Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV
cite, please.
I looked through all four of the articles you linked to, and the word waiver appears exactly zero times across all four articles.
come on man, where are you getting your information AND I want to talk about what it means "break" "huge". What about it?
I know what the word duplicity means and this doesn't demonstrate duplicity.
How does "he want it to work"? Please tell me what you think is the desired effect of the PPACA? And how does a limited set of waivers for a limited time affect this?
Explain to me how issuing a waiver for an organization "transfers the costs" (what costs?) to (and here you make a serious change of subject)-- "that majority that already carry the majority of the burden of taxation". You are gonna have to draw me a picture for that one please, and use numbers please.
Bottom line is this: You didn't answer my question. Your links all talk about who gave how much to Obama's campaign, and the spending habits of people who have serious health concerns--that they still pay a lot of money on health care irrespective of their deductible. duh. sounds right. if I have cancer heart disease high blood pressure, etc. I'm gonna want to take care of it.
|
Trying to figure out why you can't make the connection between overwhelming support for the Obama Admin and those who are getting waivers, all from the list you posted? There should not be a single Union on that list. As a group they have some of the best health care available in our market today.
The huge break are the people getting the waivers vs those who will still have to pay for insurance at ever inflating prices. Do you really think these will be limited breaks? I don't.
Costs are transfered when one group of people have to pay while others do not. Under the mini-med plans who pays for the care when that care exceeded the value of the plan? Vs, people who are forced to get very expensive health plans as mandated by Obamacare? Why do you think costs are skyrocketing, and prior to some states intervening, in what were clearly abuses by insurance companies in anticipation of madated coverage by Obamacare, the rest of insurance companies are doing the same just not at increases of 50% but instead at increases of 25% or 35%, maybe that does not draw the same ire of the regulators. So you see the burden is still borne by those who do not get the waivers when the mini-med plans run out. This is the costs, albeit indirect to those who are not exempted. I do not believe for one minute that they will not be continually granted waivers. It is not the number that matters, it matters that they are giving waivers at all. McDonalds should be forced to pay like everyone else. They are getting the waivers because they have convinced the HHS that they cannot bare the costs. Bullshit. They don't want to bare the costs. Not a single Union should get a break and no company should get a break either.
"... are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums..."
Define "significant". Because my preimums went up 25% last year and 35% more this year. And I am paying for 4 people out of my paycheck each month.
The taxpayer statement was an analogy, if you missed it no big deal, not worth my energy to try to get you to understand.
As you said in the earlier post, I doubt I will change anyones mind and that is really not important to me personally.