ST Alpha - "right, so the waiver allows the companies to continue to employ people and provide them with health coverage. Why is that a bad thing? -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 156

In response to "well, one of the reasons is the companies receiving waivers were unable to meet a particular mandate of the law" by Strongbad

right, so the waiver allows the companies to continue to employ people and provide them with health coverage. Why is that a bad thing? -- nm

Posted by decline (aka Decline) Oct 11 '10, 08:38

(No message)

Responses:

I think (but I don't really have a clue). The company is providing a level of coverage that is below what the govt wants. Right? I am confused about - James Bond (aka Igor) Oct 11, 08:59
What's the point of the mandate in the first place then? - Strongbad Oct 11, 08:43 7
- This probably explains it better than I could, but the mandate that is being waived (for 1 year) is to remove the cap on lifetime coverage - decline Oct 11, 08:53 5
  - The end result is a good thing, we agree. - Strongbad Oct 11, 09:04 2
    - Word to your IM. I have my doubts about premiums not going up. I think from what we have seen, they likely will. -- nm - James Bond (aka Igor) Oct 11, 09:09 1
      - Premiums already go up by outrageous amounts. I typically see 20%-30% increases *each year* for my business - decline Oct 11, 09:13
  - ^ this article explains it -- (link) - decline Oct 11, 08:54 1
    - So we are assuming that later the govt will have a better insurance, and the companies will just dumb all their employees onto it? -- nm - James Bond (aka Igor) Oct 11, 09:02
- because they had to keep watering it down in a futile attempt at bipartisan compromise. - znufrii Oct 11, 08:45

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.