Tech industry, regulators' relationship needs a reboot

This guy is just whining. There's an exam you have to take to sell insurance in California. Signing people up for health insurance at work is selling insurance. There's an online course [1] and an exam. Passing grade is 60%, which is probably why some people were able to pass without taking the training. Because health insurance policies vary so widely (it's a little better since the Affordable Care Act, now that pre-existing conditions are no longer an issue), understanding this, and understanding what HR people can say to employees, is important.

Of course, if we had single-payer health care for everyone, this would be unnecessary.

[1] http://www.52hours.com/

I agree that protectionist regulation is an issue that states really need to examine. However, I really don't see how you can view the policies violated by Zenefits as one. They are basically in the business of selling one of the critical infrastructures for most peoples life. It's easy to say oh this is just to protect incumbents but realistically these are people who are operating in a stupidly complex system where a mistake can have dire consequences for someones life. 52 hours is in the long run very little. Yeah it may suck if you hire someone and they can't do work for a few days but the alternative is allowing people who aren't actually fully informed to work in an industry where that lack of knowledge can materially affect peoples life. I'm not ok with that. I've seen what a lapse in coverage at an inopportune time can do to a family. It's not pretty. Really I'm more concerned that 60% is considered an acceptable passing grade. Instead of arguing for less regulation we should be condemning this entire company and demanding higher standards for the exam.

It's hard to see from the outside how much innovation is stifled due to regulators - but from my position it is a substantial amount. Part of the basic problem is that the very large and very successful companies have captured their regulators and have much more freedom to innovate when they are interested. But they are usually not interested in innovating because that are already big and successful.

This is in contrast to the growing startup which is under the regulator microscope.

The UK has the idea of a "Challenger Bank" for starups in the banking industry. The US should have a similar program.

(FWIW, Zac and I have talked about this a lot.)

Rabbit hole sidechannel debate: This is also true in the world of "Drones" and the FAA. Rulemaking committee actually references 1961 interpretation of "see and avoid" while making suggestions for drones.

Are ya kidding me??!!