Anyone Understand the Waiver Issue re HCR

[Treestar]

I am debating with right wingers who have some Michelle Malkin screed about how scandalously the Obama administration dares to grant waivers on HCR to certain unions.

MM's idiotic column does not explain just what is being waived - it just presumes it's horrible to waive such a thing, especially for unions (which right wing friend hates with a passion - anything good for unions in any way is anathema to him).

What is being waived and why is it so horrid to so do?

Here is some of the screed:

Quote:At the end of last year, the Department of Health and Human Services had granted some 222 temporary waivers to businesses small and large, insurers, labor and other organizations that offer affordable health insurance or prescription drug coverage with limited benefits. On Wednesday, the agency quietly updated its online list, which now reveals a whopping total of 729 Obamacare escapees — in addition to four states, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee — who collectively cover about 2.1 million enrollees.

The rest just laments that other horrible unions are receiving this "benefit."

[Velleity]

It's their phony issue. Isn't it encumbent upon them to explain it?

Of course they won't, but you should simply rub their noses in that, IMHO.

[Treestar]

Michelle Malkin as a source. That's suspect right there.

[Velleity]

(02-03-2011 02:26 PM)Treestar Wrote:  Michelle Malkin as a source. That's suspect right there.

Not to take you on here Treestar, but something rubs me the wrong way about this. Again, nothing to do with you but rather with the suggestion here (unintentional I am sure) that Michelle Malkin is any worse than any other "conservative" source.

Is there a single legitimate "conservative" source anywhere?

I mention this because it seems to me that there is an insidious variant of denial going on here. "Conservatives" are a large segment of our population and they actually win political office and they have a chance to, and do, fuck us over.

The subtle implication of your innocent and accurate observation is that there is some "conservative" source that would be any less batshit crazy than Michelle Malkin, but there isn't. They're all batshit crazy. They all admire Michelle Malkin but not all of them are honest enough to come right out and say it.

Hey, Treestar. It's hard to believe. I want to deny it, but I can't. All "conservatives" are batshit, howl at the moon crazy. All of them.

[mzmolly]

Below is a link with more info and a list of waiver grantees.

Why would granting waivers bother those who hate HCR?

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

Quote: * Of all the waivers granted to date:

o 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.
+ Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs): HRAs are employer-funded group health plans where employees are reimbursed tax-free for qualified medical expenses up to a maximum dollar amount for a coverage period. In total, HHS has approved 171 applications for waivers for HRAs.
o Health Insurers: Sixteen waivers were granted to health insurers, which can apply for a waiver for multiple mini-med products sold to employers or individuals.
o State Governments: Four waivers have gone to State governments. States may apply for a waiver of the restricted annual limits on behalf of issuers of state-mandated policies if state law required the policies to be offered by the issuers prior to September 23, 2010.

* The number of enrollees in plans with annual limits waivers is 2.1 million, representing only about 1 percent of all Americans who have private health insurance today.

Note, unions did not make up the majority of waivers.

[Treestar]

Our conversation has developed. t appears the waivers are provided for in the HCR law:

Quote:In September, the HHS announced it would grant waivers to employers to prevent some workers from losing their benefits, if the insurer could not meet the new health care law’s requirements on annual limits (or caps on coverage). The waivers are granted by HHS if the department determines “compliance with the interim final regulations would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums,” according to a Sept. 3 memo by Steve L. Larson, director of the HHS Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/seiu-maj...s-election

So it is mere application of the law. Malkin just doesn't like unions, so she treats it as if it is wrong on its face.