Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[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.

[TheMercenary]

Have fun!

[Fair&Balanced]

I guess wont you wont be answering Vs question either.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by mercy

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

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.

Originally Posted by mercy

There is an overwhelming number of Unions with huge memberships getting the break.

come on man, where are you getting your information AND I want to talk about what it means "break" "huge". What about it?

Originally Posted by mercy

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.

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.

you make a statement, but you don't back it up. I think that's because the people who write the stuff you read are doing the same thing.

[TheMercenary]

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.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

I think this is a seriously mistaken oversimplification. Why wouldn't there be a single union-sponsored health insurance plan on that list? Really. why not?

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.

this is a good one. I do think there will be an end to these breaks, and here's why. All laws we make at the state and federal level have some kind of introductory period, usually in months. The PPACA has a lead in time where different aspects of the law are being phased in over different periods of time. I think this is appropriate. The instant and immediate introduction of such a sweeping would cause a huge amount of disruption, all of which is avoidable, by making the rules applicable in a gradual, but definite and finite manner.

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?

there are no costs transferred when there are no costs. Imagine--I have a health plan, one that meets these kinds of requirements that would justify a waiver. "Mini-med" plans, ones that have a $750,000 lifetime cap on benefits. I seriously doubt that there is very much health care delivered to these folks ABOVE the cap that goes unpaid for, and presumably cost transferred to you. Who pays these costs? The patient incurs them, but who pays? the hospital? that then charges more for insured patients? Including the original underinsured patients? Where does that extra cost come out of? Ah, you discuss costs next. Good!

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.

Soon, when the waiver period is over, there won't be any more waivers. The costs will be borne by the insured. I think this latest round of fucking insane increases is the last gasp gouge by the insurance companies. They're not regulated for profit, and tha's unfortunate, because I think most of the difference in the cost for equivalent healthcare in our system compared to equivalent health care in other systems is due to two main factors.

1 -- healthcare as a for profit enterprise is the main driver of making stuff expensive. If my margin is 5%, then I make more money if I make the basis for that 5% markup as huge as possible.

2 -- we have a healthcare payment system that is stupefyingly complex and that complexity adds friction and cost at every point of contact. As these points are reduced in number, the costs will be reduced as well.

Ah you say, so much more for the insurance company! Sure. Until another aspect of PPACA comes into play: the requirement that (don't quote me on this, it's not covered in my own feces, merely my own memory) 80% of a company's cash flow (or some such damn word) be dedicated to patient care.

No more CRANKING up the premiums, unless of course, they're paying more in benefits. This will put a natural cap on increases like the ones you describe. Now I'm a capitalist, yay money. I am. But there's a serious, a FUNDAMENTAL disconnect with insurance, it's like a bet. I bet I will claim, get my money back plus some, and the company bets I won't. this bet times one bazillion subscribers usually generates a profit for the company. the house edge if you will, paid to the people that have the actuarial tables. Limiting profits in this way is NOT unAmerican, not unprecedented. Healthcare is making the transition in peoples' minds today from something we can choose to have or not, to something that is considered more... intrinsic. more fundamental. more "inalienable". And some services we already enjoy being provided by FOR PROFIT companies is being regulated this way. think of Utilities. I think health care insurance providers occupy the same space as an electric company or the gas company or the water utility. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's apt. They can make a profit and still be regulated and still provide the service to a large diverse population. We're already doing it.

Not a single Union should get a break and no company should get a break either.

I think it is fine for you to have that opinion, I appreciate the simplicity of such a "rule". I don't think it is practical though, and in a couple years the point will be moot anyhow.

"... 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.

Well, man, those kinds of increases are definitely significant in my book, no question. Why your plan didn't get a waiver (presuming it did not) may well be because it doesn't have a lifetime limit of under $750,000. Of course, that's just a guess.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

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

cite, please.

From your link.

Employment-Based Coverage: The vast majority – 712 plans representing 97 percent of all waivers – were granted to health plans that are employment-related.

Three groups are listed.

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

[BigV]

what three groups are you talking about, please?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

what three groups are you talking about, please?

From your link:

■Self-Insured Employer Plans Applicants: Employer-based health plans received most of the waivers – 359.
■Collectively-Bargained Employer-Based Plan Applicants: Most of the other health plans receiving waivers are multi-employer health funds created by a collective bargaining agreement between a union and two or more employers, pursuant to the Taft-Hartley Act. These “union plans” are employment based group health plans and operate for the sole benefit of workers. They tend to be larger than other typical group health plans because they cover multiple employers. There are also single-employer union plans that have received a waiver. In total, 182 collectively-bargained plans have received waivers.
■Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs): HRAs are employer-funded group health plans where employees are reimbursed tax-free for qualified medical expenses up to a maximum dollar amount for a coverage period. In total, HHS has approved 171 applications for waivers for HRAs.

Group 2 are Unions. Does not describe the number they represent (ie. I know they are not 1/3 of the waivers in this sub category). For me it is not the number, it is that they would be granted a waiver at all for any reason. Let them all pay like the rest of us!

[Fair&Balanced]

So the Wash Times column you posted and highlighted claiming that union members got 50.3 percent of all waivers, was (in your words) "utterly false."

[classicman]

Where is that black and white .gif with the whole crowd clapping ...

Insert <here> please

& thanks

[TheMercenary]

What is the purpose of a "wavier" in this situation. Anyone feel free to provide their own response.

Remember, "waiver's" have only been offered because there was no "Government Option" insurance plan for these big and little groups to dump their insured on because they did not want to pay for it..... so they had to give an out to some select groups.

SO..... why have waivers at all?????? Why not say FU Off, everyone plays by the same rules?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

What is the purpose of a "wavier" in this situation. Anyone feel free to provide their own response.

What situation?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

What situation?

The current "situation", mandated healthcare for every person where everyone is mandated by Federal Law to buy something from commercial enterprises, well except those who can curry favors via the Obamy connections, and the rest of us. Here is the deal.... There is no fall back "Government Option" for the cheap rates to fall back on.... and as I stated NUMEROUS times, what would stop companies, like McDonald's, from dumping their low cost insurance plans onto the "Government Option"? vs, just paying the penalty? Or conversely, just doing the right thing and giving the workers the insurance they should have been giving them all along? Oh, nooooooooo.... fuck that, let the public pic up the tab and pay the fine....

Well guess what, right now there is no public option. This is nothing more than an attempt to set up the stage to push us to that very thing. Not only a public option but a total Government take over of the industry (Read here: my conspiracy theory). I believe it. In 10 years call me a crack pot, or if there is complete control by the government of health care, call me a Visionary. Whatever. I don't care. Eventually, IMHO, if Obama is re-elected, there will be a Gov Option Health Insurance Plan, and that is, IMHO, one step away from a Socialized Medicine design like Canada or the UK. There is no doubt this is exactly what this Administration envisions. If nothing less they are in bed with the insurance companies to force people to buy insurance so they can say everyone is insured. At what cost? So my single dau who can't get a waiver is forced to buy insurance that she cannot afford? While a Public Section Union worker who has lived off the tit of the American Taxpayer for years gets a "Waiver"?!?!? WTF?

This system is domed to fail.

Anyone but Obamy in 2012.

Oh and Pelosi is still a cunt.

[TheMercenary]

A perfect example of what a load of shit Pelosi, et. al. pushed through for Obamacare.....

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6596282.story