Oh, yeah. They didn’t even give me an option. Not even really a matter of them saying it was legal or anything. It was a quick awkward convo in which they were too rushed to really listen and I was too flustered to really make them.
I’m not all that annoyed at the pharmacy. They are trying to save me money. My comment is really more about how the insurer adds confusion and delays, because of their second guesses, insisting on verifications, etc.
Currently waiting to begin taking a medication my doctor prescribed because the pharmacy wouldn’t fill it without prior authorization from the insurance company, but to do that, they had to go back to the doctor to request the doctor fill out paperwork to send to the insurer.
During the appointment with the doctor, we already discussed that my insurer likely will not cover the medication, but looked up the retail price, which is not beyond my means or out of scale with the benefit I expect it to bring me. I’m okay paying out of pocket, but my pharmacy is locked into this process that has stretched out over a holiday weekend, so it’s likely I’ll get the medicine a week later than I otherwise would have.
This is more mental health related, and I’m okay physically, but if the blood tests and years of failed approaches from other methods are any indication, then this could show immediate and significant impact.
But I have to wait for the wheels of capitalism to grind on, so they can ensure maximum value extraction from a very expensive insurance policy.
Wrong. That trail is constructed atop the decaying remains of the time snake. The mushrooms sprout from its decomposing body and their spores landing on your body are why you travel 1,000 years into the future.
If you’re lucky. Otherwise you might just wind up 4 months in the past and just be stomping through mounds of freshly thawed dog shit that some irresponsible pet owners left to freeze all winter.
Maybe
I don’t know.
This will surely make housing more affordable in the U.S!
Given the permissive and, well, stupid business practices that the U.S. allows, I’m sure a shell corporation there, an ownership transfer there, and you’ve got a de facto foreign owned company that’s every bit as answerable to the corporation, although not necessarily the U.S. government. I’m sure the shareholders won’t care so long as the stock price still goes up.
Those sorts of changes could presumably be executed much faster than working through the court challenges of nationalizing companies, or of building new facilities/swapping to new providers.
Not that I’m advocating sticking with what would still ostensibly be U.S.-backed tech.
I live in the U.S., and I ply my trade in tech and tech-adjacent sectors. I wouldn’t prefer it if the country I live in becomes a technological backwater and is passed on by the world, but I also am sort of reaching a point where I think perhaps FAFO.
I’m going to respond to a later comment of yours here for the sake of visibility.
Tucker Carlson flew to Russia to interview Vladimir Putin last year. That trip was financed by Tenant Media - the same group that was revealed to have been financed by Russia for the sake of spreading Russian talking points. Justin Trudeau gave testimony under oath that Tucker was shilling for Russia.
It is more challenging, generally, to show that politicians are illegally taking money from foreign interests because the pathways by which money is publicly disclosed are more well-known. So the pathways through which money may be hidden can also be followed to disguise the source of income. Unless one gets caught.
As did an aid of Rand Paul’s, who helped funnel Russian money into the RNC during the 2016 election, and whom was later pardoned by Trump, at Rand Paul’s urging.
As far as Gabbard is concerned - no money trails, but even her own staff think she’s compromised.
To be fair, it’s usually pretty trash, as beer goes. I actually thought your comment was more of a meta-commentary on the beer itself!
A common adage, typically with 3.2% brand names swapped in for ‘American beer’:
What do American beer and making love in a canoe have in common?
They’re both fucking close to water!
lol, no worries. My comment wasn’t intended to be sarcastic toward your response. Definitely intended to mock how dumb the U.S. legislative system is.
In the same way that ketchup is considered a vegetable in the U.S.
But like, did you see how menacing the curtains looked?!?
I sent a screenshot of that to my people earlier - highlighting the discrepancy. It’s astounding how blatantly the media carries water for them.
Trump is already attempting to use this attack as leverage to force the Iranians into accepting his nuclear deal.
Trump warns Iran to agree to nuclear deal before “even more brutal” attack
Trump is slimy and always willing to kick someone when they’re down, but he’s not that quick on the uptake. Strategy coordination, minimally.
They’re referring to beer that is limited to 3.2% alcohol by volume. Historically (and even still in many parts of the U.S.), you had to go to a dedicated liquor store to buy beer or spirits that are stronger. Beer that is limited to 3.2% can be sold at convenience stores and often at normal food shops. Due to its low alcohol content, it’s often considered garbage beer, “yard beer,” or American beer.
It’s often easier for underaged folks to buy this kind of beer, since these shops do not always card their clientele, whereas a liquor store will usually have a better culture around checking ID’s.
Also, just because it’s on rotation in my playlists, Adam Carroll’s Oklahoma Gypsy Shuffler makes reference to 3.2 beer.
Well, like, are they supposed to bike or drive?
Who is coming back?! Where are they coming back to?
It’s not Leatherface, is it? Watch out Big Mike!
I think Ukraine can only pull off a big attack like this a few times. Not because they’re incapable, or Russia, now aware of the method, can defend against it, but because each attack generates data. The more data you have, the greater the ability to analyze and spot patterns, which puts Ukrainian operators at risk.
Although it would be excellent if another attack happened very soon against another relatively irreplaceable Russian asset. But a campaign of smaller scale harassment throughout the country would suffice to harm morale and keep supply constraints, well, constrained.
Conman pretends to be conned by partner when partner isn’t good enough conman.
Disclaimer, I’m just a rando with a search habit. Not like, a professional analyst.
It’s maybe not the dumbest to use them in this way - their carrying capacity meant fewer sorties per pound of munition delivered.
But also, it seems like Russia is picking and choosing how it deploys resources, presumably so its more advanced jets do not have to be put at risk (there are various reasons for why that may be so - the linked article discusses them).
The other side of it is that keeping the strategic fleet demonstrably in use signals to other countries that Russia may be able to back up their nuclear saber-rattling.
I tried to find the current location of the iceberg and was met with a sad reminder of how much data the U.S. government contributes. Basically, all the location updates came from NOAA, and those haven’t been updated since March.