The way it’s written gives it a strong possibility of leading the reader to believe that the bill was actually for the shot itself. Which if they don’t read the full story, and just scroll to the next one, won’t know that’s not the case.
I didn't read it that the bill was for the shot. I read it as it ended up costing that in medical bills. That is where my first thought went. Why would someone be charged millions for the shot? Everyone knows they were free. I think it is def a reader problem too.
What was misleading? The shots were free and she and her family have been billed 7.5 million.
The way it’s written gives it a strong possibility of leading the reader to believe that the bill was actually for the shot itself. Which if they don’t read the full story, and just scroll to the next one, won’t know that’s not the case.
I didn't read it that the bill was for the shot. I read it as it ended up costing that in medical bills. That is where my first thought went. Why would someone be charged millions for the shot? Everyone knows they were free. I think it is def a reader problem too.
you guys clearly don’t understand subtle nuances in language, so i can see how you can think that
...the shots were "free" ??? Just stop and think about that statement. Do you really think Big Pharma does anything for "free" ??? Do you pay taxes???
I didn't take it that way.