Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[classicman]

State health officials denied forcing the union fund to make the switch, saying the fund had been struggling financially even before the switch to third-party coverage.

The fund informed its members late last month that their dependents will no longer be covered as of Jan. 1, 2011. Currently about 6,000 children are covered by the benefit fund, some until age 23.

As premiums went up and employer contributions remained constant

Why did the contributions remain constant with increasing premiums???
Oh - because they are looking for someone else to pay ...

“We hope the state of New York will do the right thing and provide the funding necessary for this most vulnerable population of direct caregivers,” the union said in a statement.

[TheMercenary]

More backdoor deals...

http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-wa...ealth-waivers/

[Lamplighter]

More of the same

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

What else am I missing ?

What you are missing is that when various special interest groups, the majority of them darlings of the party that formulated the plan, now see the pain in it and are getting political favors in the form of exceptions to the rule. Namely unions are getting big breaks. If a bill is so great for the masses that these special interest groups, that supported those who passed it, now need it to effect everyone but them, maybe it wasn't such a great bill to start with.

[Lamplighter]

Namely unions are getting big breaks.

Merc, I find it difficult to believe unions such an anathema for you.

Yes, there are some unions in the list of 222,
but there are also insurance companies, corporations, medical centers,
construction companies, maritime associations, religious groups,
manufacturing companies, ...

Do you believe all of these are "darlings of party that formulated the plan"?

But even if you do believe so, it's not issue.
If these organizations are to abide by their own State laws, and their
State-mandated insurance plans are now in conflict with the new Federal laws,
is it not reasonable to allow a 1 yr exemption, or 2 yrs or 3 yrs, for the State laws to be changed ?

Then these organizations ( UNIONS , if you must) can modify their own insurance plans
to be in compliance with both State and Federal laws.
After all, by the end of the 3rd year, all of those exemptions will expire,
and all 222 will have to comply with Federal law.

What is wrong with that ?
Or, what alternative action do you advocate ?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Do you believe all of these are "darlings of party that formulated the plan"?

No but the supported it, and now want breaks.

is it not reasonable to allow a 1 yr exemption, or 2 yrs or 3 yrs, for the State laws to be changed ?

No, no exceptions. They made the bill, no speicial interest groups should get any breaks.

What is wrong with that ?
Or, what alternative action do you advocate ?

Because historically they will get the breaks again and again. I advocate making everyone play by the same rules when it comes to the bonedoggle of a bill.

[Shawnee123]

♪

I'm justa giving the dog a bone
Giving the dog a bone, giving the dog a bone
Giving the dog a bone, giving the dog a bone

♫

[TheMercenary]

Here is the list of those, to date, that don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else:

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations...or_waiver.html

[Lamplighter]

Since all States (and insurers) have the same rights to apply for waiver, and the criteria for waiver are public information, maybe everyone is playing by the same rules.

But then, everyone playing by the same rules seems to be a somewhat flexible rule.

[Shawnee123]

There are many flexible rules. It doesn't matter one iota about right or wrong, no matter all noble professions that it does. All that right or wrong boils down to are two issues: does it benefit ME, or is someone else getting something that I'm not getting?

People who adhere to those two principles often get caught in all sorts of viewpoints that oppose other viewpoints they previously touted, hoping no one would notice.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Since all States (and insurers) have the same rights to apply for waiver, and the criteria for waiver are public information, maybe everyone is playing by the same rules.

So are what you are saying is that if every single group or organization applies for a waiver they will get one?

But then, everyone playing by the same rules seems to be a somewhat flexible rule.

Correct, I support a flat tax over a progressive tax system where everyone pays different amounts, or in the case of the majority who pays none.

[TheMercenary]

A pretty good assessment IMHO.

a snip:

I agree that this is, in fact, the likely outcome of repealing just the mandate--it certainly seems to be what has happened in New York, where they have the guaranteed issue and "community rating" rules without a mandate. (Though, of course, costs are also rising pretty briskly in Massachusetts, where they have all of the above plus a mandate, so use some caution in making predictions). But I don't think that the Supreme Court will ultimately strike down the mandate while leaving the rest intact. If the mandate goes, the Supreme Court will probably also invalidate the provisions that couldn't possibly have been enacted without a mandate. Such as, oh, community rating and guaranteed issue.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...utional/67946/

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Correct, I support a flat tax over a progressive tax system where everyone pays different amounts,
or in the case of the majority who pays none.

So this is where you prefer to go...

A 17 percent rate would apply to all taxable income,
whether the taxpayer is Bill Gates, Steve Forbes or the mechanic who fixes their cars.
B]Investment income would not be taxed at all under the individual tax,
which by itself benefits predominantly higher-income taxpayers.[/b]

A idea brought back from Animal Farm:
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

So this is where you prefer to go...

Generally speaking. Yes. And I would entertain a VAT on certain goods if that is what it takes to get rid of our current system. But I am also realistic to know that the likelihood is close to nil.

A idea brought back from Animal Farm:
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

It is a reality that we live with every day. Something akin to the opposite where "All animals are equal" is really a fantasy. We will never obtain that and I do not advocates such. Only that all the animals, those with lots of hay and a really cool barn, are penalized at the same percentage of their income. I bet if you eliminate the myriad of deductions and took 17% of Bill Gates pay it would be a nice chunk. And I bet the guy making 50k a year wouldn't mind paying $8500 a year if he got a lot more services for his money. But the overhaul would require more than that at the tax system, it would require a cessation of the spending like the stuff the Demoncrats are trying to shove through at the last minute as they get kicked to the curb by the electorate.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

A idea brought back from Animal Farm:
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

A look at your darlings take on it... One law, unequal treatment.

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=174&load=3751