Nearly 1 in 5 Obamacare waivers go to restaurants, nightclubs, hotels in Pelosi

[OohPooPahDoo]

Do you also agree that Obamacare is a perfect example of how legislation should NOT be made?

Nope.

So you want your representatives to make laws with no input from you whatsoever. You want to be a subject, not a citizen.

Didn't we have a revolution so we wouldn't have to put up with that shit?

So you want to beat your wife and molest children.

 

[daveman]

Daveman, you're embarrassing yourself now. Just stop replying for your own sake.

...or you could exercise a little self-control and not read my posts.

 

[daveman]

Nope.

So you want your representatives to make laws with no input from you whatsoever. You want to be a subject, not a citizen.

Didn't we have a revolution so we wouldn't have to put up with that shit?

So you want to beat your wife and molest children.

Don't be stupid, unless, as I suspect, you simply can't help it.

Obamacare was rushed through with no input from the citizenry. Nancy said they had to pass the law so we could find out what's in it. That's not how laws are made in a republic. Speaking of which, you remember Obama's empty and immediately-broken promise that all legislation would be available on-line for public viewing for five days before he signed it? Didn't happen with Obamacare, did it?

So, RDD wants his laws handed to him. He trusts the government implicitly (funny how that changed in January of 2009, innit?). He wants to be a subject of the government.

Me? I'm a citizen. I expect to have my say. Congress is made up of representatives, not leaders. Basic civics lesson, that. Guess you two were sick that day.

 

[RDD_1210]

Do you also agree that Obamacare is a perfect example of how legislation should NOT be made?

Nope.

So you want your representatives to make laws with no input from you whatsoever. You want to be a subject, not a citizen.

Didn't we have a revolution so we wouldn't have to put up with that shit?

I didn't say that either.

 

[RDD_1210]

Daveman, you're embarrassing yourself now. Just stop replying for your own sake.

...or you could exercise a little self-control and not read my posts.

Yeah my mistake. Best advice you've given all thread.

 

[daveman]

Nope.

So you want your representatives to make laws with no input from you whatsoever. You want to be a subject, not a citizen.

Didn't we have a revolution so we wouldn't have to put up with that shit?

I didn't say that either.

Actually, by disagreeing that Obamacare is a bad way to make law, yes, you did say that.

 

[daveman]

Daveman, you're embarrassing yourself now. Just stop replying for your own sake.

...or you could exercise a little self-control and not read my posts.

Yeah my mistake. Best advice you've given all thread.

Funny, though, how you expected me to make the effort to do something you should be doing yourself.

 

[RDD_1210]

So you want your representatives to make laws with no input from you whatsoever. You want to be a subject, not a citizen.

Didn't we have a revolution so we wouldn't have to put up with that shit?

I didn't say that either.

Actually, by disagreeing that Obamacare is a bad way to make law, yes, you did say that.

LOL, Incorrect. This would only be true if nobody in this country wanted healthcare reform and if everyone was against this law. But that is far from the case.

 

[RDD_1210]

...or you could exercise a little self-control and not read my posts.

Yeah my mistake. Best advice you've given all thread.

Funny, though, how you expected me to make the effort to do something you should be doing yourself.

You don't even make sense at this point. You got caught making shit up, and then lying about it. Now you are going off on some random tangent that no one but you cares about. Give it a rest.

 

[daveman]

I didn't say that either.

Actually, by disagreeing that Obamacare is a bad way to make law, yes, you did say that.

LOL, Incorrect. This would only be true if nobody in this country wanted healthcare reform and if everyone was against this law. But that is far from the case.

There are laws I want, too, but I damn sure want to keep an eye on them while they're made.

What happened to the left? During the Sixties, not a one of you trusted the government. Now you want the government to live your lives for you.

 

[daveman]

Yeah my mistake. Best advice you've given all thread.

Funny, though, how you expected me to make the effort to do something you should be doing yourself.

You don't even make sense at this point. You got caught making shit up, and then lying about it. Now you are going off on some random tangent that no one but you cares about. Give it a rest.

There you go again, expecting me to make the effort to suit you. Sheesh...you can't even be bothered to put me on Ignore.

 

[RDD_1210]

Actually, by disagreeing that Obamacare is a bad way to make law, yes, you did say that.

LOL, Incorrect. This would only be true if nobody in this country wanted healthcare reform and if everyone was against this law. But that is far from the case.

There are laws I want, too, but I damn sure want to keep an eye on them while they're made.

What happened to the left? During the Sixties, not a one of you trusted the government. Now you want the government to live your lives for you.

Nobody wants government to run our lives. There you go spewing BS again.

 

[RDD_1210]

Funny, though, how you expected me to make the effort to do something you should be doing yourself.

You don't even make sense at this point. You got caught making shit up, and then lying about it. Now you are going off on some random tangent that no one but you cares about. Give it a rest.

There you go again, expecting me to make the effort to suit you. Sheesh...you can't even be bothered to put me on Ignore.

I don't put people on ignore, just like I rarely neg rep. Both pointless activities. All I asked for from you was a little evidence to back up your claims and some honesty. You couldn't do either.

 

[daveman]

LOL, Incorrect. This would only be true if nobody in this country wanted healthcare reform and if everyone was against this law. But that is far from the case.

There are laws I want, too, but I damn sure want to keep an eye on them while they're made.

What happened to the left? During the Sixties, not a one of you trusted the government. Now you want the government to live your lives for you.

Nobody wants government to run our lives. There you go spewing BS again.

Ummmm...yeah, you do.

 

[daveman]

You don't even make sense at this point. You got caught making shit up, and then lying about it. Now you are going off on some random tangent that no one but you cares about. Give it a rest.

There you go again, expecting me to make the effort to suit you. Sheesh...you can't even be bothered to put me on Ignore.

I don't put people on ignore, just like I rarely neg rep. Both pointless activities. All I asked for from you was a little evidence to back up your claims and some honesty. You couldn't do either.

And when I couldn't, I retracted and apologized.

That happens damn rarely around here.

 

[Bfgrn]

I am surprised these right wing ideologues would want to post this stuff, because once you get to the bottom of it, you see why this bill was needed. It shines a bright light on the scurrilous insurance cartels who they worship. They will never understand that there is a built in conflict between health care and for profit insurance. Health care will never fit a 'free market' model. The best that can be crafted is laws that limit the cartel's death panels...Insurance cartels are not in the health care business. They are in the profit business, and the best way to increase profit is to collect premiums and find ways NOT to pay claims.

Can you show me in the Constitution where health care is a right? Kthnxbai.

Ah, the old show me where it's in the constitution. OK, show me where corporations are in the Constitution? So life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a privilege. Thank you for telling me you are a right wing scum bag.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you unable or unwilling to accept the fact that a overhaul of this magnitude can't happen overnight? How fast should health exchanges be set up? In your expert opinion.

Then why write a single law that essentially did just that? Why are you defending something you just admitted is impossible?

Ok, since Daveman failed at proving his BS, it gets to be your turn. Post anything that shows the healthcare legislation was designed to be implemented and fully functioning instantly overnight. Here's your big chance. Don't let this opportunity slip by to show us just how right you are.

Where did I say anything like that.

What I am saying, for the slow witted and those who do not comprehend English, is that if this is meant to be a gradual process, there was no need to write the law in a slapdash manner in a very short period of time. If you were actually an intellectually honest person you would admit this and wonder why it was necessary. Instead, because the intent is good, you support it despite the fact that the law is actually worse than the PATRIOT Act.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry but that's not even true. Only 38 of 1300 waiver have gone to her district.

38 of the 204 waivers approved last month went to Pelosi's district. Misquoting and someone and then calling them a liar is a sign that you know you are wrong.

White House, Pelosi: Obamacare waivers a regular thing, we The statistic you site was cherry picked from the data.

I have a choice between believing that pointing out that 38 waivers going to a single congressional district in a single month is unusual, or believe the government when they say that this is cherry picking. Guess which one I believe.

Over all waivers issued its only 38/1300

Which still amounts to 3% for a single congressional district in a single month. Statistical analysis makes that a suspicious data point.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney downplayed the significance of the administration’s approval of Obamacare waivers amid the uproar over 38 Obamacare waivers luxurious hotels, gourmet restaurants, hip nightclubs, day spas and four-star hotels received in April in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district.

In the Tuesday press briefing, he said the administration has approved more than 1,300 waivers from the health care law’s requirements, and has rejected less than 100 waiver-applications. The total of approved waivers “is not that much,” he said, adding that the temporary waivers were granted to organizations that offer their employees relatively cheap insurance coverage, dubbed “mini-med” insurance.

[/quote]If, as they claim, the process is totally above board, why don't they publish the waiver process and the criteria involved?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry but that's not even true. Only 38 of 1300 waiver have gone to her district.

White House, Pelosi: Obamacare waivers a regular thing, we

Still.....38 in her one district is still incredibly high. Just sayin....

38 out of 1300? No it isn't! Now you're being ridiculous.

If the waivers where being handed out equally to all congressional districts her district would have gotten about 3 waivers. tell me again that this is not an unusually high number, I love it when people who don't understand math try to argue about numbers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This might come as surprise to you, but House districts aren't divided into districts having roughly equal numbers of restaurants, night clubs, and hotels which offer mini-medical plans- they're divided into districts having roughly equal numbers of people.

This might come as surprise to you, but restaurants tend to expect people to eat in them, and they generally only stay in business if they have customers. That generally means that, for the same population you will have the same number of restaurants.

Not to mention the fact that by law many employers are required to provide some level of health insurance in SF. Should we find it surprising that a place where more employers provide insurance that there would be more employers applying for waivers?

Yes, because the waivers are granted so that those employers do not have to provide health insurance.

Just saying.

If you don't provide health coverage for your employees - you wouldn't be applying for a waiver! duh.

The waivers exempt them from providing insurance, want to try again?

READ CAREFULLY

In actuality, Aitken explained, the high percentage of waivers is the byproduct of local law rubbing against the new national legislation. In April 2008, San Francisco passed an ordinance requiring employers to spend a minimum amount per hour on health care for their employees who work in the city. In response, a number of eateries chose to set up Health Reimbursement Arrangements, which are essentially pools of funds set aside by employers to reimburse medical expenses paid by employees...

Gingrich, Pawlenty Perpetuate Health Waiver Myth | Mother Jones

Which actually makes the point that we have been arguing the whole time, making this a national issue is the wrong way to go.

By the way, Mother Jones is, as usual, wrong. Obamacare requires a minimum standard of health insurance that is all but impossible for small businesses to provide.