foco_tubi

There's already more than a few brands which have the douche chills roadie market cornered, Factor and Pinarello come to mind

Tesla has no reputation in the cycling industry, at least not regarding their bikes, but by the looks of it the fork and wheels are made of composite plastic. Not great.

No. They are widely considered to be one of the best ways to learn balance and steering as well as developing coordination and core strength. The bike is not physically capable of reaching a high speed on flat ground due to the lack of a geared propulsion system. Generally they result in a faster transition to pedaling two wheels than by using training wheels on a “normal” bike.

Could have sworn this was an April 1 joke in 2018/19 originally

There is a significant jump in quality between a bike-shaped object at Walmart and a name-brand kid’s bike at your local bicycle shop. There is also a significant jump in price.

My first bike shop job, we had an old crazy guy who scooted around town on his draisienne (read: a regular bike with a big ol' wooden dowel in place of the crankset). Not sure it really caught on.

technically this is a hobby-horse, not a bike

Altman is an enabler, not an inventor

Oh, I wish I was an Intel Xeon 6+ 6990E+, that is what I’d truly love to be…

Regardless of whether or not you agree with any specific definition, the state of US healthcare is such that half of all spending needs to be subsidized in one form or another. To remove even the paltry billions that may fit under a strict category of “voluntary charitable giving” would be a disaster.

Maybe not according to your personal definition. Government welfare is a form of institutionalized or compulsory collective charity, although it is not “charity” in the private voluntary sense.

That's not the question I asked, but you're still heading down the road to being incorrect. The fact is that charitable giving, need-based aid, philanthropic donations, government assistance, and other forms of subsidy fund *roughly half of the sum total American healthcare costs.* That's trillions of dollars.

A pizza slice covered in pineapple [0]

[0] https://wptavern.com/wordpress-org-login-introduces-mandator...

Do you not agree that charity/philanthropy is already an essential part of the US healthcare strategy?

Doctors and dentists in the US are not bound by the same regulations (or even a similar stringency of regulation) involving billing practices and procedure codes.

No one is making the claim that the cost of service would be $0. Quite obviously.

What you can't be sure of is the real cost in terms of resources, and how that would be accounted and paid for. The price of your childrens' stay, to you personally, could be far less than what you originally paid personally if healthcare was not reliant on private subsidy. You would also likely be subsidizing the costs of other children staying in the hospital through public subsidy using your tax dollars. I reckon that last point is where a lot of people in the US get hung up.

By chance, are you a Scientologist?

The more interesting hypothetical is: would a NICU stay still cost $1M if the factors inflating that cost (namely, insurance subsidizing hospital revenue) were no longer in place?

Without assuming the specifics as you do, it’s possible and entirely believable that any buffer was wiped out by the husband’s business. Access to credit could also be affected.

As long as we’re throwing anecdotes, access to forbearance and deferment is shaky at best. I’ve personally had inconsistent success across various income levels.

Irrelevant to this specific context as well as your initial claim

I'd imagine you'd struggle to find a healthcare system in which a doctor's prescribed care is assuredly covered by insurance, by the insurance provider, and then later rescinded after care has already started.

In what world is a "bad result" not recognized as a problem?

The claim that this is a far-right talking point IS a factual point. Not only are you seemingly injecting your personal bias into the article and putting words in the author's mouth, but you are simultaneously negating the fact this is a far-right talking point because "you don't like it." Sheesh.

She's trying to claim there is some system where this wouldn't happen

Please point to the passage in the article where you see this claim being made.

No, clinically that is known as a delusion.

One isn’t charged until afterwards

This is not a universal billing practice, often clinic visits are billed upfront before meeting with the provider.

It's hard for me to believe that a doctor couldn't afford medical care for her husband

Why's that? Between mortgage, repaying education debt, supporting children, recovering from a husband's failed business venture...what is hard to believe about having trouble paying for another expense, especially after you've been reassured that the expense would be at least partially recompensated and that turns out to not be the case?

On the contrary, the condition experienced by the author's spouse is direct evidence of a problem with the author's insurance provider, which in kind happens to be a widespread practice in the industry. US health insurance providers have pivoted from denying claims based on pre-existing conditions to denying claims based on lack of history of pre-existing conditions.

Your links do not support the point you are trying to make, as those affected by NHS wait times are, in fact, not affected by insurance denials but rather the immense and unmet demand for medical personnel.

There's absolutely nothing of value on any Word Press site

This is just 100% an incorrect assumption. Even just an e-commerce site running Woo has troves of potentially valuable customer data. Not to mention whatever else might be on the server, or what that server is connected to...

The average does not represent the entry level wage, which is closer to minimum wage in some states. Why would you risk losing an appendage in a factory machine if you can fold t-shirts for the same pay?