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 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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by spyder550
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
How do they just make this stuff up -- it is amazing just incredibly amazing.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.