Aetna, Cigna, United Health and Teacher Union Gets Obamacare Waiver

[WelfareQueen]

Think of this as a critical thinking exercise.

Try to explain, in your own words, what the different "types" of waivers are, how they could possibly be applied to any companies on the list, and exactly what the possible results of those different waiver types are, and whether they are still active, or already expired.

All of the information I've requested above is contained in the links that YOU have provided, but not bothered to read.

You need to study the information Templar and I provided. Clearly, any other type of explanation will go right over your head.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Think of this as a critical thinking exercise.

Try to explain, in your own words, what the different "types" of waivers are, how they could possibly be applied to any companies on the list, and exactly what the possible results of those different waiver types are, and whether they are still active, or already expired.

All of the information I've requested above is contained in the links that YOU have provided, but not bothered to read.

So if this information is in his or my links, then do us a favor and post them. I will concede the argument right here freely if you can.

What argument are you going to concede? I don't even know what point you're trying to make, at this point.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Think of this as a critical thinking exercise.

Try to explain, in your own words, what the different "types" of waivers are, how they could possibly be applied to any companies on the list, and exactly what the possible results of those different waiver types are, and whether they are still active, or already expired.

All of the information I've requested above is contained in the links that YOU have provided, but not bothered to read.

You need to study the information Templar and I provided. Clearly, any other type of explanation will go right over your head.

You're not getting it. You need to read the information that you and Templar provided.

It answers all your questions about what the different "types" of waivers are.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Think of this as a critical thinking exercise.

Try to explain, in your own words, what the different "types" of waivers are, how they could possibly be applied to any companies on the list, and exactly what the possible results of those different waiver types are, and whether they are still active, or already expired.

All of the information I've requested above is contained in the links that YOU have provided, but not bothered to read.

You need to study the information Templar and I provided. Clearly, any other type of explanation will go right over your head.

You're not getting it. You need to read the information that you and Templar provided.

It answers all your questions about what the different "types" of waivers are.

Girlfriend, I don't want to embarrass you anymore. I could pull your quote where you claimed only one type of waiver existed, but why bother. You've already humiliated yourself enough.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm sorry, but I simply don't give a shit about how I "come off" to you. I'm not here to convince you of anything and I'm not trying to impress you. I'm here for my own intellectual stimulation.

I'd like you to explain your "wolf in sheepskin" metaphor a little for me, as well. I don't think I understand it.

What motives are you assigning to me, that explain my secret love of Obamacare?

I'm calling things as I see them. I am sorry if you don't like what I have to say, but you are going after people for making unfounded claims about the law, then turning around and saying the law is crap. That is what I meant by my wolf in sheepskin metaphor. Your terse reaction to that seems that I could have struck a chord. I am simply trying to stimulate my intellect as well. But I don't like to be played for a fool either.

I don't know why you're taking this so personally.

I'm not going after "people", I'm going after "arguments". YOU, by questioning what my motives are, are "going after people".

From my perspective, there is no contradiction in me disagreeing with the Obamacare law, and calling out bullshit.

I'm calling bullshit for the simple reasons I have stated before. How can you on one hand hate the law, say it's crap and then turn around and jump on someone for supposedly mischaracterizing it? That makes zero sense to me.

I'd like you to point out where I've "jumped on" anyone, but other than that, I don't see a contradiction at all.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective entirely.

You frankly and I quote said "The OP is bullshit" and then proceeded to argue with WelfareQueen about it about who was wrong and who was right and so on and so forth. I question anyone's motives who freely make the assertion that a claim is "bullshit." I despise superficiality, Doc. So forgive me if you think I'm "going after people" but that is my method, I feel no need to explain it in detail, either.

When someone supposedly makes an incorrect assumption about the healthcare law, you seem to be the first to correct them. So either you are doing research for simple educational research, or using that research as a tool to defend the law from what you view to be unfair or unbased attacks on it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Think of this as a critical thinking exercise.

Try to explain, in your own words, what the different "types" of waivers are, how they could possibly be applied to any companies on the list, and exactly what the possible results of those different waiver types are, and whether they are still active, or already expired.

All of the information I've requested above is contained in the links that YOU have provided, but not bothered to read.

So if this information is in his or my links, then do us a favor and post them. I will concede the argument right here freely if you can.

What argument are you going to concede? I don't even know what point you're trying to make, at this point.

What types of waivers you claim don't exist, and your claim that only one exists.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Except all his claims have been wrong. Again, only one person is claiming to have extensive knowledge of the law, and yet that person is the one who has been consistently in error.

The bottom line is the waiver system sucks. That cannot be disputed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But I need to get some breakfast. I have no more desire to continue this discussion.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm calling things as I see them. I am sorry if you don't like what I have to say, but you are going after people for making unfounded claims about the law, then turning around and saying the law is crap. That is what I meant by my wolf in sheepskin metaphor. Your terse reaction to that seems that I could have struck a chord. I am simply trying to stimulate my intellect as well. But I don't like to be played for a fool either.

I don't know why you're taking this so personally.

I'm not going after "people", I'm going after "arguments". YOU, by questioning what my motives are, are "going after people".

From my perspective, there is no contradiction in me disagreeing with the Obamacare law, and calling out bullshit.

I'm calling bullshit for the simple reasons I have stated before. How can you on one hand hate the law, say it's crap and then turn around and jump on someone for supposedly mischaracterizing it? That makes zero sense to me.

I'd like you to point out where I've "jumped on" anyone, but other than that, I don't see a contradiction at all.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective entirely.

You frankly and I quote said "The OP is bullshit" and then proceeded to argue with WelfareQueen about it about who was wrong and who was right and so on and so forth. I question anyone's motives who freely make the assertion that a claim is "bullshit." I despise superficiality, Doc. So forgive me if you think I'm "going after people" but that is my method, I feel no need to explain it in detail, either.

Your "method" is to rely on ad hominem and genetic fallacies?

That's unfortunate.

I prefer to attack arguments themselves, rather than the where they came from.

When someone supposedly makes an incorrect assumption about the healthcare law, you seem to be the first to correct them. So either you are doing research for simple educational research, or using that research as a tool to defend the law from what you view to be unfair or unbased attacks on it.

And this is what we call the false dilemma fallacy.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So if this information is in his or my links, then do us a favor and post them. I will concede the argument right here freely if you can.

What argument are you going to concede? I don't even know what point you're trying to make, at this point.

What types of waivers you claim don't exist, and your claim that only one exists.

I don't think I've claimed that only one waiver exists.

In fact, I'm fairly certain that I explained all of the "6" waivers back on the first page of this thread.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't know why you're taking this so personally.

I'm not going after "people", I'm going after "arguments". YOU, by questioning what my motives are, are "going after people".

From my perspective, there is no contradiction in me disagreeing with the Obamacare law, and calling out bullshit.



I'd like you to point out where I've "jumped on" anyone, but other than that, I don't see a contradiction at all.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective entirely.

You frankly and I quote said "The OP is bullshit" and then proceeded to argue with WelfareQueen about it about who was wrong and who was right and so on and so forth. I question anyone's motives who freely make the assertion that a claim is "bullshit." I despise superficiality, Doc. So forgive me if you think I'm "going after people" but that is my method, I feel no need to explain it in detail, either.

Your "method" is to rely on ad hominem and genetic fallacies?

That's unfortunate.

I prefer to attack arguments themselves, rather than the where they came from.

When someone supposedly makes an incorrect assumption about the healthcare law, you seem to be the first to correct them. So either you are doing research for simple educational research, or using that research as a tool to defend the law from what you view to be unfair or unbased attacks on it.

And this is what we call the false dilemma fallacy.

How was I resorting to ad hominem exactly? Where did I make any reference to your genetic predisposition? I was attacking your argument until you unceremoniously uttered "the OP is bullshit", which on it's own brought down your credibility on the subject.

I work hard not to insult a moderator, so I take such an accusation that I did seriously. Weren't you just the one saying not to take this personally? I never once attacked you in such a fashion. I was not going after you as a person, I was going after your motives and methodology. There's a big difference between the three.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You frankly and I quote said "The OP is bullshit" and then proceeded to argue with WelfareQueen about it about who was wrong and who was right and so on and so forth. I question anyone's motives who freely make the assertion that a claim is "bullshit." I despise superficiality, Doc. So forgive me if you think I'm "going after people" but that is my method, I feel no need to explain it in detail, either.

Your "method" is to rely on ad hominem and genetic fallacies?

That's unfortunate.

I prefer to attack arguments themselves, rather than the where they came from.

When someone supposedly makes an incorrect assumption about the healthcare law, you seem to be the first to correct them. So either you are doing research for simple educational research, or using that research as a tool to defend the law from what you view to be unfair or unbased attacks on it.

And this is what we call the false dilemma fallacy.

How was I resorting to ad hominem exactly? Where did I make any reference to your genetic predisposition? I was attacking your argument until you unceremoniously uttered "the OP is bullshit", which on it's own brought down your credibility on the subject.

I work hard not to insult a moderator, so I take such an accusation that I did seriously. Weren't you just the one saying not to take this personally? I never once attacked you in such a fashion. I was not going after you as a person, I was going after your motives and methodology. There's a big difference between the three.

An ad hominem fallacy isn't, by definition, an insult. I don't think you've tried to insult me, and I haven't taken any offense.

It's attempting to prove or disprove a claim by attacking the character (in this case, motives) of the person making the argument.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Doc,

I know it is not your style, but you would have been justified in simply mocking the stupidity of those two idiots by the third page.

Your patience is remarkable. How you got past the accusation that you are a secret Obamacare supporter and the claim that the idiot likes to do research is beyond me.

This thread could be put up in a sticky.....giving visitors an example of a common occurrence here. A knowledgable person trying to educate dummies.....only to be treated in a very condescending manner by said dummies.

 

[LoneLaugher]

He despises superficiality! He actually said that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What argument are you going to concede? I don't even know what point you're trying to make, at this point.

What types of waivers you claim don't exist, and your claim that only one exists.

I don't think I've claimed that only one waiver exists.

In fact, I'm fairly certain that I explained all of the "6" waivers back on the first page of this thread.

That is what is called a fallacy of division, assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts. This is what you are doing to Obamacare, Doc.

 

[MeBelle]

Yep,

You heard me right. Aetna, Cigna, and United Healthcare get Obamacare waivers. In fact, virtually every major health insurance corporation gets an Obamacare waiver.

Now maybe my Democrat friends can help me to understand this. If Obamacare is so great, how come virtually every major health plan that is administering Obamacare gets to opt out of it? We the people don't get to opt out. What gives?

I know you'll also be shocked, but the United Federation of Teachers gets a waiver. Hundreds of Unions get a waiver. The Congress and their staffers get a waiver. But we the people do not. Please, can any liberals explain this to me?

Aren't the Democrats supposed to be for the little guy? The employer mandate gets waived for a year, but the individual mandate affecting we the people does not. How come?

Liberals...you wanted this shit. I think you're gonna have to defend it. Please go right ahead...we're all waiting for a logical explanation.




Here's a complete list of everyone who got a waiver. Funny, I don't see any tea party groups on the list. Wonder why? 729 other entities get waivers. I guess it's like the IRS thing. Probably a couple rogue HHS employees in Omaha or something.



List of 729 Companies and Unions with Obamacare Exemptions | Peace . Gold . Liberty

The "source" for the list of companies is apparently an anonymous post on the Free Republic message boards.

Why don't you explain these "waivers" for us?

The link was in her source;
Helping Americans Keep the Coverage They Have and Promoting Transparency | HHS.gov

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What types of waivers you claim don't exist, and your claim that only one exists.

I don't think I've claimed that only one waiver exists.

In fact, I'm fairly certain that I explained all of the "6" waivers back on the first page of this thread.

That is what is called a fallacy of division, assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts. This is what you are doing to Obamacare, Doc.

You'll have to break that one down for me. What is the "whole", and what condition from it am I applying to it's "parts"?

 

[LoneLaugher]

What types of waivers you claim don't exist, and your claim that only one exists.

I don't think I've claimed that only one waiver exists.

In fact, I'm fairly certain that I explained all of the "6" waivers back on the first page of this thread.

That is what is called a fallacy of division, assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts. This is what you are doing to Obamacare, Doc.

No he is not. Not by any stretch.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your "method" is to rely on ad hominem and genetic fallacies?

That's unfortunate.

I prefer to attack arguments themselves, rather than the where they came from.



And this is what we call the false dilemma fallacy.

How was I resorting to ad hominem exactly? Where did I make any reference to your genetic predisposition? I was attacking your argument until you unceremoniously uttered "the OP is bullshit", which on it's own brought down your credibility on the subject.

I work hard not to insult a moderator, so I take such an accusation that I did seriously. Weren't you just the one saying not to take this personally? I never once attacked you in such a fashion. I was not going after you as a person, I was going after your motives and methodology. There's a big difference between the three.

An ad hominem fallacy isn't, by definition, an insult. I don't think you've tried to insult me, and I haven't taken any offense.

It's attempting to prove or disprove a claim by attacking the character (in this case, motives) of the person making the argument.

I felt it the only logical recourse to question your views on the law when you come up accusing someone of being wrong about it. It piqued thoughts about how you claim to be against it, but then issue forth facts in a seeming defense of it in a sudden reversal of stance. It makes me question the person, not the argument when I feel they may be conflicted their assertions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't think I've claimed that only one waiver exists.

In fact, I'm fairly certain that I explained all of the "6" waivers back on the first page of this thread.

That is what is called a fallacy of division, assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts. This is what you are doing to Obamacare, Doc.

You'll have to break that one down for me. What is the "whole", and what condition from it am I applying to it's "parts"?

Your initial contention that there was only one whole waiver, then saying there are six which imply the function of the one.