PDA

View Full Version : Why do THEY want a waiver?



sack316
01-24-2011, 11:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Three local chapters of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), whose political action committee spent $27 million supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, have received temporary waivers from a provision in the Obamacare law.

The three SEIU chapters include the Local 25 in Obama’s hometown of Chicago. </div></div>

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/seiu-locals-including-chicago-chapter-wa

Weren't they some of the biggest supporters of it?

Sack

pooltchr
01-24-2011, 12:27 PM
Perhaps in exchange for supporting a bill that is going to cost a lot of people a lot of money, they don't have do be part of that group.

Steve

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 12:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Three local chapters of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), whose political action committee spent $27 million supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, have received temporary waivers from a provision in the Obamacare law.

The three SEIU chapters include the Local 25 in Obama’s hometown of Chicago. </div></div>

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/seiu-locals-including-chicago-chapter-wa

Weren't they some of the biggest supporters of it?

Sack </div></div>

In September, HHS announced it would grant waivers to employers to prevent some workers from losing their benefits if the insurer could not meet new health care law’s requirements on annual limits. 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.

So far, the Obama administration has issued waivers to 222 entities, including businesses, unions and charitable organizations. Of that total, 45 were labor organizations.

What is being waived in this case is the ban on annual limits capping how much can be paid by insurance in a given year.

pooltchr
01-24-2011, 12:44 PM
But if everything in the bill is good for everybody, why would anyone need a waiver?

If some groups deserve a waiver, shouldn't all groups deserve a waiver. How can something be so good, yet even the supporters who tell us how good it is, don't want anything to do with it personally?

Steve

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 12:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But if everything in the bill is good for everybody, why would anyone need a waiver?

If some groups deserve a waiver, shouldn't all groups deserve a waiver. How can something be so good, yet even the supporters who tell us how good it is, don't want anything to do with it personally?

Steve </div></div>

Everybody? Well, 222 have asked and gotten it, with no showing that anyone asking didn't receive it, and the total of persons involved in those waivers is well into the millions.

It is a wise law that makes provisions for unintended consequences, hardship cases that deserve some consideration, etc.

It's similar to providing subsidies for the cost of this health care bill taxing for those who otherwise cannot afford it, and that is built in to the legislation.

LWW
01-24-2011, 02:10 PM
So ... we had a system that didn't insure everyone, had lifetime limits, and cost too much.

The answer is a system that doesn't cover everyone, has lifetime limits, and costs even more.

Shrewd.

LWW

eg8r
01-24-2011, 03:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In September, HHS announced it would grant waivers to employers to prevent some workers from losing their benefits if the insurer could not meet new health care law’s requirements on annual limits. </div></div>Already making exceptions. Such BS.

eg8r

eg8r
01-24-2011, 03:13 PM
Jeesh, I sure hope the Reps are not weenies and they fight this stupid bill all the way. Then they can make sure the it is reformed correctly and costs are brought way down.

I still have yet to see anyone from the left give us some examples of a government run program that ran on budget and time. Better yet, provide a couple examples of where they beat their mark and actually saved more money than what they estimated rather than end up costing money.

eg8r

Sev
01-24-2011, 05:41 PM
Dont hold your breath. They couldn't even run their own cafeteria.

Qtec
01-24-2011, 09:16 PM
It might have escaped you but PRIVATE banks just caused a world financial crisis.

Remember Enron?

You act as if the private sector operates efficiently at all times.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Confirming weeks of rumors, the Department of Defense said the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter had doubled in price since 2001. </div></div> link (http://www.bnet.com/blog/government/lockheeds-jsf-is-overdue-over-budget-and-too-big-to-fail/5679)

Q

Qtec
01-24-2011, 09:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> New RNC Chairman Reince Priebus Inherits $22M Debt,

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/15/new-rnc-chairman-faces-host-challenges/#ixzz1C0tdvz7Q
</div></div>

Q

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 10:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So ... we had a system that didn't insure everyone, had lifetime limits, and cost too much.

The answer is a system that doesn't cover everyone, has lifetime limits, and costs even more.

Shrewd.

LWW </div></div>

LOL! While I disagree, I find that a clever and funny remark! More of this, please!

Lookit, those of us with health insurance have about $1,000 a year extra premium to pay for those who are not in the system and get the very most expensive health care (ERs).

There will be no caps on annual benefits for the vast majority of the people of the country, because although that adds to the expense of insurance, the main insurers will be getting 30 million new customers. The SMALLER kinds of co-ops and union plans, etc., cannot gain much in the way of new enrollees, so that extra cost can mean they'd have to drop coverage or perhaps, even terminate their plan altogether. So we make the limited exceptions out of pragmatism and making sure the goal of greater coverage is not perversely harmed by unforeseen consequences. Exactly how the prebate part of the Fair Tax is designed, btw.

LWW
01-25-2011, 05:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It might have escaped you but PRIVATE banks just caused a world financial crisis.

Remember Enron?

You act as if the private sector operates efficiently at all times.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Confirming weeks of rumors, the Department of Defense said the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter had doubled in price since 2001. </div></div> link (http://www.bnet.com/blog/government/lockheeds-jsf-is-overdue-over-budget-and-too-big-to-fail/5679)

Q
</div></div>

Thanks for bringing up a perfect example of gubmint inefficiency.

These defense contracts are negotiated as "COST PLUS" contracts.

Her's how that works, and for simplicity let's use a number of cost plus 10%.

Now, as a builder I know that a piece of equipment will cost $2M to build ... so I price it as $1.5M to get a politically more palatable number of $1.5M x 110% = $1.65M on the budget.

Now ... to get 51 votes in the senate I need a production or distribution base in at least 26 states. This bumps my actual cost to produce from $2M to $2.2M

To get it through the house ... I need to at least buy a fuse or strand of wire from 218 districts. This bumps my production costs to $2.4M.

For the handful of pols in a tight race ... I need to toss in a few junkets, raising my total cost to $2.6M

Well, at cost plus 10% my original estimate of $1.65M menas nothing and obligates me to nothing. Through a series of filings over cost overruns my final price to the Pentagon is $2.6M x 110% = $2.86M ... or roughly 75% above my original "ESTIMATE" was given.

Now, not only does the system not punish me for inefficiency ... it rewards me as every $1.00 wasted brings back $1.10 from the gubmint.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-25-2011, 06:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So ... we had a system that didn't insure everyone, had lifetime limits, and cost too much.

The answer is a system that doesn't cover everyone, has lifetime limits, and costs even more.

Shrewd.

LWW </div></div>

LOL! While I disagree, I find that a clever and funny remark! More of this, please!

Lookit, those of us with health insurance have about $1,000 a year extra premium to pay for those who are not in the system and get the very most expensive health care (ERs).

There will be no caps on annual benefits for the vast majority of the people of the country, because although that adds to the expense of insurance, the main insurers will be getting 30 million new customers. The SMALLER kinds of co-ops and union plans, etc., cannot gain much in the way of new enrollees, so that extra cost can mean they'd have to drop coverage or perhaps, even terminate their plan altogether. So we make the limited exceptions out of pragmatism and making sure the goal of greater coverage is not perversely harmed by unforeseen consequences. Exactly how the prebate part of the Fair Tax is designed, btw. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Subpart 16.3—Cost-Reimbursement Contracts
16.301 General.
16.301-1 Description.
Cost-reimbursement types of contracts provide for payment of allowable incurred costs, to the extent prescribed in the contract. These contracts establish an estimate of total cost for the purpose of obligating funds and establishing a ceiling that the contractor may not exceed (except at its own risk) without the approval of the contracting officer. 16.301-2 Application.
Cost-reimbursement contracts are suitable for use only when uncertainties involved in contract performance do not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to use any type of fixed-price contract. 16.301-3 Limitations.
(a) A cost-reimbursement contract may be used only when—

(1) The contractor’s accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract; and

(2) Appropriate Government surveillance during performance will provide reasonable assurance that efficient methods and effective cost controls are used. (b) The use of cost-reimbursement contracts is prohibited for the acquisition of commercial items (see Parts 2 and 12).

16.302 Cost contracts.
(a) Description. A cost contract is a cost-reimbursement contract in which the contractor receives no fee.

(b) Application. A cost contract may be appropriate for research and development work, particularly with nonprofit educational institutions or other nonprofit organizations.

(c) Limitations. See 16.301-3.

16.303 Cost-sharing contracts.
(a) Description. A cost-sharing contract is a cost-reimbursement contract in which the contractor receives no fee and is reimbursed only for an agreed-upon portion of its allowable costs.

(b) Application. A cost-sharing contract may be used when the contractor agrees to absorb a portion of the costs, in the expectation of substantial compensating benefits.

(c) Limitations. See 16.301-3.

16.304 Cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts.
A cost-plus-incentive-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for an initially negotiated fee to be adjusted later by a formula based on the relationship of total allowable costs to total target costs. Cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts are covered in Subpart 16.4, Incentive Contracts. See 16.405-1 for a more complete description and discussion of application of these contracts. See 16.301-3 for limitations.

16.305 Cost-plus-award-fee contracts.
A cost-plus-award-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for a fee consisting of (a) a base amount (which may be zero) fixed at inception of the contract and (b) an award amount, based upon a judgmental evaluation by the Government, sufficient to provide motivation for excellence in contract performance. Cost-plus-award-fee contracts are covered in Subpart 16.4, Incentive Contracts. See 16.401(e) for a more complete description and discussion of the application of these contracts. See 16.301-3 and 16.401(e)(5) for limitations.

16.306 Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts.
(a) Description. A cost-plus-fixed-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for payment to the contractor of a negotiated fee that is fixed at the inception of the contract. The fixed fee does not vary with actual cost, but may be adjusted as a result of changes in the work to be performed under the contract. This contract type permits contracting for efforts that might otherwise present too great a risk to contractors, but it provides the contractor only a minimum incentive to control costs.

(b) Application.

(1) A cost-plus-fixed-fee contract is suitable for use when the conditions of 16.301-2 are present and, for example—

(i) The contract is for the performance of research or preliminary exploration or study, and the level of effort required is unknown; or

(ii) The contract is for development and test, and using a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract is not practical.

(2) A cost-plus-fixed-fee contract normally should not be used in development of major systems (see Part 34) once preliminary exploration, studies, and risk reduction have indicated a high degree of probability that the development is achievable and the Government has established reasonably firm performance objectives and schedules.

(c) Limitations. No cost-plus-fixed-fee contract shall be awarded unless the contracting officer complies with all limitations in 15.404-4(c)(4)(i) and 16.301-3.

(d) Completion and term forms. A cost-plus-fixed-fee contract may take one of two basic forms—completion or term.

(1) The completion form describes the scope of work by stating a definite goal or target and specifying an end product. This form of contract normally requires the contractor to complete and deliver the specified end product (e.g., a final report of research accomplishing the goal or target) within the estimated cost, if possible, as a condition for payment of the entire fixed fee. However, in the event the work cannot be completed within the estimated cost, the Government may require more effort without increase in fee, provided the Government increases the estimated cost.

(2) The term form describes the scope of work in general terms and obligates the contractor to devote a specified level of effort for a stated time period. Under this form, if the performance is considered satisfactory by the Government, the fixed fee is payable at the expiration of the agreed-upon period, upon contractor statement that the level of effort specified in the contract has been expended in performing the contract work. Renewal for further periods of performance is a new acquisition that involves new cost and fee arrangements.

(3) Because of the differences in obligation assumed by the contractor, the completion form is preferred over the term form whenever the work, or specific milestones for the work, can be defined well enough to permit development of estimates within which the contractor can be expected to complete the work.

(4) The term form shall not be used unless the contractor is obligated by the contract to provide a specific level of effort within a definite time period.

16.307 Contract clauses.
(a)(1) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment, in solicitations and contracts when a cost-reimbursement contract or a time-and-materials contract (other than a contract for a commercial item) is contemplated. If the contract is with an educational institution, modify the clause by deleting from paragraph (a) the words “Subpart 31.2” and substituting for them “Subpart 31.3.” If the contract is with a State or local government, modify the clause by deleting from paragraph (a) the words “Subpart 31.2” and substituting for them “Subpart 31.6.” If the contract is with a nonprofit organization other than an educational institution, a State or local government, or a nonprofit organization exempted under OMB Circular No. A-122, modify the clause by deleting from paragraph (a) the words “Subpart 31.2” and substituting for them “Subpart 31.7.” If the contract is a time-and-materials contract, the clause at 52.216-7 applies only to the portion of the contract that provides for reimbursement of materials (as defined in the clause at 52.232-7) at actual cost.

(2) If the contract is a construction contract and contains the clause at 52.232-27, Prompt Payment for Construction Contracts, the contracting officer shall use the clause at 52.216-7 with its Alternate I.

(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.216-8, Fixed Fee, in solicitations and contracts when a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (other than a construction contract) is contemplated.

(c) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.216-9, Fixed-Fee—Construction, in solicitations and contracts when a cost-plus-fixed-fee construction contract is contemplated.

(d) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.216-10, Incentive Fee, in solicitations and contracts when a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract is contemplated.

(e)(1) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.216-11, Cost Contract—No Fee, in solicitations and contracts when a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated that provides no fee and is not a cost-sharing contract.

(2) If a cost-reimbursement research and development contract with an educational institution or a nonprofit organization that provides no fee or other payment above cost and is not a cost-sharing contract is contemplated, and if the contracting officer determines that withholding of a portion of allowable costs is not required, the contracting officer shall use the clause with its Alternate I.

(f)(1) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.216-12, Cost-Sharing Contract—No Fee, in solicitations and contracts when a cost-sharing contract is contemplated.

(2) If a cost-sharing research and development contract with an educational institution or a nonprofit organization is contemplated, and if the contracting officer determines that withholding of a portion of allowable costs is not required, the contracting officer shall use the clause with its Alternate I.

(g) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.216-15, Predetermined Indirect Cost Rates, in solicitations and contracts when a cost-reimbursement research and development contract with an educational institution (see 42.705-3(b)) is contemplated and predetermined indirect cost rates are to be used.
</div></div>
https://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2016_3.html


The term, "Cost plus" addresses a multitude of limitations and demands. Simplistic definitions are absurd. It is far more involved than could be defined in a couple of sentences.

At any rate, it is far more efficient than the favorite contracting style of the Bush era, "No Bid!" ...with hidden loopholes, advance legislation, in secret, to provide carte blanche to cronies allowing them to pollute the nation, and in industries which both the President, and Vice President, have decades old connections, corrupt CEO cronies, all involved in laying plans, to escape government oversight, of future water and air polluting, suvch as....."Frackiing"

I suppose, no bid defense contracting, where billions upon billions are "lost," due to incompetence (?) or corruption (?) or both, by their former, and future, business partners. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

pooltchr
01-25-2011, 08:07 AM
How is forcing all Americans to buy insurance going to bring down healthcare costs?
I can see how it would be a windfall for the insurance companies, but I don't see it lowering hospital operating costs.
However, if the government sets prices for different procedures, I can see how it will force the hand of the healthcare providers. If the things they have been doing are no longer profitable, I can see them no longer offering those specific services.
If drug companies can not make a profit on certain medications, they will not produce that medication. And if the government sets price limits, are they not arbitrarily removing some options from the market?

I see very few benefits from this bill, but a lot of potential pitfalls. It is, overall, a bad piece of legislation. It was designed to buy votes from the poor and uninsured. Of course, when Obama was running for office, people were supporting him because they thought the government was going to pay for their house and put gas in their tank. Somehow, reality didn't quite work on that one either.

Steve

Sev
01-25-2011, 08:28 AM
Steve it will work because it is almost 3000 pages long. Silly boy.

eg8r
01-25-2011, 12:44 PM
qtip, if you have nothing important to say then keep it to yourself.

The F35 is a government program. I could go in the number one reason why costs go up but you don't want to hear it because you cannot understand it.

eg8r