20% of new Obamacare Waivers are restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Pelosi’s District!

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.

It is the testimony it is an opinion -- it could be Elvis for all that is worth. It is still the Heritage foundation -- what would you expect them to say about anything. Look up their recent record then tell me how great they are.

Originally posted by spyder550

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.

It is the testimony it is an opinion -- it could be Elvis for all that is worth. It is still the Heritage foundation -- what would you expect them to say about anything. Look up their recent record then tell me how great they are.

Instead of attacking the source (weak) address the testimony please. Was he lying about the circumstances in which these waivers have been granted? Please source your comments for further scrutiny.

Thanks Much.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I'm curious though, if the SCOTUS rules that the health care bill is in fact constitutional...will you accept their ruling?

You have done well in making your points. However, I would like to point out one thing. You keep on saying this phrase I quoted in several-if not all of your post about this and similar topics.

I have to ask you then. A Federal judge has already determined the law to be Unconstituional. Obama's legal team keeps stalling in thier response to the court.

We all ready know Obama said Screw You to the Judge and order the contiuation/implimentation of ObamaCare.

How about you. Do you respect the current court decision or do you have to wait and only abide by the SCOTUS decision(s)?

And yet another TeaPartier misreads facts and makes a lot of it up:

www.americablog.com...

Its my understanding anyone can ask for a waiver. However, they must submit a plan that equals or exceeds what the government is trying to do.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I much as I hate being this far off topic I will answer this one. There are two kinds of enemies described in the Constitution, foreign and domestic. A militia can be organized by the People on their own accord to fight either of those two enemies. Such a militia is not under the command of Congress, it is not the militia described in Article 1, Section 8 because Congress did not provide the arms and necessary provisions of war.

Now does such a militia legally have the right to exist as described under the Second Amendment? Could it not form in say Wisconsin to protect themselves from rogue Canadian forces forcing all Wendy's franchise owners to add a Tim Horton's to their store?

Now read the four following things:

Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The People always retain the right to rebel, by force if necessary, in order to preserve their freedoms and rights. Arms could be taken up to preserve anything that is not held in the Preamble and to remove those that wish to change it. By accepting that the Federal Government can assume powers not delegated to it by the amendment process, you freely give up all other unenumerated rights that you are supposed to retain.


But to be on topic:

As for these waivers, since the full law is not fully in effect, what these places are getting a waiver for is the provisions that are in effect now, such as full insurance policies for children under 18 (or 23 if attending college).

I'm only through the first page, but so far I've not been able to discern a reason for the fuss.

Waivers? Why? I'm personally not the least bit concerned with waivers, or who gets them. I don't want one, and don't need one. Why would I desire a "waiver" against a "law" that is patently illegal to begin with? I'll just ignore it. No waiver required, nor would I ask for one which would be a tacit consent that the new "health care law" is somehow a valid law, which it is not.

Just say "NO"!

Originally posted by anon72

For instance, Boboquivari’s restaurant in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco got a waiver from Obamacare. Boboquivari’s advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons and $35 crab dinners.

Source: dailycaller.com... -district/


the mexicans working in the kitchen will be happy hear that this restaurant is getting exempted considering that at those prices, one friday night dinner service can pay all their premiums for a full healthcare package for a year.

if they didn't get waivers, the compassionate humanitarians that own the restaurant might be forced to call immigration, rather than fire them because they won't be able to pay the whole staff with the sale of one steak.

great job pelosi, keep on fighting for the poor and underpayed.

if you're looking for satan's inner circle you don't have to look farther than her.

Let's all take a deep breath and see what these waivers actually do.

The Affordable Care Act is designed to provide Americans with affordable, high-quality coverage options – while ensuring that those who like their current coverage can keep it. Unfortunately, today, limited benefit plans, or “mini-med” plans are often the only type of insurance offered to some workers. In 2014, the Affordable Care Act will end mini-med plans when Americans will have better access to affordable, comprehensive health insurance plans that cannot use high deductibles or annual limits to limit benefits

Mini-med plans have lower limits than allowed under the Affordable Care Act. While mini-med plans do not provide security in the event of serious illness or accident, they are unfortunately the only option that some employers offer. In order to protect coverage for these workers, the Affordable Care Act allows these plans to apply for temporary waivers from rules restricting the size of annual limits to some group health plans and health insurance issuers.

Waivers only last for one year and are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage. In addition, enrollees must be informed that their plan does not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

Waiver

So here is what we know. 1. A waiver is only good for one year. 2. These are mini-med plans in which you pay big bucks for small benefits. 3. Anyone can apply for a waiver. 4. Anyone can appeal the governments decision if they were turned down. 5. In 2014 MINI MED plans will be illegal. Why do you guys hate that? 6. That's why its mandatory to enroll. More people means more better options.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Yeah, since it was passed under cover of night, with no transparency (As promised, but not delivered), secret deals made to get people to go along, major State backed lawsuits on its constitutionality, the fact that no where in the Constitution it states HC is a right, the fact it goes against State's Rights, the fact that it forces Citizens to buy or pay a fine.

Yeah, just an opinion

shure shure!!!

Passed under cover of night??? It was debated and legislated for over a year...very out in the open. It was probably one of the most publicly discussed legislation. There were no "secret deals", there were compromises that were made, which is a part of any NEGOTIATION.

May I present to you, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi:



Thank you.

/TOA

I say, forget about the argument of who should get waivers... what about the argument of should we have government run healthcare in the first place? It's natural for governments to grow uncontrollably. If the people don't put limits on it to keep it in check, then it will takeover whatever it sees fit, or unfit that the government thinks it can fix. This is not the intended role of government.

I am sorry but I just have to laugh my butt off when you folks start
quoting from the ObamaCare law, like you understand it and it makes perfectly good sense.

In case you didn't hear, even the medical community came out this week and
said it ain't gonna happen the way it is written now.

They will have the final say in all of this. If they say Screw You Obama and don't go along, as a whole. Organized, they will will their way.

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I'm curious though, if the SCOTUS rules that the health care bill is in fact constitutional...will you accept their ruling?

You have done well in making your points. However, I would like to point out one thing. You keep on saying this phrase I quoted in several-if not all of your post about this and similar topics.

I have to ask you then. A Federal judge has already determined the law to be Unconstituional. Obama's legal team keeps stalling in thier response to the court.

We all ready know Obama said Screw You to the Judge and order the contiuation/implimentation of ObamaCare.

How about you. Do you respect the current court decision or do you have to wait and only abide by the SCOTUS decision(s)?

The reason I am defering to the SCOTUS ruling is because federal judges in the lower courts have both ruled against and in favor of the health care bill.

And since none of these rulings can really do anything about federal law, I will just wait until the SCOTUS ruling.

And Obama did not say "Screw You" to the judge, the judge agreed to issue a stay to his order if Obama appealed the ruling to the SCOTUS, which he did.

Being that lower courts have both ruled against and in favor of the constitutionality of the bill, I will wait to see what the SCOTUS says.

reply to post by Ahabstar

There are two kinds of enemies described in the Constitution, foreign and domestic.

And who's job is it to defend the country against enemies, foreign and domestic??? That would be the President's job. So if you take up arms against the country, it is the President's duty to protect the country from YOU.

but back on topic.

As for these waivers, since the full law is not fully in effect, what these places are getting a waiver for is the provisions that are in effect now, such as full insurance policies for children under 18 (or 23 if attending college).

Incorrect.

These waivers do one thing and one thing only. They allow companies to continue to offer mini-med plans that don't meet the no annual cap requirement. Nothing more, nothing less.

reply to post by The Old American


Yes, her quote was in response to all the lies being told by elected officials and right wing talk shows.

Death panels anyone???

She wasn't saying the bill need to be passed so SHE could find out what's in it...she was saying that once the bill is passed, everyone will see all the lies that were being spread were just that...LIES.


So that is where the distortion of that quote comes into play.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
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.

Is this the part of the bill "that had to be passed for us to know what was in it"?

I have read most of this thread and I have to wonder why no one knew that this big hole existed in the plan.

Another question? Who will be collecting the fee or sending us to jail if we DON'T have insurance? Isn't the government included in this part?

Thank you for your answers.

Mahree

Did you ever consider the possibility that these businesses most likely belong to some type of small business union in the area and may have applied at the same time? If you would like to try to take an objective look at things you might want to consider that Obamacare waivers have been granted all over the country, and around 55% of them have been granted to conservative states and areas. But don't let your blind hate of Pelosi and Obama stop you from bleating on about some type of grand Democratic conspiracy. Don't you people approve of Obamacare waivers anyway? I'm pretty sure that if 20 businesses from John Bohener's district applied for Obamacare waivers and they were granted, we wouldn't hear a peep on ATS about it. You people need to stop breathing "Foxoygen" and come back to the real world.

Here is a typical mini-med plan.

"The most affordable plan at McDonald's charges hourly workers about $14 a week, which comes to $727.48 annually. In return, they get $2,000 worth of coverage per year. If they step on a nail or come down with the flu, they might be covered, but the costs paid by the insurer may not even equal their premiums. If they are diagnosed with cancer, or even appendicitis, they are as vulnerable as someone with no insurance at all.

The "best" plan of the bunch costs $1,680 a year and caps benefits at $10,000. But for outpatient treatment (which often means the emergency room), benefits are capped at $2,000. A trip to the emergency room can zoom past that level in a matter of minutes."

Micky D's health insurance plan

This kind of nonsense is just straight up robbery. You guys should be mad people are asking for waivers for this kind of coverage. That's not even including dental. These people are throwing away 700 bucks a year for basically nothing. If they get sick, and it runs them a 100K, then they will have to file for bankruptcy by the time they hit 25 years old.

Why do you guys want this kind of health insurance in an EXCEPTIONAL COUNTRY like ours? This is 3rd world health insurance if you ask me. Why do you guys accept 3rd world health insurance to exist in this country? Some folks call this type of insurance un-American.

Originally posted by anon72

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district

Seriously, who is surprised by this? I can't stand the sight of Pelosi -- she makes my skin crawl.

Originally posted by Mahree
Another question? Who will be collecting the fee or sending us to jail if we DON'T have insurance? Isn't the government included in this part?

Nobody will be collecting a fee or going to jail under the current way it is written as there is no penalty for non-payment of fines. The fine is there to set precedent when they eventually do begin to jail citizens for not buying something they neither want nor need.

/TOA