It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Who would you like to decide who gets the waivers?
I simply asked for an example of them being unfair...do you have one?
Great...back on topic. Everyone is free to apply for a waiver if they choose to.
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.
There has been companies DENIED, sorry, I cannot give you examples because the WH will not release the info.
By the way, since YOU are the one saying that EVERYONE is EQUAL, can you say that NO ONE was denied?
Equal under the law, or we have a feudal system, whereby the government can decide which crony is going to be allowed to not follow the law.
You can attempt to change the narrative and say that EVERYONE can apply for the waivers is the same as EVERYONE getting a waiver and THAT would be a LIE.
Originally posted by MindSpin
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by anon72
Here is the real truth about the Waivers.
The real snow job in D.C.: Obamacare waivers skyrocket to 729 + 4 states; 4 new SEIU waiver winners
Just reading the list of receipants clearly shows what this program is all about.... Paying back unions! (most of it anyway)
edit on 3/9/2011 by anon72 because: (no reason given)