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

I recently had to work with these morons. Wife was in intesive care. Health care - SUCKS!. If you really believe health care in the us is on the right track, please, tell me what the hell I'm missing. Examples and proof, unless that's too much trouble

reply to post by MindSpin

Who would you like to decide who gets the waivers?

No one, or do some people get to break the law and others get convicted of breaking the law. That is what a feudal system entails.

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

There has been companies DENIED, sorry, I cannot give you examples because the WH will not release the info. Sorry, I have not filed a FOIA request, doubt it would be allowed anyway with all the "transparency" of this administration. But by the percentages of the unions and the Crony Capitalists that got the waivers, I am sure they have already pledged $millions to the 2012 campaign. Boy, talking about using the power of the WH to foment an agenda.

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

Oh, are you going to attempt to equate applying for a waiver being the same as getting one now? Like I said, why not WAIVE EVERYONE until implementation? Oooooh there is an idear, "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.

I WILL SAY IT AGAIN

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.

By the way, since YOU are the one saying that EVERYONE is EQUAL, can you say that NO ONE was denied?

HMMMMMMMM?

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

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?

It's odd that you have knowledge without having knowledge. You know there are companies that have been denied...but you don't know who?

No...I'm not saying no one was denied. I don't have that information to make that claim. Even if people are denied doesn't mean that it isn't being applied equally.

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.

I didn't get an extension on my income tax filing this year...but I know some people who did...does that make those extensions unequal? NO...because everyone can request an extension if they want to...and if they meet the requirements than it is granted.

Everyone can apply for an income tax filing extension...but everyone doesn't...it is still equal.

Or do you not agree...I have a feeling you won't.

reply to post by MindSpin


Fallacious.

What does comparing filing an extension have to do with the Obama care waivers?

Apples vs zygote.

There are reports that state there has been companies denied. They do not give details though.

By the way, I read and write pretty much everyday so I am quite cognizant of what is going on about this.

Information is power.

In all honesty, the insurance scheme is a scam; at least in my opinon

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.

With all due respect, we barely have free-market solutions operating currently within the system. Just because it doesn't arise from governmental decree, the heavy regulations skew the game and have driven to the point it is at now. The market will drive to where the equilibrium is at, just look at price controls (which always and historically drive up prices for services and goods).

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).

This is why you and I split on the issue. I feel it is not the duty of government to mandate me to purchase or enter a contract unwillingly. That is what a mandate would do. There would be no way about it. Second, 'make' insurance cheap means the government either controls healthcare because they don't have to actual balance books and can drive prices down without fear of going out of business. They produce no goods or services and can always just tax the people more as the system becomes more unsustainable. See Medicare for that. See the prescription health benefits they passed. See any program that they basically leave unfunded in hopes that they can continue to have the tax base they have.

Did you know that the CBO cannot factor in the changing behavior of taxpayers when calculating and analyzing new programs and taxes? Peoples behavior will change to face new circumstances yet our government thinks we will continue to operate the same.

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.

You mean those whopping average 3.5% profits? Sorry, that is not huge profits. If you mean revenue, then you are forgetting to equate overhead into the equation.

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.

I already stated that price controls lead to higher prices.

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.

Again, forcing people to purchase or enter a contract that they don't want just to be a law abiding citizen...

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.

No it didn't. Under heavy regulation it no longer is a free market. The insurance industry is riddled with regulations that make it cost prohibitive to have lower costs.

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.

Overall this sums up the differences we have. I do not believe in a centrally planned system where it is controlled by bearuacrats far removed from the lives of everyday Americans. This is why I don't harp against MA's healthcare plan as it was done at the State level. So be it. If that state wants to experiment with it and the people approved, then I am all for it.

The problem here is with health care and industry practices going into the hands of an already inefficient government, I really don't see how things can get better.

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.

It is how we move forward and possibly come up with better ideas.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Well I think it is fair to say that we just have fundamentally different views on this subject...and that is fine. I think if me and you were in charge...we could come up with a nice compramise. Because I do see some valid points in your response...but I also feel strongly about some of the opinions I have about the issue.

For me, the bottom line is that something had to be done...it wasn't perfect...but it is a start and we should work to improve the parts that are lacking and support that parts that are working. I don't think the solution is to scrap the whole thing.

This is why I think the waivers are a good thing...the mini-med plans were an oversight during the legislation...but that doesn't mean we should scrap the whole thing when this waiver program can take care of it. If there are future issues that arise...then we can deal with those as well.

I was hoping for some more discussion about the waivers themselves and not just about the Health Care bill in general.

I am still seeing many people make claims that these waivers are EXEMPTIONS. If anyone believes that these waivers are full exemptions of the health care legislation, please come here and make your case.

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
Source: michellemalkin.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b7bfb0c0f167.jpg[/atsimg]
Just reading the list of receipants clearly shows what this program is all about.... Paying back unions! (most of it anyway)

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
Source: michellemalkin.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b7bfb0c0f167.jpg[/atsimg]
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)

And what exactly are the Unions getting out of the waivers?

The choice was either:

A) Drop all mini-med plans because they can't meet the "annual cap" elimination.
B) Get a waiver and continue offering (and paying for) mini-med plans.

Option A would save organizations money...but screw over their WORKERS. There is no current requirement that the employers have to offer insurance to these people. So they could have just simply dropped the mini med plans, screwed over the employees, and blamed the new law.

Instead they went with option B to petition to get a waiver until 2014 for this ONE SPECIFIC instance of the health reform law. It saves the orginizations that get waivers no money, they get no "benefit" from it, and they are not "opting out" of the entire health care bill.


So please tell me...how exactly do Unions "benefit" from getting these waivers? And you should at least admit that the list of companies recieving the waivers are not ALL Unions...and in fact there are many that would appear to be anti-Obama in their support.