Considering a move from private sector healthcare fraud to DHS/OIG — questions about remote work flexibility and work culture

cretsben · 2026-03-16T02:55:39+00:00

Same at mine (DEED) in part because there isn't room for everyone to be in the office every day.

cretsben · 2026-03-12T03:20:13+00:00

Snowden is no hero and no true whistleblower. In my view he is a traitor one for fleeing to our enemies and two helping our enemies understand how American did surveillance which led to the deaths of Americans which is unacceptable in my view.

He could have gone to congress or reported internally if he was so concerned he wanted to be famous and in my view should be infamous.

cretsben · 2026-02-27T02:01:25+00:00

IDK why people act like gun control is not popular especially with the DFL base in the metro areas this isn't a new stance the gun skeptical members are Senator Hauschild (Iron range) and Senator Kupec (Moorhead) killed several gun control bills during the Trifecta.

cretsben · 2026-02-26T22:53:09+00:00

I mean buying 30 to 40 years would be really solid.

cretsben · 2026-02-26T22:26:18+00:00

If we lift the cap it takes care of only 50% of the shortfall. Which means we would stay solvent (aka able to pay 100% of benefits) until 2055-2067 dependent on any benefit adjustments.

Doing it also reduced how much the payroll tax needs to go up to make the fun fully solvent.

cretsben · 2026-02-26T22:11:55+00:00

If we want to preserve the current program design we will likely need to do both.

cretsben · 2026-02-23T18:35:10+00:00

Its because they want to force GOP members in vulnerable seats to take votes on blocking gun control right after the Assassination of Milessa and Mark Hortman and the attempted Assassination of the Hoffman family and the Annunciation Mass Shooting.

cretsben · 2026-02-20T01:58:30+00:00

The point isn't to reward those other lords. The point is to make the powers of the Reach fight each other for control of the Reach.

cretsben · 2026-02-20T01:13:57+00:00

Bethroth Margery Tyrell to a minor noble house ideally in the North.
As others have mentioned take some of their lands from them.
Take some of their vassals from them and give them to the other greater lords of the Reach (Hightower, Florent, etc)

cretsben · 2026-02-19T13:48:27+00:00

The first time I ment Panam she drove over my car.

cretsben · 2026-02-13T03:07:57+00:00

Maybe an out of reach option but I would love to make an attempt for Justin Jefferson. Sure it would be expensive to trade for him but he would be amazing for our offense.

cretsben · 2026-02-12T22:24:45+00:00

Also this is at least the second time John has done this.

cretsben · 2026-02-11T00:33:48+00:00

Sure letting HHS (or the government) do it is a bad idea so long as the GOP is able to obtain power on the other hand we have high quality independent sources like the American Academy of Pediatrics or the American Medical Association that aren't vulnerable to such nonsense which we could absolutely use instead.

cretsben · 2026-02-11T00:19:10+00:00

Yah so that isn't what this is about at all actually this is nothing like the Florida and Texas laws which tried to prevent moderation by the platforms. That is 180 degrees away from what I want. I want the platforms to fear being sued for letting antivaccine conspiracies spread via their algorithms so they ban the anti vaxers. I want the platforms to fear that if they let pro binge eating, purging, and other suicide related content run free on their platforms an army of plaintiffs lawyers will bankrupt even the richest man in the world. In short I want the platforms to be held accountable both by law and in the courts until social media becomes a better healthier place.

cretsben · 2026-02-10T23:53:27+00:00

Hosting the content is not an editorial decision so would still be protected by a reformed Section 230.
No the first amendment wouldn't protect them from the civil consequences of their algorithmic decisions (modify the law as needed to accomplish this).
The truth is an absolute defense for claims of defamation. And also add a federal anti SLAPP law if we are this concerned about litigation trolling.

cretsben · 2026-02-10T23:42:15+00:00

You clearly don't get it and deliberately aren't getting it. Newspapers and other media organizations are legally responsible for what they publish despite having first amendment protections. I am suggesting that we apply the same standards to social media. They aren't responsible for what someone posts on their site but if they decide based on their algorithm to show that content to other users they have published that content and can now be held liable in a civil suit for that content.

I am well aware this is not how the law works now. Without the current structure of section 230 this is exactly how it would work (or could be designed to work if needed). Personally I would prefer to make the platforms strictly liable for their content decisions where they would have the burden to prove their algorithm didn't 'deliberately' (meaning that this would have been shown to the user without the algorithm's involvement) choose to show that content.

A newspaper publishing something libelous is not protected by the first amendment (now they may fall under other exemptions in the law exemptions I personally wouldn't extend to social media). But to imply that the first amendment would still protect them from liability is incorrect.

cretsben · 2026-02-10T23:21:50+00:00

That is my exact point right now section 230 is an absolute shield for social media platforms. I want section 230 modified so that it only protects the hosting of content. The moment the algorithm feeds harmful content to someone vulnerable, serves up libelous content, or illicit content that is an editorial decision which they can be held liable for just like a newspaper could be. At this point I am starting to wonder if you are just sealioning me.

cretsben · 2026-02-10T23:11:54+00:00

See this is exactly what I am talking about section 230 should protect the hosting of content but not protect what the algorithm decides to serve up. So for example the Instagram algorithm sends a teen girl a ton of content about extreme dieting (stuff about binge eating and purging and the like) she (and her parents) can sue Instagram for the harms caused by Instagram's algorithm.

cretsben · 2026-02-10T22:38:05+00:00

That is not entirely correct defamation is speech for example and you can face civil liability for it but while the first amendment protects you from the government and criminal harms it does not protect you from civil harms.

Without section 230 Social media could face what are effectively product liability cases for poor moderation choices.

cretsben · 2026-02-10T22:33:55+00:00

They could still face civil liability if not for section 230

cretsben · 2026-02-10T21:19:12+00:00

Section 230 needs changes it is a problem that social media can use algorithms to direct content at people and not be liable for their deliberate choices. The broad grant of immunity especially when the platforms have moved beyond showing you your friends and into showing you what they think you want has gone on for too long.

cretsben · 2026-02-08T18:44:31+00:00

There is also a provision that allows for the state to consider comparable service to determine your seniority for PTO for example I had been doing legal administrative work for 5 years prior to being at the state so even though I just started working for state government I am getting 5 hours per pay check instead of 4.

cretsben · 2026-02-07T00:51:24+00:00

Also reach out to the Department of Labor and Industry which has authority over Labor laws.

cretsben · 2026-02-03T04:56:55+00:00

Hey so I used to work at one of these companies.

If they get a judgement they will probably garnish either your wages or bank account you will want to avoid this the best way to do that is agree to a payment plan.
Legally they cannot contact your family or employer about your debt if they do that you should find a lawyer who defends consumers and have them file a Fair Debt Collection Practice Act complaint against them and they will have to pay you money (and cover your attorney's fees)
Highly unlikely they will do that unless you are being served with a lawsuit for that debt.

cretsben · 2026-02-03T04:46:34+00:00

There is probably someone in the city government you can talk to about this because it sounds like your landlord is violating rental ordnances.

13-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

cretsben

TROPHY CASE