Aetna, Cigna, United Health and Teacher Union Gets Obamacare Waiver

[TemplarKormac]

I promise you, I understand how flawed Obamacare is. But 1-year extensions for annual benefit caps are completely meaningless, and not examples of these "flaws".

It's a fucking awful law.

But that doesn't justify believing everything you hear about it. It's a matter of critical thinking.

Quick question Doc. You keep saying it's an awful law, but then you are for the second time in four days defending it's validity, so is it awful or not, Doc? It seems to me as if you are defending it not deriding it. My critical thinking skills are just fine, but with all due respect Doc, you sound very conflicted at the moment.

I feel like I've made my position clear, but I'll try to explain it.

What you are considering "defending the law's validity" is, actually me "defending" being honest.

I think that Obamacare will do almost nothing to solve any of the healthcare issues in this country. I think it's a giveaway to insurance companies and Big Pharma, and it's a corporate whore law written by a corporate whore Congress and and a corporate whore President.

But I feel justified in my dislike of Obamacare because I actually understand it - at least conversationally - and I have little tolerance for bullshit and those who swallow it, even if I agree with them in a more overall sense.

Obamacare isn't the end of the world. It's not going to destroy the economy, it's not going to destroy the insurance industry, it's not going to make you lose your insurance.

It's just not really going to solve anything - and it's going to cost a lot of money. Those are legitimate reasons to dislike Obamacare.

You don't need to lie about it.

Whoa, who said I was lying?

You are continually correcting people on Obamacare, then right out of the blue, you throw at them "actual" facts about the law that they seemingly didn't know. That kind of behavior indicates to me that you are defending it. Honesty, yeah, you want people to be honest about the law. That kind of language is defensive, not suggestive.

To me, you are suddenly changing positions when questioned on the subject. And to be honest, I highly doubt you took the time to read through all 2,700 pages of that law from first page to last. It takes more than a conversational knowledge of the law to to keep people honest about it.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I promise you, I understand how flawed Obamacare is. But 1-year extensions for annual benefit caps are completely meaningless, and not examples of these "flaws".

It's a fucking awful law.

But that doesn't justify believing everything you hear about it. It's a matter of critical thinking.

Quick question Doc. You keep saying it's an awful law, but then you are for the second time in four days defending it's validity, so is it awful or not, Doc? It seems to me as if you are defending it not deriding it. My critical thinking skills are just fine, but with all due respect Doc, you sound very conflicted at the moment.

I feel like I've made my position clear, but I'll try to explain it.

What you are considering "defending the law's validity" is, actually me "defending" being honest.

I think that Obamacare will do almost nothing to solve any of the healthcare issues in this country. I think it's a giveaway to insurance companies and Big Pharma, and it's a corporate whore law written by a corporate whore Congress and and a corporate whore President.

But I feel justified in my dislike of Obamacare because I actually understand it - at least conversationally - and I have little tolerance for bullshit and those who swallow it, even if I agree with them in a more overall sense.

Obamacare isn't the end of the world. It's not going to destroy the economy, it's not going to destroy the insurance industry, it's not going to make you lose your insurance.

It's just not really going to solve anything - and it's going to cost a lot of money. Those are legitimate reasons to dislike Obamacare.

You don't need to lie about it.

I have worked in healthcare for many years and currently work in an ER. Obamacare will put very sick people in risk pools with the rest of us. The net consequence is the vast majority of people in these risk pools will pay much more in healthcare premiums. That is obvious, as I'm sure you would agree.

The waiver system is not clear. You claimed there was only one type of waiver, I provided evidence that proved you wrong. You claim no States have waivers, there is abundant proof you are wrong. The reality is, you do not know what type of waivers these 1,000 plus entities have. To claim you do is patently false. You have also provided no justification as to why these waivers exist. You are clearly defending them, but it is not clear what you are defending.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I know, it would be simpler if I just believed everything bad about Obamacare that I read on the internet - after all, everything on the internet is true, and since Obamacare is evil, it must be true.

Right?

Did I ever say Obama was evil? I don't like him or his policies, but I have not once called him evil. I usually stay away from sites the OP used, but I decided to do a little digging rather than so easily dismiss it. To do so would have been very intellectually dishonest.

I said "Obamacare", not "Obama".

But it was hyperbole, either way.

Yes indeed.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Quick question Doc. You keep saying it's an awful law, but then you are for the second time in four days defending it's validity, so is it awful or not, Doc? It seems to me as if you are defending it not deriding it. My critical thinking skills are just fine, but with all due respect Doc, you sound very conflicted at the moment.

I feel like I've made my position clear, but I'll try to explain it.

What you are considering "defending the law's validity" is, actually me "defending" being honest.

I think that Obamacare will do almost nothing to solve any of the healthcare issues in this country. I think it's a giveaway to insurance companies and Big Pharma, and it's a corporate whore law written by a corporate whore Congress and and a corporate whore President.

But I feel justified in my dislike of Obamacare because I actually understand it - at least conversationally - and I have little tolerance for bullshit and those who swallow it, even if I agree with them in a more overall sense.

Obamacare isn't the end of the world. It's not going to destroy the economy, it's not going to destroy the insurance industry, it's not going to make you lose your insurance.

It's just not really going to solve anything - and it's going to cost a lot of money. Those are legitimate reasons to dislike Obamacare.

You don't need to lie about it.

Whoa, who said I was lying?

Not what I meant. I was speaking in a general sense, not directed to you.

You are continually correcting people on Obamacare, then right out of the blue, you throw at them "actual" facts about the law that they seemingly didn't know. That kind of behavior indicates to me that you are defending it. Honesty, yeah, you want people to be honest about the law. That kind of language is defensive, not suggestive.

I don't understand. Do you think that I'm secretly a big Obamacare fan, and I'm just pretending to dislike it?

Why would I lie about that? What possible reason could there be?

To me, you are suddenly changing positions when questioned on the subject. And to be honest, I highly doubt you took the time to read through all 2,700 pages of that law from first page to last. It takes more than a conversational knowledge of the law to to keep people honest about it.

Of course I haven't read the entire law.

But every time another ridiculous, on it's face nonsensical scary claim about Obamacare comes out, I look up another relevant section of the actual law, and do my research. It doesn't take much, and it's almost always mostly bullshit.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I feel like I've made my position clear, but I'll try to explain it.

What you are considering "defending the law's validity" is, actually me "defending" being honest.

I think that Obamacare will do almost nothing to solve any of the healthcare issues in this country. I think it's a giveaway to insurance companies and Big Pharma, and it's a corporate whore law written by a corporate whore Congress and and a corporate whore President.

But I feel justified in my dislike of Obamacare because I actually understand it - at least conversationally - and I have little tolerance for bullshit and those who swallow it, even if I agree with them in a more overall sense.

Obamacare isn't the end of the world. It's not going to destroy the economy, it's not going to destroy the insurance industry, it's not going to make you lose your insurance.

It's just not really going to solve anything - and it's going to cost a lot of money. Those are legitimate reasons to dislike Obamacare.

You don't need to lie about it.

Whoa, who said I was lying?

Not what I meant. I was speaking in a general sense, not directed to you.

You are continually correcting people on Obamacare, then right out of the blue, you throw at them "actual" facts about the law that they seemingly didn't know. That kind of behavior indicates to me that you are defending it. Honesty, yeah, you want people to be honest about the law. That kind of language is defensive, not suggestive.

I don't understand. Do you think that I'm secretly a big Obamacare fan, and I'm just pretending to dislike it?

Why would I lie about that? What possible reason could there be?

To me, you are suddenly changing positions when questioned on the subject. And to be honest, I highly doubt you took the time to read through all 2,700 pages of that law from first page to last. It takes more than a conversational knowledge of the law to to keep people honest about it.

Of course I haven't read the entire law.

But every time another ridiculous, on it's face nonsensical scary claim about Obamacare comes out, I look up another relevant section of the actual law, and do my research. It doesn't take much, and it's almost always mostly bullshit.

No offense, but the fact you claimed there was only one type of waiver, and that no States are participating in any type of waiver, indicate you have no fucking idea what your taking about. Try reading some more.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Quick question Doc. You keep saying it's an awful law, but then you are for the second time in four days defending it's validity, so is it awful or not, Doc? It seems to me as if you are defending it not deriding it. My critical thinking skills are just fine, but with all due respect Doc, you sound very conflicted at the moment.

I feel like I've made my position clear, but I'll try to explain it.

What you are considering "defending the law's validity" is, actually me "defending" being honest.

I think that Obamacare will do almost nothing to solve any of the healthcare issues in this country. I think it's a giveaway to insurance companies and Big Pharma, and it's a corporate whore law written by a corporate whore Congress and and a corporate whore President.

But I feel justified in my dislike of Obamacare because I actually understand it - at least conversationally - and I have little tolerance for bullshit and those who swallow it, even if I agree with them in a more overall sense.

Obamacare isn't the end of the world. It's not going to destroy the economy, it's not going to destroy the insurance industry, it's not going to make you lose your insurance.

It's just not really going to solve anything - and it's going to cost a lot of money. Those are legitimate reasons to dislike Obamacare.

You don't need to lie about it.

I have worked in healthcare for many years and currently work in an ER. Obamacare will put very sick people in risk pools with the rest of us. The net consequence is the vast majority of people in these risk pools will pay much more in healthcare premiums. That is obvious, as I'm sure you would agree.

The waiver system is not clear. You claimed there was only one type of waiver, I provided evidence that proved you wrong. You claim no States have waivers, there is abundant proof you are wrong. The reality is, you do not know what type of waivers these 1,000 plus entities have. To claim you do is patently false. You have also provided no justification as to why these waivers exist. You are clearly defending them, but it is not clear what you are defending.

I do know - and so should you, it's been posted in this thread.

It's all laid out pretty clearly on the CMS website Templar posted early. Feel free to examine the list yourself.

http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Files/approved_applications_for_waiver.html:

 

[WelfareQueen]

I feel like I've made my position clear, but I'll try to explain it.

What you are considering "defending the law's validity" is, actually me "defending" being honest.

I think that Obamacare will do almost nothing to solve any of the healthcare issues in this country. I think it's a giveaway to insurance companies and Big Pharma, and it's a corporate whore law written by a corporate whore Congress and and a corporate whore President.

But I feel justified in my dislike of Obamacare because I actually understand it - at least conversationally - and I have little tolerance for bullshit and those who swallow it, even if I agree with them in a more overall sense.

Obamacare isn't the end of the world. It's not going to destroy the economy, it's not going to destroy the insurance industry, it's not going to make you lose your insurance.

It's just not really going to solve anything - and it's going to cost a lot of money. Those are legitimate reasons to dislike Obamacare.

You don't need to lie about it.

I have worked in healthcare for many years and currently work in an ER. Obamacare will put very sick people in risk pools with the rest of us. The net consequence is the vast majority of people in these risk pools will pay much more in healthcare premiums. That is obvious, as I'm sure you would agree.

The waiver system is not clear. You claimed there was only one type of waiver, I provided evidence that proved you wrong. You claim no States have waivers, there is abundant proof you are wrong. The reality is, you do not know what type of waivers these 1,000 plus entities have. To claim you do is patently false. You have also provided no justification as to why these waivers exist. You are clearly defending them, but it is not clear what you are defending.

I do know - and so should you, it's been posted in this thread.

It's all laid out pretty clearly on the CMS website Templar posted early. Feel free to examine the list yourself.

http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Files/approved_applications_for_waiver.html:

Please explain in detail. Thanks. And also explain why you're defending it. Thanks again.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Whoa, who said I was lying?

Not what I meant. I was speaking in a general sense, not directed to you.



I don't understand. Do you think that I'm secretly a big Obamacare fan, and I'm just pretending to dislike it?

Why would I lie about that? What possible reason could there be?

To me, you are suddenly changing positions when questioned on the subject. And to be honest, I highly doubt you took the time to read through all 2,700 pages of that law from first page to last. It takes more than a conversational knowledge of the law to to keep people honest about it.

Of course I haven't read the entire law.

But every time another ridiculous, on it's face nonsensical scary claim about Obamacare comes out, I look up another relevant section of the actual law, and do my research. It doesn't take much, and it's almost always mostly bullshit.

No offense, but the fact you claimed there was only one type of waiver, and that no States are participating in any type of waiver, indicate you have no fucking idea what your taking about. Try reading some more.

The only source that claims there are "six" types of waivers is a 3-year old policy paper from a think tank. According to the CMS website cited above, there's only one kind of waiver.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I feel like I've made my position clear, but I'll try to explain it.

What you are considering "defending the law's validity" is, actually me "defending" being honest.

I think that Obamacare will do almost nothing to solve any of the healthcare issues in this country. I think it's a giveaway to insurance companies and Big Pharma, and it's a corporate whore law written by a corporate whore Congress and and a corporate whore President.

But I feel justified in my dislike of Obamacare because I actually understand it - at least conversationally - and I have little tolerance for bullshit and those who swallow it, even if I agree with them in a more overall sense.

Obamacare isn't the end of the world. It's not going to destroy the economy, it's not going to destroy the insurance industry, it's not going to make you lose your insurance.

It's just not really going to solve anything - and it's going to cost a lot of money. Those are legitimate reasons to dislike Obamacare.

You don't need to lie about it.

Whoa, who said I was lying?

Not what I meant. I was speaking in a general sense, not directed to you.

You are continually correcting people on Obamacare, then right out of the blue, you throw at them "actual" facts about the law that they seemingly didn't know. That kind of behavior indicates to me that you are defending it. Honesty, yeah, you want people to be honest about the law. That kind of language is defensive, not suggestive.

I don't understand. Do you think that I'm secretly a big Obamacare fan, and I'm just pretending to dislike it?

Why would I lie about that? What possible reason could there be?

To me, you are suddenly changing positions when questioned on the subject. And to be honest, I highly doubt you took the time to read through all 2,700 pages of that law from first page to last. It takes more than a conversational knowledge of the law to to keep people honest about it.

Of course I haven't read the entire law.

But every time another ridiculous, on it's face nonsensical scary claim about Obamacare comes out, I look up another relevant section of the actual law, and do my research. It doesn't take much, and it's almost always mostly bullshit.

Interesting. But your quest for honesty makes you come off as someone who is defending the law. There are no two ways about it, Doc.

And yes as to your question, I think every wolf on the hunt for supposedly misinformed people would need his sheepskin.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Not what I meant. I was speaking in a general sense, not directed to you.



I don't understand. Do you think that I'm secretly a big Obamacare fan, and I'm just pretending to dislike it?

Why would I lie about that? What possible reason could there be?



Of course I haven't read the entire law.

But every time another ridiculous, on it's face nonsensical scary claim about Obamacare comes out, I look up another relevant section of the actual law, and do my research. It doesn't take much, and it's almost always mostly bullshit.

No offense, but the fact you claimed there was only one type of waiver, and that no States are participating in any type of waiver, indicate you have no fucking idea what your taking about. Try reading some more.

The only source that claims there are "six" types of waivers is a 3-year old policy paper from a think tank. According to the CMS website cited above, there's only one kind of waiver.

You're wrong again. Read it again more carefully. Also you are still incorrect about State waivers. You might want to look that one up as well. Thanks.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not what I meant. I was speaking in a general sense, not directed to you.



I don't understand. Do you think that I'm secretly a big Obamacare fan, and I'm just pretending to dislike it?

Why would I lie about that? What possible reason could there be?



Of course I haven't read the entire law.

But every time another ridiculous, on it's face nonsensical scary claim about Obamacare comes out, I look up another relevant section of the actual law, and do my research. It doesn't take much, and it's almost always mostly bullshit.

No offense, but the fact you claimed there was only one type of waiver, and that no States are participating in any type of waiver, indicate you have no fucking idea what your taking about. Try reading some more.

The only source that claims there are "six" types of waivers is a 3-year old policy paper from a think tank. According to the CMS website cited above, there's only one kind of waiver.

Just like you, I pride myself in doing my research. Read this.

http://www.balch.com/files/Publicat...87-5448e7166fdb/Waivers_Newsletter_July12.pdf

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Whoa, who said I was lying?

Not what I meant. I was speaking in a general sense, not directed to you.



I don't understand. Do you think that I'm secretly a big Obamacare fan, and I'm just pretending to dislike it?

Why would I lie about that? What possible reason could there be?

To me, you are suddenly changing positions when questioned on the subject. And to be honest, I highly doubt you took the time to read through all 2,700 pages of that law from first page to last. It takes more than a conversational knowledge of the law to to keep people honest about it.

Of course I haven't read the entire law.

But every time another ridiculous, on it's face nonsensical scary claim about Obamacare comes out, I look up another relevant section of the actual law, and do my research. It doesn't take much, and it's almost always mostly bullshit.

Interesting. But your quest for honesty makes you come off as someone who is defending the law. There are no two ways about it, Doc.

And yes as to your question, I think every wolf on the hunt for supposedly misinformed people would need his sheepskin.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't give a shit about how I "come off" to you. I'm not here to convince you of anything and I'm not trying to impress you. I'm here for my own intellectual stimulation.

I'd like you to explain your "wolf in sheepskin" metaphor a little for me, as well. I don't think I understand it.

What motives are you assigning to me, that explain my secret love of Obamacare?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No offense, but the fact you claimed there was only one type of waiver, and that no States are participating in any type of waiver, indicate you have no fucking idea what your taking about. Try reading some more.

The only source that claims there are "six" types of waivers is a 3-year old policy paper from a think tank. According to the CMS website cited above, there's only one kind of waiver.

Just like you, I pride myself in doing my research. Read this.

http://www.balch.com/files/Publicat...87-5448e7166fdb/Waivers_Newsletter_July12.pdf

That's word-for-word, the same policy paper that WelfareQueen cited.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No offense, but the fact you claimed there was only one type of waiver, and that no States are participating in any type of waiver, indicate you have no fucking idea what your taking about. Try reading some more.

The only source that claims there are "six" types of waivers is a 3-year old policy paper from a think tank. According to the CMS website cited above, there's only one kind of waiver.

You're wrong again. Read it again more carefully. Also you are still incorrect about State waivers. You might want to look that one up as well. Thanks.

The "State waivers" won't be effective until 2017, and will only apply if the state has their own, independant program duplicating "Obamacare" on a state level.

You keep telling me to "look things up", but you won't even read your own links.

 

[WelfareQueen]

No offense, but the fact you claimed there was only one type of waiver, and that no States are participating in any type of waiver, indicate you have no fucking idea what your taking about. Try reading some more.

The only source that claims there are "six" types of waivers is a 3-year old policy paper from a think tank. According to the CMS website cited above, there's only one kind of waiver.

Just like you, I pride myself in doing my research. Read this.

http://www.balch.com/files/Publicat...87-5448e7166fdb/Waivers_Newsletter_July12.pdf

Two separate pieces of documentation have now proved him wrong. Templar, I by no means have ever claimed to be an expert on Obamacare, and I am not a right-wing loon, but there is a lot that smells bad about this Law. I don't think anyone on this message board knows what type of waivers all of these individual entities have received. I certainly do not.

However, I do not think any entity including Congress should get a waiver. If it is the law of the land, it should apply to all parties equally. Shouldn't that be the American way?

 

[WelfareQueen]

The only source that claims there are "six" types of waivers is a 3-year old policy paper from a think tank. According to the CMS website cited above, there's only one kind of waiver.

You're wrong again. Read it again more carefully. Also you are still incorrect about State waivers. You might want to look that one up as well. Thanks.

The "State waivers" won't be effective until 2017, and will only apply if the state has their own, independant program duplicating "Obamacare" on a state level.

You keep telling me to "look things up", but you won't even read your own links.

Funny, but you said this a number of posts ago. What, can't keep your stories straight?


The "State MLR waivers" apply only to entire states, and I don't believe that any were given.

The "State innovation waivers" also don't actually exist, and would only apply to entire states.





If the doctor is in, you are in some deep shit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not what I meant. I was speaking in a general sense, not directed to you.



I don't understand. Do you think that I'm secretly a big Obamacare fan, and I'm just pretending to dislike it?

Why would I lie about that? What possible reason could there be?



Of course I haven't read the entire law.

But every time another ridiculous, on it's face nonsensical scary claim about Obamacare comes out, I look up another relevant section of the actual law, and do my research. It doesn't take much, and it's almost always mostly bullshit.

Interesting. But your quest for honesty makes you come off as someone who is defending the law. There are no two ways about it, Doc.

And yes as to your question, I think every wolf on the hunt for supposedly misinformed people would need his sheepskin.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't give a shit about how I "come off" to you. I'm not here to convince you of anything and I'm not trying to impress you. I'm here for my own intellectual stimulation.

I'd like you to explain your "wolf in sheepskin" metaphor a little for me, as well. I don't think I understand it.

What motives are you assigning to me, that explain my secret love of Obamacare?

I'm calling things as I see them. I am sorry if you don't like what I have to say, but you are going after people for making unfounded claims about the law, then turning around and saying the law is crap. That is what I meant by my wolf in sheepskin metaphor. Your terse reaction to that seems that I could have struck a chord. I am simply trying to stimulate my intellect as well. But I don't like to be played for a fool either.

I'm calling bullshit for the simple reasons I have stated before. How can you on one hand hate the law, say it's crap and then turn around and jump on someone for supposedly mischaracterizing it? That makes zero sense to me.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Think of this as a critical thinking exercise.

Try to explain, in your own words, what the different "types" of waivers are, how they could possibly be applied to any companies on the list, and exactly what the possible results of those different waiver types are, and whether they are still active, or already expired.

All of the information I've requested above is contained in the links that YOU have provided, but not bothered to read.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Interesting. But your quest for honesty makes you come off as someone who is defending the law. There are no two ways about it, Doc.

And yes as to your question, I think every wolf on the hunt for supposedly misinformed people would need his sheepskin.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't give a shit about how I "come off" to you. I'm not here to convince you of anything and I'm not trying to impress you. I'm here for my own intellectual stimulation.

I'd like you to explain your "wolf in sheepskin" metaphor a little for me, as well. I don't think I understand it.

What motives are you assigning to me, that explain my secret love of Obamacare?

I'm calling things as I see them. I am sorry if you don't like what I have to say, but you are going after people for making unfounded claims about the law, then turning around and saying the law is crap. That is what I meant by my wolf in sheepskin metaphor. Your terse reaction to that seems that I could have struck a chord. I am simply trying to stimulate my intellect as well. But I don't like to be played for a fool either.

I don't know why you're taking this so personally.

I'm not going after "people", I'm going after "arguments". YOU, by questioning what my motives are, are "going after people".

From my perspective, there is no contradiction in me disagreeing with the Obamacare law, and calling out bullshit.

I'm calling bullshit for the simple reasons I have stated before. How can you on one hand hate the law, say it's crap and then turn around and jump on someone for supposedly mischaracterizing it? That makes zero sense to me.

I'd like you to point out where I've "jumped on" anyone, but other than that, I don't see a contradiction at all.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective entirely.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Think of this as a critical thinking exercise.

Try to explain, in your own words, what the different "types" of waivers are, how they could possibly be applied to any companies on the list, and exactly what the possible results of those different waiver types are, and whether they are still active, or already expired.

All of the information I've requested above is contained in the links that YOU have provided, but not bothered to read.

So if this information is in his or my links, then do us a favor and post them. I will concede the argument right here freely if you can.