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: 5
38
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Wow, so 2% are unions. Ok, and what are the membership numbers of that 2% as compared to the other companies?

Looks like a small percentage, when viewed through the prism or company/institutions. But when viewed in regards to members, it is very large.




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


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


I don't have to lie, all I have to do is point out that it is currently the law of the land. When the SCOTUS rules, I will accept their ruling either way. You, and others, never answered my question....will you accept their ruling?


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.


Wow, you are now calling for the execution of officials because you disagree with them?

And what guidelines under the Second Amendment allows for such an action? I know what you are trying to refer to, and I believe you are confusing the Declaration of Independence with the 2nd Amendment. There is no "right to revolt" in the US constitution.


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.


You take up arms, you are guilty of treason. Like I said, there is no "right to revolt" in the Constitution...I will refer you to the Civil War for proof.

I will wait accept the ruling of the SCOTUS. It appears that some of you are already making excuses as to why their ruling won't be acceptable.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   


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.


And under this healthcare plan, (Obamas') if you honestly believe that you'll be able to keep your plan, then
A You haven't read the bill
B You don't care and love free stuff at the expense of others
C All of the above.

Try reading the bill, THEN come and defend why people are opting out. This knee-jerk reactionary response from the Obama Brigade is getting tired. You just don't get it. And what is really sad, there is alot of people like you that still haven't read the damned thing.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


1. I won't accept the ruling.
2. I'm already saving to pay for the damned "fines" they will impose on me because I won't play their stupid games.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
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.


The reason some unions may need a waiver is the same reason any organization may need a waiver....They offer MINI-MED plans.

This is the ONLY reason for these waivers...it isn't an opt out of the legislation...it is a temporary fix until 2014.

I'm sure Unions offer mini-med plans to some of their workers....otherwise the waiver is useless.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Wow, so 2% are unions. Ok, and what are the membership numbers of that 2% as compared to the other companies?

Looks like a small percentage, when viewed through the prism or company/institutions. But when viewed in regards to members, it is very large.



You are free to go look up those numbers, they are in the link I posted.

You guys are making the claim...go prove it.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Sorry, but I refuse to pay the fines.
The Govt has no right to make me pay for a service I don't want.
And before any Obama yes man chimes in with the whole Taxing ability, there is another large issue.
Is it a tax? Or is it a fee?
Seems like Obama can't even get it straight.
If it's a tax, then there are certain rules that need to be applied, and then if found constitutional, then a fine can be assessed.
If its a fee, then not only is it absolutely unconstitutional, then the Govt can't force me into it and can't fine me.

It must be great backing Obama and the like. He and his gets to play both sides of the fence, at the same time with no backlash from his followers.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


You should change your screen name to "Artful Dodger".



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer


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.


And under this healthcare plan, (Obamas') if you honestly believe that you'll be able to keep your plan, then
A You haven't read the bill
B You don't care and love free stuff at the expense of others
C All of the above.

Try reading the bill, THEN come and defend why people are opting out. This knee-jerk reactionary response from the Obama Brigade is getting tired. You just don't get it. And what is really sad, there is alot of people like you that still haven't read the damned thing.


I know I can keep my plan...because I did read the bill and I knew what I had to do to prepare. Because I am informed and make responsible decisions.

The plan I have is grandfathered in...I have no worries.

And once again....NO ONE IS OPTING OUT. How do you not understand this???

The waivers are so employers can continue to provide mini-med plans up until 2014....nothing more...nothing less. There is no "opting out".

Educate yourself.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
That's 773 waivers in 2011 , but 1,800 in total , so far to unions and companies effecting over 2 million workers . Now they don't have to contribute to the pool so it will cost more for everyone else , for absolutely nothing of value . As far as one of the posters saying that Obamacare was open , deliberated upon and voted on over weeks , no chance . Dems owned the place and Repubs were locked out . Nancey Pelosi said , we'll have to pass the bill to actually find out what's in it . Over 2,000 pages that none of the Dems read . Obama said that he'd have the most open and transparent administration ever and any bill up for consideration would be posted on the net at least 72 hours for the public to see before any vote . Obamacare was posted on the net 5 weeks after it passed so if anyone tells you that they knew what was in it before the vote they are full of you know what . The Dems didn't even know what was contained in all 2,000 pages . Now Obama is kicking back to his cronies and those who aren't connected get stuck with the bill . When this finally goes down in flames he becomes Jimmy Carter as he has accomplished zero else except start another war for the bankers and he received a Noble Prize for that . Why is it that the Dems pushed so hard for Obamacare and as soon as they got it they and their unions ran for the hills and wanted nothing to do with it and demanded and received waivers ? Why is it i can drive one city over and in the biggest parking lot for 100 miles all i see is union bumper sticker on cars and trucks . Shop Union , Buy America , Look For The Union Label . That's Walmarts parking lot . Yep , those union folks sure stand on principle . They don't shop union , don't shop America , don't look for the union label and want nothing to do with Obamacare .

A communist is someone who has nothing and wants to share it with everyone .



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


You should change your screen name to "Artful Dodger".



I'm done doing your research for you...the stuff I have researched and presented to you has been ignored.

I can't compete with the brainwashing of conservative talking points and propaganda. If you want to continue to be ignorant, I really have no problem with that.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


1. I won't accept the ruling.
2. I'm already saving to pay for the damned "fines" they will impose on me because I won't play their stupid games.


I know you wouldn't accept the ruling...because you already know it will be found constitutional...BECAUSE IT IS.

You go ahead, pay the fines that would otherwise buy you insurance. At least you won't freeload of the rest of us anymore since your fines will help cover medical costs when you need it.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


And may I add that Gov. Palin came out swinging today...she called the waivers 'CORRUPTION!!!'

dailycaller.com...

Now I am just sure that Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty, Santorum, Gingrich, et al., will ALL be along shortly to call out the duplicity, quid pro quo, and outright "CORRUPTION" of the waivers (for friends of the Obama Administration). They all can hide behind Palin's skirt...



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by beezzer
 


Sorry, but I refuse to pay the fines.
The Govt has no right to make me pay for a service I don't want.
And before any Obama yes man chimes in with the whole Taxing ability, there is another large issue.
Is it a tax? Or is it a fee?
Seems like Obama can't even get it straight.
If it's a tax, then there are certain rules that need to be applied, and then if found constitutional, then a fine can be assessed.
If its a fee, then not only is it absolutely unconstitutional, then the Govt can't force me into it and can't fine me.

It must be great backing Obama and the like. He and his gets to play both sides of the fence, at the same time with no backlash from his followers.


I'll agree that they messed up with the tax/fine language.

The way it should of been handled, and most likely will if it gets shot down, is to implement an across the board flat tax on everyone. It doesn't matter where it falls, but social security or medicare would be best. And then offer a tax credit for everyone who has insurance.

That way there is no "penalty"...only a "reward".

Too bad they didn't consult me about it.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


So the waiver is set to provide employees access to mini Health care. Why is this needed in the first place?
Up till 2014, then the waiver expires, and the company can re-apply for the waiver. Why do they need to re-apply?
Your talking points are good, but are predictable.

You are more of a walking contradiction than those in Govt. You proudly defend Obamacare, yet state you have saved and have taken precautions to not have to be involved with it when applied. Why is that? If it is so good, why not participate?
Why is it that all of the politicians talk the same game? Its good for you, you stupid huddled masses, but I as the Govt know best but can't have it applied to me.

You either don't like personal freedom, and want the Govt to take care of every little thing, or you have a deep interest in the application and promotion of Obamacare.

edit on 17-5-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
wow...looks like they're giving all their buddy's a get out of obamacare free card...what a joke...if this isn't corruption and cronyism than idk what is...seems like a trend in government lately



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Time for some fresh air and to illuminate the problem with these waivers and why they are being granted beyond the scope of HHS's authority. Essentially, granting waivers for annual and lifetime limits is not an authority covered in this law.


Obamacare forbids insurers from placing annual and lifetime limits on health plans. These “consumer protections” have endangered the limited coverage plans that some employers currently offer. Unable to provide more comprehensive coverage, those employers would be forced to drop coverage altogether if they abide by the new law. To avoid this consequence of the new law, employers are flocking to secure the waivers offered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to keep their employees covered.

At the hearing, Steven Larson, Deputy Administrator and Director for the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, argued that waivers act as a bridge from now until 2014, when Obamacare will be fully implemented. Larson said the waivers were always on the table to phase out mini-med plans.

But Heritage Senior Research Fellow Ed Haislmaier pointed to 21 different sections in the new law that authorize the HHS Secretary to provide waivers for specific purposes—and authority to grant waivers for annual and lifetime limits was not among them. In his testimony, Haislmaier argued, “HHS has exceeded its statutory authority in creating this waiver process. The statute does not explicitly grant HHS authority to waive the application of this provision.”



It’s simple, really: If Congress intended to institute a waiver process for this particular provision of Obamacare, they would have included it in the legislation. It seems clear, then, that Congress never intended to award waivers for this provision of the law. In doing so, HHS has overstepped its authority.


Is the waiver application process even fair???


The hearing also focused on transparency and fairness in the process of granting waivers. While other witnesses said that the waiver process is fair and transparent, Haislmaier argued that the process of applying for a waiver invites the opportunity for favoritism because large corporations and unions can afford to go through the waiver process, unlike smaller businesses that may not have the money or time to apply for a waiver.

Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, further questioned the fairness of the application process. He noted that HHS bureaucrats know exactly what company’s application they are reviewing and whether they are union plans. This has arguably led to the disproportional acceptance of waiver application from large corporations and unions. Haislmaier further emphasized that the use of a waiver process has led to a system that is based not on “the rule of law” but rather on “the rule of ‘who you know.’”

blog.heritage.org...


The problem
The problem is that in drafting this particular provision of PPACA, Congress did not account for its effects on mini-med plans. However, Congress could have instead opted for any one of three alternative approaches that would have avoided creating the problem.

One option would have been to simply delay the effective date of the provision until after 2014, when the legislation's new subsidies for more comprehensive coverage would become available to workers losing their current mini-med coverage. Congress did, in fact, delay the effective dates of a number of other provisions in PPACA until 2014 to avoid similar disruptions.

A second option would have been to exempt mini-meds plans from the new coverage requirement by defining them in the statute as a form of "supplemental coverage." This second approach even has statutory precedent. Specifically, this provision of PPACA is an amendment to the section of the Public Health Service Act that was created by the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and which includes a list of "supplemental" coverages that are exempted from the requirements imposed on comprehensive medical insurance.8
Such exempted insurance products include; dental-only, vision-only, workman's compensation, long-term care, etc. PPACA did nothing to alter those existing statutory exemptions, but Congress could easily have avoided this issue by adding mini-med plans to that list.

Yet a third option would have been for Congress to provide transitional assistance for individuals losing mini-med coverage until the new subsidies become available in 2014. For example, Congress established in Section 1102 of PPACA a transitional reinsurance program for early retirees, which terminates on January 1, 2014.9



In fact, however, Congress did none of the above.
HHS' response in its regulation was to impose on plans a set of increasing mandatory minimum annual coverage limits between now and 2014, but then attempt to preserve existing coverage by selectively waiving those requirements for certain plans.



What is wrong with HHS' waiver "solution"
The first problem is that it appears HHS has exceeded its statutory authority in creating this waiver process.
The statute does not explicitly grant HHS authority to waive the application of this provision


and on it goes into greater detail in this testimony

oversight.house.gov...

In this case I guess it helps to know Pelosi and Obama personally. THe hearing referenced in the above article occurred March 15 2011 and specifically mentioned favoritism and now here we are in the Middle of May and Pelosi is in deep with here usual corrupt behavior.

We are now seeing the problems with this rushed and poorly written and thought out legislation that Pelosi warned us about. They never saw this problem with mini meds coming and are now scrapping to save face with a select group of key constituents.







edit on 17-5-2011 by jibeho because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2011 by jibeho because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2011 by jibeho because: mumbo jumbo



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


So the waiver is set to provide employees access to mini Health care. Why is this needed in the first place?
Up till 2014, then the waiver expires, and the company can re-apply for the waiver. Why do they need to re-apply?
Your talking points are good, but are predictable.


*sigh*

You still don't get it. Mini-meds have been around forever, but with the new annual cap elimination on insurance policies, mini-meds would dissapear. So companies had two choices...drop their employees mini-med plans...or ask the government for a waiver to continue to offer mini-med plans until 2014. In 2014, other options through the state exchanges will be available for these people on mini-med plans. The government has already said that the waivers are only until 2014 when the other options are available.

There is no "opting out"...there is no benefit to the employers that are getting these waivers...it is simply a temporary measure so people who are on mini-med plans won't lose those plans while other comparable affordable options are not available (they will be in 2014).

And you are continuing to spread mis-information. No one can "re-apply" in 2014 for these waivers. Where are you getting this information...a source would be nice. Please don't try to dodge it...a source please.


You are more of a walking contradiction than those in Govt. You proudly defend Obamacare, yet state you have saved and have taken precautions to not have to be involved with it when applied. Why is that? If it is so good, why not participate?


I am participating...I have adequate insurance that meets the requirements...which is why it will be grandfathered in. I actually have better benefits than the minimums that will be required.

I'm sorry I took the time to become informed and took pro-active actions. Maybe if everyone did that...we wouldn't need a health care law.



Why is it that none of the politicians talk the same game? Its good for you, you stupid huddled masses, but I as the Govt know best but can't have it applied to me.

You either don't like personal freedom, and want the Govt to take care of every little thing, or you have a deep interest in the application and promotion of Obamacare.


What I don't like is people who aren't smart enough to carry insurance and drive up medical costs when the hospital has to write off their bill.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Nothing like seeing the Govt scramble to correct their huge screw-up. Especially when their major money contributors are the ones seeing the issue and the got to fix the rushed order.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


So why are Mini-meds disappearing?

Oh Sigh. You really have this elitists thing down.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join