Health Care Reform Group Gets Waiver from Health Care Reform?

[Ragnar]

Oh, yeah. Obamacare sucks this bad...

Health Care Reform Group Gets Waiver from? Health Care Reform? Hot Air

...

Via Michelle you can read the full list of those not having to participate here. But for me, it’s not just the swelling, raw number of groups being granted waivers, but the size and types of companies and organizations making the list. There are large numbers of small to medium businesses on there, many with less than 25 employees. Weren’t these precisely the types of businesses that Obamacare was supposed to rescue from the evil health insurance system?

But in one of the truly delicious bits of irony discovered while browsing the list of those seeking asylum from the health care overhaul, I discovered the name of New England Health Care. No, it’s not an insurance company. It’s a policy institute. Let’s dig into their mission statement a bit and see what they’re all about, shall we?

Founded in 2002, the New England Healthcare Institute – known as NEHI – is a nonprofit, independent health policy institute dedicated to transforming health care for the benefit of patients and their families.

So an institute dedicated to finding ways to reform the health care system had to apply for an exemption from the administration’s reforms to the health care system? Keep your eyes on the news next week, as I’m fairly sure that the heads of some immigration reform lobbying groups will be deported.

I know a few other folks here are on top of the developing (see: growing) list of companies being granted exemptions from the crap sandwitch that is Obamacare. However, this one was too good to pass up.

At some point, America will come to understand what a HUGE cock-up this "health care" legislation really was. And I don't just mean the large majority of folks who rejected the commie-care that got shoved down our gullets in the first place.

Soon, even Obama voters will understand how badly we all got screwed.

Good night and good luck...

 

[Common Sense]

seriously did you just quote a website blog called "hot air"? a blog that calls itself right of center?

"the site has become one of the largest right-of-center blogs on the Internet"

very trustworthy news source. because we know that everything we read on the internet is pure truth.

 

[Care4all]

does it say what they are asking to be exempt from? what measures?

 

[jeffrockit]

seriously did you just quote a website blog called "hot air"? a blog that calls itself right of center?

"the site has become one of the largest right-of-center blogs on the Internet"

very trustworthy news source. because we know that everything we read on the internet is pure truth.

How about USA Today...you believe them?
McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers - USATODAY.com
Or CBS news, not really a right leaning organization
30 Companies, Other Groups Escape New Health Care Rule for Now - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Are you that much of an Obama zombie that you can't believe the govt is doing this. Obamacare is a terrible iece of legislation and every day more evidence of that comes out. Take off the partisan blinders and embrace reality.

 

[California Girl]

 

[Toronado3800]

No one out there is unwilling to say the bill needs tested even if you agree with the ideals, right?

Hell, it could be compromises that make it pointless. Thing is big. Who knows.

 

[Synthaholic]

seriously did you just quote a website blog called "hot air"? a blog that calls itself right of center?

"the site has become one of the largest right-of-center blogs on the Internet"

very trustworthy news source. because we know that everything we read on the internet is pure truth.

Hannity was yammering about this on his radio hatefest today, and you know how they all like to self-validate their bullshit by quoting each other's bullshit.

 

[Greenbeard]

From their website, it looks like NEHI's ideas for reform revolve around:

• CPOE
• Better care coordination for those with chronic conditions
• Comparative effectiveness research
• Incentives for innovation in primary care delivery
• Much more attention to prevention

Yeah, I bet they just hate the ACA.

 

[Common Sense]

seriously did you just quote a website blog called "hot air"? a blog that calls itself right of center?

"the site has become one of the largest right-of-center blogs on the Internet"

very trustworthy news source. because we know that everything we read on the internet is pure truth.

How about USA Today...you believe them?
McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers - USATODAY.com
Or CBS news, not really a right leaning organization
30 Companies, Other Groups Escape New Health Care Rule for Now - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Are you that much of an Obama zombie that you can't believe the govt is doing this. Obamacare is a terrible iece of legislation and every day more evidence of that comes out. Take off the partisan blinders and embrace reality.

Per the article you posted:

"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?

 

[Synthaholic]

seriously did you just quote a website blog called "hot air"? a blog that calls itself right of center?

"the site has become one of the largest right-of-center blogs on the Internet"

very trustworthy news source. because we know that everything we read on the internet is pure truth.

How about USA Today...you believe them?
McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers - USATODAY.com
Or CBS news, not really a right leaning organization
30 Companies, Other Groups Escape New Health Care Rule for Now - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Are you that much of an Obama zombie that you can't believe the govt is doing this. Obamacare is a terrible iece of legislation and every day more evidence of that comes out. Take off the partisan blinders and embrace reality.

Per the article you posted:

"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?

Hannity didn't tell them all THAT! LOL!

 

[WillowTree]

seriously did you just quote a website blog called "hot air"? a blog that calls itself right of center?

"the site has become one of the largest right-of-center blogs on the Internet"

very trustworthy news source. because we know that everything we read on the internet is pure truth.

How about USA Today...you believe them?
McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers - USATODAY.com
Or CBS news, not really a right leaning organization
30 Companies, Other Groups Escape New Health Care Rule for Now - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Are you that much of an Obama zombie that you can't believe the govt is doing this. Obamacare is a terrible iece of legislation and every day more evidence of that comes out. Take off the partisan blinders and embrace reality.

You gotta ask yourself what the fuck is up with libturds mis labeling themselves.. Truthmatters? RightWing? and Common Sense?

 

[Common Sense]

seriously did you just quote a website blog called "hot air"? a blog that calls itself right of center?

"the site has become one of the largest right-of-center blogs on the Internet"

very trustworthy news source. because we know that everything we read on the internet is pure truth.

How about USA Today...you believe them?
McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers - USATODAY.com
Or CBS news, not really a right leaning organization
30 Companies, Other Groups Escape New Health Care Rule for Now - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Are you that much of an Obama zombie that you can't believe the govt is doing this. Obamacare is a terrible iece of legislation and every day more evidence of that comes out. Take off the partisan blinders and embrace reality.

You gotta ask yourself what the fuck is up with libturds mis labeling themselves.. Truthmatters? RightWing? and Common Sense?




what are you talking about? exactly what is being mislabeled here? i explained the whole waiver system using the exact article that were posted talking about them. if you would have done your due diligence then you would see that the waivers are temporary to keep these companies from seeing cost increases for actually providing health care insurance. what is the argument here?

 

[Ragnar]

The argument is that Obama/Pelosi/Reid did not have, and still don't have, any idea what they have passed and what the results will be.

The health care reform laws that were passed are in continuous need of reform as each new domino falls. Part of another section meant to help cover the cost is primed for repeal and that's with the backing of Republicans and Democrats as well as Pelosi and Obama.

Democrat vows to repeal 1099 filing rule from healthcare law - The Hill's Healthwatch

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday that the 1099 requirement is one of the rare provisions of the healthcare law where the two parties agree that a change is needed.

"That's probably the first place we could go together," she told NPR's "Morning Edition."

Last week, President Obama also conceded that the filing provision threatens to put too much strain on businesses.

"The 1099 provision in the healthcare bill appears to be too burdensome for small businesses," Obama said at a White House news conference the day after Democrats were trounced in midterm elections. "It just involves too much paperwork, too much filing. It's probably counterproductive."

The powers that be, including the Republican newcomers, have no idea what will happen to the economy or health care in general as each new phase goes into effect. No one knows what it will cost, no one knows what will happen as each new regulation ripples through the nation and all in the name of a reform the majority of the country did not even want in the first place.

 

[Common Sense]

The argument is that Obama/Pelosi/Reid did not have, and still don't have, any idea what they have passed and what the results will be.

The health care reform laws that were passed are in continuous need of reform as each new domino falls. Part of another section meant to help cover the cost is primed for repeal and that's with the backing of Republicans and Democrats as well as Pelosi and Obama.

Democrat vows to repeal 1099 filing rule from healthcare law - The Hill's Healthwatch

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday that the 1099 requirement is one of the rare provisions of the healthcare law where the two parties agree that a change is needed.

"That's probably the first place we could go together," she told NPR's "Morning Edition."

Last week, President Obama also conceded that the filing provision threatens to put too much strain on businesses.

"The 1099 provision in the healthcare bill appears to be too burdensome for small businesses," Obama said at a White House news conference the day after Democrats were trounced in midterm elections. "It just involves too much paperwork, too much filing. It's probably counterproductive."

The powers that be, including the Republican newcomers, have no idea what will happen to the economy or health care in general as each new phase goes into effect. No one knows what it will cost, no one knows what will happen as each new regulation ripples through the nation and all in the name of a reform the majority of the country did not even want in the first place.

well placed point about the 1099 as it would probably be burdensome to small businesses. but if this is one of the only gripes about the current legislation, im ok with that. i have never believed that any law passed is perfect in any way shape or form. most of the time (not all) i believe that there are good intentions behind their thinking. (just think about the AMT, which was suppose to only affect higher incomes, but the tax loophole affects much of the middle class)

its also a fallacy to always say the majority when talking about health care, (either for or against) because almost every poll shows that the country is split down the middle when it comes to the law. now there is a majority that believe that something either needed to still needs to be done to help bring down the cost of health care, but we can argue the logistics on a different post. it is interesting to see tho, that when the individual parts of the law are broken out and surveyed, a true majority agrees with them. things such as no more pre-existing condition denials, not being able to be dropped for making a material error on an application, children being able to stay on parents policies until age 26, no more life time maximum limits. making providers document and prove that 80% of premium dollars is actually spent on patient care (as opposed to administrative costs). these are all positives in my mind.

the issue here is that some companies got temporary waivers from a certain part of the health care law and why were they able to do this. i explained in an earlier post that this is a temporary fix until more of the provisions from the law go into affect to help these companies keep their health care costs low. viable short term solution in my mind. are you in disagreement with that? or just the 1099 clause?

 

[Ragnar]

The argument is that Obama/Pelosi/Reid did not have, and still don't have, any idea what they have passed and what the results will be.

The health care reform laws that were passed are in continuous need of reform as each new domino falls. Part of another section meant to help cover the cost is primed for repeal and that's with the backing of Republicans and Democrats as well as Pelosi and Obama.

Democrat vows to repeal 1099 filing rule from healthcare law - The Hill's Healthwatch

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday that the 1099 requirement is one of the rare provisions of the healthcare law where the two parties agree that a change is needed.

"That's probably the first place we could go together," she told NPR's "Morning Edition."

Last week, President Obama also conceded that the filing provision threatens to put too much strain on businesses.

"The 1099 provision in the healthcare bill appears to be too burdensome for small businesses," Obama said at a White House news conference the day after Democrats were trounced in midterm elections. "It just involves too much paperwork, too much filing. It's probably counterproductive."

The powers that be, including the Republican newcomers, have no idea what will happen to the economy or health care in general as each new phase goes into effect. No one knows what it will cost, no one knows what will happen as each new regulation ripples through the nation and all in the name of a reform the majority of the country did not even want in the first place.

well placed point about the 1099 as it would probably be burdensome to small businesses. but if this is one of the only gripes about the current legislation, im ok with that. i have never believed that any law passed is perfect in any way shape or form. most of the time (not all) i believe that there are good intentions behind their thinking. (just think about the AMT, which was suppose to only affect higher incomes, but the tax loophole affects much of the middle class)

its also a fallacy to always say the majority when talking about health care, (either for or against) because almost every poll shows that the country is split down the middle when it comes to the law. now there is a majority that believe that something either needed to still needs to be done to help bring down the cost of health care, but we can argue the logistics on a different post. it is interesting to see tho, that when the individual parts of the law are broken out and surveyed, a true majority agrees with them. things such as no more pre-existing condition denials, not being able to be dropped for making a material error on an application, children being able to stay on parents policies until age 26, no more life time maximum limits. making providers document and prove that 80% of premium dollars is actually spent on patient care (as opposed to administrative costs). these are all positives in my mind.

the issue here is that some companies got temporary waivers from a certain part of the health care law and why were they able to do this. i explained in an earlier post that this is a temporary fix until more of the provisions from the law go into affect to help these companies keep their health care costs low. viable short term solution in my mind. are you in disagreement with that? or just the 1099 clause?

It's more than fair to say that many provisions of (for simplicity's sake) "Obamacare" are popular but I believe, when the the bill was passed a significant majority of the country was against it. In fairness, they had not read the bill but then again, neither did most of Congress or the POTUS. Heath care reform qua heath care reform is and was wanted by millions I have no doubt.

As to my disagreements, it goes far beyond the 1099 clause. Much of what I dislike is both philosophical and practical. And my disagreement also includes items that should have been, but were not included in the bill. (TORT reform, the ability to purchase nationwide plans, etc). I believe what will finally kill "Obamacare" though will be it's unintended (mostly unforeseen) consequences such as higher cost and lower quality care. (I do grant that for many the cost aspect will not be seen or bared by many many people)

As an example even the AARP which was in favor of Obamacare later had to admit that the cost curve was bending upward for many.

Citing health overhaul, AARP hikes employee costs - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – AARP's endorsement helped secure passage of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Now the seniors' lobby is telling its employees their insurance costs will rise partly as a result of the law.

In an e-mail to employees, AARP says health care premiums will increase by 8 percent to 13 percent next year because of rapidly rising medical costs.

And AARP adds that it's changing copayments and deductibles to avoid a 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans that takes effect in 2018 under the law. Aerospace giant Boeing also has cited the tax in asking its workers to pay more. Shifting costs to employees lowers the value of a health care plan and acts like an escape hatch from the tax.

As per usual, people like the new entitlement, but no one want's to pay for it.

 

[Common Sense]

i am actually impressed. you are the first person to actually list out factual grievances against the health care law without spouting off nonsense.

i will try to give my views on everything.

the AARP thing i feel is more of a scapegoat thing than an actual reason to raise costs. i say this only because 8-13% has been the going rate of increases for the past several years, and due to the fact that most of the health care provisions have not gone into affect yet, thus costs have not been incurred by these companies, i can only see this as a reason to boost profits in the interim before costs actually rise and protection provisions are put into the place.

on Tort reform, I am absolutely for that idea, and truly wish it had been included. (no argument there)

the nationwide health care plan is a great idea as well, unfortunately i think many saw this is more of a single payer plan in the making. i would be all for a nationwide plan, i think tho that because HC costs vary widely from state to state, this leads to the backlash against this idea, as some states would lose money while others would profit tremendously. for example just because of cost of living HC in California and New York is much more expensive than in say Colorado or Arkansas. (the same way auto insurance costs vary from state to state)

it think for the most part we are in agreement about the major portions of the reform. i think we have different views on what the affects of the implementation will be in the near future. my honest opinion is that I am all for paying for my own "affordable" health care. affordable is the key word here. i recently was able to join my employers plan (had a job change and had to wait the 90 days). they provide us with 2 options and for simplicity sake i chose the HMO. current costs for just me (single 30 year old male - healthy) is approx $100 / month (my out of pocket costs), if i had a wife my rate would go up to $220 / month to cover both of us. I have a $25 co-pay for all visits and a $250 hospital (in-patient) fee if that occurs. ($1500 annual deductible as well) now for me this is extremely affordable on budget an average wage. i will not ever complain about the rates that i currently have, even if they rise a little over the next few years. what i did have a problem with was my last employer offering us 2 options and each for a single male was well over $400 / month. i dont know many people who would complain about those rates. its just unfortunate that more people dont have this access.

 

[Ragnar]

From the Wall Street Journal via Hot Air. (WSJ requires one to subscribe)

HHS falls short of pre-existing coverage prediction by … 97.8% Hot Air

To judge by President Obama’s rhetoric, the insurance industry’s victims have been wandering the country like Okies in “The Grapes of Wrath.” Thus ObamaCare gave the Health and Human Services Department the power to design and sell its own insurance policies. The $5 billion program started in July and runs through 2014, when ObamaCare’s broader regulations kick in.

Mr. Obama declared at the time that “uninsured Americans who’ve been locked out of the insurance market because of a pre-existing condition will now be able to enroll in a new national insurance pool where they’ll finally be able to purchase quality, affordable health care—some for the very first time in their lives.”

So far that statement accurately describes a single person in North Dakota. Literally, one person has signed up out of 647,000 state residents. Four people have enrolled in West Virginia. Things are better in Minnesota, where Mr. Obama has rescued 15 out of 5.2 million, and also in Indiana—63 people there. HHS did best among the 24.7 million Texans. Thanks to ObamaCare, 393 of them are now insured.

States had the option of designing their own pre-existing condition insurance with federal dollars in lieu of the HHS plan, and 27 chose to do so. But they haven’t had much more success. Combined federal-state enrollment is merely 8,011 nationwide as of November 1, according to HHS.

This isn’t what HHS promised in July, when it estimated it would be insuring 375,000 people by now, and as many as 400,000 more every year. HHS even warned that it would bill private carriers for any claims if HHS decided that they had cancelled coverage to dump costs on the government. That outcome would certainly be in keeping with Mr. Obama’s caricature of rampant discrimination against the sick.

Unintended consequences does not quite explain the above. It is however, somewhat indicative of a lack of crisis in heath care market pre-obamacare.

 

[Common Sense]

i guess the only questions would be what is the current cost (is it affordable) and because of the costs, how many people want this insurance but can not afford it and is this program costing the tax payer per subscriber (if so how much) or is it a lump sum costs (if so how much). im pretty sure the people who actually got coverage at thankful for it finally.

does anyone have any stats or articles relating to this?

 

[Ragnar]

i guess the only questions would be what is the current cost (is it affordable) and because of the costs, how many people want this insurance but can not afford it and is this program costing the tax payer per subscriber (if so how much) or is it a lump sum costs (if so how much). im pretty sure the people who actually got coverage at thankful for it finally.

does anyone have any stats or articles relating to this?

The problem is that this IS the low(er) cost, can't drop you for pre-existing conditions stop gap to help people out until full "Obamacare" comes online in a few years. The problem(s) IMO, stem not just from millions needing wavers to protect them regulations that kill the current low cost insurance they have, the bad for small business regulations both parties dislike, but also, per the eight thousand plus people from the above WSJ link... the White House and Congress vastly overstated the need for "their" kind of reform in the first place.