GOP still spreading lies

[code1211]

I find this curious then...Obamacare being the shining light for nanny staters...

Obama admin grants certain businesses health care waivers | The Moderate Voice

The issue of waivers has ALWAYS been a part of all drafts of health care reform, and included in the final enacted version. Oddly enough, that's something else the RWNM conveniently left out of all their rants for over a year, while they were busy telling everyone that the entire bill was "mandatory." Also not true. Additionally, states can opt out completely if they comply with certain bare bones standards. That's another fact that the talking heads on the right fail to mention.

McDonalds is one of those companies that offers employees so-called "mini-meds" because of their high turnover. Since mini-med insurance programs are cheap (and offer crappy coverage), applicants such as McDonalds asked for the waiver because paid premiums on those mini-med policies would increase significantly between now and 2014, in some cases doubling or more, as those insurers anticipated the company would begin enrolling in the exchanges in 2014 when much better health insurance is available.

What is the cost of this insurance and what are the features of the coverage? Is it one size fits all? Is it tailored to fit the individual? Will purchase by the individual be mandated? Will it need to be offered through employers or only available to individuals or both?

Will the policy cost more or less than the penalty paid by the employer for not offerriing insurance?

Will any employer still hire people or will every employer use temporary services to avoid any legal problems at all?

There is very little in this debate that has to do with health care and a whole bunch that has to do with costs.

Attend a meeting of SHRM someday and listen to what they discuss and you'll learn more about this in 5 minutes than in months of listening to the know nothing politicians lying and distracting so they can pocket your cash.

 

[Gatekeeper]

GOP STILL spreading lies? Like no other side lies, distorts, tailors a story or event to fit THEIR agendas?

I love these blanket statements, like no one else lies but the other side

Gimmie a break.

 

[code1211]

I find this curious then...Obamacare being the shining light for nanny staters...

Obama admin grants certain businesses health care waivers | The Moderate Voice

you missed the boat on this one.

I posted this in another thread and it explains why these companies got "temporary" waivers:

Per: McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers - USATODAY.com

Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees."

"Without waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014."

"The waiver program is intended to provide continuous coverage until 2014, when government-organized marketplaces will offer insurance subsidized by tax credits, says HHS spokeswoman Jessica Santillo."

"The United Agricultural Benefit Trust, the California-based cooperative that offers coverage to farm workers, was allowed to exempt 17,347 people. San Diego-based Jack in the Box's waiver is for 1,130 workers, while McDonald's asked to excuse 115,000."

"The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers. The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says."


so they are technically already providing coverage to both full time and part time workers at a subsidized costs. they are simply not being required to raise the minimum coverage level over $750,000. And this is actually only in affect until 2014 when the exchanges go online, and they employees will have access to the subsidized health care plans.

I dont see what the problem is here? these companies are already providing HC coverage to low income and low wage workers (a positive in my mind), at a reduced costs. and they simply requested a waiver to keep their costs low, until other parts of the health care bill come in to effect in a few years. They arent being exempted from the entire bill like the post leads people to believe. Im not sure what the argument is with this. Can you be more specific on what exactly you are disliking?

Again, this is only about cost. Forget the coverages. If the cost was no different, the waivers would not have been requested.

In 2014, will the costs for McDonalds and others rise or stay the same as they were last year?

If they will rise, by how much and on how many and how will that impact the cost of my Big Mac?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Truth About Health Insurance Premiums | FactCheck.org

What was it you told us in 2008? Ohh ya, nananananananan we won you lost get over it.

 

[code1211]

I work with HR Mangers on a daily basis. Most of them are saying quite clearly that the penalties imposed by the new law on employers for not providing health care insurance are less costly than providing healthcare insurance.

...this surprises them?

To quote from Mercer's press release from earlier this month:

While employers are encouraged to offer coverage under the new health care reform rules, they can choose not to and (starting in 2014) pay a penalty that may be less than what they currently spend on health benefits.

In a survey released today by consulting firm Mercer, employers were asked how likely they are to get out of the business of providing health care once state-run insurance exchanges become operational in 2014 and make it easier for individuals to buy coverage. For the great majority, the answer was “not likely.”

The survey results, a preview of findings from Mercer’s 2010 National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans to be announced later this month, will be released today at Mercer’s inaugural Innovation Conversation webcast, which begins at 3 p.m. Eastern Time (click on the following link to register: “True Health Care Reform through Innovation”). More than 2,800 employers participated in the annual survey, now in its 25th year.

Survey responses vary by employer size. Large employers remain committed to their role of health plan sponsor. Just 6% of all employers with 500 or more employees – and just 3% of those with 10,000 or more – say they are likely to terminate their health plans and have employees seek coverage in the individual market after 2014 (Fig. 1).

Employers have never been required to offer coverage. They do so to promote a healthy, productive workforce and to attract and retain employees, who place a high value on health coverage because it can be expensive to purchase as an individual and, especially for those with health problems, difficult to obtain.

“Employers are reluctant to lose control over a key employee benefit,” said Tracy Watts, a Partner in Mercer’s Washington, DC, office. “But beyond that, once you consider the penalty, the loss of tax savings and grossing up employee income so they can purchase comparable coverage through an exchange, for many employers dropping coverage may not equate to savings.”​

Employers are reluctant to lose control of this and yet, if they want to give a better package or a worse package than the one the government proffers for them to provide, they will incur penalties.

Interesting take on retaining "control".

The small business owners that I know are control freaks. They simply hate taking orders and that is why working for someone else is not a comfortable place for them to be. Playing on this need to be in control and then stripping the control from them is a recipe for disaster.

 

[MaggieMae]

I work with HR Mangers on a daily basis. Most of them are saying quite clearly that the penalties imposed by the new law on employers for not providing health care insurance are less costly than providing healthcare insurance.

...this surprises them?

To quote from Mercer's press release from earlier this month:

While employers are encouraged to offer coverage under the new health care reform rules, they can choose not to and (starting in 2014) pay a penalty that may be less than what they currently spend on health benefits.

In a survey released today by consulting firm Mercer, employers were asked how likely they are to get out of the business of providing health care once state-run insurance exchanges become operational in 2014 and make it easier for individuals to buy coverage. For the great majority, the answer was “not likely.”

The survey results, a preview of findings from Mercer’s 2010 National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans to be announced later this month, will be released today at Mercer’s inaugural Innovation Conversation webcast, which begins at 3 p.m. Eastern Time (click on the following link to register: “True Health Care Reform through Innovation”). More than 2,800 employers participated in the annual survey, now in its 25th year.

Survey responses vary by employer size. Large employers remain committed to their role of health plan sponsor. Just 6% of all employers with 500 or more employees – and just 3% of those with 10,000 or more – say they are likely to terminate their health plans and have employees seek coverage in the individual market after 2014 (Fig. 1).

Employers have never been required to offer coverage. They do so to promote a healthy, productive workforce and to attract and retain employees, who place a high value on health coverage because it can be expensive to purchase as an individual and, especially for those with health problems, difficult to obtain.

“Employers are reluctant to lose control over a key employee benefit,” said Tracy Watts, a Partner in Mercer’s Washington, DC, office. “But beyond that, once you consider the penalty, the loss of tax savings and grossing up employee income so they can purchase comparable coverage through an exchange, for many employers dropping coverage may not equate to savings.”​

It's encouraging to see many businesses returning to the attitude of without a work force with high morale, the business will suffer. For far too long, employers have been calling the shots, reading only the proverbial bottom line, and dismissing the fact that if it were not for worker productivity, they would not be in business for long. In my opinion, it's one of the reasons the US can no longer effectively compete in a gobal market. They forgot that it's the sides of the mountain that sustain growth, not the top.

 

[MaggieMae]

No. I didn't say that. I don't have a "side", first of all. I just get tired of all the partisan hackery that goes on.

So do I, so do I. But when millions of Americans hear this crap coming from the right wing noise machine day in and day out, then parroted by elected leaders, it becomes a problem.

If the "crap" was refutable, one might suppose that it would be refuted, mightn't one?

It is. You just have the louder voices. People in general identify with small snippets of information or propagandized sloganeering. The conservatives have made that into an art form. They basically can say or allege anything they want, because the rebuttals attempt to include pesky facts. No one cares about facts anymore.

I don't think anyone ever claimed all the provisions of health care reform were going to work at a 100% success rate right out of the gate. In fact, it's been made clear all along that revisions, amendments, changes will be necessary once in practice. But here again, the naysayers want perfection from Day One, or whatever it is, it's a no-go.

 

[MaggieMae]

I find this curious then...Obamacare being the shining light for nanny staters...

Obama admin grants certain businesses health care waivers | The Moderate Voice

The issue of waivers has ALWAYS been a part of all drafts of health care reform, and included in the final enacted version. Oddly enough, that's something else the RWNM conveniently left out of all their rants for over a year, while they were busy telling everyone that the entire bill was "mandatory." Also not true. Additionally, states can opt out completely if they comply with certain bare bones standards. That's another fact that the talking heads on the right fail to mention.

McDonalds is one of those companies that offers employees so-called "mini-meds" because of their high turnover. Since mini-med insurance programs are cheap (and offer crappy coverage), applicants such as McDonalds asked for the waiver because paid premiums on those mini-med policies would increase significantly between now and 2014, in some cases doubling or more, as those insurers anticipated the company would begin enrolling in the exchanges in 2014 when much better health insurance is available.

What is the cost of this insurance and what are the features of the coverage? Is it one size fits all? Is it tailored to fit the individual? Will purchase by the individual be mandated? Will it need to be offered through employers or only available to individuals or both?

Will the policy cost more or less than the penalty paid by the employer for not offerriing insurance?

Will any employer still hire people or will every employer use temporary services to avoid any legal problems at all?

There is very little in this debate that has to do with health care and a whole bunch that has to do with costs.

Attend a meeting of SHRM someday and listen to what they discuss and you'll learn more about this in 5 minutes than in months of listening to the know nothing politicians lying and distracting so they can pocket your cash.

WTF? You're just now asking questions like that? Unfuckingbelievable. Read the damned bill, would ya? Or take your favorite reliable news source and read the breakdown (if you can do that and ignore the opinions).

 

[MaggieMae]

GOP STILL spreading lies? Like no other side lies, distorts, tailors a story or event to fit THEIR agendas?

I love these blanket statements, like no one else lies but the other side

Gimmie a break.

Once again, LOOK AT THE FUCKING TITLE!!!!! This has to do with health care premiums, period. I'm not talking generalities; you and your ilk are. Pay attention.

 

[MaggieMae]

I find this curious then...Obamacare being the shining light for nanny staters...

Obama admin grants certain businesses health care waivers | The Moderate Voice

you missed the boat on this one.

I posted this in another thread and it explains why these companies got "temporary" waivers:

Per: McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers - USATODAY.com

Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees."

"Without waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014."

"The waiver program is intended to provide continuous coverage until 2014, when government-organized marketplaces will offer insurance subsidized by tax credits, says HHS spokeswoman Jessica Santillo."

"The United Agricultural Benefit Trust, the California-based cooperative that offers coverage to farm workers, was allowed to exempt 17,347 people. San Diego-based Jack in the Box's waiver is for 1,130 workers, while McDonald's asked to excuse 115,000."

"The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers. The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says."


so they are technically already providing coverage to both full time and part time workers at a subsidized costs. they are simply not being required to raise the minimum coverage level over $750,000. And this is actually only in affect until 2014 when the exchanges go online, and they employees will have access to the subsidized health care plans.

I dont see what the problem is here? these companies are already providing HC coverage to low income and low wage workers (a positive in my mind), at a reduced costs. and they simply requested a waiver to keep their costs low, until other parts of the health care bill come in to effect in a few years. They arent being exempted from the entire bill like the post leads people to believe. Im not sure what the argument is with this. Can you be more specific on what exactly you are disliking?

Again, this is only about cost. Forget the coverages. If the cost was no different, the waivers would not have been requested.

In 2014, will the costs for McDonalds and others rise or stay the same as they were last year?

If they will rise, by how much and on how many and how will that impact the cost of my Big Mac?

Well that figures...it's all about you. No surprises there, in this ME ME ME society that has permeated my country.

 

[elvis]

GOP STILL spreading lies? Like no other side lies, distorts, tailors a story or event to fit THEIR agendas?

I love these blanket statements, like no one else lies but the other side

Gimmie a break.

Once again, LOOK AT THE FUCKING TITLE!!!!! This has to do with health care premiums, period. I'm not talking generalities; you and your ilk are. Pay attention.

again, why don't you just say politicians still spreading lies.....

unless you want to sound like a partisan hack. I pointed out that both sides have lied on this issue. I even used the same source you did.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Truth About Health Insurance Premiums | FactCheck.org

What was it you told us in 2008? Ohh ya, nananananananan we won you lost get over it.

How profound. Of course it has zero to do with anything since "you" haven't "won" anything yet with regard to the existing bill.

 

[hortysir]

The Truth About Health Insurance Premiums | FactCheck.org

Great post. Thanks for someone else finally posting some proof about the fear mongering going on about the health care.

if you notice, not of these people talking about the cost increases is part of the Obama administration. shocking i know.

Congress.org - News : Health care plans may change



Remember when President Obama said that Americans who liked their health insurance could keep it ?
That may not be completely true after all. Most employees have health plans that will have to comply with new federal guidelines set by the overhaul — which could mean change.
...


.....


.........

Democrats had grandfathered current health plans to exempt them from regulations under the new law. It was a key part of the compromise hatched during the Congressional debate.
But because insurance plans change all the time, some of those grandfathered plans could quickly fall under the regulations.

 

[Greenbeard]

But because insurance plans change all the time, some of those grandfathered plans could quickly fall under the regulations.

That's an interesting objection. The political promise (which isn't necessarily good policy) was "if you like your plan, you can keep it." You're talking about people who apparently don't like their plan and so are choosing to change plans. So what really is the issue here? Do you feel a plan you don't have right now but may buy a few years down the road should be grandfathered?

 

[hortysir]

But because insurance plans change all the time, some of those grandfathered plans could quickly fall under the regulations.

That's an interesting objection. The political promise (which isn't necessarily good policy) was "if you like your plan, you can keep it." You're talking about people who apparently don't like their plan and so are choosing to change plans. So what really is the issue here? Do you feel a plan you don't have right now but may buy a few years down the road should be grandfathered?

I interpreted that sentence to mean that, since insurance companies are always tweaking and adjusting their plans in some small way, they wouldn;t be considered one's "same plan".

 

[Greenbeard]

Then this sort of becomes the Ship of Theseus puzzle of insurance policies: how many pieces can you alter and replace before it comes something else? I don't know if they have any Greek philosophers over in HHS but someone has to decide where to draw the line. And they've done that (they actually just relaxed the requirements a bit this week through an amendment to the original regulations). Someone people won't like it, though I haven't seen too many alternate suggestions (to go with the gripes) as to where that line should be drawn.

 

[hortysir]

Then this sort of becomes the Ship of Theseus puzzle of insurance policies: how many pieces can you alter and replace before it comes something else? I don't know if they have any Greek philosophers over in HHS but someone has to decide where to draw the line. And they've done that (they actually just relaxed the requirements a bit this week through an amendment to the original regulations). Someone people won't like it, though I haven't seen too many alternate suggestions (to go with the gripes) as to where that line should be drawn.

You have a link where I can read up on that?
Not doubting ya, just have several tabs running right now being a football weekend!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Both sides spread lies.....

Sure they do, post some of the lies from the left, with detail, and not from NewsCorp or the lips of Limbaugh.
But first consider, all elected and wannabe elected officials 'lie'. The great difference is, the Republicans need to lie because they only represent the business class. Without lies they would never get a majority vote.

 

[elvis]

Both sides spread lies.....

Sure they do, post some of the lies from the left, with detail, and not from NewsCorp or the lips of Limbaugh.
But first consider, all elected and wannabe elected officials 'lie'. The great difference is, the Republicans need to lie because they only represent the business class. Without lies they would never get a majority vote.

I'll get right on that, Karl Marx.

 

[Meister]

Both sides spread lies.....

Sure they do, post some of the lies from the left, with detail, and not from NewsCorp or the lips of Limbaugh.
But first consider, all elected and wannabe elected officials 'lie'. The great difference is, the Republicans need to lie because they only represent the business class. Without lies they would never get a majority vote.

Only in the eyes of an ultra lib.