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: 7
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


And when your insurance company can't compete anymore with the Govt, and are forced to either raise cost or close the doors, what does your grandfather clause provide then?


THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT COMPETITION.


WOW...you don't even have a basic understanding of the legislation.

How can I continue to have a discussion when you don't even know the basic facts?

And the typical "You don't understand" remark. The only thing missing is the other most commonly used liberal statement of "That's different".


Do you hear "you don't understand" a lot - I never hear that phrase. I don't remember ever having that phrase directed at me. Perhaps if you are hearing that phrase regularly it might be that you really don't understand, you are apparently having a hard time understanding the gross meaning of this waiver thing.




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


You really are just entrenched with the application of this bill.
I am reading some highlights off Wiki-pedia and it clear states the formation of trusts and exchanges under Govt policies and watchful eye.
Not only that, the Govt will be adding funding to said exchanges, via tax dollars. Any time in history, when the Govt controls funding, they control the whole thing.
As people flock from the private insurance, you will either be forced to pay higher amounts or leave for a cheaper offering.
You are just in so deep, that you really have no choice but to continue to the end.
You are wrong on so many points, that the points that are correct get overshadowed.
Not to mention that there have been more rules applied to private insurance companies, it will be to much of a cost for these companies to stay profitable and thus will lead them to close their doors.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


That was directed to Outkast, not you.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Kaploink
 

Those with coverage have to file bankruptcy?
I have yet to see that.
It's simple, if you want health insurance, get a job that has it as a benefit or save up and get it.


I envy you, you must leave a simple trouble free existence, like a beautiful butterfly flitting from flower to flower in a sun streaked meadow - some of us our lives are not so idyllic stuff happens -- stuff we can't control and stuff we cant avoid. I am very happy the Zen is working for you.

Perhaps the true path is to be totally compassion free.

That's nice. Still waiting to see where this has happened?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Fact. It will become an entire government plan.
Fact. You obviously haven't reads the bill.
Fact. Talking points from HuffPo or MediaMatters.
Fact. Changing the narritive might derail for a while, but it never lasts.


Sorry...none of those are "facts".

There is no public option...there is no single payer. I would love both of them, I don't deny it...but this legislation doesn't provide either.

Let's stick with real "facts", and not your made up ones. Current legislation...there is no government provided insurance plan...FACT.

Talk about trying to derail...you just are completely making things up.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Macman --

Is it just this simple to you - really

"It's simple, if you want health insurance, get a job that has it as a benefit or save up and get it."

you must have inherited well or you are 12 -- that would explain a lot
edit on 17-5-2011 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


You really are just entrenched with the application of this bill.
I am reading some highlights off Wiki-pedia and it clear states the formation of trusts and exchanges under Govt policies and watchful eye.
Not only that, the Govt will be adding funding to said exchanges, via tax dollars. Any time in history, when the Govt controls funding, they control the whole thing.
As people flock from the private insurance, you will either be forced to pay higher amounts or leave for a cheaper offering.
You are just in so deep, that you really have no choice but to continue to the end.
You are wrong on so many points, that the points that are correct get overshadowed.
Not to mention that there have been more rules applied to private insurance companies, it will be to much of a cost for these companies to stay profitable and thus will lead them to close their doors.



Well as long as you are brushing up on the bill from wikipedia....


Keep reading...let me know when you finally realize that the exchanges are used to buy private insurance.

At any time, you can just admit that you really don't understand the legislation and quit making yourself look ignorant.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


How do they just make this stuff up -- it is amazing just incredibly amazing.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


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


And you are wrong. Unions care for their members far more than any company. Do you think a company like Walmart or Dell or Apple cares about someone on a assembly line or running a cash register? Yeah right. Now do you think a union cares about someone running a backhoe? Hell yes why? He pays dues.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


How do they just make this stuff up -- it is amazing just incredibly amazing.


I know...and do you notice that once you prove them wrong on one thing...they just hop to something else that is factually incorrect.

I have been trying to fight the spread of mis-information here for awhile...seems to be a losing battle.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


You really are just entrenched with the application of this bill.
I am reading some highlights off Wiki-pedia and it clear states the formation of trusts and exchanges under Govt policies and watchful eye.
Not only that, the Govt will be adding funding to said exchanges, via tax dollars. Any time in history, when the Govt controls funding, they control the whole thing.
As people flock from the private insurance, you will either be forced to pay higher amounts or leave for a cheaper offering.
You are just in so deep, that you really have no choice but to continue to the end.
You are wrong on so many points, that the points that are correct get overshadowed.
Not to mention that there have been more rules applied to private insurance companies, it will be to much of a cost for these companies to stay profitable and thus will lead them to close their doors.



Well as long as you are brushing up on the bill from wikipedia....


Keep reading...let me know when you finally realize that the exchanges are used to buy private insurance.

At any time, you can just admit that you really don't understand the legislation and quit making yourself look ignorant.


The disappointing thing about this was that it is a windfall to the insurance companies. The left wanted single payor the right wanted to keep a system that was going to eat the country alive. The compromise was what we have -- not a good compromise but the best that we could get. It will be fixed.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by jibeho
 


You completely failed to answer the question.

I'll ask again.

Please explain to me how an organization benefits from recieving a waiver?


Kickbacks and paybacks for their generous contributions to Obama's 2008 campaign and for the 2012 campaign.

SEIU dontated nearly $28 million to the 2008 mission. Unions as a whole spent nearly $400 million on Obamas campaign.

Furthermore, the waivers save the recipients from new taxes, fees and programs that will undoubtedly take big bucks from the bottom line. But, you already knew that.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


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


And you are wrong. Unions care for their members far more than any company. Do you think a company like Walmart or Dell or Apple cares about someone on a assembly line or running a cash register? Yeah right. Now do you think a union cares about someone running a backhoe? Hell yes why? He pays dues.


The biggest lie that Republicans have been successful in spreading is that Unions are bad for workers.

Somehow they got people to believe that. And if you can find people gullible enough to believe that, then you can pretty much convince them of anything.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by jibeho
 


You completely failed to answer the question.

I'll ask again.

Please explain to me how an organization benefits from recieving a waiver?


Kickbacks and paybacks for their generous contributions to Obama's 2008 campaign and for the 2012 campaign.

SEIU dontated nearly $28 million to the 2008 mission. Unions as a whole spent nearly $400 million on Obamas campaign.

Furthermore, the waivers save the recipients from new taxes, fees and programs that will undoubtedly take big bucks from the bottom line. But, you already knew that.


Really???

Exactly how does a waiver allowing a company to continue to offer mini-med policies give them kickbacks???

And how does offering mini-med policies keep them from "new taxes" (and which "new taxes" are these???), fees, and programs???

A source would be nice for this fantastic answer.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


Um, no. I just know that I take responsibility for myself and my family. I am not dependent on Govt to survive.
Sorry, but the child seems to be you, as you rely on others to provide for you.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Yeah, compassionate unions. What a load.
It breeds dependance of others, as a mass to get what you want or need.
I don't need others to provide for me. Sounds like you do.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
This thread is exactly the reason i have been burnt out on ats. First you have a health bill that no one wanted and we had to approved it to know what was in the bill


Then Congress-Senate get the hell out of it as quick as they could-as they had included themselves in this glorious mess. So onto my point, you have idiots, that see no issue in making it mandatory for the first time in american history that to be an american citizen you have to have health care insurance

HUh?

Here is the deal for all of you non thinking individuals, when and only when this health care bill is good enough for our current potus-senate-congress, then i will look at it, until then ignorant goyim keep thinking like monkeys as this health package is similiar to a rotten banana, with your nobles and monarchs having their own personal health care packages laughing their arses all the way to their next vacation on your back



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by jibeho
 


Please explain to me how an organization benefits from recieving a waiver?

If they don't benefit in any way...what motivation is there for favortism.


Two others have already failed to show that there is any favortism...would you like a crack at it???


Really? Its called political favoritism. You've already seen the waiver recipient list. Its called preserving votes by protecting a select group's benefits. What about those smaller companies who don't have the resources or connections necessary to obtain a waiver?? They will never get one. These waivers should be uniformly applied across the board to show the nation how great this legislation really is.


a point to ponder


Second, it creates at least the perception -- and possibly the fact -- that regulatory enforcement is being subordinated to Administration political priorities or concerns. The combination of HHS establishing interim dollar limits in the regulation, but then also instituting a process for waiving those limits on a case-by-case basis, appears deliberately designed to convey the perception that the new law is having a positive effect, while selectively avoiding any enforcement actions that might create the opposite public perception that the law is resulting in adverse, unintended consequences

oversight.house.gov...
I would call this saving face.

HHS needs to get back WITHIN the confines of this legislation.

ETA
If these companies let the mini meds drop without the waiver then the politicians lose the worker bee votes. Again protecting the vote.

The heritage foundation -- really - to ones that just came up with Ryans budget that basically kills medicare and whose numbers were so far off in la la land that they had to withdraw with their tails between their legs -- I care about their interpretation of what my perception is -- yep -- what does Glenn Beck have to say about this?

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



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


So I guess only Huffington Post or Media Matters will provide truth to the matter? Or we should just default to you, oh mighty keeper of knowledge, truth and avoidance for things related to personal freedom?

Where else should info come from, the most truthful Fed Govt? Or maybe HHS's 800 number?

You may be an actual student of Alinsky.
You apply all the rules and applications very well.

If this is so good, why are you not going to participate?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by jibeho

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by jibeho
 


You completely failed to answer the question.

I'll ask again.

Please explain to me how an organization benefits from recieving a waiver?


Kickbacks and paybacks for their generous contributions to Obama's 2008 campaign and for the 2012 campaign.

SEIU dontated nearly $28 million to the 2008 mission. Unions as a whole spent nearly $400 million on Obamas campaign.

Furthermore, the waivers save the recipients from new taxes, fees and programs that will undoubtedly take big bucks from the bottom line. But, you already knew that.


Really???

Exactly how does a waiver allowing a company to continue to offer mini-med policies give them kickbacks???

And how does offering mini-med policies keep them from "new taxes" (and which "new taxes" are these???), fees, and programs???

A source would be nice for this fantastic answer.


Get off your high horse. I know what I'm talking about and I am certainly not going to cite provisions of this law just to appease and amuse you. These groups in question sought waivers because the mandates within the new law would result in higher premiums for employees, or worse yet, a complete loss of their coverage. You know it and I know it. The waiver process leaves the door wide open for playing favorites due to the nature of the process. Hmmm. go figure....

Look it up for yourself.

Here is some more for you to chew on. Make sure you cut this up first


A powerful union and a large corporation have something in common: they both want to be immunized against Obamacare. The United Federation of Teachers (a New York City teachers’ union) and McDonald’s have been temporarily exempted from a key provision of the federal health care reform law that would have required them to cancel their current employee health care plans.

They join a number of other unions and companies that are learning Congress didn’t keep President Obama’s promise from 2009 that everyone who is happy with their health insurance would be able to keep it. In late September, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services granted one-year waivers to 30 unions, businesses and insurance companies with a combined total of more than 1 million workers. These groups warned that mandates within the new law would result in higher premiums or a complete loss of coverage for their employees. No one knows if Health and Human Services will continue to exempt employers, which raises uncertainty about who will be forced to leave health insurance plans that have been working for them.

The real kicker is the teachers’ union fought for the health care bill and proudly claimed in April that it wouldn’t harm the union’s health insurance options. Now they are one of the first groups to ask for a waiver. Even Obamacare’s staunchest supporters have discovered the law is bad medicine for America.

goldwaterinstitute.org...

I am beginning to believe that it is you, who is constantly pointing the finger, who does not know what is really going on beyond what talking points you have read for the day.




top topics



 
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join