DescentBB

If it is so Good, Why are are 111 companies granted waivers to opt out of Obamacare?:

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/ap ... aiver.html

Let's see -- \"The regulations also provided that these restricted annual limits may be waived by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) if compliance with the interim final regulations would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums.\"

So less than 10% of the 1300+ health plan providers in the US, covering less than 0.85% insured people applied for that waiver. What's your point ?

The answer you want to hear and have already made up your mind about is \"because those companies made secret deals with Obama for socialism.\"

Grendel wrote:Let's see -- "The regulations also provided that these restricted annual limits may be waived by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) if compliance with the interim final regulations would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums."

So less than 10% of the 1300+ health plan providers in the US, covering less than 0.85% insured people applied for that waiver. What's your point ?

Point is why any one company should be allowed to opt out of what is miracle care as viewed by the left. Could it be those 111 companies with 1.4 million employees are threatening to drop the coverage for their employee's if they don't get a waiver? Are those unions on the list getting special treatment as did the UAW when the feds took over GM and Chrysler? Over-all just doesn't look good after "Driving Miss Nancy" Pelosi said the plan had to be passed so they could read it. Looks like lots of people are now reading and want out.

What, 111 ?

What's your coverage ?

Reminds me of the time Obama campaigned on taxing what he called \"Cadillac Insurance Policies\". His spin on it was that rich executives get incredibly good insurance policies as part of their pay and it isn't taxed. Well it all made sense until he got in office and his rhetoric was put into law at which time he immediately gave an exemption to all the Union members who happen to be the bulk of people with the \"Cadillac\" policies.

change you can believe in....heh

Doesn't it strike you as odd that there are 6 registered lobbyists for the health care industry per Congress member ? I'm sure they all have our best interests in mind... Many seem to forget that the key concepts of the reform are ideas originated by republicans, including mandatory insurance.

Apparently HE liked it so much he complained that he wasn't getting HIS benefits until after a month on the job!

WHINE

.

Bet51987 wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Apparently HE liked it so much he complained that he wasn't getting HIS benefits until after a month on the job!

WHINE

Hahaha... Republicans want health care, they just don't want YOU to have it.

Bee

Tiresome non-sequitur. Nothing in the article relates to the point of your statement (assuming, of course, that there was a point).

dissent wrote:(assuming, of course, that there was a point).

Bee have a Point??? NAH it's more fun for her to blindly spout the left wing doctrine. it's easier than having to learn.

I'm still pissed that after 5 years, my insurance premiums still went up 20% again this year just like they have every year before.

If they keep this 20% increase every year then within the decade health insurance will consume 100% of Americans GDP.

And my insurance provider AND the clinic I visit the most are both non-profit!

.

@Bee: They're right that it's not exactly a direct connection. The coverage he's whining about is not related to the new healthcare bill.

@dissent: No sense of humor? Come on, it is pretty ironic, at the least. It's not a direct connection, but I thought it was humorous.

@Cuda: If you didn't find it funny, or thought the point wasn't well made, just say so. There was no call for taking a personal shot there.

Yea, I’m no closer to affording insurance…maybe if I’m lucky I can get one of those 200 dollar a month policies like they have in Mass. that cover NOTHING.

I was watching this interview with this guy from Mass. who said he has one of those new policies…yea, he now has insurance, but still can’t afford the gall bladder operation, he needs.

It works like this…his policy does not cover the pre operation tests that his doctor ordered, so he can’t get the operation either.

It’s freakin genius…don’t cover the preliminary work…so you will never have to pay the main claim!

Freakin Genius!

This article I was watching about Mass, was proving just about everything I predicted about reform has come true there.

1. They have the highest premiums in the country. (for the policies that actually cover something)
2. People now have insurance to comply with the law…but still have no health care.
3. People are still using the ER.
4. Primary care is at a premium because everyone can see a doctor now. (just about all, these new policies cover)
5. Businesses are cost shifting to their employees, because of the increase in costs. (mostly getting policies with higher deductibles)

LOL…2400 dollars a year to cover two 50 dollar doctor visits.

Foil wrote:@Cuda: If you didn't find it funny,

She wasnt trying to be funny, she was doing what she always does

Foil wrote:or thought the point wasn't well made, just say so.

I thought that's what I did

No point was made at all. in fact she made no attempt to make a point. my question would be did she even attempt to read the article? or was it just easier to throw out the babble that she usually does?

Foil wrote:There was no call for taking a personal shot there.

I'll refer back to the funny section of my post

Spidey wrote:…maybe if I’m lucky I can get one of those 200 dollar a month policies like they have in Mass. that cover NOTHING.

[..] It’s freakin genius…don’t cover the preliminary work…so you will never have to pay the main claim!

Freakin Genius!

Let's hope they did learn something from Mass. and it doesn't happen w/ the current reform. From the article I linked above:

The obligation in the new health care law [..] Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006.

[..] Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

Foil wrote:@Bee: They're right that it's not exactly a direct connection. The coverage he's whining about is not related to the new healthcare bill.

@dissent: No sense of humor? Come on, it is pretty ironic, at the least. It's not a direct connection, but I thought it was humorous.

I have a sense of humor - for actual humor.

My issue is that Bee (via TC) makes a partisan jibe that distorts and misrepresents the facts of the case as they are presented in the article. That doesn't make it ironic at all.

from the article TC linked -

Boston Herald wrote:Speaking to WBAL-TV on Tuesday, Harris said he asked about the start date "because every member is obviously going to have to think about how they align the health insurance they have now to their new health insurance."

Harris said he was not talking about himself.

"Not my family," he told the Baltimore television station. "I have insurance, and I have the ability to have insurance. But for anyone else who gets a job — and again, the irony that the federal government would go to the American people and our employers and say you have to provide insurance — and yet our federal employees get hired, and if they don’t get hired on the right day of the month, they actually have to go without health care for awhile."

in the next paragraph we get some spin from an "unnamed" Politico source

The initial Politico report, which the newspaper attributed to an unnamed congressional staffer, said the Baltimore County Republican "surprised fellow freshmen" by "demanding" the insurance information, and reacted "incredulously" when told he couldn’t get coverage starting Jan. 3, when the new Congress is to be sworn in.

Bee's comment is entirely predicated on the tone of the Politico source, and of course, Dem. Rep. Kratovil's own spin on what happened. Yet the Tuesday comments by Harris make the claim that he wasn't even talking about himself in this issue. Personal spin? maybe; maybe not. But the article doesn't make a strong case for Bee to take out her broad brush and say that "Republicans ... just don't want YOU to have it", it, being "healthcare".

And I find it tiresome to have to constantly hear the Left conflating "healthcare" and "health insurance". Health care is the actual services you receive, health insurance is one of the many possible ways that you have to pay for that care. It is entirely possible to have excellent health insurance and still receive lousy health care. If the American system continues to crap on health care providers with onerous requirements and paperwork, many of the best skilled practitioners may just decide they've had enough and change how they offer their services, offer fewer of those services, or just get out of medicine all together.

Maybe they'll just go to law school instead.

The best healthcare is the kind that removes the brain and puts it into a system that controls a robot.

/thread

Isaac wrote:The best healthcare is the kind that removes the brain and puts it into a system that controls a robot.

/thread

My Robot Body will kick your Robot Body's ass.

Avder wrote:

Isaac wrote:The best healthcare is the kind that removes the brain and puts it into a system that controls a robot.

/thread

My Robot Body will kick your Robot Body's ass.

Your robot body smells like soot and poo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/thread

Krom wrote:I'm still pissed that after 5 years, my insurance premiums still went up 20% again this year just like they have every year before.

If they keep this 20% increase every year then within the decade health insurance will consume 100% of Americans GDP.

And my insurance provider AND the clinic I visit the most are both non-profit!

Let me guess, you're clinic is Aurora. There's a lot of folks around here, including my own insurance broker, that believe Aurora is the single largest reason HC costs have gone up so much in the midwest. They pretty much control the game.

Just be cause they're non-profit doesn't mean they don't charge as much as they can. They just use the excess revenue (what would be profit) to keep expanding, as evidenced by huge clinics everywhere you look. They're also swallowing up tons of smaller clinics and medical groups that used to be independent. None of them can compete anymore on their own. All of that infrastructure then needs to be supported, and costs go up even more to support yet more growth.

I'm getting to the point that I think it would be better if it was ILLEGAL to have a non-profit organization competing with for-profit entities.

That's a negative. I've never seen or been to an Aurora clinic unless they operate under a different name around here.

CUDA wrote:

Foil wrote:or thought the point wasn't well made, just say so.

I thought that's what I did

You could have addressed the subject, and noted the disconnect in her post.

However, you took the personal route and basically said, "Bee never makes any points, she just spouts left-wing doctrine instead of learning."

Whether or not she deserved it, that's a personal shot in my book.

CUDA wrote:No point was made at all. in fact she made no attempt to make a point. my question would be did she even attempt to read the article? or was it just easier to throw out the babble that she usually does?

A bit better.

.

Bet51987 wrote:my pet name for Cuda is Dr.McGrouchy.

Bee

If we're resulting to ad hominem attacks in this thread, CUDA's avatar is slowly making me hate Clint Eastwood movies.

null0010 wrote:If we're resulting to ad hominem attacks in this thread, CUDA's avatar is slowly making me hate Clint Eastwood movies.

You talkin to me

Heh, that was Taxi Driver…but it works tho..

dissent wrote:And I find it tiresome to have to constantly hear the Left conflating "healthcare" and "health insurance". Health care is the actual services you receive, health insurance is one of the many possible ways that you have to pay for that care. It is entirely possible to have excellent health insurance and still receive lousy health care. If the American system continues to crap on health care providers with onerous requirements and paperwork, many of the best skilled practitioners may just decide they've had enough and change how they offer their services, offer fewer of those services, or just get out of medicine all together.

How do you get rid of the health "insurance" racket then? The media, the public and the politicians keep conflating the two as one entity. How much of the patient's money is not going to actual health care right now and is just lining the pockets of corporate bureaucrats? If you get rid of health insurance, how do you ration health care, because it's already rationed now, by wealth. Many who can't afford it get sick and/or die. The U.S. has the most expensive health care in the world and EVERYONE in this country wants to be healthy enough to work and live and be productive members of society.

CUDA wrote:

dissent wrote:(assuming, of course, that there was a point).

Bee have a Point??? NAH it's more fun for her to blindly spout the left wing doctrine. it's easier than having to learn.

So OK CUDA, tell me how the Righties would set up a fair and working health care system since you seem to think the lefties are full of sh*t and a Republican doctor, now a House Representative, is so clueless that he whines about HIS insurance and forgets that he now represents the REST of us and WE have a big problem with health care AND the insurance industry in this country?

MAKE MY DAY