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: 8
38
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

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.

Not bad, for the mundane mediocre worker, who gets paid the same as the person who is truly good at the same job.
Also, Unions are so great, they have created a wonderful condition for ISP/Telecom providers where those with Unions are forced to charge a customer $900 for a dynamic T1, where as the non-union company can do the same service for around $500.
Hurray for unions. I sure do hope that collective bargaining included a handgun, because the only way a business would choose them is to hold it to the head of the customer.
Kind of like the whole health care issue.




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


What?? now attacking a source and deposition in an official hearing on the issue. You just lost your own argument. Whatever that may be. Weak Weak Weak Weak. Perhsps you can troll the junior thread for beginners.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 



First you have a health bill that no one wanted and we had to approved it to know what was in the bill


I wanted it...so there goes one argument of yours.

And of course you continue to distort Pelosi's comment...Fox News has brainwashed you well.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
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?


Oh I don't know...you could try reading the actual law.

But go ahead...continue on...I wouldn't want to ruin the fantasy world you have bought into.

And again...I am participating...I have insurance that will meet all the new requirements...I'm just ahead of the curve.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Actually, no you are avoiding.
If the new bill is so good, why not partake in what is so good for all the others?


I can't seem to believe that with all your busy ATS time, you were able to read all what, 2000 pages of the bill, including additions, changes and retractions.

But, with that said, if you read the bill, I am sure that you can go in and find word for word examples as to the process, implementation, rules, laws, and so on from the bill itself, instead of offering deflections, know liberal websites and the like.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 



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


Yes, they would of lost coverage...people have been saying this since page 1. Mini-med plans can not meet the no annual cap requirement...or else they would not longer be "LIMITED" benefit plans.

These plans won't exist after 2014...but until then there are two choices.

1) Grant waivers to allow them to continue until 2014 when they can be replaced with full benefits plans at an affordable price
2) Let people who have these plans lose all coverage until 2014.


The organizations don't get anything out of it...the workers do. The organizations aren't saving any money over this...they are not benefiting in any way.

It is a temporary measure, so people can keep some limited coverage until 2014.


Try all you want...it is not an evil thing to allow people to keep coverage until a better option is available.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Its a long way until 2014 and there are options than can be enacted to keep these waivers from recycling for the next 3 years


First, Congress should instruct HHS to rewrite the regulation so as to eliminate this waiver program and limit its exercise of discretionary authority to only those matters in this provision over which Congress explicitly granted the Department discretionary authority. In particular, HHS should confine itself to the statutory requirement that the Department define the "restricted annual limit" to be applied prior to 2014. HHS could either retain the limits it has already defined in regulation, or replace them with a new, lower limit.

Second, Congress should consider whether or not it will change or further clarify the statutory language of this provision of PPACA, in the context of its broader debates over the future of this legislation in general and its numerous specific provisions.

oversight.house.gov...

The legislation is clearly flawed.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Actually, no you are avoiding.
If the new bill is so good, why not partake in what is so good for all the others?


For like the 5th time...I am participating.

What exactly do you think "obamacare" is??? Here is a hint...it's not a government insurance plan.



I can't seem to believe that with all your busy ATS time, you were able to read all what, 2000 pages of the bill, including additions, changes and retractions.


LOL...reading isn't hard...you should try it.


But, with that said, if you read the bill, I am sure that you can go in and find word for word examples as to the process, implementation, rules, laws, and so on from the bill itself, instead of offering deflections, know liberal websites and the like.


Exactly what do you want me to prove? You are the one that has been making baseless claims that have been making you look ignorant to the law.

And which "liberal" website did I link to?

You need to calm down...take a deep breath...and admit that the people you get your information from are feeding you lies.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


SSSSPPPPLLFFFTTT!
How dare you provide info directly from the Govt. The same Govt that is just here to help......

And the Rules for Radicals retort comes in 3,2,1...



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Its a long way until 2014 and there are options than can be enacted to keep these waivers from recycling for the next 3 years


First, Congress should instruct HHS to rewrite the regulation so as to eliminate this waiver program and limit its exercise of discretionary authority to only those matters in this provision over which Congress explicitly granted the Department discretionary authority. In particular, HHS should confine itself to the statutory requirement that the Department define the "restricted annual limit" to be applied prior to 2014. HHS could either retain the limits it has already defined in regulation, or replace them with a new, lower limit.

Second, Congress should consider whether or not it will change or further clarify the statutory language of this provision of PPACA, in the context of its broader debates over the future of this legislation in general and its numerous specific provisions.

oversight.house.gov...

The legislation is clearly flawed.


The implementation schedule was flawed...hence the waivers.

There is nothing illegal about the waivers...sorry.

You are really stretching on this one....really really stretching.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by jibeho
 


SSSSPPPPLLFFFTTT!
How dare you provide info directly from the Govt. The same Govt that is just here to help......

And the Rules for Radicals retort comes in 3,2,1...


If you bothered to read the link...you would see this information isn't from the government...it is from the Heritage Foundation.

But I wouldn't expect you to actually read.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

Nothing like a Liberal elitist like telling someone to calm down and take a breath.
What I would like to say would just be deleted.
You are not any kind of parental figure nor are you in charge.

Why will you not participate in the insurance exchange, if it is so great?
Why are Govt members not living by what they force on the masses?

So you read the bill. I think it is pretty safe to assume you have it downloaded. So lets see some quotes from it.

Please, lets also see the websites that you have offered in retort to defending this crap.
Or, I am sure someone could go back, identify them, trace the sites back to the funding organization and blast it out of the water. Kind of like how you and your spidey buddy do for sites like the heritage foundation. It goes both ways.
And also, now only are you wrong on so much, when did I, or anyone else that knows your wrong every identify ourselves as republicans?
edit on 17-5-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Actually, the site is a .gov URL.

Must carry some kind of weight, being from the Heritage Foundation and all, to be posted on the .GOV URL.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Why will you not participate in the insurance exchange, if it is so great?
Why are Govt members not living by what they force on the masses?


The exchanges are meant to be used by people who are looking for affordable options for healthcare that don't receive them from their employer and can't afford a private policy.

Like any good free market system, there are also more expensive options...I choose to buy the more expensive option. It doesn't make the affordable option bad. Just like more affordable cars aren't bad just because there are luxury cars....just different options.

Why would you want to force everyone to buy the least expensive health insurance? Seems kind of....socialist....no?



So you read the bill. I think it is pretty safe to assume you have it downloaded. So lets see some quotes from it.


Knock yourself out: docs.house.gov...

Good news...it is only 974 pages...not the 2000 pages that you made up.



Please, lets also see the websites that you have offered in retort to defending this crap.
Or, I am sure someone could go back, identify them, trace the sites back to the funding organization and blast it out of the water. Kind of like how you and your spidey buddy do for sites like the heritage foundation. It goes both ways.
And also, now only are you wrong on so much, when did I, or anyone else that knows your wrong every identify ourselves as republicans?
edit on 17-5-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)


Wow...so much to correct.

Here is the thing...when you and others make silly claims...like Unions are getting the majority of the waivers...I don't have to prove they aren't (even though I did)....it is up to you to prove your own claim. Logic 101.

I am simply here fighting the dis-information you and others are trying to spread.

I don't believe I ever called you a Republican...please show me where I did so.


Anything else you would like to rant about?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Actually, the site is a .gov URL.

Must carry some kind of weight, being from the Heritage Foundation and all, to be posted on the .GOV URL.


Good lord.

It was a person from the Heritage foundation talking to congress...it doesn't hold any weight...it doesn't make what he said true. It is on the government website for documentation purposes.


wow.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Actually, the site is a .gov URL.

Must carry some kind of weight, being from the Heritage Foundation and all, to be posted on the .GOV URL.


Keep trying.



This is quite a learning experience.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Again, your deflection is great. You must be either in politics or a lawyer.

Back tomorrow.

Funny, how when people do provide viable points, via sites, you respond with the Alinsky manner. Yet, really offer no proof for your argument, only destruct the others.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I've been reading along and finding it hard to keep up so I'm now chiming in. OutKast and spyder550, you're never going to get certain people to understand but I give you both kuddos for trying to explain. Bottom line is that the original healthcare bill was over 1,400 pages long and the amending bill was something like 475 pages long - I know because as part of my job, I had to read every single page and then try to interpret all of the various provisions (mind-boggling I can tell you). The concept with waivers is kind of simple to understand when you realize that it's not the employers who are benefiting from them, but the workers themselves.

I'll give you some specifics and this is solid info as I was a corporate insurance broker in NYC for over 15 years - these costs are indicative of the New York Metro area and no, I'm not exaggerating:

sample cost of single coverage under a group HMO plan offered through private employer = $700 per month billed and payable monthly
sample cost of single coverage under individual HMO plan obtained through insurance company = $1,200 billed and payable monthly
sample cost of single coverage under mini-med plan which can only be obtained through private employer (not sold as an individual product) = $300 per month billed and payable WEEKLY (cost is broken up so the employee's portion of the premium is easier to handle as a lower weekly amount).

There's no question that benefits are severely limited with the mini-med plans but it's something as opposed to nothing at all. Bottom line is that if these waivers weren't given, all of those employers would have cancelled all insurance for 100,000's of employees until 2014 when the mandatory requirements become law. All of those 100,000 employees (plus the multitude of their dependents).

I'm not debating the constitutionality, ethicacy or morality of these issues, merely illustrating the facts.

Timidgal

EDIT: Original PPACA were somewhere around 1,000 pages but the "interpretative or summary docs" that were also released added an additional 200+ pages.
edit on 5/17/2011 by timidgal because: Clarification



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Again, your deflection is great. You must be either in politics or a lawyer.

Back tomorrow.

Funny, how when people do provide viable points, via sites, you respond with the Alinsky manner. Yet, really offer no proof for your argument, only destruct the others.


Well...you may have finally got something right.

I am not making an argument...I am only destroying others.

Thanks for admitting that I am destroying your arguments.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
notes
Outside of the legislation the private sector is inflating cost at 150% for the last decade

$100 of care ten years ago now cost $250

The private health insurance industry makes government programs look like fiscal sanity.

At this rate, healthcare will equal the GDP in three decades

People fight to be gouged (like gasoline) and to be rescinded upon

healthcare will equal the GDP in three decades at this rate of inflation

There is a mental disconnect, it is society eating itself alive to protect a system



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



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join