The problem with this theory is it assumes that the big private insurers have gotten good at navigating the system. They haven't and they probably never will because they're constantly under threat from different regulators with different agendas.
Even the state level CO-OPs that were treated with kid gloves are mostly collapsing right now.
Interesting thought but the federal government hasn't given any indication that it's financially prepared to insure the large numbers of people who don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid but who can't be covered in a manner that's profitable for the commercial plans. Many of the populations that were falling through the cracks under the pre-ACA system are too expensive for the private sector to insure. This is compounded by the fact that insurers are subject to approval at the state level. You get situations where private insurers abandon a jurisdiction due to the cost of taking on too many sick people and there's no one there to pick up the slack.
I think theres a strong possibility that the ACA will fail due to the incoherence of the regulatory structure and as Will said, I do think it shows that the public option would have destroyed the private competition. Whether or not that's desirable I suppose depends on your politics.
Any acknowledgement of the hit squads is per se racist and xenophobic. Which is why AfD is going to make an even larger than expected entrance into the Bundestag next time the Germans have an election.
I think the government's ambiguous stance on joining anti-ISIS fighters is actually preferable. While it should not in any manner be encouraged, I don't like the idea of people being prosecuted for it. Granted I also think if something bad happens to someone who voluntarily travels into a war zone for combat they should be considered on their own as far as the government is concerned.
I thought it was a good point. Just constructive criticism to the moderators/editors but it might be helpful to get some guidance on where the line crossing occurred. Not saying name and shame or anything but I don't get the impression anyone was trying to run her off and I certainly don't want to contribute to harming the (much appreciated) efforts to get good writers.
The conversation didn't strike me as particularly intense compared to some I've seen/participated in here but it seems others disagree.
I read it the same way Damon did. It's unfortunate it was pulled because I thought it was an interesting piece. I can of course also understand why the author might not want her family life to be the touch point of the discussion that ensued.
I am not yet a parent but there is a sufficiently large age gap between myself and my siblings that I was able to see my brothers going through their teenage years from a more or less adult perspective. Kids can be pretty creative at justifying their mayhem when discipline is in order. If theyre clever enough the excuse will be perfectly designed to pull their parents' strings.
I agree with your sentiment. Teenagers doing dumb teenager stuff probably doesn't merit serious analysis of the political implications. A reminder of the rules of being a good neighbor is probably sufficient.
I'd follow the advice from your friend from Virginia. My suspicion is that you've blown the potential reaction from the neighbor up into something in your mind that is much worse than its likely to be. Even if he is rude or doesn't accept the apology he will hopefully at least have a grudging respect for the mom who required her daughter to do the right thing. That might be important one day down the road.
I don't know. I think there's way too much evidence corroborating the FBI's malfeasance for it to be conspiracy theory. I think the FBI knows there isn't much they can do to stop the true lone wolf/self radicalized murderer but they also know they can never admit that. They go around agitating losers and crazy people into phony plots then patting themselves on the back for foiling them and making people feel safe that the authorities aren't completely impotent.
Now the idea that they might chose not to foil a plot they themselves engineered in order to further some agenda gets into some weird territory...
It's all well in the realm of wild speculation right now. Kind of ironic in a way but the scenario I think she most needs to avoid is George H.W Bush in 1992.
To me the 2020 election, even if way out, might offer even more intriguing and/or disturbing possibilities than this election. You have to figure even if Hilary is running (I think she will be and that she wins this election but only narrowly) she could be the weakest incumbent in a long time. If the GOP has gone full Trump it may be able to find someone able to tap into the same discontent Trump is riding but who is more disciplined and able to turn it into a victory.
Maybe we're talking passed each other but courts reach holdings based on policy arguments all the time. There is a large body of case law on when non-compete agreements are and aren't enforceable and different jurisdictions take different approaches. There's nothing radical about taking the position that courts shouldn't enforce non-compete agreements in circumstances like this which is all I'm arguing.
That's not true unless the contract required the company to take some tangible action or pay for something. Maybe if there is a real quid pro quo (you don't quit and we pay for your college/masters/certification) that might be the case but that's a different discussion.
First no one is saying society should intervene. The question is should a court enforce it if asked. Second, if your opinion is that courts should prioritize enforcing non-compete agreements over all other considerations then fair enough but I'd say that's pretty myopic both about the realities of the world and how the law works.
I think the investment stuff is a nice little piece of BS put together by the company's legal and/or marketing office to avoid calling this what it is which is a non-compete. There are certain instances where a person provides a highly specialized skill or is in a position to poach personnel or a client base where thats reasonable but for the policy reasons stated above (as well as just plain old fairness in our economic system) I don't think they ever are for run of the mill employees, middle management, etc.
You're too focused on the individual circumstances. Again, imagine this applied on a macro level where leaving one non-specialist job for a better non-specialist job is penalized (potentially ruinously). Would we be encouraging a mobile workforce that climbs or a sclerotic workforce where people are stuck where they are? Are we encouraging employer-employee litigation or minimizing it? Are we creating more bankrupt people or fewer? Are we encouraging productivity or discouraging it because people are trapped?
This isn't about whether or not she is sympathetic and it's why there's more to contract and employment law than 'well the fool signed the dotted line so that's that.'
On Rieves I think there are sound public policy reasons not to enforce a contract like that. Imagine if every company required it. It would create arbitrary restrictons on the movement of human capital that could hurt economic growth and people's ability to get ahead, earn more, and engage in economic activity. In many ways it's the same as the type of regulations that the French have that lock up the labor market, it just favors the employer instead of the employee.
On “Morning Ed: World {2016.08.16.T}”
The problem with this theory is it assumes that the big private insurers have gotten good at navigating the system. They haven't and they probably never will because they're constantly under threat from different regulators with different agendas.
Even the state level CO-OPs that were treated with kid gloves are mostly collapsing right now.
"
Interesting thought but the federal government hasn't given any indication that it's financially prepared to insure the large numbers of people who don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid but who can't be covered in a manner that's profitable for the commercial plans. Many of the populations that were falling through the cracks under the pre-ACA system are too expensive for the private sector to insure. This is compounded by the fact that insurers are subject to approval at the state level. You get situations where private insurers abandon a jurisdiction due to the cost of taking on too many sick people and there's no one there to pick up the slack.
I think theres a strong possibility that the ACA will fail due to the incoherence of the regulatory structure and as Will said, I do think it shows that the public option would have destroyed the private competition. Whether or not that's desirable I suppose depends on your politics.
"
Any acknowledgement of the hit squads is per se racist and xenophobic. Which is why AfD is going to make an even larger than expected entrance into the Bundestag next time the Germans have an election.
"
I think the government's ambiguous stance on joining anti-ISIS fighters is actually preferable. While it should not in any manner be encouraged, I don't like the idea of people being prosecuted for it. Granted I also think if something bad happens to someone who voluntarily travels into a war zone for combat they should be considered on their own as far as the government is concerned.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2016.08.15.M}”
I thought it was a good point. Just constructive criticism to the moderators/editors but it might be helpful to get some guidance on where the line crossing occurred. Not saying name and shame or anything but I don't get the impression anyone was trying to run her off and I certainly don't want to contribute to harming the (much appreciated) efforts to get good writers.
The conversation didn't strike me as particularly intense compared to some I've seen/participated in here but it seems others disagree.
"
No disagreement from me.
"
I read it the same way Damon did. It's unfortunate it was pulled because I thought it was an interesting piece. I can of course also understand why the author might not want her family life to be the touch point of the discussion that ensued.
On “(Trump) Sign of the Times”
I am not yet a parent but there is a sufficiently large age gap between myself and my siblings that I was able to see my brothers going through their teenage years from a more or less adult perspective. Kids can be pretty creative at justifying their mayhem when discipline is in order. If theyre clever enough the excuse will be perfectly designed to pull their parents' strings.
"
I agree with your sentiment. Teenagers doing dumb teenager stuff probably doesn't merit serious analysis of the political implications. A reminder of the rules of being a good neighbor is probably sufficient.
"
I'd follow the advice from your friend from Virginia. My suspicion is that you've blown the potential reaction from the neighbor up into something in your mind that is much worse than its likely to be. Even if he is rude or doesn't accept the apology he will hopefully at least have a grudging respect for the mom who required her daughter to do the right thing. That might be important one day down the road.
On “Linky Friday #179: Armies of Darkness”
Cr1, assuming there isn't more to the story, is particularly disturbing and I hope leads to more investigation.
On “Morning Ed: Government {2016.08.11.Th}”
I think the problem with either approach is that they rely on the idea that you can completely separate policy from values.
On “Morning Ed: Society {2016.08.10.W}”
Maybe he will write in Jodie Foster.
On “FBI Agent Apparently Egged on ‘Draw Muhammad’ Shooter – The Daily Beast”
I don't know. I think there's way too much evidence corroborating the FBI's malfeasance for it to be conspiracy theory. I think the FBI knows there isn't much they can do to stop the true lone wolf/self radicalized murderer but they also know they can never admit that. They go around agitating losers and crazy people into phony plots then patting themselves on the back for foiling them and making people feel safe that the authorities aren't completely impotent.
Now the idea that they might chose not to foil a plot they themselves engineered in order to further some agenda gets into some weird territory...
On “The Joy Of Opening Time Capsules”
It's all well in the realm of wild speculation right now. Kind of ironic in a way but the scenario I think she most needs to avoid is George H.W Bush in 1992.
"
To me the 2020 election, even if way out, might offer even more intriguing and/or disturbing possibilities than this election. You have to figure even if Hilary is running (I think she will be and that she wins this election but only narrowly) she could be the weakest incumbent in a long time. If the GOP has gone full Trump it may be able to find someone able to tap into the same discontent Trump is riding but who is more disciplined and able to turn it into a victory.
On “This Party Cannot Be Saved”
Don't apologize for the joke that was hilarious!
On “Morning Ed: Labor {2016.07.27.W}”
Maybe we're talking passed each other but courts reach holdings based on policy arguments all the time. There is a large body of case law on when non-compete agreements are and aren't enforceable and different jurisdictions take different approaches. There's nothing radical about taking the position that courts shouldn't enforce non-compete agreements in circumstances like this which is all I'm arguing.
"
I have no objections to arrangements like that. As you note there's an exchange of value there.
"
That's not true unless the contract required the company to take some tangible action or pay for something. Maybe if there is a real quid pro quo (you don't quit and we pay for your college/masters/certification) that might be the case but that's a different discussion.
"
First no one is saying society should intervene. The question is should a court enforce it if asked. Second, if your opinion is that courts should prioritize enforcing non-compete agreements over all other considerations then fair enough but I'd say that's pretty myopic both about the realities of the world and how the law works.
"
I think the investment stuff is a nice little piece of BS put together by the company's legal and/or marketing office to avoid calling this what it is which is a non-compete. There are certain instances where a person provides a highly specialized skill or is in a position to poach personnel or a client base where thats reasonable but for the policy reasons stated above (as well as just plain old fairness in our economic system) I don't think they ever are for run of the mill employees, middle management, etc.
"
You're too focused on the individual circumstances. Again, imagine this applied on a macro level where leaving one non-specialist job for a better non-specialist job is penalized (potentially ruinously). Would we be encouraging a mobile workforce that climbs or a sclerotic workforce where people are stuck where they are? Are we encouraging employer-employee litigation or minimizing it? Are we creating more bankrupt people or fewer? Are we encouraging productivity or discouraging it because people are trapped?
This isn't about whether or not she is sympathetic and it's why there's more to contract and employment law than 'well the fool signed the dotted line so that's that.'
"
On Rieves I think there are sound public policy reasons not to enforce a contract like that. Imagine if every company required it. It would create arbitrary restrictons on the movement of human capital that could hurt economic growth and people's ability to get ahead, earn more, and engage in economic activity. In many ways it's the same as the type of regulations that the French have that lock up the labor market, it just favors the employer instead of the employee.
"
I think the bigger questions is whether raising the minimum wage is really a solution to that problem. There are alternatives.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.