One Article Review
| Source |  Errata Security |
|---|---|
| Identifiant | 1494512 |
| Date de publication | 2019-12-30 14:30:20 (vue: 2019-12-31 12:00:18) |
| Titre | So that tweet was misunderstood |
| Texte | I'm currently experiencing the toxic hell that is a misunderstood tweet going viral. It's a property of the social media. The more they can deliberately misunderstand you, the more they can justify the toxicity of their response. Unfortunately, I had to delete it in order to stop all the toxic crud and threats of violence.The context is how politicians distort everything. It's like whenever they talk about sea level rise, it's always about some city like Miami or New Orleans that is sinking into the ocean already, even without global warming's help. Pointing this out isn't a denial of global warming, it's pointing out how we can't talk about the issue without exaggeration. Mankind's carbon emissions are indeed causing sea level to rise, but we should be talking about how this affects average cities, not dramatizing the issue with the worst cases.The same it true of health care. It's a flawed system that needs change. But we don't discuss the people making the best of all bad choices. Instead, we cherry pick those who made the worst possible choice, and then blame the entire bad outcome on the system.My tweet is in response to this Elizabeth Warren reference to a story were somebody chose the worst of several bad choices:No one should have to choose between medication or housing. No one should be forced to ration insulin and risk dangerous complications. We need #MedicareForAll-and we need to tackle corruption and price gouging in drug manufacturing head on. https://t.co/yNxo7yUDri- Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) September 23, 2019My tweet is widely misunderstood as saying "here's a good alternative", when I meant "here's a less bad alternative". Maybe I was wrong and it's not "less bad", but nobody has responded that way. All the toxic spew on Twitter has been based on their interpretation that I was asserting it was "good".And the reason I chose this particular response is because I thought it was a Democrat talking point. As Bernie Sanders (a 2020 presidential candidate) puts it:“The original insulin patent expired 75 years ago. Instead of falling prices, as one might expect after decades of competition, three drugmakers who make different versions of insulin have continuously raised prices on this life-saving medication.”This is called "evergreening", as described in articles like this one that claim insulin makers have been making needless small improvements to keep their products patent-protected, so that they don't have to compete against generics whose patents have expired.It's Democrats like Bernie who claim expensive insulin is little different than cheaper insulin, not me. If you disagree, go complain to him, not me.Bernie is wrong, by the way. The more expensive "insulin analogs" result in dramatically improved blood sugar control for Type 1 diabetics. The results are life changing, especially when combined with glucose monitors and insulin pumps. Drug companies deserve to recoup the billions spent on these advances. My original point is still true that "cheap insulin" is better than "no insulin", but it's also true that it's far worse than modern, more expensive insulin.Anyway, I wasn't really focused on that part of the argument but the other part, how list prices are an exaggeration. They are a fiction that nobody needs to pay, even those without insurance. They aren't the result of price gouging by drug manufacturers, as Elizabeth Warren claims. Bu |
| Envoyé | Oui |
| Condensat | #medicareforall $275 $68 2019my 2020 @ewarren about according actual advances affects after against ago all already also alternative always america among analogs anyway are aren argue arguing argument article asserting available average back bad based because been behavior benefits bernie best better between big bigger billions blame blood both bottom business but buying called can candidate candidates carbon cards care cases causing chain change changing cheap cheaper cherry choice choices choices:no choose chose cited cities city claim claims co/ynxo7yudri com combined coming companies compete competition complain complications context continue continuously control corruption cost countries coupon crud culprit currently customer dangerous debate decades deceptions decry delete deliberate deliberately democrat democrats denial described deserve diabetics different disagree discount discuss distort doesn don dramatically dramatizing drug drugmakers earn either elizabeth elsewherementioning emissions emulate entire especially even evergreening everything exaggerated exaggeration exaggerations expect expensive experiencing expired explains falling far fiction filings find fixate flawed focus focused forced free from generics georgia getting gives global glucose going good goodrx gotten gouging had happily has have haven head health hear heard hell help here high him housing how https://t important improved improvements in articles inaccuracies inaccurate incentive indeed influence instead insulin insurance insurers interesting interpretation investigate isn issue it:“the justify keep know known largest leaving less level life like line lispro list little local made make makers makes making managers mankind manufacturers manufacturing market maximize maybe meant media medication mention miami middlemen might misunderstand misunderstanding misunderstood modern money monitors more most need needless needs negotiate new nobody not nothing ocean off one one that ones only opinion order original orleans other out outcome over part particular patent patents pay pbm pbms people pharma pharmacies pharmacy pick point pointing policy politician politicians populist possible power presidential price prices primary print products profit/loss property protected pumps puts question raised ration really reason rebates recoup reference republican republicans responded response result results rise risk run said same sanders saving saying sea search sec see september serious several should showing side sign simply singapore sinking site small social some somebody spent spew statements stop story sugar supply switzerland system tackle talk talking targeting than that them then there these they thing those thought threats three toxic toxicity transparency true tweet twitter type unchanged underlying understand unfortunately uninsured versions violence viral walgreens warming warren wasn way websites weird well what when whenever which who whose widely wikipedia without worse worst wrong years yet you your ”this |
| Tags | |
| Stories | APT 32 |
| Notes | |
| Move | 
|
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris aprés sa publication.
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris sur un précédent.