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.
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.
...
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany
...
Heritage Christian Services
...
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Ogdensburg
...
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?
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".
Pelosi infamously stated we would know what was in it after it passed
“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.
Fortunately, this looks increasingly like a moot argument
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just to address the OP, the waivers are a direct VIOLATION of the equal under the law tenet of JURISPRUDENCE.
This all leads down the road to what? You tell me seriously and attempt to use your own brain.
You could be just another indoctrinated individual that believes the federal government can do anything it wants.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.