wait what?
I thought the vast majority of waivers were for those companies offering the most minimal of coverage ....

They are!

the "mini med" programs, ones that offer basic coverage but not for serious illness, it is these programs that have annual limits that are under the current threshold, $750,000. As such, they are not in compliance with the law at this date. So, what do you do when you're not in compliance? You have to get into compliance. To be able to offer the program with higher limits, at or above the minimum 750k, there are only two ways to do it: raise premiums or restrict costs (read: access). Both of these methods are specifically forbidden by the rules. So, the employer is stuck. The answer is a waiver.

These waivers are for annual limits only, and last for only one year.

In the meantime, the intent is to give the employers that aren't in compliance time to make the transition to plans that ARE in compliance. It would be like.. hm... I drive a little VW Golf. If I needed to carry a much higher load than what it was designed for, I'd either have to increase the power or make more trips with smaller loads (raise power/premium or reduce load/access). My little car wasn't designed for such a purpose. But if I had some time to get my shit together to carry such a load, I could do so, but in the meantime, I'd want a waiver.

The analogy isn't perfect I know. But the plans that got waivers weren't designed in the first place as comprehensive health care plans. They're ok for what they are, but you can't make a Mack truck out of a Matchbox, y'know?

eta:

Here's the link to the facts about the waivers. http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations...or_waiver.html

also, I'm takin a poke at mercy for excerpting and bolding the part about "oooo Obama's supporters are getting special treatment". It's bogus, and I'm calling him on it.

The fact that the statistic is in "employees" rather than "plans" looks cherry-picked to me. Employees don't get waivers, employers do.

right, exactly THREEE MILLLION is OMGEE.. come on.

Here is the paragraph from my employer based health care plan (former employer) on this subject:

As you can see, my insurance provider was able to meeth this new legal requirement without causing a large increase in premiums or a large decrease in access to coverage, therefore, they did not need a waiver.

Doesn't it make more sense to speak of the number of people affected rather than the number of employees?

Most of those getting waivers are political supporters of Obama, and as the article so nicely points out, most of them either exist within the same voting blocks as major Demoncratic political players or are Union oriented.

If Obamacare was so bad for these people how can it be good for the rest of us who don't get waivers? Isn't Obamacare suppose to operate by everyone participating?

If Obamacare is to be supported by the participation of all, why should anyone get a pass and a waiver?

Sometimes, but the accusation seems to be directed at the organizations or the administration for supposedly favoring friendly organizations, and then suddenly switches over to employees when it gets to statistics.

Maybe it's justified, but there's precious little hard info in the article, and the switch from talking about organiztions to employees when justifying their accusations of bias raises a red flag to me.

That makes sense, but I think it is also appropriate to see if the organizations that are getting temporary waivers have a large population which would impact things or whatever. It may be more out of curiosity, but still I think looking at who they are is one aspect and the number of people is another. Both important yet not mutually exclusive either.

Alright, mercy. I'm calling you out. Let's have your cite to support your claim "most of those getting waivers are political supporters of Obama". Put up or shut up. I've given everyone the link that lists the 700-odd organizations that have gotten waivers. I'll repeat it here: http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations...or_waiver.html Now, which of them are "political supporters of Obama"? And how can you show that? Because it has the words "Local 123" in the name? By the way, let us keep in mind that it is the ORGANIZATION that gets the waiver, not individuals, not actual voters.

Furthermore, the implication of some kind of political favoritism, the illogic of such a claim based on this "evidence" cuts both ways. Why aren't you saying that the other eleventy-zillion businesses that DIDN'T get waivers are McCain/Palin supporters? Ridiculous, right? Or, let's do the math on it. Let's say all of the 733 waiver-receiver are all Obama-bots. He raised about $745 MILLION dollars for his 2008 campaign. Are you saying each of these outfits kicked in over a million dollars for his campaign? No? Then what about me? Where's my political payoff? **I** voted for him! I want my whateverwaiver.

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.

Also--at that same link, you'll see that for each outfit that got a waiver, the number of people covered by the organization's plan is also listed. There are a few of them that have thousands of covered people, but the majority of them have only hundreds, not big outfits. Small plans, small populations, small scale, small dollar, small market. There are four oufits with large populations > 100,000 and two outfits with >= 50,00 and < 100,000 enrollees. All the other 727 waiver recipients have fewer than 50,000 enrollees, most of them far fewer.

That's a little over a million enrollees, leaving the rest of the 727 to divvy up the remaining million enrollees.

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.

Hmmmm. Are these numbers from investigative reporters or the RNC? Just wondering.

What numbers?!?

The actual list of receivers of waivers is right there in the link. Such a claim as you quoted is the perfect kind of lie. It's subjective, fuzzy, unproveable. And the worst part is the insinuation of some kind of corruption. I suppose you could count the number of waivers, and if you divided them into two piles one would be more than the other. But how are you going to define "political supporters of Obama"? Lots of groups make financial donations to BOTH parties. How does that compute?

and my quote is there because?

So 1/2 of them are from the 6 that that bought Obama?

:stickpoke :runaway:

your quote's there because I answered your question and mercy's question. mercy first, you second.

Are you referring to the top six in V's post, including Cigna and Aetna, both of which contributed more to Republicans than Democrats?

Many of the large fast food joints (McDonalds, etc) got waivers because they have a signficant number of part time workers, who at best, get a mini-plan that could not meet the new benefit caps and w/o the waiver would have to drop even that little coverage provided....and their association PAC opposed the bill.

The stink over the temporary waivers to "friends of Obama" is just more of the same stink coming from those opposed to the bill from the start, not on merit, but on misrepresentation.