SEIU fights healthcare repeal after obtaining waivers from law

[PapaG]

Hmm



http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...hcare-repeal-after-obtaining-waivers-from-law

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is lobbying hard against the amendment offered by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) to repeal the healthcare reform law.

SEIU has sent e-mails to Senate offices urging lawmakers to vote against the proposal to unwind President Obama’s signature domestic initiative.

“A vote in support of this amendment is a vote to raise out-of-pocket healthcare costs for working families and takes away critical consumer protections provided to Americans for the first time,” SEIU urged senators, according to a copy of the e-mail obtained by The Hill.

The lobby informed senators that a vote for McConnell’s amendment would count against them on its legislative scorecard.

SEIU’s outspoken defense of the law has prompted charges of hypocrisy from Republicans, given that some of the union’s chapters have sought waivers exempting them from a key provision of the law requiring the phaseout of health plans with low caps on annual benefits.

Proponents of the law argue that some limited-benefits health plans should be exempted temporarily from phaseout because it would cause low-income and part-time workers to lose insurance or see their premiums rise.

A spokesman for SEIU referred questions about the union waivers to a fact sheet on its website.

According to SEIU, the overwhelming majority of its members are covered by health plans that comply with the law’s requirements.

Some of its chapters have obtained waivers, the union concedes, but notes the waivers were anticipated by Democrats who passed the law.

“The waiver process is a key part of healthcare reform because it helps ensure that workers won’t lose their employer-provided health coverage,” SEIU states on its website.

Meghan Finegan, a spokeswoman for SEIU, said thousands of low-income workers would lose their coverage if their plans weren't allowed to maintain temporary caps on coverage.

"These are very low-wage workers that would not otherwise be able to keep their coverage," she said.

This post was updated at 5:55 p.m.

 

[PapaG]

As of yesterday The Obama administration has granted 733 waivers from the Healthcare law. Over 50% of these waivers have gone to unions who pushed for the law.

From the comments to this article.

 

[maxiep]

Like I said, Big Government, Big Unions and Big Business all working together against the interests of the citizenry.

 

[barfo]

As of yesterday The Obama administration has granted 733 waivers from the Healthcare law. Over 50% of these waivers have gone to unions who pushed for the law.

From the comments to this article.

Unfortunately, as with so many things written on the internets, this is just another lie. Here's the actual list, if anyone cares about the truth.

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

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Unfortunately, as with so many things written on the internets, this is just another lie. Here's the actual list, if anyone cares about the truth.

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

barfo

I'm not sure what your point was, but there are a hell of a lot of unions, and unionized companies, on that list of 733 waivers.

The real question is why the unions advocated the law, since many are getting waivers from aspects of it. So, you helped prove the point.

 

[PapaG]

40% of employees exempted are union employees, yet unions only comprise ~10% of the US workforce.

Unions make up 40 percent of employees exempted from Obamacare
Comments (6) Share Print By: David Freddoso 01/27/11 4:57 PM
Online Opinion Editor
.Yesterday, the Deparment of Health and Human Services announced it had granted more than 500 new waivers to Obamacare's requirement that health plans have annual limits of no less than $750,000. This annual limit requirement climbs to $1.25 million next year and then to $2 million.

The reason these exemptions from the law are needed is that Obamacare forces all health insurance consumers to over-insure themselves and pay high premiums as a result. Without the waivers, many companies, non-profits and unions would simply drop their health plans. As of 2014, the waivers will no longer be available -- at least, that's the way the law is written.

It is worth noting that there are 166 union benefits funds now exempted from this requirement, which account for about 40 percent of the exempted workers. 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.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...nt-employees-exempted-obamacare#ixzz1D0rldLza

 

[blazerboy30]

Unfortunately, as with so many things written on the internets, this is just another lie. Here's the actual list, if anyone cares about the truth.

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

barfo

So what is the real percentage, according to your link, since you claim it isn't 50%?

I scanned the list, and saw the the percentage of unions is a large percentage of the list... which is actually the point.

Good work trying to nitpick the unimportant details to continue with your agenda.

 

[barfo]

So what is the real percentage, according to your link, since you claim it isn't 50%?

I scanned the list, and saw the the percentage of unions is a large percentage of the list... which is actually the point.

Good work trying to nitpick the unimportant details to continue with your agenda.

Well, according to my link (which is the agency that is actually granting the waivers, so you'd think they'd know), 182 of the 733 are collectively bargained plans.
That's 25%, which I think you'll have to agree is a hell of a lot different than "over 50%".
And that's leaving aside the undocumented assertion that these were "unions that pushed for the law". I'm pretty sure it is not the case that every union lobbied for the healthcare law, so it isn't clear what fraction of those getting waivers did.

50% vs 25% is not nitpicking. And as for my agenda, it's truth. If facts are posted, I don't object to them. If lies are posted, I will try to identify them. This one was a lie.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Well, according to my link (which is the agency that is actually granting the waivers, so you'd think they'd know), 182 of the 733 are collectively bargained plans.
That's 25%, which I think you'll have to agree is a hell of a lot different than "over 50%".
And that's leaving aside the undocumented assertion that these were "unions that pushed for the law". I'm pretty sure it is not the case that every union lobbied for the healthcare law, so it isn't clear what fraction of those getting waivers did.

50% vs 25% is not nitpicking. And as for my agenda, it's truth. If facts are posted, I don't object to them. If lies are posted, I will try to identify them. This one was a lie.

barfo

Why would any union need a waiver, considering they are the biggest citizen groups advocating the law?

Also, why would 10% of the workforce have 40% of the total employees who have received the waivers?

You can nitpick numbers, but it seems to me that any SEIU member who received a waiver should have no lobbying say in keeping the bill from being repealed, since many people opposed to the bill aren't being granted those same cost-cutting waivers.

It's crony capitalism and pay-for-play, but because it's "your" side, you turn a blind eye and make your usual excuses.

 

[barfo]

Why would any union need a waiver, considering they are the biggest citizen groups advocating the law?


Also, why would 10% of the workforce have 40% of the total employees who have received the waivers?

You can nitpick numbers, but it seems to me that any SEIU member who received a waiver should have no lobbying say in keeping the bill from being repealed, since many people opposed to the bill aren't being granted those same cost-cutting waivers.

It's crony capitalism and pay-for-play, but because it's "your" side, you turn a blind eye and make your usual excuses.

You seem confused. Deeply confused. What "usual excuses" have I made? I've merely said that your side, in opposing the healthcare bill, should not tell lies.

Is that so unreasonable?

barfo

 

[PapaG]

You seem confused. Deeply confused. What "usual excuses" have I made? I've merely said that your side, in opposing the healthcare bill, should not tell lies.

Is that so unreasonable?

barfo

My side? I quoted a post that had inaccurate information. My question is still this. Why does the SEIU receive waivers, and then spend money lobbying to keep the law?

Can you answer this question?

 

[barfo]

My side? I quoted a post that had inaccurate information.

Ok, good that you agree.

My question is still this. Why does the SEIU receive waivers, and then spend money lobbying to keep the law?

Can you answer this question?

Of course I can.

First of all, the waivers aren't waiving the entire law, they are temporarily waiving one requirement. You might as well ask how one can be against the healthcare bill if one supports the American government.

Secondly, the SEIU is a large organization and what one local needs/wants may be different from what the national organization as a whole wants.

You might want to ask yourself what these waivers actually waive, before getting all riled up.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Ok, good that you agree.



Of course I can.

First of all, the waivers aren't waiving the entire law, they are temporarily waiving one requirement. You might as well ask how one can be against the healthcare bill if one supports the American government.

Secondly, the SEIU is a large organization and what one local needs/wants may be different from what the national organization as a whole wants.

You might want to ask yourself what these waivers actually waive, before getting all riled up.

barfo

The fact that there need to be waivers that are apparently chosen on a whim, and then one of the primary waiver organizations spend money lobbying the bill, tells me all I need to know about the bill, and about the cronyism that is rampant in the Obama administration.

 

[barfo]

The fact that there need to be waivers that are apparently chosen on a whim

What (aside from ignorance) makes you think that they are chosen on a whim?

and then one of the primary waiver organizations spend money lobbying the bill, tells me all I need to know about the bill, and about the cronyism that is rampant in the Obama administration.

It's a temporary waiver of a relatively small portion of the bill, with the goal of keeping low-wage employees from losing their healthcare coverage.

You may know "all you need to know" in order to rant on the internet about things you don't understand, I guess, but you aren't showing much knowledge of the actual facts.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Why would any union need a waiver, considering they are the biggest citizen groups advocating the law?

If you take the time to read your own link, it is explained quite clearly.

Most, maybe all, of these waivers are temporary band-aids to smooth the transition in awkward circumstances. Most, maybe all, will be denied.

I expect the SEIU one will be denied, as anyone with low income losing their healthplan due to inability to pay the high costs will be forced to get another plan and it will be paid for by the government.

 

[MARIS61]

... tells me all I need to know ...

PapaG playin' it safe.

Doctor told him to keep his knowledge at a moderate level.