unclenoriega

"Ideally, I can have enough money and power to benefit from society without contributing to its upkeep or being bound by its rules."

I can understand the need for sanctions against belligerent countries, but this move seems worrying to me. As an American citizen, whose government kills innocent civilians all over the world with some regularity, I don't see how I could use Namecheap after this.

> They also forbid pharmacies from telling customers if it would be cheaper to pay cash.

This is now illegal in the US.

https://www.aarp.org/health/drugs-supplements/info-2018/gag-...

This is the same idea behind giving a gift card (if it's done thoughtfully).

The appropriate vice-consul takes over, presumably.

> What he has is Tesla stock, which the public is welcome to buy as well.

Let them eat cake?

They could be outlawed non-suddenly.

If we can rewind a Blu-ray, carbon copy someone on an email, and roll up a power window, I imagine we can stream our TV to our tablets just fine.

The CDC definitely says we should vaccinate almost all children against influenza. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccinations.htm

Nine Nasty Words by John McWhorter talks about exactly this progression of the profane.

Don't forget that no vaccine is 100% effective. There have been breakthrough cases requiring hospitalization and even some deaths.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/bre...

The way to convince the disbelievers is with large randomized controlled trials.

Spring seems like the best time to celebrate the new year.

I was trying to trying to point out the scale of the "inefficiencies" inherent in current pharmacy billing practices (and in my understanding medical billing in general). The prices are literally just made up[0], and then payors have to guess how much they should pay. "That's not how it works", perhaps a poor choice of words was intended to reflect that if a drug costs $2000 per month or even $500/month, often that money doesn't need to come from anywhere.

Now that you've clarified, it sounds like you're arguing against the idea that drugs have no cost of development or production, which is not an idea that anyone actually holds, so I'm sorry for wasting our time. I would point that "free at the point of service" does seem to be one sense of "free".

[0] https://www.rjhealth.com/2019/07/31/drug-pricing-101-reimbur...

That's not really how it works with drug prices in the US. I don't know exactly how it works behind the scenes, but from the pharmacy perspective, it's basically like this:

The "sticker price" of a drug is called the "usual and customary price" (U&C). This is supposed to be what you charge for a drug, and is generally based on the "average wholesale price" (AWP) of the drug plus a dispensing fee to cover other costs. The AWP, however, may or may not (usually not in the case of generic drugs) be related to the actual acquisition cost of the drug. It tends to be substantially higher.

The pharmacy bills its U&C price to the insurance company (or, more often, a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) contracted by the insurance company), and the insurance company tells you what it will actually pay you—this can be negative—and how much to charge the patient. Usually the pharmacy gets paid whatever the insurance company/PBM thinks it should cost to fill the prescription, and the patient pays a standard copay/coinsurance. If the patient has a large deductible or doesn't have insurance, this is where GoodRx et al. come in. They act as a PBM, allowing the patient to pay a price lower than the U&C while pocketing ~$5 or so of the "copay" for themselves (plus whatever data they get). Often independent pharmacies will just cut out the middle man and give you a better cash price (although this may violate their PBM contracts), but the big chains will need the coupon.

Depending on the difference between the AWP and the actual acquisition cost of the drug(s), this can be a substantial savings for cash patients or people with large deductibles.

Showtime seems like the worst for this. Maybe Netflix is becoming the anti-Showtime. I've joked before that I wish I could pay half price for a Showtime subscription that only had the first half of each series.

"It will be permanent jet lag," said Myriam Juda, a researcher at Simon Fraser University's Circadian Rhythms and Sleep Lab...

But yes, it's meant figuratively or in the social jetlag sense.

Looks like it was hue (as hiw).

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=hue

"Caramel" in this case likely refers to caramel color. While it is still made from sugar, I doubt there's a significant enough amount to consider it "added sugar". If you look at the other colors of Listerine, there is no caramel listed.

Or perhaps one biological concentrating step.

As you say, there are several tetanus vaccines. The recommended 10-year booster is the Td (just tetanus and diptheria) or the Tdap (tetanus, diptheria, and pertussis) if you haven't gotten it before. (The Tdap is also recommended during each pregnancy.) Any tetanus-containing vaccine would do though. I believe the amount of tetanus toxoid is the same in all of them.

Just for completeness, the recommendation (in the US at least) is for the Td every 10 years, and the Tdap only once (preferably in adolescence) or during pregnancy.

Discussion on a similar article from 10 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19064860

For one, nightmares and hallucinations are not allergic reactions, and should not be described as such. And second, true allergic reactions can vary from a mildly annoying rash to life-threatening anaphylaxis. it's important to know the specifics in order to make a proper risk­­-benefit analysis.

> Probably they were arrested for something that shouldn’t have even been a crime in the first place.

I wouldn't say that.

> [T]wo juvenile victims told investigators that Warren Demesme, 22, sexually assaulted them. Baddoo said one victim reported that Demesme “would portray the rape as a game, and the child articulated the sexual contact caused her pain.”

https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_1ecdd37...

I'd like to believe that, and I think I still do, but it just seems odd the way the judge phrases his opinion. I agree that the defendant's wording is ambiguous, but that last sentence gets me:

> In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a “lawyer dog” does not constitute...

Maybe it's just in jest or intended to be a (racially-coded?) slight at the defendant. It doesn't change the overall argument, but it stands out to me. Why wouldn't you just say "lawyer" there, probably without the quotes?

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I would like to imagine legal opinions are written carefully. Hopefully I'm missing something.

I was ready to agree with you, but the fact that opinion quotes "lawyer dog" makes me question what the judge actually thinks (or is claiming to think). Clearly it should be "lawyer, dog," instead of "lawyer dog". The judge does seem to be quoting the transcript, however, which leads us to the point of the article.

The problem (IMO) isn't your suggestion that marginalized people be taught to use and understand General American, it's that you characterize speaking Black English as a pathology.

It can be important to speak the prestige language if one wants to advance in society, but it's not a medical problem to speak a local dialect. Would you advise an aspiring London barrister from Yorkshire to see a therapist or watch some YouTube videos on RP?

As a retail pharmacist, I agree this can be an annoying problem. I try to encourage single-ingredient generic products as much as possible. And yes, "brand extension" as they call it has rendered popular names like Mucinex and Robitussin useless or even downright harmful. I think many people just look for something with "severe cold" or whatever without even considering what's in it.

It's not just patients either. Some OTC products are covered by some insurance plans. I've had prescribers change from one OTC product to another that shared none of its ingredients with the first. Not sure what they were treating other than "patient wants a prescription".

And don't get me started on homeopathic products. I had a man come in once with the box of a homeopathic product looking to buy more for his wife. I looked around, showed him a similar product, and asked if this was OK. He said it was as long as it worked as well. That I could guarantee!

I do try to dissuade such purchases, but when the customer comes in knowing what they want, it's often a losing battle. The one time homeopathic products can be useful is when someone just has to have something to treat their two-year-old's cold.

> Could there be a subsidy for companies that take the time to manage their products/design/supply-chain to combat wastefulness/negative externalities of using the product/service?

Isn't that functionally what a "carbon tax" is? Seems like the obvious solution we (speaking from the U.S.) should have implemented decades ago. There are other types of waste, but plastic seems like the most problematic.