Labor unions primary recipients of Obamacare waivers

2milehigh wrote:

The original article I linked to is not as detailed as this following article...

Unions Get Waivers Bought With Political Cash

Politics: In a telltale Friday-night document dump, the White House released records showing the latest lucky recipients of Obama-Care cost waivers. By the wildest of coincidences, 87% of them belong to Big Labor unions.

Interesting, since Big Labor pulled out all the stops to get the president's signature on health care reform passed in March 2010. But as the waivers came, it's clear they never had any expectation of paying for it.

From the very start they carved out special exemptions for themselves, showing all the earmarks of political favors in exchange for campaign contributions. The actual skyrocketing costs, reduced choices and lousy service were shoved on the rest of us.

Read the whole article at...

http://news.investors.com/Article/59737 ... aivers.htm

87% of the waivers issued have been issued to labor unions. "No surprise then that 543,812 union workers have magically gotten waivers, according to documents dating from June 17, 2011, while only 69,813 nonunion workers did. That's a shocking 83% total for union members, who make up only 6% of the private workforce."

Of course... this is just a coincidence. No politics behind this.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

2milehigh wrote:

The original article I linked to is not as detailed as this following article...

Unions Get Waivers Bought With Political Cash

Politics: In a telltale Friday-night document dump, the White House released records showing the latest lucky recipients of Obama-Care cost waivers. By the wildest of coincidences, 87% of them belong to Big Labor unions.

Interesting, since Big Labor pulled out all the stops to get the president's signature on health care reform passed in March 2010. But as the waivers came, it's clear they never had any expectation of paying for it.

From the very start they carved out special exemptions for themselves, showing all the earmarks of political favors in exchange for campaign contributions. The actual skyrocketing costs, reduced choices and lousy service were shoved on the rest of us.

Read the whole article at...

http://news.investors.com/Article/59737 ... aivers.htm

87% of the waivers issued have been issued to labor unions. "No surprise then that 543,812 union workers have magically gotten waivers, according to documents dating from June 17, 2011, while only 69,813 nonunion workers did. That's a shocking 83% total for union members, who make up only 6% of the private workforce."

Of course... this is just a coincidence. No politics behind this.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201090006

zhawke wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

2milehigh wrote:

The original article I linked to is not as detailed as this following article...

Unions Get Waivers Bought With Political Cash

Politics: In a telltale Friday-night document dump, the White House released records showing the latest lucky recipients of Obama-Care cost waivers. By the wildest of coincidences, 87% of them belong to Big Labor unions.

Interesting, since Big Labor pulled out all the stops to get the president's signature on health care reform passed in March 2010. But as the waivers came, it's clear they never had any expectation of paying for it.

From the very start they carved out special exemptions for themselves, showing all the earmarks of political favors in exchange for campaign contributions. The actual skyrocketing costs, reduced choices and lousy service were shoved on the rest of us.

Read the whole article at...

http://news.investors.com/Article/59737 ... aivers.htm

87% of the waivers issued have been issued to labor unions. "No surprise then that 543,812 union workers have magically gotten waivers, according to documents dating from June 17, 2011, while only 69,813 nonunion workers did. That's a shocking 83% total for union members, who make up only 6% of the private workforce."

Of course... this is just a coincidence. No politics behind this.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201090006

"The number of employees granted waivers does favor labor unions, but only because those plans simply cover far more people than any specific private business plan[/i] that has sought a waiver. It's not that labor unions are favored, simply that plans representing more insured individuals have applied."

The above article from Investors Business Daily is correct. The labor union waivers cover MORE employees than the private business waivers. Thanks for your link that confirms the statistic I posted from the Investors Business Daily.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

zhawke wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

2milehigh wrote:

The original article I linked to is not as detailed as this following article...

Unions Get Waivers Bought With Political Cash

Politics: In a telltale Friday-night document dump, the White House released records showing the latest lucky recipients of Obama-Care cost waivers. By the wildest of coincidences, 87% of them belong to Big Labor unions.

Interesting, since Big Labor pulled out all the stops to get the president's signature on health care reform passed in March 2010. But as the waivers came, it's clear they never had any expectation of paying for it.

From the very start they carved out special exemptions for themselves, showing all the earmarks of political favors in exchange for campaign contributions. The actual skyrocketing costs, reduced choices and lousy service were shoved on the rest of us.

Read the whole article at...

http://news.investors.com/Article/59737 ... aivers.htm

87% of the waivers issued have been issued to labor unions. "No surprise then that 543,812 union workers have magically gotten waivers, according to documents dating from June 17, 2011, while only 69,813 nonunion workers did. That's a shocking 83% total for union members, who make up only 6% of the private workforce."

Of course... this is just a coincidence. No politics behind this.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201090006

"The number of employees granted waivers does favor labor unions, but only because those plans simply cover far more people than any specific private business plan[/i] that has sought a waiver. It's not that labor unions are favored, simply that plans representing more insured individuals have applied."

The above article from Investors Business Daily is correct. The labor union waivers cover MORE employees than the private business waivers. Thanks for your link that confirms the statistic I posted from the Investors Business Daily.

You are most assuredly welcome. However, from the same article: The update by HHS shows that of the 1,200 plans currently approved for waivers, more than 60 percent (772) are self-insured employers, while 451 went to labor unions.

zhawke wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

zhawke wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

2milehigh wrote:

The original article I linked to is not as detailed as this following article...

Unions Get Waivers Bought With Political Cash

Politics: In a telltale Friday-night document dump, the White House released records showing the latest lucky recipients of Obama-Care cost waivers. By the wildest of coincidences, 87% of them belong to Big Labor unions.

Interesting, since Big Labor pulled out all the stops to get the president's signature on health care reform passed in March 2010. But as the waivers came, it's clear they never had any expectation of paying for it.

From the very start they carved out special exemptions for themselves, showing all the earmarks of political favors in exchange for campaign contributions. The actual skyrocketing costs, reduced choices and lousy service were shoved on the rest of us.

Read the whole article at...

http://news.investors.com/Article/59737 ... aivers.htm

87% of the waivers issued have been issued to labor unions. "No surprise then that 543,812 union workers have magically gotten waivers, according to documents dating from June 17, 2011, while only 69,813 nonunion workers did. That's a shocking 83% total for union members, who make up only 6% of the private workforce."

Of course... this is just a coincidence. No politics behind this.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201090006

"The number of employees granted waivers does favor labor unions, but only because those plans simply cover far more people than any specific private business plan[/i] that has sought a waiver. It's not that labor unions are favored, simply that plans representing more insured individuals have applied."

The above article from Investors Business Daily is correct. The labor union waivers cover MORE employees than the private business waivers. Thanks for your link that confirms the statistic I posted from the Investors Business Daily.

You are most assuredly welcome. However, from the same article: The update by HHS shows that of the 1,200 plans currently approved for waivers, more than 60 percent (772) are self-insured employers, while 451 went to labor unions.

And those plans represent 543,812 union workers and only 69,813 nonunion workers. Right?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: And those plans represent 543,812 union workers and only 69,813 nonunion workers. Right?

So what? Doesn't matter. Anyone can "skew" the numbers to show their own personal "biases" whenever they want to. In your case, it would appear you have an "anti-organized labor" bias while I'm more fer organized labor than agin it. Go figure.

zhawke wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: And those plans represent 543,812 union workers and only 69,813 nonunion workers. Right?

So what? Doesn't matter. Anyone can "skew" the numbers to show their own personal "biases" whenever they want to. In your case, it would appear you have an "anti-organized labor" bias while I'm more fer organized labor than agin it. Go figure.

How is "And those plans represent 543,812 union workers and only 69,813 nonunion workers." skewed?

zhawke wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: And those plans represent 543,812 union workers and only 69,813 nonunion workers. Right?

So what? Doesn't matter. Anyone can "skew" the numbers to show their own personal "biases" whenever they want to. In your case, it would appear you have an "anti-organized labor" bias while I'm more fer organized labor than agin it. Go figure.

Why should anyone, unions, private business, anyone get a waiver?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

zhawke wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: And those plans represent 543,812 union workers and only 69,813 nonunion workers. Right?

So what? Doesn't matter. Anyone can "skew" the numbers to show their own personal "biases" whenever they want to. In your case, it would appear you have an "anti-organized labor" bias while I'm more fer organized labor than agin it. Go figure.

How is "And those plans represent 543,812 union workers and only 69,813 nonunion workers." skewed?

Read the article.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

zhawke wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: And those plans represent 543,812 union workers and only 69,813 nonunion workers. Right?

So what? Doesn't matter. Anyone can "skew" the numbers to show their own personal "biases" whenever they want to. In your case, it would appear you have an "anti-organized labor" bias while I'm more fer organized labor than agin it. Go figure.

Why should anyone, unions, private business, anyone get a waiver?

Read the article.