[rtollert]

I think the content of the article sufficiently disproves your assertion. Actually, the headline does too IMHO.

The idea that it’s immoral for NGOs (much less professional orgs) to represent themselves to legislatures is unserious.

[db48x]

I didn’t say it was immoral, I said that canceling a grant to them doesn’t somehow reduce treatment to patients. Of course they’re going to claim that it will, because they want to be important. But the reality is that most of what they do is either unnecessary, or easily replaced. Telling new mothers not to drink during pregnancy is useful but we don’t require this particular group to do it. Anyone can tell new mothers that. Same with all the other “outreach” and “advocacy” stuff that they do.

[jmye]

The reality? Based on what? What specific healthcare background do you have? What, specifically, do you know that you didn’t literally learn in the six seconds you spent on their website that you seem to think has made you an expert?

I’m so, so tired of people who think that building some shitty React apps, or whatever, means they’re experts in everything they’ve spent 12 seconds thinking about.

[db48x]

I’m pretty tired of people who see an opinion they don’t like and immediately assume that they know everything about the commenter and their hypothetical “apps”. Ad hominem is so lame. Besides, the last app I wrote used XUL with XBL for reusable and composable widgets thank you very much.

[rtollert]

I'd want to see the grants in question (which infuriatingly haven't been linked to yet..?) before drawing further conclusions. And I continue to be annoyed at how nudge-based so much policy is nowadays... even more so when it seems to make an impact? Otherwise, fair enough.

[db48x]

Personally I take the lack of concrete information as a sign that the reporter knows that this is ultimately unimportant. If it were contracts for something important then those details would be included in the story, because they support the narrative that this is a bad move.