Lets not make this political... but I have a feeling it might go that way anyways so this could be a short lived thread, but saw the following and thought it was interesting.
Interesting...
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 20
- Views 4K
- Status
They might be exempt because it seems that every time I have ever called, all of their employees are overseas. In fact, even when I called to cancel, I was sent overseas. It was not until they realized I was cancelling, that they transferred me to someone that sounded like she was based in the US.
Dish got about a tenth of the waivers that the other mentioned company got. It seems to be a way of keeping some medical insurance going until the "full" health care plan kicks in come 2014. Not to worry. It's a certainty that there will be major changes in the plan long before that day comes, as I have been advised by our providers. And I'll leave it at that.
Has dish outsourced everything? I've been wanting to upgrade a receiver for a while but every time I call I get somebody overseas. India or the Philippines, I believe. They used to have some really nice people in, I believe, Texas. Is there any way to get to a US based call center? I don't really want to but a box outright.
Boy, would it be easy to slip into politics on this.
Boy, would it be easy to slip into politics on this.
Yes, I found a way to get a US center. Call and cancel, they will send you somewhere in the US. That was the only part of the entire conversation I could understand.
I don't think this should turn political either, because if you review the list of companies getting waivers (both 1st and 2nd round) you will find plenty of "leaning" companies on both sides.
Poor reporting (the standard nowadays in journalism) also does not explain what the waivers are for. The waivers are for changing the current health offerings for low-income - part-time workers so that companies can keep them insured. With the new laws taking affect, these companies would be required to move these workers to more expensive plans due to the removal of caps on coverage. In other words, instead of there being a cap of say 750,000 lifetime on a part-time worker there would no longer be any cap. This would significantly increase the cost of the health programs for these employees and thus a lot of companies would drop insurance for them (instead taking the 2000 hit for non-coverage). Also, these waivers are temporary (yearly) renewed, until 2014 and other options (insurance exchange) come online for these companies and the waivers are mandated to stop (unless of course they undo the mandatory stop which happens all the time as government changes).
Isn't life messy?
Poor reporting (the standard nowadays in journalism) also does not explain what the waivers are for. The waivers are for changing the current health offerings for low-income - part-time workers so that companies can keep them insured. With the new laws taking affect, these companies would be required to move these workers to more expensive plans due to the removal of caps on coverage. In other words, instead of there being a cap of say 750,000 lifetime on a part-time worker there would no longer be any cap. This would significantly increase the cost of the health programs for these employees and thus a lot of companies would drop insurance for them (instead taking the 2000 hit for non-coverage). Also, these waivers are temporary (yearly) renewed, until 2014 and other options (insurance exchange) come online for these companies and the waivers are mandated to stop (unless of course they undo the mandatory stop which happens all the time as government changes).
Isn't life messy?
It should be obvious that any law that for any reason exempts any individual, company or group is a bad law. Laws should apply equally to all regardless of any other factors.
That single test would invalidate 99.999% of all current laws by the way, so I'm not being one sided.
And I'm certainly not going to get into any political reasoning about why a particular company would take advantage of an exemption mechanism, if it is in there then it's their accountant's job to find and take advantage of it.
That single test would invalidate 99.999% of all current laws by the way, so I'm not being one sided.
And I'm certainly not going to get into any political reasoning about why a particular company would take advantage of an exemption mechanism, if it is in there then it's their accountant's job to find and take advantage of it.
Doesn't have anything to do with these waivers. India has universal (true socialized which means the government owns the hospitals) which means Dish does not insure employees in India. Besides, our laws here for healthcare has no bearing on employees who are citizens of other countries.
Those 3500 waivers represent only about 13% of the employee base, and are probably the people who have elected not to have company insurance at all. As pathetic as Dish's high-deductible, high-copay plans are, they don't have any that involve annual coverage caps, so there are no employees in danger of actually losing coverage next year.
This is most likely just a scheme to stave off requiring employees to have coverage they don't need or want for long as possible, and if that's the case, I say well-played.
More interesting is the number of unions that applied for and rec'd the waivers...
Also, many insurance companies (CIGNA, Aetna, BCS, etc) rec'd waivers affecting hundreds of thousands of people. CIGNA is 265,000. I'll venture to say that they don't have that many employees so this is certainly going to affect their clients !
Also, many insurance companies (CIGNA, Aetna, BCS, etc) rec'd waivers affecting hundreds of thousands of people. CIGNA is 265,000. I'll venture to say that they don't have that many employees so this is certainly going to affect their clients !
Cigna administers healthplans (mostly) rather than provide insurance Cigna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So it has waivers for "other companies"
That's exactly my point. There are surely a lot more "familiar" companies who are included in this than appears. I don't know who "BCS" is, but Aetna does the same as CIGNA. They may provide insurance "direct" but I know for a fact that they administer insurance plans for companies who are self-insured.
There are plenty of citizens of Mexico, that are employed here in the United States. So, "our laws here for healthcrae" DO have a bearing on non-U.S. citizens.
Tom in TX
Further, I thought you meant Dish "employees" in India, Philippines, and so on that someone alluded to earlier. Fact is, they're (probably) not Dish employees anyway. They're employees of an outsourcing company.
- Status
