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.

Monday, December 20, 2010 12:14 PM

djDaemon said:
Do you really want your neighbor to have private fire control service, be behind on their bills (or simply elect not to have the service), and watch their house fire spread to your house?

Jeff didn't mention fire control service in the post you linked to.

And do you realize how incredibly expensive pretty much everything would be without the highway system?

I never said to get rid of the highways.

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 12:52 PM

Sure he did:

Jeff said:
...or whatever.

:)

Fire control falls under the socialism umbrella, and I've yet to see a Tea Bagger calling for the abolition of fire departments.

And no, you didn't specifically mention highways, but your post seemed to suggest you were speaking about more than just the very short list of examples of socialized services Jeff mentioned.

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 1:03 PM

How are you defining socialism?

Tea party folks are hypocrites. But because someone is against one government program, must they be against all government programs?

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 1:17 PM

Socialism, in the context of this discussion, is shared service that is paid for by everyone, regardless of whether they use it (i.e. fire, police, highways, schools, libraries, NOAA, FDA, etc).

I didn't mean to suggest that if you're against one specific program that you must be against all of them. I apparently misunderstood Gonch's post - he's not against socialized services or socialism in general, simply Jeff's very short list (public roads, EMS and public schools) and socialized health care.

Though I'm not sure how he expects to get his kids to private school without roads... or how his private ambulance service would get to and from his house after a heavy snowfall or something. :)

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 1:36 PM

djDaemon said:
Though I'm not sure how he expects to get his kids to private school without roads... or how his private ambulance service would get to and from his house after a heavy snowfall or something. :)

Not sure how you keep confusing privatizing the roads with getting rid of them.

I apparently misunderstood Gonch's post - he's not against socialized services or socialism in general, simply Jeff's very short list (public roads, EMS and public schools) and socialized health care.

Again with the perceived absolutism. No, I don't think socialism in the sense that were discussing is always bad. It just usually is.

I love that we all pay for war and to kill criminals, for example. Makes perfect sense.

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 1:51 PM

Well, that's the problem, right? Some services (for you it's war and capital punishment) hold a lot of value for you personally, and as such you think the cost is justified. From my perspective, other services hold more value.

And since we're not always going to agree on every service's value, we socialize ones that seem to make the most sense for everyone - education, safety, transportation and such.

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 2:02 PM

djDaemon said:
And since we're not always going to agree on every service's value, we socialize ones that seem to make the most sense for everyone - education, safety, transportation and such.

If we don't agree, then how do we agree on which make the most sense? In fact, I'd argue that that's the real issue - we don't agree on which make the most sense for everyone.

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM

I agree that disagreement is the issue, which is why we use democracy to settle things.

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 2:34 PM

Exactly.

I suspect the majority will prevail. (as they should)

(or am I wrong in believing democracy favors the majority?)

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 2:48 PM

Aamilj said:

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

I thought I made it clear earlier that I like woodies...? I'd a rather you asked my favorite CCI or GCI. But since you asked, I think Arrows suck. Can't stand over the head bars. The transitions jerk the crap out of you. And simple loops and corkscrews scream 1970's to 1985. A little birdy told me Dollywood has a decent Arrow though...

P.S. This conversation was about health-care. I prefer to discuss these topics. By the look of the thread counts...so do a lot of people on this site. But rest assured that if you really want to test my coaster knowledge, I can hang with the conversation better than most. Want a throw me a question about "The Bat"? How about William's Grove? If you are going to test me, at least make it a bit more challenging! ;)

All right. You've convinced me. You can stay. ;)

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 2:49 PM

Given the trove of misinformation and demagoguery surrounding health care reform (death panels, rationed care, Canada's "awful" system (that has a 98% approval rating)), and the admittedly non-ideal implementation this 2014 plan (caused mostly by lobbying and the unwillingness of any real cross-party compromise), such polls are not at all relevant.

I honestly think the system to be implemented in 2014 will be a spectacular failure, due to the fact that nothing was done to turn our current health care system (which is anything but free market) into a system that has competition (i.e. a public option).

That the GOP so forcefully fought the public option (while strenuously supporting things like Medicare Part D, for example) is proof (to me, anyway) that a public option would have been hugely successful. What was the risk to the GOP if a public option were implemented? According to them, it would have been an unmitigated disaster, so why not let it be implemented and then stand back and say "told ya so!" when all was said and done?

The answer, of course, is because their pockets are heavily lined by those same companies who would be rendered extinct by a public option.

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 2:56 PM

I probably should just let Gonch handle this. There is nothing he has said I do not agre with on this subject.

Back to health care... Most agree we have an access and cost problem. Not so much a quality problem. The question is what is the best way to keep quality while controlling costs and increasing access. A 2 trillion dollar health care bill, that is unconstitutional, passed in the middle of a recession... and passed against the will of the Ameerican people seems just a bit extreme...no?

What does Big Brother dictating what Disney and Universal provide for their employees do to control costs? What does this do to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions. It is an uneeded intrusion into private matters. Unlike roads, schools, armies, etc...the health plan that Disney offers and their employees accept...should be off limits.

As much as it pains me to say...I agree with a lot of what Tek said. We are a generous nation on the whole. We can find means to take care of those that sincerley need assistance. I'm certain it can be done for a heck of a lot less than 2 trillion. In fact, I bet we could find a way to do it that actually cuts government expenditures. This is a pipe dream as the majority would never allow their own entitlements to shrink, or go away. But that is a political flaw more than a practical flaw.

I could envision a streamlined system where all but the highest premium policies were needed. Doctors and specialist could compete for services, etc. We would still have a saftey net for those who need it (call it Medicare or something else). We could have a "pre-existing condition" exemption, etc. But for the most part, Big Brother would be left out of the loop. There are millions on Medicare now, not because they can't afford private insurance, but because it is there to take. I do not understand why we have created a government regulated structure that encourages EVEREYBODY to suck the teet...regardless of needs or means.

Education and healthcare...two of the most government regulated entities we have. Guess which two entities consistently outpace inflation in terms of costs?

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 2:59 PM

^^djDaemon for president!

Last edited by delan, Monday, December 20, 2010 2:59 PM
+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 3:11 PM

Lord Gonchar said:
I suspect the majority will prevail. (as they should)

(or am I wrong in believing democracy favors the majority?)

djDaemon said:
Given the trove of misinformation and demagoguery surrounding health care reform (death panels, rationed care, Canada's "awful" system (that has a 98% approval rating)), and the admittedly non-ideal implementation this 2014 plan (caused mostly by lobbying and the unwillingness of any real cross-party compromise), such polls are not at all relevant.

So democracy doesn't favor the majority? It favors those who've decided they know better than the majority?

That's a slippery slope.

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 3:15 PM

It sure would be awesome if we had an educated and informed electorate that voted their conscience based on the preponderance of objective evidence.

We can all agree on that much, can't we? :)

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 3:28 PM

Lord Gonchar said:
So democracy doesn't favor the majority? It favors those who've decided they know better than the majority?

That's a slippery slope.

Polling is not a viable democratic method, nor are they necessarily an accurate representation of the electorate. That was my point.

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 4:37 PM

Then what is?

Because isn't that exactly what our democratic process entails? Isn't that why we "go out to the polls" on election day?

Given the fact that the process of election is just a huge poll that the respondents choose to participate in and that we rarely get to vote on an issue-by-issue basis on the national level, but rather for one person who we feel best represents our beliefs...

well...

How much does that say about the people we put in office? Seems asking in a scientific way what people think of the people and policies put in place is more accurate than the non-scientific way we choose who those people and policies are.

I guess I don't understand how we're supposed to gauge reaction to the decisions made by the people we put in power. A lot more has already been decided by a lot less.

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 5:02 PM

Lord Gonchar said:
Because isn't that exactly what our democratic process entails? Isn't that why we "go out to the polls" on election day?

These polls are not at all the same as what happens on voting day. We do not choose our government representatives via "ABC News/Washington Post polls", at least the last time I checked.

These types of polls, through artful wording, can be and frequently are designed in such a way to provide a desired result, which is why it's disingenuous to cite an "ABC News/Washington Post poll" as any sort of evidence that the majority of Americans don't want socialized health care.

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 5:05 PM

djDaemon said:
Polling is not a viable democratic method, nor are they necessarily an accurate representation of the electorate. That was my point.

All I'm saying is that if only 11 people rode a coaster in North Korea that it shouldn't be ranked higher than Magnum.

...wait... what were we talking about?

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 5:23 PM

djDaemon said:
These polls are not at all the same as what happens on voting day. We do not choose our government representatives via "ABC News/Washington Post polls", at least the last time I checked.

These types of polls, through artful wording, can be and frequently are designed in such a way to provide a desired result, which is why it's disingenuous to cite an "ABC News/Washington Post poll" as any sort of evidence that the majority of Americans don't want socialized health care.

There's a lot going on there, but I'm just picking if I push further. :)

I am curious though as to how we determine what the majority believes/wants if polling is not good enough. Democracy is the will of the majority - which is at it's core simply asking people what they prefer. And regardless of how dismissive you choose to be, election day is just a poll. (and a pretty lousy one at that)

+0

You must be logged in to post

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