Ok, but "It would be great if people had to buy more of the thing" is not an accurate summary either. Putting a CD drive on a console does not mean you have to buy physical media.
Let's put it this way. There are about 250 McDonald's in NYC. If they were all replaced by an Arby's, there is no way they would be as profitable as the McDonalds were. Arby's cannot match the brand or advertising power of McDonald's.
NYC does not want 250 Arby's, and consequently some - probably most - of the Arby's would close. That certainly would change the lives of those employees.
So, do Russians want Tasty-and-that's-all as much as they wanted McDonald's? I doubt it.
That depends on if they can keep their customer base.
If your local McDonald's left town and a place named Burgers-R-Us took its place, would the new restaurant sell as many burgers as the McDonalds did? I doubt it. McDonald's devotes vast resources to build its brand and get customers into their restaurants. Smaller companies don't have those resources.
Being in a relationship with someone for 10+ years and raising a child with that person is strong evidence of commitment. Lying about one's birth name is not enough to prove otherwise.
Or choose both. You may consider that unethical, but that doesn't mean it was insincere. People do unethical things all the time with sincere motivations.
I agree. Your name is the least important part of your identity.
If my spouse told me that she actually had a different name on her birth certificate then I wouldn't bat an eye. In fact, I would probably continue using the "fake" name, because why not.
He wasn't investigating her. If you are an undercover agent and meet someone new - off duty and unrelated to work - are you allowed to tell them your real name?
If not, if a single person is forced to choose between no intimate relationships and relationships only under a pseudonym, then the latter is the predictable choice.
This is a Congressional map. Nobody in this lawsuit is trying to flip the state legislature. They are trying to enforce the Voting Rights Act, which is about race not party affiliation.
According to the SCOTUS, the number of Black-majority Alabama districts should be proportional to the number of Blacks in Alabama. Alabama has seven Congressional representatives, of whom one is Black. The state is roughly one quarter Black, so the goal of the lawsuit is to make sure it has two Black-majority districts in Congress. Nothing more. The other five will surely be Republican-controlled, and everyone knows that the courts cannot change that. Two out of seven is our best-case scenario, for now at least.
Other lawsuits have tried to force various maps, at the state and congressional level, to match the number of Democratic-leaning districts to the proportion of Democrats in the state. Any such efforts have no support from the SCOTUS and no chance of success in Alabama.
Because it doesn't matter whether the map "looks" fair. It needs to have two majority Black districts to comply with the court order. And those two districts are probably not going to elect Republicans.
There was a medical reason, the device was considered unsafe. Any experimental device is considered unsafe without monitoring, and monitoring was no longer available. That's why she chose to have it removed.
Anyone who signs up for a clinical trial knows that their treatment can be discontinued at any time, even if it is helping them. For example, if an implant is helping you but is found to be harming other people, it may be considered unsafe and you may be advised to remove it. In fact, a different article suggested that other patients were experiencing adverse effects from this experimental implant. This might even be why the company couldn't get their product approved and eventually lost funding.
They can't deny claims based on anything in your previous history. They can't use your history of medical conditions, history of implants, history of drug use, history of pregnancy, history of employment, history of not wearing seat belts, history of anything.
They can say, "We won't pay for this MRI" or "We won't pay for this drug", but that would be true of everyone else on the same plan, regardless of whether they had an implant.
More typically, they say "We only pay for a certain number of MRIs per year" or "You have to get a cheap Xray instead of an expensive MRI" or "You have to try the cheap drug, if that doesn't work then you can try the expensive one" or "We need to be notified 30 days prior to getting the drug, otherwise we won't pay" or "You can only get the MRI at this other location, otherwise we won't pay".
None of this has to do with your medical history, though. They are simply annoying hoops that everyone has to jump through. And they can never, ever, say "We will pay for X only if you remove the implant, otherwise we won't pay for X". If they are paying for X for anyone else on her plan, then they have to pay for hers too.
Classify them however you want, they have nothing to do with your eligibility for health insurance.
In fact, ACA health plans must enroll anyone who wants to enroll. They cannot decline an individual renewal. A premium can only be adjusted according to age and tobacco use. And they cannot charge old people more than three times what they charge young people.
Doctors remove unsafe implants and/or replace them with safer versions all the time, including devices like deep brain stimulators. I don't see why you consider this to be a big problem.
No Republicans voted for it.
In fact, she had to work to get Democrats to vote for it. It passed the House 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all the Republicans voting No.