joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
I was once part of a small business enterprise of about thirty people. The owner of the company would bring everyone together for 'town hall meetings' to discussion medium and large issues that could effect the company. He wanted everyone to give their input, regardless if the information was good or not. And then we would vote on it. By reasoning, the good ideas should advance quickly and the dumb ones should be filtered out. Unfortunately, on topics in which certain individuals had skills in that area were given as much 'weight' as people that were faking they had 'expert knowledge' on.
Two examples: In the first, was regards to releasing their software package to a new operating system. It would be sold to a test bed of about fifty companies. When I quizzed the engineering group on whether the product worked well on different set ups, they did not give a very satisfactory answer. They behaved more like sheep, because the owner of the company was ALSO heading up the engineering group. I asked, as I was heading up the customer service group. Since any of their fuck-ups would be immediately known by my group. I would have to play 'diplomat' while finding solutions for up to and including fifty companies. And when their systems are screwed up, or the software doesn't run, their business does not run (i.e. they are not making a profit). So I asked the sales group if they had made any guarantees this would work well on the new operating system; of course they said 'yes'. So I stated based on their information gathered, plus what I knew of the software coding, it would be unwise to release it to all fifty. That we might instead try it out on three or four companies and devote resources to fixing what ever problems came up. So I was overruled by the majority whom wanted to kiss the owner's ass. Five weeks later, we fixed the last of the fifty company's whom were down. Most of them didn't get fixes until just two days earlier. The owner of the company didnt want to talk to me for the full month. I knew what was going to happen, and it happened. Fifty pissed off companies worth of customers in the tourism business, with their companies shut down during the busiest season of the year.
The other was on healthcare for everyone in the company. The person that had researched the shit out of this (his figures were solid by my study), got shot down by three people that didn't know shit about the information. They were just more influential with the 'mob crowd' at the time. So we went with another health system that ended up costing each of us 12% more over the next three years. That's not taking into account all the other adjustments. And the three that were bitching? They bitched when they learned of the details; None of us that argued for the better option wanted to listen to it!
How does it relate to the topic? The grand majority of Americans do not have a clue about the ACA. Wouldn't it make more sense to understand what the ACA 'is' and 'isn't' from an informed stance, rather than being completely ignorant? Most Americans could not explain the law's intent, purpose, or what the law does exactly. Over the last five years, I've had to educated the people on this forum about the seventy or eighty issues they got wrong. On big and small issues. Most from conservatives and libertarians, and some from the liberals. And when I did this, I removed the 'usual' political shit, and tried to explain the law in politically neutral terms. Some people had some legitimately good questions, and others got stuff wrong upon hearing it from someone trying to manipulate their viewpoints.
There is a time I'm pushing the idea of good healthcare for all US Citizens (that includes good healthcare for our veterans). And times in which I was explaining what the law does in a particular situation. For instance, those that didnt know what would happen if they didnt have a healthcare plan in effect for the following year's income tax form. I explained the numbers for the current year, and how the cost would rise in each year until it 'stabilized' to its final incarnation for 2015 (whih will show up on your 2015 Income Tax form). When people were bitching about the President and Democrats removing their policies for another; I pointed out it was the insurance companies that took this step. It was about three years ago, if I recall correctly. I had to explain what criteria a policy could be 'grandfathered' in under the law. And to a manner, how the insurance company looked at their products in relationship to the law. From there it was simple but logical to deduced based upon human behaviors how a business entity would proceed given the legal conditions.
Would it not be better to have the ones that understand this subject, discuss it? Or just have people that don't know shit decide on something that creates more problems for the nation and its people?
|
Affect of Repealing ACA on GDP - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread