It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Health Care Reform Bill (Obamacare) Waivers...What They Are and What They're Not

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
So I have seen a lot of mis-representation of the waivers being given out to employers for the Health Care Reform bill.

So I thought it would be good to start a thread to lay out exactly what the waivers are, and what they are not.


WHAT THEY ARE:

-They are a temporary solution for people that have limited benefit plans
-They save millions of people from losing these limited benefit plans with no current alternative
-They are a bridge until 2014 when more affordable plans are available

Here is a good description of what the waivers are:

www.healthcare.gov...

Some employers – particularly those who hire lower wage or part time employees – offer their employees only limited benefit plans, also known as “mini-med” plans, with high deductibles and low annual dollar limits on their benefits.

In 2014, American workers will have access to a choice of affordable, comprehensive health insurance plans that cannot use annual limits to cap their benefits. Mini-med plans will become a thing of the past. Until then, however, we need to make sure that people can maintain their best available insurance option.

The health law requires insurers to phase out the use of annual dollar limits on benefits. Mini-med plans can’t meet the new limits – starting at $750,000 in 2011 – without dramatically increasing their premiums. The high cost would make coverage unaffordable for many workers and force them to go uninsured.

To allow individuals with mini-med plans to keep their coverage, the law allows plan sponsors (usually employers) to apply for a one-year waiver of the annual limit rule. To receive a waiver, the plan must show that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a significant increase in premiums or decrease in access to coverage.


These waivers are designed to help people keep limited benefit plans...often times these are offered to part time employees. These waivers are NOT PERMANENT....they are a temporary solution so these people don't lose their plans, in 2014 when more affordable options are made available by the reforms these waivers will expire and these limited benefits plans will no longer even exist. These are a bridge to get people from one part of the legislation to another.



WHAT THEY ARE NOT

- Exemption from the Health Care Reform Law
- Permanent Waivers
- Exemptions on "Cadillac" Health Plans
- Only for supporters of Obama

I have seen people claim these waivers are allowing companies to "not participate in Obamacare" or "Get out of the mandate". Neither of these things are true. These waivers are a temporary solution until other parts of the law go into effect. These waivers have nothing to do with the "mandate"...they deal with the "limit of annual coverage" and the side effects that is having on the limited benefits plans.

These also have nothing to do with the "Cadillac" Health Plans from the Unions. Someone recently linked me an article telling me that these waivers are being used by Unions to exempt their "Cadillac Health Plans". Here is the article that was linked (not sure what is wrong with the link...but it does work):

articles.cnn.com...
OLITICS

This article is from January 2010, which is befor the law was passed. This has to do with the taxes on the Cadillac Health Plans...and they don't exempt them...they only give them an extension until 2018. Which the article states is similar to extensions given to private insurance companies.

There is another common falsehood being thrown around, and that this waivers are only being given to Obama supporters (Unions, etc.). Well here is the website of the list of companies...and also some examples of organizatons that I would guess (just a guess, no proof) are not Obama supporters:

www.hhs.gov...


...
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany
...
Heritage Christian Services
...
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Ogdensburg
...


Just look through the list...it is a wide variety of companies.


Hopefully this helps...to me it just seemed like there was a lot of mis-information floating around about these waivers.


IMO, these waivers are a GOOD THING. There are two options here...drop all the people on limited benefits plans and they have NO coverage until 2014 when more affordable options are available...or give the employers a waiver to keep them on these plans. This isn't making any money for these companies...they would save a lot of money if they just dropped their employees from these limited benefits plans and just blame the laws. But they actually want to do what is RIGHT...and in this case the government is working with them to do what is RIGHT for these people.

The alternative is to have all these people dropped from their plans...so if you are against these waivers...do you support dropping all these people from their limited plans?
edit on 31-1-2011 by MindSpin because: Changed Title




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
As I said many times in the debate leading up to the passage of obamacare and all it entails, "a bad healthcare reform bill is not better than no healthcare reform bill".

So, here we are seeing samples of how government double-speak and bureaucracy would turn the bill that Pelosi infamously stated we would know what was in it after it passed into a logical pretzel that if not done away with has the power to negatively impact all of our lives.

The problem with our tax code is the myriad deductions and exemptions. And so one of the problems with obamacare is turning out to be the same.

Also, not buying the "temporary" argument for any of the sweetheart deals that labor unions and other obama supporters are getting.

Fortunately, this looks increasingly like a moot argument ...



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
the corporate elite would not need a waiver if the close door deals would have been a legitimate health care plan now would it


i will say op, you do a fine job candy coating this otrosity that they call a health care plan

edit on 31-1-2011 by allprowolfy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
A welcome to ATS is in order. It is commendable in your attempt to bring facts to the table in regards to the waiver process.


IMO, these waivers are a GOOD THING. There are two options here...drop all the people on limited benefits plans and they have NO coverage until 2014 when more affordable options are available...or give the employers a waiver to keep them on these plans. This isn't making any money for these companies...they would save a lot of money if they just dropped their employees from these limited benefits plans and just blame the laws. But they actually want to do what is RIGHT...and in this case the government is working with them to do what is RIGHT for these people.

The alternative is to have all these people dropped from their plans...so if you are against these waivers...do you support dropping all these people from their limited plans?


The problem is why is the Government saying that mini-med plans will no longer be allowed and forcing people into more expensive plans? Forcing companies into larger plans doesn't seem like the bill will cut the insurance companies down to size, but rather grow them or bankrupt them.

Larger companies, such as McDonald's offered the so-called mini-med plansto its lower waged workers. It gave those that didn't need extensive coverage, but rather major medical to be covered for a fraction of the costs. These plans serve typically younger persons working part-time or low skilled jobs. Then, with the new law they are all of a sudden a faux pax!

I believe a lot of the perception you are seeing though is the fact that 40% of these waivers are going to labor unions. Couple that with unionized workers represent 7% of the national workforce. That is a sizable chuck giving to a specific group. Especially a group that constantly screams they are superior because they are "for the workers!"

In the end, this obtuse and silly regulation should be ultimately repealed and be rid of. The free-market had a solution...the mini-med plans were it. They may not have been perfect, but they offered the basic protection of major medical (life or limb) and helped keep people from using their insurance for anything and everything.

Really there is so much wrong with this bill yet people think its the golden goose. It is for the prescription drugs industry, the insurance industry and not for the people. But tout the line.....



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 



As I said many times in the debate leading up to the passage of obamacare and all it entails, "a bad healthcare reform bill is not better than no healthcare reform bill".


I disagree, after Clinton failed to get a health care reform bill passed the insurance industry just got worse. While far from perfect, it is a good start and a step in the right direction. It is at least going to force us to deal with it.


Pelosi infamously stated we would know what was in it after it passed


Again...I disagree and think you are mis-representing what was said. This is another common mis-representation used when talking about the Health Care Reform.

You say she stated that the bill needed to be passed so we can see what is in it. What she was refering to was the lies and propaganda that was surronding it during the debates of the bill. And that the American public won't fully realize the benefits of the bill until it is in place and when commentators and bloggers can no longer lie about it.

Here is her full quote...keeps it in context and is completely different than what you are trying to represent here.



“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."




The problem with our tax code is the myriad deductions and exemptions. And so one of the problems with obamacare is turning out to be the same. Also, not buying the "temporary" argument for any of the sweetheart deals that labor unions and other obama supporters are getting.


Again, there is no exemptions...only temporary waivers.

You don't have to "buy" the temporary status...you just have to read the rules of the waiver. They explicitly state that they are temporary. So currently, yes they are temporary.



Fortunately, this looks increasingly like a moot argument


I assume you are refering to this being challeneged in the courts, correct? If so, then yes we shall see the outcome of that. I am perfectly fine in accepting the decision of the Supreme Court, are you?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by centurion1211
 



And when you notice that the OP registered today - same day as judge's unconstitutional ruling - to apparently try to prop up the bill, makes you wonder as to the OP's agenda and motive.

The cool thing about someone like the OP showing up today is that it shows the power of both the internet and ATS and that the "powers that be" are afraid - or at least respectful - enough to send people here to try and push their agenda.


To be fair...I registered yesterday.


And I don't think it helps your cause or argument to attempt to just dismiss me as some government agent.



It's actually your argument, and your timing is all too coincidental for me (and apparently others).

Please don't take it personally. Hope you enjoy your stay here and find many other subjects to weigh in on besides pushing obamacare. But I choose not to help you with your cause any further.




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



A welcome to ATS is in order. It is commendable in your attempt to bring facts to the table in regards to the waiver process.


Thanks for the welcome...and I thought it seemed like a good subject to dive into for my first thread.


The problem is why is the Government saying that mini-med plans will no longer be allowed and forcing people into more expensive plans? Forcing companies into larger plans doesn't seem like the bill will cut the insurance companies down to size, but rather grow them or bankrupt them.


From my understanding, the goal is to get everyone on a full benefits health care plan. You can't really say that these limited benefits plans were good for anything else besides minimal care. Unfortunately, this bill will grow the insurance industry...but there was no other option after the Public Option was demonized as an evil Socialist plot.

At least this bill forces insurance companies to accept people and not deny coverage based on pre-existings or because they have hit some dollar cap. In contrast, the Republicans plan was to just let insurance companies to sell across state lines...and let the market decrease the prices



Larger companies, such as McDonald's offered the so-called mini-med plansto its lower waged workers. It gave those that didn't need extensive coverage, but rather major medical to be covered for a fraction of the costs. These plans serve typically younger persons working part-time or low skilled jobs. Then, with the new law they are all of a sudden a faux pax!


Correct, because these mini-med plans were more of a security blanket to people than anything useful. These capped out fairly quickly...and were than useless. With the new law, affordable full benefits packages will be available for them to purchase or get through their employer.


I believe a lot of the perception you are seeing though is the fact that 40% of these waivers are going to labor unions. Couple that with unionized workers represent 7% of the national workforce. That is a sizable chuck giving to a specific group. Especially a group that constantly screams they are superior because they are "for the workers!"


And you are free to look at that fact (I don't dispute a lot of unions are getting waivers) one of two ways.

1. That Obama is paying back the Unions for their support
2. Unions look out for their employees and are actively seeking these waivers.

I look at is from the second perspective, neither of us would be right or wrong, it is an opinion with no facts to back up either position. You can't prove that Obama is doing them favors and I can't prove that the Unions are doing it to simply look after their employees.

But we can look at other facts...which are that there are other organizations that would appear to be non-supporters of Obama, like the ones I listed. And that these waivers aren't just handed out...you have to actively seek them out and apply for them.

So it is a possibility that Unions are just better at looking out for their employees interest (despite commonly held thought).


In the end, this obtuse and silly regulation should be ultimately repealed and be rid of. The free-market had a solution...the mini-med plans were it. They may not have been perfect, but they offered the basic protection of major medical (life or limb) and helped keep people from using their insurance for anything and everything.


And yet people were still losing their houses when the mini-med plans ran out. That isn't a solution, like I said, it was a security blanket.



Really there is so much wrong with this bill yet people think its the golden goose. It is for the prescription drugs industry, the insurance industry and not for the people. But tout the line


I would have you ask that to people with pre-existing conditions or that have children with pre-existing conditions if this bill does nothing for the people. You could also ask people who's insurance ran out because they hit the dollar cap and they either couldn't recieve care or lost their house because of it.


I will not claim that this bill was perfect, but like I said I think it was a good start.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
Again...I disagree and think you are mis-representing what was said. This is another common mis-representation used when talking about the Health Care Reform.

You say she stated that the bill needed to be passed so we can see what is in it. What she was refering to was the lies and propaganda that was surronding it during the debates of the bill. And that the American public won't fully realize the benefits of the bill until it is in place and when commentators and bloggers can no longer lie about it.


I think that even in context it is shown that Nancy Pelosi herself had and still has no idea what is even written into the bill. Here she is on with Diane Sawyer back in November of 2010.

Emphasis is mine:

So, when we have this debate piece by piece, I think the American people will see how they like pieces of it, and how they relate to each other. And that some of that– you know, a 1099, it was a Senate provision. We didn’t like it in the House. The President mentioned it today. We’ve already passed on the floor– the repeal of 1099 in the House of Representatives. So, you know, there are certain pieces of it that should always be subjected to review.


Problem here Nancy....the 1099 provision is in the House version of the bill. And to further her spin here, the House never repealed the 1099 provision back in November when this interview took place and yet to be repealed. Yeah, she is trustworthy.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


And you attempting to put words into other's mouths is just as disingenuous.



And I don't think it helps your cause or argument to attempt to just dismiss me as some government agent.


You could be just another indoctrinated individual that believes the federal government can do anything it wants.

Just to address the OP, the waivers are a direct VIOLATION of the equal under the law tenet of JURISPRUDENCE.

Maybe if you understand that we as a society CANNOT and WILL NOT allow the feudal system of old be applied here in a Nation that stands on the LAW.

If you want to know about the LAW, a good place to start is the Constitution. No where in it does it allow the enforcement of purchases. That would be called TYRRANY.

Now, if you bring up the argument that people getting health care service for free is driving up the costs, you would be RIGHT. Hmmmm, what causes that? Would that be forcing people to provide a service no matter their ability to pay? Hmmmm, since they do that for emergency rooms, why not make that for things like FOOD, since people cannot survive without food right? Or how about shelter? Might just as well force people to give houses for free to those that cannot pay.

Pfffft. This all leads down the road to what? You tell me seriously and attempt to use your own brain.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 



It's actually your argument, and your timing is all too coincidental for me (and apparently others).

Please don't take it personally. Hope you enjoy your stay here and find many other subjects to weigh in on besides pushing obamacare. But I choose not to help you with your cause any further.


I was refering to "your argument" as in your opposition to my views. If you just dismiss me as some "government agent" and refuse to have a discussion...then IMO that hurts your position. To me that just shows that you would rather ignore any points I bring up because I am a "government agent" rather than discuss and debate them.

Nothing taken personally...I can not control the opinions of others and you are entitled to have them. And I have found many topics to weigh in on...it's a very diverse forum...but I do like politics.

I really have don't have a "cause" other than discussion. It is unfortunate that because of the day I choose to register has come at a time that you find suspect. I would think if I were here to "defend Obamacare"...I would of been here long ago.

Thanks for you input.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
From my understanding, the goal is to get everyone on a full benefits health care plan. You can't really say that these limited benefits plans were good for anything else besides minimal care. Unfortunately, this bill will grow the insurance industry...but there was no other option after the Public Option was demonized as an evil Socialist plot.


This is of course where we fundamentally split in terms of how to cover the most people. I personally believe it is a personal choice. One to be made based upon one's life position. Of course there are those that fall through the cracks, but a heavily regulated industry doesn't have the lateral movement to catch those that do. Hence why the perceived 'free' market solutions were deemed a failure. They aren't free when the Government is dictating what you can and cannot do.

A public option would have destroyed the private markets. The government, without worry of costs vs. benefits would have undercut insurance companies out of business. Leaving the only option for coverage for people lying with the government. Maybe not evil socialist plot but definitely a centrally planned ideology that creeps a hell of a lot of Americans out.

In terms of minimal care why is it the government's job to dictate how much coverage you want? For the longest time I only covered myself and my two children with basic major medical coverage. Again, life or limb. I believe in personal responsibility so I also had a HSA (Health Savings Account) to cover larger costs. Of course if a catastrophic event happened I would have been saddled with some major bills, but such is life. We pay good money to have the best medical practices anywhere. The most advanced equipment. State of the art procedures.

Now I will be forced to fit into what the government thinks I should have. Insurance companies will raise prices because they are now covering more at-risk persons. To compensate they increase the rates for everyone. Don't get me wrong here. It is sad to see a child be denied health coverage, but isn't that prerogative of a private company? They don't have to enter into a contract unless they also agree to the terms.

Unleashed with maybe some incentive, the free-market could have been used to help cover those that fall under preexisting conditions. Instead, companies are saddled with regulation upon regulation, making the cost of business prohibitive to cover such persons.


At least this bill forces insurance companies to accept people and not deny coverage based on pre-existings or because they have hit some dollar cap. In contrast, the Republicans plan was to just let insurance companies to sell across state lines...and let the market decrease the prices.


That also would have been a start and a LESS costly one than the massive bill that is health care reform no? Effective minimal regulation with private oversight would have had more of the opportunity to present solutions than that which the government has presented. If you think people won't get dropped anymore, that is naive. If you think people won't still be in debt, that is naive.




And you are free to look at that fact (I don't dispute a lot of unions are getting waivers) one of two ways.

1. That Obama is paying back the Unions for their support
2. Unions look out for their employees and are actively seeking these waivers.


I agree. Who really knows. It is of course speculation, but in politics perception is everything...



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


It is hard to comment on most of your post because I fail to see a logical flow...so I picke the two points that seemed the most straightforward.


Just to address the OP, the waivers are a direct VIOLATION of the equal under the law tenet of JURISPRUDENCE.


I don't see how it isn't equal...can you give me an example where someone has applied with the same criteria of other companies and have been denied?


This all leads down the road to what? You tell me seriously and attempt to use your own brain.


To a society where we care about everyone in that society...not just if you have made enough money to live a privledged life.

And why the insults...or the assumptions of being "indoctrinated" or not using my own brain? I thought this was a place to discuss things in a civil manner without all the propaganda and mud slinging...maybe I was wrong.




edit on 31-1-2011 by MindSpin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


Hmmmm, from my comment-



You could be just another indoctrinated individual that believes the federal government can do anything it wants.


NOTICE I stated "You could be", I did not state that you were. I was addressing this because you stated that someone else defined you as an agent. Talk about missing the point and not addressing the issue.



I don't see how it isn't equal...can you give me an example where someone has applied with the same criteria of other companies and have been denied?


Hmmm, so the Obama WH and the Democrat Congress passes a law and THEN they decide who has to follow the law, you do not see the problem with that?



And why the insults...or the assumptions of being "indoctrinated" or not using my own brain? I thought this was a place to discuss things in a civil manner without all the propaganda and mud slinging...maybe I was wrong.


Oooooh, did I offend your sensibilities? As I stated earlier, I was addressing your attempt to put words in someone else's mouth, a typical fallacious tactic. When stating using your own brain, I meant (this is obvious) to use YOUR OWN BRAIN, not the talking points of the WH or the other panderers of misinformation.

Did YOU READ the decision? Well? It even used OBAMA'S own words in the debate with Hillary. You can attempt to rewrite history bucko, but here at ATS, we attempt to use FACTS and LOGIC.

Also, attempting to put people on the defensive does not work with me. I could care less about your call for civility, since it is just another FALLACIOUS attempt to direct the narrative. I will no longer address it.

By the way, address the issue, why is the WH being regressive to the days of the feudal system? Why are they allowing some to not follow the law and others have to? Hmmmm?

Why not just postpone the implementation? Hmmmm? Oh because it has NOTHING to do with being "equal under the law".

Game, set, match.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Let me guess, Repubican?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by StlSteve
 


It's not a democratic congress. You know that. WTF



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



This is of course where we fundamentally split in terms of how to cover the most people. I personally believe it is a personal choice. One to be made based upon one's life position. Of course there are those that fall through the cracks, but a heavily regulated industry doesn't have the lateral movement to catch those that do. Hence why the perceived 'free' market solutions were deemed a failure. They aren't free when the Government is dictating what you can and cannot do.


This is the system we currently have...and it wasn't working. I don't think anyone was in disagreement that something had to be done...the disagreement was what and how. The reasoning behind having everyone covered at some sort of minimum coverage is to increase the pool of insured, which will decrease prices of insurance, and to eliminate people who have no insurance and still need emergency care, which will decrease prices of medical services.

To me, there are two options of having everyone obtain coverage. Mandate that everyone has covereage or make insurance cheap enough that it wouldn't make sense not to have it (and then you would have to eliminate free emergency services...which is sticky).


A public option would have destroyed the private markets. The government, without worry of costs vs. benefits would have undercut insurance companies out of business. Leaving the only option for coverage for people lying with the government. Maybe not evil socialist plot but definitely a centrally planned ideology that creeps a hell of a lot of Americans out.


There is no knowing if it would of destroyed the private markets. From what I heard when the debate was going was that the "Public Option" plans would be administered through private insurance companies just like medicare is today. So the private insurance would still get the business...but at the competitive "public option" rate. If the private industry was destroyed in this scenario...there would be no insurance at all.

Would it have decreased the massive profits of the insurance companies? Probably...but I don't see that as a bad thing if the return on that is a healthier society.


In terms of minimal care why is it the government's job to dictate how much coverage you want? For the longest time I only covered myself and my two children with basic major medical coverage. Again, life or limb. I believe in personal responsibility so I also had a HSA (Health Savings Account) to cover larger costs. Of course if a catastrophic event happened I would have been saddled with some major bills, but such is life. We pay good money to have the best medical practices anywhere. The most advanced equipment. State of the art procedures.


Yes, you would of had massive bills...but the hospital would still be writing off many of the costs of your care. They wouldn't be charging full price on things, they would give you discounts, and they would just write some things completely off (this is why a lot of hospitals claim to operate at a loss...at least on paper). And those costs being written off get rolled into their price increases that I have to pay. It is all linked...your failure to carry insurance could directly and negatively affect me...which is why the government has the right to step in.


Now I will be forced to fit into what the government thinks I should have. Insurance companies will raise prices because they are now covering more at-risk persons. To compensate they increase the rates for everyone. Don't get me wrong here. It is sad to see a child be denied health coverage, but isn't that prerogative of a private company? They don't have to enter into a contract unless they also agree to the terms.


There are some price controls in the health reform bill...the increase in costs that people are seeing right now in premiums aren't due to them raising the prices because of covering higher risk people...it is because they are providing more coverage. More coverage = more money...but IMO it is necessary additional coverage.

Plus, the increase pool of people being insured (a lot of young healthy individuals) should offset any costs they would incur by covering the few high-risk unhealthy individuals that are currently seeking insurance but can't find any.

In regards to children...I don't think they should ever be denied coverage for whatever reason once they are being covered. Which is why getting rid of pre-existing conditions is such a big part of this bill and one of the best aspects of it.


Unleashed with maybe some incentive, the free-market could have been used to help cover those that fall under preexisting conditions. Instead, companies are saddled with regulation upon regulation, making the cost of business prohibitive to cover such persons.


The free market had it's chance and it failed. It wouldn't be the "free market" if they were given any incentive to cover those individuals.




That also would have been a start and a LESS costly one than the massive bill that is health care reform no? Effective minimal regulation with private oversight would have had more of the opportunity to present solutions than that which the government has presented. If you think people won't get dropped anymore, that is naive. If you think people won't still be in debt, that is naive.


But where do we go from there...with no rate controls, no elimination of caps, and no removal of pre-existing conditions...this just sets up the largets insurance companies to run out the small companies. And they can find the state that gives them the most wiggle room and we will have a situation like we have with credit card companies all setting up shop in the state with the least regulations. I don't see that as a good first step...I see that as a step backwards in fact.



I'd like to thank you though...even though we disagree we can have a civil discussion without you calling me a government agent or not having a brain. I appreciate that.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by StlSteve
 


Constitutional Libertarian.

Registered as non committed.

Have even voted for Feingold up to this year. WOW, totally took away a talking point. Cha ching.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 



Hmmm, so the Obama WH and the Democrat Congress passes a law and THEN they decide who has to follow the law, you do not see the problem with that


Who would you like to decide who gets the waivers?

As long as they are doing it fairly and haven't denied anyone a waiver who has a similar situation as those that recieve waivers...I don't see an issue with it.

I simply asked for an example of them being unfair...do you have one?


Oooooh, did I offend your sensibilities? As I stated earlier, I was addressing your attempt to put words in someone else's mouth, a typical fallacious tactic. When stating using your own brain, I meant (this is obvious) to use YOUR OWN BRAIN, not the talking points of the WH or the other panderers of misinformation.


Nah, no offense taken...just thought we could all be grown ups and stick to discussing the issue instead of personal attacks.

Everything I have written has come from my own brain...sorry to reference sources you don't agree with. Would you care to direct me to sources that would be acceptable to you and that would prove I am using my own brain?


Did YOU READ the decision? Well? It even used OBAMA'S own words in the debate with Hillary. You can attempt to rewrite history bucko, but here at ATS, we attempt to use FACTS and LOGIC.


Which would be all fine and good if we were talking about the recent court decision...but this thread is about the Healthcare Reform waivers.

So yes, let's stick with the facts and and use our logic to stay on topic



Also, attempting to put people on the defensive does not work with me. I could care less about your call for civility, since it is just another FALLACIOUS attempt to direct the narrative. I will no longer address it.


I'm sorry you feel that way...I didn't think calls for civility were a fallacy...you learn something new everyday.



By the way, address the issue, why is the WH being regressive to the days of the feudal system? Why are they allowing some to not follow the law and others have to? Hmmmm?


Great...back on topic. Everyone is free to apply for a waiver if they choose to.


Why not just postpone the implementation? Hmmmm? Oh because it has NOTHING to do with being "equal under the law".


Because the use of temporary waivers is perfectly sensible since it is only being used for a small percentage of the population. To postpone implementation for such a small percentage wouldn't make sense. It's a small issue...and waivers handles it perfectly...and equally. Anyone who offers mini med plans can apply for the waivers if they choose to.


Game, set, match.


If you say so...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join