Of course you can keep it

[driveby]

From that same article . . but non surprisingly, you failed to include this passage . . .

 

 

 

Sooo the change would happened despite the legislation due to free market influences? Personally . . I blame Obama.

the company cited the overhaul as part of the reason

Do I need to explain this?

[bpwallace49]

Do I need to explain this?

 

"If this health care law hadn't passed, would we be making changes to the health care benefit? Absolutely. For competitive reasons."

 

 

Let me guess . . another "rogue company spokesman" just like at McDonalds?

 

You really need to pick your examples better if you are going to keep going down this road. One would think they would be easy to find, given your self-assured outrage.

[driveby]

"If this health care law hadn't passed, would we be making changes to the health care benefit? Absolutely. For competitive reasons."

 

 

Let me guess . . another "rogue company spokesman" just like at McDonalds?

 

You really need to pick your examples better if you are going to keep going down this road. One would think they would be easy to find, given your self-assured outrage.

Good lord you're dense.

 

Would they have made changes? yes.

 

Do they attribute the extent of the changes in part to the health care law? yes.

 

This isn't an either/or situation. And even if it was, the volume of stories blaming this disaster for higher premiums and dumped coverage justify my outrage.

 

And BTW, McDonalds was dumping plans until they got the waiver. Nice try though.

[Azazello1313]

The Party of No was offered the opportunity to collaborate just as it was on the Financial Reform legislation.

 

you can't be gullible enough to honestly believe this pap, can you? they had the presidency, a big majority in the house, and, at the time, 60 seats in the senate, and a republican party on the ropes....and based on that, they pushed forward with a strategy they knew would get zero republican support because they figured they didn't need it. I can easily name you at least 5-10 republican senators -- starting with bob bennett, olympia snowe, susan collins, and judd gregg -- who were eager to cast votes in favor of health reform. but instead of crafting an approach in which those folks were solidly on board and the swing votes were people like mccain and linsey graham, they figured they could push through a bill where more moderate democrats were the swing votes. the approach was to make the damn thing as "liberal" as humanly possible while still gaining passage, and you are a complete and utter fool if you think otherwise.

 

some words from centrist democratic senator evan bayh during the heat of the health care debate:

 

“It’s why moderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massachusetts just aren’t buying our message,” he said. “They just don’t believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems. That’s something that has to be corrected.”

Bayh pointed that it’s not just Massachusetts. Independents also rejected Democratic gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia in November.

“ The only we are able to govern successfully in this country is by liberals and progressives making common cause with independents and moderates,” Bayh said. “Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country -- that’s not going to work too well.”

Edited October 19, 2010 by Azazello1313

[redrumjuice]

This is a good read.

[driveby]

Well, well. In the clearest evidence so far that ObamaCare is harmful in practice and an election-year liability, the Obama Administration has decided not to enforce some of the law's "consumer protections." At least when the results are politically embarrassing.

 

Over the last several weeks the Health and Human Services Department has granted dozens of temporary waivers to certain ObamaCare mandates so that insurers and businesses won't drop or cancel coverage. The most conspicuous went to McDonald's to protect the "mini-med" plans for some 30,000 hourly workers from a rule that prohibits annual restrictions on benefits. Mini-med policies offer modest coverage at low premiums and other low-wage fast-food chains like Jack in the Box and Denny's have been granted waivers as well.

 

Cigna, Aetna and a few other insurers have been given hall passes to continue selling mini-meds. Another went to the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund. The New York union offers city teachers supplemental drug coverage that would have been banned under the new rules.

 

At least this sudden regulatory flexibility is protecting the coverage that people have today, as President Obama promised. But it isn't much of an improvement if HHS retreats only after a national political blow-up. After all, the essential point of the regulations was to destroy mini-med plans and other types of coverage that Democrats claim are insufficiently generous. Democrats from Mr. Obama on down call these rules "the patients' bill of rights," but people don't regularly need exemptions from a bill of rights.

 

And is it really better that HHS will impose destructive regulations and then decide on ad hoc basis who they'll hit? This is an invitation to play favorites, exact political retribution and pursue whatever arbitrary goals HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and her successors happen to hold. ObamaCare amnesty shouldn't go merely to the CEOs who can get White House aide Valerie Jarrett on the horn.

 

Recall, too, that the original McDonald's memo the Journal exposed was actually warning about the future damage that will be caused by the forthcoming definition of the "medical loss ratio," that is, what insurers are allowed to count as spending on health-care services. HHS said in a statement that Ms. Sebelius has the power to waive those rules too when they come out and "we fully intend to exercise her discretion under the new law to address the special circumstances of mini-med plans in the medical loss ratio calculations."

 

In other words, HHS is pre-emptively declaring that it will grant a special dispensation to rules that haven't even been finalized. Wouldn't it be better to write less destructive rules in the first place? Or why not give everyone a waiver from everything?

 

The reality is that ObamaCare assigns HHS vast, undefined new powers that will mean whatever Ms. Sebelius and her team decides they will mean. The bill uses the phrase "the Secretary shall" or one of its variants more than a thousand times. Earlier this year, the Congressional Research Service found that ObamaCare created a "currently unknowable" number of new boards, commissions and offices, adding that "it is currently impossible to know how much influence they will ultimately have."

 

HHS is also not building this bureaucratic apparatus in a transparent way. Ten of the 12 new regulations that HHS has issued in the last six months have been "interim final rules" that are not open to the ordinary process of public comment.

 

The White House had to play favorites with Senators and special interests to pass ObamaCare, and its implementation is no less ugly. But the waiver wave is most telling for what it says about the architects of this plan. By bending their own rules, they're conceding their destructiveness.

 

WSJ

[bpwallace49]

WSJ

 

top stories in

Opinion

 

 

keep it up You are killing me!

[Azazello1313]

top stories in

Opinion

 

keep it up You are killing me!

 

are you f'ing serious? after that barrage of propaganda you posted yesterday? almost none of it with links, of course. what a hypocritical little halfwit.

[gbpfan1231]

are you f'ing serious? after that barrage of propaganda you posted yesterday? almost none of it with links, of course. what a hypocritical little halfwit.

No diaper dirt. Pot meet kettle.

[redrumjuice]

The reality is that ObamaCare assigns HHS vast, undefined new powers that will mean whatever Ms. Sebelius and her team decides they will mean. The bill uses the phrase "the Secretary shall" or one of its variants more than a thousand times. Earlier this year, the Congressional Research Service found that ObamaCare created a "currently unknowable" number of new boards, commissions and offices, adding that "it is currently impossible to know how much influence they will ultimately have."

 

What more do we need to know? This single paragraph is enough to me that the entire abortion called obamacare should be unwritten and burned.

[westvirginia]

are you f'ing serious? after that barrage of propaganda you posted yesterday? almost none of it with links, of course. what a hypocritical little halfwit.

 

Actually I think you're giving him too much credit, calling him a halfwit. He's like shiznit with only 1/4 of the intelligence.

[redrumjuice]

WASHINGTON — The new health care law wasn't supposed to undercut employer plans that have provided most people in the U.S. with coverage for generations.

 

But last week a leading manufacturer told workers their costs will jump partly because of the law. Also, a Democratic governor laid out a scheme for employers to get out of health care by shifting workers into taxpayer-subsidized insurance markets that open in 2014.

[Perchoutofwater]

The left is pro-choice when it comes to killing babies, but they are not pro-choice when it comes to allowing us to decide what type of insurance we want to have. Makes all the sense in the world.

[Ursa Majoris]

The left is pro-choice when it comes to killing babies, but they are not pro-choice when it comes to allowing us to decide what type of insurance we want to have. Makes all the sense in the world.

Well, to be fair, neither are you.

[bushwacked]

Perch using the abortion argument to highlight someone else's hypocrisy on individual liberties = FAIL

[driveby]

"Opinion" piece, with lots of footnotes and citations and such, by 2 partisan hacks, who happen to be doctors.

[policyvote]

WASHINGTON — The new health care law wasn't supposed to undercut employer plans that have provided most people in the U.S. with coverage for generations, but now costs a bazillion dollars, doesn't cover anything, and is a huge burden on businesses.

 

Fixed. Employer-based insurance reallly is the stupidest idea. Think about it; what if you had to buy your car through your employer? Or, send your kids to your employer's choice of college? It makes no sense.

 

As an ajoinder: just because something was great thirty years ago doesn't mean it still is and always will be.

 

Peace

policy

[driveby]

ObamaCare is already driving a wave of health-care consolidation—and higher costs.

 

More good news.

 

(Some good stuff in the comments section worth reading too)

[Perchoutofwater]

Fixed. Employer-based insurance reallly is the stupidest idea. Think about it; what if you had to buy your car through your employer? Or, send your kids to your employer's choice of college? It makes no sense.

 

As an ajoinder: just because something was great thirty years ago doesn't mean it still is and always will be.

 

Peace

policy

 

I actually agree with you there. I'd much rather see individuals buying insurance, and buying the insurance they feel then need. It would be nice if insurance could be bought across state lines as well. Though I don't think it is constitutional I'd like to see all individuals forced to buy some type of catastrophic plan similar to liability coverage that we purchase for our cars. It could be cheap not include doctors visits, but will take care of major medical, you know like insurance was originally intended to be.

[Ursa Majoris]

I actually agree with you there. I'd much rather see individuals buying insurance, and buying the insurance they feel then need. It would be nice if insurance could be bought across state lines as well. Though I don't think it is constitutional I'd like to see all individuals forced to buy some type of catastrophic plan similar to liability coverage that we purchase for our cars. It could be cheap not include doctors visits, but will take care of major medical, you know like insurance was originally intended to be.

I'd prefer state-provided catastrophic for all, paid for through tax, and HSAs for the minor stuff, paid for by the individual. Eliminate all connections to the employer and eliminate health insurance companies too.

[SEC=UGA]

I'd prefer state-provided catastrophic for all, paid for through tax, and HSAs for the minor stuff, paid for by the individual. Eliminate all connections to the employer and eliminate health insurance companies too.

 

What are we going to do about creating jobs for the 800K people that you just fired?

 

So, now we're taking them out of the base from which to collect taxes and trying to pay for their healthcare....

[Perchoutofwater]

I'd prefer state-provided catastrophic for all, paid for through tax, and HSAs for the minor stuff, paid for by the individual. Eliminate all connections to the employer and eliminate health insurance companies too.

 

I'd actually support his if there was a flat tax or we did away with the income tax and went to a consumption tax. Basically I'd be for it if everyone had at least some skin in the game.

[Perchoutofwater]

What are we going to do about creating jobs for the 800K people that you just fired?

 

So, now we're taking them out of the base from which to collect taxes and trying to pay for their healthcare....

 

Actually most of them would still be employed managing the HSA's because the majority of people are too stupid to take care of themselves and save for themselves so you'd have people that specialize in medical investment accounts.

[Ursa Majoris]

What are we going to do about creating jobs for the 800K people that you just fired?

 

So, now we're taking them out of the base from which to collect taxes and trying to pay for their healthcare....

There are 800,000 people working for health insurance companies? If so, you just completely destroyed any argument in favor of their efficiency over the government.

[SEC=UGA]

There are 800,000 people working for health insurance companies? If so, you just completely destroyed any argument in favor of their efficiency over the government.

 

Not just the HI companies, but you have all of the people who do the processing, billing, etc...