I thought Pelosi said we would all like it?

Bfgrn said:
Let's try this: If a law was passed today that every bridge in America had to exceed a particular load bearing limit, would all the bridges in America be fixed and safe by the next day?
Click to expand...

you really need to work on your analogys, because i'm failing to see the correlation.
 
Bfgrn said:
Let's try this: If a law was passed today that every bridge in America had to exceed a particular load bearing limit, would all the bridges in America be fixed and safe by the next day?
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving that Obamacare is an abomination and rather than putting forth a national plan and forcing everyone into it, we should instead leave the issue to the states to tailor their plans to the needs of their constituents. I am glad you are finally starting to see the light.
 
St. Augustine said:
Perhaps you could explain it to us?
Click to expand...

Sure, the need for waivers is necessary because the full law has not been implemented, because it takes time to create competitive exchange markets and because many low pay employees have horrible coverage called mini-meds.

The Truth About Health Care Waivers

Employers who hire lower wage, part time or seasonal workers are more likely to offer limited benefit plans. Retail or chain restaurant employers frequently offer limited benefit plans that contain less comprehensive coverage and annual dollar limits on how much workers can receive in health coverage. The premiums for these limited benefit policies (known as mini-meds) are significantly lower than for policies with comprehensive coverage and are more affordable for lower wage workers and their families. In exchange for the low premiums, these policies generally come with high deductibles and annual dollar caps as low as $2,000. In addition, in many cases, employees are paying the full cost of the insurance policy, with no help from their employer.

The good news is that mini-meds will be eliminated in 2014, thanks to provisions that phase out insurance companies’ use of annual limits between now and 2014. The “phase out” has already begun to kick in, and in 2014 when annual limits are completely eliminated, consumers be able to purchase health insurance in state-based Exchanges -- new competitive marketplaces – where consumers and small businesses can shop for private coverage and will have the market power similar to large employers.

The bad news is that today mini-meds are often the only affordable option for many low-wage workers because retail and chain restaurants rarely offer their workers options beyond these plans. And because mini-meds are built around annual limits, estimates from employers and insurers indicate that beginning the phase out of annual limits this year would cause mini-med premiums to rise by more than 200 percent, forcing employers to drop coverage and sending many low-wage workers to purchase insurance on the more expensive individual insurance market, where they would get an even worse deal than what they have today. The result would be a whole new population of uninsured Americans.

To ensure that we protect the coverage that these workers have today until better options are available for them in 2014, the law allows HHS, in extreme cases, to issue temporary waivers from the phase out of annual limits. There are some important facts to remember about these temporary waivers:

The waivers only apply to one provision of the law – the provisions phasing out annual limits. Insurance companies and employers that receive waivers must comply with all other parts of the Affordable Care Act.

The waivers last one year. Insurance companies must reapply for the waivers each year between now and 2014 when annual limits on coverage will be completely prohibited and individuals will have more affordable and better private insurance choices in the competitive Exchange markets.

All employers and insurers that offer mini-med plans may apply for a waiver if they demonstrate that there will be large increases in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage without a waiver. You can read a list of employers and insurers that have received waivers here.

HHS also took an additional step to ensure these workers know more about mini-med policies and the limited coverage they may be buying. The Administration is requiring the issuers of limited benefit plans to notify consumers in plain language that their plan offers extremely limited benefits and direct them to HealthCare.gov, where they may be able to find better coverage options. The Administration has also restricted the sale of new mini-med policies, except under some limited circumstances. You can read more about this new announcement here.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you really need to work on your analogys, because i'm failing to see the correlation.
Click to expand...

the correlation is indeed there, it is just not what he thinks it is. He is proving that Obamacare is a huge mistake. You don't try to force a 'universal' plan on everyone. You tailor the plans according to need. Just as you would in his bridge analogy.

The fool is proving himself wrong.
 
Bfgrn said:
Sure, the need for waivers is necessary because the full law has not been implemented, because it takes time to create competitive exchange markets and because many low pay employees have horrible coverage called mini-meds.

The Truth About Health Care Waivers

Employers who hire lower wage, part time or seasonal workers are more likely to offer limited benefit plans. Retail or chain restaurant employers frequently offer limited benefit plans that contain less comprehensive coverage and annual dollar limits on how much workers can receive in health coverage. The premiums for these limited benefit policies (known as mini-meds) are significantly lower than for policies with comprehensive coverage and are more affordable for lower wage workers and their families. In exchange for the low premiums, these policies generally come with high deductibles and annual dollar caps as low as $2,000. In addition, in many cases, employees are paying the full cost of the insurance policy, with no help from their employer.

The good news is that mini-meds will be eliminated in 2014, thanks to provisions that phase out insurance companies’ use of annual limits between now and 2014. The “phase out” has already begun to kick in, and in 2014 when annual limits are completely eliminated, consumers be able to purchase health insurance in state-based Exchanges -- new competitive marketplaces – where consumers and small businesses can shop for private coverage and will have the market power similar to large employers.

The bad news is that today mini-meds are often the only affordable option for many low-wage workers because retail and chain restaurants rarely offer their workers options beyond these plans. And because mini-meds are built around annual limits, estimates from employers and insurers indicate that beginning the phase out of annual limits this year would cause mini-med premiums to rise by more than 200 percent, forcing employers to drop coverage and sending many low-wage workers to purchase insurance on the more expensive individual insurance market, where they would get an even worse deal than what they have today. The result would be a whole new population of uninsured Americans.

To ensure that we protect the coverage that these workers have today until better options are available for them in 2014, the law allows HHS, in extreme cases, to issue temporary waivers from the phase out of annual limits. There are some important facts to remember about these temporary waivers:

The waivers only apply to one provision of the law – the provisions phasing out annual limits. Insurance companies and employers that receive waivers must comply with all other parts of the Affordable Care Act.

The waivers last one year. Insurance companies must reapply for the waivers each year between now and 2014 when annual limits on coverage will be completely prohibited and individuals will have more affordable and better private insurance choices in the competitive Exchange markets.

All employers and insurers that offer mini-med plans may apply for a waiver if they demonstrate that there will be large increases in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage without a waiver. You can read a list of employers and insurers that have received waivers here.

HHS also took an additional step to ensure these workers know more about mini-med policies and the limited coverage they may be buying. The Administration is requiring the issuers of limited benefit plans to notify consumers in plain language that their plan offers extremely limited benefits and direct them to HealthCare.gov, where they may be able to find better coverage options. The Administration has also restricted the sale of new mini-med policies, except under some limited circumstances. You can read more about this new announcement here.
Click to expand...

Tell us.... why is it then that the ENTIRE state of Nevada is getting a waiver? Why is it that UNIONS are getting waivers (you know, the ones that have the so called 'cadillac' plans
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Does the constitution of the state of Mass allow that kind of forced participation?
Click to expand...
I don't know and I don't care. I lived there myself, saw that it was a "police state", so moved out. Since then they have consistently shown themselves to be against my value system.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
if seeing the healthcare law is the same as the TSA, then yeah I need the short bus, to get away from you insane idiots.
Click to expand...

SO...you don't understand it, or you are unable to read it...we need to know so we can have the proper medical personnel on board the bus...
 
Superfreak said:
Tell us.... why is it then that the ENTIRE state of Nevada is getting a waiver?
Click to expand...

Because it's insurers are particularly shitty and individuals may not be able to obtain any insurance if the shitty insurers are shut down. Shitty insurance is better than none. Once the health exchanges are implemented, there will be no need for shitty insurance.

Superfreak said:
Why is it that UNIONS are getting waivers (you know, the ones that have the so called 'cadillac' plans
Click to expand...

Because lots of unions provide supplemental health insurance plans to their members which provide benefits in addition to employer-sponsored plans. As supplemental plans, these plans often have annual spending caps that are otherwise barred under the Affordable Care Act. Once again, when the health exchanges are implemented and people will be able to obtain comprehensive health insurance plans they will have no need for supplemental insurance, but until then it is in everyone's interest to allow the supplement plans to exist.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Because it's insurers are particularly shitty and individuals may not be able to obtain any insurance if the shitty insurers are shut down. Shitty insurance is better than none. Once the health exchanges are implemented, there will be no need for shitty insurance.



Because lots of unions provide supplemental health insurance plans to their members which provide benefits in addition to employer-sponsored plans. As supplemental plans, these plans often have annual spending caps that are otherwise barred under the Affordable Care Act. Once again, when the health exchanges are implemented and people will be able to obtain comprehensive health insurance plans they will have no need for supplemental insurance, but until then it is in everyone's interest to allow the supplement plans to exist.
Click to expand...

I am surprised these right wing ideologues would want to post this stuff, because once you get to the bottom of it, you see why this bill was needed. It shines a bright light on the scurrilous insurance cartels who they worship. They will never understand that there is a built in conflict between health care and for profit insurance. Health care will never fit a 'free market' model. The best that can be crafted is laws that limit the cartel's death panels...Insurance cartels are not in the health care business. They are in the profit business, and the best way to increase profit is to collect premiums and find ways NOT to pay claims.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Because it's insurers are particularly shitty and individuals may not be able to obtain any insurance if the shitty insurers are shut down. Shitty insurance is better than none. Once the health exchanges are implemented, there will be no need for shitty insurance.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO.... right, so because YOU say its 'shitty' that must be the case? Tell me, if it is full implementation of Obamacare that is needed and full implementation that will make everything all right.... then why did Obama/Pelosi/Reid put off full implementation until 2014?


Because lots of unions provide supplemental health insurance plans to their members which provide benefits in addition to employer-sponsored plans. As supplemental plans, these plans often have annual spending caps that are otherwise barred under the Affordable Care Act. Once again, when the health exchanges are implemented and people will be able to obtain comprehensive health insurance plans they will have no need for supplemental insurance, but until then it is in everyone's interest to allow the supplement plans to exist.
Click to expand...

in other words..... because they are supporters of Obama and the Dems and he doesn't want to piss them off further. Thank you, that is all you needed to say.
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO.... right, so because YOU say its 'shitty' that must be the case? Tell me, if it is full implementation of Obamacare that is needed and full implementation that will make everything all right.... then why did Obama/Pelosi/Reid put off full implementation until 2014?
Click to expand...

No, it's shitty because any health insurance plan that cannot meet the 80-20 requirements of the ACA is shitty health insurance that is either extremely inefficient or ripping of its insureds. As for why full implementation was delayed until 2014, you'd have to ask them. Personally, I would have preferred it, although it would likely have been a logistical nightmare.


Superfreak said:
in other words..... because they are supporters of Obama and the Dems and he doesn't want to piss them off further. Thank you, that is all you needed to say.
Click to expand...

I assumed you were asking a serious question in good faith and were genuinely looking for an answer. I guess not.
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO.... right, so because YOU say its 'shitty' that must be the case? Tell me, if it is full implementation of Obamacare that is needed and full implementation that will make everything all right.... then why did Obama/Pelosi/Reid put off full implementation until 2014?
Click to expand...

If a law was passed today that every bridge in America had to exceed a particular load bearing limit, would all the bridges in America be fixed and safe by the next day?

How long do you believe it will take for states set up competitive exchange markets? A minute, and hour, a day, a month?
 
David St. Hubbins said:
No, it's shitty because any health insurance plan that cannot meet the 80-20 requirements of the ACA is shitty health insurance that is either extremely inefficient or ripping of its insureds. As for why full implementation was delayed until 2014, you'd have to ask them. Personally, I would have preferred it, although it would likely have been a logistical nightmare.
Click to expand...

Tell us genius... where did the 80-20 number come from and why was it chosen?

I assumed you were asking a serious question in good faith and were genuinely looking for an answer. I guess not.
Click to expand...

I was asking a serious question, to which you replied with the standard bullshit answer your masters taught you. The real answer is that they would have been taxed on those cadillac plans and THAT would have pissed off a big constituency.
 
Bfgrn said:
If a law was passed today that every bridge in America had to exceed a particular load bearing limit, would all the bridges in America be fixed and safe by the next day?

How long do you believe it will take for states set up competitive exchange markets? A minute, and hour, a day, a month?
Click to expand...

No, but it would most certainly NOT take five years. Your bridge analogy fails in this case completely.
 
Superfreak said:
Tell us genius... where did the 80-20 number come from and why was it chosen?
Click to expand...

You know freak, I have explained medical loss ratio before, and even offered the explanation of a man who was executive VP at Cigna and testified before Congress. WHY are you right wingers so adverse to knowledge and truth? Are you allergic to it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top