You would be correct about the medical conditions part. The issue is people feel like they are paying for behaviour they do not agree with (or in some cases, unneeded).
This is ultimately back to that old fight the pre-tea party people liked to bring up about only paying 2/3 of my taxes because the gubbrtmint funds 14 things against my religious beliefs. Insurance companies that know better are jumping on this bandwagon because it's good to beat up the government.
Wouldn't this be an argument for a small Federal government, no?
You're still paying for that coverage which some groups find repugnant.
Pre-Obamacare, nuns could at least cut out coverage for maternity, contraception and other family planning related things. Not only do groups have moral questions about this, it will cost more, since in theory this coverage isn't needed.
Technically, you are free to work for any employer or no employer at all.
You are also free to buy contraception (or organ transplants on your own).
You are free to buy your own insurance as well.
The problem is that you disagree with your employer on a benefit that they are paying for. Just like any other employer policy, if you do not like it, you are free to leave (or in this case buy your own).
If the religious convictions of your employer bothers you, whether they are right or wrong, technically no one is holding a gun to your head to work there.
This excuse is used to keep the status quo going. If an employee is looking to switch jobs after a short period of time, then some of the blame may be occurring on your end - either you are not paying enough or the work environment is toxic/defective.
For example, you and a applicant agree on a wage that may be a discount since you're going to have to invest training time into this person. The problem arises after year 1 (or whatever time period that is long enough to see returns) that you haven't raised his salary enough to keep up with his/her productivity/profitability. The issue then becomes that the person is underpaid, and can easily get offers elsewhere because you haven't provided a clear path for salary raises, promotions, etc. That is not the workers fault, it is a management problem on your end, and you can't really blame your workers.
I went to a job interview once, where it turned out to be a tech support job (advert sounded reasonable). In the advert, they were giving "extra credit" for those who have a Masters Degree, which I have.
During the interview, the interviewer asked what did I wanted to be doing in 5 years. I was honest and said maybe in a more traditional "software dev role" or have much greater responsibility.
The interviewer balked at that answer and said "we're not hiring for those positions NOW" - I replied you asked in 5 years, where I saw myself.
I also asked what their pay budget was.
I threw it back in his face - I asked him why someone with a Master's degree take a tech support job with crappy pay and no hope of promotions? They ended up changing the advert.
By the way, the belief that healthcare can only be provided by government or by employers is a false dichotomy. Better than either if people simply pay out of pocket for routine expenses and maintain insurance only for catastrophic, unplanned expenses, just as they do for gas and oil changes vs. collisions.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have been saying this for years. There is a reason why you can get a basic oil change for $30 at a quick lube place - you aren't dealing with a large, inefficient bloated system, some of which is mandated by government. I see my doctor for medication adjustments every 6 months. My appointments last 15 minutes at the most, and I spend more time waiting and getting my vitals taken. My insurance is billed $300. I have a tough time wondering why it costs so bloody much. I would much rather pay my doc $30 cash for her time and she would rather not have all the billing overhead.
I expect a certain level of service when I go to a hotel - i.e. If I go to a big high rise, I will expect that they have space for me, different room options, dining/bar, pool, business facility, etc. Because of this, it makes sense to regulate hotels differently - fire and electric codes for example.
This is quite different from someone ocassionally renting out their basement to a visitor.
If companies aren't developing talent (and are unwilling to) locally, then they will reap what you sow. If universities are graduating kids with STEM degrees, and many of them are going underemployed/unemployed, I have no sympathy for anyone who turns around and wants more H1-B's.
I don't think they are a separate issue; I think student loans, education and future employment are related. At some point, our government decided that having a college educated populace is a Good Thing (tm) and offered monies for students to continue their education. I can't say that I disagree with that premise all that much as education is a noble goal.
The issue I am pointing out is that when these kids graduate, they can only get "level 1 help desk" type jobs once they graduate with good grades from a 4 year CS or IT program, and have large amounts of debt. They could be smart and breathe computers but not have the "5-7 years experience."
I think you would eventually run into the same problems if you offered "free" associates degrees in technical fields. Instead of wasting students money, the government would be wasting the money - you'd still have the same problem of "sorry, you don't have 5-7 years of experience."
I agree that the student loans in this country are messed up.
But, what happens when students go to college and take out loans to do so, then cannot find adequate work to pay back said loans? The rest of us taxpayers will be on the hook to bail them out. I wouldn't say that is good for the economy, either. Not to mention it is a waste of someone's talent/skills/training.
You can take someone fresh out of trade school and get them their certification - I find it a bit hard to believe that there is a true "shortage"
There is a shortage of people with certs or whatever arbitrary skills. The problem is companies wait until an emergency then hire someone. This means they can't develop employees before something becomes an emergency.
It is not easy to move to The Next Big Thing(tm) unless your current employer is actively working on New Tech (tm) - i.e. If you wanted to move from Java into.Net or whatever, even though the theory behind algorithms, oop, if statements and loops generally remains the same.
Slashdot Mirror
You would be correct about the medical conditions part. The issue is people feel like they are paying for behaviour they do not agree with (or in some cases, unneeded).
There are other problems too of course, since health care bought by individuals is so much more expensive
As a country we are not addressing why healthcare is not more affordable so that one is not tied to an employer. ObamaCare does not address this.
For example, why shouldn't my neighbors and I form a pool and buy a group policy similar to that of my employer?
Not to nit pick, but the only way to effectively manage not having sex.
This is ultimately back to that old fight the pre-tea party people liked to bring up about only paying 2/3 of my taxes because the gubbrtmint funds 14 things against my religious beliefs. Insurance companies that know better are jumping on this bandwagon because it's good to beat up the government.
Wouldn't this be an argument for a small Federal government, no?
Wrong.
You're still paying for that coverage which some groups find repugnant.
Pre-Obamacare, nuns could at least cut out coverage for maternity, contraception and other family planning related things. Not only do groups have moral questions about this, it will cost more, since in theory this coverage isn't needed.
Technically, you are free to work for any employer or no employer at all. You are also free to buy contraception (or organ transplants on your own). You are free to buy your own insurance as well. The problem is that you disagree with your employer on a benefit that they are paying for. Just like any other employer policy, if you do not like it, you are free to leave (or in this case buy your own). If the religious convictions of your employer bothers you, whether they are right or wrong, technically no one is holding a gun to your head to work there.
I call BS.
This excuse is used to keep the status quo going. If an employee is looking to switch jobs after a short period of time, then some of the blame may be occurring on your end - either you are not paying enough or the work environment is toxic/defective.
For example, you and a applicant agree on a wage that may be a discount since you're going to have to invest training time into this person. The problem arises after year 1 (or whatever time period that is long enough to see returns) that you haven't raised his salary enough to keep up with his/her productivity/profitability. The issue then becomes that the person is underpaid, and can easily get offers elsewhere because you haven't provided a clear path for salary raises, promotions, etc. That is not the workers fault, it is a management problem on your end, and you can't really blame your workers.
And they do not know enough to shop a canidate who is different.
Wish I had mod points.
I went to a job interview once, where it turned out to be a tech support job (advert sounded reasonable). In the advert, they were giving "extra credit" for those who have a Masters Degree, which I have.
During the interview, the interviewer asked what did I wanted to be doing in 5 years. I was honest and said maybe in a more traditional "software dev role" or have much greater responsibility.
The interviewer balked at that answer and said "we're not hiring for those positions NOW" - I replied you asked in 5 years, where I saw myself.
I also asked what their pay budget was.
I threw it back in his face - I asked him why someone with a Master's degree take a tech support job with crappy pay and no hope of promotions? They ended up changing the advert.
Or investing in better training/management programs.
It sounds like Microsoft used this for too long and caused a lot of infighting and back stabbing in the long run.
I can understand why Yahoo! wants to try it - new management, and they want to cut the dead weight. Hopefully they do not do it for too long.
By the way, the belief that healthcare can only be provided by government or by employers is a false dichotomy. Better than either if people simply pay out of pocket for routine expenses and maintain insurance only for catastrophic, unplanned expenses, just as they do for gas and oil changes vs. collisions.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have been saying this for years. There is a reason why you can get a basic oil change for $30 at a quick lube place - you aren't dealing with a large, inefficient bloated system, some of which is mandated by government. I see my doctor for medication adjustments every 6 months. My appointments last 15 minutes at the most, and I spend more time waiting and getting my vitals taken. My insurance is billed $300. I have a tough time wondering why it costs so bloody much. I would much rather pay my doc $30 cash for her time and she would rather not have all the billing overhead.
I expect a certain level of service when I go to a hotel - i.e. If I go to a big high rise, I will expect that they have space for me, different room options, dining/bar, pool, business facility, etc. Because of this, it makes sense to regulate hotels differently - fire and electric codes for example.
This is quite different from someone ocassionally renting out their basement to a visitor.
Yet another war.
One can get Linux or *BSD on commodity hardware for a fraction of the cost.
For all the belly aching, there is some truth to this.
I did most of this, and my parents even were able to chip in to help with my education
Wish I had the mod points.
GDP growth is merely one metric.
If companies aren't developing talent (and are unwilling to) locally, then they will reap what you sow. If universities are graduating kids with STEM degrees, and many of them are going underemployed/unemployed, I have no sympathy for anyone who turns around and wants more H1-B's.
Even with a strong internship program, we still have to pay our dues - and many companies do not make it easy.
I don't think they are a separate issue; I think student loans, education and future employment are related. At some point, our government decided that having a college educated populace is a Good Thing (tm) and offered monies for students to continue their education. I can't say that I disagree with that premise all that much as education is a noble goal.
The issue I am pointing out is that when these kids graduate, they can only get "level 1 help desk" type jobs once they graduate with good grades from a 4 year CS or IT program, and have large amounts of debt. They could be smart and breathe computers but not have the "5-7 years experience."
I think you would eventually run into the same problems if you offered "free" associates degrees in technical fields. Instead of wasting students money, the government would be wasting the money - you'd still have the same problem of "sorry, you don't have 5-7 years of experience."
I agree that the student loans in this country are messed up.
Have you tried "lowering the bar" as in looking for more entry/junior to mid level developers?
But, what happens when students go to college and take out loans to do so, then cannot find adequate work to pay back said loans? The rest of us taxpayers will be on the hook to bail them out. I wouldn't say that is good for the economy, either. Not to mention it is a waste of someone's talent/skills/training.
You can take someone fresh out of trade school and get them their certification - I find it a bit hard to believe that there is a true "shortage"
There is a shortage of people with certs or whatever arbitrary skills. The problem is companies wait until an emergency then hire someone. This means they can't develop employees before something becomes an emergency.
And if they can't find qualified people locally, they aren't looking in the right places. Simply posting on Monster will attract Tom, Dick and Harry
This is the biggest hurdle many people face.
It is not easy to move to The Next Big Thing(tm) unless your current employer is actively working on New Tech (tm) - i.e. If you wanted to move from Java into .Net or whatever, even though the theory behind algorithms, oop, if statements and loops generally remains the same.