249 pts ยท November 26, 2017
It's a otter, we're lucky it didn't try have sex with the phone while crushing it with it's teeth. Or kill it, then have sex with it. Don't down vote me! They look cute but its a ruse, otters are horrible animals. https://www.vox.com/2014/4/24/5640890/otters-rape-baby-seals-monsters-bad.
The crazy drug adverts are due to FDA regulations. The lists of side effects are required if the drug is named and an condition to be treated is named. To avoid giving a laundry list of possible side effects, you can't mention any uses of the drug thus "ask your doctor about...:" ads where sometimes you can't tell WTF they are about.
This is the kind of case that leads to warning labels. If a court case finds a company negligent and liable for not placing an explicit warning, you'll start to get explicit warning labels. Sometimes that's good, but when the company being sued and held liable wasn't actually responsible that just proliferates excessive warnings.
I think the company that produced it did fuck up and should be paying for his medical care, time loss, legal cost of getting them to do it, etc. But the guy was also suing the restaurant who, like him, looked at the product and thought it was boneless, and even the farm that raised the chicken.
It's deeper in both directions. The guy was seriously injured and it sounds like it was a long bone not a small piece. Which made me react like most people here. Until I saw the guy was suing not only the company that made the product (the one party responsible) but also the restaurant who like him thought it was boneless. He even sued the farm that raised the chicken, who had no control or even opportunity to prevent it happening.
Reading the article (I know, I'm weird that way) it's not about allowing bone-in chicken to be called boneless, or even calling it boneless when there could be a rare bone in it. It's about whether a guy significantly injured by a rare bone in product called boneless can sue the restaurant, the supplier of the product, and the farm (!) that raised the chicken as negligent. Clearly the farm should have raised only boneless chickens if someone else might make them into products labeled boneless.
Anyone who with half a brain can see just from vote totals that there was no significant cheating. If Democrats stuffed the ballot box with votes for Biden, they also stuffed it with votes for Republicans downticket. So Dems are so brilliant to leave no evidence of tampering, but so stupid the fake ballots voted for Republicans except for president?
Both sides try to manipulate and leverage the rules of elections and legislatures to their own advantage. Democrats try to make it easier to vote believing these new voters will vote Democratic (data says not so much). Republican's try to make it hard to vote believing that this favors their voters (also not so data supported). But that's not the same as widespread stuffing ballot boxes, fraudulent counting, or other clandestine cheating. Reality is neither side cheats .
In fairness, having been involved with left of center politics since the 1980's, over the years I've seen plenty of folks on our side dismiss conservatives out of hand the same way. So it's not just conservative thinking., But it used to be just the hyperpartisan fringes both right and left. Now it seems like there is little remaining on the right but hyperpartisans.
Had there not been a really poorly devised ballot in Palm Beech and voter rolls heavily purged, Gore arguably would probably have won. I didn't like it. You didn't like it. But under the rules the election was held under, Bush won. Another week and the vote counts would have been meaningless as under FL law, the electors would have been chosen by the Republican Florida legislature. It may not have been totally fair, but the electoral laws were followed. So no, the election was not stolen.
Huh, like a shark cage, but for your home.
If only it were that simple. The system isn't working at designed because there is no system. The closest thing to a system are a bunch of ad hoc patches. I'm not saying there are no powerful interests that benefit from keeping the status quo. There are. But they didn't design anything, they just took advantage of opportunities the dysfunction created and don't want them to end. Conspiracism gives them way too much credit.
Yes, this person gets it! Really every part of the U.S. Health care system is or has contributed to how dysfunctional the whole system is. Even at times, people trying to get health care, though we're more often at the bottom of a chain of perverse incentives. It's mostly about each component trying to advantage itself when it can and being unconcerned or unaware of the costs they externalize. And each trying to shed what was dumped on them further downstream.
There is no THE cause. There are lots of causes thought they vary by drug, and that add up quick. Litigation can be a minor factor for many drugs but also large factor for a few. But if one decides in advance on one designated villian for all drugs, that gives a free ride to a lot of those responsible. This is from 2013, but it's just as accurate now as then: https://time.com/198/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/ Yes drug companies are greedy they are not alone.
Your insurance may not have really covered it. Full retail price for 30x3mL vials of generic caffeine citrate is $933 today. But go to a different pharmacy and use a discount card and pay $122.76. A decent chunk of that $122 could be liability. It's not just that preemies have complications, its how bad they can be in someone who otherwise might have grown up healthy and lived a long life. Dying 80yr olds don't generate many lawsuits. Dying babies generate a lot.
Litigation does play a role in the excessive cost of U.S. healthcare, whether some want to admit it or not. Much of it is about what is done to avoid malpractice lawsuits than settlements and verdicts. And it still only helps so much because lawsuits are driven mostly by bad outcomes esp. producing economic needs, much less so actual malpractice. Product liability lawsuits do contribute to drug costs, but it is usually not among the largest factors in most cases
omagouch is right, except that it isn't just about battling insurance companies. It's about hospital's top execs incomes and bonuses, their buying up clinics to charge unwarranted facility fees, consolidate markets so much that they can dictate what insurance pays (who pass it on to your premiums) and how even nominally non-profit entities act just like for profit ones. Everyone has their fingers in the pie. Blaming only one part just helps the others get away with their contribution..
No he's suggesting that U.S. Hospitals buy pharmas already overpriced drugs, then mark them up another order or two of magnitude so their top administrators can make 7 digit incomes while nickel and diming staff to the point of being unsafe. And I'm suggesting that people reflexively blaming it all on drug companies (who are plenty guilty too) help them get away with this and worse.
ElecTech's right, Hospitals are as just as bad as pharma and insurance companies. https://time.com/198/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/ Ever heard about how they make up wildly inflated prices as negotiating tactics with insurance companies (look up 'chargemaster"). Then make the uninsured pay those rates? That's the just tip of the iceberg.
There is some truth to this, but there are also the crossing networks very loud and angry people who treat any acknowledgement of suffering by anyone who shares identity with their victimizer, as dismissing and having contempt for their suffering. They react by being dismissive and contemptuous for the other's suffering. They spin around each other, ever more hostile and convinced that their grievances means the other's cannot even exist. And any who claim they do are enemies.
And don't even get me started on what this means for gay men who are abused by partners.
And where are the children supposed to go? To the men's homeless shelter? If she's abusing him, she's abusing them too. True, abusive women don't kill nearly as often, but they most definitely stalk and try to terrorize their victims. Moreover, almost all homeless shelters for women are for women, only why isn't that fine for women too? Because DV victims, women and men, have different needs than the homeless. Systematically providing them only to women is ignorant at best, bigotry at worst.
It's a otter, we're lucky it didn't try have sex with the phone while crushing it with it's teeth. Or kill it, then have sex with it. Don't down vote me! They look cute but its a ruse, otters are horrible animals. https://www.vox.com/2014/4/24/5640890/otters-rape-baby-seals-monsters-bad.
The crazy drug adverts are due to FDA regulations. The lists of side effects are required if the drug is named and an condition to be treated is named. To avoid giving a laundry list of possible side effects, you can't mention any uses of the drug thus "ask your doctor about...:" ads where sometimes you can't tell WTF they are about.
This is the kind of case that leads to warning labels. If a court case finds a company negligent and liable for not placing an explicit warning, you'll start to get explicit warning labels. Sometimes that's good, but when the company being sued and held liable wasn't actually responsible that just proliferates excessive warnings.
I think the company that produced it did fuck up and should be paying for his medical care, time loss, legal cost of getting them to do it, etc. But the guy was also suing the restaurant who, like him, looked at the product and thought it was boneless, and even the farm that raised the chicken.
It's deeper in both directions. The guy was seriously injured and it sounds like it was a long bone not a small piece. Which made me react like most people here. Until I saw the guy was suing not only the company that made the product (the one party responsible) but also the restaurant who like him thought it was boneless. He even sued the farm that raised the chicken, who had no control or even opportunity to prevent it happening.
Reading the article (I know, I'm weird that way) it's not about allowing bone-in chicken to be called boneless, or even calling it boneless when there could be a rare bone in it. It's about whether a guy significantly injured by a rare bone in product called boneless can sue the restaurant, the supplier of the product, and the farm (!) that raised the chicken as negligent. Clearly the farm should have raised only boneless chickens if someone else might make them into products labeled boneless.
Anyone who with half a brain can see just from vote totals that there was no significant cheating. If Democrats stuffed the ballot box with votes for Biden, they also stuffed it with votes for Republicans downticket. So Dems are so brilliant to leave no evidence of tampering, but so stupid the fake ballots voted for Republicans except for president?
Both sides try to manipulate and leverage the rules of elections and legislatures to their own advantage. Democrats try to make it easier to vote believing these new voters will vote Democratic (data says not so much). Republican's try to make it hard to vote believing that this favors their voters (also not so data supported). But that's not the same as widespread stuffing ballot boxes, fraudulent counting, or other clandestine cheating. Reality is neither side cheats .
In fairness, having been involved with left of center politics since the 1980's, over the years I've seen plenty of folks on our side dismiss conservatives out of hand the same way. So it's not just conservative thinking., But it used to be just the hyperpartisan fringes both right and left. Now it seems like there is little remaining on the right but hyperpartisans.
Had there not been a really poorly devised ballot in Palm Beech and voter rolls heavily purged, Gore arguably would probably have won. I didn't like it. You didn't like it. But under the rules the election was held under, Bush won. Another week and the vote counts would have been meaningless as under FL law, the electors would have been chosen by the Republican Florida legislature. It may not have been totally fair, but the electoral laws were followed. So no, the election was not stolen.
Huh, like a shark cage, but for your home.
If only it were that simple. The system isn't working at designed because there is no system. The closest thing to a system are a bunch of ad hoc patches. I'm not saying there are no powerful interests that benefit from keeping the status quo. There are. But they didn't design anything, they just took advantage of opportunities the dysfunction created and don't want them to end. Conspiracism gives them way too much credit.
Yes, this person gets it! Really every part of the U.S. Health care system is or has contributed to how dysfunctional the whole system is. Even at times, people trying to get health care, though we're more often at the bottom of a chain of perverse incentives. It's mostly about each component trying to advantage itself when it can and being unconcerned or unaware of the costs they externalize. And each trying to shed what was dumped on them further downstream.
There is no THE cause. There are lots of causes thought they vary by drug, and that add up quick. Litigation can be a minor factor for many drugs but also large factor for a few. But if one decides in advance on one designated villian for all drugs, that gives a free ride to a lot of those responsible. This is from 2013, but it's just as accurate now as then: https://time.com/198/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/ Yes drug companies are greedy they are not alone.
Your insurance may not have really covered it. Full retail price for 30x3mL vials of generic caffeine citrate is $933 today. But go to a different pharmacy and use a discount card and pay $122.76. A decent chunk of that $122 could be liability. It's not just that preemies have complications, its how bad they can be in someone who otherwise might have grown up healthy and lived a long life. Dying 80yr olds don't generate many lawsuits. Dying babies generate a lot.
Litigation does play a role in the excessive cost of U.S. healthcare, whether some want to admit it or not. Much of it is about what is done to avoid malpractice lawsuits than settlements and verdicts. And it still only helps so much because lawsuits are driven mostly by bad outcomes esp. producing economic needs, much less so actual malpractice. Product liability lawsuits do contribute to drug costs, but it is usually not among the largest factors in most cases
omagouch is right, except that it isn't just about battling insurance companies. It's about hospital's top execs incomes and bonuses, their buying up clinics to charge unwarranted facility fees, consolidate markets so much that they can dictate what insurance pays (who pass it on to your premiums) and how even nominally non-profit entities act just like for profit ones. Everyone has their fingers in the pie. Blaming only one part just helps the others get away with their contribution..
No he's suggesting that U.S. Hospitals buy pharmas already overpriced drugs, then mark them up another order or two of magnitude so their top administrators can make 7 digit incomes while nickel and diming staff to the point of being unsafe. And I'm suggesting that people reflexively blaming it all on drug companies (who are plenty guilty too) help them get away with this and worse.
ElecTech's right, Hospitals are as just as bad as pharma and insurance companies. https://time.com/198/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/ Ever heard about how they make up wildly inflated prices as negotiating tactics with insurance companies (look up 'chargemaster"). Then make the uninsured pay those rates? That's the just tip of the iceberg.
There is some truth to this, but there are also the crossing networks very loud and angry people who treat any acknowledgement of suffering by anyone who shares identity with their victimizer, as dismissing and having contempt for their suffering. They react by being dismissive and contemptuous for the other's suffering. They spin around each other, ever more hostile and convinced that their grievances means the other's cannot even exist. And any who claim they do are enemies.
And don't even get me started on what this means for gay men who are abused by partners.
And where are the children supposed to go? To the men's homeless shelter? If she's abusing him, she's abusing them too. True, abusive women don't kill nearly as often, but they most definitely stalk and try to terrorize their victims. Moreover, almost all homeless shelters for women are for women, only why isn't that fine for women too? Because DV victims, women and men, have different needs than the homeless. Systematically providing them only to women is ignorant at best, bigotry at worst.