DOGE

thethe said:
Agreed - current system doesn’t work. Not sure what’s to argue about there
Click to expand...

I’d rather do national healthcare than a two tier system where healthcare providers would rather treat government insured patients rather than private insured patients because inevitably they won’t have to negotiate rates with the government like they do with UHC and MetLife.
 
chop2chip said:
I’d rather do national healthcare than a two tier system where healthcare providers would rather treat government insured patients rather than private insured patients because inevitably they won’t have to negotiate rates with the government like they do with UHC and MetLife.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I’d rather just do private insurance only.
 
If some countries are generating better healthcare outcomes (at less of a cost!), maybe those who are lagging should try to learn from others' success. Ditto with respect to states.
 
Be still my heart

Any candidate in any party would have earned my vote that proposed cutting govt bloat by 40%
 
Again - as I’ve said repeatedly. It will be hysterical to see the reactions when people realize all these services can be provided while the government budget is slashed by incredible amounts. I’ll be here for it when it happens.
 
"My advice would be for them [Musk & Vivek] to go all the way, to push it to the very limit, and do not give up. Do not let down their guard."

- Javier Milei
 
acesfull86 said:
"My advice would be for them [Musk & Vivek] to go all the way, to push it to the very limit, and do not give up. Do not let down their guard."

- Javier Milei
Click to expand...

Going to make lots of enemies as the trough that the elites fed from at the expense of American citizens dries up.
 
[tw]1859348616562798833[/tw]

How wouldn’t this cost the government more money in utilities/office upkeep/security, let alone training expenses for new employees replacing employees who can’t move to an in-office setting but otherwise might be effective?
 
mqt said:
[tw]1859348616562798833[/tw]

How wouldn’t this cost the government more money in utilities/office upkeep/security, let alone training expenses for new employees replacing employees who can’t move to an in-office setting but otherwise might be effective?
Click to expand...

Because for 75%+ of the population working from home means working for 1-2 hours a day. Forcing them to come back to work will cause resignations and increase in productivity.
 
thethe said:
Because for 75%+ of the population working from home means working for 1-2 hours a day. Forcing them to come back to work will cause resignations and increase in productivity.
Click to expand...

Just do a time study to evaluate the workload and manage expectations based on higher required efficiency. If they can do it from home, let them stay.
 
mqt said:
Just do a time study to evaluate the workload and manage expectations based on higher required efficiency. If they can do it from home, let them stay.
Click to expand...

Who is doing that time study? How is it being done? How expensive is that?

These types of things have been tried by looking at screen capture data but its easily gamed.

Working from home is only good for a small portion of the population. The rest just abuse it and ruin it for the rest of us.

Forcing governemnt workers to show up to an office is a great way to start cutting out the fat.
 
thethe said:
Who is doing that time study? How is it being done? How expensive is that?

These types of things have been tried by looking at screen capture data but its easily gamed.

Working from home is only good for a small portion of the population. The rest just abuse it and ruin it for the rest of us.

Forcing governemnt workers to show up to an office is a great way to start cutting out the fat.
Click to expand...

Then ignore the time study and spitball a standard. Either way, there’s no reason to do it in blanket fashion if you just manage the employees.
 
thethe said:
Who is doing that time study? How is it being done? How expensive is that?

These types of things have been tried by looking at screen capture data but its easily gamed.

Working from home is only good for a small portion of the population. The rest just abuse it and ruin it for the rest of us.

Forcing governemnt workers to show up to an office is a great way to start cutting out the fat.
Click to expand...

Then ignore the time study and spitball a standard. Either way, there’s no reason to do it in blanket fashion if you just manage the employees.
 
The point is to get the lazy bums to quit bc they won't want to come in the office.

This has happened in every tech company that has forced to return to office. Voluntary attrition across the board
 
sturg33 said:
The point is to get the lazy bums to quit bc they won't want to come in the office.

This has happened in every tech company that has forced to return to office. Voluntary attrition across the board
Click to expand...

That’s surely the intended effect. The reality is that you get the people with less flexibility in their working hours or ability to commute to quit, irrespective of how productive they are individually.
 
mqt said:
That’s surely the intended effect. The reality is that you get the people with less flexibility in their working hours or ability to commute to quit, irrespective of how productive they are individually.
Click to expand...

That is certainly a preferable outcome than having a large work staff that is nearly impossible to fire otherwise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top