Disney and Universal score waivers to offer limited health plans for part-timers

Posted Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:18 PM | Contributed by Jeff

Walt Disney World and Universal Orlando have won waivers from the federal government that exempt bare-bones health plans the two resorts offer part-time employees from new requirements imposed by this year's overhaul of the U.S. health-care system. The waivers, which were granted earlier this fall, will permit Orlando's two largest theme-park operators to continue offering limited insurance plans — commonly referred to as "mini-med" plans — that have low premiums but also low caps on annual benefit payouts.

Read more from The Orlando Sentinel.

Friday, December 17, 2010 5:20 PM

Yeah, issues of health insurance are just like the ability to urinate. Great analogy. Thanks for tanking would have been a constructive discussion.

I apologize... I did not know we were looking for constructive conversation this time. Typically once you say "makes sense to me" that is the end of pertinent discussion.

But if you care to give your opinion of how it is better that government now has to grant approval for those workers to receive the exact health plan they had before Obama fixed health care...I'm all ears. Or how it "makes sense" that by 2014 these very same plans will no longer be allowed. How will Disney and Universal treat those employees that now receive the mini-plans? Would it make sense to keep employing them if heath care costs increase drastically? Or might it make sense to drop ALL health care benefits for part-time employees and let them fend for themselves? If this happens, wouldn't that give validity to those that argue Obama set this up to fail so more intrusive government plans can follow?

We could discuss all sorts of interesting topics...or you can focus on urine! ;)

+0
Friday, December 17, 2010 5:29 PM

I think it's been shown we prefer urine. And pancakes. Do you like pancakes?

+0
Friday, December 17, 2010 11:47 PM

Tekwardo said:
I'll even trade some maple syrup for those pancakes.

But if your pee smells like maple syrup, you'd better get to a doctor quick.

Assuming you have health insurance, that is.

+0
Saturday, December 18, 2010 1:21 AM

But if this pancake affordability plan was the awesome end-all plan it was touted as, why is there a need to exempt people from having to purchase pancake mix? Does this mean that certain premium pancakes (the ones with blueberries or chocolate chips) won't be taxed as it was originally claimed they would be-- because it turns out the people with blueberries are a core constituency of the administration?

Seems strange to me that some of the people who most loudly pushed for this legislation are now the ones who are requesting, and receiving, exemptions from having to fire up the griddle.

+0
Saturday, December 18, 2010 5:21 PM

Cronyism propensity of the current administration aside...

The more pertinent issue is the constitutionality of forcing Disney, Universal, etc to only buy a certain type of health plan that the government approves by 2014. Though those that chastise in lieu of deliberation find comfort in numbers... The point remains. Constitutionally the government has as much right to regulate our pissing habits, pancake choices, bad inside jokes, etc as they do to force private companies/individuals to purchase a product or face a fine. Ultimately this will die in the Supreme Court. The question is how many billions/trillions we waste before that day comes.

+0
Saturday, December 18, 2010 7:22 PM

What exactly does that have to do with Pancakes?

+0
Sunday, December 19, 2010 1:48 AM

Ultimately this with provide everyone Health Care .. But at what cost is the bigger question?

+0
Sunday, December 19, 2010 2:18 AM

I don't need health care, so why is it a good idea to force it on every citizen of the United States? It's unconstitutional.

+0
Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:40 AM

It's a good idea because if you

a) eliminate pre-existing condition clauses (as a Type 1 diabetic since my 3rd birthday, it shouldn't be hard to figure out my position there)

b) allow healthy people to NOT sign up until they're sick,

that combination allows people to go out, make poor decisions (diet, etc.), and then go "Oh, gee, guess I'd better go get coverage now!", and will quickly bankrupt the insurers.

(Granted, I think approaching health CARE as an insurance scam is the wrong solution to begin with)

+0
Sunday, December 19, 2010 1:28 PM

The insurance industry seems to be doing just fine as they are now. Once they force everyone to sign up, the insurance industry will be doing great!

I don't get sick often. I've been hospitalized a total of two times in my almost 37 years here on this planet, not counting being born. I've seen my primary care physician about once every two or three years for any problems that I have, and I gladly pay my bill with my debt card at the time of my visit. I don't take any ongoing prescriptions.

Why should I be required by law to help pay for everyone else's medical expenses?

I don't think that it's a scam. It is helpful to some people.

A judge just a few weeks ago ruled that it was unconstitutional.

+0
Sunday, December 19, 2010 2:53 PM

Here in FL, we just elected a Governor who was the Dick Kinzel of Columbia /HCA when they were overcharging the government in hundreds of millions annually. The DOJ sured and ended up recovering over $2B of Medicare/Medicaid dollars in 2003.

Obvoiusly, the system is fine as is... sarcasm completely intended.

For financial reasons alone, it only makes sense to have the healthiest work force as reasonably possible, and other successful economies have figured out a way to do so. Maybe just this once America can swallow its pride enough to learn from others? Considering it is for the good of America....hopefully.

+0
Sunday, December 19, 2010 3:47 PM

Here in FL, we just elected a Governor who was the Dick Kinzel of Columbia /HCA when they were overcharging the government in hundreds of millions annually. The DOJ sured and ended up recovering over $2B of Medicare/Medicaid dollars in 2003.

Thieves should be in jail. Government should not be providing health insurance. Show me a government program and I'll show you abuse. Any benefits Columbia siphoned for themselves pales in comparison to the fat bureaucrats in D.C. who always get their share regardless of economic conditions.

For financial reasons alone, it only makes sense to have the healthiest work force as reasonably possible, and other successful economies have figured out a way to do so.

It does not make sense if you have to ignore the constitution to implement your idea of what constitutes appropriate health care. As for the economy, in 200 short years America and capitalism created wealth and charity the likes that have NEVER been seen. I'm not sure what definition of a "successful economy" means. Moment to note that health care is not capitalistic a bit in our country, which is part of the problem and needed for a solution.

Either way, the private part of our health sector is the one area that has been successful, both from a financial and medical standpoint. America's investments in development in drugs and new technology is on levels the likes of nobody parallels. This is the reason leaders from those "successful economy" countries come here to use our doctors and our technology when things are life-threatening. Take the private sector out of health care, say goodbye to all incentive to create new life-saving techniques.

Do we have problems...yep. But they were never severe as Obama sold us on, and socialism is not the answer. Luckily the majority of American's have woke up to the ruse and are against this plan. We are not a country that has ever endorsed a nanny state. Most of these programs are shoved down our throats by politicians against our will. This one certainly was.

+0
Sunday, December 19, 2010 5:37 PM

Pancakes ahoy!

+0
Sunday, December 19, 2010 8:31 PM

ApolloAndy said:
Pancakes ahoy!

But what if one gets sick from eating pancakes? Then what?

+0
Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:44 PM

O noes!!!1!!! Not socialism! Someone remind Aamilj not to drive on roads, call an ambulance, send his kids to school or whatever. Wouldn't want to participate in some evil socialist agenda!

+0
Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:12 PM

Aamilj said:
It does not make sense if you have to ignore the constitution to implement your idea of what constitutes appropriate health care.

The "constitutionality" of [insert recent political issue here] gets tiresome. We could pass an amendment implementing universal healthcare, and then it would be "constitutional." Would you suddenly be in favor of it once it's fully legal? I doubt it.

+0
Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:27 PM

I would be very in favor of paying 5-10% of my check for a program such as the UK's NHS. Call it evil socialist agenda, and I'll put my Blue Cross premium that continually increases year after year up your blessed bum. Oh wait, that's capitalism at work isn't it? Doesn't sound all that great to me...

+0
Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:28 PM

I love u Birdy!

+0
Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:28 PM

Hey, Aamilj. What's your favorite Arrow steelie?

+0
Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:31 PM

Why would you ask someone that on a Coaster website, Mike?

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...