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 5:57 PM

Did someone say Polling?

http://www.electrapole.com/stripper-pole.html?gclid=CLmvqvH2-6UCFUS8KgodkifgoQ

Oh.. that kind of polling.... sorry.

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 7:10 PM

And regardless of how dismissive you choose to be, election day is just a poll. (and a pretty lousy one at that)

Which begs the question...? Does ABS/Washington Times poll dead people and non-citizens?

P.S. One poll might be an outlier, etc. But when poll after poll shows the same outcome, safe to say there might be a trend. The American people want Obamacare repealed by a large margin. Obama and his democratic congressional counterparts have governed against the will of the people more than any president/congress in my lifetime. Those that agree with him may think this is appropriate...not for me to say. No doubt he has had the power to do as he liked. All I know is that his views on how our country should operate are not the will of the majority (healthcare, taxes, government motors, environment, spending, immigration...and whatever else I am forgetting). On an issue-by-issue basis, he almost always (always?) sides with the minority view. The last election made that fairly clear.

+0
Monday, December 20, 2010 11:20 PM

God, I thought I escaped misguided rhetoric when I turned off Fox news this morning. First of all , it is not uncommon for a president to lose seats in a mid term election. It happened to Roosevelt, Clinton, and even your buddy Dubya. How soon we forget. Secondly, he may have governed against the people *in your opinion*, but none of his decisions have sent us in two unnecessary wars (which not only skyrocketed our deficit, but more importantly, loss of thousands of lives).

Lets look at what you listed that is sending America to the crapper....again *in your opinion*
healthcare - well gee, CBO said if we continued on the same path without reform, health care would bankrupt America. Damn that communist!
taxes - you got your blasted bush era tax cuts, what are you complaining about?
government motors - well hell, we should have just let GM go under. then there'd be thousands more unemployed then you'd lambast him for the high unemployment.
environment- investing in green technology to lower our dependence on foriegn oil. this is not only forward thinking but...(gasp) more jobs.
spending - well I'm no economist, but if companies aren't spending, and the government follows suit...we come to a grinding halt. Again he'd be berated for doing nothing.
immigration - haha, well we should just follow Jan Brewer and ask every shady brown person for their papers. That seems like a such a good solution.

So yeah, Try again!

+0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 6:13 AM

Aamilj said:
Obama and his democratic congressional counterparts have governed against the will of the people more than any president/congress in my lifetime.

I must say, you speak quite intelligently for a 2 year old.

+0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 6:39 AM

As someone mentioned on the previous page, will of the majority really only works if the majority has any clue as to what's going on. Since we're all big on polls, allow me to point out the results of this poll from this past August showing more than 40% of Americans still believe the health care bill sets up death panels. There's just no way to make intelligent choices under majority rule when so much of the "majority" chooses to remain ignorant and soak up the lies that are spoon fed to them from biased media sources.

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?

That's already happened, although not in the exact scenario you mentioned here. See this story where firefighters let a man's house burn because he lives in an area where the fire service is an optional fee instead of a tax, and he forgot to pay the fee. Firefighters only responded when the fire spread to a neighbor's house, and only fought the neighbor's fire while his house continued to burn.

+0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 10:02 AM

I feel bad for that family but I don't have a problem with what happened. Services cost money. If you don't pay for them, you can't get the service. And you can't pay for what is effectively insurance once you need it (unless you want to pay the full freight for the fire fighter crew and their equipment which I suspect is pretty expensive). Wonder if they had a mortgage. I would expect that mortgage holders would require folks to show proof of payment of the fire fighter fee every year just like they do property insurance. If no proof of payment is shown, the mortgage holder would pay the fee and charge the homeowner. Also surprised the guy's insurance company didn't require evidence that the fee was paid as well. Though it looks like he didn't have enough insurance (an insurance company may be seeking to limit coverage because he didn't pay the fee).

+0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:44 AM

CP Chris said:
As someone mentioned on the previous page, will of the majority really only works if the majority has any clue as to what's going on.

There's just no way to make intelligent choices under majority rule when so much of the "majority" chooses to remain ignorant and soak up the lies that are spoon fed to them from biased media sources.

And I give you the exact same answer:

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
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:02 PM

Of course democracy favors the majority - Obama campaigned, in part, on installing a universal health care system. The majority elected him, in part, because of that campaign pledge. Democracy won.

Suggesting that an ABC News poll is indicative of the will of the electorate more so than an actual election is absolute nonsense.

+0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:12 PM

djDaemon said:
Suggesting that an ABC News poll is indicative of the will of the electorate more so than an actual election is absolute nonsense.

Not necessarily because of what I explained earlier:

"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...

It's not à la carte, so to speak. Your forced to vote on the entire package deal.

It's entirely reasonable to believe the majority wanted Obama in office, but don't want Obamacare.

But yeah, the majority decided. And it's yet another major flaw with the system - especially at a time when the country seems polarized so evenly. It entirely conceivable (if not inevitable) that a determined leader will end up going against the will of the majority.

Otherwise no one could complain about the wars Bush put us into - because, I mean, we elected him (twice), right?

Last edited by Lord Gonchar, Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:14 PM
+0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:18 PM

Lord Gonchar said:
It entirely conceivable (if not inevitable) that a determined leader will end up going against the will of the majority.

Otherwise no one could complain about the wars Bush put us into - because, I mean, we elected him (twice), right?

True, and it's been happening for decades, and continues under our current POTUS, who is proving to be a spineless, lying, big-business-reach-around-providing pansy, to put it nicely. :)

But in all seriousness, I am a firm believer in a voting test. The higher your score on that test, the more weight your vote is given. Every vote will count, but the more informed votes will count more. This will never come to pass, of course, because dumb and/or ignorant people would complain that they're being discriminated against (which is the entire point).

Last edited by djDaemon, Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:20 PM
+0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:27 PM

djDaemon said:
This will never come to pass, of course, because dumb and/or ignorant people would complain that they're being discriminated against (which is the entire point).

:)

+0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:29 PM

spineless, lying, big-business-reach-around-providing pansy

Which is different than any other POTUS in recent history how?

I always find it funny that when Democrats are complaining about a Republican president, they complain about the same things that Republicans complain about when there is a Democrat in office.

It doesn't matter what party line you tow, if you're the president, you're a spineless, lying, big business supporting politician. That people are so blinded by the party they represent has never made sense to me. Bush sent us into a war and lied to us. Clinton had sex with another woman and lied to us. Bush 1 said no new taxes and lied to us. Regan lied. Nixon lied. Carter lied. They all lie. They're all in bed with big business. They're all 'spineless' in that they don't stand up for the people.

John McCain, John Kerry, Al Gore? None of them would have been any different.

Second verse, same as the first.

+0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:35 PM

Tekwardo said:
Which is different than any other POTUS in recent history how?

It isn't different - that was my point:

djDaemon said:
...it's been happening for decades, and continues under our current POTUS...

And in case it wasn't already obvious, I'm a liberal (in most regards). And yes, with each passing day, I loathe this POTUS more and more. If he keeps this pace, by 2012 I may even be willing to vote for Palin! ;)

+0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:36 PM

he may have governed against the people *in your opinion*,

I struggle with whether this is indeed my opinion or just fact. I'm hoping to not have to pull out polling data for all the big issues...economy, cap and trade, etc. I'm going to assume for now that most "informed" political observers realize that on the BIG issues Obama does not side with the majority. If there is a want or need...we can post some of that stuff to show how HUGE a minority his views are on some subjects (immigration comes to mind).

Now, we can argue poll validity...whether Obama is right because he knows better than the majority, etc. I am also aware that there are outlier polls that show differences. But the vast majority whether Fox News or MSNBC demonstrate that this is an administration that governs against the will of the majority. While indeed midterms are bad for sitting presidents, what we saw this November was hisorical. We had a huge house majority for dems turn 180 for pubs. Even 94 was not as epic.

On a site where we have seen a lot of bashing of the "tea-baggers"...and an almost given assumption that they are the "extremists"... I have to wonder if their views on many of the issues of the day are actually more mainstream than the president we elected? How many of you have friends who once tried to bomb the pentagon for example? How many of you sat in churches for 20 years where "God Damn America" was acceptable dialogue? Moment to note that I actually have been through the latter as I was raised by very conservative Muslim parents for which "God Damn America" was the norm...but I've shunned my upbringing and digress...

The point of the previous paragraph is not to incite vitriol, though our differences in worldviews may indeed lead to such. The point is that anybody should be careful about who they label extreme. A lot of popular posters on this site seem to hold worldviews that sync with Obama on a lot of issues. When Gonch says "it favors those that think they know better thatn the majority" some soul-searching might be in order. I speak this for myself first.

Our constitution protects minority rights. It does not hand control of governance to the minority. There is a huge difference.

Last edited by Aamilj, Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:50 PM
+0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:40 PM

Aamilj said:
When Gonch says "some soul-searching might be in order.

Did I say that?

Wow. I sound all smart and stuff. ;)

+0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:43 PM

It isn't different - that was my point:

Right, I really should have worded that differently. You were saying it has happened for decades, I was trying to expand on that, but I was in a hurry and really didn't type it out as a response to your post, I was merely quoting what you said and going with it :).

+0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:44 PM

Butin all seriousness, I am a firm believer in a voting test. The higheryour score on that test, the more weight your vote is given. Every votewill count, but the more informed votes will count more

I actually hold this same opinion sort of... My "hypothetical-it-will-never-happen" constitutional change goes like this...

Only people who actually pay taxes should have the right to vote. I do not see why people who suck the teet and do not contribute to the government that they utilize should have the same rights (or vote weight) as those who pay the bill. What incentive would there ever be for those that recieve tax rebates (i.e. get paid for nothing) to control costs?

I would like to see a combination of the vote test and contribution test be utilized to determine vote weight. Good luck getting that change into the constitution...

+0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:50 PM

Aamilj said:
Only people who actually pay taxes should have the right to vote.

No friggin' way, man. Some people are born into horrendous, effectively-inescapable situations where they have no choice but to "suck the teet" or whatever lame euphemism you want to use.

Someone born into such a situation can be a productive and informed member of society regardless of whether or not their net tax contribution is positive.

Everyone can take the time to learn about their governing system. Not everyone has the same economic opportunities.

+0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:51 PM

I think I might agree with Tek...again. that is twice in two days. I got get out of here for a while.

P.S. Fixed your quote Gonch...it dissappeared...

+0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:52 PM

I have to wonder if their views on many of the issues of the day are actually more mainstream than the president we elected?

Tea Party members don't seem to know what their views are.

Things The Tea Party doesn't like:
the government not representing the people (14 percent), government spending (11 percent) and unemployment and the economy (8 percent).

That's from a Tea Party Poll. They blame Government spending and Unemployement & economy on the current president, though. Not saying he hasn't contributed to the problem, but it was there long before he took office.

Asked to volunteer what they don't like about Mr. Obama, the top answer, offered by 19 percent of Tea Party supporters, was that they just don't like him.

If they don't know what they don't like about him, do they know what he even stands for politically?

Eleven percent said he is turning the country more toward socialism, ten percent cited his health care reform efforts, and nine percent said he is dishonest.

I find it odd that only 10 percent of Tea Partiers dislike his health care reform. Not a huge majority. And every president is dishonest. Where were they when Bush screamed No New Taxes or Clinton said I did Not have sex with that woman, or W said that Iraq had WMDs?

Seventy-seven percent describe Mr. Obama as "very liberal," compared to 31 percent of Americans overall. Fifty-six percent say the president's policies favor the poor, compared to 27 percent of Americans overall.

Doesn't seem like they're going along with the majority at all to me...

Sixty-four percent believe that the president has increased taxes for most Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans . Thirty-four percent of the general public says the president has raised taxes on most Americans.

And again.

Now, I'm no Obama supporter. But at least I know what I believe and can back up why I feel the way I do with facts, figures and stated opinions other than "I just don't like him".

+0

You must be logged in to post

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