|
Spring Heeled Jack posted:I've been seeing this as a debate point against M4A (as if 'jobs' are a reason to keep up the systemic murder of people who don't have enough money for treatments). My thought is always yes the jobs will go away, but who gives a poo poo? Another large portion of our economy is military/defense contractor related poo poo. How many jobs would be lost if we had a sane government that wasn't at war all the time? Who the gently caress cares! I'd much rather not be in a perpetual war with brown people. I mean the military is the US's biggest job program in the country.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
madeintaipei posted:Call center golems, slaves made of clay. Created for work that revolves more around navigating broken systems and office politics than solving problems. Clueless, scapegoat managers in charge of meaningless metrics, driven into mindless petty rage by the sheer impossiblility of it all. Workers with no clear direction destined to fail, hard and repeatedly, meeting goals that float around like a Leningrader in a dystrophy ward with the windows left open. When, "How can I help you today?", becomes a plaintive cry for release from endless drop-down menus, broken elevators, spoiled cafeteria food, and last Thursday's bedbug infestation followed by CO2 poisoning during the eradication attempt. yeah, like i said, any office in any industry
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:I honestly have difficulty believing people are as stupid as you too even on SA. Like really. Funny thing is, I feel like the US going into M4A will shed less total jobs that most people think, anyway - of course a lot of finance-based jobs will disappear, but you'll have loads more public health sector administration positions out of sheer necessity. M4A means a lot more people will be using the healthcare system (because, you know, they basically couldn't before), which will require a huge amount of processing, data entry, and analysis. A lot of people in the insurance industry could probably move right over to them. And this is way before any kind of more 'indirect' economic benefits from having a population that is A) way healthier; B) less stressed; and C) having greater disposable income. And this most profoundly effects the bottom 50% of earners, who have to spend almost everything they make anyway. People spending more money is good for the economy, who knew!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 05:51
|
|
|
The people running the economy sure don’t.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
Biplane posted:The people running the economy sure don’t. Ghiuls currently benefitting from the status quo warn against improving society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 05:59
|
|
|
"The economy is doing exactly what it's supposed to do right now, and working-class Americans need to trust job creators to create opportunities for them to get off welfare", Congressman Smaug said in an interview yesterday
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 06:05
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:Curious what part u disagree with, the part where massive layoffs are an inevitable result of m4a, or the part where its still worth doing despite this
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 06:17
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:The part where there will be any significant net loss of jobs. The vast majority of people who do actual labor in the insurance industry would have jobs just as applicable in a nationally run government healthcare system, electronic medical data is the same everywhere. In the US we've whittled it down to what four total programs that have the proper HIPAA compliance at this point? Oh no you might need to change from Greenway to the gov't proprietary software. Oh no. The techs might actually work for people who have to publicly post wages, what a nightmare. Don't forget that healthcare for everyone is going to lead to an increased demand for doctors and nurses which will lead to an increased demand for the support and logistics that allows them to do their jobs. There's a lot more that goes into running a hospital than the people directly working with patients. Yeah, the transition is almost certainly going to be stressful and uneasy for many people working for private insurance during the switchover and I wish that wasn't the case but it's a change that needs to happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 06:24
|
|
|
Acute Grill posted:Ghiuls currently benefitting from the status quo warn against improving society. Luckily ghouls are weak to fire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 06:35
|
|
|
Coucho Marx posted:"The economy is doing exactly what it's supposed to do right now, and working-class Americans need to trust job creators to create opportunities for them to get off welfare", Congressman Smaug said in an interview yesterday I feel like this is a slight on Smaug who, once having acquired his giant pile of gold to nap in, proceeded to do just that instead of finding new ways to suck wealth from Middle Earth in order to run up his score.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 07:16
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:The part where there will be any significant net loss of jobs. The vast majority of people who do actual labor in the insurance industry would have jobs just as applicable in a nationally run government healthcare system, electronic medical data is the same everywhere. In the US we've whittled it down to what four total programs that have the proper HIPAA compliance at this point? Oh no you might need to change from Greenway to the gov't proprietary software. Oh no. The techs might actually work for people who have to publicly post wages, what a nightmare. I thought part of the sales pitch of government-run healthcare is that it would be more efficient than the current system with private healthcare insurance, with less duplication of effort. Wouldn't that mean fewer jobs? Profit in private healthcare insurance is really not that much ~3%--running government healthcare exactly like the system with private healthcare insurance, minus profit, would not create much savings. A lot of the real savings that is supposed to come from government healthcare would come from running the organizations in a smarter, more efficient way, SA posters say. Croatoan posted:Ahem. I am here to announce this week's Chick-fil-a derail Posters in this thread were losing their minds because other posters sometimes buy chicken sandwiches from Chick-Fil-A, who might donate 0.01% of the sale to the Salvation Army? Lol It was implied in this thread that Chick-Fil-A directly donates to gay conversion camps or something Do posters here scream at other people when they give change to the people ringing bells outside of Wal-Mart? silence_kit has a new favorite as of 12:53 on Nov 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 09:41
|
|
|
You know that you are also an SA poster, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 09:55
|
|
|
I want a chicken sandwich that spicy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 09:58
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:The part where there will be any significant net loss of jobs. The vast majority of people who do actual labor in the insurance industry would have jobs just as applicable in a nationally run government healthcare system, electronic medical data is the same everywhere. In the US we've whittled it down to what four total programs that have the proper HIPAA compliance at this point? Oh no you might need to change from Greenway to the gov't proprietary software. Oh no. The techs might actually work for people who have to publicly post wages, what a nightmare. M4A doesn’t work unless you lower costs within spitting distance of what Canadians pay per capita. So you’re cutting hundreds of billions (if not a trillion) dollars out of an industry and not expecting a significant labor reduction? Pharmaceutical companies have layoffs when growth is flat. You think Mylan isn’t laying off a poo poo ton of employees if Epipens cost 75% less. Sure you’ll still need people to manage member issues and payments to providers. But we already have that with Medicare and Medicaid. Those programs would get bigger, but they wouldn’t absorb job losses elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 12:17
|
|
|
The only serious candidate proposing M4A happens to also have a platform including policies to deal with already existing problems of unemployment and exploitation. Also, a shitload of that money is already going straight into the offshore accounts of billionaire execs running up their high scores anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 12:30
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:You think Mylan isn’t laying off a poo poo ton of employees if Epipens cost 75% less. Just LOL if you think the Epipen price increases resulted in the hiring of more employees.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 12:52
|
|
|
Half-wit posted:Just LOL if you think the Epipen price increases resulted in the hiring of more employees. It's more through mergers. When the ACA passed there was a round of insurance mergers meant specifically to lower operating costs. If Big Pharma can't charge Americans 3x more than other countries, they'll first merge with one another and get rid of redundancies. Also this is a boring derail since none of these companies are currently circling the drain so I'll leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 13:18
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:M4A doesn’t work unless you lower costs within spitting distance of what Canadians pay per capita. So you’re cutting hundreds of billions (if not a trillion) dollars out of an industry and not expecting a significant labor reduction? Pharmaceutical companies have layoffs when growth is flat. You think Mylan isn’t laying off a poo poo ton of employees if Epipens cost 75% less. the us spends more on healthcare per capita than literally every universal-care country. the health insurance industry exists only to suck profit out of people that can pay and condemn to needless suffering those who can't. also, fuckin epipens? that's the example you reach for? the drug that used to be forty bucks and is now seven hundred after a venture capitalist bought the patent?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 13:54
|
|
|
I agree with you completely but I'm going to also head you off at the pass and remind you that another popular justification for the US healthcare abyss is "but our research divisions  "
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 13:58
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:
FWIW this news story is literally the first time I heard about them donating to Salvation Army. The other one, which is the main one everyone was talking about before, was the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which appears to be the more scandalous one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I agree with you completely but I'm going to also head you off at the pass and remind you that another popular justification for the US healthcare abyss is "but our research divisions Ah yes research divisions who focus on developing slightly different drugs that do basically the same thing so the patent can be renewed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 14:54
|
|
|
food court bailiff posted:They still talk poo poo about homosexuality both on their job applications and their websites, they still believe and fully endorse terrible philosophies. Serious question here, what do they have on their job application? Because, and I'm no lawyer/HR person here, but wouldn't asking someone about their sexual preferences be an EEOC violation? How do they put something like that on an app and not get sued into oblivion by the Dept. of Labor?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
uli2000 posted:Serious question here, what do they have on their job application? Because, and I'm no lawyer/HR person here, but wouldn't asking someone about their sexual preferences be an EEOC violation? How do they put something like that on an app and not get sued into oblivion by the Dept. of Labor? It’s not a federal crime to discriminate against people for their sexual orientation when hiring, and in the majority of states it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay. God bless America!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:FWIW this news story is literally the first time I heard about them donating to Salvation Army. The other one, which is the main one everyone was talking about before, was the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which appears to be the more scandalous one. Basically, don't believe anything they say about having a change of heart. It's all PR stunts so people can keep pretending their lovely chicken sandwich is morally okay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:I've also heard that they're just donating to their own foundation instead, which then donates to lovely orgs instead so it's *technically* not CFA donating to the homophobes. That's what they started doing the last time that said they'd stopped donating to orgs that support conversation therapy. I'm not entirely sure what's changed to cause them to hit the news again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
Question for everyone here: obviously, Chick-fil-A is not circling the drain, but there seems to be a lot of interest in discussing their latest move. I don't think, either, that there's a lot of disagreement in that this move is more about appearances than an actual change of policy (if I'm reading the conversation correctly). We have a "dumb moves in marketing" thread, but that feels more like a laugh-and-point thread when a company puts out an ill-considered ad or gets all "fellow children" on Twitter or whatever. So: would you, the people who read and post in this thread, like to expand its name and purpose to include discussion of companies that aren't just failing (e.g. perennial favorite, Sears) but have also recently (re-)entered the spotlight for bad/questionable behavior? That's entirely possible, if so, but please do bear in mind that that sort of discussion has the potential to get very hot, very quickly, and that's not really what this sub is about, so the thread would be moderated more closely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm here for the drain circling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
sounds like the topic for another thread, pastry mod
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
Pastry of the Year posted:Question for everyone here: obviously, Chick-fil-A is not circling the drain, but there seems to be a lot of interest in discussing their latest move. I don't think, either, that there's a lot of disagreement in that this move is more about appearances than an actual change of policy (if I'm reading the conversation correctly). I actually like the narrowness of the spinning the drain part, that is what attracted me to this thread even though I don't regularly post in PYF. Businesses doing bad poo poo that aren't going to spin the drain and perpetually just keep doing the bad poo poo for me is exhausting, not cathartic. I do my best to not complain about derails that much because I'm a serial derailer myself but when it's going on I'm usually clicking past the noise as much as possible. With that said, when the thread is strictly "on topic" sometimes the thread is very slow which might mean it's not necessary? Whereas the businesses doing bad poo poo seems like something people actually want to talk about all the time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
option 3: start a cspam thread about chick fil a and let us tear each other apart
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I thought part of the sales pitch of government-run healthcare is that it would be more efficient than the current system with private healthcare insurance, with less duplication of effort. Wouldn't that mean fewer jobs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:option 3: start a cspam thread about chick fil a and let us tear each other apart You kid, but honestly, I have a bad feeling that a "PYF Corporate Shitbirds" thread would be at best C-SPAM Lite and there are already a couple of bottomless babylon threads in that subforum along those lines, so I'm tempted to just ask that we keep this thread to companies draining / flaming out. Every time that god damned company so much as farts in the bathtub, it ends up with like three days of interminable discussion across several PYF threads, so I was wondering: should we contain it in one place, or just give it a loving rest?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
if people want to yell at each other, giving em a thread makes more sense than trying to ban it away but then banning the hell out of people is sa tradition
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
Or let the discussion that takes place take place. It's not like this thread is seeing heavy posting volume anyways, so why try to smother discussion? SA in general isn't big enough to farm out everything to its own thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
Lambert posted:Or let the discussion that takes place take place. It's not like this thread is seeing heavy posting volume anyways, so why try to smother discussion? SA in general isn't big enough to farm out everything to its own thread. That's an equally valid point of view. It really depends on how things play out!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Are you seriously stupid enough to think that the majority of insurance cost comes from labor costs? Honest question. I mean if you consider massive executive salaries/incentives "labor costs" they're not an insignificant portion 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
If it does not come from the government system streamlining the process and minimizing the duplication of effort for reimbursing doctors & drug & device companies for their work and products, like you claim, (this is often claimed by people on this forum by the way--I guess there are a lot of seriously stupid posters here according to forums poster Terrible Opinions) then where does the great cost savings of government healthcare which is promised by SA posters come from? It isn't from private healthcare company profits--the potential savings is modest compared to the savings promised by proponents of government healthcare. Is the savings almost purely from forcing doctors, hospitals, and drug companies to accept less pay for their work & their products? edit: The Moon Monster posted:I mean if you consider massive executive salaries/incentives "labor costs" they're not an insignificant portion Executives get paid too much, but it really isn't that much when compared to company revenues. Taking the current healthcare system and replacing private health insurance companies with government organizations run exactly the same way, but with smaller executive-level position compensation wouldn't really be much of a cost savings. It certainly wouldn't account for the massive cost savings promised by proponents of government health care. edit2: CharlestheHammer posted:Though savings being the general thrust of the argument is missing the point hard. I understand that the main goal for many in supporting US government healthcare is to be able to provide a more equal quality of service for all Americans. But the promised cost savings is also heavily promoted. SA politics posters have this habit where they are unable to acknowledge drawbacks to their favorite government policies and are unable to recognize that different approaches will have certain strengths as well as certain weaknesses. For example, paying doctors, hospitals, and drug and device companies less might lead to lower quality of service for rich and upper middle class Americans, and might lead to less innovation and new product development in medical technology. Maybe this is ok, and lowering cost and having a more equal quality of service for all Americans is worth those potential drawbacks. But an SA politics poster would never admit something like that--every one of their favorite political policies is perfect in every way and has no downsides. silence_kit has a new favorite as of 12:22 on Nov 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:10
|
|
|
Lambert posted:Or let the discussion that takes place take place. It's not like this thread is seeing heavy posting volume anyways, so why try to smother discussion? SA in general isn't big enough to farm out everything to its own thread. I’d agree with this. I’m fine with the way the thread is now. EDIT: This completely out of place healthcare argument notwithstanding. silence_kit posted:then where does the great cost savings of government healthcare which is promised by SA posters come from? Again, cannot stress enough how strange it is the way you refer to “SA posters” as some other when both you and everybody reading your post is a part of that group. Ariong has a new favorite as of 02:04 on Nov 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
Drugs and services themselves from a cost state is nearly double that of places with single payer. Controlling that alone will cut costs drastically Though savings being the general thrust of the argument is missing the point hard. It’s a side benefit but not actually the important part CharlestheHammer has a new favorite as of 01:57 on Nov 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
Large cost savings would be found in Pharma, as the government would be able to negotiate as a monolith w these fuckers. It’s already been covered. But also, prevention! If people can get a cavity filled, they prevent a root canal. If they can see the doc about an infected toe or a weeks long fever, then we can maybe handle their issues before they become life threatening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 03:52
|
|
