Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
on 2. Some did some didn't, and ther provission in the law applies to those that didn't just as it does those that did. Of course Walker announced his intention to do just that BEFORE he ever got an endorsement, but why let facts screw up a good spin.The above is the new talking point meme going around.
I think Walker explained all that, the OTHER Unions were working with him, the teachers unions WON'T.
1. Actually Fox News has reported repeatedly that the Teacher Union had agreed to the pension and insurance provisions the issue is the attempt to bust the general collective bargaining provisions.
2. It's also been reported on Fox that the reason the police and firefighter unions aren't on the chopping block is because they endorsed Walker in the election.
>>>>
And in the HC law the Unions that support Obama are exempted by Obama.... of course the major difference is that Walker told everyone in advance of endorsements or elections that his plan was to not include police and fire in the new law, and Obama lied and said it would apply to everyone equally.... but hey, who needs honesty or integrity from a President?This is nothing but a political attack. The unions that support Walker are protected by Walker. Now let's hear again about how this is for the budget of WI
what would be your point?
reaches 733. The Wall Street Journal reports:
Government figures show that 733 applicants, mainly employers and union-affiliated insurers, received an exemption from a requirement that puts their plans on the hook for up to $750,000 in eligible medical bills for each covered worker this year. Most of those plans now have reimbursement limits that are a fraction of that amount.
And who gives a shit how Clinton spun it? The congress did its job and passed a budget, had Clinton signed it the government would not have shut down, he chose to veto and that was the cause of the shut down. That he got away with avoiding responsibility by lying about the congress "failing to do their job" is irrelevant to the actual facts.Yes, I remember very well when Clinton vetoed the budget shutting down the government.Hey. Does anyone remember when the Republican revolution shut down the government to get it's way?
Fun times.
Text of Clinton government shutdown address<November 1995
And who gives a shit how Clinton spun it? The congress did its job and passed a budget, had Clinton signed it the government would not have shut down, he chose to veto and that was the cause of the shut down. That he got away with avoiding responsibility by lying about the congress "failing to do their job" is irrelevant to the actual facts.Yes, I remember very well when Clinton vetoed the budget shutting down the government.
Text of Clinton government shutdown address<November 1995
on 2. Some did some didn't, and ther provission in the law applies to those that didn't just as it does those that did. Of course Walker announced his intention to do just that BEFORE he ever got an endorsement, but why let facts screw up a good spin.
The negative liberties garbage is quite telling, after all, what is the "negative" of "liberty" but 'authority. When you call the constitution a charter of "negative liberties" you are calling it a charter of undefined authorities limitted only by what it says the government cannot do. Which is of course is a lie, its authorities are defined and enumerated and the governments authorities are limitted to only those things it is empowered to do. Where no authority is granted, it simply has none.These idiots actually buy the dumbass "charter of negative liberties" garbage, as if the government has ANY liberties in the first place.
I love it when people point to what isn't in the Constitution as their argument.
And 'negative Liberty' is only handed down by corrupt men and Government.
The negative liberties garbage is quite telling, after all, what is the "negative" of "liberty" but 'authority. When you call the constitution a charter of "negative liberties" you are calling it a charter of undefined authorities limitted only by what it says the government cannot do. Which is of course is a lie, its authorities are defined and enumerated and the governments authorities are limitted to only those things it is empowered to do. Where no authority is granted, it simply has none.These idiots actually buy the dumbass "charter of negative liberties" garbage, as if the government has ANY liberties in the first place.
And 'negative Liberty' is only handed down by corrupt men and Government.
You of course are free to call it "going after unions" all you want, your spin is irrelevant to the facts. And the fact is he campaigned ran on and was 100% up front about what his plan was and not all (or even a majority) of police and fire unions backed him. Most backed his opponent.on 2. Some did some didn't, and ther provission in the law applies to those that didn't just as it does those that did. Of course Walker announced his intention to do just that BEFORE he ever got an endorsement, but why let facts screw up a good spin.
So you are saying that he announced an intention to go after unions, with the exception of police and firefighters, BEFORE he got some police and firefighter endorsements.
In other words he got those endorsements AFTER he told those unions they would be exempt.
OK, that makes sense (well if you are a police or firefighter union).
>>>>
IO believe its over 900 now or so it was reported on the news this weekend.And in the HC law the Unions that support Obama are exempted by Obama.... of course the major difference is that Walker told everyone in advance of endorsements or elections that his plan was to not include police and fire in the new law, and Obama lied and said it would apply to everyone equally.... but hey, who needs honesty or integrity from a President?This is nothing but a political attack. The unions that support Walker are protected by Walker. Now let's hear again about how this is for the budget of WI
what would be your point?
What's the official 'waiver count' now?
reaches 733. The Wall Street Journal reports:
Government figures show that 733 applicants, mainly employers and union-affiliated insurers, received an exemption from a requirement that puts their plans on the hook for up to $750,000 in eligible medical bills for each covered worker this year. Most of those plans now have reimbursement limits that are a fraction of that amount.
Source
Thank you for the clarification, I wasn't sure whether you posted that in support of or opposed to the facts.And who gives a shit how Clinton spun it? The congress did its job and passed a budget, had Clinton signed it the government would not have shut down, he chose to veto and that was the cause of the shut down. That he got away with avoiding responsibility by lying about the congress "failing to do their job" is irrelevant to the actual facts.
Just bolstering your post with historical fact...and yes...Clinton spun it...same will happen here this time. History repeats.
Thank you for the clarification, I wasn't sure whether you posted that in support of or opposed to the facts.And who gives a shit how Clinton spun it? The congress did its job and passed a budget, had Clinton signed it the government would not have shut down, he chose to veto and that was the cause of the shut down. That he got away with avoiding responsibility by lying about the congress "failing to do their job" is irrelevant to the actual facts.
Just bolstering your post with historical fact...and yes...Clinton spun it...same will happen here this time. History repeats.
IO believe its over 900 now or so it was reported on the news this weekend.And in the HC law the Unions that support Obama are exempted by Obama.... of course the major difference is that Walker told everyone in advance of endorsements or elections that his plan was to not include police and fire in the new law, and Obama lied and said it would apply to everyone equally.... but hey, who needs honesty or integrity from a President?
what would be your point?
What's the official 'waiver count' now?
reaches 733. The Wall Street Journal reports:
Government figures show that 733 applicants, mainly employers and union-affiliated insurers, received an exemption from a requirement that puts their plans on the hook for up to $750,000 in eligible medical bills for each covered worker this year. Most of those plans now have reimbursement limits that are a fraction of that amount.
Source
You of course are free to call it "going after unions" all you want, your spin is irrelevant to the facts. And the fact is he campaigned ran on and was 100% up front about what his plan was and not all (or even a majority) of police and fire unions backed him. Most backed his opponent.on 2. Some did some didn't, and ther provission in the law applies to those that didn't just as it does those that did. Of course Walker announced his intention to do just that BEFORE he ever got an endorsement, but why let facts screw up a good spin.
So you are saying that he announced an intention to go after unions, with the exception of police and firefighters, BEFORE he got some police and firefighter endorsements.
In other words he got those endorsements AFTER he told those unions they would be exempt.
OK, that makes sense (well if you are a police or firefighter union).
>>>>
IO believe its over 900 now or so it was reported on the news this weekend.
So again? If OCARE is such a wonderful panecea? WHY the need for waivers? No one has a cogent answer that I can glean to date.
IO believe its over 900 now or so it was reported on the news this weekend.
So again? If OCARE is such a wonderful panecea? WHY the need for waivers? No one has a cogent answer that I can glean to date.
It might be because of existing contracts and transition time to change it over, giving employees notice, changing accounting, etc. No big mystery, just logical.
Here's the source HHS page - I have it bookmarked. They've changed the numbering scheme; they're grouping "state mandated waivers" and counting them as one waiver per state.
Helping Americans Keep the Coverage They Have and Promoting Transparency | HHS.gov
Does anyone have a problem with the democrats running out of the state so they won't have to vote? I sure have a problem with this.
