I made $0 in Amazon gift cards from DDG, but I did retain my privacy. If you got $50 in gift cards from Microsoft, you can be sure they profited more than $50 from you.
You can't be sure of that. It could be a loss leader to get people off Google. That said they are hoping that eventually they'll profit more than $50 from you.
I always wondered how Chinese sellers on Ebay could sell small toys and trinkets for less than a dollar with free shipping that took several weeks to arrive. It would cost more than that to send a small empty box between two addresses in the US.
My thoughts exactly, it was a nice try though, maybe a next version could actually parse the article in order to find the most prominent keywords/topics instead of relying on just the title.
I'm pretty sure this comment would have gathered a number of comments / upvotes if it was in the right context.
"Direct primary care only works as a complement to insurance that pays for more catastrophic care like emergency room visits and specialists."
This is like saying: "I've found a solution to high auto insurance costs! You can save lots of money and pay directly for small fender benders! Oh, by the way, if your car is totaled, you'll need to find someone else that covers those very costly catastrophes."
One could also argue the current model is more like "I found a solution to routine auto maintenance costs! Our super premium insurance includes oil changes, tire replacement, and other routine service."
Part of the problem with health insurance is that it's not just "insurance" in the true sense of the word - it's involved in minor and routine care as well. I don't have to involve my auto insurance company when I run over a nail and get a flat tire - why do I need to involve my health insurance when my kid has an ear infection?
I understand why we got here - preventative care reduces costs, and people would avoid it if not included in the main package. But there isn't a doubt in my mind it hasn't distorted the market.
Get a price quote for a windshield replacement paid directly and through an insurance claim. It's a LOT more expensive, overall, when insurance is involved. Health insurance is not fundamentally different in that way.
I have never seen a private practice that couldn't handle cash payments such as credit cards and, well, cash. They may not be set up to handle Stripe or Google Wallet, but they may be and not even know it. I have a friend who's father, an internal medicine doc in North Carolina, has actually taken farm animals in payment.
Ironically, for businesses that operate under HIPAA regs, any doctor I've had take my credit card had paper forms that were nowhere near PCI compliant.
My favorite - I had a routine-but-niche lab test done at a doctor I'd never been to before. They wanted a credit card "on file" in case insurance didn't pay.
They had a paper form for my name, address, SSN, credit card number, and even the CVV2 code off the card. I left the SSN and credit card info all blank, handed them the form and the card and told them I wasn't comfortable writing it all down (at least if there was a breach, it's not in my handwriting, right?). Which then got put in a pile on her desk until god knows when.
Insurance paid for the test ... at their negotiated rate of under $3. For that, I would have just paid cash and saved having personal information left laying around.
Very few doctors are set up to provide cash quotes. You are more likely to find this situation in primary care (general practitioner) than other specialties since you are more likely to use your primary care physician on a regular schedule.
If you are looking for a practice that is set up near you this site has a map of DPC practices across the US. https://www.dpcfrontier.com/mapper/
"Apple removing the iPhone SE from sale does not mean you can stop designing for its resolution soon.
Non-Plus iPhones can be used in zoomed mode, which means they’ll have the same logical resolution as an SE."
Okay. I get it. You're using the low-quality "alternative news" articles with clickbait headlines to draw in short attention span readers because those are your cash cows. Having that steady advertising income allows you to finance real journalism like the things you listed that might not be able to stand on their own in the current trend-or-die marketplace.
So let's make a deal. If I pay a subscription, will you only give me the good headlines and not spam me with the crappy stuff I don't want to see?
That's a great example of how shoddy Buzzfeed's journalism is and why they shouldn't be supported.
> BuzzFeed was harshly criticized for publishing what Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan called "scurrilous allegations dressed up as an intelligence report meant to damage Donald Trump"
Doesn't seem shoddy to me. I agree completely with the quote from buzzfeeds executive staff. The materials were newsworthy because they were "in wide circulation at the highest levels of American government and media".
Hrm. In hindsight, it seems obviously preferable that the public got to view this dossier. It would have been hard to have an informed opinion about e.g. the Strozk situation without knowing about the dossier and it’s contents.
You can't build a reputation on garbage clickbait, and then expect people to take you seriously on-demand. Integrity isn't a light switch that you can flick on and off. To take any investigative piece seriously, I have to have some trust for the people that produced it, and I don't trust Buzzfeed to be anything other than low-quality, no-integrity mindless garbage.
I see you're being down voted into nothingness (ironic when the topic is about integrity, journalism, free speech) but I agree.
Buzzfeed has been garbage for years at least here in Canada, some pretty vile people work there (Scaachi Koul). I too can't take them seriously considering their history. Maybe the US version is better and maybe I will find them trustworthy but I can't see it happening anytime soon.
Even the NYT after that disaster with the hiring of Sarah Jeong. I didn't realize it was OK to be racist as a retort I foolishly choose the option of just never being racist.
Trust takes years to develop but will disappear in an instant.
The front page of NYTimes.com currently lists among the hard news the headline "Dogs in Poofy Dresses. You're Welcome." but I don't think that prevents a wide range of age brackets from reading and supporting it.
There are a lot of people who feel the Times has gone steeply downhill in the last few years. Personally, I've gone from an avid subscriber to never visiting.
The Journal, the Economist, and the BBC are my go to these days.
When I was 18-20, I wanted to be the sort of person who read The Economist. I got a subscription when I was 22 or so, I think. I kept up with it for a bit and then realized it wasn't actually improving my life in any way - not even keeping me meaningfully informed about the world.
Now that I'm older I'm more excited about people using "shook" as slang than about reading The Economist, and I intend on donating $100 as soon as the button is live.
All this plus-it is so much easier to have all my subscriptions for apps in one place to know who I'm paying monthly, and to able to cancel them all in one place through Apple.
I'm tired of signing up for subscriptions and going through a series of dark patterns on a zillion websites to figure out how to manage and cancel my subscriptions. The worst is when there's one click to subscribe and they make you phone in to an annoying retention specialist to cancel.
Counterfeit goods are made and sold at a scale unseen in the West in China. There are markets the size of football fields hawking these rip offs. How is it racist to suggest the Chinese have a laissez faire attitude about copying others' work?
except every user of Windows 10 by default