And this is why I think ObamaCare is doomed to fail.

I would have been 100% on board if they said everyone had to be covered by some sort of catastrophic plan and that it would be subsidized in some form for the extremely poor and destitute. If you want to pay more to get more coverage, go right ahead.

As a country we are not addressing why healthcare is not more affordable so that one is not tied to an employer. ObamaCare does not address this.

For example, why shouldn't my neighbors and I form a pool and buy a group policy similar to that of my employer?

Not to nit pick, but the only way to effectively manage not having sex.

Wouldn't this be an argument for a small Federal government, no?

Wrong.

You're still paying for that coverage which some groups find repugnant.

Pre-Obamacare, nuns could at least cut out coverage for maternity, contraception and other family planning related things. Not only do groups have moral questions about this, it will cost more, since in theory this coverage isn't needed.

I call BS.

This excuse is used to keep the status quo going. If an employee is looking to switch jobs after a short period of time, then some of the blame may be occurring on your end - either you are not paying enough or the work environment is toxic/defective.

For example, you and a applicant agree on a wage that may be a discount since you're going to have to invest training time into this person. The problem arises after year 1 (or whatever time period that is long enough to see returns) that you haven't raised his salary enough to keep up with his/her productivity/profitability. The issue then becomes that the person is underpaid, and can easily get offers elsewhere because you haven't provided a clear path for salary raises, promotions, etc. That is not the workers fault, it is a management problem on your end, and you can't really blame your workers.

Wish I had mod points.

I went to a job interview once, where it turned out to be a tech support job (advert sounded reasonable). In the advert, they were giving "extra credit" for those who have a Masters Degree, which I have.

During the interview, the interviewer asked what did I wanted to be doing in 5 years. I was honest and said maybe in a more traditional "software dev role" or have much greater responsibility.

The interviewer balked at that answer and said "we're not hiring for those positions NOW" - I replied you asked in 5 years, where I saw myself.

I also asked what their pay budget was.

I threw it back in his face - I asked him why someone with a Master's degree take a tech support job with crappy pay and no hope of promotions? They ended up changing the advert.

It sounds like Microsoft used this for too long and caused a lot of infighting and back stabbing in the long run.

I can understand why Yahoo! wants to try it - new management, and they want to cut the dead weight. Hopefully they do not do it for too long.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have been saying this for years. There is a reason why you can get a basic oil change for $30 at a quick lube place - you aren't dealing with a large, inefficient bloated system, some of which is mandated by government. I see my doctor for medication adjustments every 6 months. My appointments last 15 minutes at the most, and I spend more time waiting and getting my vitals taken. My insurance is billed $300. I have a tough time wondering why it costs so bloody much. I would much rather pay my doc $30 cash for her time and she would rather not have all the billing overhead.

I expect a certain level of service when I go to a hotel - i.e. If I go to a big high rise, I will expect that they have space for me, different room options, dining/bar, pool, business facility, etc. Because of this, it makes sense to regulate hotels differently - fire and electric codes for example.

This is quite different from someone ocassionally renting out their basement to a visitor.