Funny events in anti-woke world

[Agema]

Every time I see someone bring this case up as the proof of Trump being terrible, they just look ridiculous. The man had dramatic fall outs with multiple ex-wives, and the thing you think is going to condemn him is a famous writer's Trump fanfiction? You can't possibly be that gullible, right?

You are right that Trump has a phenomenal history of being awful. Whether the numerous accusations of sexual assault and self-described practice of sexual assault, dodgy perving, cheating, sexual objectivification, and general misogyny. Indeed, it's precisely that consistent record of aberrant past behaviour that significantly contributed to the result of that case.

On that basis, irrespective of the specifics, the case seems suitably reflective of that bigger picture. A man sexually assaults enough women, so the chances are that one of them is going to take an accusation forward and make it stick. So what's the problem when that eventually happens?

You know as well as anyone else here that Trump is a sex attacker. You're just upset he finally got adjudicated one in a court.

 

[Silvanus]

It's situationally implausible that nobody knew what either of these people was doing at that time, and that nobody was nearby in a popular store to witness the crime, it even involves an inexplicably unlocked door in a store that locks their dressing rooms and has employees unlock them as they attend to you.

None of this is remotely implausible. I've been in countless clothing stores-- including big branches and popular branches-- when the dressing room areas are sparsely populated. And the idea that a door may have been left unlocked is "implausible"? Come the fuck on. Doors that are supposed to be locked get left unlocked. Dressing rooms sometimes don't have many (or any) people around. These are utterly banal, common circumstances.

 

[tstorm823]

On that basis, irrespective of the specifics...

This is why you look silly. "I don't care if the specific thing I'm saying is true, so long as it suits my general perspective" is a silly take.

None of this is remotely implausible. I've been in countless clothing stores-- including big branches and popular branches-- when the dressing room areas are sparsely populated. And the idea that a door may have been left unlocked is "implausible"? Come the fuck on. Doors that are supposed to be locked get left unlocked. Dressing rooms sometimes don't have many (or any) people around. These are utterly banal, common circumstances.

If you're unfamiliar with the layout of Bergdorf Goodman, here's a nice video of it:

It is a labyrinth of departments, each of which has one or more employees attending to shoppers. The merchandise they sell calls for not leaving people alone with it, the clients they want to sell to expect to have someone attend to them personally, that building has actual hundreds of employees in it during business hours so that they can give personal attention to every buyer on the property. Watch that video, count the people you see working sales and security, and then try to imagine two celebrities shopping there, one of whom is famous specifically for being rich, being allowed to just disappear unattended into a corner where nobody witnessed them before or after the alleged assault. That's a security failure that would allow a shoplifter to sneak merchandise onto their person to walk out with AND a sales failure to allow Donald Trump to have no assistance being parted from his money.

 

[Silvanus]

If you're unfamiliar with the layout of Bergdorf Goodman, here's a nice video of it:

I am unfamiliar with it, to be fair.

It is a labyrinth of departments, each of which has one or more employees attending to shoppers. The merchandise they sell calls for not leaving people alone with it, the clients they want to sell to expect to have someone attend to them personally, that building has actual hundreds of employees in it during business hours so that they can give personal attention to every buyer on the property. Watch that video, count the people you see working sales and security, and then try to imagine two celebrities shopping there, one of whom is famous specifically for being rich, being allowed to just disappear unattended into a corner where nobody witnessed them before or after the alleged assault. That's a security failure that would allow a shoplifter to sneak merchandise onto their person to walk out with AND a sales failure to allow Donald Trump to have no assistance being parted from his money.

So, I've watched the video now, and I can see it's... quite sparsely populated. I understand that the expectation is that customers are catered to one-to-one. Is that actually the reality 100% of the time? I've never seen a shop in which that's the case; besides anything else, I'd expect some customers to tell the staff to just leave them for a while.

And it ain't considered a "security failure" to not have close oversight in the changing rooms. It's the reality in most clothing shops.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Presumably it is a scheme to move money around and maximise profit.



You keep insisting that, but its simply not true. A single drug out of hundreds, with a relatively low target audience, would not make their profit margin "way higher than 35%". Its incredible that its as high as it is already, over three times the average margin.



Because US public healthcare cannot negotiate on Ozempic (and on countless other drugs). As I said many pages ago.

My point from pages ago is when you said:
"It can function as essentially a discount. But for whom? The PBM is negotiating on behalf of the insurer, not out-of-pocket. The PBM negotiates a price that the insurer will pay, then the rebate comes back-- and the PBM passes some of it back to the insurer, and retains some of it as profit for themselves. That's how they make much of their money."

It's all the same company so it doesn't matter. And if the insurer doesn't use their own PBM, it's because they have some backscratching deal that's even better somehow (like we'll buy these drugs through you if you buy those drugs from us).

How the fuck does ozempic have a low target audience?

Yes, you have to do things in order, you can't just jump to public healthcare.

Remember, Trump was only a sexual abuser. There is no possible way you could claim he was a rapist

It was only a civil case so not even criminally convicted and the jury did not say rape was more likely than not. The same could happen to Biden if his accuser brought a civil case. You act like Trump is all the way on one end of the spectrum when he's just like a notch over from your guy.

You gonna respond to the abortion stance your wrong about yet?

 

[tstorm823]

It's the reality in most clothing shops.

Most clothing shops don't stock $22,600 jackets.

 

[Silvanus]

My point from pages ago is when you said:
"It can function as essentially a discount. But for whom? The PBM is negotiating on behalf of the insurer, not out-of-pocket. The PBM negotiates a price that the insurer will pay, then the rebate comes back-- and the PBM passes some of it back to the insurer, and retains some of it as profit for themselves. That's how they make much of their money."

It's all the same company so it doesn't matter. And if the insurer doesn't use their own PBM, it's because they have some backscratching deal that's even better somehow (like we'll buy these drugs through you if you buy those drugs from us).

Sorry, what point are you even trying to make, here? All of this is just confirming my exact point: that these entities can wrack up massive profits from high prices, and that PBMs can make profit unrestricted by that 80/20 rule. These were my points. You were the one saying their profits weren't that bad and were solely from premiums.

How the fuck does ozempic have a low target audience?

To be fair, I was thinking of the diabetic audience rather than the weight loss usage.

Yes, you have to do things in order, you can't just jump to public healthcare.

And you want to skip the required step, keeping the very reason for the sky-high prices in place, preventing any meaningful changes.

 

[Silvanus]

Most clothing shops don't stock $22,600 jackets.

Is it really unfeasible that a shop stocking expensive items wouldn't have one-to-one staff at all times?

 

[tstorm823]

Is it really unfeasible that a shop stocking expensive items wouldn't have one-to-one staff at all times?

We're not talking about customers outnumbering staff, we're talking about an entire department of the store being neglected with two celebrity customers inside, and not a single staff member even within earshot. It's possible, but it's an unlikely circumstance at best, and it's also 100% what you would say if you were lying and needed to explain why there where no witnesses to rape in a public place. That is how untruths unravel. If you investigate the truth, pieces tend to fall together. If you investigate a lie, increasingly odd explanations tend to be required.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Christ, and with the US healthcare system am to assume even getting treated for wounds inflicted by corrupt police officers go and bill you regardless?
got serious flashbacks when the cop overconfidently interpreting small pupils as sign they're on drugs cause it was exactly same dumb shit my drunk (usually dad) parents occasionally sprung upon me as a teen, despite never touching anything till years after, and moving home constantly meant was too much of.a loner to even bloody find anyone to get drugs off if I wanted to anyway! Uh, flashback over at least now though lol

 

[Kwak]

We're not talking about customers outnumbering staff, we're talking about an entire department of the store being neglected with two celebrity customers inside, and not a single staff member even within earshot. It's possible, but it's an unlikely circumstance at best, and it's also 100% what you would say if you were lying and needed to explain why there where no witnesses to rape in a public place. That is how untruths unravel. If you investigate the truth, pieces tend to fall together. If you investigate a lie, increasingly odd explanations tend to be required.

I love that you are dedicating time and effort to arguing against Trump's legally binding verdict.
It says everything about you and what you represent that needs to be said.

-
A federal appeals court has upheld writer E. Jean Carroll's $5 million civil judgment against President-elect Donald Trump.
....
"We conclude that Mr. Trump has not demonstrated that the district court erred in any of the challenged rulings. Further, he has not carried his burden to show that any claimed error or combination of claimed errors affected his substantial rights as required to warrant a new trial," the judges' ruling said.
....
Trump did not testify or put on a defense case. His appeal focused on what he said were critical errors by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, including allowing testimony from two other women who claimed they had been sexually accosted by Trump.

Appeals court upholds $5 million E. Jean Carroll verdict against Trump

A jury handed down the award after it found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[tstorm823]

I love that you are dedicating time and effort to arguing against Trump's legally binding verdict.
It says everything about you and what you represent that needs to be said.

Are you implying that you'd never argue against a legally binding ruling?

 

[Silvanus]

We're not talking about customers outnumbering staff, we're talking about an entire department of the store being neglected with two celebrity customers inside, and not a single staff member even within earshot.

Are we talking about an "entire department of the store being neglected", or are we just talking about no staff member being nearby in the changing rooms for a while?

If you investigate the truth, pieces tend to fall together. If you investigate a lie, increasingly odd explanations tend to be required.

The explanation required is a circumstance that's commonplace in clothing stores. Not a terribly odd one.

You've suggested that such circumstances are unfeasibly rare in shops that stock expensive items, but I don't find that assumption very compelling.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Sorry, what point are you even trying to make, here? All of this is just confirming my exact point: that these entities can wrack up massive profits from high prices, and that PBMs can make profit unrestricted by that 80/20 rule. These were my points. You were the one saying their profits weren't that bad and were solely from premiums.



To be fair, I was thinking of the diabetic audience rather than the weight loss usage.



And you want to skip the required step, keeping the very reason for the sky-high prices in place, preventing any meaningful changes.

You were saying:
"To clear this up: much of the list price ends up in the pocket of the PBM (sometimes up to 3/4) in the form of rebate. Hence they often favour high list prices, and aim to push people off low-cost treatments."

That doesn't make any sense. If the list price of ozempic is $1,000, and the rebate is $700, then it cost $300. They aren't "pocketing" that money. It's just like if you bought a laptop for $500 and did a mail-in rebate for $100, the laptop cost you $400, you didn't make money on it. That's not why they push people off low-cost treatments as I've gone over extensively.

Just under 40 million in the US have diabetes and just under 100 million have pre-diabetes.

What step am I skipping? You guys that just want M4A are the ones skipping steps.

 

[Agema]

This is why you look silly. "I don't care if the specific thing I'm saying is true, so long as it suits my general perspective" is a silly take.

I look considerably less silly than a guy who starts with a conclusion, and then works back from that a series of justifications which, no matter how much possibilities, speculations and half-truths, he presents as incontrovertible fact. Vastly less silly that someone who can see and acknowledge a person's vast, consisitent pattern of venality, and then acts like none of that venality was exercised in any crunch points where it would count against said person.

I have no particular problem with the E Jean Carroll case as was. A civil case is under preponderance of the evidence, or if you like, 51%. Is there a reasonable case against Trump in those terms? Actually... yes there is. Particularly in the context of Trump blowing up his own argument with demonstrable dishonesty. The point is then to note Trump's long and inglorious history - it is very hard to believe that he has not sexually assaulted numerous women. There is some measure of justice - karma, just deserts - in him being held legally responsible for any sexual assault, even one that may be pretty much toss of a coin for whether he did commit on presented evidence.

You don't want this case against him dismissed because it's truth. If you cared about truth, you would instead be asking a lot more questions about all the other alleged stuff he seems likely to have got away with.

 

[Silvanus]

You were saying:
"To clear this up: much of the list price ends up in the pocket of the PBM (sometimes up to 3/4) in the form of rebate. Hence they often favour high list prices, and aim to push people off low-cost treatments."

That doesn't make any sense. If the list price of ozempic is $1,000, and the rebate is $700, then it cost $300. They aren't "pocketing" that money. It's just like if you bought a laptop for $500 and did a mail-in rebate for $100, the laptop cost you $400, you didn't make money on it. That's not why they push people off low-cost treatments as I've gone over extensively.

In that analogy, there are only two entities: the customer purchasing the laptop, and the retailer.

With the drug, we have the pharmaceutical manufacturer (the equivalent of the retailer), the insurer (the customer), and also the PBM acting as an intermediary but also separately making money. You keep trying to treat the PBM and the insurer as exactly the same entity, but that's not the case: they're not always owned by the same parent, and they make their money in different ways. They pocket a chunk of the rebate before any discount is passed on.

So: the PBM negotiates for how much the insurer will pay. Lets say the list price is 1000$. The PBM negotiates that there will be a 900$ rebate; pockets 200$ (which is entirely separate and unaffected by the 80/20 rule), then advises the insurer to pay 300$.

What step am I skipping? You guys that just want M4A are the ones skipping steps.

You want them to lower prices without addressing what's directly causing the lower prices. A sticking plaster approach.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

In that analogy, there are only two entities: the customer purchasing the laptop, and the retailer.

With the drug, we have the pharmaceutical manufacturer (the equivalent of the retailer), the insurer (the customer), and also the PBM acting as an intermediary but also separately making money. You keep trying to treat the PBM and the insurer as exactly the same entity, but that's not the case: they're not always owned by the same parent, and they make their money in different ways. They pocket a chunk of the rebate before any discount is passed on.

So: the PBM negotiates for how much the insurer will pay. Lets say the list price is 1000$. The PBM negotiates that there will be a 900$ rebate; pockets 200$ (which is entirely separate and unaffected by the 80/20 rule), then advises the insurer to pay 300$.



You want them to lower prices without addressing what's directly causing the lower prices. A sticking plaster approach.

All the major insurers own their own PBM, they are the same entity. It would be like a husband and wife bought that laptop and the husband paid for it and the wife got the rebate. All the revenue that either the PBM or insurance company get is from insurance premiums. They aren't making money from ozempic or from colonoscopies or whatever.

You think just switching to public healthcare will lower prices in the US? It's not just insurance companies that want the system in place and are causing high prices.

 

[tstorm823]

Are we talking about an "entire department of the store being neglected", or are we just talking about no staff member being nearby in the changing rooms for a while?

She said in court that she saw nobody else in the area.

 

[tstorm823]

I look considerably less silly than a guy who starts with a conclusion, and then works back from that a series of justifications which, no matter how much possibilities, speculations and half-truths, he presents as incontrovertible fact. Vastly less silly that someone who can see and acknowledge a person's vast, consisitent pattern of venality, and then acts like none of that venality was exercised in any crunch points where it would count against said person.

I have no particular problem with the E Jean Carroll case as was. A civil case is under preponderance of the evidence, or if you like, 51%. Is there a reasonable case against Trump in those terms? Actually... yes there is. Particularly in the context of Trump blowing up his own argument with demonstrable dishonesty. The point is then to note Trump's long and inglorious history - it is very hard to believe that he has not sexually assaulted numerous women. There is some measure of justice - karma, just deserts - in him being held legally responsible for any sexual assault, even one that may be pretty much toss of a coin for whether he did commit on presented evidence.

You don't want this case against him dismissed because it's truth. If you cared about truth, you would instead be asking a lot more questions about all the other alleged stuff he seems likely to have got away with.

Did I say I want it dismissed? Did I say he ought to have won the case? He and his representation did plenty to lose the case, even if the accusation is more like 1% than 51% likely.

You may ask, if I'm so convinced it did not happen, why would I not call for it to be dismissed? Because I can see the reality of the situation and understand that facts are not the sole determination of legal outcomes. But I'm not going to let that make me disregard truth. You are so interested in there being a ruling against him that you are willing to let it blind your view of the facts if need be. In an honest assessment, I know in your heart of hearts you can see how silly her claims are. But why let the facts get in the way of the story you want to happen.

 

[Silvanus]

All the major insurers own their own PBM, they are the same entity. It would be like a husband and wife bought that laptop and the husband paid for it and the wife got the rebate. All the revenue that either the PBM or insurance company get is from insurance premiums. They aren't making money from ozempic or from colonoscopies or whatever.

How many times? They aren't always working with their own PBMs, and PBMs aren't subject to the same profit limitations. You keep forgetting that and just treating them as if they're always subject to the same pressures and sources of income. They are not. A big chunk of the money isn't subject to the 80/20, and also isn't staying with the insurer.

You think just switching to public healthcare will lower prices in the US? It's not just insurance companies that want the system in place and are causing high prices.

Obviously it's not the end of the process. But it's the vital, foundational step. Take out the profit motive, and all these entities-- insurers, PBMs-- lose their avenue to keep prices sky high. Keep the profit motive (as you want), and they'll always seek to maximise profit, regardless of what other sticking-plaster solutions you attempt.