|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 23 2017 04:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
imma need to see/hear this for myself personally. i mean, as a fellow new yorker i can barely make the two sound different.
On May 23 2017 05:03 Nevuk wrote:
jesus everyone in that room must be so embarrassed.
edit: do i see this tweet in the quote because i'm the one quoting it or am i quoting wrong? when other people quote tweets i only see the hyperlink instead of the embedded tweet.
|
Speaking of costs:
It would cost $400 billion per year to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal heath care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.
California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.
The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to create a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.
Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish a publicly funded, universal health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.
Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.html
Posted whole article, because it's short.
|
good news is it's only a day pass and high schoolers can get those. still bad though
|
United States42820 Posts
On May 23 2017 05:04 Introvert wrote:Speaking of costs: Show nested quote +It would cost $400 billion per year to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal heath care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.
California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.
The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to create a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.
Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish a publicly funded, universal health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.
Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.htmlPosted whole article, because it's short.
Surely if employment based insurance remained the norm then the insurance companies would reimburse the public system for the use of their facilities, the way private health insurance companies do in the UK.
Failing that a payroll tax equivalent to the reduction in actual health insurance costs could be implemented without any change to the effective taxes of an individual. If at the moment $2000 of monthly earnings is given in the form of $1800 and $200 of employer paid health insurance then that could easily be replaced by $100 of employer paid health insurance and a $100 public healthcare tax.
|
On May 23 2017 05:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 05:04 Introvert wrote:Speaking of costs: It would cost $400 billion per year to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal heath care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.
California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.
The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to create a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.
Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish a publicly funded, universal health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.
Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.htmlPosted whole article, because it's short. Surely if employment based insurance remained the norm then the insurance companies would reimburse the public system for the use of their facilities, the way private health insurance companies do in the UK. Failing that a payroll tax equivalent to the reduction in actual health insurance costs could be implemented without any change to the effective taxes of an individual. If at the moment $2000 of monthly earnings is given in the form of $1800 and $200 of employer paid health insurance then that could easily be replaced by $100 of employer paid health insurance and a $100 public healthcare tax.
Unfortunately, there is a vast swath of people that will always think that $100 healthcare tax would work better as $100 to the companies because of the free market...or something.
|
On May 23 2017 05:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 05:16 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 05:04 Introvert wrote:Speaking of costs: It would cost $400 billion per year to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal heath care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.
California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.
The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to create a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.
Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish a publicly funded, universal health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.
Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.htmlPosted whole article, because it's short. Surely if employment based insurance remained the norm then the insurance companies would reimburse the public system for the use of their facilities, the way private health insurance companies do in the UK. Failing that a payroll tax equivalent to the reduction in actual health insurance costs could be implemented without any change to the effective taxes of an individual. If at the moment $2000 of monthly earnings is given in the form of $1800 and $200 of employer paid health insurance then that could easily be replaced by $100 of employer paid health insurance and a $100 public healthcare tax. Unfortunately, there is a vast swath of people that will always think that $100 healthcare tax would work better as $100 to the companies because of the free market...or something.
People who have never worked for a big company look at things like "government bureaucracy" and think "man, if only the US government ran as efficiently as some local business BBQ restaurant, imagine all the money we could save!"
|
On May 23 2017 05:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 05:16 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 05:04 Introvert wrote:Speaking of costs: It would cost $400 billion per year to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal heath care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.
California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.
The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to create a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.
Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish a publicly funded, universal health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.
Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.htmlPosted whole article, because it's short. Surely if employment based insurance remained the norm then the insurance companies would reimburse the public system for the use of their facilities, the way private health insurance companies do in the UK. Failing that a payroll tax equivalent to the reduction in actual health insurance costs could be implemented without any change to the effective taxes of an individual. If at the moment $2000 of monthly earnings is given in the form of $1800 and $200 of employer paid health insurance then that could easily be replaced by $100 of employer paid health insurance and a $100 public healthcare tax. Unfortunately, there is a vast swath of people that will always think that $100 healthcare tax would work better as $100 to the companies because of the free market...or something.
Here's the kicker though, THEY are in the minority now referring to public opinion, the snake oil salesmen we call representatives/senators are another story. .
|
United States42820 Posts
On May 23 2017 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 05:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 23 2017 05:16 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 05:04 Introvert wrote:Speaking of costs: It would cost $400 billion per year to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal heath care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.
California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.
The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to create a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.
Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish a publicly funded, universal health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.
Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.htmlPosted whole article, because it's short. Surely if employment based insurance remained the norm then the insurance companies would reimburse the public system for the use of their facilities, the way private health insurance companies do in the UK. Failing that a payroll tax equivalent to the reduction in actual health insurance costs could be implemented without any change to the effective taxes of an individual. If at the moment $2000 of monthly earnings is given in the form of $1800 and $200 of employer paid health insurance then that could easily be replaced by $100 of employer paid health insurance and a $100 public healthcare tax. Unfortunately, there is a vast swath of people that will always think that $100 healthcare tax would work better as $100 to the companies because of the free market...or something. People who have never worked for a big company look at things like "government bureaucracy" and think "man, if only the US government ran as efficiently as some local business BBQ restaurant, imagine all the money we could save!"
Little do they know that their local BBQ restaurant actually buys BBQ sauce in 12oz bottles and the owner drives down to Trader Joes and buys another one whenever it runs out.
People have no fucking clue how mismanaged most enterprises are.
|
On May 23 2017 05:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2017 05:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 23 2017 05:16 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 05:04 Introvert wrote:Speaking of costs: It would cost $400 billion per year to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal heath care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.
California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.
The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to create a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.
Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish a publicly funded, universal health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.
Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.htmlPosted whole article, because it's short. Surely if employment based insurance remained the norm then the insurance companies would reimburse the public system for the use of their facilities, the way private health insurance companies do in the UK. Failing that a payroll tax equivalent to the reduction in actual health insurance costs could be implemented without any change to the effective taxes of an individual. If at the moment $2000 of monthly earnings is given in the form of $1800 and $200 of employer paid health insurance then that could easily be replaced by $100 of employer paid health insurance and a $100 public healthcare tax. Unfortunately, there is a vast swath of people that will always think that $100 healthcare tax would work better as $100 to the companies because of the free market...or something. People who have never worked for a big company look at things like "government bureaucracy" and think "man, if only the US government ran as efficiently as some local business BBQ restaurant, imagine all the money we could save!" Little do they know that their local BBQ restaurant actually buys BBQ sauce in 12oz bottles and the owner drives down to Trader Joes and buys another one whenever it runs out. People have no fucking clue how mismanaged most enterprises are.
Also true, and grossly understated. In my experience, small business owners, much like farmers and the like, are the biggest welfare queens our country has. Their entire little pat on the back to show themselves how self sufficient they are is only possible because papa government lets them write off their family car as a business expense.
|
On May 23 2017 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 05:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 23 2017 05:16 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 05:04 Introvert wrote:Speaking of costs: It would cost $400 billion per year to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal heath care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.
California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.
The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to create a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.
Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish a publicly funded, universal health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.
Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.htmlPosted whole article, because it's short. Surely if employment based insurance remained the norm then the insurance companies would reimburse the public system for the use of their facilities, the way private health insurance companies do in the UK. Failing that a payroll tax equivalent to the reduction in actual health insurance costs could be implemented without any change to the effective taxes of an individual. If at the moment $2000 of monthly earnings is given in the form of $1800 and $200 of employer paid health insurance then that could easily be replaced by $100 of employer paid health insurance and a $100 public healthcare tax. Unfortunately, there is a vast swath of people that will always think that $100 healthcare tax would work better as $100 to the companies because of the free market...or something. People who have never worked for a big company look at things like "government bureaucracy" and think "man, if only the US government ran as efficiently as some local business BBQ restaurant, imagine all the money we could save!"
I had this argument with a family friend this weekend who works on obtaining grants in our state. She constantly complains about “administration” costs just being wasted tax payer money that doesn’t exist in the “private sector”. But once I told her that the banks are work for are just as bloated and wasteful, she said I was cherry picking and it isn’t like that everywhere.
|
Leave BBQ out of this. That delicious food has nothing to do with this at all.
|
United States42820 Posts
If you could train a parrot to spout business buzzwords while riding a labrador trained to nip the heels of anyone whose sales were too low then you could eliminate the Head of Sales at my previous job. He was nothing but synergy and outside of the box impact. Couldn't even make his own Excel pie graphs to print on giant flipboards, had to have me do it.
|
|
|
On May 23 2017 05:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2017 05:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 23 2017 05:16 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 05:04 Introvert wrote:Speaking of costs: It would cost $400 billion per year to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal heath care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.
California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.
The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to create a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.
Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish a publicly funded, universal health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.
Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.htmlPosted whole article, because it's short. Surely if employment based insurance remained the norm then the insurance companies would reimburse the public system for the use of their facilities, the way private health insurance companies do in the UK. Failing that a payroll tax equivalent to the reduction in actual health insurance costs could be implemented without any change to the effective taxes of an individual. If at the moment $2000 of monthly earnings is given in the form of $1800 and $200 of employer paid health insurance then that could easily be replaced by $100 of employer paid health insurance and a $100 public healthcare tax. Unfortunately, there is a vast swath of people that will always think that $100 healthcare tax would work better as $100 to the companies because of the free market...or something. People who have never worked for a big company look at things like "government bureaucracy" and think "man, if only the US government ran as efficiently as some local business BBQ restaurant, imagine all the money we could save!" I had this argument with a family friend this weekend who works on obtaining grants in our state. She constantly complains about “administration” costs just being wasted tax payer money that doesn’t exist in the “private sector”. But once I told her that the banks are work for are just as bloated and wasteful, she said I was cherry picking and it isn’t like that everywhere.
Speaking from an engineering perspective, our administrators are incredibly valuable. I have a friend who works at a startup doing stuff similar to me and I live like a king compared to him. He has to do so much paperwork and totally work-unrelated bullshit. I show up to work and just do science for 8 hours and then go home. We have administrative assistants who handle things like "my computer doesn't work" and basically everything other than my actual job. Sure, you could call that waste, but it really isn't. I am much, much more expensive than our admins. My company doesn't WANT me to waste my time on that stuff.
I imagine the same is true for areas outside of science. I know we have a few finance people around here. I am sure there are TONS of things "related" to their job that are not their actual technical expertise. Big companies don't make you do that stuff. My company is more wasteful than my friend's company. But as a technical contributor, I contribute much more than he does each week because I am allowed to focus on my work.
I mean, even just thinking of the CEO of a huge company. They have like a full on posse of people who just feed them information and do things for them. They have a full on staff dedicated to allowing for as efficient of CEO'ing as possible.
EDIT: This is my roundabout way of saying: Administrative costs are a good thing. They allow expensive people to focus on their actual job.
|
Anyone mention our daily-dose of obstruction of justice, yet?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/us/politics/michael-flynn-fifth-amendment-russia-senate.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
WASHINGTON — Michael T. Flynn misled Pentagon investigators about his income from Russian companies and contacts with Russian officials when he applied for a top-secret security clearance last year, according to a letter released Monday by the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.
Mr. Flynn, who resigned this year as President Trump’s national security adviser, told investigators in February 2016 that he had received no income from foreign companies and had only “insubstantial contact” with foreign nationals, according to the letter. In fact, Flynn had two months earlier sat beside President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia at a Moscow gala for RT, the Kremlin-financed television network, which paid Mr. Flynn more than $45,000 to attend the event and give a separate speech.
His failure to make those disclosures and his apparent attempt to mislead the Pentagon could put Mr. Flynn in further legal jeopardy. Intentionally lying to federal investigators is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Separately, he also faces legal questions over failing to properly register as a foreign agent for lobbying he did last year on behalf of Turkey while advising the Trump campaign, which is also a felony.
The House Oversight letter, written by Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, was made public hours after Mr. Flynn formally rejected a subpoena from senators investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and chose to instead invoke his right against self-incrimination, a person familiar with his decision said.
Mr. Flynn had been ordered by the Senate Intelligence Committee to hand over emails and other records related to any dealings with Russians as part of that panel’s investigation into Russian election meddling. His decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment right puts him at risk of being held in contempt of Congress, which can also result in a criminal charge.
|
On May 23 2017 06:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 05:57 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2017 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2017 05:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 23 2017 05:16 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 05:04 Introvert wrote:Speaking of costs: It would cost $400 billion per year to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal heath care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.
California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.
The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to create a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.
Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish a publicly funded, universal health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.
Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.htmlPosted whole article, because it's short. Surely if employment based insurance remained the norm then the insurance companies would reimburse the public system for the use of their facilities, the way private health insurance companies do in the UK. Failing that a payroll tax equivalent to the reduction in actual health insurance costs could be implemented without any change to the effective taxes of an individual. If at the moment $2000 of monthly earnings is given in the form of $1800 and $200 of employer paid health insurance then that could easily be replaced by $100 of employer paid health insurance and a $100 public healthcare tax. Unfortunately, there is a vast swath of people that will always think that $100 healthcare tax would work better as $100 to the companies because of the free market...or something. People who have never worked for a big company look at things like "government bureaucracy" and think "man, if only the US government ran as efficiently as some local business BBQ restaurant, imagine all the money we could save!" I had this argument with a family friend this weekend who works on obtaining grants in our state. She constantly complains about “administration” costs just being wasted tax payer money that doesn’t exist in the “private sector”. But once I told her that the banks are work for are just as bloated and wasteful, she said I was cherry picking and it isn’t like that everywhere. Speaking from an engineering perspective, our administrators are incredibly valuable. I have a friend who works at a startup doing stuff similar to me and I live like a king compared to him. He has to do so much paperwork and totally work-unrelated bullshit. I show up to work and just do science for 8 hours and then go home. We have administrative assistants who handle things like "my computer doesn't work" and basically everything other than my actual job. Sure, you could call that waste, but it really isn't. I am much, much more expensive than our admins. My company doesn't WANT me to waste my time on that stuff. I imagine the same is true for areas outside of science. I know we have a few finance people around here. I am sure there are TONS of things "related" to their job that are not their actual technical expertise. Big companies don't make you do that stuff. My company is more wasteful than my friend's company. But as a technical contributor, I contribute much more than he does each week because I am allowed to focus on my work. I mean, even just thinking of the CEO of a huge company. They have like a full on posse of people who just feed them information and do things for them. They have a full on staff dedicated to allowing for as efficient of CEO'ing as possible. EDIT: This is my roundabout way of saying: Administrative costs are a good thing. They allow expensive people to focus on their actual job.
It is the same for ever firm I have ever worked at. The support staff got things out of the way of the paralegals and the paralegals let the attorney’s bill. The amount of money my firm saved simply through quality assurance and making sure we had costs lined up to be billed is staggering. But none of our clients value that and many of the attorneys that I worked for didn’t.
It is the same thing with vendors. We use PIs a lot. Our clients HATE their fees, saying they costs to much. They always claim that they can find cheaper PIs in state. And I know the exact PI they are talking about and the dude is shit and works alone. The PI we use has a couple staff that clean up his reports and double check information for accuracy.
But admin staff don’t do real work. They just “push paper”. Or in my case, sometimes prevent 30K write offs. You know, little stuff.
|
On May 23 2017 06:30 Leporello wrote:Anyone mention our daily-dose of obstruction of justice, yet? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/us/politics/michael-flynn-fifth-amendment-russia-senate.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=curShow nested quote +WASHINGTON — Michael T. Flynn misled Pentagon investigators about his income from Russian companies and contacts with Russian officials when he applied for a top-secret security clearance last year, according to a letter released Monday by the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.
Mr. Flynn, who resigned this year as President Trump’s national security adviser, told investigators in February 2016 that he had received no income from foreign companies and had only “insubstantial contact” with foreign nationals, according to the letter. In fact, Flynn had two months earlier sat beside President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia at a Moscow gala for RT, the Kremlin-financed television network, which paid Mr. Flynn more than $45,000 to attend the event and give a separate speech.
His failure to make those disclosures and his apparent attempt to mislead the Pentagon could put Mr. Flynn in further legal jeopardy. Intentionally lying to federal investigators is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Separately, he also faces legal questions over failing to properly register as a foreign agent for lobbying he did last year on behalf of Turkey while advising the Trump campaign, which is also a felony.
The House Oversight letter, written by Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, was made public hours after Mr. Flynn formally rejected a subpoena from senators investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and chose to instead invoke his right against self-incrimination, a person familiar with his decision said.
Mr. Flynn had been ordered by the Senate Intelligence Committee to hand over emails and other records related to any dealings with Russians as part of that panel’s investigation into Russian election meddling. His decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment right puts him at risk of being held in contempt of Congress, which can also result in a criminal charge.
Flynn has no incentive to testify. Until he has reason to, he won't. I think he's got faith in Jared for now.
|
On May 23 2017 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 06:30 Leporello wrote:Anyone mention our daily-dose of obstruction of justice, yet? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/us/politics/michael-flynn-fifth-amendment-russia-senate.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=curWASHINGTON — Michael T. Flynn misled Pentagon investigators about his income from Russian companies and contacts with Russian officials when he applied for a top-secret security clearance last year, according to a letter released Monday by the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.
Mr. Flynn, who resigned this year as President Trump’s national security adviser, told investigators in February 2016 that he had received no income from foreign companies and had only “insubstantial contact” with foreign nationals, according to the letter. In fact, Flynn had two months earlier sat beside President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia at a Moscow gala for RT, the Kremlin-financed television network, which paid Mr. Flynn more than $45,000 to attend the event and give a separate speech.
His failure to make those disclosures and his apparent attempt to mislead the Pentagon could put Mr. Flynn in further legal jeopardy. Intentionally lying to federal investigators is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Separately, he also faces legal questions over failing to properly register as a foreign agent for lobbying he did last year on behalf of Turkey while advising the Trump campaign, which is also a felony.
The House Oversight letter, written by Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, was made public hours after Mr. Flynn formally rejected a subpoena from senators investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and chose to instead invoke his right against self-incrimination, a person familiar with his decision said.
Mr. Flynn had been ordered by the Senate Intelligence Committee to hand over emails and other records related to any dealings with Russians as part of that panel’s investigation into Russian election meddling. His decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment right puts him at risk of being held in contempt of Congress, which can also result in a criminal charge. Flynn has no incentive to testify. Until he has reason to, he won't. I think he's got faith in Jared for now.
He didn’t deny a request to testify, but for documents. The 5th is a strong defense to testifying and compelling you to self incriminate. It is pretty weak for incrimination that you wrote down earlier and just don’t want to turn over. It cannot save you from your past fuck ups.
|
United States42820 Posts
My current job had a lab manager buying huge amounts of liquid nitrogen delivered by truck every few weeks. The purpose of this was to evaporate it into ultrapure nitrogen gas for use as an inert purging gas. I'm the genius who pointed out that if we don't need it really compressed, or cold, or liquid, couldn't we just purify air? Ran the numbers, got some quotes, put together a proposal and got us a nitrogen generator.
We're talking six figure savings already on that.
|
On May 23 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:
My current job had a lab manager buying huge amounts of liquid nitrogen delivered by truck every few weeks. The purpose of this was to evaporate it into ultrapure nitrogen gas for use as an inert purging gas. I'm the genius who pointed out that if we don't need it really compressed, or cold, or liquid, couldn't we just purify air? Ran the numbers, got some quotes, put together a proposal and got us a nitrogen generator.
We're talking six figure savings already on that.
LMFAO
Holy shit. Ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha. My impression is that you do some kinda legal or accounting sorta stuff, so this is hilarious to read. The idea that some people had to figure out a way to get pure nitrogen, but didn't actually know anything about working in a lab...and the thing they decided on was giant can of liquid N2 is plain and simply amazing. And the fact that you walked in and wondered "why does this need to be cold" LMAO
This post totally brightened my day. I'm sharing it, if you don't mind. I know a lot of people who would get an enormous kick out of this. God damn. so amazing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
