6 ms·

And it's being paid by the state, presumably in no small part by tax dollars the victims themselves contributed to state funds. It's a slap in the face all aro

by njovin 5y ago

And it's being paid by the state, presumably in no small part by tax dollars the victims themselves contributed to state funds. It's a slap in the face all around.

madengr 5y ago
Who’s it supposed to be paid by?
- teawrecks 5y ago
  Insurance
  - loonster 5y ago
    The premiums are paid by the government. No sorry that doesn't shift the cost to anyone else.
    - Retric 5y ago
      Premiums and payouts are very separate pools of money. Life insurance payouts for example can in theory be consistently be larger than premiums.
- loonster 5y ago
  The people that were ultimately responsible. Which I would argue is the voters. It's a neat trick. Lawyers take 600m out of the voters back pocket, hand back 400m, and the people rejoice.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >It's a neat trick. Lawyers take 600m out of the voters back pocket, hand back 400m, and the people rejoice. and that's fine, because you're not taking $60 out of everyone's pocket and giving back $40, they're taking $60 out of everyone's pocket and giving $4000 to the people affected. The point of the lawsuit is to force redistributing wealth to compensate the people affected, not as some sort of money-maker.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Who do you think should pay for this? Canada? The Republican Party of Michigan? Rick Snyder?
    - loonster 5y ago
      I think it should be dismissed. Criminal lawsuits should be allowed to go forward.
      - gruez 5y ago
        > I think it should be dismissed. So you're against compensating the victims financially? >Criminal lawsuits should be allowed to go forward. You do realize that this judgement doesn't preclude criminal prosecution? The criminal courts and civil courts operate independently.
      - vkou 5y ago
        The state of Michigan was responsible for damaging the health of the people of Flint, Michigan. If the people of Michigan elect clowns to run the state, who cause harm to <some group of people>, the people of Michigan should be responsible for making amends. It doesn't make one whit of difference that the harmed people were, or were not part of Michigan. This creates an incentive to not elect clowns.
throwawaysea 5y ago
Why is the state responsible? Isn’t this infrastructure squarely the responsibility of the city?
- da_chicken 5y ago
  Not in this case. An emergency financial manager from the State of Michigan was the one who made the call to switch Flint water source from the original source to the more alkaline (and cheaper) alternative source. It was this alkaline water that wore away the mineral buildup lining the lead pipes, exposed the lead to the water, and then began to dissolve the lead pipes themselves. Edit: Initially I wrote "acidic". Thinking back more, I think the water source they switched to was actually alkaline. Same end result, but different actual pH.
  - thatcat 5y ago
    they switched the water source and didn't add enough hydroxide to adjust pH to level to maintain the caco3 coating the pipes, so the water ended up being too acidic
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    Got it, thanks. And was that to save the city from insolvency? The original article here also phrased things as the state allowing the city to switch sources. The reason I am probing is it seems wrong in a sense for state taxpayers to be punished for attempting to help a mismanaged city, although I recognize it’s complicated. I also am probably missing key background information here.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      "it seems wrong in a sense for state taxpayers to be punished " The problem with that logic, is no-one would ever get compensation from the government, as in the end it's all taxpayer's money.
    - da_chicken 5y ago
      > And was that to save the city from insolvency? More or less, yes. Flint has struggled for several decades. The decline of the auto industry in Michigan hit several cities very hard, including Flint. As businesses and people left and unemployment climbed, tax revenue plummeted and crime soared. That encouraged more people to leave. Sometimes even if they abandoned or foresook their homes. The causes of the crisis are fairly complex. But the management after it had been identified by the population was absolutely criminal. There's a very good reason that criminal charges have been filed. Making the switch was somewhat defensible. However, they ignored the signs of problems, ignored complaints, didn't test appropriately, etc.

by njovin 5y ago

And it's being paid by the state, presumably in no small part by tax dollars the victims themselves contributed to state funds. It's a slap in the face all around.

madengr 5y ago

Who’s it supposed to be paid by?

teawrecks 5y ago
Insurance
- loonster 5y ago
  The premiums are paid by the government. No sorry that doesn't shift the cost to anyone else.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Premiums and payouts are very separate pools of money. Life insurance payouts for example can in theory be consistently be larger than premiums.
loonster 5y ago
The people that were ultimately responsible. Which I would argue is the voters. It's a neat trick. Lawyers take 600m out of the voters back pocket, hand back 400m, and the people rejoice.
- gruez 5y ago
  >It's a neat trick. Lawyers take 600m out of the voters back pocket, hand back 400m, and the people rejoice. and that's fine, because you're not taking $60 out of everyone's pocket and giving back $40, they're taking $60 out of everyone's pocket and giving $4000 to the people affected. The point of the lawsuit is to force redistributing wealth to compensate the people affected, not as some sort of money-maker.
- vkou 5y ago
  Who do you think should pay for this? Canada? The Republican Party of Michigan? Rick Snyder?
  - loonster 5y ago
    I think it should be dismissed. Criminal lawsuits should be allowed to go forward.
    - gruez 5y ago
      > I think it should be dismissed. So you're against compensating the victims financially? >Criminal lawsuits should be allowed to go forward. You do realize that this judgement doesn't preclude criminal prosecution? The criminal courts and civil courts operate independently.
    - vkou 5y ago
      The state of Michigan was responsible for damaging the health of the people of Flint, Michigan. If the people of Michigan elect clowns to run the state, who cause harm to <some group of people>, the people of Michigan should be responsible for making amends. It doesn't make one whit of difference that the harmed people were, or were not part of Michigan. This creates an incentive to not elect clowns.

throwawaysea 5y ago

Why is the state responsible? Isn’t this infrastructure squarely the responsibility of the city?

da_chicken 5y ago
Not in this case. An emergency financial manager from the State of Michigan was the one who made the call to switch Flint water source from the original source to the more alkaline (and cheaper) alternative source. It was this alkaline water that wore away the mineral buildup lining the lead pipes, exposed the lead to the water, and then began to dissolve the lead pipes themselves. Edit: Initially I wrote "acidic". Thinking back more, I think the water source they switched to was actually alkaline. Same end result, but different actual pH.
- thatcat 5y ago
  they switched the water source and didn't add enough hydroxide to adjust pH to level to maintain the caco3 coating the pipes, so the water ended up being too acidic
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Got it, thanks. And was that to save the city from insolvency? The original article here also phrased things as the state allowing the city to switch sources. The reason I am probing is it seems wrong in a sense for state taxpayers to be punished for attempting to help a mismanaged city, although I recognize it’s complicated. I also am probably missing key background information here.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "it seems wrong in a sense for state taxpayers to be punished " The problem with that logic, is no-one would ever get compensation from the government, as in the end it's all taxpayer's money.
  - da_chicken 5y ago
    > And was that to save the city from insolvency? More or less, yes. Flint has struggled for several decades. The decline of the auto industry in Michigan hit several cities very hard, including Flint. As businesses and people left and unemployment climbed, tax revenue plummeted and crime soared. That encouraged more people to leave. Sometimes even if they abandoned or foresook their homes. The causes of the crisis are fairly complex. But the management after it had been identified by the population was absolutely criminal. There's a very good reason that criminal charges have been filed. Making the switch was somewhat defensible. However, they ignored the signs of problems, ignored complaints, didn't test appropriately, etc.