Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US many have a very flawed way of thinking: if we give more power to companies, than we won't need government. I've met so many bright & creative programmer types who even believe this. Government should exist to protect it's people and environment. It should have the long term in mind & work with other governments to do the same, creating a level playing field for the companies to be within.
>>I've met so many bright & creative programmer types who even believe this. I would posit that they aren't very bright if they actually believe it.
Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
91–100 of 169 posts
Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
#92We've got to separate healthcare from employers before this goes to far. Companies have no business in your health and we still tie health insurance to employment as a legacy error not a benefit. Many problems arise from healthcare provided from the job such as ageism, culling the sick, making it harder to change jobs or start companies, and losing healthcare as you change jobs, not to mention helping the fixed price…
In the US many have a very flawed way of thinking: if we give more power to companies, than we won't need government. I've met so many bright & creative programmer types who even believe this. Government should exist to protect it's people and environment. It should have the long term in mind & work with other governments to do the same, creating a level playing field for the companies to be within.
If you take a service, for example household track/rubbish collection, that was being provided inexpensively via a mandatory household tax and move that service to a private company who bills households individually even if it costs more, Americans view this as "progress" that is "more free" (because you could theoretical "opt out").
A lot of other places simply view this as handing a private company a monopoly that used to be a public good (i.e. required but cheap); and because they as citizens now have less money and the same service level, they only lost in terms of quality of life ("freedom" isn't a metric here). Plus the externalities of making it optional, like having people illegally discard their trash by the side of the road.
This same thinking is prevalent throughout the US, from HOAs, to utilities (electric, gas, water, trash), to healthcare, to public transport, and so on. And none of it is REALLY about capitalism as these companies aren't competing with anyone else by the nature of the deal that was struck when the public service was sold. All people care about is "Keep government out of my X (even if it costs 2x as much)."
Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ability to isolate yourself comes with its own costs. Turning away refugees is one thing; but what happens when people are sufficiently desperate that they will be willing to take up arms to secure a place under the sun for themselves and their kin?
...And then, after slaughtering those people and years of insularity, nationalism, and populism... what's going to be left, but for those insular nations to fight over remaining resources? I can't see a nuclear nation shrugging and saying, "Well I guess we're conquered! Here are the keys..."
Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
By "end us" I mean end our civilization... extinction is unlikely.
In that case, my question still stands. I'm asking because I frequently see this kind of climate change alarmism on forums (it's the end of civilization, billions will die, etc) but my sense from an admittedly cursory reading of the estimates is that the dangers of climate change are likely to be an epic refugee crisis from coastal flooding, famine, and war. Hundreds of millions will die, and many more will see a sub…
Estimating in a complex system where one problem triggers another, cascading with feedback loops, is a messy business.
So the outcome could be either far more or far less dire than we think.
As you put it, know one knows for sure. So it's prudent to assume the worst.
Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
The specifics of the American healthcare system aside, what leads you to believe that the problem is regulation? By essentially any metric, state provided (single-payer) healthcare is the best-known solution to the healthcare problem. Why is there any reason to believe that there's too much state intervention as opposed to, say, too little?
> By essentially any metric, state provided (single-payer) healthcare is the best-known solution to the healthcare problem. Except things like, you know, quality of care or satisfaction. Single-payer healthcare beats the American implementation, which is not a high bar to clear. There's a reason medical tourism to Mexico and India is so prevalent. Totally deregulated private doctors seem to kick the ass of state heal…
On an unregulated market, insurers would begin to drop people who get chronically sick, or land in risk groups.
Before you can say: "so just forbid dropping insured people" - that's what US initially did. But there was a simple loophole around that - you don't drop people per se. You just start a new insurance company, and offer a lower rate to the healthy people who want to sign in.
The healthy go to the new one. The sick stay with the old one. Old one's costs increase, they get pushed to the everyone who was left, to the level that is unsustainable, and either the sick leave too, or the company dissolves.
So you need more regulation preventing companies from only taking up healthy people. But you can't go overboard, because if a sick person can sign up at will, people will only seek insurance when they get sick.
And you end up with the clusterfuck that US is right now. Which they are exactly for the reason of trying to avoid government intervention and government-set prices for services.
And then you have medical companies and doctors, who invent a new treatment, and the insurance is obliged to cover that treatment. So it's complicated negotiations there too. Without government interference, the medical companies have no incentive to keep the costs down really.
On the other hand, you - as a patient - probably don't want the government to tell private medical companies how much to charge for what. That's a new kind of problem altogether.
Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
#96We've got to separate healthcare from employers before this goes to far. Companies have no business in your health and we still tie health insurance to employment as a legacy error not a benefit. Many problems arise from healthcare provided from the job such as ageism, culling the sick, making it harder to change jobs or start companies, and losing healthcare as you change jobs, not to mention helping the fixed price…
Places I've worked have provide life, health, AD&D, pet, dental, vision, and lawyer insurance. So yeah, it's a lot more than health. But I still agree with you -- we need to figure out a way to separate insurance from a job. Although I don't like the idea of just precluding them from offering it. If a company wants to offer insurance we shouldn't stop them. We just need to make it so they have little advantage to do…
Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's a reason medical tourism to Mexico and India is so prevalent. Yes: health care in Mexico and India is cheaper. Not better. Cheaper. > I wouldn't want to get, say, complicated brain surgery in Mexico. I rest my case.
> Not better. Cheaper. Nope, it's also better for the vast majority of medicine. Have you ever used Mexican private healthcare? I have! Customer service and convenience is through the roof compared to US healthcare. > I rest my case. Not a very good case! The reason you wouldn't want to get complicated surgery in Mexico is that they don't have as many medical specialists, or as much equipment. The US is richer and ha…
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-com...
> Despite spending, by far, the largest amount on healthcare, the USA was among the 10 OECD countries with the lowest life expectancy.
What you propose will make it more expensive, and doesn't seem to address anything around patient safety or efficiacy of treatment. You will end up with nicer carpets and comfier chairs in the waiting rooms. The US medical system is currently risk averse, which leads to a lot of over-diagnosis and over treatment, which cause harm.
Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If two consenting adults want to make a agreement that includes exchange of their own genetic information, I really don't see the issue. The problem is one of bargaining power: Consent must be given freely – but in cases where one party in an exchange has a lot more bargaining power, the other party often will agree to something because of fear of retribution or a threat of force. Example: If an employee is told by…
The boss is threatening to abuse their power if they do not have sex. An employee can sue the boss for violating the contract. > but in cases where one party in an exchange has a lot more bargaining power, the other party often will agree to something because of fear of retribution or a threat of force. You seem to be implying this is bad thing but it makes sense that a company (could be thousands of people) should h…
Don't think it will happen? Try to get internet access, or medical insurance without agreeing to mandatory binding arbitration (that is, signing away your ability to sue).
Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
#99I'm sorry to all Americans who may read this and get ruffled, but what the actual fuck is wrong with your political landscape and attitudes towards workers rights? Why don't you have unions? Why do Americans seem to hate unions? Why don't you have an active political party representing workers? Why don't you have an active movement to prevent your employer from becoming overseer of your entire life? All I see day in…
I hesitate to throw out this quote because it may come across as a "hot take" but I think that John Steinbeck said it best: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." Another quote I've heard is that "extremists become more extreme, not less, as problems come closer to solutions." "Socialism" and "extremists" don'…
Usually this includes knee-jerk arguments against dues, mandated wages/salary, and other aspects of existing/older unions. It seems like many people implicit assume that a union must involve a list a of traditional practices.
A union can be what you want it to be. If you don't want it to cover something, then leave it out. Charter the union to only address the specific problems that need to be addressed. Maybe limit "crunch" periods to healthy lengths of time near an actual product release? Maybe include a specific deterrent against extreme problems like collusion to fix salaries while otherwise ignoring salary completely?
As for dues and management costs, isn't that the kind of problem that is easy with modern computers and telecommunication? How much management is even needed for an IT union? In the past dues were needed to hire people to do the paperwork, send out notices, etc. Today, that work is a weekend Ruby On Rails project. After a specific purpose union is setup, are dues even necessary?