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

[SnyderShrugged]

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.

You are splitting hairs, especially after I just explained my position with more clarity.

[Dan T.]

You are splitting hairs, especially after I just explained my position with more clarity.

You "explained your position" and then requoted the same, inaccurate orginal statement.

"Rand Paul supporters are violent thugs, to the point of beating women who oppose him."

[SnyderShrugged]

You "explained your position" and then requoted the same, inaccurate orginal statement.

"Rand Paul supporters are violent thugs, to the point of beating women who oppose him."

What is inaccurate? That some union members were violent or that some unions who supported the bill are getting exemptions. Did I not clearly state that it was some and not all union members and did I not very specifically state that i didnt feel the violence was great in proportion? Seems like you are scared of the actual topic and that you would rather discuss your red herring out of fear

(why do you keep bringing up a rand paul supporter? what does that have to do with me or the thread topic?)

[aREDSKIN]

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.

Maybe mot when it comes to Obamacare, even though there were many reports of Union violence & intimation, but overall it's very clear Unions use violence as a means to their justified end(s).

Since 1975, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research has collected more than 9,000 reports of union violence. These incidents are recorded and electronically maintained in the Institute’s Violent Event Data File.........

From some of the strikes chronicled here, it is also clear that the actual extent of the violence perpetrated by union militants far exceeds the small number of incidents reported in the Institute’s Data File. In some of the strikes of which the Institute recorded, police and company reports indicate that the actual number of assaults, threats and property damage is tens of times greater than the news reports collected by the Institute.

http://www.nilrr.org/node/54

[Dan T.]

What is inaccurate? That some union members were violent or that some unions who supported the bill are getting exemptions. Did I not clearly state that it was some and not all union members and did I not very specifically state that i didnt feel the violence was great in proportion? Seems like you are scared of the actual topic and that you would rather discuss your red herring out of fear

(why do you keep bringing up a rand paul supporter? what does that have to do with me or the thread topic?)

What is inaccurate? Your statement said that unions rabidly supported the bill, to the point of violence in some cases. A quick Wiki search shows that SEIU has 1.8 million workers in over 100 occupations in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. Because a couple of guys who belong to a union get into a scuffle at some political rally does not mean that "unions support the bill to the point of violence." Your original statement said nothing about "union members" - you only said "unions." That's a big difference.

I raise the Rand Paul rally incident as an absurd analogy to your misleading at best, stupid at worst original statement.

I'm not scared of the original topic. I came to this thread hoping to learn more about it, but got distracted by a statement that seemed blatantly misleading and false.

[SnyderShrugged]

What is inaccurate? Your statement said that unions rabidly supported the bill, to the point of violence in some cases. A quick Wiki search shows that SEIU has 1.8 million workers in over 100 occupations in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. Because a couple of guys who belong to a union get into a scuffle at some political rally does not mean that "unions support the bill to the point of violence." Your original statement said nothing about "union members" - you only said "unions." That's a big difference.

I raise the Rand Paul rally incident as an absurd analogy to your misleading at best, stupid at worst original statement.

I'm not scared of the original topic. I came to this thread hoping to learn more about it, but got distracted by a statement that seemed blatantly misleading and false.

It's obvious to me now that you are being intentionally obtuse. I already clarified, reclarified, and clarified my position to you over and over.

Feel free to keep ignoring the actual topic and the spirit of the post (hint: its not about union member violence)

I'm done with your childishness.

[Dan T.]

It's obvious to me now that you are being intentionally obtuse. I already clarified, reclarified, and clarified my position to you over and over.

Feel free to keep ignoring the actual topic and the spirit of the post (hint: its not about union member violence)

I'm done with your childishness.

Right back atcha.

[Wrong Direction]

: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.....

Care to back this up by citing data? Part of that overhead is in claims review. They'll be paying more claims, including fraudulent claims, so that will raise the costs of what they're paying.

One good thing about the bill is the creation of a one-stop-shop for insurance information online. This will dramatically reduce the price for marketing, as will employer drop out. This 80% rule is a lot of things, but a saver of trillions just isnt' supported by fact unless you're talking like 250 years.

[JimboDaMan]

It's obvious to me now that you are being intentionally obtuse. I already clarified, reclarified, and clarified my position to you over and over.

Feel free to keep ignoring the actual topic and the spirit of the post (hint: its not about union member violence)

I'm done with your childishness.

You got caught embellishing to improve your point. Got called out for it, and rather than try to back up your assertion you issued one of those amusing "clarifications" like professional politicians routinely bestow upon us. I don't blame you for being "done" with this.

[Bliz]

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.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, in a union. No one in my family belongs to a union. As far as I know none of my friends belong to a union. I'm not particularly fond of unions. I think the new card-check legislation is a terrible idea...

But enough about me.

The point was, that opinion piece was terribly written, and not the least bit convincing. And I stand by that assessment. I don't see anyone rushing in with a defense of its articulation of the reasons why Obamacare is the worst thing since unsliced bread.

The author provides raw numbers with little or no context, and in a very misleading way. If anyone has the context, as I said in the 2nd post, I'd be interested to see it.

[DRSmith]

If Medicare if good enought for older Americans including Ayn Rand it should be good enough for all

[mardi gras skin]

Who is forcing you to change what you have?

I don't know. I had heard that the new system was not friendly to HSA accounts and, if that's true, it would negatively affect my plan.

edit: I know that my HSA can no longer pay for over the counter medications so I have to go through the extra step of getting my primary care provider to write prescriptions for everything now. Other than that, I haven't seen any changes.

[DRSmith]

I don't know. I had heard that the new system was not friendly to HSA accounts and, if that's true, it would negatively affect my plan.

edit: I know that my HSA can no longer pay for over the counter medications so I have to go through the extra step of getting my primary care provider to write prescriptions for everything now. Other than that, I haven't seen any changes.

How is that a problem?

It seems to me that cuts down on you buying stuff for others which saves insurance companies money and if you are so sick you need something more than a 5 or ten dollar over the counter you should see a doc

[twa]

If Medicare if good enought for older Americans including Ayn Rand it should be good enough for all

Spoken like a good Canadian

I don't want to be forced into Medicare,nor a govt plan

Medicare is mandated not a choice

added

Hopefully judge Vinson will put another stake in govt ins today

[SnyderShrugged]

You got caught embellishing to improve your point. Got called out for it, and rather than try to back up your assertion you issued one of those amusing "clarifications" like professional politicians routinely bestow upon us. I don't blame you for being "done" with this.

didnt get "caught" doing anything beyond your mere opinion. I stated a fact, in simple and understandable terms and it was grasped onto as if it was the point of my post.

feel free to point out, with precision, what I said that was inaccurate

Nice try but you fail.

[DRSmith]

Spoken like a good Canadian

I don't want to be forced into Medicare,nor a govt plan

Medicare is mandated not a choice

added

Hopefully judge Vinson will put another stake in govt ins today

No you apply for medicare it seems

[twa]

No you apply for medicare it seems

Yes unless you wish to forfeit your SS

http://floppingaces.net/2009/08/03/seniors-boomers-healthcare-choice-enroll-in-medicare-or-lose-your-social-security-retirement-checks/

Choice? *What* choice?

Apparently, since a Clinton rule change to Social Security regulations in 1993, those over 65 years of age have had a choice all right… a choice to enroll in Medicare, or waive their Social Security retirement benefits. Not only that, if you applied for SS bennies at 62, and received SS payments and RSDI, you have to pay them back when you opt out of HI.

On August 30, 1993, the Social Security Administration added two substantive rules to its “Program Operations Manual” to address the fact that “ome individuals entitled to monthly benefits have asked to waive Hospital Insurance (HI) entitlement because of religious or philosophical reasons, or because they prefer other health insurance.” (These rules, while promulgated by SSA, are enforced by both SSA and HHS.)

The first rule reads:

“Individuals entitled to monthly benefits which confer eligibility for HI may not waive HI entitlement. The only way to avoid HI Entitlement is through withdrawal of the monthly benefit application. Withdrawal requires repayment of all Retirement, Survivors, Disability Insurance (RSDI) and HI benefit payments.”

The second rule reads:

“To withdraw from the HI program, an individual must submit a written request for withdrawal and must refund any HI benefits paid on his/her behalf … An individual who filed an application for both monthly benefits and HI may:

• Withdraw the claim for monthly benefits without jeopardizing HI entitlement; or

• Withdraw the claim for both monthly benefits and HI. The individual may not elect to withdraw only the HI claim.”

Notice this Clinton rule change allows you to yield your SS benefits and keep Medicare, but you may not keep your SS retirement checks and yield your Medicare enrollment.

[DRSmith]

If you decide you don't want to pay for Part B right away, you have to indicate that on the form Social Security will send you when it notifies you, near your 65th birthday, that you've been automatically enrolled. If you choose not to enroll in Medicare Part B when you're first eligible for it but later decide you want it, you'll only be able to enroll in it during an open enrollment period in the first three months of each year. Your coverage would begin on July 1 of that year. For every year after age 65 that you delayed enrolling in Part B, however, your monthly premium will be 10 percent higher.

http://www.caring.com/questions/do-i-have-to-take-medicare

[Hubbs]

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

This is what drives me nuts. It's a virtual certainty that any legislation that redefines health care will have all sorts of flaws which should be addressed in a reasonable and responsible manner. Instead, the eternal desire to score political points gives us: "Unions bad! AAARRRGGGHHH!"

Once that kind of theme is established, everybody already knows how our politicians will react based on nothing more than the letters in parentheses beside their names. I'm somebody who thinks that unions have generally outlived their usefulness thanks to the cornucopia of laws that now protect basic worker rights, but I also think that an article like this is counterproductive no matter where you stand on unions or "Obamacare". You want to make legitimate criticisms? Leave the talking points at home.

[mardi gras skin]

How is that a problem?

It seems to me that cuts down on you buying stuff for others which saves insurance companies money and if you are so sick you need something more than a 5 or ten dollar over the counter you should see a doc

I'm not sure you understand what you're talking about here. My HSA account is money I have set aside personally. It gets spent before I ever touch insurance money. The end result of the change doesn't reduce insurance money spent at all. It just makes it harder for me to get drugs using my tax free HSA account. The new work around is for me to make a list of drugs I need my primary care provider to write prescriptions for (everything from advil to multi-vitamins) and go through the pharmacy to get them. Its much more time consuming and I'm sure its a bigger drain on the system but that's the way the new system works so that's what I do.

[Wrong Direction]

If Medicare if good enought for older Americans including Ayn Rand it should be good enough for all

It is, if we raise taxes by 30+ trillion to pay for it over the next few decades, and if you don't mind fraud, or quality coordinated care, or stuff like that.

[IHOPSkins]

Update (actually from 1/20)

House panel announces investigation into healthcare reform

The health department’s power to provide temporary exemptions to certain groups on annual insurance-limit requirements included in the reform law is “troubling,”

according to a letter from Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and investigations subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.).

The committee is asking the department to provide a list of every individual, organization, business, state or other entity that requested a waiver, obtained a waiver, or has been denied a waiver for any part of the reform law. The probe seeks “all documents” relating to the granting of waivers or exemptions for any reform law requirement.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/139039-house-panel-announces-investigation-into-reform-law

Its more than TROUBLING....Its BS Chicago Style

Congress Will Probe Special Exemptions to Health-Care Law That Obama Administration Gave Select Unions and Businesses, Says Republican Senator

Washington (CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration’s waivers to temporarily exempt certain companies, unions, and charities from rules established by the new health care law are a “perfect example of special interests” having influence in the administration and will be looked into by Congress, Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee told CNSNews.com.

"You’re going to find out that by the president doing that with the secretary of HHS, he violated one of his main principles when he ran for office--and that was that special interests were not going to have an in in his administration,” said Grassley. “And this is a perfect example of special interests having an in in his administration when they get those waivers.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-waivers-politicized-should-be

And before some of you overreact to the second link...its about the Quote (on video) from Grassley

And it looks like they were going to investigate when the list was only in the 200s.....They might need another STIMILUS bill to investigate the complete list :evilg:

[IHOPSkins]

Update: Complete list of those exempted (so far)

As of today, a total of 733 waivers have been granted for 2011. Key facts about annual limits waivers:

•There was an increase in the number of applications received at the end of 2010 because December 1 was the final day to apply for a waiver for a plan or policy year that begins on January 1 – as many plans do. Over 500 waivers were granted in December. While the number of approved waivers increased by more than 200 percent, the total number of enrollees in plans receiving waivers has increased by only 48 percent since the previous posting.

•Of all the waivers granted to date:

◦Employment-Based Coverage: The vast majority – 712 plans representing 97 percent of all waivers – were granted to health plans that are employment-related.

■Self-Insured Employer Plans Applicants: Employer-based health plans received most of the waivers – 359.

■Collectively-Bargained Employer-Based Plan Applicants: Most of the other health plans receiving waivers are multi-employer health funds created by a collective bargaining agreement between a union and two or more employers, pursuant to the Taft-Hartley Act. These “union plans” are employment based group health plans and operate for the sole benefit of workers. They tend to be larger than other typical group health plans because they cover multiple employers. There are also single-employer union plans that have received a waiver. In total, 182 collectively-bargained plans have received waivers.

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

Biggest exemption granted?.................United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund at 351,000

The next two biggest?........Cigna at 265,000 Aetna at 210,000

Unions account for about 25% of the total waivers but appear to be just behind Insurance Companies for total employees exempted (eyeballin the list)

[twa]

another little bug (besides the CBO doubling the cost est)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/a-glitch-in-health-care-reform.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Confusing language in the health care reform law has raised the possibility that millions of Americans living on modest incomes may be unable to afford their employers’ family policies and yet fail to qualify for government subsidies to buy their own insurance. This is a bizarre development that undercuts the basic goal of health care reform — to expand the number of insured people and make their coverage affordable.

The people left in the lurch would be those who had lower incomes but were not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. They would either have to pay more than they could afford for an employer’s family plan or go without health insurance. The problem arises because the reform law quite properly tries to keep people from dropping affordable employment-based coverage and turning to taxpayer-subsidized coverage on new insurance exchanges, starting in 2014. Only those with coverage deemed “unaffordable” by the health care act would be allowed to receive subsidies.

[JMS]

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

I think you are missing the entire point. Obama designed the Affordable Care Act to benefit the US healthcare consumer. How dare he exempt folks who's healthcare coverage already exceeds the base coverage in the first few years. The fact that most Union members are already empowered and have fine coverage tells you why many union members were given exemptions from the ACA in the first few years. As were the other exempt folks.....

The entire line of reasoning is yet another GOP twisting of the truth.... what is this like the 20th lie or intentional misleading Romney has been trying to spread.

---------- Post added August-27th-2012 at 11:09 AM ----------

another little bug (besides the CBO doubling the cost est)

Which is another false claim by the GOP.

The CBO originally estimated Obamacare would cost $940 Billion, then revised it to $1.76 Trillion . March of 2012. ( The original CBO report covered a different time period, than the new CBO report)...

CBO: ObamaCare Price Tag Shifts from $940 Billion to $1.76 Trillion

http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html

Rated this assertion FALSE!

The CBO’s latest report updates those figures, but it looks at different years. The new gross estimate is $1.762 trillion -- the figure cited in Cruz’s tweet. But it looks at costs over 11 years -- 2012-2022 -- whereas the earlier report’s figure was for 10 years. And it’s important to note that the timespan of 2012 through 2022 covers nine years when the law is fully implemented (and thus its costs are greater).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/21/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-health-reforms-price-tag-has-doubled/

Why this is a rather silly and alarmingly poor Criticism of the Affordable Care Act is because it intentionally ignores the fact that the CBO also stated the revenue over the new time period being discussed would also go up and more than cover the cost difference.

The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.

Krugman charged that Ferguson's claim was misleading because the CBO report does not say that ACA will add to the defecit. "[Ferguson] is deliberately misleading readers, conveying the impression that the CBO had actually rejected Obama’s claim that health reform is deficit-neutral, when in fact the opposite is true," he wrote. Krugman also called on Newsweek to issue a correction.

But in his defense Ferguson argues that he was right because he was only referring to the insurance side of the ACA :doh: Which kind of knocks his entire point out the window. He said Obama claimed the ACA would be revenue neutral, and brings up the new CBO numbers doubling the costs; and ignores the CBO also said the revenue for the new time period more than made up the difference...

So, one more time: The Oxford-trained, Harvard-employed, Newsweek contributor Niall Ferguson just edited the CBO report to change its meaning.