Covid-19 News/Discussion

[Xenos]

7 minutes ago, Bullet Club said:

It's not about whether they do it or not, it's about removing their choice to do so. Biden cannot do that.

You do know that pre Covid that OSHA basically regulate how private companies handle public safety in the workplace, and that said companies have to adhere to their standards of safety and health right?

[SwAg]

You shouldn’t listen to people who can only articulate conclusory declarations while only alluding to references intended to elicit illogical reactions.

Edited September 10, 2021 by SwAg

[Woz]

10 minutes ago, Bullet Club said:

At some point standing up against illegal overreach has to matter more than a short term PR hit. Especially when the mob will have a new target next week.

Again, that's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma option: if you get a bunch of 100+ person companies join together, sure. But if you are left on your own, you get all of the PR hit.

Will there be a challenge? Absolutely. But it's not necessarily an easy call to be that one organization.

[Xenos]

Just now, Woz said:

But outside of smoking, we have split insurance away to community rating. Do we want to add in this exception? What is the next one?

I mean hopefully we won’t ever have to deal with a pandemic like this one for a long time. If there has to be an exception, this should probably be it.

[Xenos]

Just now, SwAg said:

You shouldn’t listen to people who ca only articulate conclusory declarations while only alluding to references intended to elicit illogical reactions.

So what’s your verdict on the executive order on private companies?

[Woz]

10 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Delta just did.  American Airlines.

Fortune 500 companies are largely what we refer to as ASO, administrative services only.  They more or less pay us to administer the plans, but they pay the costs of the healthcare for their employees. It’s cheaper for them on the whole, but it requires a lot of capital.

Unless those companies want to willingly foot the bill for the associated costs, they’ll do it.

No, I meant being the company to sue to fight the new policy. Delta and American were ahead of the policy, so it is highly unlikely they would become a plaintiff to a suit to overturn said policy.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

Just now, Woz said:

But outside of smoking, we have split insurance away to community rating. Do we want to add in this exception? What is the next one?

Slippery slope fallacy now?
 

What was the next one after smoking?  A vaccine for the largest, worldwide pandemic in a century.  
 

And honestly a lot of companies already make you possibly pay more for being diabetic, obese, having uncontrolled htn, etc.  The only difference is we don’t charge you more if you have those things, but you can earn incentives in the form of reduced premiums and/HSA contributions for taking steps to address those issues. Many people don’t take advantage of those things and thus pay more than they could have.

[Woz]

4 minutes ago, Xenos said:

I mean hopefully we won’t ever have to deal with a pandemic like this one for a long time. If there has to be an exception, this should probably be it.

1. In the last 20 years, we have had SARS, MERS, Ebola, and Marsburg outbreaks. Luckily for humanity, these were all small and didn't go pandemic. Banking on luck is a bad plan.
2. Exceptions have a dirty little habit of replicating ... like a virus.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 minute ago, Woz said:

No, I meant being the company to sue to fight the new policy. Delta and American were ahead of the policy, so it is highly unlikely they would become a plaintiff to a suit to overturn said policy.

Why would a company want to sue?

Companies only hate political involvement when it hurts their bottom line. When politicians look to give them money, they love political involvement.

These politics save them money, keep them from being the bad guy, and keep their employees from missing working for extended periods of time.

Just a guess but I’d imagine most CEO’s are giving each other very satisfied handshakes and pats on the back rn.

[Woz]

3 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

but you can earn incentives in the form of reduced premiums and/HSA contributions for taking steps to address those issues. Many people don’t take advantage of those things and thus pay more than they could have.

Now, if you go the incentive route, I have no room to complain. I would love to have another free way to lower my premiums.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 minute ago, Woz said:

Now, if you go the incentive route, I have no room to complain. I would love to have another free way to lower my premiums.

That’s exactly what this is, an incentive.  You get the vaccine, you pay less.

Word it however you like in the benefit package, that’s in essence what it is.

[Mox]

1 minute ago, Woz said:

Again, that's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma option: if you get a bunch of 100+ person companies join together, sure. But if you are left on your own, you get all of the PR hit.

Will there be a challenge? Absolutely. But it's not necessarily an easy call to be that one organization.

That's fair. I'd imagine there will be plenty of challenges and they won't be on their own though.

 

4 minutes ago, Xenos said:

You do know that pre Covid that OSHA basically regulate how private companies handle public safety in the workplace, and that said companies have to adhere to their standards of safety and health right?

Yes, but that doesn't make this executive order legal.

[Woz]

1 minute ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Why would a company want to sue?

I was addressing Bullet Club's assertion that a company would sue.

2 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Companies only hate political involvement when it hurts their bottom line. When politicians look to give them money, they love political involvement.

As it is most definitively against policy around here to discuss companies that have a different opinion on this than you, I will just say I guess we will agree to disagree.

Yes, they a minority, but they are out there.

5 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

These politics save them money, keep them from being the bad guy, and keep their employees from missing working for extended periods of time.

Just a guess but I’d imagine most CEO’s are giving each other very satisfied handshakes and pats on the back rn.

I agree on all fronts, but not every CEO thinks this way. Burwell.

[Xenos]

3 minutes ago, Bullet Club said:

That's fair. I'd imagine there will be plenty of challenges and they won't be on their own though.

 

Yes, but that doesn't make this executive order legal.

Well that’s what we’re going to find out. We can argue about the legality but I guess it all depends on the courts at this point.

[Woz]

3 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

That’s exactly what this is, an incentive.  You get the vaccine, you pay less.

Word it however you like in the benefit package, that’s in essence what it is.

I guess I read that different than you do: https://theweek.com/joe-biden/1004705/biden-covid-6-steps-pandemic

Quote

Biden has directed the Labor Department to require companies with 100+ employees to require proof of vaccination or weekly negative test results. The federal government is also establishing a rule requiring those companies to provide paid time off for workers to get vaccinated or recover from vaccination.

I suppose we will have to wait until to see the actual E.O. and/or rule from Labor to see how it is actually defined.