learc83

I worked at Best Buy during college, and if you closed you'd have to wait for a manager to unlock the door for you and check your stuff.

If I had to wait more than a minute or so, I'd fill out a time correction for the time I was spent locked in the building. Anytime someone said anything about it, I said if I'm stuck in the building I'm under the company's control, so I should be paid. Eventually managers just started getting there faster when I paged them.

A while later Best Buy was sued for this and lost.

>Apple isn't alone here, but they're obviously a fun big target for it.

They aren't. Too bad no one reported the situation at the call center. That's a textbook case of unpaid wages. I've worked at company before where this happened and the people who reported it were protected from retaliation, people above them lost their job over it, and back wages were paid out.

I get that people are afraid to report this kind of thing, but it's an effective way to stop companies from stealing wages.

>"ineffective and may cause dangerous side effects"

Dangerous on an individual level, not really. But at a population level if hundreds of millions of people start taking it, you're going to have high absolute numbers of bad side effects.

> is a purely political attack on the US president.

As for ineffective, there isn't one single national health agency that recommends taking it for covid. Surely the entire globe isn't killing scores of their citizens by preventing the use of an effective treatment just to make the US President look bad.

Since it's ineffective in this case, there's no benefit to outweigh the downsides of "dangerous side effects" like their is with aspirin or Tylenol.

Millions of economically vulnerable Americans already had wholly unusable insurance.

Before the ACA there were no out of pocket maximums, coverage was mostly limited to $100k per year per person, insurance companies could price you out or drop you as soon as you became expensive, and people with preexisting conditions were completely SOL.

Before the ACA if you didn't have employer provided insurance, there was basically no insurance option. All affordable individual insurance options were effectively prepaid minor to moderate medical care plans.

Yeah it sucks, particularity without the individual mandate, but it is significantly better than what existed before.

> is better than a system where a single payer simply pays at a set rate for specific treatments.

It's not.

>but effectively will not cover unexpected large expenses

That was the claim though, and it's wrong.

For emergency treatments, insurance companies are required by the ACA to pay the out of network provider, but charge you as if you are using an in network provider.

It's possible for the out of network provider to then bill separately from your insurance if they charge more than what your insurance pays out of network providers, but there's no way that's what happened here because $1500 after the out of network fee from the insurance company is far too high for an ambulance trip.

>In normal countries you don't have that kind of criminogenic environment. Also, do stop the victim blaming.

Stop using "victim blaming" as a way to shut down discourse.

In every country in the world people run scams. Universal healthcare would make these particular kinds of scams a lot harder, but I guarantee you, you could still find this kind of anecdotal evidence of criminal behavior relating to healthcare.

Commercial speech is subject to more regulation than non commercial speech. Likeness rights in commercial speech are already a thing.

Also if you aren't very explicit in saying that this is not really a famous celebrity, then you're basically defaming that celebrity, which is also not protected speech.

>He was kind of surprised that wasn't available for everyone, like, you know, citizens...

It is available for citizens. Citizens who make below a certain amount. If the OP's fiancee lost her job and didn't have medical coverage, she would qualify for the same insurance your sushi chef did.

People will gladly collect money they aren't legally owed. In this case, unless there is more to the story, you shouldn't have paid it.

You said

>Since then kid themselves also had an ambulance ride (seizure), and that too was "out of networking" in spite of being the only ambulance provider available within 15+ minutes.

That's the illegal part.

>The US government says that private insurers deny 20% of claims.

20% are denied at least once, not 20% are never paid. There's a lot of gray area in what is medically necessary, and there's a lot of outright fraud. Plus many claims are denied because someone didn't fill them out correctly, deductibles weren't met, premiums weren't paid etc... The back and forth is part of the process. It's not great but...

> more-or-less but effectively will not cover unexpected large expenses

This is completely unwarranted.

>Your chances that an American health insurance firm will deny your claim, or at least attempt to, are very high. Virtually all of the staff at these firms are dedicated to not paying claims.

Some amount of the 20% denied first time are fraudulent, so assuming you have a legitimate claim, you have a less than 20% of them denying something the first time it's submitted, and a much smaller chance of them refusing to pay eventually.

>Last year my insurer tried to say that it was medically unnecessary to get an MRI after I'd had a tumor removed from my brain. You see, I'd also had an MRI before the surgery and according to the quack on the insurance company payroll who "reviewed my case" more than 1 MRI in a year just can't be justified.

Did they eventually pay? Did your doctor think it was medically necessary, and did you refile?

What you're describing is completely illegal now. Under the Affordable Care Act, which applies nationwide, insurers are required to cover out-of-network emergency care as if it was in-network care, which means your deductible and coinsurance can't be higher than the regular in-network amounts.

>you know, citizens

It has nothing to do with immigration status. Medicaid is available in California for people making below a certain income.

Under the Affordable Care Act, which applies nationwide, insurers are required to cover out-of-network emergency care as if it was in-network care, which means your deductible and coinsurance can't be higher than the regular in-network amounts.

>These kinds of plans were common (and cheaper) prior to the ACA.

They weren't comparable because before the ACA these plans almost exclusively had lifetime and yearly coverage limits, and they could raise your premiums to affordable levels the next year if you actually developed a long term serious illness. If you ended up with cancer, a plan like you're talking about would have dropped you like a hot potato after they blew through your $100k a year coverage limit.

>On paper it may seem to insure you against catastrophic loss, that is, if the insurance company can't find a way to deny your claim for one reason or another. You can surely bet they will be trying.

The most common method of denying claims was that it was a preexisting condition, something that ACA prevents them from doing. The vast majority of people who have health insurance will be covered in event of a catastrophic illness. It's definitely more than just "on paper".

That isn’t true at all. It used to be true because health care plans had lifetime limits to coverage, but the ACA removed those limits.

The ACA also ads out of pocket maximums. They might still be high enough to cause problems for some people, but it’s a lot better than it used to be.

As far as not paying, your chances of them just deciding not to pay are low. It’s definitely not high enough to support your claim that they effectively don’t cover large expenses. Here the ACA also helps because insurers are forced to spend at least 80% of premiums on healthcare costs and quality improvements for customers.

> removed joint-venture restrictions from most sectors of the economy,

This is misleading. On paper sure, but not in reality. The majority of large companies in China will in fact be forced to participate in a joint venture. And sure there is no "law" on the books requiring forced technology transfer, but foreign companies are forced to do it.

China is a not a country that follows the rule of law. Period. The law is whatever the CCP says it is today. There can be no rule of law without an independent judiciary, and the WTO mechanism's you speak of are completely unenforceable.

>broke up many state-owned enterprises

Also misleading. They were technically "broken" up. But they still have have CCP liaison committees, and CCP members running them. The government still assists them with corporate espionage, and provides them with enormous grants and loans. Large companies in China are still state owned enterprises in all but name.

> but the investment environment for foreign companies improved massively in China

It did improve for a few years, but the current administration has managed to reverse nearly all those improvements.

1. China has many industries that outright ban participation by foreign companies.

2. Following Chinese law includes following whatever arbitrary whims the party decides to enforce—including forced IP transfer.

Because your excerpt starts with "To accomplish the twin goals of artificially elevated incomes and worship by patients."

The thoroughly footnote supporting the latter part of that sentence is supposedly comes from something written by The Massachusetts Medical Society, but actually comes from a speech written by a single physician over half a century before the rise of the AMA's Council on Medical Education. And it does not say that mankind "should be 'looked upon by the mass of mankind with a veneration almost superstitious.', as is stated. It doesn't even get the year of publication of the quote right.

Packing an article with footnotes doesn't mean a damn thing.

Other footnotes include such thorough scholarship as this one time an unnamed Chemistry instructor told me off the record that white men have a harder time getting into med school with mediocre scores than black women do, and editorialized quotes from sources where neither a long enough quote, or enough information on the source is provided to lookup the full quote.

Take a look at the hey email client. It's built by basecamp--the guys who created rails.

As for web app vs web page--it's a very blurry line, and it's rare that I end up building something where the entire site could be considered a web app. Usually only some small pieces of it demand enough interactivity to bother with the complexities of using a UI framework, and for that I wrap a small React or a Svelte app in a div and throw it on a page within the larger site.

Why would Taiwanese companies be subject to this? Are you talking about Taiwanese companies operating in China, or are you under the impression that China actually controls Taiwan?

What area is that? Can you link to some stats.

A paramedic isn’t going anywhere near a person waving a gun or a knife to inject them. This is only for people who are already restrained.

Full time EMTs aren’t trained enough to make good decisions about when it’s appropriate to administer ketamine and how much to give. A cop who did some EMT training but doesn’t use the skills full time is going to be even worse.

My fiancée has to deal with kids in the ER who got injected with too much ketamine by overzealous EMTs all the time. I don’t think limiting it to EMTs will solve the problem.

That’s “adjusted” non GAAP EBITDA, or invented bullshit that they can manipulate nearly any way they like. It’s like wework’s “community EBITDA”.

I’ve never seen prices that low when browsing for a pool trip.

That’s not what Forbes has been saying about Uber since 2017. Look up more recent Uber article by them.

One accuses Uber of creative accounting to attempt to make the rideshare business look profitable.