52 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said:

I prefer the religion of "piece"...

 

Hit, hit 🤣

I didn't know where this was supposed to go
 

https://www.miamiherald.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/dave-barry/article296995874.html

 

We all know that Canadian 'statehood' is just a trolling by President-elect Trump and that's NOT happening. Even if it was a serious thing, Canada wouldn't be a single state. It would be 4 or 5 states. But not happening regardless. 

I did hear someone suggest a 'union' of sorts, similar to the EU were Canada and the U.S. would have a common currency, common military, free flowing trade and a common passport.

I don't envision that being likely either, but it's an interesting thought. I haven't really thought through pros and cons to it, but it's interesting. 

Suppose for a moment that it were to happen (a union, not statehood). Does the NFL expand into Canada? Maybe a CFL team or two moves into the NFL? 

DAMMIT! Apparently Meta created an Instagram AI chat bot who identified as black and queer but they shut it down already 

Would have been days of entertainment in here. 

On 1/3/2025 at 6:51 PM, DEagle7 said:

DAMMIT! Apparently Meta created an Instagram AI chat bot who identified as black and queer but they shut it down already 

Would have been days of entertainment in here. 

Doesn't @Kz! already fill this role?

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/erin-strotman-henrico-nurse-child-abuse-malicious-wounding-b2675230.html

Strotman was arrested and charged with felony child abuse and malicious wounding Friday "in connection to an ongoing investigation involving a Henrico Doctors’ Hospital’s Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU)”, stated Henrico Police. She was picked up by detectives Thursday January 2, a Henrico police spokesperson told The Independent.

Not sure where to put this so I'll drop it here.

 

Remember when a Starbucks in philly told 2 dudes that the bathroom is for paying customers only, they caused a scene, got arrested which led to Starbucks deciding to make it bathrooms for all?

 

Quote

Starbucks ends its ‘open-door’ policies

 
Starbucks doesn’t want to be America’s public bathroom anymore.

Starbucks is scrapping a policy that had let anyone hang out at its cafes or use the restrooms without making a purchase. The new rules are part of a larger effort to improve Starbucks’ cafe experience and deter homeless people and non-paying customers who have come to use Starbucks solely for shelter and bathroom access – but they reverse a policy that was put in place after one of the company’s biggest-ever PR disasters.

The new code of conduct, announced to stores Monday, is part of CEO Brian Niccol’s strategy to lure back customers, boost sagging sales and improve worker relations. It applies to all locations in North America and will be displayed on store doors.

The changes are a "practical step that helps us prioritize our paying customers who want to sit and enjoy our cafes or need to use the restroom during their visit,” said a Starbucks spokesperson in a statement. "By setting clear expectations for behavior and use of our spaces, we can create a better environment for everyone.”

Other changes include a ban on panhandling, discrimination, consuming outside alcohol and vaping, according to the policy posted online. Employees will receive training on the new policy.

Starbucks is also trying to incentivize customers to stay in its cafes instead of ordering to-go by giving perks for in-store orders. Beginning January 27, all customers can get one free hot or iced coffee refill served in its ceramic mugs or reusable glasses. Previously, the perk only applied to members of Starbucks’ loyalty program.

Public bathrooms
Starbucks’ move is a reversal of its on-and-off relationship offering bathroom access to the general public.

Limiting restroom access comes at a time when many US cities and suburbs lack adequate public access to them. That has left private companies like Starbucks, McDonald’s and other chains to fill the void.

Opening restrooms and cafes to the general public has helped Starbucks brand itself as a "third place” between work and home and bring potential customers through the door. However, the policy has created challenges for employees and customers alike.

The open-door policy began in 2018 after two Black men were arrested at a Philadelphia location while waiting for a friend. One of the men said he asked to use the restroom shortly after walking in and was told it was only for paying customers. The incident was caught on camera and morphed into a PR disaster for Starbucks.

In 2022, Starbucks’ former CEO Howard Schultz said it might not be able to keep its bathrooms open, blaming a growing mental health problem that poses a threat to its staff and customers. That same year, Starbucks closed more than a dozen locations, primarily located in downtown spots, citing safety concerns.

"This is another example of the complications caused by the lack of public bathrooms in the US, and of Starbucks shifting its tune — benefitting at times from the lack of public infrastructure and being hurt by the same things,” said Bryant Simon, a historian at Temple University who has written a book on Starbucks and is currently working on one about public bathrooms in the United States.

 

Fat People Rejoice

 

9 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Fat People Rejoice

 

I'm going to go socialist on this one, but f it, those drugs should be free and accessible to all that want them..

 

If obesity is one of the major factors that is driving up costs of health care, making drugs like this cheap and available will save a ton in overall healthcare costs.

11 minutes ago, paco said:

I'm going to go socialist on this one, but f it, those drugs should be free and accessible to all that want them..

Yeah, I mean forget the fact that doing so would greatly disincentivize biopharma R&D, we need to give fat people free drugs now while tax payers foot the massive bill because putting down the fork is just too damn hard. You could maybe argue that insurance companies should take a calculated risk and cover these at 100%, with no out-of-pocket costs to customers, based on the possibility of reduced payouts for future ailments. Debatable on whether it would be worth it for them, but that's a different story.

Quote

If obesity is one of the major factors that is driving up costs of health care, making drugs like this cheap and available will save a ton in overall healthcare costs.

If you want lower hanging fruit from a public health perspective, insulin is probably more feasible, but with similar, slightly less severe consequences.

 

It's important to remember those aren't just weight loss drugs. They were designed to prevent the progression from prediabetes to diabetes. And it's very effective.

It's tempting to call people out for **** eating habits but there's a big genetic component there. 

3 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

 

Apparently people are protesting this by signing up for RedNote, a chinese social media app. The Chinese are not pleased with all the thots 🤣

3 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

It's important to remember those aren't just weight loss drugs. They were designed to prevent the progression from prediabetes to diabetes. And it's very effective.

It's tempting to call people out for **** eating habits but there's a big genetic component there. 

And for that they're being covered by insurers, no? If you're overweight but not prediabetic, I don't see why the government should foot the bill. Leave the decision up to insurance companies who are taking on all the risk. They cover flu shots at 100% with no OOP costs because they've done the math and see a long-term cost savings for them (although trumpbots still somehow think it's some money making scheme for big pharma, but that's because they're morons and they get medical advice from Joe Rogan.)

So if the math works out for them and they decide to cover glp-1 drugs for the same reasons, then I'm fine with it. But to force the healthy tax payers to foot the bill, when we're already paying high monthly premiums that don't allow for discounts based on health factors like BMI, then you're basically double screwing us. 

7 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Apparently people are protesting this by signing up for RedNote, a chinese social media app. The Chinese are not pleased with all the thots 🤣

12 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

And for that they're being covered by insurers, no? If you're overweight but not prediabetic, I don't see why the government should foot the bill. Leave the decision up to insurance companies who are taking on all the risk. They cover flu shots at 100% with no OOP costs because they've done the math and see a long-term cost savings for them (although trumpbots still somehow think it's some money making scheme for big pharma, but that's because they're morons and they get medical advice from Joe Rogan.)

So if the math works out for them and they decide to cover glp-1 drugs for the same reasons, then I'm fine with it. But to force the healthy tax payers to foot the bill, when we're already paying high monthly premiums that don't allow for discounts based on health factors like BMI, then you're basically double screwing us. 

I don't deal with Medicare so I'm not positive, but by my understanding there's a difference between those drugs being covered for certain indications is kinda separate from the price negotiated with the manufacturer. My wife had was a blood clot with her pregnancy. Her anticoagulation was "covered" but not entirely, so we still had a hefty out of pocket cost because of how high the negotiated price was. 

It's also a pretty moot distinction. The odds of being overweight but not having any other diagnosis (prediabetes, hypercholesterolemia etc) is pretty low. 

28 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

is kinda separate from the price negotiated with the manufacturer

I'm talking about paco saying the government should pick up the tab and make it free to anyone who wants them.

44 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

It's also a pretty moot distinction. The odds of being overweight but not having any other diagnosis (prediabetes, hypercholesterolemia etc) is pretty low. 

Heart disease, cancer, etc..... obesity is a factor for a TON of ailments.  "Obese people shouldn't have access to weight loss medication unless you are prediabetic" is an terrific take

17 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I'm talking about paco saying the government should pick up the tab and make it free to anyone who wants them.

You said government, not me tiny tool  

Just now, paco said:

You said government, not me  

In response to Biden's admin negotiating prices with Lily and Novo, you said this

Quote

I'm going to go socialist on this one, but f it, those drugs should be free and accessible to all that want them..

 

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

In response to Biden's admin negotiating prices with Lily and Novo, you said this

 

Wow, you HAVE to be autistic  

4 minutes ago, paco said:

Wow, you HAVE to be autistic  

Oh ok, so you apparently think everything is socialism. That tracks.

 

3 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Apparently people are protesting this by signing up for RedNote, a chinese social media app. The Chinese are not pleased with all the thots 🤣

If TikTok is illegal because it is owned in China, how is RedNote legal?

24 minutes ago, toolg said:

If TikTok is illegal because it is owned in China, how is RedNote legal?

This is one of those stories I truly only follow via memes because I could not possibly care less. So beats me. Apparently it's got a pretty strict no hussies allowed policy though

(H.o.e.s. autocorrects to "women" )