Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | onetwothreefour's commentslogin

None of what you said is either backed by facts or is actually worth remembering if you're trying to fix the problem.

I always read your replies to threads about health care in the US and I'm always left with two thoughts: "what does that even mean and how does it further the conversation?"

If you bothered to actually follow the link to the data (http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/CPOP/DBASSE_080393), you'd see that none of what you said is accurate. The US is either at the end or, sometimes, in the middle of the rankings for everything. The Violence graph is particularly interesting.


It would be helpful if you could be clearer about which of those points "isn't backed by the facts" and which are "not worth considering", assuming those are disjoint sets.


I don't know where you're getting your figures from, but our monthly per employee rate is closer to $500/month in CA (with a family it's like $1200/month).

It's going up like $20/month for 2013. Which is immaterial, since it was ridiculous to begin with, because the entire system is broken.


Are you fucking kidding me?


Oh please, leave the jurisdiction? With his 30-40 employees? I'm sure he's gonna get right on that.

The guy is fireable in any country.


> The guy is fireable in any country.

Not at all. As aforementioned, you can't legally fire him in the UK (or Australia). Doing so would immediately welcome a legal battle with Fair Work (in Australia) and your chances of winning that one are slim to none.


I'm not familiar with the law in the UK. Could someone fill me in?

I'm confused as to how someone can be forced to continue to give money to someone that they don't want to continue giving money to? What if I decide I can't afford those employees because we aren't making enough money? Surely I can close down the business if I want to, effectively firing everyone?


You can fire people, but you have to follow a certain procedure to do so, otherwise you put yourself at risk of being sued for wrongful dismissal. There are clauses in employment contracts to cover gross misconduct so that you can fire someone for stealing etc. If you can't afford the employee you can make them redundant - but there are rules about not filling a similar position for a certain amount of time thereafter to ensure that it's not used as a way of firing people just because you don't like them. If an employee does their job and does it well you should not be able to just fire them because you're having a bad hair day. To me as UK citizen, your system looks like a crazy free-for-all. To each their own I suppose. :-)

Incidentally, IANAL - the above is essentially right but I'm not an employer and only have an employee's view of things.


> What if I decide I can't afford those employees because > we aren't making enough money?

Then in various jurisdictions you have to prove that. In court. See item 1 of http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/world/europe/28iht-letter.... and this sort of thing is not limited to France.

The US setup of at-will employment looks just as weird on that side of the Atlantic, I'm told, as theirs does to us.

I can't tell you what the setup is with being able to close down a business. It wouldn't terribly surprise me if there are legal hurdles to that too.


bankruptcy tourism is a thing


I prefer a law making it legal to fire at any time except for a blacklist of protected reasons like race, gender. In an at-will united state, I hope adultery can't be misconstrued as a protected reason for not being able to fire....


It wouldn't work like that in New Zealand. Outside of work, consenting adults etc. The employee could just argue that the employer was acting unprofessionally during work hours despite the employee being professional at all times during work hours. If this firing was handled poorly the employer would likely face massive costs. NZ law has UK law as its origin.


Fire him. The end.


What HN fails to tell you is that making money, and turning a profit (big enough to make things worth it) is actually really hard.

I wish you all the best in this endeavour.


I couldn't agree. You have put yourself head and shoulders about the 90+% of people who either are to fearful to even try what you did.

Congrats.... "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it..." - Goethe


That rate is impossible since the average interchange rate is significantly higher.


Agree. Interchange is generally around 1.8% for US merchants, but I agree with tesmar2 that 2.9% will seem a bit high to many merchants.


Kaiser is basically the public health care system of other countries, but paid for and run by a non-profit corporation. :)f

I've heard good and bad things, though (compared to Blue Shield).


Your stats are again, bullshit.


Ah, the age old "tort reform" line. Haven't heard that one in a while.

Your stats about Canadians is total BS.


"Ah, the age old "tort reform" line. Haven't heard that one in a while."

I would guess that your not following all of the issues. Tort reform is going to have to be on the table or we are going to lose more general practitioners (not terribly popular now) and OB/GYNs. Insurance costs are not just a patient issue.

"Your stats about Canadians is total BS."

Not really sure how to respond to this one. If you mean the waiting list times, then you are wrong. If you mean the cancer survival rates, that you are wrong. These are not exactly in dispute and are very much related.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: