It's not particularly over thought to see you crediting yourself for seeking context in a conversation you only entered after it was linked in the thread. That's a pretty straightforward reading of the timeline of events.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
It's a little worrying that you cannot comprehend the possibility of other people googling things and then disagreeing with you. People google things. People argue with other people. They're two of the most commonplace behaviours on forums.
What your source used as an argument didn't make sense is my point.
Ozempic costs something around $200-$300/month in America but that's not what the person actually pays, that's what the insurer pays. I said that the for-profit wing of the US pays less than the non-profit wing in the US. So how is the for-profit making all this extra profit when the cost is cheapest for that wing?
...and then those customers go looking for patient assistance programs which essentially let the manufacturer discount it further and treat that discount as a charitable donation if they do it the right way. Further incentivizing them to make the on paper cost of drugs as high as possible.
Drug manufacturers, patient assistance non-profits, insurance companies and in some cases clinics/doctors are all in on it together to ensure everyone involved gets their cut while ensuring that all of them remain necessary to the process so they can all continue getting their cut.
? Rich people can use untaxed wealth in ways that ordinary people cannot. I just gave you an example.
No; insurance companies pay ~8k per year. The consumer can pay up to ~$300 even if they're insured.
The non-profit wing in the US pays more because it is forbidden from negotiating, so that's a worthless comparison. If you compare it to a non-profit service that can negotiate, the latter pays far far far less.
The profits, in the case of drugs like Ozempic, go to the manufacturer: Novo Nordisk. Hence the gigantic profit margin. Novo Nordisk sells to dozens of countries, and yet only reaps these stupidly large profit margins from America.
You and I get gunned down, it's a murder charge (at best). You gun down one CEO and you're a fucking terrorist...
It's only terror when CEO's are scared.
If you google that quote, you get a barrage of media sites reporting that Trump "walked back" his promise, most of them using the clipped quote from Time's feature article and nothing more. To get to the full transcript, you'd have to find out where the quote's from first, since the post in here didn't list a source. Then once you find out that it's from Time, you'd have to know to look for the transcript, as the first thing they'll want you to click is the feature article, not the full transcript. And once you're looking at the full transcript, you'd need that specific answer in an 11,000 word interview, which even with ctrl+f takes more effort to find, read, and process than your hypothetical 20-second google search.
People do google things, anyone can google things. People can and do argue. People also lie, and it's wild to me that you're doubling down on it.
Starting to really believe that covid causes brain damage. (A bunch of people believe Harriet Tubman didn't exist)
No, those people were already that stupid before covid. They're just even dumber for posting their dumb ass thoughts dumber than the usual dumb thoughts.
Said before, probably elsewhere, but they're certainly going to try making an example out of him. can't let the proles stsrt thinking they can bond over this common cause. the hierarchy must not be compromised. Just observe the treatment of homeless mentally struggling Jordan Neely's killer and what happens to even an everyday mum referencing 3 words to being denied healthcare herself
Last edited:
Tl;dr version: "I'm not very good at googling things and assume nobody else is either".
It's wild to me you think a basic source check is some kind of magic so I must be lying.
If by 'covid causes brain damage' you mean the epidemic got people to spend even more time on twitter and facebook, then yes.
Maybe that lockdown really was a bad idea.
I read a fantastic blog review of a book called "Sick Societies". It's a dive into some of the pathologically awful traditions some cultures have brewed up for themselves that manage to rot their own communities from the inside and send them spiralling into failure.
One of the points the blog author made is that these can be ingrained in a way that makes it hard for a society to recognise and/or challenge them from the inside. And wonders whether in a few generations people will look back at the way we let social media loose on children and maybe include that as an example in a future version.
Recognizing it is easy enough, but as soon as corporations get their grubby mits on it challenging it is nearly impossible.
The human brain isn't made to handle even regular offline stress. It's no wonder a cult was embraced with open arms to take over the most powerful country in the world.
"Move fast and break things"
...where "things" includes people.
Take the recent Zuckerberg transformation. Gone is the nerdy, mildly anxious CEO perplexed that his platform seemed to be causing lots of problems. In is the new, uberconfident Zuck who regrets apologising back so much in day and thinks we should be a lot more thankful for his awesomeness.