Given Pfizer are making $12bn profit a year, they could kill the advertising spend, halve the cost of their products to Americans and still be profitable. No need to touch the R&D or other budgets.
The US customers are subsidising Pfizer shareholders, nobody else.
No doctor in all of the United Kingdoms will perform it.
If the private medical companies also wont perform it then generally it's either ineffective, dangerous or so new that it hasn't been adequately assessed to assure that it's neither of those things.
The UK market has all of the options available in the US - you can go cradle to grave without ever using the NHS, taking advantage of leading medical care at great expense.
As a fiscal conservative, please explain the value in paying any profit margin to the insurance industry.
Wouldn't that insurance industry be the middleman he said added no value?
You're asking him to present the case for the opposing view. While he may well be able to provide a plausible case, he'd be playing Devil's Advocate only.
I'm not watching a video about consent. I know the law on consent and I stay easily within it.
My issue is the women that don't know the law on consent, with the women that react negatively to a perfectly fine interaction, that do find engaging with the opposite sex difficult to understand.
Fix their androphobia and the rest of us can happily get on with life.
One can mean a class of many. "One does not do this." Couple generally means two, but not canonically. Few means however fucking many people want it to mean. A few lads could be up to a dozen and nobody would bat an eyelid at it. Many tends to mean more than a few. Lots could be fewer than many or many more.
It's a flexible language and these words allow a level of imprecision that it would be wrong to try to constrain.
Today's 'veterans' (really? you're a veteran with 6 months of combat duty? Try several years) return to a very different environment than post World War II veterans.
When half your colleagues also fought in a war, there's a different level of understanding going on. When public services recognise and thank you for your contribution, it's simpler to access help. When the enemy was clearly vanquished it's easier to move on.
Where's your option 4: Get support from the people around them?
Incidentally, do you actually have any statistics on post-combat trauma and/or alcoholism for WWII versus modern combatants? Just because we didn't hear about it in the 50s doesn't mean it wasn't there.
Although there is undoubtably a level 'holier than thou' bullshit I suspect that people satiating a severe alcoholism and/or drug dependency don't exhibit behaviours that allow for a safe and supportive environment for other users of the service.
I wont guess whether homelessness or addiction came first, or if one was a material factor in the other. There is though a very high overlap.
Please, stop embarrassing yourself. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you haven't a hope of predicting what I would do.
Every Brexiter I've spoken to has been a fool.
Hmm. What's the common denominator here. Wait, maybe we should look at this another way.
It's like you haven't got a clue what a border even is!
If by that you mean that I don't have a closed mind about what a border must look like, then you're correct. A border between two countries can manifest in multiple forms, including being completely wide fucking open.
Tell me, how many customs officials do you see when you get out of a rubber dinghy on Brighton Beach? Because that's our fucking border with France, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and sixteen other nearby countries.
Reply if you like but I wont be reading it. You literally aren't worth my time.
So, not keen on a trade deal with out largest export market then?
We do not need the ECJ to rule on British law and governance to trade with Europe. Stop fucking pretending otherwise.
That article is a pile of doublespeak.
Well, it is The Express after all. But feel free to hunt out one of the others. Shit, you'll be telling me next that the EU's goal isn't a big European superstate.
Great, another delusional Brexiteer. Is there any other sort?
The cynical type with a dark sense of humour - something you're clearly lacking.
Out of interest, what did you think would happen with the Irish border?
I figured it'd remain open, including free movement of (Irish) people, and customs provided at source and/or destination not at the border.
ECHR is a separte thing and exiting the EU won't take us out of the ECHR.
He maybe meant the ECJ. I'm keen that we no longer come under ECJ but also very keen that we remain within the European Convention on Human Rights as guided by ECHR.
The EU is not, Germany is. And it never happened
Nonetheless, we already have a full country. Being unable to prevent further immigration while Germany is wide fucking open to all and sundry would only lead to further pressure on housing, public services, wages, etc.
Some people proposed it, it went a bit forward then it stopped.
I look forward to the great war of 2032 in which the USA, Britain and Russian ally (again) against European hegemony by the Germans (with France this time).
A cross-party group agree which amendments are discarded without a vote, and which go to a vote. This helps where, e.g. someone adds something completely pointless, or indeed adds 400 amendments.
It's also common that there'll be 20-30 similar amendments and the committee will group them into one.
Bad legislation still gets passed, but it feels a more workable system.
Slashdot Mirror
Given Pfizer are making $12bn profit a year, they could kill the advertising spend, halve the cost of their products to Americans and still be profitable. No need to touch the R&D or other budgets.
The US customers are subsidising Pfizer shareholders, nobody else.
No doctor in all of the United Kingdoms will perform it.
If the private medical companies also wont perform it then generally it's either ineffective, dangerous or so new that it hasn't been adequately assessed to assure that it's neither of those things.
The UK market has all of the options available in the US - you can go cradle to grave without ever using the NHS, taking advantage of leading medical care at great expense.
The real difference is that you don't have to.
Do you propose to cut doctor salaries in the US to the level of the UK?
Sure, why not? Doctors in the UK are extremely wealthy compared to their median patient.
As a fiscal conservative, please explain the value in paying any profit margin to the insurance industry.
Wouldn't that insurance industry be the middleman he said added no value?
You're asking him to present the case for the opposing view. While he may well be able to provide a plausible case, he'd be playing Devil's Advocate only.
Dismissing all allegations as man-hating suggests that you need to watch it though.
Except that I didn't dismiss all allegations as man-hating.
It may also suggest that you are a fucking retard
Says the person that can't fucking interpret what I actually said.
I don't believe there is a device in existence that can receive, decode, and display porn on a budget of less than 2 watts per hour
Of course there are. A NSFW example from 1890:
https://artblart.files.wordpre...
I'm not watching a video about consent. I know the law on consent and I stay easily within it.
My issue is the women that don't know the law on consent, with the women that react negatively to a perfectly fine interaction, that do find engaging with the opposite sex difficult to understand.
Fix their androphobia and the rest of us can happily get on with life.
Jesus Christ, just start with, "hey, I'm blah, can I buy you a drink"?
Oh, you want to rape her? I mean, legally she can't consent if she's drunk..
"That dress would look good on the floor next to my bed" is funny, but was never appropriate.
It has a low success rate but you can try it on a couple of hundred women in a night.
the result of getting pregnant is no sex for months or even years
My friends that are parents would laugh, look knowingly at each other and dismiss your silliness for this.
Must admit, if I was going to be homeless, I'd much rather do it in lovely warm southern California than in fuckmeitsfreezing Detroit.
Many people think you're being silly.
No data required.
One can mean a class of many. "One does not do this."
Couple generally means two, but not canonically.
Few means however fucking many people want it to mean. A few lads could be up to a dozen and nobody would bat an eyelid at it.
Many tends to mean more than a few.
Lots could be fewer than many or many more.
It's a flexible language and these words allow a level of imprecision that it would be wrong to try to constrain.
Today's 'veterans' (really? you're a veteran with 6 months of combat duty? Try several years) return to a very different environment than post World War II veterans.
When half your colleagues also fought in a war, there's a different level of understanding going on. When public services recognise and thank you for your contribution, it's simpler to access help. When the enemy was clearly vanquished it's easier to move on.
Where's your option 4: Get support from the people around them?
Incidentally, do you actually have any statistics on post-combat trauma and/or alcoholism for WWII versus modern combatants? Just because we didn't hear about it in the 50s doesn't mean it wasn't there.
American troops are fighting against terrorists in places like Afghanistan and Iraq so we can be free.
No. They invaded Iraq under false pretexts that had fuck all to do with terrorism - unless you include "creating a fuckload more of it".
Without the sacrifices by American soldiers for our
Oil.
But..
We should be donating to help our veterans instead of the cruelty of chasing them away with robots.
I do agree with this. The soldiers don't decide policy, can't rule on the legality of a war, put their lives at risk and deserve recognition for this.
Just don't go romanticising the bullshit reasons that the politicians are putting them at risk in the first place.
Because most of us don't want a world in which people with no money can not legally stand on the ground or walk down a street.
Although there is undoubtably a level 'holier than thou' bullshit I suspect that people satiating a severe alcoholism and/or drug dependency don't exhibit behaviours that allow for a safe and supportive environment for other users of the service.
I wont guess whether homelessness or addiction came first, or if one was a material factor in the other. There is though a very high overlap.
they choose
Really?
high prevalence of mental illnesses and other psychiatric disorders
-- https://jamanetwork.com/journa...
80% of respondents reported some form of mental health issue, 45% had been diagnosed with a mental health issue.
-- http://www.homeless.org.uk/fac...
Around 70 per cent of people accessing homelessness services have a mental health problem.
-- http://www.nhsconfed.org/resou...
Society has failed them, seriously?
Civilised society, yes.
No, they do actually help animals.
You on the other hand would
Please, stop embarrassing yourself. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you haven't a hope of predicting what I would do.
Every Brexiter I've spoken to has been a fool.
Hmm. What's the common denominator here. Wait, maybe we should look at this another way.
It's like you haven't got a clue what a border even is!
If by that you mean that I don't have a closed mind about what a border must look like, then you're correct. A border between two countries can manifest in multiple forms, including being completely wide fucking open.
Tell me, how many customs officials do you see when you get out of a rubber dinghy on Brighton Beach? Because that's our fucking border with France, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and sixteen other nearby countries.
Reply if you like but I wont be reading it. You literally aren't worth my time.
Yes. Everyone with half a brain realises it.
Well that's pretty stupid. You ought to rather have no deal than something worse.
Tell me, do you even realise you're contradicting yourself?
Refusing to take something better than no deal out of self-defeating spite is precisely the kind of stupidity I'd expect from a Brexiter.
That reflects on your own ability to judge people and understand them than it does on the people you're failing so miserably to understand.
Shit, I even made it easy for you and explicitly stated that we shouldn't avoid making a deal that's better than not having one.
And what, precisely do you think will happen with the Irish border with no deal?
Frankly exactly the fucking same as will happen with a deal. Free movement of Irish people, no barriers at the border.
we need whatever the EU will agree to. If they don't agree there is no deal and stop fucking pretending otherwise.
You're acting as if 'no deal' is a bad thing.
It's a fucking marvellous thing. That shouldn't stop us looking to do better, but I'd much rather have no deal than a shit deal.
So, not keen on a trade deal with out largest export market then?
We do not need the ECJ to rule on British law and governance to trade with Europe. Stop fucking pretending otherwise.
That article is a pile of doublespeak.
Well, it is The Express after all. But feel free to hunt out one of the others. Shit, you'll be telling me next that the EU's goal isn't a big European superstate.
Great, another delusional Brexiteer. Is there any other sort?
The cynical type with a dark sense of humour - something you're clearly lacking.
Out of interest, what did you think would happen with the Irish border?
I figured it'd remain open, including free movement of (Irish) people, and customs provided at source and/or destination not at the border.
ECHR is a separte thing and exiting the EU won't take us out of the ECHR.
He maybe meant the ECJ. I'm keen that we no longer come under ECJ but also very keen that we remain within the European Convention on Human Rights as guided by ECHR.
The EU is not, Germany is. And it never happened
Nonetheless, we already have a full country. Being unable to prevent further immigration while Germany is wide fucking open to all and sundry would only lead to further pressure on housing, public services, wages, etc.
Some people proposed it, it went a bit forward then it stopped.
Stopped? No. https://www.express.co.uk/news...
I look forward to the great war of 2032 in which the USA, Britain and Russian ally (again) against European hegemony by the Germans (with France this time).
Thing is, although Russia benefits from Brexit (due to it greatly damaging and weakening the EU) so does the UK.
So any Russian involvement is mostly irrelevant anyway.
A cross-party group agree which amendments are discarded without a vote, and which go to a vote. This helps where, e.g. someone adds something completely pointless, or indeed adds 400 amendments.
It's also common that there'll be 20-30 similar amendments and the committee will group them into one.
Bad legislation still gets passed, but it feels a more workable system.