The problem you run into is needing to front load the resources. You cant remove those funds from the police, and then start spending it on social workers/crises intervention specialists, medical, education, because the gap will be too great. That reduced funding to the police will translate to less police, then because the solution isn't in place, the police will still be relied on as the catch all, but with less of them, they will be more likely to use force, which will lead to more lethal force use.

First you need to provide extensive national standardised training for crises intervention and de-escalation to police so they have the resources to better intervene with persons in crises (they will do a lot of this intervention even in the new world order of defunding, because no social worker is going to talk down a guy in crises with a bat without a guy with a gun making it safe first, so it won't be wasted).

Then you need to fund these new resources and allow them to take effect before removing resources from police.

Unfortunately immediately cutting millions of dollars and giving it to social programs and medical field, won't have the desired effect because those fields face significant shortages of employees with their current staffing levels. If you suddenly make thousands of more positions available, you won't have anymore people to go into the job.

Also five star!

Yeah that coding shit is a disaster. The entire thing is a disaster.

I wish that were possible in mine.

It's rationed by the funding, too. Lack of funding is why ORs sit unused while patients wait. Restrictions on entry to med schools is why too.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Whole topic overviews are not allowed on ELI5. This subreddit is meant for explanations of specific concepts, not general introductions to broad topics.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Straightforward or factual queries are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is meant for simplifying complex concepts.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Codependency is when a couple (not necessarily a romantic one) depends on one another for their emotional and/or earthly needs.

It's considered unhealthy because we live in an ultra-individualized society, where independence and the selfish desires of the individual are prioritized.

[removed]

Just to clarify, private providers do not negotiate with Medicare. The Medicare Benefits Schedule is set and the provider can take it or leave it. There are tweaks and new items and occasional indexations, but the rate is the rate. Docs can charge whatever they want, and the patient will only get back what the MBS says.

> (most in-use algorithms are pretty break-proof at the moment).

Your use of "most" in this context is slightly worrying. What are the exceptions?

Convenience fee: $383.90

Not just that, they also rebuild parts that have fallen over or broken, even if it wasn't broken in our lifetimes. If they can clearly identify where a certain part belongs, they will put it back there.

So it's not just preservation, there is actual reconstruction going on too.

I'll try to ELI5 it:

A police officer is basically "a guy with a gun". So the question we, as a society, need to ask ourselves is "when do we need a guy with a gun and when are we better served with a different solution."

• for things like a bank robbery or a hostage situation, a guy with a gun is great person to have. This is the kind of thing police are good for. Nobody wants to stop police officers from stopping dangerous criminals and people who say otherwise are lying to you.
• But for things like "a homeless person who is addicted to drugs". WTF is a guy with a gun going to do to help this situation?? We need trained social workers and paramedics to handle this issue, not police officers.
• Even for smaller criminal issues like a kid doing vandalism due to a bad homelife, I would argue that sending in armed forces with guns is a major overreaction that won't help anyone. We would be better served by helping these kids get a better life instead of punishing them for small misdemeanors.

The problem in the USA is that the police is currently the only solution to every problem, no matter how ill-equipped they are to handle it. We would be better served to defund them, use them for serious issues only and use those newly freed funds to invest in better healthcare, education and social workers to prevent problems in the first place.

Was that not what Obamacare was before it had to compromise to pass?

Or healthcare that's not even framed in terms of insurance. Just provided free to whoever needs it.

It means never having to worry about what would happen when you get sick. An example is my blood cancer treatment. Tests in local hospital including various scans and procedures.

In patient treatment in local hospital. Out patient and in patient treatment in London hospital which is designated an international centre of excellence. Life long monitoring. Taxis sent by hospital to collect me when I’ve needed to be admitted. Completely free drugs all the time. Even some really expensive ones (over £1,000 per week for one and I was on multiple different drugs).

Never having to worry about my care at any stage. Even now I’m in remission I still have regular check ups. Recently I had a routine orthopaedic operation. Due to my medical history the anaesthetist wanted to discuss some blood test results with my haematology consultant. Different hospitals in different parts of the country. All resolved the same day.

Same for pregnancy. Son born premature and very ill. Never a question of cost for treatment and monthly appointments with a consultant for first 5 years of his life. All completely free.

I think rationing is a bit of a dubious word to describe it. In both public and private healthcare you have limited healthcare resources split across the public so "rationing" occurs either way. The real difference is that in public healthcare it's rationed by the severity of your condition while on private it's rationed by the size of your wallet.

If a private system would've allowed your sister to get treated faster, then it would likely mean that whoever was ahead of her in the queue for public health treatment (and thus had a more severe condition), is now losing out on treatment instead

Officer response ($787 x 2 officers)..................................................$1,574
Use of mace on suspect......................................................................$50
Use of taser on suspect.......................................................................$150
Handcuff arrest.....................................................................................$45
Cruiser ride to jail..................................................................................$200
Overnight stay in jail ($300 x 2 nights)...............................................$600
Emergency response call ($1.50/per minute x 32 minutes).............$48

TOTAL.....................................................................................................$2,667

It's a training exercise and it works the exact same way all training for anything works.

• Studying doesn't have the same stress as an actual exam, but it still works
• Training for a sport isn't the same as being in an actual match, but it still works to learn the strategy and teamwork etc.
• ...

Military exercises are the same.

You know literally zero about the defund the police movement.

It would take money away from the Police (ya know, the ones that solve an estimated 2% of crimes in the US source), and give it to social workers and crisis responders who don't show up and kill mentally unstable or handicapped people who pose no threat to anybody at the time.

NPR article detailing many such events over the last few years.

>linear correlation means that the degree difference should be the same, like if the difference between -5 and 5 is ten then the difference in Fahrenheit should also be 10, but it's not, which confuses me severely

Linear correlation means "if you change the °C by 10, then no matter what the original °C was, the °F changes by the same amount (not necessarily 10) each time".

Or, more simply, if you plotted °F against °C, the graph would be a straight line.

The slope of that line doesn't have to be 1.

Yeah this was actually the case in London at one point. If you weren’t insured you had lower priority for your house being put out if it was on fire.

In a realistic scenario you would expect an attack to come. At least that there is a chance of the attack coming. Of course there are different types of military exercises. But a lot of them take place over a longer period of time and the enemy can attack at any point. A good strategy for the exercise is to avoid attacking at the start of the exercise to allow the defenders to settle into their positions a bit. The exercises also tend to include multiple potential attack vectors, either multiple objects being protected or that the attacks can come from multiple angles. The defenders will therefore not know if their position will be attacked at all. Again a common tactic is to initiate an attack on one vector hoping the defenders will redeploy to this area only to have the main attack come in at another vector. The defenders do not know which is which.

As for the fear of life this is somewhat of an issue. Obviously you can not go around killing people for military exercises. But you can make them lose face. The exercises will have referees who will look at an engagement and tell you the outcome. The exercises is more about movements, tactics and logistics rather then shooting skills. So you can let the soldiers fire a few blanks at each other and then go tell them who won. If a referee is not present the soldiers and commanders will do a fair assesment of the engagement for themselves. Getting "killed" in such a way is a bit of an embaresment that you want to avoid and the next time you will do better.

That being said you want soldiers to be fearless in battle and sacrifice everything for a victory, even their own lives. In fact soldiers tend to be more motivated by war then by exercises. So the problem is not that solders do not fear death in an exercise but that they fear having to go through all the pain of battle without actually winning anything important. Are you willing to march for days in heavy rain and mud carrying heavy gear and eating cold meals only for a general to tell your batallion you did a good job? Are you willing to go thorugh all that in order to defend your country from foreign invaders even though it means you might be killed at the end of it?

It's definitely a skill most people do not have. Maybe they train to eat more and exercise like crazy and not eat for a few days, maybe they vomit it all up afterwards, or maybe they just have larger stomachs that can hold excessive food. It might also vary from competitor to competitor