3 ms·

That's a big jump from a tiny percentage to "many". How many autistic people with sensory problems would even attend a general populace diner and not their own

That's a big jump from a tiny percentage to "many". How many autistic people with sensory problems would even attend a general populace diner and not their own state run diner attached to their adult care home? I think you should put aside your music objection. Of course, the NHS, which he used as an example, accommodates a wide range of people. I'm sure as they'd be so many diners needed they'd have rooms available without the music you've latched on to. I would imagine in the UK you might have one room on radio 1, another on radio 2, some silent, etc. While I doubt it would ever happen I'm pretty certain he's right that this would help far, far more people than it would hurt. And, bonus, if they don't like it they can go buy their own groceries and cook.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mrob 9y ago
The music will affect only a small minority, but the music is just one of many choices the author proposes the government make for people. The number of people affected by at least one of those choices will be much higher. Even if there's a private option, the public option has to be funded somehow. If you can opt out of paying in exchange for losing access to the service then it's no longer "free". And in my experience, while the NHS is superb for common physical ailments, if there's anything unusual wrong with you then they're close to useless. Healthcare is in any case an atypical market because it's already so heavily regulated.