The ONLY word for this is tragic

How Many Businesses Are Exempt? The Final Number of ?Obamacare? Waivers Is In? | TheBlaze.com

Since the passage of the “Affordable Care Act,” it has been some cause for concern — scandal even — that several businesses have been granted waivers excusing them from participation in the federal program.

And now we have a final number of how many businesses are exempt from “Obamacare.”

Roughly 1,200 companies received waivers from part of the healthcare reform law, the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) said Friday.

“Friday marks the last time HHS will have to update the total number of waivers, putting to rest a recurring political firestorm. The department had been updating its waiver totals every month, prompting monthly attacks from the GOP,” writes Sam Baker of The Hill.

Naturally, Republican opposition to the bill seized on these waivers as an opportunity to advance the argument that the healthcare law is “unworkable.”

So how does the HHS justify granting the waivers? The department argues that the waivers show the law provides “flexibility.”

But who gets to choose when the law is “flexible”?

“All told, 1,231 companies applied for and received waivers from the law’s restrictions on annual benefit caps,” Baker writes. “The law requires plans to gradually raise their benefit limits, and all annual limits will become illegal in 2014. Companies that received waivers can keep their caps intact until 2014.”

When added together, the healthcare waivers excuse about 4 million people, or about 3 percent of the population, from having to participate, HHS said.

However, what’s slightly unsettling is the fact that the majority of the waivers were handed out to labor unions.

“Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation,” writes Paul Conner of the Daily Caller. “By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.”

Because of the backlash over the waivers, HHS announced last summer that it would stop accepting applications for one-year waivers and would simply grant or deny waivers all the way through the end of 2013, according to The Hill.

The total of 1,231 includes all of the waiver requests HHS granted — companies that only applied for a three-year waiver, companies that got a one-year waiver and an extension, and companies that received a one-year waiver but did not ask for an extension.

A total of 96 waiver requests were denied by HHS. Why the healthcare law couldn’t be “flexible” for those 96 requests is anyone’s guess.

“The final total is actually lower than the last monthly update. Earlier in the process, HHS had been granting waivers to a type of plan that it later decided should be completely exempt from the restrictions on annual limits,” Baker writes. “HHS had granted waivers to almost 500 of those plans before exempting them altogether.”
 
“Friday marks the last time HHS will have to update the total number of waivers, putting to rest a recurring political firestorm. The department had been updating its waiver totals every month, prompting monthly attacks from the GOP,” writes Sam Baker of The Hill.

Riddle me this.......................................

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen?

If people or the GOP complain about Waivers simply no longer report it?

Reminds me.......................................

In a Nation of Lies, Truth is Treason.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miVoe7U6Lx4]Judge Dredd - I NEVER BROKE THE LAW... I AM THE LAW! - YouTube[/ame]
 
Especially the IRS.

What do you think the IRS is going to do with your medical information?

I'm just curious.

It's not the point. According to the law they need to know whether or not to tax you. You will be required to prove Medical Insurance to the IRS. The Medical Data base is another matter, but of course I'm sure the IRS may take a peek or two.

Now to the other point. The IRS Union has applied for a Waiver. They don't want ACA. Yet they are the ones who get to ENFORCE IT UPON THE PEOPLE.

What happened to UNIFORMITY WITH LAWS TO ALL THE PEOPLE? Oh, I'm sorry Unions are exempt.................................

And the Left calls this shit RIGHTEOUS. You've got to be Freakin Kidding me.
The IRS is asking for an Obamacare waiver??? Please provide some creditable link.

The National Treasury Employees Union which includes the IRS is protesting proposed legislation by Republican David Camp which would eliminate group health insurance for federal workers so they would be forced to get their insurance through the insurance exchanges. This legislation would abolish group health insurance for all federal employees, not just the IRS. Is this what you are calling an application for a waiver?

The exchanges are for people that are not eligible for group health insurance. This is the first time I've seen Republicans propose legislation to abolish group health insurance.
I wonder if this is part of the Republican healthcare plan

IRS Employees Union Is 'Very Concerned' About Being Required To Enroll In Obamacare's Health Insurance Exchanges - Forbes
 
Back on topic. I've made points in areas of Obamacare that have not been answered.

Obamacare is legal and the law of the land

What is your point?

My points were already mentioned and ignored. You are avoiding my other points and simply say THE LAW OF THE LAND..........................

Alrighty then...............THE LAW.......................

If you want a discussion BASED ON LAW, SO BE IT................

Riddle me this...........................................

If the ACA is the law of the land, which it is, should it be applied EQUALLY TO ALL AMERICANS INCLUDING THE UNIONS?

aka The Unions are applying for waivers because their member rates are going up to COMPLY WITH THE LAW. Since it hurts their members FINANCIALLY, as their rates go up to comply, should they get a Waiver that allows them to NOT COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT LAW.

If the Unions get a pass with a Waiver because of cost, then wouldn't you want others who's rates have increased as a result to get Waivers as well.

Secondly, if the Law is costing them more money, if we waiver them to bypass the Law .........................ARE WE NOW VIOLATING THE LAW.......................................

If they are granted Waivers, then you open PANDORA'S BOX that anyone who now pays a higher rate for insurance because of the law should get EQUAL PROTECTION under the act and be granted Waivers as well. How many groups or Corps or Unions would then feel that they should also be granted the waivers?

Finally, who decides who gets the waivers?

a. A committee appointed by the Gov't.
b. THE LAW.

What are the mandates for approval of waivers for Unions and Corps?
Are they standard in application and approval?
Can they only be approved in unusual circumstances?
Does the rule of Law apply first and foremost?

These are all things you don't like about the law and have nothing to do with its Constitutionality

You also need to look up the difference between a waiver and an exemption
 
Back on topic

Try as you might, Conservatives were unable to prove that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Even with a Conservative Supreme Court

Actually - back on topic would be how Obamacare is costing people jobs, hours on the job, and health insurance from their jobs. That was the topic of this thread. And that is why you have attempted to hijack the thread - because you know it's true and God forbid people know the truth about Obamacare, right?
 
What do you think the IRS is going to do with your medical information?

I'm just curious.

It's not the point. According to the law they need to know whether or not to tax you. You will be required to prove Medical Insurance to the IRS. The Medical Data base is another matter, but of course I'm sure the IRS may take a peek or two.

Now to the other point. The IRS Union has applied for a Waiver. They don't want ACA. Yet they are the ones who get to ENFORCE IT UPON THE PEOPLE.

What happened to UNIFORMITY WITH LAWS TO ALL THE PEOPLE? Oh, I'm sorry Unions are exempt.................................

And the Left calls this shit RIGHTEOUS. You've got to be Freakin Kidding me.
The IRS is asking for an Obamacare waiver??? Please provide some creditable link.


Wow.... I mean, wow.... not even aware that the IRS is begging for an exception to Obamacare. Is there any limit to the lack of knowledge displayed by the left?

Even IRS Chief Doesn?t Want to Switch to Obamacare: Remix Edition | Video | TheBlaze.com
 
Obamacare is legal and the law of the land

What is your point?

My points were already mentioned and ignored. You are avoiding my other points and simply say THE LAW OF THE LAND..........................

Alrighty then...............THE LAW.......................

If you want a discussion BASED ON LAW, SO BE IT................

Riddle me this...........................................

If the ACA is the law of the land, which it is, should it be applied EQUALLY TO ALL AMERICANS INCLUDING THE UNIONS?

aka The Unions are applying for waivers because their member rates are going up to COMPLY WITH THE LAW. Since it hurts their members FINANCIALLY, as their rates go up to comply, should they get a Waiver that allows them to NOT COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT LAW.

If the Unions get a pass with a Waiver because of cost, then wouldn't you want others who's rates have increased as a result to get Waivers as well.

Secondly, if the Law is costing them more money, if we waiver them to bypass the Law .........................ARE WE NOW VIOLATING THE LAW.......................................

If they are granted Waivers, then you open PANDORA'S BOX that anyone who now pays a higher rate for insurance because of the law should get EQUAL PROTECTION under the act and be granted Waivers as well. How many groups or Corps or Unions would then feel that they should also be granted the waivers?

Finally, who decides who gets the waivers?

a. A committee appointed by the Gov't.
b. THE LAW.

What are the mandates for approval of waivers for Unions and Corps?
Are they standard in application and approval?
Can they only be approved in unusual circumstances?
Does the rule of Law apply first and foremost?

These are all things you don't like about the law and have nothing to do with its Constitutionality

You also need to look up the difference between a waiver and an exemption

Can I get a waiver from Obamacare? Yes or No?

And a waiver is an exemption you uneducated, ignorant, welfare trailer park buffoon!!!!! :bang3:
 
I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably is) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

Hmm, so you have a degree in mind reading, palm reading, tea leaves, crystal ball gazing, and the jewish practice of spin the chicken. Are you any good on poker, lotto, winning, or are you limited to political readings?
 
I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably is) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

But here's the thing. When it's the end of the day, the pc is finally powered-down, and they are all alone in the dark with their thoughts, I refuse to believe that even the most radical among them believes this is actually good for America. To have some of the most well known corporations refuse to hire, cut back hours, or drop healthcare coverage for their employees all together is simply not good for America. Period. Obamacare has been one of the biggest embarrassing disasters in U.S. history. It was written half-assed, passed by Dumbocrats not one of which actually read it, implemented blindly.

You really haven't used your mind after the pc is cut off to see the bright lining coming with Obama care.

As corporations gear down to 32 hour weeks, workers will start demanding higher wages for working less hours, like occurs across the pond. Soon workers will either get two full time jobs or live within their means and start enjoying more time at home with their families. Millions of part time jobs will open up making it a workers market for a change, so more pay will be demanded because corporations can't have profits falling to their share holders, can they? Of course not. Consumer prices will plumet, if they want to sell to the working class, that is basic capitalism 101.

Less hours means less corporate insurance to be paid per empoyee. It also means they will be hiring more people, needing uniforms, needing transportation, away from home meals, etc. It will generate & stimulate the economy recovery. It means they will need more managers for 1-3 extra shifts, so more people hired. Its a win win.:lol:

Oh, when it is dark tonight, think about that.
 
Progressives dont understand that less working hours means less money.... They are to fucking lazy.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means workers will demand higher wages or walk. You are so fking stupid. It means consumer pricing is going to drop to sell to workers who make less. It also means more tax revenue with more demand for workers in a workers market. Cons are fking lazy bastards that spend to much time worrying in Foxviews paranoia. LMAO!!!:lol::lol: They don't understand the worker. hahahaha
 
My points were already mentioned and ignored. You are avoiding my other points and simply say THE LAW OF THE LAND..........................

Alrighty then...............THE LAW.......................

If you want a discussion BASED ON LAW, SO BE IT................

Riddle me this...........................................

If the ACA is the law of the land, which it is, should it be applied EQUALLY TO ALL AMERICANS INCLUDING THE UNIONS?

aka The Unions are applying for waivers because their member rates are going up to COMPLY WITH THE LAW. Since it hurts their members FINANCIALLY, as their rates go up to comply, should they get a Waiver that allows them to NOT COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT LAW.

If the Unions get a pass with a Waiver because of cost, then wouldn't you want others who's rates have increased as a result to get Waivers as well.

Secondly, if the Law is costing them more money, if we waiver them to bypass the Law .........................ARE WE NOW VIOLATING THE LAW.......................................

If they are granted Waivers, then you open PANDORA'S BOX that anyone who now pays a higher rate for insurance because of the law should get EQUAL PROTECTION under the act and be granted Waivers as well. How many groups or Corps or Unions would then feel that they should also be granted the waivers?

Finally, who decides who gets the waivers?

a. A committee appointed by the Gov't.
b. THE LAW.

What are the mandates for approval of waivers for Unions and Corps?
Are they standard in application and approval?
Can they only be approved in unusual circumstances?
Does the rule of Law apply first and foremost?

These are all things you don't like about the law and have nothing to do with its Constitutionality

You also need to look up the difference between a waiver and an exemption

Can I get a waiver from Obamacare? Yes or No?

And a waiver is an exemption you uneducated, ignorant, welfare trailer park buffoon!!!!! :bang3:

Sure you can
If you have health insurance
 
The Federalist #58

These considerations seem to afford ample security on this subject, and ought alone to satisfy all the doubts and fears which have been indulged with regard to it. Admitting, however, that they should all be insufficient to subdue the unjust policy of the smaller States, or their predominant influence in the councils of the Senate, a constitutional and infallible resource still remains with the larger States, by which they will be able at all times to accomplish their just purposes. The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse -- that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.
 
I simply skipped over the Mutants posts as they are inane. A complete misunderstanding of the process either via IGNORANCE or MALICIOUS pandering to their cause. aka They don't have a Fing Clue.

Current Battle. Budget Battle and Debt Limit.

Riddle me this.........................................

Who holds the purse?

The founders did it for a reason. In this way the PEOPLE have an effective weapon to redress grievances. It has been used and should be used. Either to Defund Obamacare or FORCE MASSIVE SPENDING CUTS FROM THE DEMS.

Last time they allowed the LIAR and Chief to Dupe them. He made promises that he had no intentions of ever Honoring. This time the House needs to get DEFINITE CONCESSIONS WRITTEN AND SIGNED before releasing the purse.

aka Shut it down and FORCE COMPROMISE. A weapon that the Founders purposely put into the Constitution to stop an ABUSIVE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
 
It's not the "same" - that's the point. :cuckoo:

One (paying $1,200 per month for health insurance) is the action of a mature, responsible adult. The other (taking that health insurance money and pissing it away on cell phones and dining out) is the action of an immature, irresponsible asshole....

One is a $1200 per month ins bill. The other is a $60 per month phone bill. There is no comparison. Are you suggesting that people should do without everything else just to pay an exorbitant health ins premium to private companies? Should people sell their cars stop buying new clothes as well? That's just stupid.

Stop using the phone, eating, and clothing your children, you free-loaders. You should be using that money to pay for health insurance. Those poor CEOs aren't going to be able to buy that second yacht otherwise.

Yes!!!!! :bang3:

It's amazing - you're actually "baffled" that people should pay for NEEDS before they pay for unnecessary WANTS?!? :bang3:

So, people should forego food and clothing for health insurance. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your idiocy :thup:
 
If Congress passes a bill that is outside the Constitution, a Presidential veto or a Supreme Court override is the next Constitutional step

And what happens when an anti-constitutional marxist president (such as Obama) refuses to veto it and a Supreme Court stacked with anti-constitutional left-wing radicals like Sotomayor & Kagan - appointed by that same anti-constitutional president - who have never read the Constitution (like yourself) refuse to uphold the Constitution? You just automatically lose all of your rights? Really? You're so thoroughly ignorant that you think that's how it works? :eusa_whistle:

The same SC that just struck down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and gave a slight victory to opponents of affirmative action? Yeah, that SC sure is a bunch of commie liberals. :rolleyes:

Holy shit, you're fucking riot
 
If Congress passes a bill that is outside the Constitution, a Presidential veto or a Supreme Court override is the next Constitutional step

And what happens when an anti-constitutional marxist president (such as Obama) refuses to veto it and a Supreme Court stacked with anti-constitutional left-wing radicals like Sotomayor & Kagan - appointed by that same anti-constitutional president - who have never read the Constitution (like yourself) refuse to uphold the Constitution? You just automatically lose all of your rights? Really? You're so thoroughly ignorant that you think that's how it works? :eusa_whistle:

The same SC that just struck down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and gave a slight victory to opponents of affirmative action? Yeah, that SC sure is a bunch of commie liberals. :rolleyes:

Holy shit, you're fucking riot
TRY Section 4, numbnuts...
 
I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably is) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

Hmm, so you have a degree in mind reading, palm reading, tea leaves, crystal ball gazing, and the jewish practice of spin the chicken. Are you any good on poker, lotto, winning, or are you limited to political readings?

Sadly, because you libtards regurgitate the same tired rhetoric over and over, I'm not really "predicting" so much as I am simply explaining based on history.
 

Forum List

Back
Top