4 ms·

Every time I read stories like this I can’t help but mourn the loss of real opportunity for them. Instead, they should have asked to WFH a few days a week and b

Every time I read stories like this I can’t help but mourn the loss of real opportunity for them. Instead, they should have asked to WFH a few days a week and been VERY productive on those days. Then ask “hey, do you mind if I do this job remotely?” and always be just a little more productive than the others.

Joe-Z 7y ago
That's exactly how I would have played it. Another dream scenario would be to one day be some 'forgotten employee' of a giant company. You know, maybe your project got cancelled, your colleagues were moved elsewhere and you just never got re-assigned and didn't bother to ask. Still receiving your checks, still showing up to the office, but just kind of fart around and do whatever you feel like. Hell, maybe you could even give yourself a few days of remote work a week! Aaaah yes, that's the life I tell you!
colechristensen 7y ago
What you should mourn is the healthcare costs being passed on to the patients to pay these people. Everyone is all "medicare for all!" instead of going after (one of) the real sources of the cost: careless inefficiency.
- aabeshou 7y ago
  as if the reduced inefficiencies would actually go to reducing costs rather than further padding executives pockets
  - GarrisonPrime 7y ago
    They absolutely would have to pass along a lot of the cost savings to patients, otherwise they would lose those patients to other companies. But I can appreciate that your pet preferences prohibit you from believing this is so.
    - aabeshou 7y ago
      sure, and by the same logic, any health insurance company who rejects claims unfairly should be supplanted by a competitor who will not and who will scoop up all those patients. unfortunately the health care market and system do not meet the assumptions that are implicit in your line of reasoning, and we do see a lot of such anti-consumer behavior by health insurance companies, even as the profits of health insurance companies soar (proving that they are not at the 0 margin that naive economic reasoning would predict)
    - colechristensen 7y ago
      It's both. Everybody takes a cut of the benefit for a good long while.
    - dang 7y ago
      Please don't be snarky or cross into personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- MSM 7y ago
  Our healthcare costs are not high because six people are redundant. The health insurance business was almost a $900 B market in 2017, that's enough to pay 12,000,000 people $75,000/yr. Adding six, or six thousand, or 600,000 redundant employees affects that market very little.
  - prepend 7y ago
    They are high for many reasons including the six people redundancy. Healthcare in the US is basically “cost plus” which means the higher the costs, the higher the profits. It’s a weird space where many payers don’t really have a drive to reduce costs. Provider inefficiencies are very real as well.
- firethief 7y ago
  Is careless inefficiency of for-profit corporations in a somewhat competitive market ever a root cause of high prices? I think it's more of a sign that they're raking in so much dough it wouldn't be worth their organizational overhead to pay attention to such crumbs. They aren't making a trillion dollars a year by missing things they'd know how to fix if they hung around HN.

Joe-Z 7y ago

That's exactly how I would have played it. Another dream scenario would be to one day be some 'forgotten employee' of a giant company. You know, maybe your project got cancelled, your colleagues were moved elsewhere and you just never got re-assigned and didn't bother to ask. Still receiving your checks, still showing up to the office, but just kind of fart around and do whatever you feel like. Hell, maybe you could even give yourself a few days of remote work a week! Aaaah yes, that's the life I tell you!

colechristensen 7y ago

What you should mourn is the healthcare costs being passed on to the patients to pay these people. Everyone is all "medicare for all!" instead of going after (one of) the real sources of the cost: careless inefficiency.

aabeshou 7y ago
as if the reduced inefficiencies would actually go to reducing costs rather than further padding executives pockets
- GarrisonPrime 7y ago
  They absolutely would have to pass along a lot of the cost savings to patients, otherwise they would lose those patients to other companies. But I can appreciate that your pet preferences prohibit you from believing this is so.
  - aabeshou 7y ago
    sure, and by the same logic, any health insurance company who rejects claims unfairly should be supplanted by a competitor who will not and who will scoop up all those patients. unfortunately the health care market and system do not meet the assumptions that are implicit in your line of reasoning, and we do see a lot of such anti-consumer behavior by health insurance companies, even as the profits of health insurance companies soar (proving that they are not at the 0 margin that naive economic reasoning would predict)
  - colechristensen 7y ago
    It's both. Everybody takes a cut of the benefit for a good long while.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't be snarky or cross into personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
MSM 7y ago
Our healthcare costs are not high because six people are redundant. The health insurance business was almost a $900 B market in 2017, that's enough to pay 12,000,000 people $75,000/yr. Adding six, or six thousand, or 600,000 redundant employees affects that market very little.
- prepend 7y ago
  They are high for many reasons including the six people redundancy. Healthcare in the US is basically “cost plus” which means the higher the costs, the higher the profits. It’s a weird space where many payers don’t really have a drive to reduce costs. Provider inefficiencies are very real as well.
firethief 7y ago
Is careless inefficiency of for-profit corporations in a somewhat competitive market ever a root cause of high prices? I think it's more of a sign that they're raking in so much dough it wouldn't be worth their organizational overhead to pay attention to such crumbs. They aren't making a trillion dollars a year by missing things they'd know how to fix if they hung around HN.