And you're right. What I was describing was not a copay, but a deductable (please check the words I used, as I called it a deductable :) ).
Sure but the conversation was about copay ;)
bustrpoindextr
joined 1 year ago
I'm both American and have been on multiple different insurance plans. (Including a no copay plan)
No copay means no copay, what you're describing is not no copay.
Well, hopefully John Oliver will do another special on medical debt and create another medical debt collector agency whose purpose is to free you from medical debt. Because that's probably your best hope. You know... a British dude that feels bad for Americans... that's... that's how this should work right?
If you had no co pay you wouldn't have had a $200 bill ( unless you went out of network and then fuck you for wanting to have a choice)
Why is this marked NSFW?
If a multimillionaire puts their assets into holdings and gets it back after their tenure, then the incentive to corruption still exists because they can still make decisions that affect those assets even indirectly.
Not really if they don't know what the portfolio is composed of, the only way they could definitely positively affect it is if they make decisions good for the whole of the economy.
That's what I was actually proposing, the politician would transfer complete holding to someone like vanguard and they would diversify the assets in a reasonable way. The politician would not have control over it or even see what stocks are in the account, but still be able to benefit from the country's economy.
All the politician could see is the valuation of the holdings in the event they do want to liquidate, but again, they wouldn't directly choose what is being liquidated (because they don't know what they have)
As far as divesting, would you be okay with not necessarily liquidating but moving investments into a 3rd party holder?
Basically like "okay this is what you had in an investment fund, now a third party (for sake of argument fidelity) takes over the fund and now fidelity advisers manage it in its entirety until the person is no longer a representative.
The question really being, what kind of divesting do you want? Because straight liquidation could still negatively impact younger candidates, given that the liquidation would remove potential legitimate interest from their portfolio. Meaning that them running could negatively impact their future.
Okay, because your trying to be pedantic here, to save your ego. I'll go for pedantic. No it's not. Based on the definition you already provided. Because, since it is a subcategory. It cannot be separate, or a distinct different unit from, carbs. It is a part of carbs. It is not separate from them, regardless of someone counting them.
That's like saying you are not a person, even though I counted and said there are (about) 8 billion people on the planet, of which one is Daft_ish.
You still exist under the category of person. You are not separate from the whole. Does that help?
No, they are not. As you have previously stated
It goes total carbohydrates then as a sub category it lists sugar. Source: looking at a nutrition label.
The important part of that is sub category also known as a subset. Which is not, in any way, separate from the whole.
They are separate from other carbs within that category.
I don't know how else to explain English to you. I mean, I'm using your own words here.
What you literally said.
Yes but they are listed separately on nutrition labels
Soooo, look man just accept you misspoke. It's not a big deal... You getting defensive, pissy and insulting other people is a bigger deal than you misspeaking.
Re-read the definition you posted, a subset is not separate. That's inherently what a subset is... a non separate part of the whole. Sugar is a subset of carbs, that's even how it's listed on nutrition facts.
It is separate from other types of carbs. But it is not separate from carbs.
Sorry if English is hard for you.
I like that you included value beyond just immediate monetary