222 Obamacare Waivers

[Lumpy 1]

So... what's the deal.. ?

According to Neal Cavutto.. Fox News.. 222 companies have received waivers from Obamacare, including unions. Hey, weren't the unions the ones telling us that Obamacare was such a great deal?..

------------------------

Union bosses fought tooth and nail to nationalize America’s health care—even, in many cases, to the detriment of their own members. Now, instead of chewing on and swallowing what they bit off, unions are getting waivers to the very plan that they shoved down everyone else’s throat.

1. Service Employees Benefit Fund
2. UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust
3. IBEW No.915
4. Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund
5. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund
6. UFCW Local 227
7. UFCW Maximus Local 455
8. Local 25 SEIU
9. UFCW Local 1262
10. Local 802 Musicians Health Fund
11. Greater Metropolitan Hotel
12. Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund
13. I.U.P.A.T.
14. Transport Workers
15. UFT Welfare Fund
16. UABT

ObamaCare: Union Waiver Favors Pile Up | LaborUnionReport.com

 

[boedicca]

Wow! That's double the total at the beginning of November!

 

[Meister]

WOW! That is incredible, now that politicians have passed it and we are starting to know what's in it.....I guess it really isn't shangri-la like it was packaged to be.
Unions, huh? Go figure.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Wow! That's double the total at the beginning of November!

Yup.. sure looking like another farce to screw average Americans...

Golly.. screwing the "Middle Class" by the Democrats.. could it be?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I predict this will be one thread that will be completely avoided by liberals who support Obama and the HCR

 

[Lumpy 1]

I predict this will be one thread that will be completely avoided by liberals who support Obama and the HCR

Yup.. poor suckers, all that egg on their faces..

 

[Intense]

So... what's the deal.. ?

According to Neal Cavutto.. Fox News.. 222 companies have received waivers from Obamacare, including unions. Hey, weren't the unions the ones telling us that Obamacare was such a great deal?..

------------------------

Union bosses fought tooth and nail to nationalize America’s health care—even, in many cases, to the detriment of their own members. Now, instead of chewing on and swallowing what they bit off, unions are getting waivers to the very plan that they shoved down everyone else’s throat.

1. Service Employees Benefit Fund
2. UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust
3. IBEW No.915
4. Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund
5. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund
6. UFCW Local 227
7. UFCW Maximus Local 455
8. Local 25 SEIU
9. UFCW Local 1262
10. Local 802 Musicians Health Fund
11. Greater Metropolitan Hotel
12. Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund
13. I.U.P.A.T.
14. Transport Workers
15. UFT Welfare Fund
16. UABT

ObamaCare: Union Waiver Favors Pile Up | LaborUnionReport.com

Repeal it and put the damn abomination out of it's misery and ours. What a joke.

 

[Lumpy 1]

So... what's the deal.. ?

According to Neal Cavutto.. Fox News.. 222 companies have received waivers from Obamacare, including unions. Hey, weren't the unions the ones telling us that Obamacare was such a great deal?..

------------------------

Union bosses fought tooth and nail to nationalize America’s health care—even, in many cases, to the detriment of their own members. Now, instead of chewing on and swallowing what they bit off, unions are getting waivers to the very plan that they shoved down everyone else’s throat.

1. Service Employees Benefit Fund
2. UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust
3. IBEW No.915
4. Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund
5. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund
6. UFCW Local 227
7. UFCW Maximus Local 455
8. Local 25 SEIU
9. UFCW Local 1262
10. Local 802 Musicians Health Fund
11. Greater Metropolitan Hotel
12. Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund
13. I.U.P.A.T.
14. Transport Workers
15. UFT Welfare Fund
16. UABT

ObamaCare: Union Waiver Favors Pile Up | LaborUnionReport.com

Repeal it and put the damn abomination out of it's misery and ours. What a joke.

No doubt, it's crumbling...

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Repeal it and put the damn abomination out of it's misery and ours. What a joke.

Well this is going to sound funny...but anyway...all kidding aside - it is a joke.
And the reason this isn't being discussed by all of America?
Just example #10,000,000 of liberal bias in the media.
Just imagine if Pres. Bush would have passed some massive bill, let's say a bill that completely overhauls food safety and he himself signs waivers for 3-4 large companies. It would be on the front page everywhere - it would be item one thru 10 on Olbermanns countdown and Chris Matthews would be ballistic.
But what about this?? The very people who lined up and passed this bill stand in another line to sign waivers for their largest campaign donors.
There cannot be a better example of corruption.

 

[Greenbeard]

Union bosses fought tooth and nail to nationalize America’s health care—even, in many cases, to the detriment of their own members. Now, instead of chewing on and swallowing what they bit off, unions are getting waivers to the very plan that they shoved down everyone else’s throat.

I can't stress enough the importance of learning to use real news sources. What are these waivers waiving? Why do they exist? Nowhere in your "source" will you find that information, which is presumably why you think they're waivers from "ObamaCare" (i.e. the entire law).

These are annual limit waivers. At present, the majority of health plans don't have annual limits in place, but a fraction of health plans do (HHS puts the numbers at 8 percent of large employer plans, 14 percent of small employer plans, and 19 percent of individual market plans). The reform law enacts a policy with bipartisan support: the elimination of annual limits in health plans (phased in over a three year period). I say it has bipartisan support 1) because it does, and 2) because virtually the exact same proposal appears in the Republican repeal-and-replace bill. The Republican proposal is actually slightly more aggressive than the Democrats' because it takes effect immediately, whereas the Dem policy has that multi-year phase-in.

So why are there waivers? Primarily it's because the entire law has a multi-year phase-in. The guidance for seeking an annual limit waiver says plans can get a waiver if compliance will cause "significant decrease in access to benefits" or a "significant increase in premiums." This is significant now because the alternatives to low-benefit/low payout plans don't yet exist (health insurance exchanges are still a few years away), though they will. So OCIIO released additional guidance to lay out some of the key factors they'll be considering in determining if an application meets the criteria just mentioned:

1. The application’s explanation as to how compliance with the restriction on annual limits would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits. Such a decrease in access could result from the dropping of coverage by a plan or plan insolvency if the waiver is not granted.
2. The policy's current annual limits. Plans with higher annual limits would be expected to experience lower premium increases to become compliant with the IFR’s restricted annual limit requirement than plans with lower limits.
3. The change in premium in percentage terms. The lower the percentage increase estimated to achieve compliance, the less likely compliance with the IFR would be found to be “significant.”
4. The change in premium in absolute dollar terms. While the percentage increase noted in item 3 above can be relevant to the determination of whether an increase is “significant,” for policies with very low premiums, an increase in premiums on a percentage basis may still translate to a small increase in absolute dollar terms and therefore may not be “significant.”
5. The number and type of benefits affected by the annual limit. Some policies have limits on only some essential health benefits, such as prescription drugs. For example, while increasing the annual limits on prescription drugs to $750,000 may increase the portion of the premium related to drug coverage significantly, it may not significantly increase the overall cost of health insurance for enrollees.
6. The number of enrollees under the plan seeking the waiver.

There is disagreement as to whether these waivers should be issued; certain prominent Congressional Democrats are arguing that mini-med (i.e. extremely limited) plans should not receive this short-term exemption from the annual limit waivers because, in their view, those plans are worse than having no plan at all. The administration obviously disagrees.

That is incredible, now that politicians have passed it and we are starting to know what's in it.

Do you guys ever cut that shit out? The elimination of annual limits isn't some secret provision. Remember when the President appeared before a joint session of Congress in September of 2009 to talk about the health care bills? You know, that speech where he said:

Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. (Applause.) As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most. (Applause.) They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. (Applause.) We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. (Applause.) And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies -- (applause) -- because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse.

The Democrats sure pulled a fast one, laying out this provision in a prime time, nationally televised speech. Get a grip, would you?

 

[Lumpy 1]

Just a little more info... plenty more at the link..

It’s all about control. If central planners can’t dictate what health benefits qualify as “good,” what plans qualify as “affordable” and how health care dollars are best spent, then nobody can. The ultimate goal, of course: precipitating a massive shift from private to government insurance.

McDonald’s, Olive Garden, Red Lobster and Jack in the Box are among the large, headline-garnering employers who received the temporary waivers. But perhaps the most politically noteworthy beneficiaries of the HHS waiver program: Big Labor.

The Service Employees Benefit Fund, which insures a total of 12,000 SEIU health care workers in upstate New York, secured its Obamacare exemption in October. The Local 25 SEIU Welfare Fund in Chicago also nabbed a waiver for 31,000 of its enrollees. SEIU, of course, was one of Obamacare’s loudest and biggest spending proponents. The waivers come on top of the massive sweetheart deal that SEIU and other unions cut with the Obama administration to exempt them from the health care mandate’s onerous “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health care plans until 2018.

Michelle Malkin Dude, where’s my Obamacare waiver?

 

[Intense]

Repeal it and put the damn abomination out of it's misery and ours. What a joke.

Well this is going to sound funny...but anyway...all kidding aside - it is a joke.
And the reason this isn't being discussed by all of America?
Just example #10,000,000 of liberal bias in the media.
Just imagine if Pres. Bush would have passed some massive bill, let's say a bill that completely overhauls food safety and he himself signs waivers for 3-4 large companies. It would be on the front page everywhere - it would be item one thru 10 on Olbermanns countdown and Chris Matthews would be ballistic.
But what about this?? The very people who lined up and passed this bill stand in another line to sign waivers for their largest campaign donors.
There cannot be a better example of corruption.

The Rangel Censure.

 

[Jeremy]

.... The guidance for seeking an annual limit waiver says plans can get a waiver if compliance will cause "significant decrease in access to benefits" or a "significant increase in premiums." .....

Oh but how could that be?

I thought the glorious Obamacare was supposed to make both of those things better for everyone?

No? Ok than. Thanks for supporting the point of the OP.

 

[boedicca]

We have to give ObamaCare credit for one thing: it's a stark and obvious metaphor for Big Government Cronyism.

Virtually everything being done by our government these days is funded by the poor suckers who play by the rules and pay their own bills, while the free loaders and parasites get the government to do the mugging on their behalf and are exempt from the rules.

 

[Greenbeard]

.... The guidance for seeking an annual limit waiver says plans can get a waiver if compliance will cause "significant decrease in access to benefits" or a "significant increase in premiums." .....

Oh but how could that be?

I thought the glorious Obamacare was supposed to make both of those things better for everyone?

No? Ok than. Thanks for supporting the point of the OP.

Again, this is the point. The mechanisms to provide fuller benefits and make insurance more affordable for low-to-middle income Americans won't be in place until 2014. The annual limits are gradually phased out over the next three years leading up to 2014.

That disparity in timelines is the reason temporary waivers from the annual limit phase-out are being granted to plans that can demonstrate a significant negative impact in the short term from that disparity. What's confusing about this?

 

[boedicca]

What's confusing?

The fact that there won't be enough SUPPLY at LOW COSTS to make this fantasy come true.

 

[Intense]

What's confusing?

The fact that there won't be enough SUPPLY at LOW COSTS to make this fantasy come true.

I think maybe Government Bureaucrat's should learn to work for less and do more themselves.

 

[KMAN]

Obamacare is so popular that we are up to 222 companies that have the right to opt out.

WTH? Libs, you should be pissed that Obama is letting BIG Corporations get out of this! Where is the outrage?


More Health Waivers | Jamie Dupree Washington Insider

 

[Intense]

Merged.

 

[Claudette]

Hmm.

Didn't see any of the backers of this clusterfuck on here defending the hell out of it.

All except Greeney that is. LOL