Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

20% of new Obamacare Waivers are restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Pelosi’s District!

page: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I like reviewing points:



Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


So let's see if forcing individuals to purchase anything is a power of the Federal Government:



Article 1, Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.


What I see is the members of the Previous Congress, voted to grant themselves a power they did not have nor took the time to properly amend the Constitution in order to have such a power and President (that claims to be a Constitutional scholar) sign that into law, thus violating the Oath of Office (that he stumbled through on his Inauguration).

Some may call that Treason. Me, well I call it "You had best find out what is in it before you vote for it...Now kindly slip you head in this noose, traitor."




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



If the company can not afford HC for its employees, due to the implimentation of the new laws, then they should not be granted waivers, if the new laws were SO good in the first place, and would save SO much money.
The fact that Obama created this environment, and now provides a way out for Companies that are bed fellows of the Democrat party is a manufactured problem.
Never let a crisis go to waste ring true?

If it so good, then everyone should be flocking to it. But, again, the companies with direct ties to Obama and ilk are granted special permissions.
Nothing like having friends in high Govt places.


Ok..let's walk through this slowly.

Companies offer some employees limited benefit plans, called "mini-med" plans. They aren't much coverage...but they are something.

The health care reform requires the elimination of annual caps on insurance policies. Mini med plans can't meet this requirement because they are limited benefit, and relatively cheap. And the way the health care reform is set up, it is implemented in steps...and provision that will allow those on mini-med plans to get affordable insurance won't go into effect until 2014 (state exchanges). So as a bridge until then, the government is granting waivers to companies to allow them to continue their mini-med plans until the exchanges are in place so the individuals on the mini-med plans can get regular plans.

You can look at the list of organizations getting waivers, there are many that are not Obama friendly...for example many churches and christian charities that have been given waivers. So for you to suggest that they are only giving them to organizations that support Obama is just false.

Bottom line is that these waivers benefit the employees and the individuals...not the companies or organizations. It actually costs the companies money, because they are continuing to provide insurance for their employees...when they could easily just cut them off.

So now for a few questions.

1. Do you beleive that annual caps on insurance policies is a good thing or a bad thing?

2. Would you rather have people lose their limited insurance or a company to get a waiver to continue providing the policy?

3. Do you realize that these waivers are ONLY for this specific part of the law and that it is only a temporary fix?

4. Do you honestly believe that these waivers exempts these organizations from the entire health care reform law?

I would appreciate it if you answered these questions.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Ah, I see. You can't present a logical argument...so you just decide to go with an ad hom against nationality.


:shk:

No, US citizens are just tired of hearing Canadians preach to us about how great Obama is and how fantastic National Health Care is.
Didn't one of your mayors or governors come down to the states for an operation?
If you like it so much, you can keep it.



I'm not Canadian, I'm an American.

Maybe try to keep your attempts at insulting other members straight. Or...just stay on topic and drop the silly ad hom attacks based on nationality.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



It allows them a temp get out pass up to 2014, which then allows then to reapply in 2014.
If the company can't survive without the Govt giving them special passes, then they should not be open for business.


100% incorrect.

Please go educate yourself.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


Ahab, this isn't a thread about the mandate.

It is about the waivers. There is a lot to discuss about the healthcare bill...but in this thread the topic is the waivers...not the individual mandate.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



The Obama administration approved 204 new waivers to Democrats’ healthcare reform law over the past month, bringing the total to 1,372. …



If obama care is so great and important, why have waivers to begin with? If it truly was a beneficial plan as they try to sell, and it was in turn, very cost effect, then why have waivers to begin with?

Simple: It was a means to centralize health care much like our failed monetary system. Would suggest our leaders didn't learn from their first mistakes.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


Ahab, this isn't a thread about the mandate.

It is about the waivers. There is a lot to discuss about the healthcare bill...but in this thread the topic is the waivers...not the individual mandate.


This thread is about the entire ObamaCare / Waiver fiasco!
---------------------------------------------------------
When ObamaCare is repealed then the waivers become irrelevant.
- Learn to look for the big picture. -



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by macman
 



It allows them a temp get out pass up to 2014, which then allows then to reapply in 2014.
If the company can't survive without the Govt giving them special passes, then they should not be open for business.


100% incorrect.

Please go educate yourself.

That is almost word for word from the article. SO, who is wrong?

It is simple, lets slow it down even further, and if you need, I can break out the crayons.
If a company today, can't provide health care for their employees, then they should not get an out from the Govt. The environment today, was created by Obama and his political minions. Now they offer a fix for the problem they created. In what sane world is that not outrageous?

It is not the job of Govt to dictate what a company offers in terms of healthcare, benefits, retirement or position.
As for the companies not being supporters? Funny, since most that have gotten the waivers are within the districts of said politicians.
On a side note, did you just learn the term "ad hominem"? You throw it around as if you just read it off a sayings of the day calendar or are just trying to come off smarter that the rest of us.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


Haven't you heard?

- The Constitution is very old document made hundreds of years ago and nobody
really understands it. -


It keeps getting in the way so lets just ignore it.
------------------------------------
This is the neolib mindset.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realms
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



The Obama administration approved 204 new waivers to Democrats’ healthcare reform law over the past month, bringing the total to 1,372. …



If obama care is so great and important, why have waivers to begin with? If it truly was a beneficial plan as they try to sell, and it was in turn, very cost effect, then why have waivers to begin with?

Simple: It was a means to centralize health care much like our failed monetary system. Would suggest our leaders didn't learn from their first mistakes.


It has been explained over and over what the waivers do within this thread and linked threads.

If you don't understand it by now...I see no use in repeating it again and again.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


What a very intellectual retreat that was.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Very much on point. You wouldn't need to quibble over waivers and who is getting what if you look at the fact that the whole reform was Unconstitutional in the first place. But I suppose that is part of the magician's trick here. Make a big production of how the swords are real so people ignore the cabinet being rolled out is fake.

Still does not hide the act of tyranny that was committed in plain view by a majority of the public. But focus and argue over the plums being handed out as these people slip away in the darkness.

But speaking of magic shows...don't look and the shiny box sparkling in the stagelights either when it is made the focus of your attention. They lady has typically already left the box by then. In fact on a small stage one time, I watched her leave with the large group of stagehands it took to wheel the box out. Sadly it was because her wig was slightly askew that I saw it was the blonde assistant.
edit on 17-5-2011 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Nevada gets some waiver too.

www.lasvegassun.com...

The Health and Human Services Department announced late Friday that Nevada had secured a statewide waiver from certain implementation requirements of the Obama administration’s health care law, because forcing them through, the department found, “may lead to the destabilization of the individual market.”

coincidentally, this is Harry Reid's state



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 



Very much on point. You wouldn't need to quibble over waivers and who is getting what if you look at the fact that the whole reform was Unconstitutional in the first place.


The Unconstitutionality of it is your opinion. Since it is current law, it is right now "constitutional".

Until the SCOTUS rules otherwise, it will remain constitutional.


I'm curious though, if the SCOTUS rules that the health care bill is in fact constitutional...will you accept their ruling?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by spyder550

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by spyder550
 


Typical elitist mentality.
The fact that major companies want out, and are granted speaks volumes to the farce of Obamacare.
If it is so good, then why are these companies & unions getting out and why doesn't the Politicians have to take it as well?

Oh I forgot, Obama and Company knows best.


But the dont want out they are not being granted immunity from anything -- what the hell are you talking about.?? It is just not that hard to understand what these things are. Or you are amongst the willfully ignorant -- a human condition I find a detestable waste of a conscious mind. Which is it

Sol Alinsky has taught you well. Deflect and attack.

It allows them a temp get out pass up to 2014, which then allows then to reapply in 2014.
If the company can't survive without the Govt giving them special passes, then they should not be open for business.


You still haven't the foggiest notion of what you are talking about -- yet you go on and on



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


You don't know anything either.

Geez, that was an easy retort.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by works4dhs
Nevada gets some waiver too.

www.lasvegassun.com...

The Health and Human Services Department announced late Friday that Nevada had secured a statewide waiver from certain implementation requirements of the Obama administration’s health care law, because forcing them through, the department found, “may lead to the destabilization of the individual market.”

coincidentally, this is Harry Reid's state


More news less spittle From Kaiser Health -- Interesting enough insurance/provider

www.kaiserhealthnews.org...



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


What a very intellectual retreat that was.


Not a retreat just and statement of fact.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

Yeah, since it was passed under cover of night, with no transparency (As promised, but not delivered), secret deals made to get people to go along, major State backed lawsuits on its constitutionality, the fact that no where in the Constitution it states HC is a right, the fact it goes against State's Rights, the fact that it forces Citizens to buy or pay a fine.

Yeah, just an opinion

shure shure!!!



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Ahabstar
 



Very much on point. You wouldn't need to quibble over waivers and who is getting what if you look at the fact that the whole reform was Unconstitutional in the first place.


The Unconstitutionality of it is your opinion. Since it is current law, it is right now "constitutional".

Until the SCOTUS rules otherwise, it will remain constitutional.


I'm curious though, if the SCOTUS rules that the health care bill is in fact constitutional...will you accept their ruling?


The law isn't unconstitutional and will be decide by a right wing scotus -- if they rule against the mandated buy in (which seems to be working fine, thank you Mitt Romney. Then hello single payor which is the better cheaper solution.

You know these guys have a different view of constitutional then the supreme court. The constitution is anything they want it to be.





new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join