Your view here admits of no possible disagreement, and I just don't know how you expect someone to engage with you on this. Your definition of a 'non-viable' business seems to be one that cannot adapt to any and all new regulations, laws, or taxes. So anytime a hypothetical company is affected by the regulatory environment to the point of financial danger, it could not possibly be the law we need to tinker with, but rather the business should have Darwin'd better!
How are regulations any different from market conditions?
A: As far as we can tell they should not be
In a general equilibrium setting it ought to be the case that symmetric regulations and taxes do not effect the market, at least, not the regulations and taxes we are discussing.
Did you really ask a question and then immediately give your own answer of it? 8->
Regulations differ from market conditions in their point of origin, and that we can alter them through political action alone. There are normative discussions to be had about the cost/benefit of each one, and that informs how and when we choose to interfere with private industry. So my issue there (that was last week, I think!) is that the metric of a viable business being it's ability to adapt to all potential regulation is a bit of a silly one: when it comes to regulation as opposed to market conditions we have whole additional dimensions to judge whether or not that economic impact is a legitimate one or not. Market conditions don't have any inherent value judgments associated with them - a drought causes the price of beets to go up, grocers deal with it because that's part of that industry. Regulations can be outliers.
That's not to say that they both can't affect businesses in the same way, but that's not really what I was talking about.
1) Yes I did
2) Origin is irrelevant with respect to businesses; they're exogenous in each case.
3) Normative discussions on the effects are firm independent so long as the regulations are symmetric with respect to the firms in question.
4) The rest of what you said doesn't mean anything.
0
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
Your view here admits of no possible disagreement, and I just don't know how you expect someone to engage with you on this. Your definition of a 'non-viable' business seems to be one that cannot adapt to any and all new regulations, laws, or taxes. So anytime a hypothetical company is affected by the regulatory environment to the point of financial danger, it could not possibly be the law we need to tinker with, but rather the business should have Darwin'd better!
How are regulations any different from market conditions?
A: As far as we can tell they should not be
In a general equilibrium setting it ought to be the case that symmetric regulations and taxes do not effect the market, at least, not the regulations and taxes we are discussing.
Did you really ask a question and then immediately give your own answer of it? 8->
Regulations differ from market conditions in their point of origin, and that we can alter them through political action alone. There are normative discussions to be had about the cost/benefit of each one, and that informs how and when we choose to interfere with private industry. So my issue there (that was last week, I think!) is that the metric of a viable business being it's ability to adapt to all potential regulation is a bit of a silly one: when it comes to regulation as opposed to market conditions we have whole additional dimensions to judge whether or not that economic impact is a legitimate one or not. Market conditions don't have any inherent value judgments associated with them - a drought causes the price of beets to go up, grocers deal with it because that's part of that industry. Regulations can be outliers.
That's not to say that they both can't affect businesses in the same way, but that's not really what I was talking about.
1) Yes I did
2) Origin is irrelevant with respect to businesses; they're exogenous in each case.
3) Normative discussions on the effects are firm independent so long as the regulations are symmetric with respect to the firms in question.
4) The rest of what you said doesn't mean anything.
You just said the same of me, but there's no content to your reply here. You just restated something that we both agree on (that regulation and market conditions both have economic impacts on businesses), but that wasn't where I drew my point from.
Maybe an example here would be helpful, of an extension of the logic I have an issue with. It's a silly example, but it illustrates my point.
Let's say the government decides that the color red is an affront to our national spirit, and any red products now have a huge, arbitrary tax. You're a strawberry farmer, and that's your entire livelihood. Unless you're some kind of genius and can genetically engineer some blue strawberries, you're probably fucked. Was it not a viable business you were running before some overly burdensome regulation came along? I'd like to think we're going to leave some room for us to claim that you still had a viable business before that, even if it is not one that was able to adapt to something that had some sort of economic impact.
To bring it back to what started this, I think requiring employers to provide health insurance for their employees is a justifiable and direly needed regulation. I also think if you require that of businesses that are of a certain size, it's arbitrarily punitive in the economic burden it puts on them, and that's unfair. I'm not comfortable with taking the stance that I have an issue with here - which is to label said companies, the sufficiently small ones, as non-viable to begin with. I don't think that's a fair label, because the whole matter has more nuance than 'is this company able to survive this economic condition? no? okay not viable'. A lot of that is what was in my previous post.
This is all getting as obfuscated as it is off-topic.
Then there will be no more business. Business is not some sacred pig we shouldn't ever touch. Maybe it's time we're punitive. Maybe they will stop worrying about bottom line when it comes to their workforce. Again, the right solution seems to expand medicaid to people up to age 26 or so (college level), and then force everyone else to carry insurance for employees over that age. This has the added benefit of keeping your burgers cheap and the more skilled workforce healthy.
The ones that don't have healthcare now? Probably hire within the family or high school/college students. There. Problem fucking solved. The rare exceptions to this are so not even thought worthy because if they are in trouble, a $100 premium per employee a month ($0.58/hr) should not bankrupt them ($100/174 hrs month) and excuse me while I don't fucking shed a single god damn tear if their business can't take it. Not sure what extra costs businesses carry but the really shitty basic plans were around that.
Double bonus of highlighting that maybe we should just give medicaid to everyone and let businesses decide if they want to offer Cadillac plans (and tax them for doing it too) to entice workers to work for them.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Let's say the government decides that the color red is an affront to our national spirit, and any red products now have a huge, arbitrary tax. You're a strawberry farmer, and that's your entire livelihood. Unless you're some kind of genius and can genetically engineer some blue strawberries, you're probably fucked. Was it not a viable business you were running before some overly burdensome regulation came along? I'd like to think we're going to leave some room for us to claim that you still had a viable business before that, even if it is not one that was able to adapt to something that had some sort of economic impact.
So we have two considerations
One in which we suggest why one business fails versus another. If we do this then we may consider the regulation symmetric with regards to the industry. I.E. everyone faces the same challenge, so if you go out of business and your competitor does not then yea, its kinda on you.
But we aren't talking about a regulation that unduly effects people who produce red products, we are talking about a regulation that effects everyone more or less equally. Which brings us to our second consideration.
One in which we suggest regulations over the entire economy. Then we need a general equilibrium[or some other systemic solution that takes into account the sum of the interactions] solution in order to suggest effects on businesses. Almost universally when we construct these they end up telling us that the final effect on businesses ends up being the final real cost/benefit solution, and again, it has no effect on businesses specifically.
You may have noticed that Republicans have been struggling to come up with a credible alternative to the Affordable Care Act once they repeal it. Why is it so hard? Because Obamacare WAS the Republican alternative. It was the conservative-designed mandate and subsidy approach. Republicans are in such an intellectual cul-de-sac on this issue that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) actually blasted Obamacare for being a sop to the president’s “cronies” in the insurance industry. Oy!
0
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
Let's say the government decides that the color red is an affront to our national spirit, and any red products now have a huge, arbitrary tax. You're a strawberry farmer, and that's your entire livelihood. Unless you're some kind of genius and can genetically engineer some blue strawberries, you're probably fucked. Was it not a viable business you were running before some overly burdensome regulation came along? I'd like to think we're going to leave some room for us to claim that you still had a viable business before that, even if it is not one that was able to adapt to something that had some sort of economic impact.
So we have two considerations
One in which we suggest why one business fails versus another. If we do this then we may consider the regulation symmetric with regards to the industry. I.E. everyone faces the same challenge, so if you go out of business and your competitor does not then yea, its kinda on you.
But we aren't talking about a regulation that unduly effects people who produce red products, we are talking about a regulation that effects everyone more or less equally. Which brings us to our second consideration.
One in which we suggest regulations over the entire economy. Then we need a general equilibrium[or some other systemic solution that takes into account the sum of the interactions] solution in order to suggest effects on businesses. Almost universally when we construct these they end up telling us that the final effect on businesses ends up being the final real cost/benefit solution, and again, it has no effect on businesses specifically.
So again, if you fail, its kinda on you.
Let's just stop right here, because that's just not true. There are plenty of reasons that it is comparatively more expensive for smaller businesses to insure their employees. A few pages back this particular thing was being talked about, and if I remember right Feral put it pretty well. Let me try to dig up a quote or something.
Edit - Eh, not really finding anything, but we don't even need it. Group plans alone can reduce the cost of insuring employees considerably, and won't always be available to smaller businesses. It's just a simple feature of doing business, you buy more you can get it for less per unit. My company cell phone plan is about half the price for the same quality as if I were to start a contract for myself - so a hypothetical law where everyone's required to pay for cell phones will disproportionately affect those without group rates available. Similar stuff going on here when you go further and further down with the number of employees necessary to be exempt from this.
I just think 50 is a good number on this. Anything below 25 I think would be pretty iffy.
There are plenty of reasons that it is comparatively more expensive for smaller businesses to insure their employees.
Not really. You're going to hit a critical mass pretty quickly in terms of risk pooling. And the law reigns in the ability of insurance firms to price discriminate which is the only other way that what you're claiming can happen.
And, of course, the parasite capitalists are involved. Lovely.
That's pretty common in hospitals, but occasionally you'll have a decent doctor who says, "Hey go home and buy X over the counter or take this prescription."
I think the cost mechanism there is more about covering your non-paying patients' costs when EMTALA demand you provide for them, but it's still kind of crazy. Medical billing is always crazy. Tylenol costs about $3 a pill in the clinic setting when it's $3 for a whole bottle at the drugstore; a pair of $20 crutches will run you $250 on your bill.
And, of course, the parasite capitalists are involved. Lovely.
I'm actually surprised that this isn't illegal. One of the points of having independent pharmacists - who have to get fairly advanced degrees and certification - is to act as a check on doctors. Pharmacists are the ones who catch when drugs are misprescribed, have negative side effects when taken together or show signs that the doctor has become an illegal pill pusher for addicts. All of that goes away when the pharmacist stops being independent.
Of course, pharmacists have been slowly fucked for awhile now. A friend's father was a pharmacist, but he went into real estate when it became clear that he couldn't compete with the big box and chain pharmacies and didn't want to work for $40K a year under retail managers. Doing a little Googling, and it looks like there has been a marked decline in the number of pharmacists, most likely because the number of people willing to go to school for six years in an intensive program just to work at Wal-Mart isn't that high.
While working at CVS or Walmart is not super exciting the pharmacists I know are doing pretty well in that they have near total job security. There are so many of these drug stores opening that there simply are not enough pharmacists for all the available positions. The pay is good if not spectacular and you can pretty much chose wherever in the country you want to work and get employed there almost instantly.
And, of course, the parasite capitalists are involved. Lovely.
I'm actually surprised that this isn't illegal. One of the points of having independent pharmacists - who have to get fairly advanced degrees and certification - is to act as a check on doctors. Pharmacists are the ones who catch when drugs are misprescribed, have negative side effects when taken together or show signs that the doctor has become an illegal pill pusher for addicts. All of that goes away when the pharmacist stops being independent.
Of course, pharmacists have been slowly fucked for awhile now. A friend's father was a pharmacist, but he went into real estate when it became clear that he couldn't compete with the big box and chain pharmacies and didn't want to work for $40K a year under retail managers. Doing a little Googling, and it looks like there has been a marked decline in the number of pharmacists, most likely because the number of people willing to go to school for six years in an intensive program just to work at Wal-Mart isn't that high.
Pharmacists have traditionally enjoyed an above average salary. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that median annual wages were $106,410 in May 2008, and that the middle 50 percent of pharmacists earned between $92,670 and $121,310 a year. The highest 10 percent earned more than $131,440 a year.
Arent most people behind the counter in a pharmacy (at a CVS or something similar) not pharmacists? I think theres one or two pharmacists that are making pretty nice money and then a bunch of pharmacy techs/assistants that arent.
Most of the time the techs are licensed and educated as well. I'd venture an across the board average starting wage between 14 and 15 an hour.
Although there is a movement in some places to making the pay sub 10 per hour starting, which lines them up more along the lines of the rest of the employees (shelf stockers, checkers). Yet still requiring them to have the licensing and education still, so that will make it tough, I suspect that their pay rates will remain in that more respectable range.
I'm surprised they even need that, doesn't look like it requires much more than a 5th grade education and not being a chucklefuck to customers.
And there in lies the problem with the public's perception of what service the pharmacy provides.
The techs are there assisting the pharmacist in making sure you aren't going to die. To me, it kind of requires a level of trust that equates into having had some education and higher pay rate than the person facing packaging in the paper goods aisle.
I'm surprised they even need that, doesn't look like it requires much more than a 5th grade education and not being a chucklefuck to customers.
And there in lies the problem with the public's perception of what service the pharmacy provides.
The techs are there assisting the pharmacist in making sure you aren't going to die. To me, it kind of requires a level of trust that equates into having had some education and higher pay rate than the person facing packaging in the paper goods aisle.
Hardly. Most count pills and check out, and refer you to the pharmacist (it's been this way since I was a kid). The Pharmacist double checks and then checks current medication lists.
All of this is mostly moot with drug-drug drug-allergy software that 90+% of pharmacy's use now. A caveman could do it now-a-days. In fact, one does, my friend is a pharm-tec for a local pharmacy in Florida having 0 training, barely passing high school, and getting discharged from the military. I don't even know how he managed to get that job other than his mom being the manager.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Can't speak for every pharmacy but Rite-Aid has two levels of techs: A-techs and B-techs. A-techs require an Associate's Degree, and assist with counting pills and such, but ultimately all decisions are made by the pharmacist. B-techs require no training, and can run registers and handle patient data, but are NOT allowed to touch the pills unless they're handing the packaged-up prescription off the ready shelf for the customer. Pay between the two typically scales appropriately with job responsibility.
I worked in long term care as a tech at one point. 0 training, 0 experience. If you can count, read, and pay attention to detail you can do the Tech's job.
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I got my pharmtech license my senior year of high school. cause I was intending to go to Uni to be a pharmacist.
believe me, there was hella more in that course than 5th grade. memorizing categories of drugs, drug interactions, knowing the proper way to mix the drugs with solutions. Not to mention the goddamned Pharmacy law. And in order to keep up my Cert I needed to get CEUs every year in every category. I didn't because it was impossible to find pharmlaw CEUs at the time. I've considered going back for the training time and again. But it wasn't an Associates Degree, I got the cert from a summer class. But I sure as hell had more than 5th grade experience.
Of course I was intending to avoid retail pharmacy as much as I could (which I didn't). I wanted to do PharmTech for a chemo place nearby. I still ended up at a food store pharmacy a few years later, and I still ended up counting pills and doing my best to not kill you or your family.
So you know those rebates that insurance companies need to issue if they didn't use enough of their income from premiums on healthcare? My wife just got a letter from her company's HMO provider saying they only spent 3.8% on healthcare. That's astounding.
I got my pharmtech license my senior year of high school. cause I was intending to go to Uni to be a pharmacist.
believe me, there was hella more in that course than 5th grade. memorizing categories of drugs, drug interactions, knowing the proper way to mix the drugs with solutions. Not to mention the goddamned Pharmacy law. And in order to keep up my Cert I needed to get CEUs every year in every category. I didn't because it was impossible to find pharmlaw CEUs at the time. I've considered going back for the training time and again. But it wasn't an Associates Degree, I got the cert from a summer class. But I sure as hell had more than 5th grade experience.
Of course I was intending to avoid retail pharmacy as much as I could (which I didn't). I wanted to do PharmTech for a chemo place nearby. I still ended up at a food store pharmacy a few years later, and I still ended up counting pills and doing my best to not kill you or your family.
I would love to get a pharmacy degree if there were more jobs out there besides retail pharmacist.
Pharmacists get to do cool shit, like build databases of drug interactions for hospitals, or work on clinical trials in pharma.
I've met a number of people, though, who couldn't get those jobs and just ended up working for some drug store chain.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
So you know those rebates that insurance companies need to issue if they didn't use enough of their income from premiums on healthcare? My wife just got a letter from her company's HMO provider saying they only spent 3.8% on healthcare. That's astounding.
That's... a typo, right? You mean they only spent 3.8% on overhead? Because otherwise man I don't even know.
0
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
So you know those rebates that insurance companies need to issue if they didn't use enough of their income from premiums on healthcare? My wife just got a letter from her company's HMO provider saying they only spent 3.8% on healthcare. That's astounding.
That's... a typo, right? You mean they only spent 3.8% on overhead? Because otherwise man I don't even know.
That has to be it. If it was 3.8% on healthcare by their own admission a decently sized check would have been enclosed.
Still though, I wonder who actually comes up with the numbers that determine whether or not the companies are past the 80/20 mark. Is it seriously the companies themselves? Isn't that absurdly manipulable?
So you know those rebates that insurance companies need to issue if they didn't use enough of their income from premiums on healthcare? My wife just got a letter from her company's HMO provider saying they only spent 3.8% on healthcare. That's astounding.
That's... a typo, right? You mean they only spent 3.8% on overhead? Because otherwise man I don't even know.
That has to be it. If it was 3.8% on healthcare by their own admission a decently sized check would have been enclosed.
Still though, I wonder who actually comes up with the numbers that determine whether or not the companies are past the 80/20 mark. Is it seriously the companies themselves? Isn't that absurdly manipulable?
I wish it was a typo The letter with the rebate was separate.
0
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
So you know those rebates that insurance companies need to issue if they didn't use enough of their income from premiums on healthcare? My wife just got a letter from her company's HMO provider saying they only spent 3.8% on healthcare. That's astounding.
That's... a typo, right? You mean they only spent 3.8% on overhead? Because otherwise man I don't even know.
That has to be it. If it was 3.8% on healthcare by their own admission a decently sized check would have been enclosed.
Still though, I wonder who actually comes up with the numbers that determine whether or not the companies are past the 80/20 mark. Is it seriously the companies themselves? Isn't that absurdly manipulable?
I wish it was a typo The letter with the rebate was separate.
That's insane. Was the rebate substantial?
I'm curious why the HMO would admit such a number.
So you know those rebates that insurance companies need to issue if they didn't use enough of their income from premiums on healthcare? My wife just got a letter from her company's HMO provider saying they only spent 3.8% on healthcare. That's astounding.
That's... a typo, right? You mean they only spent 3.8% on overhead? Because otherwise man I don't even know.
That has to be it. If it was 3.8% on healthcare by their own admission a decently sized check would have been enclosed.
Still though, I wonder who actually comes up with the numbers that determine whether or not the companies are past the 80/20 mark. Is it seriously the companies themselves? Isn't that absurdly manipulable?
I wish it was a typo The letter with the rebate was separate.
Posts
1) Yes I did
2) Origin is irrelevant with respect to businesses; they're exogenous in each case.
3) Normative discussions on the effects are firm independent so long as the regulations are symmetric with respect to the firms in question.
4) The rest of what you said doesn't mean anything.
You just said the same of me, but there's no content to your reply here. You just restated something that we both agree on (that regulation and market conditions both have economic impacts on businesses), but that wasn't where I drew my point from.
Maybe an example here would be helpful, of an extension of the logic I have an issue with. It's a silly example, but it illustrates my point.
Let's say the government decides that the color red is an affront to our national spirit, and any red products now have a huge, arbitrary tax. You're a strawberry farmer, and that's your entire livelihood. Unless you're some kind of genius and can genetically engineer some blue strawberries, you're probably fucked. Was it not a viable business you were running before some overly burdensome regulation came along? I'd like to think we're going to leave some room for us to claim that you still had a viable business before that, even if it is not one that was able to adapt to something that had some sort of economic impact.
To bring it back to what started this, I think requiring employers to provide health insurance for their employees is a justifiable and direly needed regulation. I also think if you require that of businesses that are of a certain size, it's arbitrarily punitive in the economic burden it puts on them, and that's unfair. I'm not comfortable with taking the stance that I have an issue with here - which is to label said companies, the sufficiently small ones, as non-viable to begin with. I don't think that's a fair label, because the whole matter has more nuance than 'is this company able to survive this economic condition? no? okay not viable'. A lot of that is what was in my previous post.
This is all getting as obfuscated as it is off-topic.
The ones that don't have healthcare now? Probably hire within the family or high school/college students. There. Problem fucking solved. The rare exceptions to this are so not even thought worthy because if they are in trouble, a $100 premium per employee a month ($0.58/hr) should not bankrupt them ($100/174 hrs month) and excuse me while I don't fucking shed a single god damn tear if their business can't take it. Not sure what extra costs businesses carry but the really shitty basic plans were around that.
Double bonus of highlighting that maybe we should just give medicaid to everyone and let businesses decide if they want to offer Cadillac plans (and tax them for doing it too) to entice workers to work for them.
So we have two considerations
One in which we suggest why one business fails versus another. If we do this then we may consider the regulation symmetric with regards to the industry. I.E. everyone faces the same challenge, so if you go out of business and your competitor does not then yea, its kinda on you.
But we aren't talking about a regulation that unduly effects people who produce red products, we are talking about a regulation that effects everyone more or less equally. Which brings us to our second consideration.
One in which we suggest regulations over the entire economy. Then we need a general equilibrium[or some other systemic solution that takes into account the sum of the interactions] solution in order to suggest effects on businesses. Almost universally when we construct these they end up telling us that the final effect on businesses ends up being the final real cost/benefit solution, and again, it has no effect on businesses specifically.
So again, if you fail, its kinda on you.
Let's just stop right here, because that's just not true. There are plenty of reasons that it is comparatively more expensive for smaller businesses to insure their employees. A few pages back this particular thing was being talked about, and if I remember right Feral put it pretty well. Let me try to dig up a quote or something.
Edit - Eh, not really finding anything, but we don't even need it. Group plans alone can reduce the cost of insuring employees considerably, and won't always be available to smaller businesses. It's just a simple feature of doing business, you buy more you can get it for less per unit. My company cell phone plan is about half the price for the same quality as if I were to start a contract for myself - so a hypothetical law where everyone's required to pay for cell phones will disproportionately affect those without group rates available. Similar stuff going on here when you go further and further down with the number of employees necessary to be exempt from this.
I just think 50 is a good number on this. Anything below 25 I think would be pretty iffy.
Not really. You're going to hit a critical mass pretty quickly in terms of risk pooling. And the law reigns in the ability of insurance firms to price discriminate which is the only other way that what you're claiming can happen.
And, of course, the parasite capitalists are involved. Lovely.
That's pretty common in hospitals, but occasionally you'll have a decent doctor who says, "Hey go home and buy X over the counter or take this prescription."
I think the cost mechanism there is more about covering your non-paying patients' costs when EMTALA demand you provide for them, but it's still kind of crazy. Medical billing is always crazy. Tylenol costs about $3 a pill in the clinic setting when it's $3 for a whole bottle at the drugstore; a pair of $20 crutches will run you $250 on your bill.
System be broken, mang.
I'm actually surprised that this isn't illegal. One of the points of having independent pharmacists - who have to get fairly advanced degrees and certification - is to act as a check on doctors. Pharmacists are the ones who catch when drugs are misprescribed, have negative side effects when taken together or show signs that the doctor has become an illegal pill pusher for addicts. All of that goes away when the pharmacist stops being independent.
Of course, pharmacists have been slowly fucked for awhile now. A friend's father was a pharmacist, but he went into real estate when it became clear that he couldn't compete with the big box and chain pharmacies and didn't want to work for $40K a year under retail managers. Doing a little Googling, and it looks like there has been a marked decline in the number of pharmacists, most likely because the number of people willing to go to school for six years in an intensive program just to work at Wal-Mart isn't that high.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Although there is a movement in some places to making the pay sub 10 per hour starting, which lines them up more along the lines of the rest of the employees (shelf stockers, checkers). Yet still requiring them to have the licensing and education still, so that will make it tough, I suspect that their pay rates will remain in that more respectable range.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
And there in lies the problem with the public's perception of what service the pharmacy provides.
The techs are there assisting the pharmacist in making sure you aren't going to die. To me, it kind of requires a level of trust that equates into having had some education and higher pay rate than the person facing packaging in the paper goods aisle.
Hardly. Most count pills and check out, and refer you to the pharmacist (it's been this way since I was a kid). The Pharmacist double checks and then checks current medication lists.
All of this is mostly moot with drug-drug drug-allergy software that 90+% of pharmacy's use now. A caveman could do it now-a-days. In fact, one does, my friend is a pharm-tec for a local pharmacy in Florida having 0 training, barely passing high school, and getting discharged from the military. I don't even know how he managed to get that job other than his mom being the manager.
That's a bit harsh. Most 5th graders can't run a register. Or adhere to HIPAA guidelines.
GED at least, dawg.
believe me, there was hella more in that course than 5th grade. memorizing categories of drugs, drug interactions, knowing the proper way to mix the drugs with solutions. Not to mention the goddamned Pharmacy law. And in order to keep up my Cert I needed to get CEUs every year in every category. I didn't because it was impossible to find pharmlaw CEUs at the time. I've considered going back for the training time and again. But it wasn't an Associates Degree, I got the cert from a summer class. But I sure as hell had more than 5th grade experience.
Of course I was intending to avoid retail pharmacy as much as I could (which I didn't). I wanted to do PharmTech for a chemo place nearby. I still ended up at a food store pharmacy a few years later, and I still ended up counting pills and doing my best to not kill you or your family.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
This was a good read!
I would love to get a pharmacy degree if there were more jobs out there besides retail pharmacist.
Pharmacists get to do cool shit, like build databases of drug interactions for hospitals, or work on clinical trials in pharma.
I've met a number of people, though, who couldn't get those jobs and just ended up working for some drug store chain.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's... a typo, right? You mean they only spent 3.8% on overhead? Because otherwise man I don't even know.
That has to be it. If it was 3.8% on healthcare by their own admission a decently sized check would have been enclosed.
Still though, I wonder who actually comes up with the numbers that determine whether or not the companies are past the 80/20 mark. Is it seriously the companies themselves? Isn't that absurdly manipulable?
I wish it was a typo
That's insane. Was the rebate substantial?
I'm curious why the HMO would admit such a number.
Just...wow.
It was until Bush came into town.
He also gave teachers power to diagnose on a nation wide scale.
I'm kind of curious too. Obviously get rid of all personal information. Redact the shit out of it if you have to, but this is just stunning.