The Washington Times: Tawdry details of Obamacare (exemptions ballon)

[IHOPSkins]

Last year, we learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had granted 111 waivers to protect a lucky few from the onerous regulations of the new national health care overhaul. That number quickly and quietly climbed to 222, and

last week we learned that the number of Obamacare privileged escapes has skyrocketed to 733.

Among the fortunate is a who’s who list of unions, businesses and even several cities and four states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee) but none of the friends of Barack feature as prominently as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

How can you get your own free pass from Obamacare? Maybe you can just donate $27 million to President Obama‘s campaign efforts. That’s what Andy Stern did as president of SEIU in 2008. He has been the most frequent guest at Mr. Obama‘s White House.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/28/tawdry-details-of-obamacare-420960137/

Unions Make up 40 Percent of Employees Exempted from Obamacare (list)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/unions-make-40-percent-employees-exempted-obamacare

How many Unions can you fit in the Lincoln Bedroom?

[Bliz]

Hey look everybody! Feces tossing from the opinion section of a partisan rag!!! OMG

Wolf has no credentials to be evaluating legislation, and the "article" is pathetic at best. You should be embarrassed for thinking it deserving of its own thread. The second has numbers that are interesting, but there's no context or analysis there.

ho hum

[Wrong Direction]

The biggest assumption in the CBO's score that I think will be wrong is the rate at which employers will drop coverage and "push" people into Obama's exchanges. The result will be much higher costs for the government with more people in the exchanges. All of these waivers present evidence of employers cost avoiding.

I believe the CBO used Part D estimates and it's an apples and oranges comparison.

[twa]

Somebody hit a nerve

[Bliz]

Somebody hit a nerve

Darn right. There are a lot of valid criticisms to make. Throwing up your arms in mock outrage and pretending that this bill was unique for involving some political horse-trading is not one of them. So yeah, I wasnt really impressed with that garbage editorial. You see more cogent arguments in the tailgate (seriously) quite frequently. This could have and should have gone in one of the 1524243 other healthcare threads

[SnyderShrugged]

Hey look everybody! Feces tossing from the opinion section of a partisan rag!!! OMG

Wolf has no credentials to be evaluating legislation, and the "article" is pathetic at best. You should be embarrassed for thinking it deserving of its own thread. The second has numbers that are interesting, but there's no context or analysis there.

ho hum

so the unions (many of whom rabidly supported the bill, even to the point of violence in some cases) are not getting a lot of the exemptions? Is the article a lie or are you just upset at the truth?

[twa]

Horse trading usually stops once ya buy the nag,care to venture a opinion on the rapidly rising exemptions granted?

[Burgold]

Personally, while I don't like favortism... in a country of 100's of millions I have to chuckle at something "skyrocketing" from 222 to 723. There are more businesses than that on Rockville Pike and I'm still not sure what the mix is between individual and corporate waivers (didn't click the link).

[DRSmith]

From when this started last year most cases I saw were the exemptions were the amount of money as a percentage that went to patient care, because in some cases the administration was done by health insurance companies. so they lowered the amount that had to go to patient care by 5 cents per dollar

[Bliz]

so the unions (many of whom rabidly supported the bill, even to the point of violence in some cases) are not getting a lot of the exemptions? Is the article a lie or are you just upset at the truth?

"even to the point of violence in some cases"?

Well, if I am not mistaken, the article is at least partially a lie in that it implies that the waivers are permanent, when in fact they are good for, at best, three years. So there's that. Then you have numbers provided in a vacuum. So, it claims union employees make up 40% of exempted employees, without providing the context of what % of employees that were originally anticipated to be covered belong to unions, or what portion of companies that have applied for an exemption are union-based. In other words, if 40% of the people anticipated to be covered are also in unions, we should not be surprised if 40% of exempted employees are in unions. But it doesn't get into that level of detail. You also have an implication of political underpinnings to the granting of exemptions without any analysis of what the underlying plans were like, or what if anything makes the companies getting exemptions different than most. McDonald's, for example, get an exemption. They employ a lot of people. Of course, they're virtually all part-time minimum wage (or near minimum wage) and the coverage they were previously getting was next to nothing. $2,000 per year cap that won't pay for any in-patient service.

There are many things that opinion piece is. "The truth" is not one of them. "The truth" is layered and multi-faceted and requires you to put all the facts on the table, not to cherry pick the parts that sound must damning while ignoring contrary data, context, etc.

Personally, while I don't like favortism... in a country of 100's of millions I have to chuckle at something "skyrocketing" from 222 to 723. There are more businesses than that on Rockville Pike and I'm still not sure what the mix is between individual and corporate waivers (didn't click the link).

Case in point. The link won't give you the answer because it's not interested in the answer. It's interested in presenting numbers that sound bad and letting you draw conclusions that are likely inaccurate. So here's an example of how they do that.

This means that although there are only 14.6 million unionized employees in the United States, and 860,000 of them are already exempted from this provision of Obamacare.

ONLY 14.5 mil union employees, and 800k ALREADY EXEMPTED. Sounds pretty bad, right?

800,000 is less than 6% of 14.6 million. So they could say, 94% of union employees do not have an exemption. But that's not as sexy, is it?

[DRSmith]

Would not most union employees already have healthcare as part of their contracts and already have worked out co pays and there are already contracts in place?

[SnyderShrugged]

"even to the point of violence in some cases"?

Well, if I am not mistaken, the article is at least partially a lie in that it implies that the waivers are permanent, when in fact they are good for, at best, three years. So there's that. Then you have numbers provided in a vacuum. So, it claims union employees make up 40% of exempted employees, without providing the context of what % of employees that were originally anticipated to be covered belong to unions. In other words, if 40% of the people anticipated to be covered are also in unions, we should not be surprised if 40% of exempted employees are in unions. But it doesn't get into that level of detail. You also have an implication of political underpinnings to the granting of exemptions without any analysis of what the underlying plans were like, or what if anything makes the companies getting exemptions different than most. McDonald's, for example, get an exemption. They employ a lot of people. Of course, they're virtually all part-time minimum wage (or near minimum wage) and the coverage they were previously getting was next to nothing. $2,000 per year cap that won't pay for any in-patient service.

There are many things that opinion piece is. "The truth" is not one of them. "The truth" is layered and multi-faceted and requires you to put all the facts on the table, not to cherry pick the parts that sound must damning while ignoring contrary data, context, etc.

Case in point. The link won't give you the answer because it's not interested in the answer. It's interested in presenting numbers that sound bad and letting you draw conclusions that are likely inaccurate. So here's an example of how they do that.

ONLY 14.5 mil union employees, and 800k ALREADY EXEMPTED. Sounds pretty bad, right?

800,000 is less than 6% of 14.6 million. So they could say, 94% of union employees do not have an exemption. But that's not as sexy, is it?

Yes, even to the point of violence.

again, are many unions who were ardent supporters of the bill now getting exemptions? if they are, then there is little you should be upset about in the article.

[JMS]

The biggest assumption in the CBO's score that I think will be wrong is the rate at which employers will drop coverage and "push" people into Obama's exchanges. The result will be much higher costs for the government with more people in the exchanges. All of these waivers present evidence of employers cost avoiding.

I believe the CBO used Part D estimates and it's an apples and oranges comparison.

:doh:

Just limiting the insurance companies overhead to a fixed percentage is supposed to cut the growth of medical insurance costs in half over the next decade; That right there will save trillions. That's only one provision of this bill.....

[mardi gras skin]

Is there some formula for determining why certain organizations get exemptions? If an organization requests an exemption, are they ever denied? If anyone who wants an exemption can get one, I don't have a problem with them.

[Dan T.]

so the unions (many of whom rabidly supported the bill, even to the point of violence in some cases) are not getting a lot of the exemptions? Is the article a lie or are you just upset at the truth?

Goodness. I hope the targets of all that violence have a good health care plan.

Please list those unions that officially sanctioned violence in support of the health care bill.

[JMS]

Would not most union employees already have healthcare as part of their contracts and already have worked out co pays and there are already contracts in place?

Exactly correct... How do you know the GOP is lieing to you... Cause their lips are moving.

It's not the union workers who need healthcare... It's likely the exemption occured because the Auto workers union took over healthcare costs from the auto companies. The auto companies pay the union a fee and the union covers their members costs in a self insurance plan. It's a win win... the auto makers get a known set amount to plan for with regard to auto costs and the auto workers get a better plan cause they cut out the insurance and drug companies profits..

They need the exemption because in this case it's the union who is actually the healthcare provider not the employer, which is reversed for most other Americans.

How do you get an exemption from Obama care. Have 10,000+ members and come up with a better solution and I'm sure the dems will consider your position too.

[December90]

Would not most union employees already have healthcare as part of their contracts and already have worked out co pays and there are already contracts in place?

Yes, most unions would have heathcare as part of their contracts. Nice heathcare at that, you know the kind of nice "Cadillac" plans that Obamacare wants to punish for being better than the government approved plans. (for the dense ones, by "punish" I mean "Tax") problem is The Executive Trainee whose office is now the White house does not really want to punish his supporters , so he has to figure out how to get them exemptions from his punishment. (If you think the exemptions for the most ardent supporters will only be three years, then you must really enjoy the kool-aid you have been drinking)

From this thread I can draw three conclusions:

1) Bilz belongs to a union

2) The Union Bilz belongs to asked for and received an exemption from Obamacare

3) Bilz doesn't want anyone to mess that up for him and this thread really caused his panties to twist in a quite uncomfortable way.

[mardi gras skin]

How do you get an exemption from Obama care. Have 10,000+ members and come up with a better solution and I'm sure the dems will consider your position too.

Can you find that in writing anywhere? How exactly does an organization go about getting an exemption? I have a small plan but its a good one and I would rather not be forced to change what I have. I don't know if the new laws will force me out of my HSA but if they do, I would like to get an exemption.

[DRSmith]

Yes, most unions would have heathcare as part of their contracts. Nice heathcare at that, you know the kind of nice "Cadillac" plans that Obamacare wants to punish for being better than the government approved plans. (for the dense ones, by "punish" I mean "Tax") problem is The Executive Trainee whose office is now the White house does not really want to punish his supporters , so he has to figure out how to get them exemptions from his punishment. (If you think the exemptions for the most ardent supporters will only be three years, then you must really enjoy the kool-aid you have been drinking)

From this thread I can draw three conclusions:

1) Bilz belongs to a union

2) The Union Bilz belongs to asked for and received an exemption from Obamacare

3) Bilz doesn't want anyone to mess that up for him and this thread really caused his panties to twist in a quite uncomfortable way.

See to me it seemed the unions were supporting a large public option open to everyone I think if that had been enacted then all person still recieving any health care from their employers that covered that which government covered that portion should have been taxed.

The fact that insurance stocks went up after the bill was signed tells me that there will be profits for the insurance companies in the future

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 09:01 AM ----------

Can you find that in writing anywhere? How exactly does an organization go about getting an exemption? I have a small plan but its a good one and I would rather not be forced to change what I have. I don't know if the new laws will force me out of my HSA but if they do, I would like to get an exemption.

Here is it explained a bit in the case of Maine

Beginning in 2011, insurers must devote at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect to medical claims or other activities that improve customers' health - leaving no more than 20 percent for the insurer's administrative costs or profits. Companies that do not spend enough on the right purposes will have to refund the difference to their customers in 2012

According to rules issued by HHS, a state must provide data demonstrating that there is a reasonable risk that the new standard will force a critical mass of insurers to pull out of its individual market, leaving residents who cannot get insurance through their employer with little or no ability to buy it for themselves.

States can request adjustments for the next one to three years. Though technically the law allows for adjustments beyond then, it's unclear whether they would be necessary: In 2014, the law will begin requiring almost all Americans to buy insurance - providing insurers selling individual plans with a considerably healthier, more constant pool of customers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/30/AR2010123005032.html

[aREDSKIN]

Exactly correct... How do you know the GOP is lieing to you... Cause their lips are moving.

Perhaps you just missed this-

The author of this piece- Dr. Milton R. Wolf is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist, medical director and cousin of President Obama. He blogs daily at miltonwolf.com.

[SnyderShrugged]

Goodness. I hope the targets of all that violence have a good health care plan.

Please list those unions that officially sanctioned violence in support of the health care bill.

who said anything about official sanction? Its plain fact that SEIU members were involved in at least one violent outburst in the lead up to the vote.

[Dan T.]

who said anything about official sanction? Its plain fact that SEIU members were involved in at least one violent outburst in the lead up to the vote.

That's a hell of a big backtrack from saying that "many unions supported the bill up to the point of violence." Wait, let me get your exact quote... Here it is...

so the unions (many of whom rabidly supported the bill, even to the point of violence in some cases) are not getting a lot of the exemptions? Is the article a lie or are you just upset at the truth?

So a couple of guys who belong to a union get into a scuffle, and you translate that as many unions rabidly support the bill even to the point of violence? That's like saying Rand Paul is a violent thug because one of his supporters hit a lady protester.

[JMS]

Can you find that in writing anywhere? How exactly does an organization go about getting an exemption? I have a small plan but its a good one and I would rather not be forced to change what I have. I don't know if the new laws will force me out of my HSA but if they do, I would like to get an exemption.

Who is forcing you to change what you have? All Obamacare is saying is if you get sick, that "small plan" can't cut you off ot fend for yourself; or jack your rates up so your small business employer can't continue to pay his end....

Healthcare costs are the #1 reason sited for people declairing bankrupcy including people who have insurance after all.... Or it was before the GOP changed the laws and made it harder to declair bankrupcy.

[SnyderShrugged]

That's a hell of a big backtrack from saying that "many unions supported the bill up to the point of violence." Wait, let me get your exact quote... Here it is...

So a couple of guys who belong to a union get into a scuffle, and you translate that as many unions rabidly support the bill even to the point of violence? That's like saying Rand Paul is a violent thug because one of his supporters hit a lady protester.

reading is a skill that must be learned over time.

In my exact quote you posted, I clearly used a comma, I suggest you consider what that comma means.

Its a fact, (again) that there were violent altercations involving union members at the healthcare debates. I am not saying it is a huge proportion nor am I saying that all union members are thugs like those were. Simply saying that SOME members were violent (which is absolutely true)

so back to the topic and the apparent anger at the OP.

I asked this once already and some slid past it.

"so the unions (many of whom rabidly supported the bill, even to the point of violence in some cases) are not getting a lot of the exemptions? Is the article a lie or are you just upset at the truth?"

[Dan T.]

Reading certainly is a skill, Snyder. So is accurate, truthful writing. Comma or no, your original statement said that many unions supported the bill, even to the point of violence in some cases. I don't think I'm splitting hairs to call you on that statement, the implication of which is that many unions condoned the violence committed by some individuals. It's an inflammatory, incaccurate statement.

And I don't even care that much about unions.