The Obama administration has granted over 220 healthcare-reform waivers to unions, corporations, and nonprofits in order to stave off massive policy cancellations and rate hikes affecting 1.5 million workers, according to documents posted online by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Republicans charge the scores of waivers reflects fatal flaws in the legislation.
“I think it tells you everything you need to know about this law,” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told Newsmax in an exclusive interview. “The very fact that they had to immediately grant these waivers so that these people wouldn’t lose their health insurance tells you that if they should be exempt from the law, the rest of us should be exempt from the law too.”
I doubt there will be any on the left here to defend these waivers, they would have to do some serious spinning. More lies keep rising to the surface of that giant unread bill.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
Oh the horror, the outrage, how dare they? Oh wait, out of the 220 waivers granted for one year time limit in regard to the minimum limits, only about 40 were granted to unions that provide health care benefits to their members. A few others went to non profits and religious charities, while the vast majority went to small businesses and even large corporations such as McDonalds and Dennys. These waivers are intended to allow the businesses and other entities time to phase in the requirements and only extend for a one year period.
But of course all the cons can rail about are the magic word "unions".
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: Oh the horror, the outrage, how dare they? Oh wait, out of the 220 waivers granted for one year time limit in regard to the minimum limits, only about 40 were granted to unions that provide health care benefits to their members. A few others went to non profits and religious charities, while the vast majority went to small businesses and even large corporations such as McDonalds and Dennys. These waivers are intended to allow the businesses and other entities time to phase in the requirements and only extend for a one year period.
But of course all the cons can rail about are the magic word "unions".
And by phase in you mean raise the cost resulting from all the new regulations over a longer period of time instead of in one chunk, right? In other words, a massive increase in one chunk might accurately portray the result of the legislation, so we'll take the cost up more slowly in the hopes that they will not notice how much more it is truly costing them. Does it remind anyone else of putting the frog in a pot of cold water and letting them get used to the ever increasing temperature so that they don't jump out of the pot before they are cooked?
Something the Dog Said wrote: Oh the horror, the outrage, how dare they? Oh wait, out of the 220 waivers granted for one year time limit in regard to the minimum limits, only about 40 were granted to unions that provide health care benefits to their members. A few others went to non profits and religious charities, while the vast majority went to small businesses and even large corporations such as McDonalds and Dennys. These waivers are intended to allow the businesses and other entities time to phase in the requirements and only extend for a one year period.
But of course all the cons can rail about are the magic word "unions".
If it is going to save $$, shouldn't every company and union be required to do it immediately? The reason it is phased in because it doesn't save $$, but rather increases the costs to the business community.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Something the Dog Said wrote: Oh the horror, the outrage, how dare they? Oh wait, out of the 220 waivers granted for one year time limit in regard to the minimum limits, only about 40 were granted to unions that provide health care benefits to their members. A few others went to non profits and religious charities, while the vast majority went to small businesses and even large corporations such as McDonalds and Dennys. These waivers are intended to allow the businesses and other entities time to phase in the requirements and only extend for a one year period.
But of course all the cons can rail about are the magic word "unions".
If it is going to save $$, shouldn't every company and union be required to do it immediately? The reason it is phased in because it doesn't save $$, but rather increases the costs to the business community.
If you actually bother to read the waiver report (not the outrage newsmax article), the HHS does a case by case analysis when requested by the entity to determine if their case meets the criteria for the waiver, rather than just making a wild assed blanket assumption with no facts to back it up.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Shouldn't every company then get a waiver so they have time to apply lube before getting the government shaft? I can't wait to see where unemployment goes when this crap is finally implemented, I'm sure the Dems will blame some other factor.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
