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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
You should change your screen name to "Artful Dodger".
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.
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.
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.
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.’”
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
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.
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 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.