11–20 of 36 posts
Forgive my shortsighted thinking, but how does this lower healthcare costs? It was mentioned as a main point, but I'm not sure how banning noncompetes would impact that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My best guess: if you want to switch jobs and you are under a non-compete, you have to wait for a period of time before starting a new job at a competitor (typically 6-12 months, fairly common in finance). During that in-between period while you are waiting for the non-compete to expire, you aren’t covered by health insurance. And not being covered by health insurance usually increases healthcare costs.
Incorrect, due to COBRA https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My best guess: if you want to switch jobs and you are under a non-compete, you have to wait for a period of time before starting a new job at a competitor (typically 6-12 months, fairly common in finance). During that in-between period while you are waiting for the non-compete to expire, you aren’t covered by health insurance. And not being covered by health insurance usually increases healthcare costs.
Incorrect, due to COBRA https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My best guess: if you want to switch jobs and you are under a non-compete, you have to wait for a period of time before starting a new job at a competitor (typically 6-12 months, fairly common in finance). During that in-between period while you are waiting for the non-compete to expire, you aren’t covered by health insurance. And not being covered by health insurance usually increases healthcare costs.
Incorrect, due to COBRA https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incorrect, due to COBRA https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/...
COBRA is almost universally more expensive for individuals because they have to pay both their premium and whatever premium the company was paying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t that quite saying the opposite? Or are you clarifying something the article got wrong?
New non-competes will not exist for anyone, including senior executives. Existing non-competes will only exist for senior executives. Both statements are true. From the article "For existing noncompetes, the final rule adopts a different approach for senior executives than for other workers. For senior executives, existing noncompetes can remain in force. Existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives…
Forgive my shortsighted thinking, but how does this lower healthcare costs? It was mentioned as a main point, but I'm not sure how banning noncompetes would impact that.
It mentions reduced spending on doctors. My thinking on the mechanism is that freeing doctors from noncompetes makes it easier for them to leave big practices and start small ones. Small practices have less bargaining power with insurance companies and will have to charge lower rates.
Getting rid of non-competes is a matter of levelling the playing field in free market capitalism, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My best guess: if you want to switch jobs and you are under a non-compete, you have to wait for a period of time before starting a new job at a competitor (typically 6-12 months, fairly common in finance). During that in-between period while you are waiting for the non-compete to expire, you aren’t covered by health insurance. And not being covered by health insurance usually increases healthcare costs.
Incorrect, due to COBRA https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/...
The previous job I quit a couple years ago, I actually checked the numbers to see how much it would cost me to keep. I think I would rather go without paying close to $2k/mo for a single person insurance. Doubly so, if i actually had to not work for a period of time.