BForm RR1b Health Professionals Portal

Narcissism, or the idea that someone might be “dating a narcissist” or “in recovery” from a relationship with a narcissist, seems to be very in vogue these days.I say that not to denigrate the people who truly ARE survivors of an abusive relationship with a real narcissist (who often have suffered terrible abuse), but to emphasize that in the general public… in fact, even here on this site… narcissism is “in.”Everybody can diagnose at least sixty people in their life with it, everybody’s a victim of a past relationship with someone who had it, and everyone thinks they understand the subject when they truly understand just enough to really truly badly misunderstand it. In ways that are, at best, ignorant, and at worst, harmful.So honestly, I’ve kind of given up. If there are members of the public who are going to use that online blog post, they’re not going to listen to me talk about peer-reviewed research and the spectrum between normal human behavior and clinical pathology. They’re not going to read critically. They’re not going to want to hear about peer-reviewed evidence. They’re going to want to run off and see how many people in their lives they can “diagnose” as being narcissists. Furthermore, this one blog post is just the tip of an enormous iceberg… one example of something that’s literally endemic.If there are people with a genuine interest in narcissism AND a willingness to engage in a fact-based, respectful discussion about the subject, I’ll be among the first to speak out.

About placebos. I actually read a long article in Smithsonian Magazine that placebos work even if the person knows they are placebos. Actually, the person who wrote the article experimented with placebos for “writer’s block,” not exactly a good example. It might have been more believable if he had tried it for something real, like allergies, or pain.I wish my doctors would try a placebo for me for one or two of the conditions I suffer from, but doctors actually can’t do that anymore, not in the US. Why? Because if any damage occurred because of the patient not being prescribed a real medicine, there would be hell to pay! I’m talking about lawsuits.I’m not sure where you got the information about “professionals” needing placebos. If you respond, I will know something I didn’t know before.

Natalie provides one possible answer here.But it might also be intentional. Depending on the company and their hiring philosophy, they might believe that the first test of quality is a test of interest—and it’s the one that you’re choosing not to perform. Some recruiters (and hiring managers) believe that applicants should demonstrate interest, dedication, effort, and time—and that only interested, invested candidates should be considered for their openings. Those are the best (or perhaps the cheapest, or easiest to recruit, anyway…).There’s some logic to that, I suppose—but it kind of takes the “recruit” out of “Recruiters.”Another reason is that companies (and recruiters) love, love, love information. Knowing where you live, how much you earn, how much you’ve earned, where you’ve worked—not to mention the additional questions that the US government requires us to ask you (which are separate from your application, mind you)—all of these provide your recruiter with some selection criteria, and fodder for their decision. Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) often don’t seem to spend much time thinking about candidates and the experience you have to suffer through when applying.Companies also (many times) believe that they have the power in this transaction—and that you’re desperate for a job, so they can make you jump through hoops. It’s sad—but it’s a very prevalent sentiment that they’re doing you a favor (though they’d probably never admit it that directly).You’re right, though—people who are highly skilled, busy, and selective may not take the time to fill out these lengthy applications, and the companies ARE losing out on those candidates. If everyone followed your lead, they’ll eventually figure it out, and come around….

I'm not sure if this is a purely exploratory question or if you're inferring that you're planning on navigating the group health insurance market without the assistance of a broker. If the latter, I'd caution against it for several reasons (which I'll omit for now for the sake of brevity).To get a group quote, generally all that's needed is an employee census. Some states apply a modifier to the rate depending on the overall health of the group members (for a very accurate quote, employees may need to fill out general health statements).Obtaining rates themselves can take a few minutes (for states like CA which don't have a signNow health modifier) to several days.I suspect your cor question is the time/effort required once you've determined the most appropriate plan design for your company. This is variable depending on how cohesive your employee base is.Best case scenario - if all employees are in one location and available at the same time, I could bring an enrollment team and get all the paperwork done in the course of 1-3 hours depending on the size of your group. In the vast majority of cases, the employer's paperwork is typically around 6 pages of information, and the employee applications about 4-8 pages. Individually none of them take more than several minutes to complete.Feel free to contact me directly if you have specific questions or concerns.