It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I thought one of the main points of Obamacare was the healthcare industry in collusion with big business can't be trusted to provide adequate coverage or costs for the working Joe. Corporations would milk the avg worker for every dime and if that meant cutting benefits or raising premiums they would do it. Now I'm hearing businesses are taking such good care of their employees they don't want to stoop down to the Obamacare level? Why do we even need Obamacare since these thousands of companies are taking such good care of their employees? (I won't even get into the unemployed since 78% of people who go bankrupt from health reasons already have insurance.)




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
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!!!


Passed under cover of night??? It was debated and legislated for over a year...very out in the open. It was probably one of the most publicly discussed legislation. There were no "secret deals", there were compromises that were made, which is a part of any NEGOTIATION.

Most of those state backed lawsuits have been thrown out of lower courts...one has made it through.

You can cry about it all you want...I'll wait and abide by the ruling of the SCOTUS. If they declare it unconstitutional...so be it...I am fine with living by the laws of our country.

Are you?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

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.


You still don't get it

1 The companies and organizations are providing healthcare -- it is not very good it is something.

2. The companies are not being forced to buy anything or not buy anything - the are going to be allowed to remain status quo (that means not changing)

3. The waivers have nothing to do with the districts -- to say otherwise is Bull# -- prove me wrong.

4. The is no gain for a company to get a waiver -- they could choose not to offer insurance and wash their hands of the whole thing

Like I said you seem to be incapable of understanding this -- your response show a clear misunderstanding of the facts.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I thought one of the main points of Obamacare was the healthcare industry in collusion with big business can't be trusted to provide adequate coverage or costs for the working Joe. Corporations would milk the avg worker for every dime and if that meant cutting benefits or raising premiums they would do it. Now I'm hearing businesses are taking such good care of their employees they don't want to stoop down to the Obamacare level? Why do we even need Obamacare since these thousands of companies are taking such good care of their employees? (I won't even get into the unemployed since 78% of people who go bankrupt from health reasons already have insurance.)


Some business do care for some it is just good business. What they can afford is marginal at best but it is better than nothing.

I get the feeling that none of you have ever gone through the preexisting -- denied services that is todays health care systems. Do you even realize that there is a whole industry that revolves around helping insurance companies not to pay claims. They are not your friends. You are not their friends -- you are a cost and a profit -- minimize cost maximize profit.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


So the law was posted, for all to see with time to read it? As promised?
There were even members within the Govt that had no time to read the bill. And they have an office filled with workers and assistants.


Deals made? Are you kidding me?!?! If I offered deals like that, within the business world, I would be arrested under bribery.

You have a very distorted view on how the Fed Govt was designed to work and how the States are supposed to work as well.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
All you folks that are for this healthcare nightmare, could any of you explain WHY the majority of waivers are for labour unions, SEIU, et al? Seems to me that the folks asking to be let out of this travesty were the ones who pushed for it in the first place.

It is unconstitutional. It is an intrusive measure that would garner 60% of the economy. Now I'm sure you folks are just giddy over that fact and wee yourselves with the idea of greater government control, but there are a few of us who jut can't abide the thought of faceless beaurocrats making medical decisions for us.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I thought one of the main points of Obamacare was the healthcare industry in collusion with big business can't be trusted to provide adequate coverage or costs for the working Joe. Corporations would milk the avg worker for every dime and if that meant cutting benefits or raising premiums they would do it. Now I'm hearing businesses are taking such good care of their employees they don't want to stoop down to the Obamacare level? Why do we even need Obamacare since these thousands of companies are taking such good care of their employees? (I won't even get into the unemployed since 78% of people who go bankrupt from health reasons already have insurance.)


Yes...some organizations care about their workers.

And since people like to point out that Unions are the ones getting a lot of waivers...that should tell you that it is the Unions that care more about their employees.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550

Originally posted by macman

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.


You still don't get it

1 The companies and organizations are providing healthcare -- it is not very good it is something.

2. The companies are not being forced to buy anything or not buy anything - the are going to be allowed to remain status quo (that means not changing)

3. The waivers have nothing to do with the districts -- to say otherwise is Bull# -- prove me wrong.

4. The is no gain for a company to get a waiver -- they could choose not to offer insurance and wash their hands of the whole thing

Like I said you seem to be incapable of understanding this -- your response show a clear misunderstanding of the facts.


So wait a second. If Obama Care is soooooo good. And the new rules already implemented are sooo good and cost effective. Then why would a company need to opt out?
If they can't in this environment, provide something, then they should not provide it.
This is an Obama manufactured crisis, where he holds the solution.
The waiver is to opt out of.................



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Yeah, Unions care about their people more.
Now I know you are full of crap.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
All you folks that are for this healthcare nightmare, could any of you explain WHY the majority of waivers are for labour unions, SEIU, et al?


Here...go count for yourself. No where near a majority of the waivers are to unions. You need to stop letting Fox News and Limbaugh think for you.

www.hhs.gov...

While you are looking at that list, notice the wide range of business that are getting waivers. I know it will deflate your big conspiracy...but facts are better than fantasy.



Seems to me that the folks asking to be let out of this travesty were the ones who pushed for it in the first place.


These waivers are to allow them to continue providing mini-med plans until 2014. They aren't "getting out" of anything. They are providing limited insurance to their employees until more affordable options are available for them in 2014.....how evil of them.

Obama must really be in their pocket if he is allowing them to continue to spend money and cover some of their employees on limited benefit plans.



It is unconstitutional. It is an intrusive measure that would garner 60% of the economy. Now I'm sure you folks are just giddy over that fact and wee yourselves with the idea of greater government control, but there are a few of us who jut can't abide the thought of faceless beaurocrats making medical decisions for us.


It is currently not unconstitutional....it is the law. The SCOTUS will rule...I'll ask you the same question I asked others. Will you accept the SCOTUS ruling???


And by judging by the level of ignorance seen regarding these waivers and the healthcare bill in general...yes...I do think some people need decisions made for them.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Here’s the list of known unions* getting ObamaCare waivers:


1.Service Employees Benefit Fund
2.UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust
3.IBEW No.915
4.Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund
5.Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund
6.UFCW Local 227
7.UFCW Maximus Local 455
8.Local 25 SEIU
9.UFCW Local 1262
10.Local 802 Musicians Health Fund
11.Greater Metropolitan Hotel
12.Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund
13.I.U.P.A.T.
14.Transport Workers
15.UFT Welfare Fund
16.UABT
www.redstate.com...

Just to add, I've read the bill. The second a stipulation or any change occurs in someones "mini-plan" the government steps in to take over.

YOU may want someone to make decisions for you, but I sure as hell don't!



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Get ready for the Alinsky style retort.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by beezzer
 


Get ready for the Alinsky style retort.


Changing the narritive is what they're best at. But in the end it's still a big heaping pile of fail.

They're grasping at straws.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Nope. Unless they can point out how exactly it is Constitutional and not lie while doing so.

Frankly, the issue is enough to warrant the armed removal and possible execution of every elected and appointed federal official under the guidelines established under the Second Amendment by the People, if necessary, if the Supreme Court cannot meet the above condition or refuses to hear the cases pending.

It is one of the few reasons that I would take up arms, for this usurpation of power not granted is a clear demonstration of direct tyranny over the People as a whole. Simply put, the Federal Government has no power to require by law the purchase of anything to remain a law abiding citizen. If they wanted that power, they needed to first amend the Constitution to have that power. But we both know that would have never happened as the Federal Government could have done nothing to put down up to 50 insurrections countrywide. As States voted to give such a power. And the States would have to keep that Federal Cashflow flowing. As States that don't play ball get their Federal Fundings cut.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
This thread is hilarious "if you don't like this healthcare then you obviously don't care about people and think these places are evil for wanting to help workers."

Is there any ToS violation for posting basically the exact same thing multiple times in a thread?
edit on 17-5-2011 by AlexKintner because: edit



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


Why would a union need a waiver? i worked for a Operators union in Illinois for 4 years and we paid a ton of dues and our insurance was legit.

I have a very difficult time, that a Union in San Fransico needs a waiver. SAN FRAN is only one of the afluent cities in this country.

I have my doubts is all I am saying on that one.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Here’s the list of known unions* getting ObamaCare waivers:


1.Service Employees Benefit Fund
2.UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust
3.IBEW No.915
4.Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund
5.Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund
6.UFCW Local 227
7.UFCW Maximus Local 455
8.Local 25 SEIU
9.UFCW Local 1262
10.Local 802 Musicians Health Fund
11.Greater Metropolitan Hotel
12.Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund
13.I.U.P.A.T.
14.Transport Workers
15.UFT Welfare Fund
16.UABT
www.redstate.com...

Just to add, I've read the bill. The second a stipulation or any change occurs in someones "mini-plan" the government steps in to take over.

YOU may want someone to make decisions for you, but I sure as hell don't!


So 16 out of 700+ waivers


You have a funny definition of "majority".

The thing is, the law won't affect me because I have already made responsible decisions to cover me and my family with adequate insurance. But some people are not responsible, and I shouldn't have to suffer because some people aren't intelligent enought to make responsible decisions.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by armtx
 


The union might need a waiver if they were self-insured. And yes, I know what you are thinking. But my union has a policy through Anthem or Blue Cross & Blue Sheild or some other big named company. Do they? Or do they have a partnership through them? Like say a mutuial fund that the insurance takes the premiums and invests, profit sures with the union and the union gambles a percentage of that profit as medical expenses?

One fact will always remain: the more middlemen involved the more a product costs.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


Before Obama Care, I could get private insurance that covers my pre-existing medical issues for under $1,200 a month. Now I can only get it through the State as part of a first come, first serve plan with limited funding for $1,740 per month. To afford this gift from Obama, I'd have to move into a shelter.

Problem is they stopped taking names for their list yesterday as the there are right now 4,500 families in a city of less than 300,000 on the list. Obama lowered the funding for basic housing to help pay for the giant boondoggle we are discussing here. So I ask myself, am I better off now than when he took office?

Do not forget to factor in I'm in a city unaffected by the problems of the lower 48. Our unemployment only went up a tiny fraction of a percent and we have no income taxes or even sales taxes in Anchorage. Oddly enough in a community where even most Democrats are Conservative, we are able to live well without strangling taxes. The whole country could do the same, but instead we have taxes so high the companies are forced to take their jobs to other countries.

Yes we need to rethink healthcare, but that does not change how this plan was passed, nor does it change the fact Obama is rewarding his supporters with special favors and treatment.

Need I remind you of GE or the fact that he took over a company called GM which is now failing again for the same reasons and he actually gave the Unions a large percentage of the company paid for with tax payer money? Let us not forget that the CEO of GE, one of Obama's chief financial advisers, only let go of control of NBC to stop the deserved criticism when it was pointed out Obama had control of NBC through a CEO who halved the value of GE's stock. That this CEO was not fired by the Board is proof that shenanigans are afoot. Usually when a CEO halves the worth of a company, they are fired are they not? Not when they are daily visitors to the President however.

We also need to remember this good friend and confidant of Obama's is moving jobs to other countries as we speak and paid zero taxes in the US last year. How's that for a person who cares about this country and it's future?

Now Obama is bragging he will spend 1 billion dollars buying another term in the White House and is all of the sudden a Conservative. Imagine that, Obama switched to being a pseudo-conservative right after starting his campaign. Yet another lie. It's hard to imagine the arrogance of a President who spent more in two years than all other Presidents combined pretending to be moderate.

Are you one of the team the Obama Campaign has working the Boards? What is your agenda in defending this proven liar? You simply cannot deny the lies as they are to numerous and on tape in context. Are you in the habit of supporting liars and defending them? What makes you think you can trust him? All the evidence says different. Why the Democrats don't have others running against Obama in the Primaries baffles me. He lied to you also.

Please don't take the tactic or make the error of thinking I belong to either Party. Partisans are the problem and it does not matter which Party. Obama is just the current confidence person who happens to be in the White House.

When he took office my income was 30% higher and since most of my customers are small businesses, I know how hard they have been hit from talking to them all day, every day. Are you pretending to not know the insurance costs have gone up by many times inflation since that Bill was passed? If your pushing for truth, please be truthful on your side. Remember spin and talking points are just lies no matter what name you give them. Liars lie to get what they want. Obama's the worst liar in the White House in my memory. Even Nixon was more honest.

When a President is elected they represent all of us, not just their cronies. Both Parties engage in this transparent rewarding of supporters and when you need a billion dollars to buy the White House, you have to grease lots of palms. An honest politician would remove money from the equation to make it fair and honest, but where are these honest politicians? Certainly nowhere near the Obama White House. That much is certain.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
All you folks that are for this healthcare nightmare, could any of you explain WHY the majority of waivers are for labour unions, SEIU, et al? Seems to me that the folks asking to be let out of this travesty were the ones who pushed for it in the first place.

It is unconstitutional. It is an intrusive measure that would garner 60% of the economy. Now I'm sure you folks are just giddy over that fact and wee yourselves with the idea of greater government control, but there are a few of us who jut can't abide the thought of faceless beaurocrats making medical decisions for us.


Labor unions provide healthcare for their workers who are otherwise uncovered, that is kind of why there are labor unions. The insurance that is offered is apparently the mini med stuff. The basic concept behind this is that it is better than nothing insurance. They will be able to provide this minimal insurance until they can buy the pooled insurance in 2014. This just is a way to bridge from here to there meet all the requirements of the law and not jeopardize the "better than nothing" insurance that these people have and you are hell bent on taking away from them.. In 2014 the will have cheaper better insurance.




top topics



 
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join