextensive with harm to the pregnant person’s future plans for it.

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#385

Post by _gabe_ »

andsoitis wrote: post #330
_gabe_ wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, it's almost like when it comes to harming other people the state has some sort of power over us. I'm sure there are some people that would love to murder their neighbors. I mean, if that's their preference, why should the state intervene at all? If you're engaging in some activity that doesn't harm other individuals, go for it, who cares. In the case of an abortion, there's at least some gray area. I hope we…

> When does a human life start? When you take your first breath.

So if you need the assistance of a mechanical ventilator are you no longer human since you can't breathe on your own? Why would taking your first breath suddenly transform you from nonhuman to human?

Further, is it ok for a hospital to stop attempting to save people once they flatline? After all, if we measure humanity according to this metric, then they ceased to he a human once they could no longer breathe.

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#386

Post by JKCalhoun »

alfor wrote: post #289
JKCalhoun wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're suggesting we put a limit on the number of abortions someone can have? Maybe you think one is okay, but that's it. If a woman's life is in danger from the pregnancy, how does that figure into your calculus?

It’s a tiny part of abortions. Mostly abortion is contraception after the fact, I think this part is morally wrong, a bit like killing a baby.

Many states outlawing abortion are also outlawing the "tiny part of abortions".

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#387

Post by Dracophoenix »

dillondoyle wrote: post #320
Dracophoenix wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not unprecedented. That was basically the premise of mandatory bussing: Force children to go schools they may not like simply to even out the racial proportion. Obviously, it didn't work.

What are you trying to say? What specifically didn't work. It wasn't simply to even out the racial proportion for the sake of it. Segregated schools were incredibly worse in virtually every way. Funding. Buildings themselves. Availability of teachers. The (lack of any) kind of out of classroom support that creates great adults. Active discrimination and policing. On and on. But you're right that it did not completely…

"It didn't work" means that it didn't achieve a desired outcome (good education for all) by its chosen means (racial quotas). Mandatory bussing didn't exist solely for its own sake, but the reasoning of using force to mandate student diversity was and is still dubious in achieving better educational outcomes for students. Forced association does not make a school better equipped to provide a good education for anyone.

One major result is that a number of parents decided to vote with their feet and their dollars. They didn't, as you put it, "take funding away" from other districts. The citizens of the United States are not serfs. They have the freedom to move to and pay property taxes where they see fit. School districts are not owed money simply for existing.

If the courts argued on issues of how states should fund students rather than how many kids of a certain race in are in a certain district, perhaps a more sensible solution could have been reached (although that should not justify egregiously high levels of funding). There were already a number of voluntary bussing programs in a number states, and they were successful, despite the courts claims that they were "insufficient".

In addition, schools are already federally funded in proportion to state population (a major reason for states to push filling out the census). Several states also dedicate money to funding education. Property taxes may supplement federal and state funding for schools, but there's no federal requirement for levied property taxes to go to schools. That's generally a decision left to the local populace and its elected representatives.

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#388

Post by shadowgovt »

bogota wrote: post #298
rybosome wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s happening. I think it’s going to get way worse than most people believe.

Yep. They have already started talking about reversing marriage rights and contraception as well. It’s funny that an unelected body is now going to destroy the US and revert things that are clearly the majority opinion of the population. Im glad I have dual citizenship because It does feel like the next 4 years is going to be a very sharp downturn (socially) in the US.

Congress should reflect the majority opinion of the population.

The maddening thing about this is these issues are all correctable by law, but most people (rightly, I think) don't believe the body with an 18% approval rating will successfully pass those laws.

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#389

Post by psyfi »

hericium wrote: post #352
unmole wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the company decided that the risk of reputational damage was smaller than the value of their Russian operations? The fact that they decided to stay put doesn't mean they support the invasion. Don't anthropomorphize corporations.

> The fact that they decided to stay put doesn't mean they support the invasion. How about with taxes paid there? German chancelor Olaf Scholz halted $10b Nord Stream 2 project and plans to stop fossils import from Russia to cut cash flow to Putin's regime. Other repercussions' goal is similar: to stop indirectly funding Putin's invasion. Everyone paying Russia could just "stay put" but this wouldn't be inaction.

> How about with taxes paid there?

How about taxes paid in countries with more civilian kills in unjustified wars?

Are people from Iraq, Afghanistan, Sub-sahran africa less horrible to kill than from Ukraine?

I'm not whatabouting, I'm just clarifying what this idea implies

The actual reason why it's "okay" to pay taxes in U.S. is that the media don't demonize U.S. as equally as for Russia, Iran, Taliban, etc.. Therefore, public opinion isn't really going to affect their $$

Post reply on HN