McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers

[andymays]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

[prospector]

more proof it doesn't work...

[Mike at A+]

Hope and change, baby! Hope and change!

[ArlJim78]

this is what I can't stand about government programs. there was no truth to anything they promised on the healthcare reform.

and now, they can just make up ad hoc rules as they go along, to protect their special interests. so let me ge this straight, even though we were told that costs were supposed to go down, now that costs are going up you can get protection if you have the right representation, or have connections with the washington regime.

The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/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 .

its a big mistake to give this kind of waiver authority to government, they will end up picking and chosing the winners and losers based on who is the most loyal.

[riskman]

It is hard to believe that a group with 351000 members(UFT) is not self insured. The may have an Insurance Company fronting the risk for a fee and other administrative services such as claim service but in reality it is pay as you go with some type of excess policy providing catastrophic coverage for a single incident or annual aggregate. Groups like this are an exception.

[JustRalph]

What a surprise ?

Unions being exempted?

How could this ever happen...........

[highnote]

It isn't clear from this article that the system doesn't work or if the system needs adjustments. This is such a complex issue that I can't see how it would have been possible to get it right on the first time through.

Almost all gov programs are refined over time. The only constant is change.

I don't see these waivers as a being significant given this is a new program. What are we talking -- 500,000 people in a population of 300,000,000? Let's see how this program functions in 5 or 10 years.

[boxcar]

It isn't clear from this article that the system doesn't work or if the system needs adjustments. This is such a complex issue that I can't see how it would have been possible to get it right on the first time through.

Almost all gov programs are refined over time. The only constant is change.

I don't see these waivers as a being significant given this is a new program. What are we talking -- 500,000 people in a population of 300,000,000? Let's see how this program functions in 5 or 10 years.

If 5 and 10 are good, why not 25 or 50? After all we really do have to be fair to poor Big Gov. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

with any luck it will be repealed or found unconstitutional so that we don't have endure it for 5-10 years. the handwriting is on the wall, its a trainwreck like all big government ideas.

[highnote]

I agree, it may be a trainwreck. If it is, it will be repealed -- like all bad gov ideas. Prohibition comes to mind.

Maybe it will turn out to be a good idea? Maybe a bad idea?

It's an attempt to fix a major problem.

Whether it is a good attempt or bad attempt seems more like a matter of opinion than a matter of fact.

Maybe it will be good in 10 years. And maybe it will stay good for 50 years. Then maybe it will not work in 50 years. Things change.

My opinion is that doing something is better than doing nothing. But that's just an opinion. And it could very well be wrong. A majority of the congress agrees with my opinion. A majority of American voters seem to agree. Slim majority, but a majority nevertheless.

It should be given time to see if it will work better than the current system rather than just saying no and returning to the status quo.

[boxcar]

I agree, it may be a trainwreck. If it is, it will be repealed -- like all bad gov ideas. Prohibition comes to mind.

Maybe it will turn out to be a good idea? Maybe a bad idea?

It's an attempt to fix a major problem.

Shirley U. Jest. They were going to "fix a MAJOR problem" by passing a multi-thousand page bill that wasn't even read!? :bang: :bang: :bang: That even now -- is all but incomprehensible!? Is this the new, enlightened, progressive way of fixing problems in this country?

ObamaCare was never about fixing any problem. It was, and will prove to be very soon, all about seizing control of the entire health care industry for purposes of wielding political power. OC is all about a huge power grab. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Boxcar

[highnote]

Shirley U. Jest. They were going to "fix a MAJOR problem" by passing a multi-thousand page bill that wasn't even read!? :bang: :bang: :bang: That even now -- is all but incomprehensible!? Is this the new, enlightened, progressive way of fixing problems in this country?

ObamaCare was never about fixing any problem. It was, and will prove to be very soon, all about seizing control of the entire health care industry for purposes of wielding political power. OC is all about a huge power grab. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Boxcar


You may be proven right. However, I'm not as cynical. I believe the Obama admin tried to do what they were elected to do.

I maintain that passing the bill was better than doing nothing.

[boxcar]

You may be proven right. However, I'm not as cynical. I believe the Obama admin tried to do what they were elected to do.

I maintain that passing the bill was better than doing nothing.

An inquiring mind would dearly love to know: Could government ever do anything to make you cynical?

Boxcar

[highnote]

An inquiring mind would dearly love to know: Could government ever do anything to make you cynical?

Boxcar



:lol: Let me count the ways!

[johnhannibalsmith]

...I maintain that passing the bill was better than doing nothing.

I maintain that doing nothing until something plausible could be conceived, and not a moment sooner, was better than either.

This wasn't a matter of a well-received, clearly-conceived bit of policy that was so fundamentally sound that it just needed a kink or two ironed out. It was a steaming pile of verbose dogshit that could have been the record liner complete with lyrics to Dark Side of the Moon translated into Swedish and it still would have been heralded with the same bravado and passed with the same "score".

Practice may well make perfect, but this doesn't seem like the right sector of our universe to go experimenting with like Goldilocks until we get it just right. At a minimum, aiming for sensible and trying to improve from there would have been alright with me.

I see no reason to believe whatsoever that this convoluted scheme of false premesis and half-truths that comprise our much heralded "health reform bill" will reform health care in a positive way. And before we leap to conclusions - I do not have insurance and spent an unreasonable amount of the money that I earned in the last two years on medical expenses.

I'm all for health care reform. Don't misunderstand.

(*cue the sound of someone ________ with the standard mumbling about republicans just being meanies)

[highnote]

I maintain that doing nothing until something plausible could be conceived, and not a moment sooner, was better than either.

In the end, you might be right.

This wasn't a matter of a well-received, clearly-conceived bit of policy that was so fundamentally sound that it just needed a kink or two ironed out.

These things rarely are. Even the U.S. Constitution isn't always well-received and clearly-conceived in every aspect.

It was a steaming pile of verbose dogshit that could have been the record liner complete with lyrics to Dark Side of the Moon translated into Swedish and it still would have been heralded with the same bravado and passed with the same "score".

I like your hyperbole. Especially connecting it to Dark Side of the Moon and Swedish. LOL


At a minimum, aiming for sensible and trying to improve from there would have been alright with me.

One man's sensible is another man's folly.

I see no reason to believe whatsoever that this convoluted scheme of false premesis and half-truths that comprise our much heralded "health reform bill" will reform health care in a positive way.

And I have no reason to believe it won't. As I said, I think it's better than nothing. We know that doing nothing wasn't working. So something else has to be tried or else we get the same results as before -- a worsening of the health care system.


And before we leap to conclusions - I do not have insurance and spent an unreasonable amount of the money that I earned in the last two years on medical expenses.

I'm self-employed and I self-insure. I only carry hospitalization with a fairly high deductible. I'm willing to bet that my family and I will stay healthy. And for all the minor stuff like checkups we just pay as we go.

So far, we have saved much more than our deductible by self-insuring. If we bought full coverage it would cost close to $2,000 per month. Our deductible is only $5,000. At those rates, I would have spent easily over $250,000 over the past 25 years for health insurance. That's a bad bet.

The better bet is to self-insure and set money aside to cover the deductible. We've spent probably $75,000 by self-insuring rather than paying an insurance company to insure us -- a savings of $175,000!

If you do the same thing as the insurance companies you will come out ahead in the long run.

[Robert Goren]

The sad thing is if you work for McDonalds in Europe or China, you have paid health care. McDonalds is growing by leaps and bounds in those places.

[Tom]

I maintain that passing the bill was better than doing nothing.

That is like saying that the doctor who was trying to remove your appendix couldn't get to it so took out your liver.:rolleyes:

And, as far as gov't programs being refined over time, yes, I agree 100%.
They get more and more expensive and less and less useful, and more and more ineffective. This is a constant.

[ArlJim78]

I'm 100% sure that doing nothing was a much better option.

[Robert Goren]

I'm self-employed and I self-insure. I only carry hospitalization with a fairly high deductible. I'm willing to bet that my family and I will stay healthy. And for all the minor stuff like checkups we just pay as we go.

So far, we have saved much more than our deductible by self-insuring. If we bought full coverage it would cost close to $2,000 per month. Our deductible is only $5,000. At those rates, I would have spent easily over $250,000 over the past 25 years for health insurance. That's a bad bet.

The better bet is to self-insure and set money aside to cover the deductible. We've spent probably $75,000 by self-insuring rather than paying an insurance company to insure us -- a savings of $175,000!

If you do the same thing as the insurance companies you will come out ahead in the long run. Next Question. Will your Insurance Company actually pay, if you get sick? Let me tell you $175,000 is nothing if you get really sick. One more thing that deductible starts over every year, so you had better get well fast. Heaven forbid you or family have something like kidney failure or heart attack or a treatable cancer. Just a couple things I have learned the hard way by dealing with health insurance companies. A lot of things look really good on paper, but..... I have found out insurance companies are really good at finding reasons not to pay and when they run out reasons they can just refuse to pay and at least in Nebraska there is nothing you can do about it.

[jognlope]

Yes, they're getting waivers because the plan assures no one will have to lose the plan they already have, a minimal plan at low cost. So what's wrong with that?

[highnote]

Next Question. Will your Insurance Company actually pay, if you get sick? Let me tell you $175,000 is nothing if you get really sick. One more thing that deductible starts over every year, so you had better get well fast. Heaven forbid you or family have something like kidney failure or heart attack or a treatable cancer. Just a couple things I have learned the hard way by dealing with health insurance companies. A lot of things look really good on paper, but..... I have found out insurance companies are really good at finding reasons not to pay and when they run out reasons they can just refuse to pay and at least in Nebraska there is nothing you can do about it.


That's a good point, but if I get sick and have to pay $2,000 per month for insurance I better get better fast, too!

There is no good option. That's why we need health care reform.

[Tom]

I think we need health care access reform. The dems want to reform the care itself.

They have no clue.