I don’t think thought property laws help Nestle at all.

How is Nestle a monopoly?

Well it is true, many drug addicts are dependent on prescription pain killers. Which other people will intentionally get prescribed so they can sell. Y’know, the whole opioid crisis thing.

I think because I was a young male basically was her basis

Intellectual property law is a form of regulation

Like Mozilla, the parent company is not-for-profit with for-profit subsidiaries

I had an ear infection, the doctor thought I was lying for pain killers(she said people my age shouldn’t get ear infections, and I could’ve just used a hairdryer), I told her no the pain is fine I just want antibiotics so it doesn’t get worse. She then decided to prescribe codeine and oral antiobiotics but not ear drops.

When I went to the pharmacist they filled the codeine prescription even though I didn’t want it.

The real thing is many regular preventative checks are a huge money maker for physicians while not actually being that effective for patient outcomes. IIRC its been argued prostate exams are an example of this. IMO, routine removal of wisdom teeth is another, and routine circumcision is an obvious one.

They decide what they pay for, it is factually true that doctors will treat so they get paid more, this is especially a concern in private practice.

This is a genuine concern with over regulation of any industry. If they can just say they were following the regulation, which inevitably will lack in some areas, then that is a strong defense for them.

Nor the doctors themselves (well most are innocent, but there are a few who lobby with the AMA to help keep prices high so they keep getting paid)

Kaiser Permanente to an extent, same with BCBS- though they also have a lot of for-profit affiliates. There are also a fair number of local non-profit insurers

No I meant, what was the grant process? As in, just applying for it, or selected for it?

Did you just apply for it?

Not rare, they’ve been trying to block encryption for a while unfortunately

It means it was a joke

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

nah I don’t have that negotiating power

Employees do not share in the profits so should not have to bear ANY of the risks. (No, the fact they have a job at all is NOT sharing in the profit).

How is it not? In small businesses wages are often more than the dividends. As in, employees get paid first, ask any small business owner about that.

Cost of recruitment is just cost of doing business. (There is no cost if you don’t have to recruit).

Yes. But it means you’re not wanting to fire people randomly most of the time.

Making employees disposable just means the employer has no exposure there, while the employee has it all.

It doesn’t make employees disposable, see above. People quit far more often than they’re fired.

But like I said, I’m not even talking about this from the perspective of the employer, but instead from the employee. Money is more replaceable than time, and it is not ethical to trap someone in a situation that makes them hate their life for a month.

I was basically the only employee in Europe, the other employee had his visa revoked because of the companies incompetence they didn’t file his paperwork properly.