Random Politics & Religion #00

Weren't you recruited by a new company recently?

Done

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/26/vatican-ireland-gay-marriage-referendum-vote-defeat-for-humanity

TLDR Vatican is not for gay marriage what a shock !

I can't believe you're defending this....

Anti-competition agreements are the absolute opposite of a free market system.

Yeah, not getting recruited by another company would have no effect on an employee... Weren't you recruited by a new company recently?

You actually believe him?

"Yeah, I'm totally the CFO of a major corporation. Gives me plenty of time to post on a video game forum at virtually every hour of the day. By the way, people making boatloads of money work really hard, you guys!"

"vagina emotions make chicks a bunch of crazy broads"

Since Obamacare took effect, roughly 16.5 million more people have gained health insurance. And while the health care law is objectively succeeding in its key goal of expanding access to coverage to millions of Americans, those gains come with enormous costs to taxpayers — including inordinately steep ongoing administrative costs, according to a new study.

The analysis, published in Health Affairs this week, found that Obamacare will add about $273.6 billion in administrative costs between 2014 and 2022, including $172.2 billion in higher private insurance overhead — bringing the total spent on administering government health programs and private insurance overhead to nealry $2.76 trillion for that period.

The authors of the study, Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, professors at the City University of New York School of Public Health and lecturers at Harvard Medical School, attribute the soaring overhead to rising enrollment in private plans, as well as the law’s Medicaid expansion. This year 9.6 million people signed up for plans on the state and federal exchanges.

The study also attributes the uptick in overhead to the high cost of setting up and running the exchanges, which are essentially brokers between the government and private health plans.

In comparison, the federal government spends just 2 percent in overhead costs on its traditional Medicare program.

The latest estimate breaks down to about $1,375 in extra administrative costs per newly insured person per year, according to the report. That’s “over and above what would have been expected had the law not been enacted,” Himmelstein wrote on the Health Affairs blog.

Some of the overhead will be added to Medicare and Medicaid programs, but most of it—about $172.2 billion—will come from private insurance.

The researchers acknowledge that expanding access to health coverage for tens of millions of Americans — as Obamacare was intended to do — comes at a high price, but they say that soaring administrative costs are avoidable.

“Insuring 25 million additional Americans, as the [Congressional Budget Office] projects the ACA will do, is surely worthwhile. But the administrative cost of doing so seems awfully steep, particularly when much cheaper alternatives are available,” the report says.

The researchers point out that Medicare Advantage, which also involves federal reimbursement to private insurers, also had “bloated administrative costs,” though in that case the overhead averaged 13.7 percent in 2011, or about $1,355 per enrollee. “But rather than learn from that mistake, both Democrats and Republicans seem intent on tossing more federal dollars to private insurers,” they wrote.

In the report, the researchers push for adopting a universal single-payer system, saying that it would significantly scale back on administrative costs.

Of course, adopting a single-payer model in the U.S. in this political environment is not likely to happen anytime soon.

Last summer, an effort by progressive lawmakers in Vermont to craft the first single-payer model in the country died off when liberal Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin, a longtime leader of the movement, realized it would cost his state more than it could afford.

Other states like New York are considering a similar model, though it will be an uphill battle.

The thing is I"m the CEO of the internet at least that is what my business card says !

So, are you for corporate espionage?

You do realize that this agreement between companies does not keep employees from leaving their jobs and moving to another job in one of those competing companies, right? All the agreement is doing is keeping the competing companies from cold calling and stealing their competitors key employees.

But I guess you think that's a bad thing, huh?

And yes, I was just hired for another company. I also signed a non-compete agreement with my firm I'm leaving. Is that also a bad thing in your mind? It protects my ex-employer from me stealing business away from them, and it protects me from any accusations of such theft. Which doesn't matter to me because I'm not going into public accounting, but private industry.

I'm surprised that you haven't signed a non-compete agreement with your employers yourself, being the professional you claim to be.

By agreeing to not "poach" employees from each other, it directly impacts the amount those employees (and indirectly, the remaining employees) could earn, in a manner which specifically circumvents the existing protections (non-competes and NDAs).

How so? You do realize that this only applies to cold calling other employees.

What's stopping those employees, when they are dissatisfied with their employer, from looking at the other employers (even if they are in the non-compete agreement) for a new job?

Can you prove to us that these agreements prevent such employees from switching jobs to the other companies in this no-compete agreement? Can you prove to us that this agreement does nothing more than agree to not cold call and poach their competitor's employees?

Prove the collusion. Don't imply, and certainly don't imply by strawmaning the argument.

Signing a non-compete has nothing to do with being a professional lol... they're not always required and honestly aren't really worth the paper they're written on a lot of times.

Edit: I find it strange that you claim you waited until you put in your resignation to sign a noncompete as well. Also, why would you be surprised if he hasn't signed one if you didn't sign one until a week ago?

Prove the collusion. Don't imply, and certainly don't imply by strawmaning the argument.

I highly doubt he signed a non-compete at resignation. If he did, he's an idiot. You would typically sign a non-compete at employment.

Oh by Thor's thews.

http://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/

I highly doubt he signed a non-compete at resignation.

you asked them to show you the evidence. and then you acted surprised/offended when they provided it. and now it somehow doesn't meet some imaginary criteria that you just made up. and then here comes the name calling.....

you asked them to show you the evidence. and then you acted surprised/offended when they provided it. and now it somehow doesn't meet some imaginary criteria that you just made up. and then here comes the name calling.....

I question their evidence. Is that too hard for you to see?

Yeah, in professional employment where one can leave a company to start their own, non-compete clauses exist to prevent the leaving employee from stealing the clients when they leave.

Seriously, are you that obtuse, or does this come natural for you?

But I guess it's because you don't want to show the fact that these companies are agreeing to settle this out of court (my guess is because the negative publicity would be damaging along with drawn out legal costs associated with it) instead of actually going to court and argue their case.

I will send $20 american dollars to anyone besides KN and Mil that remembers what the original argument was...

NO BACKREADING!!!

But I guess it's because you don't want to show the fact that these companies are agreeing to settle this out of court (my guess is because the negative publicity would be damaging along with drawn out legal costs associated with it) instead of actually going to court and argue their case.

IV. PROHIBITED CONDUCT

Each Defendant is enjoined from attempting to enter into, entering into, maintaining or enforcing any agreement with any other person to in any way refrain from, requesting that any person in any way refrain from, or pressuring any person in any way to refrain from soliciting, cold calling, recruiting, or otherwise competing for employees of the other person.

All anyone can see is the boring and repetitive nature of your arguments. I wrote a script for it. I'm going to call it the Boring as Hell Kingnoobie All Purpose Argument Flow Chart

Step 1.) you ask them to show you evidence.
Step 2.) you acted surprised/offended when they provide it.
Step 3.) and then you say it somehow doesn't meet some imaginary criteria that you just made up.
Step 4.) and then here comes the name calling....

granted "obtuse" isn't you best put down...

but I could see it coming a mile away and I'm like oh goodie here it comes...wait for it...boom