Funny events in anti-woke world

[Silvanus]

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

So we're not necessarily talking about "an entire department being neglected", then, because that ain't the same thing. You've exaggerated a relatively unremarkable phrase into a silly over-the-top one to make it seem less feasible.

"Can't see anyone in the area" is a description I'd aptly use to describe quite a few scenes in that video you posted of the department store, by the by.

I know in your heart of hearts you can see [...]

"The only reason anyone could disagree with me is dishonesty or delusion". This canard is never halfway credible, & tends to just make you look self-absorbed.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

"The only reason anyone could disagree with me is dishonesty or delusion". This canard is never halfway credible, & tends to just make you look self-absorbed.

But he's just so very, very right about everything!

 

[Phoenixmgs]

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.



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.

But why would Cigna work with UnitedHealth's PBM instead of their own? PBMs are under the company's financials, when you look up UnitedHealth's profit margin, that includes the insurance as well as the PBM.

Those aren't the only entities by far, that's the thing. If you just flip a magic switch and everyone now has Medicare, the amount people will have to pay for health insurance will skyrocket.

 

[Silvanus]

But why would Cigna work with UnitedHealth's PBM instead of their own? PBMs are under the company's financials, when you look up UnitedHealth's profit margin, that includes the insurance as well as the PBM.

Presumably because some PBMs have different relationships/contracts/frameworks/whatever with different manufacturers. And many PBMs aren't integrated with insurers at all; very few are wholly independent, but some are integrated with other orgs altogether rather than insurers. So then if insurers want to work with that organisation, they'll have to use their PBM.

Those aren't the only entities by far, that's the thing. If you just flip a magic switch and everyone now has Medicare, the amount people will have to pay for health insurance will skyrocket.

The other primary entities making money from inflated drug prices are pharmaceutical manufacturers (despite what you said). And when state-run healthcare services like the NHS are able to negotiate drug prices, they get them much cheaper than the US.

 

[tstorm823]

So we're not necessarily talking about "an entire department being neglected", then, because that ain't the same thing.

I presented you video evidence of what the store looks like. I don't know what you think a department there is that it's something different.

"The only reason anyone could disagree with me is dishonesty or delusion". This canard is never halfway credible, & tends to just make you look self-absorbed.

That wasn't about "anyone", that was about Agema. I see you all individually, and just about the only thing you all have in common is the ability to take personally something said specifically to someone else.

You disagree with me on this because you dedicate your whole mental exercise in this space to constructing an argument against select people, I can't call you dishonest because neither of us knows what you would actually believe if you thought about it. You do not care about what did or didn't happen, you just have fun making the argument. Agema is not like that, he's thought this through reasonably, and then chosen to dismiss the truth of it as immaterial. Both very different, neither just "anyone".

And aside from that, calling out what he actually thinks isn't an accusation of dishonesty. The firmest claim he's made as far as the events in question is that there's a case to claim its better than 50% likely, that's not a contradiction to him personally believing she's lying about things.

 

[tstorm823]

But he's just so very, very right about everything!

I really am though.

 

[Silvanus]

I presented you video evidence of what the store looks like. I don't know what you think a department there is that it's something different.

....? I don't think it's anything different. I'm sure the store looks just as shown in that video. The statement (that nobody was nearby at the time) is not contradicted at all by that video or what constitutes a 'department'.

That wasn't about "anyone", that was about Agema.

Yet you employ the same canard quite freely with others, not just Agema. It's quite a common one of yours and betrays a certain self-absorbed pattern of thinking.

You disagree with me on this because you dedicate your whole mental exercise in this space to constructing an argument against select people, I can't call you dishonest because neither of us knows what you would actually believe if you thought about it.

Horseshit. You have misrepresented the situation solely because it reflects poorly on a political party you will blindly defend. The defence of that party is your sole interest.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Florida of course. No dashcams on police cars very suss, as most things are under desantis

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Florida of course. No dashcams on police cars very suss, as most things are under desantis

It's Arizona though.

It's all bad, especially that the person got $500 for her car getting grappled and a gun pointed at her. Apparently some people saw the videos before they were blurred to show the cops all smiling and laughing after they figured out they got the wrong person.

 

[Kwak]

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

No, I'm saying what I said using the words I said.

 

[tstorm823]

Horseshit. You have misrepresented the situation solely because it reflects poorly on a political party you will blindly defend. The defence of that party is your sole interest.

What do you think happens more often: I call out a Republican for something wrong or you admit a Republican is right? (Hint: you literally never do that latter, and any amount is more than zero.)

I'm not going to blame you for treating all these things as an academic exercise. I enjoy arguing myself, and most of these topics have absolutely zero impact on you. Developing real opinions on effectively trivial matters would do nothing for you but spoil the game we play. But it also kind of spoils the game when you pick exclusively one side to play as and then imagine you can use an accusation of blind partisanship as an argument.

No, I'm saying what I said using the words I said.

The words you said were "It says everything about you and what you represent that needs to be said," and then you didn't expand on "what needs to be said", leaving only implication in your wake. If you refuse to expand on that, and reject even the idea of me interpreting them to have implied meaning, then your statement is completely empty.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

It's Arizona though.

It's all bad, especially that the person got $500 for her car getting grappled and a gun pointed at her. Apparently some people saw the videos before they were blurred to show the cops all smiling and laughing after they figured out they got the wrong person.

Ah fuck, I need to catch up on sleep, as I read that as Tampa lol 🫣

 

[Agema]

That wasn't about "anyone", that was about Agema.

Oh please. You've come out with that sort of statement against multiple people here.

You disagree with me on this because you dedicate your whole mental exercise in this space to constructing an argument against select people, I can't call you dishonest because neither of us knows what you would actually believe if you thought about it. You do not care about what did or didn't happen, you just have fun making the argument. Agema is not like that, he's thought this through reasonably, and then chosen to dismiss the truth of it as immaterial. Both very different, neither just "anyone".

I think one of your most grotesque delusions is that you understand how I think.

 

[tstorm823]

I think one of your most grotesque delusions is that you understand how I think.

I understand how you think.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Ah fuck, I need to catch up on sleep, as I read that as Tampa lol 🫣

Tæmpæ, the site of the convergence event where forces beyond our understanding bridged a gap in their world using ours, and bridged 2 cities, and their people, across each other...

 

[Agema]

I understand how you think.

No, you really don't.

On the one hand, you might just be idly bullshitting. It could be mere arrogance, or a feeble attempt at bragging. But if you are genuine, what you are probably doing is telling yourself a convenient fiction and repeating it over and over for reinforcement, because it makes you feel more confident, clever, and/or in control of the world around you, because that's just so boringly common.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Presumably because some PBMs have different relationships/contracts/frameworks/whatever with different manufacturers. And many PBMs aren't integrated with insurers at all; very few are wholly independent, but some are integrated with other orgs altogether rather than insurers. So then if insurers want to work with that organisation, they'll have to use their PBM.



The other primary entities making money from inflated drug prices are pharmaceutical manufacturers (despite what you said). And when state-run healthcare services like the NHS are able to negotiate drug prices, they get them much cheaper than the US.

But they would rarely work with another PBM because even if their PBM was getting less of a deal than another one, it's still cheaper for them to use their own. I'm sure there's circumstances where working with another one is cheaper but it will be a rare case. The point is insurers aren't making money on a drug or a procedure (which is what you've been saying), they make all their money from premiums.

I didn't say pharmaceutical companies weren't making bank, I said they aren't making as much bank as you claimed. But drugs aren't the only things that are overpriced in the US.

 

[Silvanus]

What do you think happens more often: I call out a Republican for something wrong or you admit a Republican is right? (Hint: you literally never do that latter, and any amount is more than zero.)

I can't recall an instance of a Republican being right.

Although when you criticise Republicans, you often contort yourself into knots trying to make it the Democrats' fault.

I'm not going to blame you for treating all these things as an academic exercise. I enjoy arguing myself, and most of these topics have absolutely zero impact on you. Developing real opinions on effectively trivial matters would do nothing for you but spoil the game we play. But it also kind of spoils the game when you pick exclusively one side to play as and then imagine you can use an accusation of blind partisanship as an argument.

You've stopped engaging with the actual topic in any meaningful sense now, then, and have swapped to the usual dismissive assumptions about the person you're speaking to.

Fact remains: "nobody was around" is a commonplace circumstance in clothing shops. It simply is. You first swapped it for a different, exaggerated claim to undermine its credibility; then expressed simple incredulity that the circumstance would apply when expensive items are around. But you've not actually presented anything substantial. You've argued from incredulity and dishonesty.

 

[Schadrach]

I can't recall an instance of a Republican being right.

That's not fair.

Trump signed the FIRST STEP Act. Trump has talked about wanting to end Daylight Savings Time. RFK has talked about wanting to ban things in food that are allowed in the US and banned in many other places for good reasons. MTG's “If we're going to dance, let's all dance in the sunlight" was also spot on (and it's utter bullshit that Congress exempted themselves from FOIA in the first place, probably specifically to keep that kind of thing from becoming public the moment anyone got curious).

Sure, there's a massive cesspool of awfulness to pick through, but they do occasionally have their stopped clock moments.

 

[Silvanus]

But they would rarely work with another PBM because even if their PBM was getting less of a deal than another one, it's still cheaper for them to use their own. I'm sure there's circumstances where working with another one is cheaper but it will be a rare case.

Let's look at some numbers. The top 3 PBMs in America (CVS Health; OptimumRX, owned by UnitedHealth; and Express Scripts owned by CIGNA) are all owned by parents that also have an insurer. Those 3 PBMs control 80% of the market.

Yet the insurers that are associated with those PBMs account for only ~23 - 24% of the market. What does that tell us...? It tells us that most of the insurance plans that use those PBMs... do not use the insurer that is under the same parent company.

The point is insurers aren't making money on a drug or a procedure (which is what you've been saying), they make all their money from premiums.

OK, so now you do want to treat the insurer and PBM as separate entities. Because the PBM doesn't make its money from premiums. So the only way this is true is if you're acknowledging that they're separate entities with separate income streams.

I didn't say pharmaceutical companies weren't making bank, I said they aren't making as much bank as you claimed. But drugs aren't the only things that are overpriced in the US.

You were wholly believing that CEO when he was squawking about the insurers and PBMs being solely responsible for high prices.