Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Company Bans meat and poultry

#1

http://www.businessinsider.com/wework-bans-meat-2018-7


This will be interesting to watch considering a private company is dictating what it's employees consume.  Is this even legal?
Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#2

(07-16-2018, 11:27 AM)copycat Wrote: http://www.businessinsider.com/wework-bans-meat-2018-7


This will be interesting to watch considering a private company is dictating what it's employees consume.  Is this even legal?

They won't reimburse it with company funds, they aren't making all their employees become vegetarians. I'd hate to be the accounting department scrub that has to review every food receipt to determine what the employee ate.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#3

(07-16-2018, 11:29 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(07-16-2018, 11:27 AM)copycat Wrote: http://www.businessinsider.com/wework-bans-meat-2018-7


This will be interesting to watch considering a private company is dictating what it's employees consume.  Is this even legal?

They won't reimburse it with company funds, they aren't making all their employees become vegetarians. I'd hate to be the accounting department scrub that has to review every food receipt to determine what the employee ate.

But aren't they?  If I am on a business trip and turn in a receipt for a hamburger I ate at the airport and they deny it are they not coercing you?  This just seems so wrong.
Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Reply

#4

(07-16-2018, 11:39 AM)copycat Wrote:
(07-16-2018, 11:29 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: They won't reimburse it with company funds, they aren't making all their employees become vegetarians. I'd hate to be the accounting department scrub that has to review every food receipt to determine what the employee ate.

But aren't they?  If I am on a business trip and turn in a receipt for a hamburger I ate at the airport and they deny it are they not coercing you?  This just seems so wrong.

No, that has nothing to do with what you eat on your own time. They apparently have every right to coerce you to eat as they want when they are paying for it. This is a perfect example of why we shouldn't be clamoring for universal healthcare, when someone has a financial or ideological interest in the part of your life that they finance then you can be certain they will eventually exert control to protect their interest.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#5

Cue the steaming cabbage dump.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#6

(07-16-2018, 12:54 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(07-16-2018, 11:39 AM)copycat Wrote: But aren't they?  If I am on a business trip and turn in a receipt for a hamburger I ate at the airport and they deny it are they not coercing you?  This just seems so wrong.

No, that has nothing to do with what you eat on your own time. They apparently have every right to coerce you to eat as they want when they are paying for it. This is a perfect example of why we shouldn't be clamoring for universal healthcare, when someone has a financial or ideological interest in the part of your life that they finance then you can be certain they will eventually exert control to protect their interest.

Unless you're independently wealthy, thats the situation you're in now with health care.
Today, you depend on an employer, or an insurance company, or both, and you have limited ability to retaliate if you feel like they're screwing you.
Meanwhile, today, others go without care completely.
These are separate but related problems.
Universal health care proposes to fix the second problem.  It won't fix the first, but, there's no real solution to the first problem, for anyone who's not independently wealthy, anyways.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#7

The way "Universal" system would "fix" an issue like this... would be to soak the "rich" at $100 each for a sandwich with a honest market value of $10. Then, the "poor" would eat for free. It wouldn't be a sandwich of your choice, it will be one that's deemed "necessary" for you.

The provider, forced to give away more sandwiches than they sell - would then have to raise the honest market value of the sandwich to $20. The price to those who could pay then rises accordingly to $200.

If a market is even allowed... alternatives would then spring up in response to the demand for more affordable options, forcing the original provider out of business. Reimbursements are delayed, service drops, because continuing to raise the price isn't viable - but they also cannot be profitable without covering rising costs. Those being soaked take advantage of those alternatives (if allowed,) and eventually the provider goes under as it doesn't have enough customers to soak to pay for the freeloaders *and* pay the bills.

Cycle repeats... then services are denied and delayed with queues established, until enough folks are turned away from service to match the nominal level of service that's able to be provided.

History has proven this as not viable. But then if some refuse history, science, and truth... that's the only way the fantasy idea survives. As fiction. Not fact.
"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."
Reply

#8
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2018, 04:29 PM by HURRICANE!!!.)

[Image: 200w.webp]
Reply

#9

(07-16-2018, 03:25 PM)pirkster Wrote: The way "Universal" system would "fix" an issue like this... would be to soak the "rich" at $100 each for a sandwich with a honest market value of $10.  Then, the "poor" would eat for free.  It wouldn't be a sandwich of your choice, it will be one that's deemed "necessary" for you.

The provider, forced to give away more sandwiches than they sell - would then have to raise the honest market value of the sandwich to $20.  The price to those who could pay then rises accordingly to $200.

If a market is even allowed... alternatives would then spring up in response to the demand for more affordable options, forcing the original provider out of business.  Reimbursements are delayed, service drops, because continuing to raise the price isn't viable - but they also cannot be profitable without covering rising costs.  Those being soaked take advantage of those alternatives (if allowed,) and eventually the provider goes under as it doesn't have enough customers to soak to pay for the freeloaders *and* pay the bills.

Cycle repeats... then services are denied and delayed with queues established, until enough folks are turned away from service to match the nominal level of service that's able to be provided.

History has proven this as not viable.  But then if some refuse history, science, and truth... that's the only way the fantasy idea survives.  As fiction.  Not fact.

this country does not have Universal coverage yet, although Obamacare was a step in that direction.
We do have the trend of arbitrarily increasing prices and providers going under, though.
And we had that before Obamacare of course. And we also had it before COBRA and guaranteed emergency room service got started in 1985.
So the continued price increases and continued consolidation in healthcare providers seems to have nothing to do with these incremental moves towards Universal coverage.
Meanwhile other countries (including Mexico!!) do have Universal coverage and have more doctors per capita than we do, so, they certainly aren't going out of business.
I don't know, it's almost as if there's more than one factor to consider when looking at a Health Care system.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#10

(07-16-2018, 12:54 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(07-16-2018, 11:39 AM)copycat Wrote: But aren't they?  If I am on a business trip and turn in a receipt for a hamburger I ate at the airport and they deny it are they not coercing you?  This just seems so wrong.

No, that has nothing to do with what you eat on your own time. They apparently have every right to coerce you to eat as they want when they are paying for it. This is a perfect example of why we shouldn't be clamoring for universal healthcare, when someone has a financial or ideological interest in the part of your life that they finance then you can be certain they will eventually exert control to protect their interest.

Correct. Its just like when a company provides lunch that doesn't fit the all-celery diet your on so you can't eat. They didn't make you eat that cake, they just didnt give you free celery.


Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 
Quote:Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.
 
Reply

#11

(07-16-2018, 08:06 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(07-16-2018, 03:25 PM)pirkster Wrote: The way "Universal" system would "fix" an issue like this... would be to soak the "rich" at $100 each for a sandwich with a honest market value of $10.  Then, the "poor" would eat for free.  It wouldn't be a sandwich of your choice, it will be one that's deemed "necessary" for you.

The provider, forced to give away more sandwiches than they sell - would then have to raise the honest market value of the sandwich to $20.  The price to those who could pay then rises accordingly to $200.

If a market is even allowed... alternatives would then spring up in response to the demand for more affordable options, forcing the original provider out of business.  Reimbursements are delayed, service drops, because continuing to raise the price isn't viable - but they also cannot be profitable without covering rising costs.  Those being soaked take advantage of those alternatives (if allowed,) and eventually the provider goes under as it doesn't have enough customers to soak to pay for the freeloaders *and* pay the bills.

Cycle repeats... then services are denied and delayed with queues established, until enough folks are turned away from service to match the nominal level of service that's able to be provided.

History has proven this as not viable.  But then if some refuse history, science, and truth... that's the only way the fantasy idea survives.  As fiction.  Not fact.

this country does not have Universal coverage yet, although Obamacare was a step in that direction.
We do have the trend of arbitrarily increasing prices and providers going under, though.
And we had that before Obamacare of course. And we also had it before COBRA and guaranteed emergency room service got started in 1985.
So the continued price increases and continued consolidation in healthcare providers seems to have nothing to do with these incremental moves towards Universal coverage.
Meanwhile other countries (including Mexico!!) do have Universal coverage and have more doctors per capita than we do, so, they certainly aren't going out of business.
I don't know, it's almost as if there's more than one factor to consider when looking at a Health Care system.

Pricing isn't arbitrary, even in our overly regulated health care system.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#12

(07-17-2018, 07:34 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(07-16-2018, 08:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: this country does not have Universal coverage yet, although Obamacare was a step in that direction.
We do have the trend of arbitrarily increasing prices and providers going under, though.
And we had that before Obamacare of course. And we also had it before COBRA and guaranteed emergency room service got started in 1985.
So the continued price increases and continued consolidation in healthcare providers seems to have nothing to do with these incremental moves towards Universal coverage.
Meanwhile other countries (including Mexico!!) do have Universal coverage and have more doctors per capita than we do, so, they certainly aren't going out of business.
I don't know, it's almost as if there's more than one factor to consider when looking at a Health Care system.

Pricing isn't arbitrary, even in our overly regulated health care system.

What about the rest of what I said?
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#13

(07-17-2018, 08:08 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(07-17-2018, 07:34 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Pricing isn't arbitrary, even in our overly regulated health care system.

What about the rest of what I said?

What about it?
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#14

(07-17-2018, 07:34 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(07-16-2018, 08:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: this country does not have Universal coverage yet, although Obamacare was a step in that direction.
We do have the trend of arbitrarily increasing prices and providers going under, though.
And we had that before Obamacare of course. And we also had it before COBRA and guaranteed emergency room service got started in 1985.
So the continued price increases and continued consolidation in healthcare providers seems to have nothing to do with these incremental moves towards Universal coverage.
Meanwhile other countries (including Mexico!!) do have Universal coverage and have more doctors per capita than we do, so, they certainly aren't going out of business.
I don't know, it's almost as if there's more than one factor to consider when looking at a Health Care system.

Pricing isn't arbitrary, even in our overly regulated health care system.

Governments can provide superior healthcare at a much reduced cost which means private insurers can't price gouge. That's the answer.
Reply

#15

(07-17-2018, 08:32 PM)lastonealive Wrote:
(07-17-2018, 07:34 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Pricing isn't arbitrary, even in our overly regulated health care system.

Governments can provide superior healthcare at a much reduced cost which means private insurers can't price gouge. That's the answer.

The US government sets the prices of health care in America.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#16

(07-17-2018, 09:36 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(07-17-2018, 08:32 PM)lastonealive Wrote: Governments can provide superior healthcare at a much reduced cost which means private insurers can't price gouge. That's the answer.

The US government sets the prices of health care in America.

And how do they set the price? Also could efficiencies be found with a single payer model
Reply

#17

(07-17-2018, 10:29 PM)lastonealive Wrote:
(07-17-2018, 09:36 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: The US government sets the prices of health care in America.

And how do they set the price? Also could efficiencies be found with a single payer model

Congress passes legislation that sets the price factors, CMS develops the fee schedule that Medicare pays, all contracts with private insurers are based on the Medicare fee schedule. Just this calendar year Congress changed the price factors twice resulting in millions of dollars of work reprocessing claims when they backdated the fee schedule updates after the fact. Here in Florida the changes resulted in a roughly 3.5% overall change in reimbursement from January 1 to March 15 that we still haven't completely worked through.

And politics is so deeply engrained in that legislative process as doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, nonprofits, health care corporations, retail stores and patient advocacy groups all lobby their [BLEEP] off to get their share of the health care dollar that the single payer model would be just as ineffective. See the Massachusetts, Tennessee, and VA plan scandals for how our government can screw it up in different ways.No, we need market based health care with fewer government friction points and reduced administrative costs, not more government control with cockamamie schemes thought up by accounting nerds who know spreadsheets better than medicine.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#18
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2018, 10:33 AM by mikesez.)

(07-18-2018, 07:03 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(07-17-2018, 10:29 PM)lastonealive Wrote: And how do they set the price? Also could efficiencies be found with a single payer model

Congress passes legislation that sets the price factors, CMS develops the fee schedule that Medicare pays, all contracts with private insurers are based on the Medicare fee schedule. Just this calendar year Congress changed the price factors twice resulting in millions of dollars of work reprocessing claims when they backdated the fee schedule updates after the fact. Here in Florida the changes resulted in a roughly 3.5% overall change in reimbursement from January 1 to March 15 that we still haven't completely worked through.

And politics is so deeply engrained in that legislative process as doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, nonprofits, health care corporations, retail stores and patient advocacy groups all lobby their [BLEEP] off to get their share of the health care dollar that the single payer model would be just as ineffective. See the Massachusetts, Tennessee, and VA plan scandals for how our government can screw it up in different ways.No, we need market based health care with fewer government friction points and reduced administrative costs, not more government control with cockamamie schemes thought up by accounting nerds who know spreadsheets better than medicine.

There's no reason to assume that a major reform of health insurance would maintain the same rules and relationships of Medicare today.

You're right that, from the perspective of individual provider organizations, Medicare reimbursement rates seem to be dictated from on high.

However those who do the "dictating" in government do not see themselves as powerful; they are very scared of losing any significant number of providers. They try to listen to the "market forces" as much as possible and err on the side of higher prices. When a large, allegedly nonprofitt hospital organization comes to them with a biased accounting presentation alleging that Medicare reimbursements are already too low, they get scared.

Then the government has a rule that says nobody is allowed to pay a lower price than Medicare, except Medicaid. This rule triggers all sorts of voodoo accounting, but it also alters the playing field for negotiations between providers and insurers. The providers come to the table knowing that they will never have to accept less than Medicare pays. The private insurers at that point are just determining how much they are going to get shafted, not if.

Even as some Democrats are using "Medicare for all" as shorthand for what they hope to accomplish, it's not clear if or how their reforms would touch these types of problems, and what the impact on prices might be.

At the end of the day, medicine is not a free market activity to the user: each of us would pay any price to extend our health, and few of us have the medical knowledge to meaningfully dispute a doctor's recommendations. Robust regulations will always be needed to control prices.

That said, it is a free market activity to the provider.  The providers have the best information about the value of their time, how many hours they want to work, and the products and services patients need. The most effective way to lower costs starts with simply having more doctors, more nursing home beds, and more hospital beds.  With higher supply, lower prices are likely.  The AMA in particular has been very effective at needlessly restricting the number of residency positions that exists, and this in turn makes it needlessly hard to get into medical school.  In Florida, the nursing home lobbyists have been very effective at blocking new nursing home construction. They don't have America's health at heart, only their own paychecks.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#19
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2018, 02:11 PM by pirkster.)

(07-17-2018, 07:34 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(07-16-2018, 08:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: this country does not have Universal coverage yet, although Obamacare was a step in that direction.
We do have the trend of arbitrarily increasing prices and providers going under, though.
And we had that before Obamacare of course. And we also had it before COBRA and guaranteed emergency room service got started in 1985.
So the continued price increases and continued consolidation in healthcare providers seems to have nothing to do with these incremental moves towards Universal coverage.
Meanwhile other countries (including Mexico!!) do have Universal coverage and have more doctors per capita than we do, so, they certainly aren't going out of business.
I don't know, it's almost as if there's more than one factor to consider when looking at a Health Care system.

Pricing isn't arbitrary, even in our overly regulated health care system.

The over-regulation, in fact, is what has caused prices to skyrocket and be unrealistic, unsustainable.

(07-17-2018, 10:29 PM)lastonealive Wrote:
(07-17-2018, 09:36 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: The US government sets the prices of health care in America.

And how do they set the price? Also could efficiencies be found with a single payer model

So-called "single payer" has been proven to be a failure.

In reality, the single payer is the patient.  It's the patient's responsibility alone.  Your care, your responsibility.  How you meet it that obligation (through insurance and out of pocket) is up to you to navigate and decide how to approach.
"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."
Reply

#20
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2018, 03:08 PM by mikesez.)

(07-18-2018, 02:09 PM)pirkster Wrote:
(07-17-2018, 07:34 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Pricing isn't arbitrary, even in our overly regulated health care system.

The over-regulation, in fact, is what has caused prices to skyrocket and be unrealistic, unsustainable.

(07-17-2018, 10:29 PM)lastonealive Wrote: And how do they set the price? Also could efficiencies be found with a single payer model

So-called "single payer" has been proven to be a failure.

In reality, the single payer is the patient.  It's the patient's responsibility alone.  Your care, your responsibility.  How you meet it that obligation (through insurance and out of pocket) is up to you to navigate and decide how to approach.

I don't find, and you haven't offered, evidence in support of either claim that you make above.
The British and Canadian systems are both stressed, yes, but are still doing better than us in terms of prices (including the part that government pays) and outcomes.

My claim is that a low supply of doctors and insufficient competition between hospitals is driving costs up. As evidence I can refer you to WHO statistics on the number of physicians per capita. In Western Europe they have twice as many as we do.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!