gimmechocolate

cartera45:

I do not have a problem with comprehension, nor am I just being stubborn. Perhaps you could disagree without opening with an ad hominem attack. It undermines whatever points you are trying to make.

These companies are being given waivers because the health care law will require them to purchase insurance they simply cannot afford, and thus they threatened to drop insurance coverage for their employees all together if not given the waiver. Once dropped, those employees will be looking to the bankrupt federal government for their health coverage rather than the coverage their employer was providing before this law made that unaffordable. Therefore, it is bad law, and the Obama Administration, in granting these waivers, is admitting that it is bad law. Do you really believe that only these 111 or 117 companies will want such waivers? Of course not. This will snowball until virtually every company in the country is asking for a waiver under threat of dropping health care all together because they cannot afford the onerous requirements of the new law.

The regulation that is in question requires health insurers and business to begin phasing out caps on annual health coverage this year. Employers will then be required to offer up to $750,000 in coverage in 2011, $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013, and unlimited in 2014. That is going to be very expensive. These companies getting waivers are exempt from that, and have therefore been given a competitive advantage that other companies do not have. The Obama Administration is picking winners and losers in the marketplace with this scheme, and don't think for a minute that one company after another will not line up for the same special treatment -- and they'll be due it if others got it.

The process in applying for the waiver makes no mention of "part-time," "seasonal," or "voluntary" worker, but rather asks for "a brief description of why compliance with the interim final regulations would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits for those currently covered by such plans or policies, or significant increase in premiums paid by those covered by such plans or policies, along with any supporting documentation." I'm sure there isn't a company in this country that couldn't make such a case.

It's a bad law. Repeal it. I think if you're looking for a stubborn person, look no further than Barack Obama, who is quietly exempting companies from his bad law while publicly proclaiming it a great law. That's what stubborn looks like.

McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers - USATODAY.com

Read more: With healthcare waivers, ‘government gets to pick winners and losers’ | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

TatinG

HHS has said that they will not be giving waivers after 2014, so those employees will be uninsured then due to the new healthcare law.

And no one has yet to explain how the 'no pre-existing conditions' clause will work. (Because it won't). If the fine is less than the cost of insurance and there is no waiting period or only a short waiting period, people will buy insurance when they need it and drop it after the treatment for which they bought it. The insurance companies will lose money on those people and raise the rates on everyone else and the cost of insurance will continue to spiral up.

That's what's happening in Massachusetts.

Hunt

The waivers are for companies that offer crappy coverage. Companies that offer good coverage already won't need a waiver. The issue is that under the law, the companies offering crappy coverage would have to improve it (at higher cost), or drop it. The waiver allows them to maintain the crappy coverage temporarily rather than dropping it entirely. I don't see how this makes the whole law bad, as long as the waiver is fairly administered and is actually temporary. Opponents of the law have already started moaning and groaning about the law's unintended consequences, and here they are moaning and groaning about a mechanism to address some of those consequences. Obviously, nothing will satisfy them but putting the insurance industry back in the saddle.

After 2014, won't the exchanges be in place? At that point, nobody will need the waivers, as I understand it.

You may be right about this--if you are, it might be necessary to toughen the individual mandate. See, I'm willing to have changes in the law, as needed.

cartera45

gimme - at least you provided a link that is the source of your misinformation.

I'll have to go with the ad hominem attack behind the 2nd door.

If you want to know why all employers don't need a waiver, google "mini-med" plans. Here is a good start.

http://www.businessinsurance.com/art...UE01/310109971

vicariousparent

Hunt, I don't think there will be insurance exchanges in place in every state. Too many Republican legislatures and governors will resist implementation. Then, when their state's citizens start to suffer the consequences of their inaction, they will blame "Obamacare". The Republican Congress may also succeed in undermining the law, and once again, when things don't work out like they're supposed to, it will be the fault of "Obamacare".

Hunt

I think you're probably right, unless the Democrats finally get a clue and start aggressively pushing their message. They don't seem to learn, though.

geeps20

^ of course people will blame obamacare. He signed one of the worst bills in our history into law...or was his signature a forgery?

Cardinal Fang

And that 's a good thing. The law explicitly contemplates and allows states to exempt themselves provided they end up with enough of their citizens covered. That's not a bug, that's a feature. We can hope to see some experimentation with different methods of cost control. I know that Oregon plans to apply for a waiver.

Hunt

See, this is what I mean. Democrats need to start saying things like this, instead of these measured, calm, reasonable things they usually say.

So, they should say, "The health care bill is a huge achievement for the little guy, and it's only become unpopular because of the constant lies of the rich and the credulity of people who don't think for themselves."

TatinG

Cardinal, I wasn't clear.

Oklahoma, Arizona and Missouri citizen all voted to amend their state constitutions to make it unconstitutional to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

Cardinal Fang

Yeah, whatever. They could pass laws making it unconstitutional to pay federal income taxes, too, or to unsegregate schools. But will such laws survive legal challenge. We'll see.

Funny how the individual mandate-- a Republican idea, Democrats wanted single payer-- suddenly becomes unConstitutional.

poetgrl

Well, it actually is unconstitutional.

They should have just called it a tax, which would be constitutional.

It was idiotic and politically motivated because he promised not to raise taxes......

Since they did the whole darn thing? I would assume if the democrats really wanted single payor? We'd have it.

Too many of them are bought and paid for by the insurance industry, too. Don't kid.

ETA: without single payor this entire thing is a catastrophe, frankly. It won't work. The only way to bring the costs down is single payor. And there is no point in doing this without bringing down the costs.

Cardinal Fang

Doesn't matter what you think. Doesn't matter what I think. Anthony Kennedy is the only one whose opinion matters.

LasMa

This whole waiver situation is just one more thing that would *poof* go away if we had universal coverage, or even the public option.

vicariousparent

The best opportunity, IMHO was the proposal to let people over 55 buy in to Medicare and then to have a public option for those below 55. It would have brought in a pool of healthier, PAYING customers into Medicare, thereby improving its solvency. Public opinion was actualy very much in favor of the idea.

Lieberman was the only problem. That is when they should have gone for reconciliation.