Obama White House Hands Out 111 Obamacare Waivers!

[Mad Scientist]

111 approved ObamaCare waivers. You know, because it's just so great and saves so much money! (HerpaDerp!) :

Not a FoxNews website:
Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711 as of November 1, 2010

You know, if enough waivers are granted ObamaCare will be deficit neutral because no one will be using it!

 

[WillowTree]

What this says to me is it really really really sucks and no one can do it.

 

[boedicca]

Scooped ya:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/141782-the-obamacare-waiver-thread.html


And this topic really does belong in POLITICS. It has nothing to do with Health Care and everything to do with Political Pull.

 

[Greenbeard]

111 approved ObamaCare waivers. You know, because it's just so great and saves so much money! (HerpaDerp!) :

The elimination of annual limits isn't going away. The "replace" in repeal-and-replace has the same provision:

SEC. 103. NO ANNUAL OR LIFETIME SPENDING CAPS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a health insurance issuer (including an entity licensed to sell insurance with respect to a State or group health plan) may not apply an annual or lifetime aggregate spending cap on any health insurance coverage or plan offered by such issuer.​

Actually, the repeal-and-replace provision is technically more stringent because it immediately eliminates annual limits, whereas the ACA immediately eliminates lifetime limits and raises the floor on annual spending caps each year until eventually annual caps are eliminated a few years down the road.

The waivers being issued are not permanent, they're transition measures. Do you think temporary waivers for the annual cap elimination wouldn't be requested or awarded if repeal-and-replace were to be instituted?

 

[Meister]

111 approved ObamaCare waivers. You know, because it's just so great and saves so much money! (HerpaDerp!) :

The elimination of annual limits isn't going away. The "replace" in repeal-and-replace has the same provision:

SEC. 103. NO ANNUAL OR LIFETIME SPENDING CAPS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a health insurance issuer (including an entity licensed to sell insurance with respect to a State or group health plan) may not apply an annual or lifetime aggregate spending cap on any health insurance coverage or plan offered by such issuer.​

Actually, the repeal-and-replace provision is technically more stringent because it immediately eliminates annual limits, whereas the ACA immediately eliminates lifetime limits and raises the floor on annual spending caps each year until eventually annual caps are eliminated a few years down the road.

The waivers being issued are not permanent, they're transition measures. Do you think temporary waivers for the annual cap elimination wouldn't be requested or awarded if repeal-and-replace were to be instituted?

I would really like to know who hired you and how much does it pay?
The average hobbist just doesn't know all the details that you know. Yet, you do hide the bad stuff that's in the bill.

 

[Greenbeard]

The average hobbist just doesn't know all the details that you know.

Just read the bills (wasn't that the refrain in the summer of 2009?). Knowing what's written down isn't rocket science. In fact, I would think that's a prerequisite for thinking about and discussing the various proposals that have been offered.

We live in a time where every piece of legislation offered in this Congress (and several prior Congresses) is literally seconds away on THOMAS (Library of Congress) . Take advantage.

 

[Meister]

The average hobbist just doesn't know all the details that you know.

Just read the bills (wasn't that the refrain in the summer of 2009?). Knowing what's written down isn't rocket science. In fact, I would think that's a prerequisite for thinking about and discussing the various proposals that have been offered.

We live in a time where every piece of legislation offered in this Congress (and several prior Congresses) is literally seconds away on THOMAS (Library of Congress) . Take advantage.

Good story, but why won't you tell the truth?

 

[chanel]

Among the waivers recently granted were for employers like Darden Restaurants, which operates the Red Lobster and Olive Garden restaurants, for 34,000 of its workers. Federal officials have granted 111 waivers to employers, insurers and union plans, who are responsible for covering about 1.2 million people.

Also on the list: Carlson Restaurants, which owns T.G.I. Friday’s, and hair salon chain Regis Corp: "Without waivers, companies would have 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."

Also on the list: Dish Networks and more. Dish Network, the Englewood, Colorado-based No. 2 U.S. satellite-television provider, will be given a waiver for 3,597 employees

Complete list here: Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711 as of November 1, 2010


Michelle Malkin Waiver-mania! The ever-expanding Obamacare escapee list

 

[mudwhistle]

111 approved ObamaCare waivers. You know, because it's just so great and saves so much money! (HerpaDerp!) :

Not a FoxNews website:
Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711 as of November 1, 2010

You know, if enough waivers are granted ObamaCare will be deficit neutral because no one will be using it!

This is how Despotic regimes gain allegiance from large groups of people and organizations. First you institute draconian rules and regulations...then you exempt your favorite folks assuring they are taken care of. If they ever step out of line....boom....down come the rules they've been exempt from on their heads.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Among the waivers recently granted were for employers like Darden Restaurants, which operates the Red Lobster and Olive Garden restaurants, for 34,000 of its workers. Federal officials have granted 111 waivers to employers, insurers and union plans, who are responsible for covering about 1.2 million people.

Also on the list: Carlson Restaurants, which owns T.G.I. Friday’s, and hair salon chain Regis Corp: "Without waivers, companies would have 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."

Also on the list: Dish Networks and more. Dish Network, the Englewood, Colorado-based No. 2 U.S. satellite-television provider, will be given a waiver for 3,597 employees

Complete list here: Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711 as of November 1, 2010


Michelle Malkin Waiver-mania! The ever-expanding Obamacare escapee list

The Fox News analyst is right. In giving all these waivers the Whitehouse is admitting the Healthcare law is a JOB KILLER.

Why do we need all these waivers if the healthcare law is so great?

The hypocrisy of this is unions were really pushing for this law and now they are looking for waivers from it FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES???????

Meanwhile if you are a small business, you have to live under this law. The businsses getting the waivers are the very 2%, aka rich corporations, that liberals hate so much!

I mean this reveals the huge gap between liberal rhetoric and the truth.

Liberals were going to get even with the "man" and look who's benefitting from being the man????

Try to weazel and spin your way out of this hypocrisy liberals!

 

[mudwhistle]

111 approved ObamaCare waivers. You know, because it's just so great and saves so much money! (HerpaDerp!) :

The elimination of annual limits isn't going away. The "replace" in repeal-and-replace has the same provision:

SEC. 103. NO ANNUAL OR LIFETIME SPENDING CAPS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a health insurance issuer (including an entity licensed to sell insurance with respect to a State or group health plan) may not apply an annual or lifetime aggregate spending cap on any health insurance coverage or plan offered by such issuer.​

Actually, the repeal-and-replace provision is technically more stringent because it immediately eliminates annual limits, whereas the ACA immediately eliminates lifetime limits and raises the floor on annual spending caps each year until eventually annual caps are eliminated a few years down the road.

The waivers being issued are not permanent, they're transition measures. Do you think temporary waivers for the annual cap elimination wouldn't be requested or awarded if repeal-and-replace were to be instituted?

I don't think anyone claimed they were permanent. If they were Obama wouldn't have a stick to hold over people's heads if they get out of line.

 

[Liberty]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Uu_tI0hTw&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

my signature has never wrung more true.

 

[chanel]

 

[Common Sense]

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?

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

The advertised purpose of the bill was that it would lower costs. Instead it raises costs. Explain how that is an improvement.

The left has been complaining about WMDs in Iraq saying that was the only reason for going in....which it was not. Now the entire purpose of this new Affordable Health Care bill is simply based on a lie. Not only does it not cover everyone as originally advertised but it makes insurance more expensive for those who already have it.

 

[Common Sense]

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?

The advertised purpose of the bill was that it would lower costs. Instead it raises costs. Explain how that is an improvement.

The left has been complaining about WMDs in Iraq saying that was the only reason for going in....which it was not. Now the entire purpose of this new Affordable Health Care bill is simply based on a lie. Not only does it not cover everyone as originally advertised but it makes insurance more expensive for those who already have it.

if you had read the post, you would realize that most of the health care bill cost savings provision do not take affect for several years. hence any rise in the current cost of HC is not a result of the new legislation. after 2014 when the exchanges come online and most of the rest of the provisions are mandated costs should decrease. but until then this argument is pointless.

everyone wants to point to the new health care bill as the reason for all the HC increases this year. it hasnt even gone into affect.

here are the profits that were recorded in 2009 for health care providers:

Fortune 500 2009: Industry: Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care

you will notice that most of their profit levels have been falling since 2007, as they are being required to spends more $ on patient care, but that level is only a percentage. United Health Group still profited $2.9 billion dollars in 2009. Well Point posted a $2.49 billion profit and Aetna profited $1.38 billion. All top Fortune 1000 companies. If thats not a record, i dont know what is. 3% on $81 billion dollars is a ton of money considering that this is after paying out all expenses. You man think that 3% profit levels are low, but they are actually not when it comes to big business. And you forget that we are not talking about profit margins. Those are completely different than profit dollars. Typical businesses mark up their product 25-40% depending the industry. They then take the money that is brought in and it is applied towards overhead, salaries and everything else that it costs to do business (ie rent, insurance, taxes.....) what is left over is the profits. if you look at the link below about health care providers being #14, you will see that even the highest profit level is only 19.8%, and that is for mining and crude oil production. Pharmaceuticals are a close 2nd at 19.1 and then Tobacco at 12.3. No one pulls down a profit of 25% like people assume. just think about if Health care providers has to reinvest all that money back into the system (say like being required to become a non profit), that would be $6.77 billion dollars put towards patient care and not into the pocket books of investors and executive. (for the 2009 year alone) do you think this would drive down costs? reduce premiums? it absolutely would, but there is not public outrage about this. only about the health care bill.

for your edification:

2007 United Health Group profited $4.65 billion, Well Point - $3.35 billion and Aetna - $1.83 billion

current 2010 numbers just released:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/industries/223/index.html

United Health care was #21 over all in 2010.
United Health Group Revenues - $87,138,000,000 Profits $3,822,000,000. (an increase of 28% over 2008, Well Point was #31 at revenues of $65,028,1000,000 and profits of $4,745,900,000 they increased their profits 90.5% since 2008)

here more information about them #2 in terms of dollars per employee (thats $3 million per employee of profit btw)

Global 500 2009: Top Performers - Industries Most Bang For The Buck: Revenues Per Employee - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com



they are #14 overall

Global 500 2009: Top Performers - Most Profitable Industries: Return on Revenues - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com



everyone blames the new law instead of placing the blame on insurance companies who pull down ridiculous profits. maybe your anger should be redirected here.