They have actuaries to make sure they get their profit margin either way. Healthy insurance customers just make sick insurance customers happier since the price goes down.
Yeah but I'm guessing you wouldn't be willing to pay them that now.
Their point was the high risk versus the high reward. Even if investors gave such money to thousands of longevity startups, would they produce something that makes all the investing pay off better than what they sunk into them? (without pivoting to something other than longevity).
If you put slower kids into (legitimately) accelerated programs they just get left behind and do even worse. When you separate children into classes that proceed at different rates based on how fast they learn, everyone is actually getting their own "special classes".
Meanwhile if you try to handicap parents who care, to bring their children to the level of parents who don't care, they just take their children out of the system and put them in private schools. Except of course for the poor gifted kids stuck in public school, ironically, who you wanted to help.
Maybe it's just your points idea that's not very good. If you were punished with traffic school and just ignored it they can still increase penalities and eventually come arrest you. Unless your plan involves hiding out in the mountains somewhere or something.
Laws aren't only for punishing people who have something to seize. How else do we deal with people who have no money but still commit minor infractions?
I think the poster was generally referring to the fact that students who progress at a faster rate will have an advantage by simple virtue of having covered more material in school. They will be more preferred by colleges which leads to being more preferred for jobs. Basically a "rich get richer" effect.
Of course the idea that this is a bad thing (as opposed to being exactly how a merit-based system is supposed to work) is based on presupposing that higher performance was the result of unfair discrimination in the first place.
The issue with gifted children isn't about indoctrinating them to whatever beliefs. It's the destructive belief that high academic achievement is the result of some unfair "privilege" which they seek to counter by limiting opportunities for advancement.
so the alternatives are: A. lifetime benefits from being challenged up to their real potential during their most-formative years, versus alternative B. being cooler for a few years during puberty when being different is a bad thing.
Isn't that effectively the same argument though? In practice states provide ID's to everyone who can prove residency. Forcing states to grant ID's to everyone who asks for it is the same as forcing them to allow anyone to vote without ID's, just with an extra step.
I don't know that the US is especially worse than other countries when it comes to time and paperwork needed to receive govt services. I have waited in long lines all over the world.
Which side of the argument includes people who are on board with allowing backdoors into (otherwise) secure communication as long as it requires a warrant or some similar oversight? Because that's kind of how law enforcement has always operated (at least ideally) when it comes to violating freedoms.
I agree it's not only deterrance (cops cared just as little when my gps was stolen in a good neighborhood versus in a bad one). You still need to ability to compare risk versus reward sanely. People I've known who couldn't hold a job always had emotional/mental issues. They hated authority so much they'd rather be unemployeed than have a boss telling them what to do. If they did have a job they'd sabotoge it one way or another.
If you did lose your livelihood I suspect you would fare better due to the same impulse control and ability to delay gratification that led you to be temporarily wealthy in the first place.