Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='dopa345']Good for your friends, but they are the exception not the rule. Very few people with only a high school diploma make six figures.[/QUOTE]

The point is, things aren't the same any more. Less company's out there are really that concerned about degrees, and more concerned about skills and experience; especially in the high tech sector. Now, it really depends on your field though, some fields degrees go a long ways.

There is an in-n-out burger opening 2 blocks from my house. Last week they opened up hiring. It made news that 10 of the people in line that morning had masters degrees.
 
You know whats deadly, private insurers:

California's Real Death Panels: Insurers Deny 21% of Claims
PacifiCare's Denials 40%, Cigna’s 33% in First Half of 2009

http://www.calnurses.org/media-cent...-death-panels-insurers-deny-21-of-claims.html

Hat-tip to the nurses and other staff of the medical industry for keeping us alive.
smile
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
t1larg.jpg


Photo from the dipshit town halls over the summer. I demand the woman on the left be made into a meme.[/QUOTE]
What's that one thing with the eyes and the mouth with the laser shooting out of the mouth? It's a cartoony meme?

What the hell is that thing? Whatever it is, she needs to have it ASAP.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I wonder if myke would have posted that pic if it were taken at an anti war rally.[/QUOTE]

He wouldn't have to. You, ram, or troy would've already had it up.
 
[quote name='depascal22']He wouldn't have to. You, ram, or troy would've already had it up.[/QUOTE]

I have no problem with anti-war protesters.

Stereotyping any protesters based on a few of the extremists is a poor show.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I have no problem with anti-war protesters.

Stereotyping any protesters based on a few of the extremists is a poor show.[/QUOTE]

why did you have to beat me to my almost exact reply.
 
Well done Republicans!

Republicans are learning an unpleasant lesson this morning: The only thing worse than having no health-care reform plan is releasing a bad one, getting thrashed by CBO and making the House Democrats look good in comparison.

Late last night, the Congressional Budget Office released its initial analysis of the health-care reform plan that Republican Minority Leader John Boehner offered as a substitute to the Democratic legislation. CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that ...17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent.

But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. And amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It's already been shown to interest groups and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It's already made its compromises with reality. It's already been through the legislative sausage grinder. And yet it saves more money and covers more people than the blank-slate alternative proposed by John Boehner and the House Republicans. The Democrats, constrained by reality, produced a far better plan than Boehner, who was constrained solely by his political imagination and legislative skill.

This is a major embarrassment for the Republicans. It's one thing to keep your cards close to your chest. Republicans are in the minority, after all, and their plan stands no chance of passage. It's another to lay them out on the table and show everyone that you have no hand, and aren't even totally sure how to play the game. The Democratic plan isn't perfect, but in comparison, it's looking astonishingly good.
Click to expand...
 
How is this "Democratic" and "Republican" bill? Aren't there several different bills being proposed by both groups?

And, suddenly, we're supposed to believe the CBO when all the stuff they said about the Democratic plan was supposed to be BS?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']And, suddenly, we're supposed to believe the CBO when all the stuff they said about the Democratic plan was supposed to be BS?[/QUOTE]

LOL @ suddenly now we are supposed to be believing the CBO
 
I am really interested in the cost cutting of any plan. That is the key to this thing, it really is.

Cross state lines to increase competitiveness, and cut costs. i dont mean costs of the carriers that use ~86% on claims and 14% total on administration. I mean cut the costs of doctors, hospitals, equipment, and RX companies.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']How is this "Democratic" and "Republican" bill? Aren't there several different bills being proposed by both groups?[/quote]
I think he's comparing to the Dem House bill, which seems to be first in line.
And, suddenly, we're supposed to believe the CBO when all the stuff they said about the Democratic plan was supposed to be BS?
Click to expand...
I've hated much of the stuff they put out but realistically man, they're about the most trustworthy source for a baseline cost of a plan. Hell, without em it would be all noise. Even having them as a starting point is helpful.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']How is this "Democratic" and "Republican" bill? Aren't there several different bills being proposed by both groups?[/QUOTE]

In the House, the three bills passed out of committee have been merged into one through a behind-closed-doors process masterminded by Pelosi herself. That is the bill (all 1,990 pages of it) that will be voted on in the House tomorrow. The Republicans have been allowed to offer a substitute, which will of course be voted down since the Democrats have a large majority. Most people expect the Democratic bill to pass.

Now, for some fun, here is a list of bureaucracies created by the Pelosi bill:

1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)

2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)

3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)

4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)

5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)

6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)

7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)

8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)

9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)

10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)

11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)

12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)

13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)

14. "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321, p. 211)

15. Ombudsman for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321(d), p. 213)

16. Account for receipts and disbursements for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 322(b), p. 215)

17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)

18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for "culturally and linguistically appropriate services" (Section 1222, p. 617)

19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)

20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)

21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)

22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)

23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)

24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)

25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)

26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)

27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)

28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)

29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)

30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)

31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)

32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)

33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)

34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)

35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)

36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)

37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)

38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)

39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)

40. "Identifiable office or program" within CMS to "provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles" (Section 1905, p. 1191)

41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)

42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)

43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)

44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)

45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)

46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)

47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)

48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)

49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)

50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)

51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)

52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)

53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)

54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)

55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)

56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)

57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)

58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)

59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)

60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)

61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)

62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)

63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)

64. "No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza" demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)

65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)

66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)

67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)

68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)

69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)

70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)

71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)

72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)

73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)

74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)

75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)

76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)

77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)

78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)

79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)

80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)

81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)

82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)

83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)

84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)

85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)

86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)

87. National Women's Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)

88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)

89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women's Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)

90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)

91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)

92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)

93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)

94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)

95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)

96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)

97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)

98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)

99. Office of Indian Men's Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)

100.Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)

101.Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)

102.Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)

103.Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)

104.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)

105.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)

106.Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)

107.Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)

108.Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)

109.Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)

110.Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)

111.Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)
 
I'm watching the final debate on the House floor before they vote on the bill.

One republican congressman actually brought up a baby and said this baby won't have the healthcare his mom has. Another congressman bragged he's a cancer survivor after he was diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer on August 1st. That's 3 months ago folks. They're making some kind of plea to America by emphasizing the fact that its OMG A BIG BILL. It's going to be a bill. You don't want to have any loopholes.

I'm glad I'm not part of the opposition party so clearly desperate to derail this bill. Everything but the kitchen sink guys. That's what we're seeing from the Repubs.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']And so, the denial of medical treatments by the Federal Government begins...[/QUOTE]
Go get on your white horse and go fight the Christian Right about this issue. The rest of us will be right behind you.
 
But see, the Christian Right isn't supposed to be standing up for my rights. The Christian Right isn't funded with my tax dollars. The Christian Right can do pretty much whatever they want, for as much as I care.

I expect politicians to do what's right (well, I don't really expect it... you know what I mean.) Wasn't one of the big pushes for the government take over of health care all about private insurers denying coverage for treatment, prevention and procedures?

Now, you have a perfectly legal medical procedure - and the Federal Government is going to have a blanket denial for absolutely no medical reason.

These are the people you put your trust and faith in.

I can almost see why some people choose to put their faith in Zombie Spacemen...
 
Let me put on the "UncleBob" hat then and ask a ridiculous question based on a foolish intrepretation of your literal cherry-picking words.

Since you're against government denying medical procedures, does this now mean that you support a public option?
 
I can't be arsed to look through your hundreds of posts in this thread.

Stop playing semantics and debate. Stop being such a mincing pedant and have an opinion. Your posts show fleeting moments of knowledge and insightfulness, yet the vast majority of them are absurdly naive "gotcha" moments and poorly thought out questions. If you posted 75% less than you do, and spent more time thinking about things before barfing out whatever comes to mind, you could be a far better contributor to the vs forums, irrespective of whether or not we were to agree on something.

I'm looking to discuss ideas, not go tit for tat with poor witticisms or play Fox News with you.

In short, cut the shit.
 
Oh noes - Mykie doesn't like my posts. Perhaps if you took the time to read them, you would have noted already that I'm *not* against the idea of a government option (or an expanded government option). I merely have a few "requirements" for it to get my support.

1.) It cannot raise taxes or increase the deficit. As with any budget, if you want to spend money on one thing, you have to cut spending somewhere else.

2.) The government option *must* compete fairly and equally with private companies. This means it cannot be supported via the public teat, cannot have special laws created to support or protect it and must follow the same exact rules, regulations and laws that private insurance companies do.
 
1 was satisfied with the bill.

2 is ambiguous and useless. Metaphors and vague allusions suggest that you were correct in putting your word of "requirements" in quotation marks.
 
How was 1 met with the bill? Heck the article I linked to above pointed out that taxes will be raised...

"The bill proposes to spend $1.055 trillion to add 36 million Americans to the insurance rolls, largely paid for with a 5.4% surtax on the top 0.3% of earners and cutting Medicare Advantage programs."

As for 2 - I don't think the government option should be funded by taxpayer money if it is designed to "compete" with private insurers as we were told it was. Unless we're going to start funding private insurers via taxpayer funds. Which I don't want to do either. Also, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that any laws that apply to private companies should apply to the government option as well, do you?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']How was 1 met with the bill? Heck the article I linked to above pointed out that taxes will be raised...

"The bill proposes to spend $1.055 trillion to add 36 million Americans to the insurance rolls, largely paid for with a 5.4% surtax on the top 0.3% of earners and cutting Medicare Advantage programs."

As for 2 - I don't think the government option should be funded by taxpayer money if it is designed to "compete" with private insurers as we were told it was. Unless we're going to start funding private insurers via taxpayer funds. Which I don't want to do either. Also, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that any laws that apply to private companies should apply to the government option as well, do you?[/QUOTE]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/an_insurance_industry_ceo_expl.html was a really awesome post by Msut.

Should the public option continue to pay at least double than other countries?

Is that Lipotor that private companies pay up to 10X the price for 10X more effective?

If we were paying the same prices as other industrialized countries, we could probably have a tax refund. Of course, that wouldn't be far to hospitals that are charging up to 10X more for the same services.

http://noolmusic.com/south_park/south_park_not_a_big_deal_the_boys_feel_bad_about_downloading.php

The public option isn't a big deal, too.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']1 was satisfied with the bill.

2 is ambiguous and useless. Metaphors and vague allusions suggest that you were correct in putting your word of "requirements" in quotation marks.[/QUOTE]

"Ambiguous and useless" certainly sounds like Bob, has he gotten past his totally awesome plan just to deny people care?

Bob just completely ignores the fact that providing care should be the crux of this whole "debate".
 
Okay, so I just read something - can anyone confirm if this is true or not:

http://consumerist.com/5399893/health-care-reform-bill-passes-house

Insurance mandate: Uninsured Americans will pay a penalty; low-income people exempt. House bill charges a penalty of 2.5% of adjusted gross income: that's $500 on $20,000, for example.
Click to expand...

So - wait... "low-income people" are exempt. Aren't these the ones most likely to "abuse" emergency rooms, not have money to pay their medical bills, end up filing bankruptcy, etc., etc... Why is a "low-income" individual exempted from this mandate? Even more so when the government is going to virtually be giving them free insurance anyway?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So - wait... "low-income people" are exempt. Aren't these the ones most likely to "abuse" emergency rooms, not have money to pay their medical bills, end up filing bankruptcy, etc., etc... Why is a "low-income" individual exempted from this mandate? Even more so when the government is going to virtually be giving them free insurance anyway?[/QUOTE]

Let's assume it is true.

Subsidies - Households earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level would be eligible for subsidies of health insurance premiums when they buy insurance through the exchange.

2008 HHS Poverty Guidelines

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08Poverty.shtml

So, we're going to charge somebody up to $500 a year for "unlimited" health care and remove the possibility of them filing bankruptcy based on medical bills and we're going to subsidize their insurance premiums. Are we taxing them or giving them a huge discount?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']But see, the Christian Right isn't supposed to be standing up for my rights.[/quote]
Man, arguably the largest voting bloc in America gets a pass on American values. What a luxury you faux conservative/libertarians have, to be able to dismiss out of hand the responsibilities of Constitutional stewardship of the driving force behind the party you default to while wringing your hands.
The Christian Right isn't funded with my tax dollars.
Click to expand...
Actually, they are. The tax deduction comes directly out of your pocket via taxes that aren't being paid. But since they don't get involved in politics, it's not a big deal. If they did, well, then it's just basically money laundering of tax dollars for political purposes.

Oh wait.
Now, you have a perfectly legal medical procedure - and the Federal Government is going to have a blanket denial for absolutely no medical reason.

These are the people you put your trust and faith in.
Click to expand...
People feel strongly about abortion. I think it should be in there but there's a significant portion of the population that hates it like NOTHING else. I'm ok with it not being there because of their objections. I will continue to donate to PP and have my donation earmarked for low income families that need abortions.

That's called negotiation. It would be much easier to do more of it if you guys would stop stomping your feet like petulant children and actually came back with something workable that isn't the antithesis of the ruling party's vision. No, it's just easier to QQ.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
So - wait... "low-income people" are exempt. Aren't these the ones most likely to "abuse" emergency rooms, not have money to pay their medical bills, end up filing bankruptcy, etc., etc... Why is a "low-income" individual exempted from this mandate? Even more so when the government is going to virtually be giving them free insurance anyway?[/QUOTE]

You can't get blood from a turnip, kind of pointless to expect the impoverished to pay a fine.

Hopefully they'll set it up so there's not much of a gap (if a gap at all) between being eligible for medicaid and having to buy into the subidized low-income insurance or pay a penalty.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']You can't get blood from a turnip, kind of pointless to expect the impoverished to pay a fine.

Hopefully they'll set it up so there's not much of a gap (if a gap at all) between being eligible for medicaid and having to buy into the subidized low-income insurance or pay a penalty.[/QUOTE]

Let me see if I can impersonate the opposition...

It isn't fair. Poor people in their 20s should be saddled with permanent debt because of an accident or have a bankruptcy on their record.

Those poor people should have the ability to buy a home taken from them FOREVER!!!!!!!!!

Oh yeah and taxes are a disincentive for working harder. Having a 50K hospital bill or a bankruptcy ruining your ability to build wealth doesn't.

What do you think?
 
I think they know what's in it.

There's some cognitive disconnect (or, rather, unintentional dishonesty) involved when people accuse politicians of not reading bills.

1) Those who levy the criticisms don't read the bills themselves (which is fine by itself, as that's an arduous task, right?)

2) They allow their online networks of like-minded colleagues to do the legwork, citing their critiques with virtually no follow-up to verify those criticisms.

So they (like elprincipe above) rely on the "knowledge of the aggregate" to take care of the burden of being expected to read, crossreference, and critique a several thousand page document.

The disconnect happens because folks seem to think that the "knowledge of the aggregate" technique works for them, but could never work in Congress. No explanation is given, and we are led to believe that this is the case based on stereotypical assumptions of laziness and ineptitude on Capitol Hill. It's not quite that self-evident, really, and the dishonesty in crab-assing about "they don't read the bills!" is quite tiresome.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think they know what's in it.

There's some cognitive disconnect (or, rather, unintentional dishonesty) involved when people accuse politicians of not reading bills.

1) Those who levy the criticisms don't read the bills themselves (which is fine by itself, as that's an arduous task, right?)

2) They allow their online networks of like-minded colleagues to do the legwork, citing their critiques with virtually no follow-up to verify those criticisms.

So they (like elprincipe above) rely on the "knowledge of the aggregate" to take care of the burden of being expected to read, crossreference, and critique a several thousand page document.

The disconnect happens because folks seem to think that the "knowledge of the aggregate" technique works for them, but could never work in Congress. No explanation is given, and we are led to believe that this is the case based on stereotypical assumptions of laziness and ineptitude on Capitol Hill. It's not quite that self-evident, really, and the dishonesty in crab-assing about "they don't read the bills!" is quite tiresome.[/QUOTE]

My job isn't to create legislation. If my job ever became creating legislation, I'm pretty sure reading the legislation would become a requirement or preferred by my employers.

Let's try another example.

You're teaching students and give a test with 100 questions. Do you give all of the students passing grades if one student gets all of the questions correct, but the rest of the students gets 0-10 questions correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top