LordOfTheChia

Yeah, quite a few people on this 3 year old reddit post talk about that experience:

https://old.reddit.com/r/ADHD/comments/p86sjw/a_warning_for_people_considering_donefirst_for/

Done (DoneFirst), also charged an initial $200, then $79 a month though more current reviews mention $90 a month.

The comments on that thread are enlightening.

This may actually make the medications more available for those who are not patients of "Done Global, Inc" which was a telehealth company that specializes in ADHD.

But those who are patients of Done Global Inc are going to have a hell of a time finding a different doctor and getting back on their meds.

Major pharmacies like CVS Health and Walmart have stopped filling prescriptions from Done

I couldn't find the specific regulation they violated, but reading this and from the vague description, my best guess that they may have been playing loose with "establishing a patient relationship" and doing thorough evaluations of patients to ensure they had ADHD (and possibly skipping alternative lower Schedule medications).

https://telehealth.hhs.gov/providers/telehealth-policy/prescribing-controlled-substances-via-telehealth

Edit: From the DEA announcement

In many cases, Done Global prescribed ADHD medications when they were not medically necessary.

https://www.dea.gov/documents/2024/2024-06/2024-06-14/statement-dea-administrator-anne-milgram-done-global-inc

When I think of "stuffing" I think of people creating wholly illegitimate ballots, which does not seem to be what happened here.

That's exactly what ballot stuffing is and why what these folks are charged with is not ballot stuffing:

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_stuffing

Ballot stuffing or ballot box stuffing is a form of electoral fraud in which a greater number of ballots are cast than the number of people who legitimately voted. The term refers generally to the act of casting illegal votes or submitting more than one ballot per voter when only one ballot per voter is permitted.[1]

If the absentee ballots they handled were either fabricated or if the voters they were from already voted, then yes it would be "ballot stuffing" but I didn't see that in the article. Just "mishandling".

Still best that absentee ballots are handled properly as to show the voter hasn't voted in person.

My ear canals are very sensitive. They're stainless steel. Took a bullet at Corregidor, 1945. Passed straight through my head from one ear to the other. Here look at this.

https://youtu.be/B0sLidTL5bo

You have to get the whole horse bloodline. If you leave any alive you'll be spending the rest of your life in fear everytime you hear hoof steps behind you.

Aerodynamics and metal fatigue hasn't changed much of any at all in a century.

Once you have a good airframe design, it just becomes a matter of upgrading electronics, engines, regular repairs, and servicing parts that are known to be prone to metal fatigue.

Hence why the B-52 which was first flown in 1952 will likely be in service until 2060!

Updated with the specific quote. The sentiment of which has been echoed in this thread multiple times.

Maybe follow the thread?

https://lemmy.world/comment/9580949

Edit:

it doesn't make you a martyr to barely break even, it still makes you a parasite.

Seeing the same thing here. Apparently I'm scum because I'm renting my previous home for -10%/+10% of: mortgage on the lower price I paid 10 years ago, plus property taxes, plus home owners insurance, plus repairs and maintenance.

Apparently I would no longer be scum if I stopped renting it and refused to renew my tenants lease, sold the house and made a huge profit now, and the next person will have to pay brand new closing costs plus a mortgage on double the home value and double the APR.

I'm guessing most folks down-voting the sane responses saying rentals aren't needed have never tried selling a house (and gone 6+ months paying the mortgage for a house you no longer live in) or don't know there's a "break even" calculation that tells you how many years you have to live in the same house before you're better off than having just rented (realtor fees to sell the house, closing costs, time to sell the home where you'll still be paying your mortgage + taxes + insurance, time to close, getting credit approval for a mortgage, etc).

Hell, I did the calculation when I had to move to a new state and I was able to rent a house for less than it would have cost me to pay for closing costs and realtor fees when I would have sold the house 3 years later. Not to mention the time to come up with 20% down payment.

But fuck me for not taking the easy way out, kicking out my tenants and cashing in on the current huge property values to sell my old home.

Yes, let's pretend that housing prices haven't gone up (lumber shortage, pandemic, what are those things?!)

And let's live in a world where interest rates haven't changed in the same time period (2.75% APR should be about the same as a 7% APR mortgage!).

Lastly, let's ignore closing costs and the huge hunk of money realtors, banks, title companies, surveyors, and so on make every time a home is sold.

The main issue folks have with those generic "fuck all landlords!" posts is that while yes, corporate landlords that monopolize housing and keep raising rents in lockstep and invent fees suck ass, there's also folks who found it easier to rent right away vs keeping an empty house on the market. Those landlords are paying a 10 year old mortgage with 10 year old lower interest rates, but 2024 property taxes and home insurance.

10 year old mortgage for a home at 2014 prices + current property taxes and insurance + 10% profit margin (the horror) << Brand new mortgage on the same home at 2024 prices and 2024 APR + insurance and property taxes.

Oh and I forgot about mortgage insurance. The person renting their home likely has gotten their mortgage below the cutoff for requiring mortgage insurance.

There are many situations where both the person renting their home and the renter come out way ahead.

The only ones who win by forcing everyone to sell their homes and no longer rent are the banks (more closing costs, prey on folks who aren't ready to buy a home with high APRs and mortgage insurance, get to close out low APR loans for new higher APR loans), real estate agents and everyone that gets a cut Everytime a home is bought and sold.

That said there is something that can be done for the big investment groups that are buying up homes to jack up prices and corner local rental markets.

Buying house for say 100k at 3% APR, renting it because you were laid off and cant afford moving expenses, rent in a different city, plus paying a mortgage on an empty house for 6 months to a year while it sells. Then years later you still keep it because, while you could sell it and cash in, with the low APR you got on it you can afford to rent it for less than the corporate scum suckers who try to monopolize housing = Parasite

Kicking out your renters and selling said house you bought at 100k for 200k to corporate scum suckers who will turn around and sell it at an even higher price or rent it at really high rates OR someone else who will end up paying way more than the rent I was asking for the place because interest rates are about double and the house has also doubled in price = internet hero

No room for nuance, got it.

If they can go back in time and get the same APR and buy the house for the same price...