• 0 Posts
  • 159 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: September 26th, 2023

help-circle






  • While we can’t say for sure, I’d certainly be wargaming some possible outcomes and how to respond to them.

    Wouldn’t surprise me if disability for mental health reasons was high on the list of things to cut. It’s effectively an “invisible” disability, which makes it somewhat easier to cut while limiting loss of political capital.

    I wish you all the best getting through the upcoming difficult years. You’re a genuinely good person for caring and thinking far enough ahead to realize the question needs to be asked.

    For other folks reading this, now is an excellent time to review your payroll deductions and ensure you’re paying for private disability coverage - both short and long term. It’s one of the least expensive ways to hedge against the crazy of the next four years.



  • ____@infosec.pubtopolitics @lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago
    • this is terrifying.
    • This does not sound legally permissible, see posse comitatus.
    • Members of the military have an obligation to refuse illegal orders. I am neither in the military nor a lawyer, so I can’t go too deep on that.

    Even if we see (likely) “act first, let it wind through the courts later,” I’d expect there to be a substantial number of refusals.




  • Feel ya, no job is perfect. My giant employer is great about WFH for those hired as such during a particular period of time, but they’ve outsourced HR entirely to a third party - a simple inquiry becomes a three day saga, abd if I’m talking in real time to HR, voluntarily, it’s because I’ve a concern of some immediacy.

    WFH plus great benefits > downsides, but it’s always a balancing act of priorities for sure.








  • I benefit from an orphan drug, and the R&D was most definitely subsidised by the public purse.

    My insurance pays a few grand a month for it.

    The mfg coupon covers most of the rest, minus a copay.

    This is the second iteration of the original drug. The first hasn’t meaningfully fallen in price and only the original company can manufacture and distribute the generic even under the name of competitors.

    There was no breakthrough in the second iteration, and the logic to solve the “problem” they solved was straightforward. So now I pay more, for an anecdotally less effective version that addresses a risk irrelevant to me but present in the original.

    There is yet a third iteration on the way.

    Shock revelations:

    • pharma companies are greedy and will double dip against both government subsidies and patients/insurance at every opportunity.
    • XX Pharma didn’t pay for the original R&D, my gov did.
    • if one replaces Na with a/several similar elements, one still ends up with a salt, often resulting in a drug variant that “doesn’t affect blood pressure” and offers no other real benefits, nor risks.
    • Clinical trials for said alternative salt are broadly leas expensive than for the original. That does not result in lower prices.

    Nationalise pharma research, if not the manufacturers.

    Also, generics are often manufactured in countries with, shall we say, fewer controls and regulations. Know who makes those pills and where. If you can’t stomach the FDA reports on that manufacturer, find a pharmacy who will sell you something else…