Obamacare Waivers

[Gunner]

If Obamacare is so great why do these corporations need waivers?

HHS Source:
http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/96Uu_tI0hTw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/96Uu_tI0hTw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[BrainChild09]

Everything said here was true. This shouldn't surprise anyone. Government grants privelege and favors to the wealthy and politically connected at the expense of everyone else. I wonder how others on the board will respond. Thanks for posting.

News of waivers to the healthcare law has been out for awhile but I haven't seen it get as much attention as I believe it should. The fact is, even before the law was passed many were already saying that there would be companies seeking waivers. And they're getting them. Here's an article addressing this before the latest wave of new waiver recipients.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm

 

[Fuckallyall]

Agreed. But do not forget that Congress has ecxempted itself from this scheme. The question I had back when they were debating this is the same I have now: Why should I be forced to buy something the seller himself would not use ?

 

[Gunner]

Agreed. But do not forget that Congress has ecxempted itself from this scheme. The question I had back when they were debating this is the same I have now: Why should I be forced to buy something the seller himself would not use ?

I'd vote for you!!!!

 

[BrainChild09]

Agreed. But do not forget that Congress has ecxempted itself from this scheme. The question I had back when they were debating this is the same I have now: Why should I be forced to buy something the seller himself would not use ?

Yep. How sick is that?

 

[BrainChild09]

Amazing how not one of the liberals on this board have yet to say anything in response to this thread. They've had time.

 

[nittie]

gestalt theory


Psychological point of view that says it is necessary to consider the whole of something, since the whole has a meaning apart from its individual elements. In advertising, the implication of this theory is that a particular brand must be considered as an organized whole and not just as a total of its attributes. Therefore, if an attribute is altered in any way or if a new attribute is added, consumer perception of the brand may change radically, and consumers who have previously purchased the product may no longer continue to do so.

The idea of the organized whole implicit in the gestalt theory also applies to the advertising context for the product. If the context is changed, it is likely that the market for the product will change as well.

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, conservatives cannot look at the big picture when it comes to Obamacare.

 

[BrainChild09]

Gestalt theory? Lol. You libs crack me up. Part of the problem is ya'll think you're smarter than you really are. All the while this intellectual arrogance keeps you from truly considering views that challenge the fundamentals of your political disposition.

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, conservatives cannot look at the big picture when it comes to Obamacare.

Can't the same be said of liberals? Oh I forgot, those who aren't in support of Obamacare just aren't smart or caring enough to see the picture you want them to see? Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, liberals cannot see any deeper than the utopian ideal implicit in the new healthcare bill?

Even with all the evidence of the flaws within the bill in addition to the dangers of the federal government enacting such a massive new entitlement program, liberals still aren't concerned. Sounds like you're okay overlooking the whole gov't granting the politically connected companies & unions favors at the expense of the vast majority of Americans thing. Yet you'll still complain that government and businesses just monopolize all goods (a gross generalization btw).

I guess you're just sticking to the script. Do what you do babe.

 

[playahaitian]

Amazing how not one of the liberals on this board have yet to say anything in response to this thread. They've had time.

 

[nittie]

Gestalt theory? Lol. You libs crack me up. Part of the problem is ya'll think you're smarter than you really are. All the while this intellectual arrogance keeps you from truly considering views that challenge the fundamentals of your political disposition.



Can't the same be said of liberals? Oh I forgot, those who aren't in support of Obamacare just aren't smart or caring enough to see the picture you want them to see? Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, liberals cannot see any deeper than the utopian ideal implicit in the new healthcare bill?

Even with all the evidence of the flaws within the bill in addition to the dangers of the federal government enacting such a massive new entitlement program, liberals still aren't concerned. Sounds like you're okay overlooking the whole gov't granting the politically connected companies & unions favors at the expense of the vast majority of Americans thing. Yet you'll still complain that government and businesses just monopolize all goods (a gross generalization btw).

I guess you're just sticking to the script. Do what you do babe.

Obamacare is flawed compared to what? The Republican healthcare plan? There is no republican healthcare plan. The only thing the party promotes is fear of a massive new entitlement plan that may or may not happen. But you say the assertion that govt and business monopolize property and resources is a gross generalization if thats true then there's nothing to worry about with Obamacare.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

How is this a "job killer"? I heard those people say that a couple times but never explain how.
There's nothing to defend without knowing why they got the waivers. That's a pretty wide range of employers who received them from Aetna to McDonald's and Jack In The Box. I don't see the indictment of health care reform that this supposedly represents. I would imagine that most of these employers already offer some form of health insurance.

 

[ronmch20]

If it turns out to be of real undeniable benefit to people, I wonder if they'll still call it "Obamacare".

 

[Upgrade Dave]

If it turns out to be of real undeniable benefit to people, I wonder if they'll still call it "Obamacare".

No. The same people calling it "Obamacare" ran on keeping all the popular parts and only repealing the unpopular parts. Unfortunately, those are the parts that pay for it. So when it gets in trouble financially, they can go back to blaming it the Democrats.

 

[Fuckallyall]

Obamacare is flawed compared to what? The Republican healthcare plan? There is no republican healthcare plan. The only thing the party promotes is fear of a massive new entitlement plan that may or may not happen. But you say the assertion that govt and business monopolize property and resources is a gross generalization if thats true then there's nothing to worry about with Obamacare.

This is not a healthcare plan, but a wealth redistribution via the doctor plan. THe republicans,or others, do not need a plan, so to speak. It is wrong to compel anyone to fund anyone else that they did not bring into this world. One quater of all people who do not have insurance will still be without. And remember that health insurance does not equal coverage.

 

[nittie]

This is not a healthcare plan, but a wealth redistribution via the doctor plan. THe republicans,or others, do not need a plan, so to speak. It is wrong to compel anyone to fund anyone else that they did not bring into this world. One quater of all people who do not have insurance will still be without. And remember that health insurance does not equal coverage.

For the record I am against national healthcare. I think the industry basically turns patients into lifetime drug users. Having someone takes pills everyday for high blood pressure or diabetes should be a crime. Now the industry invents new diseases so they can prescribe drugs it's wrong. The Obama plan acknowledges malpractice as a reason for soaring medical cost. It also provides care for people who need it and the auto industry already mandates coverage in most states so this nothing new. It could be a step in the right direction if it is managed right.

 

[Fuckallyall]

For the record I am against national healthcare. I think the industry basically turns patients into lifetime drug users. Having someone takes pills everyday for high blood pressure or diabetes should be a crime. Now the industry invents new diseases so they can prescribe drugs it's wrong. The Obama plan acknowledges malpractice as a reason for soaring medical cost. It also provides care for people who need it and the auto industry already mandates coverage in most states so this nothing new. It could be a step in the right direction if it is managed right.

I have a couple of things to say, but I am going to take the bolded part first. Automobile insurance is required to protect OTHERS from your actions. THat is why you do not need full coverage if you do not have a note. THe full coverage is to protect the finance company against loss. THe health insurance (because health insurance is differrnt from health care) reform actually does the opposite in that it drags you into the actions of others.


Also, considering all that the Gov fux up, why would we want to have them in charge of our health insurance purse strings. The reform, simply put, is this- We are going to compel the young and healthy to subsidize everybody else in a way that the non-market actors dictate. And by the way, the non-market dictators have excempted themselves from this same plan in favor of one they created themselves.

And how can you say you are against national healthcare when this reform plan is acknowledged to be a step in that direction?

Holla

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I have a couple of things to say, but I am going to take the bolded part first. Automobile insurance is required to protect OTHERS from your actions. THat is why you do not need full coverage if you do not have a note. THe full coverage is to protect the finance company against loss. THe health insurance (because health insurance is differrnt from health care) reform actually does the opposite in that it drags you into the actions of others.

You have a good point but you messed it up at the end. You don't have to buy a car. There are plenty of people that function every day without one but everyone will need healthcare and many of those people won't be able to pay for what they need, whether they want to or not, and everyone is dragged in anyway at a higher cost.

Also, considering all that the Gov fux up, why would we want to have them in charge of our health insurance purse strings. The reform, simply put, is this- We are going to compel the young and healthy to subsidize everybody else in a way that the non-market actors dictate. And by the way, the non-market dictators have excempted themselves from this same plan in favor of one they created themselves.

You mean like the way Medicare is so popular and has such low overhead? The only problem with Medicare is squaring up funding but it's not in efficiency or implementation.
With the current system unsustainable, there never was and still hasn't been a viable alternative option presented. Even the Republicans that swear they want to repeal it want to keep the reforms but want to repeal how to pay for it.

 

[QueEx]

If Obamacare is so great why do these corporations need waivers?

Everything said here was true. This shouldn't surprise anyone. Government grants privelege and favors to the wealthy and politically connected at the expense of everyone else. I wonder how others on the board will respond. Thanks for posting.

<font size="4"><center>
"Leading Republicans in Congress are blaming the new health care
law for double-digit rate increases being sought by insurance
companies in Washington state, New York and Connecticut.
But insurance regulators, leading health care experts and
the companies themselves mostly blame an old culprit:
rising medical costs . . . but they have
misrepresented the facts in the process "


</font size>
</center>


<IFRAME SRC="http://factcheck.org/2010/11/the-truth-about-health-insurance-premiums/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://factcheck.org/2010/11/the-truth-about-health-insurance-premiums/">link</A>

</IFRAME>

 

[Fuckallyall]

You have a good point but you messed it up at the end. You don't have to buy a car. There are plenty of people that function every day without one but everyone will need healthcare and many of those people won't be able to pay for what they need, whether they want to or not, and everyone is dragged in anyway at a higher cost.





You mean like the way Medicare is so popular and has such low overhead? The only problem with Medicare is squaring up funding but it's not in efficiency or implementation.
With the current system unsustainable, there never was and still hasn't been a viable alternative option presented. Even the Republicans that swear they want to repeal it want to keep the reforms but want to repeal how to pay for it.

I still maintain comparison with auto insurance. The incentive in auto insurance is to be careful and prevent use because it can make life more expensive, and you will be stuck with the expense. The perverse opposite is the motivation in the universal healthcare model, especially for those who it is subsidized for. Also, why should you have something you "can't" afford at the involuntary expense of others. I have yet to get a good answer on that.


Also, the only reason Medicare has such a low overhead number is because it is mostly a passthrough agency for the money going from the treasury to the providers. It is a mess. I know, because I have worked for it for the past decade.

 

[thoughtone]

<CENTER>
"Leading Republicans in Congress are blaming the new health care
law for double-digit rate increases being sought by insurance
companies in Washington state, New York and Connecticut.
But insurance regulators, leading health care experts and
the companies themselves mostly blame an old culprit:
rising medical costs . . . but they have
misrepresented the facts in the process "



</CENTER>


<IFRAME height=1500 src="http://factcheck.org/2010/11/the-truth-about-health-insurance-premiums/" width=780>
link
&nbsp
</IFRAME>

Facts mean nothing to the right. They are entitled to their own opinions and will argue facts based on that.

 

[BrainChild09]

<font size="4"><center>
"Leading Republicans in Congress are blaming the new health care
law for double-digit rate increases being sought by insurance
companies in Washington state, New York and Connecticut.
But insurance regulators, leading health care experts and
the companies themselves mostly blame an old culprit:
rising medical costs . . . but they have
misrepresented the facts in the process "


</font size>
</center>


<IFRAME SRC="http://factcheck.org/2010/11/the-truth-about-health-insurance-premiums/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://factcheck.org/2010/11/the-truth-about-health-insurance-premiums/">link</A>

</IFRAME>

How is this a response to what I posted? Or what Gunner posted? Does not giving certain companies the privelege to not comply with a very consequential law an advantage over those who must comply with it? Does not the fact that these companies and unions who are able to receive this privelege highlight the advantage they possess by their political influence? Are those without this influence not at a disadvantage?

How does an article about the "true reasons for rising health insurance costs" address any of this? How does it address Gunner's question? How does this article respond to a question asking why these companies even need a waiver to the law in the first place?

As board moderator I'm sure you've noticed a pattern of people quoting others, then posting a response or article that doesn't even directly correlate to the statement(s) they quoted. I thought when you quote someone, the point was to then post something that directly and logically corresponded to it.

If anything, what you posted would support someone who says many of those companies who received the waivers didn't really need them. And with the admninistration so wary of this, they should have known they didn't need to give these companies these waivers. But they decided to give these companies the waivers anyway. Why?

 

[Gunner]

Facts mean nothing to the right. They are entitled to their own opinions and will argue facts based on that.

I can agree that politicians embellish.

Why the waivers? Why did most go to unions who supported Obama? Is it payback for their support?

The original premise of the post is to convey to the reader waivers granted by the president. Most on this board would be screaming bloody murder "Big Corporations getting another Perk", but I guess its ok that Obama approves of it. Don't try to sway the conversation to attack the messengers. We know some politicians suck on both sides.

If the bill is so great on its merit why are these waivers being granted. Why cant you or I have a waiver?

 

[thoughtone]

I can agree that politicians embellish.

Why the waivers? Why did most go to unions who supported Obama? Is it payback for their support?

The original premise of the post is to convey to the reader waivers granted by the president. Most on this board would be screaming bloody murder "Big Corporations getting another Perk", but I guess its ok that Obama approves of it. Don't try to sway the conversation to attack the messengers. We know some politicians suck on both sides.

If the bill is so great on its merit why are these waivers being granted. Why cant you or I have a waiver?

Oh yea, I agree that the corporations got over with the current heath care law. I am not happy with it. In my opinion it is better than nothing. But it definitely needs to be refined.

However, I think it's laughably that first the Republicans ran on repealing it, now they want to "repair and replace". Repair and replace what?

Where you out for blood when Medicare Part D was secretly enacted in to law in the middle of the night? That was one of the major contributors to the bloated budget.

I don't remember seen you post anything.

My issue is that so called fiscal conservatives have no credibility since we didn't have a Tea Party upheaval in 2005 when all of this shit hit the fan.

 

[Gunner]

Oh yea, I agree that the corporations got over with the current heath care law. I am not happy with it. In my opinion it is better than nothing. But it definitely needs to be refined.

However, I think it's laughably that first the Republicans ran on repealing it, now they want to "repair and replace". Repair and replace what?

Where you out for blood when Medicare Part D was secretly enacted in to law in the middle of the night? That was one of the major contributors to the bloated budget.

I don't remember seen you post anything.

My issue is that so called fiscal conservatives have no credibility since we didn't have a Tea Party upheaval in 2005 when all of this shit hit the fan.

I was against it. You cant give when you don't have it.

 

[QueEx]

How is this a response to what I posted? Or what Gunner posted?

Is not one of the underlying premises for needing a waiver the idea that premiums are too high ??? The HHS site plainly states that, "[a]pplications for waivers from annual limit requirements are reviewed on a case by case basis by Department officials who look at a series of factors including whether or not a premium increase is large or if a significant number of enrollees would lose access to their current plan because the coverage would not be offered in the absence of a waiver."

Does the FactCheck article not discuss cost of premium ???

Does not giving certain companies the privelege to not comply with a very consequential law an advantage over those who must comply with it?

Sorry, can't answer that. I don't know what a "consequential law" is. But it is not uncommon for there to be exceptions within the law, especially since statutes are written broadly to apply to varied factual circumstances but inevitably, exceptions may be necessary to address inequities.

Do you know of a "Perfect Law" ? ? ?

Does not the fact that these companies and unions who are able to receive this privelege highlight the advantage they possess by their political influence? Are those without this influence not at a disadvantage?

You tell me, since you're advancing the argument that some privilege has been issued on the basis of political influence.

How does an article about the "true reasons for rising health insurance costs" address any of this? How does it address Gunner's question? How does this article respond to a question asking why these companies even need a waiver to the law in the first place?

I think I stated the nexus above.

As board moderator I'm sure you've noticed a pattern of people quoting others, then posting a response or article that doesn't even directly correlate to the statement(s) they quoted. I thought when you quote someone, the point was to then post something that directly and logically corresponded to it.

I wouldn't disagree with you; but on the other hand, I think I the FactCheck article is relevant to cost of premium being a factor in determining whether waivers are necessary. Do you disagree ???

If anything, what you posted would support someone who says many of those companies who received the waivers didn't really need them. And with the admninistration so wary of this, they should have known they didn't need to give these companies these waivers. But they decided to give these companies the waivers anyway. Why?

The article speaks for itself. Perhaps you might want to contact the Administration for answers to your remaining questions. You see, I'm not clairvoyant and, I don't have personal knowledge of the administration's motives.

QueEx

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I still maintain comparison with auto insurance. The incentive in auto insurance is to be careful and prevent use because it can make life more expensive, and you will be stuck with the expense. The perverse opposite is the motivation in the universal healthcare model, especially for those who it is subsidized for. Also, why should you have something you "can't" afford at the involuntary expense of others. I have yet to get a good answer on that.


.

Because you already do. When people use the hospital that are uninsured or underinsured, the hospital charges that to everyone else. Successful this time or not, one of the goals of health care reform (do we all agree that reform is necessary?) should be to bring down costs and creating a sustainable system.

 

[BrainChild09]

Is not one of the underlying premises for needing a waiver the idea that premiums are too high ??? The HHS site plainly states that, "[a]pplications for waivers from annual limit requirements are reviewed on a case by case basis by Department officials who look at a series of factors including whether or not a premium increase is large or if a significant number of enrollees would lose access to their current plan because the coverage would not be offered in the absence of a waiver."

Does the FactCheck article not discuss cost of premium ???




Sorry, can't answer that. I don't know what a "consequential law" is. But it is not uncommon for there to be exceptions within the law, especially since statutes are written broadly to apply to varied factual circumstances but inevitably, exceptions may be necessary to address inequities.

Do you know of a "Perfect Law" ? ? ?





You tell me, since you're advancing the argument that some privilege has been issued on the basis of political influence.




I think I stated the nexus above.




I wouldn't disagree with you; but on the other hand, I think I the FactCheck article is relevant to cost of premium being a factor in determining whether waivers are necessary. Do you disagree ???




The article speaks for itself. Perhaps you might want to contact the Administration for answers to your remaining questions. You see, I'm not clairvoyant and, I don't have personal knowledge of the administration's motives.

QueEx

Since you've already said you'll ban me if you don't like my tone, it would probably be unwise to further challenge you. I'll just say that you've had stronger responses. Peace.

 

[Fuckallyall]

Because you already do. When people use the hospital that are uninsured or underinsured, the hospital charges that to everyone else. Successful this time or not, one of the goals of health care reform (do we all agree that reform is necessary?) should be to bring down costs and creating a sustainable system.

So then do you contend that we replace an unfair system with an even more unfair and more expensive one ? Adding more people who cannot pay for it and hope that the ones you drag into who can afford it will not use it. THat is more sustainable ? Why don't we get rid of the right to make someone else pay for you health care (which is what EMTALA is. It was not passed to keep peolple alive, but to stress the existing system in order to get rational people like yourself to agree to go along with the rest of the crypto-socialist agenda going around calling itself "progressive"). And I'll repeat that this is not health care reform, just health insurance reform.

 

[QueEx]

Since you've already said you'll ban me if you don't like my tone,

You've said that before but, please show me where I said that.

it would probably be unwise to further challenge you. I'll just say that you've had stronger responses. Peace.

Stop using that as an excuse. I've never banned anyone for expressing their ideas -- within the rules.

QueEx

 

[thoughtone]

You've said that before but, please show me where I said that.




Stop using that as an excuse. I've never banned anyone for expressing their ideas -- within the rules.

QueEx

BrainChild09 seems to have a vivid imagination. He asked me to point out in a thread where it said corporations didn't pay taxes, I did and he was gone from that thread. In another thread, he challenged me to point out where the US never had a flat tax. I did an posted the source. He then challenged me claiming my source was bogus. Then he posted a link to a source that had my original claim verbatim. I guess the right seems to talk a good intellectual game, but when the facts hit the fan, they come up empty.

 

[thoughtone]

I was against it. You cant give when you don't have it.

I don't doubt you were. But were you clamoring to throw GW and the republican congress out with the bath water when they did it? (if you were able to vote in the US)

 

[QueEx]

 

[Upgrade Dave]

So then do you contend that we replace an unfair system with an even more unfair and more expensive one ? Adding more people who cannot pay for it and hope that the ones you drag into who can afford it will not use it. THat is more sustainable ? Why don't we get rid of the right to make someone else pay for you health care (which is what EMTALA is. It was not passed to keep peolple alive, but to stress the existing system in order to get rational people like yourself to agree to go along with the rest of the crypto-socialist agenda going around calling itself "progressive"). And I'll repeat that this is not health care reform, just health insurance reform.

Actually the reforms set up and ones proposed would be more fair than the current system and is less expensive, making more sustainable.

 

[Fuckallyall]

Actually the reforms set up and ones proposed would be more fair than the current system and is less expensive, making more sustainable.

How ? THe linchpin in this whole scheme is to bring the young and healthy in to subsidise the others, and refresh as the young are replaced by new youngins coming in. It's a Ponzi scheme. That is what I said before, and you did not respond. Please do.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

How ? THe linchpin in this whole scheme is to bring the young and healthy in to subsidise the others, and refresh as the young are replaced by new youngins coming in. It's a Ponzi scheme. That is what I said before, and you did not respond. Please do.

That's actually a part of it but it's those same "young and healthy" who show up in emergency rooms with no insurance, a situation alleviated somewhat by forcing companies to allow them to stay on their parent's health insurance until 26. So it's not like these "young and healthy" don't drive up costs, they do.


And how dare you ask for a response from me while ignoring two posts I made about how people are benefitting right now from reform.