Slashdot Mirror
Obamacare Employer Mandate Delayed Until After Congressional Elections
theodp writes "If you hoped your employer would finally provide health insurance in 2014, take two aspirin and call your doctor in the morning — the morning of January 1st, 2015. The Obama administration will delay a crucial provision of its signature health-care law until 2015, giving businesses an extra year to comply with a requirement that they provide their workers with insurance. The government will postpone enforcement of the so-called employer mandate until 2015, after the congressional elections, the administration said Tuesday. Under the provision, companies with 50 or more workers face a fine of as much as $3,000 per employee if they don't offer affordable insurance."
More regulatory uncertainty! Yay!
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
And political expediency wins again
The question to ask is why would they want to delay implementation until after mid terms?
How many employers will just pay the fine. 3k per year per employee is less than a heathcare plan
Conveniently after the mid-term elections, where frustration with this trainwreck might reflect badly on those in power... One Turkish professor said "He talks like the president of the ACLU, and governs like Dick Cheney."
Is this delay specifically authorized by the law, or is the Obama administration simply going to fail to uphold a law they pushed to get passed?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Yea, we'll get used to having beurecrats make decisions regarding our famililies heathcare. I mean, having the IRS target the businesses of political opponents is nothing compared to denying Grandma her hip replacement because you voted for the wrong candidate.
Sure, business gets a reprieve but the rest of us still get the shaft by having to pay for our neighbor's healthcare despite them smoking a pack a week.
Nothing like having to spend money on something useless because the government tells us we have to do so.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The silver lining of the Supreme Court ruling, is that Obamacare is legally a tax. Mitch McConnell realized that taxes can be altered, or eliminated, in the budget reconciliation process. If the Republicans can get total control, even by slim majorities, Obamacare will die. Hillary Clinton is the best hope of keeping Obamacare alive.
Are people's illnesses also going to be delayed until January 1, 2015 if their employer has fewer than 50 employees? The mandate that people have to buy insurance is the bad part of the law. Having employers provide insurance was the upside.
The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot with this illegal delay in implementation of this part of the law.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
3...2....1....
You can pay slightly higher taxes, as an alternative to getting health insurance. This will offset the burden you (as a group) place on the rest of us when you need urgent, critical, healthcare, and are unable to pay for it, declaring bankrupcy or something similar instead to avoid paying.
You certainly don't need to leave the US, and while the tax penalty can get quite high (there's a middle range indeed where it's more than the cost of subsidized insurance) it's certainly not so extreme as to not be an option.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
So at this point companies DON'T have to provide you insurance, but you MUST carry insurance. So all those people who would have been covered if the business deadline wasn't pushed back will be forced to buy their own insurance on the individual market. Either that or pay the "tax." This is a recipe for real disaster.
While there is probably a political angle to the decision, the reason for the delay is more prosaic:
Under the new law, companies with more than 50 employees must provide their workers with health insurance.* Those companies that do not comply are levied a per-employee tax penalty. Employees that do not receive coverage through their employer can purchase insurance on the open market, and low- and middle-income workers can avail themselves to government subsidies to purchase coverage. In other words, the government is attempting, through the tax code, to recoup the employee's health care subsidy from the employer.
In order to carry out the employer mandate, the Treasury Department needs to know which companies are opting out and also which employees are subsequently utilizing government subsidies for healthcare. This is a technical challenge that the IRS (the Tax Man) has determined they won't have ready in time for the Jan 1, 2014 deadline. Businesses, too, have complained that their duty and mechanism for reporting who they are covering with insurance is difficult and onerous. So the decision has been made to push back the deadline.
Because the whole mechanism is linked to taxes, it is difficult to push the deadline back by, say, six months, because it would be tough to figure out how to pro-rate both the subsidy and the penalty. Most health insurance contracts (employer-provided or otherwise) run from Jan 1 to Dec 31, anyway. So, they pushed the effective date back to the next tax / health insurance / calendar year.
Yes, the new deadline occurs after the 2014 elections. But considering there are national elections every two years in the United States, pushing any deadline back by one year yields a 50/50 chance of passing over an election year. Would pushing it back just six months be any better, how about two years?
* For those, both outside and inside the U.S., who are wondering why health insurance is a benefit attached to a person's job, rather than a social benefit from the government (like in most other countries) or something each person seeks on the open market (like automobile insurance), the answer is: "it's complicated." It isn't the result of any particular plan, that's for damn sure; but rather the long meandering course of history. Those who are curious should read Paul Starr's book The Social Transformation of American Medicine . The Affordable Care Act follows the path of having health insurance as a workplace benefit mostly because that is how most people in the U.S. already get it.
Ha! This is just silliness on the way to a single payer system. Right now I pay about $7k per employee per year for insurance. And my penalty is only $3k? What do you think I'm going to do when the employer mandate takes effect?
I'm just guessing, but the op probably doesn't go to doctors either. I had neighboring family like that when I grew up. I don't remember what the religion was, but if they got sick, they slept a lot and drank water. I never thought to ask about broken bones. If they refuse to get medical help and just die, it probably lowers the overall cost of healthcare. Kind of like how smokers reduce costs.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
There's no area where "bureaucrats make decisions regarding our family's healthcare" is true tomorrow that wasn't true in 2007. The difference is that in some areas decisions that were made by insurance companies are now made by publicly accountable government employees. Moreover, if this is a "Death Panels" reference, the so-called panels determine policy issues, not individual cases. Whether an insurance company pays for grandma's hip operation is still a decision made by an Insurance Company bureaucrat, albeit one that you can now sue over if it contradicts the general policies set by the government.
Obamacare is a stupid, barely effective, way of providing universal healthcare that's, in practice, an unnecessary bailout for the health insurance industry, but let's keep the criticisms factual, OK?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
they already did decide on an individual case. did you see that a little girl got a lung transplant who, by law, shouldnt have? I mean im happy for her but dont fool yourself.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
...weak.
nothing compared to denying Grandma her hip replacement because you voted for the wrong candidate
Suddenly you're worried about that? Whether grandma gets her hip replacement has been a political matter since grandma was a hot young thing. Medicare was enacted in 1965.
Good for you, but what do you plan to do if, say, you contract an expensive form of cancer? The probability is pretty low that you're part of that group that can casually drop a half million or more on a treatment regime.
As a group, you're in with a bunch of people who will contract cancer and never be able to pay for it (not because you're religious but because you're human and you're choosing not to be able to pay for it), as well as other less expensive things that the victim will be unable to pay for. Hence you pay a tax to offset the problems caused by membership of your group.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I think this constitutes a tax on religion.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
As opposed to today, when... bureaucrats make decisions regarding my family's health care.
Here are the people who today control whether my treatment is covered: 1) the bureaucrats at the insurance company my employer chose; and 2) the bureaucrats at my employer who chose the insurance company.
Of course, if I'm rich, I can pay for anything I want out of pocket. That will be the same under PPACA, too. But if I'm not rich (and I'm not), it's bureaucrats deciding if I'm covered, yesterday and tomorrow.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I've heard that this law forces people to carry health insurance, my religious belief prohibit purchasing things like insurance, and I've already been breaking the law for 14 years not carrying car insurance, but I'm going to have a hard time lying to my employer and saying "I have other health insurance" so they don't give me this.
What are people who can not, or do not want to have health insurance supposed to do when Obamacare goes into effect, apart from leave the United States?
Accept that this is being implemented as a tax. Give up several thousands of dollars either to an employer-arranged plan that you never use, or to the government for not having that plan.
Your employer doesn't violate your beliefs by putting you on a company-wide plan. But your paycheck will be lower.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I've heard that this law forces people to carry health insurance, my religious belief prohibit purchasing things like insurance
If there isn't already, there'll be a court decision that gives an exemption based on religious beliefs, The 1st Amendment almost always trumps other considerations in the courts. Belong to the right church and you can legally use peyote.
No, Obama has assumed dictator powers on many issues.
He no longer needs Congress to pass legislation, and submit it for his approval. He can do whatever he pleases.
I'm surprised it took so many people so long to realize this is what would happen.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
The difference is that in some areas decisions that were made by insurance companies are now made by publicly accountable government employees.
Which would be interesting if the "publicly accountable" part were even remotely true. Look at the political actions of managers and supervisors in the IRS, and the utter stonewalling by that agency and un-shocking lack of curiosity by their boss who heads the executive branch, the president, as to who to hold accountable for exactly the sort of capricious behavior that you're suggesting won't happen. The IRS is hiring tens of thousands of brand new, un-accountable, essentially un-fireable new employees explicitly to have them make judgement calls about whether individual people have been sufficiently in compliance with a gigantic, byzantine new law that nobody understands. They will decide whether those individuals ultimately may end up having wages garnished, businesses ruined, homes seized, or spend time in prison if they aren't doing it exactly right. That you see such new power and enforcement in the hands of the IRS as an improvement is unfortunate.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I just told my wife last week that this was going to happen. She said I was being pessimistic. Turns out I was just being realistic.
They don't have to pay the fine, or provide insurance. They just make their employees part timers.
I've seen some anecdotal evidence of this (from waitstaff at a couple different restaurants, security guards at my parking deck, blog posts). Unskilled labor positions (i.e. the people that were targeted to receive this benefit) are just having their hours cut to 30 hours/week because part time employees are not subject to the insurance requirement. With current employment trends, it's easy to hire some extra part timers to fill the gap. It's a non-issue for skilled laborers, because most already receive employer provided insurance.
The real problem here is this law was intended to require a benefit (i.e. minimum compensation) for people who do not generally receive it already. So now, not only will they not get insurance, but they're also facing a 25% cut in income.
What you mean the bureaucrats in the insurance companies that have been doing that exact thing for decades? Those bureaucrats? the same bureaucrats that will be doing it now as this is just mandating insurance not supplying it.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
How can any employer think that workers w/o health insurance work better than those who do? Most governments have figured out that the tax from cigarettes does not outweigh the cost to the economy of a sick worker, hence they are trying to get as many people to quit as possible. Health insurance is the same, the cost to keep workers healthy is worth it to have better workers. It also encourages the worker to stay with the company. The number of times I've heard of people moving job because where they were going had health insurance has to be some indication of it's worth to the employer.
And their is actually nothing illegal about that.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Except there is no constitutional protection from taxes. So what 1st amendment issue could be raised?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
... is a big part of the problem.
You want it privatized? Force them to compete. No more employer-provided healthcare to drive up costs for those of us who would rather shop on our own. I don't have employer-provided car insurance, yet the majority of the mileage on my car is from going to and from work. Decouple healthcare from your job. Let us shop for the health insurance that best meets our own needs.
Big whoop. The individual mandate is still in place. As a self-employed person who buys his own insurance, I have no idea if my current plan "qualifies." I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop or perhaps more than one shoe. If my current plan doesn't "qualify" am I suddenly going to get a gigantic rate increase even though I haven't needed medical care in 15 years? Or worse, my current provider decides to close its doors and I'm stuck paying a ludicrously high rate because the marketplace is now smaller.
...ramrod such bullshit laws down the throats of Americans, and then don't even want to obey to the letter of their own laws they passed when they find out that it adversely affects even their own ilk.
I'd feel lucky to just have had to do an appendectomy! When I was three I had to do an appendix *transplant* into myself. You don't know how good you had it.
Seriously though, the OP's religion's standpoint seems quite sensible and individualistic. Only first world country with that mindset these days is New Zealand it seems.
What fork is this AC OP?
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
So your point is that something that works in one state must work in all?
And to further expound on JackieBrown's excellent comment is that since legal open carry of handguns works so well in Idaho and other free states, I think it should be forced upon NY, Mass, NJ, Ill, CA, and all others too. All the politicians who profit from the continuance of violent crime in those blue states would never stand for that however.
And their is actually nothing illegal about that.
I think you aren't reading the same Constitution the rest of us are reading:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Amendments
If it costs me a fine to exercise my religion and someone else, it doesn't cost them a fine, and all other things are equal, then that's charging me for the exercise of my religion.
Admittedly, it's a stupid belief that the GP is espousing, but people are free to believe whatever stupid things they want to believe.
That covers stuff and has none of that existing condition BS
but the new plans cover more stuff and junk plans are banded.
Stuff like mcdonalds mini med that if you get sick is total f**king garage
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oh yeah...NPR. Now there's a completely objective and truthful source.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have a friend who has a company which has 53 full time employees.
He's been investigating how he can get rid of 5 of them, or at least convert them to part time, to escape this mandate.
Stair step functions have always been a problem when designing things like commission structures, and so on. If I make 6% commission on sales up to $10,000 a day, and 5% commission for sales of $20,000 a day or higher, then I get 6 cents on a dollar if I sell $10,000 or less and 5 cents on a dollar if I sell more. So if I sell $10,000, I get $600, but if I sell $10,001, I get $500.05; I don't break even until $12,000 in sales, where I make $600 again, and I don't start making money again until I start selling $12,001 ($600.05). You can be damn well sure that you aren't going to have any of your sales staff turning in total sales amounts between $10,001/day and $12,000/day, and if they are unable to get close to, but just under, the next point at which there's another stair, you can be damn sure there will be customers hearing "We're out of stock today, but we have a shipment coming in first thing tomorrow, I'll call you".
This whole "keep the insurance industry in business" welfare program for insurance companies this was a bad idea; if we are going to nationalize healthcare, we really should have gone single-payer and been done with it.
The delay will be just enough to get all the DemoCore reelected.
What Obamacare will not let you do is have a low cost, catastrophic plan. Which is what I have...$3000 deductible and a $36 or so a month fee.
If I stay healthy, I win. If not, I'm no worse off than having the full service plan. If the shit really hits the fan, I'm covered.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
People just want full insurance without having to fill out forms, switching providers, doctors or anything else. The only people crying about money are the Tea Party weirdos who cry about dropping a penny in their couches. The fact is, the Administration should have just simply took over the entire health care industry. When you have an industry that can only make money off healthy people, then you simply cannot expect to make money unless you let the sick and dying go. Which is the opposite of what is SUPPOSED to happen. Much like the military, it needs to be socialized. All of it. The industry was in shambles before this act, and it will more than likely be in shambles after. Everyone should be allowed to receive health care for free. It's 2013, we have the means, we have the wealth, and we have the regulatory power to make it all work.
Even taking everything you said as factually and thematically true. Are you saying that is worse than having the decision made by someone whose boss's main concern is a finantial stake in the decision (insurance companies)? Are you really sure that is the argument you want to make?
Given the choice between the same person employed by a company who would have to give up profits to see me healthy, and that same person as a govenment burocrat who's elected boss has to justify the policies to the electorate, I will take the govenment burocrat every time. It is simply a better moral situation with better accountability.
Which would be interesting if the "publicly accountable" part were even remotely true.
However unaccountable government bureaucrats are, do you think that insurance company bureaucrats are better?
Several CEO's of health insurance companies testified before congress that their companies practiced recission, and had no plans to stop. Recission is when you get something expensive like cancer, and the insurance company looks for any possible reason to cancel your coverage, Maybe you were treated for acne when you were 14 and didn't report it on your application. Bingo, no insurance!
Except there is no constitutional protection from taxes.
Then explain how the Amish are exempt from FICA based on their religious beliefs.
any larger company will realize that it would be cheaper to pay the 3000$ per person fine than it is to supply healthcare for every one of the employees. obama is pulling crap out of his ass if he really thinks that employers will stop being capitalists.
The whole thing is one big CF. Remember these great talking points before Obamacare became law?
“The time is now, we can’t afford to wait any longer.”
“Americans are dying out here.”
“My mother died for lack of health insurance.”
If we can’t wait any longer, why is the Obama administration delaying implementation of the employer mandate? Americans are still dying, right? How many more mothers will die because they don’t have health insurance?
This is just a cynical, political ploy so the American sheople don’t realize the unintended consequences of Obamacare before the mid-term elections.
"Politicians always tell the truth, when they're calling each other liars."
However unaccountable government bureaucrats are, do you think that insurance company bureaucrats are better?
Yes, because they have competitors. And if a new health care law simply did the one of the very few things it actually needed to do (allow interstate competition by insurance companies, instead of preventing that sort of liberty), we'd see even more of that competition and pressure to perform usefully for paying customers.
As for the motivation to shut down coverage for expensive customers: yes, it would sure help if coverage wasn't so expensive to provide. The answer for that is tort reform, something the democrats don't want because they don't want to piss off the trial lawyers, who pay for a lot of their campaign ads. But look to the industry those lawyers have created (huge money-making suits) for why the practice of simple medicine has descended into a storm of hideously expensive tests, unneeded drug use, soul-crushing record keeping processes, and all of the related paperwork nightmares.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If you hoped your employer would fire you, or reduce you to being a part time employee, or if already part time, limited to 29.5 hours weekly to avoid the added costs of obamacare, then you might may be disappointed for a while.
On the other hand, you may be rejoicing this small reprieve from this disaster
For the last 60 years or so the main medical system in this country has been government-operated and paid for via taxation. It has its faults but people generally agree it is a good idea and nobody from any political group wants to see it gone. Minor fees exist for some things but in general all medical care is free at the point of use. If it costs 200K to cure your rare cancer then you still get the treatment without charge.
The average UK person does not know that much about America. I could stop someone in the street at random and would be a good chance they could not name your two main political parties for example, or know which one Obama belongs to. People do know that there was historically no public medical system and think it's very creepy that when Americans get sick and don't have money they just get left in the street to die. Nobody understands why there is so much opposition to having a proper health service now that Obama has passed this law.
No real point to this post except a FYI how it looks from outside USA.
"Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
We have been well informed that the Democratic party has written off the white male.
White males don't set sick or injured? As a white male myself I think that's great. Could you cite some studies?
They have to spill out who can be the best liar first.
Thank you for citing many examples of presidential overreach that is exclusive to Obama.
If something is written into law, can the executive branch just declare, "Nah, we won't implement the law on the date that it was suppose to. We'll implement it when we feel like it."?
If this is delayed until the next presidential election, and a Republican wins the presidency, couldn't the GOP effectively block Obamacare by saying they won't implement it until the year 3016?
TWO lung transplants. The first one didn't work out, so they replaced them again this past week.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
LMGTFY
LMGTFY
So healthcare is now tyranny?? You sir are an idiot who does not understand what an oppressive government is. You call tyranny because your inconvenienced, because your taxes go up a smidge. Guess what. Your wrong and when you raise you weapon against the government they will kill you and no one will care.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
"after the congressional elections" meaning bad news for someone.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
repeating something that has been shown to not work, over and over again.
I take it you mean that the cowardly idiots there can pretend to feel like men while everyone else suffers the consequences. After all, your need to compensate is much more important, isn't it.
According to my friends that live there and actually use the system, it's a whole lot better than what we have here.
because in the real world everyone has the time and luxury to evaluate all of the competing hospitals when they are unconscious from an auto wreck. you see son, when you grow up, you'll realize that the world is a lot more complicated than you think it is from your mommies basement.
I suppose you believe in Santa Clause too.
Good for you, but what do you plan to do if, say, you contract an expensive form of cancer? The probability is pretty low that you're part of that group that can casually drop a half million or more on a treatment regime.
The chances are also low that he will ever contract a detectable cancer.
Insurance rates arent high because of cancer. Insurance rates are high because many people with insurance go to the doctor for the stupidest reasons.
Did you think that there was another explanation for why catastrophic health insurance was an order of magnitude cheaper than the insurance you are talking about? Sorry, there isn't. Overall, cancer is cheaper for society than the common cold. Thanks Obama!
"His name was James Damore."
I have a small business consulting/contracting and now upto 3 emplyees. I've been paying my own insurance out of pocket the past 6 years and has run me about $75 to now $87 a month for a decent plan that meets my needs well. (Nothing special, $2500 deductable, $35 doctor vists, prescription drug coverage) But again in the past 6 years I've been to my Doctor 7 times. 6 for annual check ups, free under my coverage, and once for a sinus infecction. I was young in my late 20's and now early 30's and single. I also pay for dental coverage.
The way my Dental works is pretty simple: they pay for twice a year cleanings, once a year x-rays, and then 80% of any non cosmetic proceedures. I don't have the best teeth in the world, and the solution is going to be a few crowns before things get worse. I was able to shop around and actually get prices from different dentists. I wish my health insurance could work much the same way. There would need to be emergancy coverage that is good anywhere: i.e. heart attack, etc.. But for a lot of other proceedures hospitals should have a 1 price policy, not this negioated rate mess where say a bypass is $18,000 for company A, $26000 for company B, and $50,000 if you come off the street. Hospitals should set the price: say $25,000 and then your insurance tell you if they cover 100%, 50%, 80% or whatever. And the prices should be upfront and on their websites in a PDF. An example for me personally is the fact that Carpel Tunnel surgery is in my future. Its not critical but I woud shop at the various hospitals around town to see where I felt I could get the best care for the $.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
I have seen a lot of post talking about allowing interstate shopping for insurance. Have you looked at who owns most of the "Health Care Providers" in the US? There may appear to be lots of HCP's around but they are mostly owned by very few companies (who incidentally own many of the hospitals)
So I don't think the ability to shop for insurance in another state is going to help a huge amount.
But you have to remember that a significant "influencer" on the democratic side of the legislation was the trial lawyers guild (hence no tort reform in the bill).
Nice strawman there. Medical malpractice suits only really add about 1-2% to the total costs of healthcare in the economy [1]. Bigger factors that influence the cost of healthcare are: 1) For-profit insurers who have an incentive to take your premiums and stiff you when you're actually sick. 2) Big Pharma charging $1k/dose for their latest life saving drugs and fighting tooth and nail (and winning) against generics after their patents expire 3) Medical equipment manufacturers that charge defense-contract rates for their required equipment ($300 plastic tubing).
[1] http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Tongue depressor? You mean like McDonald's food?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The title makes it sound like it was intentionally delayed to correspond with elections. The truth is we don't know the actual motivation at this time, and such a headline plants a suggestion of motivation into the readers' head.
A more neutral headline would just read "...delayed for a year" or "...delayed until [date]".
This is an example of how news writers can be technically accurate yet still plant non-factual or unverified suggestions into readers' mind. Slanted news sources uses such tricks all the time. It's quite possible to manipulate readers without directly lying.
Table-ized A.I.
Which is why you need more of free market, not less, so that the gov't is NOT regulating new starting up HCPs out of business to maintain the oligopoly and you should also be able to shop for ANYTHING around the world, including health insurance.
You may want to buy one from an insurer in Singapore, so why shouldn't you be able to? I have a number of passports and health insurance from a country I am not actually a citizen of though I spend some time there over the year, I shop for such things, why can't Americans?
You can't handle the truth.
Shopping around the world may help. The free market is what has got most insurance in the states (and to a certain degree internationally) into the state it is in where lots of insurance companies are owned by, and little more than brand names, for a few very large companies.
In the past few years HCPs have been on a splurge of mergers and aquisitions.
I had to keep checking the top banner to make sure I wasn't on freerepublic after reading the comments on here. So much utter nonsense about death panels and across-state-lines-magic. I don't think I've seen so many misinformed comments on slashdot before, and I've seen a few emacs and kde4 threads in my time.
so what you are saying is someone else didnt get the lungs and now shes getting 2 sets? I mean if she gets a pass what do you think is gonna happen when X needs Y will X get a pass? or a screw off? Why should our government even be making any decisions when it comes to this kind of thing??
now expand that to having a common cold.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
She got two set. That's a done deal.
Whether anyone went without because she got two sets is debatable. Depends a lot on matches - maybe there was someone who was an even better match than her, that lost out when she was moved to the top of the list she wasn't even suppposed to be on.
Or not. It's possible neither of those sets of lungs would have been useful to anyone else waiting.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I'm sure this has absolutely nothing to do with forecasts of employers have large layoffs. Wouldn't want that before a midterm now would we? Kind of like releasing the notification as people are leaving work holiday.
It is probably hard to go cold turkey politically due to the massive integration of insurance companies and big pharma.
To use in old medical terms, at some point you are supposed to remove the leeches...