Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[classicman]

F&B - STFU please - Its a joke - JFC you're an ass.

[Fair&Balanced]

now, now.

Dont get all defensive because I added a few facts to the discussion.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by BigV

CIGNA 265,000
United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund 351,000
Aetna 209,423
BCS Insurance 115,000
WageWorks, Inc 50,000
American Heritage Life Insurance Company 69,945

I find it hysterical that 3 of those 6 are actual health insurance companies. They are getting waivers so they don't have to provide for their own employees what the government is making them provide to the rest of the country.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I find it hysterical that 3 of those 6 are actual health insurance companies. They are getting waivers so they don't have to provide for their own employees what the government is making them provide to the rest of the country.

I dont think these companies are getting waivers so that they dont have to provide for their own employees.

The temporary waiver is for many of their small business customers who provide limited benefit plans that cannot meet the first phase of regulatory standards in place and, without the waiver, those small businesses would likely drop the limited insurance for their employees.

[Clodfobble]

Are you saying that when it says "Aetna" got a waiver, it's actually Joe's Mechanic Shop (who uses Aetna for their employees' health plan) that got a waiver? That doesn't sound right, since plenty of other companies in the list are not insurance companies. The list is of companies that received waivers for their own employees.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Are you saying that when it says "Aetna" got a waiver, it's actually Joe's Mechanic Shop (who uses Aetna for their employees' health plan) that got a waiver? That doesn't sound right, since plenty of other companies in the list are not insurance companies. The list is of companies that received waivers for their own employees.

Yep. Thats what I am saying.

It is easier for Aetna to file on behalf of those customers than for each customer to go through the process itself.

Cigna and Aetna Inc. are the top U.S. providers of the (limited benefit) plans, said Lindsay Shearer, a Cigna spokeswoman, in an e-mail. Cigna’s plans cover about 1,700 clients and about 250,000 people, she said.

..

Aetna has already received a waiver for some its customer from the annual benefits cap, said Fred Laberge, a spokesman for the Hartford, Connecticut-based insurer. “We’ve worked with HHS and will continue trying to ensure employers and employees in limited-benefit plans can keep” their benefits, he said in an interview. He couldn’t immediately say how many people Aetna covers under the plans.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...n-waivers.html

Those limited benefit plans, primarily directed at part-time and low wage employees, are not much of a health plan at all, but better than nothing until more options are available when the full program kicks in in 2014.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Dont get all defensive because I argued with a joke.

Not defensive at all. I'm just stating a fact. You're being an asshole.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by BigV

I explained already the reasons for a waiver. There's no political affiliation checkbox that I know of. If you're suggesting there is, you should prove it...
.
.
.
Honestly? I doubt this post will change any minds. I'm a little too tired to "convert" anybody. But for that group of people who haven't decided, and that value facts over innuendo, this kind of data may prove useful. If that is the case, then I'm satisfied.

All one can do is post the facts and shrug off the rest.

Some will be receptive and others have their own agenda.

[Fair&Balanced]

Re-framing the issue:

The waivers, for the most part, apply to plans that cannot meet the new requirement (among the first provisions put in place last year) that plans must now offer a minimum annual benefit limit of $750,000 (and rising for the next 3 years).

As an example, McDonalds received a waiver for its limited benefit plans (not all of its plans) that offers its employees a plan w/ $10,000 annual limit for about $20-25/month. Without the waiver, McDonalds drops this option and low wage employees either have to pay for a higher benefit plan or no plan.

So, the question is:
Is a low benefit plan (getting the waiver) better than no plan for low wage employees? At least until more affordable options are available when the law is put fully in place.

I would say yes, but not enthusiastically. The one additional requirement of the waiver that I think is at least helpful to some degree is it requires McDonalds to notify employees in those plans of the limits of the benefits in BOLD LARGE TYPE so the employees who didnt read the fine print before at least know that they have very limited coverage.

Hardly a perfect temporary solution, but still better than no coverage at all.

[Clodfobble]

Ugh. This entire system of employer-provided health care plans is bullshit. Individuals should be able to shop for the benefits they want among competing providers, just like auto insurance.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Ugh. This entire system of employer-provided health care plans is bullshit. Individuals should be able to shop for the benefits they want among competing providers, just like auto insurance.

I agree with you completely.

The problem is that the employer based system is so entrenched that it is impractical and nearly impossible to change it all at once, particularly since employers are paying, on average, about 2/3 of premium costs for employees.

It will take more that just increased competition, but some regulation of costs/benefits as well.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Re-framing the issue:

The waivers, for the most part, apply to plans that cannot meet the new requirement (among the first provisions put in place last year) that plans must now offer a minimum annual benefit limit of $750,000 (and rising for the next 3 years).

As an example, McDonalds received a waiver for its limited benefit plans (not all of its plans) that offers its employees a plan w/ $10,000 annual limit for about $20-25/month. Without the waiver, McDonalds drops this option and low wage employees either have to pay for a higher benefit plan or no plan.

What a bunch of propaganda.

[BigV]

Hey mercy, welcome back. I hope you had a great time in the Bahamas. I'd love to visit there someday.

Would you like to continue the conversation from a few posts up where I challenge you to cite your sources for your claim about the waivers? I'd still like to hear the facts behind such a statement. I look forward to hearing from you.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

Hey mercy, welcome back. I hope you had a great time in the Bahamas. I'd love to visit there someday.

Would you like to continue the conversation from a few posts up where I challenge you to cite your sources for your claim about the waivers? I'd still like to hear the facts behind such a statement. I look forward to hearing from you.

97% of the waivers went to three groups, one of which is "Collectively-Bargained Employer-Based Plan Applicants:".

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...cratic-voting/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...DDLETopStories

Our attempts at independent confirmation were difficult, because unions do not have to report all of their campaign spending to the Federal Election Commission, according to independent campaign finance experts.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...on-obama-2008/

Politifact stated they cannnot confirm the amounts because unions don't have to disclose what they gave, so they cannot say it is not true. I think most clear thinking people would agree that the majority of Unions overwhelmingly supported Obama. There is an overwhelming number of Unions with huge memberships getting the break.

Now how about those insurance companies. "About 20 percent of Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance had a high-deductible plan in 2009, according to the researchers."

http://health.usnews.com/health-news...s-to-all-study

Bottom line it this. It is more duplicity among Obamy and his cronies. No one should get a break for this to work the way he wants it to. The more people that get relief from paying only transfers the costs to that majority that already carry the majority of the burden of taxation in this country. When nearly 49% of people pay little to no income tax we have a problem, they are Zero Liability Voters.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

What a bunch of propaganda.

Please explain how the McDonalds example or the waivers applying to limited benefit plans is propaganda.

Thanks.