PDA

View Full Version : Majority of ObamaCare Waivers go to Unions



mikesilvia
01-29-2012, 11:28 AM
This is one of the biggest reasons I consider the Obama Presidency a sham. Unions are 12% of the U.S. workforce, yet they get nearly 90% of the waivers? To me things like this borders on impeachment. You are going to fine and throw Americans in jail if they don't have healthcare while giving your biggest financial supporters waivers?

"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 since June 17, 2011," noted the Daily Caller. "By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers."

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/06/labor-unions-primary-recipients-of-obamacare-waivers/

INTIMADATOR2007
01-29-2012, 11:50 AM
The Democrats would say "There's nothing to see here,so move along" .

OnePimpTiger
01-29-2012, 01:16 PM
If nothing else about the law proves it is a sham, of which there is a lot, this is it.

For those who back the health care reform...if it is so great, why are the people who support it requesting waivers from it? And if the President thinks it will fix the health care industry, why are waivers from it needed at all?

Star_Cards
01-30-2012, 10:53 AM
does anyone know if these waivers are higher towards unions because unions have requested them more? It would be interesting to see the if the rejections between union requests and other requests are the same percentage wise. I'm just asking because maybe unions have just asked for more waivers since they may have more knowledge about the laws than individuals do given they probably have more legal representation at their disposal.

habsheaven
01-30-2012, 11:16 AM
does anyone know if these waivers are higher towards unions because unions have requested them more? It would be interesting to see the if the rejections between union requests and other requests are the same percentage wise. I'm just asking because maybe unions have just asked for more waivers since they may have more knowledge about the laws than individuals do given they probably have more legal representation at their disposal.

I think you are on to something. This is more than likely the explanation.

pghin08
01-30-2012, 11:24 AM
does anyone know if these waivers are higher towards unions because unions have requested them more? It would be interesting to see the if the rejections between union requests and other requests are the same percentage wise. I'm just asking because maybe unions have just asked for more waivers since they may have more knowledge about the laws than individuals do given they probably have more legal representation at their disposal.

+1. My dad is a union member and gets notices on law changes immediately after they occur.

ensbergcollector
01-30-2012, 11:27 AM
i'm sure there is a perfectly good explanation so that there is no favoritism going on. that doesn't sound like our president at all

pghin08
01-30-2012, 11:29 AM
i'm sure there is a perfectly good explanation so that there is no favoritism going on. that doesn't sound like our president at all

He pushed the health care plan at the wrong time. His focus from the getgo should have been on jobs and figuring out how to dig out of our recession. Obamacare could have waited.

habsheaven
01-30-2012, 11:49 AM
He pushed the health care plan at the wrong time. His focus from the getgo should have been on jobs and figuring out how to dig out of our recession. Obamacare could have waited.

Was there ever going to be a RIGHT time?

AUTaxMan
01-30-2012, 12:20 PM
He pushed the health care plan at the wrong time. His focus from the getgo should have been on jobs and figuring out how to dig out of our recession. Obamacare could have waited.

Isn't it obvious by now that he doesn't really care about getting the economy in order? He did not mention our exponentially-growing national debt ONE time during his state of the union. Probably because he has increased it from $10 trillion to $16 trillion in 3 years. He also hasn't presented Congress with a budget in over three years.

Oh, and wait till Obamacare kicks in next year. Things are going to get worse. Also obvious is that he schedule it to kick in AFTER the 2012 election so it horrible effects couldn't be blamed on him during the election year.

AUTaxMan
01-30-2012, 12:23 PM
Was there ever going to be a RIGHT time?

Yes. After we get our financial situation in order.

pghin08
01-30-2012, 12:25 PM
Yes. After we get our financial situation in order.

Which will happen on the 7th of never. Seeing as that getting our financial situation in order involves tough decisions and sacrifice, two things our politicians (and to a certain level, our citizenry) just aren't interested in.

AUTaxMan
01-30-2012, 12:26 PM
Which will happen on the 7th of never. Seeing as that getting our financial situation in order involves tough decisions and sacrifice, two things our politicians (and to a certain level, our citizenry) just aren't interested in.

If that's the case, then we don't need to do it, because it will only make things much worse.

habsheaven
01-30-2012, 12:36 PM
If that's the case, then we don't need to do it, because it will only make things much worse.

How so? Things are not worse here. Health care reform has nothing to do with it. That's just more anti-Obama rhetoric.

AUTaxMan
01-30-2012, 12:42 PM
How so? Things are not worse here. Health care reform has nothing to do with it. That's just more anti-Obama rhetoric.

No. Canada is in much better financial shape than the USA. You have better means to afford it. We do not.

Star_Cards
01-30-2012, 12:49 PM
Which will happen on the 7th of never. Seeing as that getting our financial situation in order involves tough decisions and sacrifice, two things our politicians (and to a certain level, our citizenry) just aren't interested in.

tough decisions indeed and not just from one party or the other. as long as the citizens are distracted by bickering between the two parties they can sit back and keep doing what they are doing.

tsjct
01-30-2012, 10:30 PM
No. Canada is in much better financial shape than the USA. You have better means to afford it. We do not.

And the way they got their Financial situation better was STOP THE SPENDING. They stopped the out of control Handouts and the economy turned. Why we can not take a action like canada did is beyond me.

habsheaven
01-31-2012, 07:00 AM
And the way they got their Financial situation better was STOP THE SPENDING. They stopped the out of control Handouts and the economy turned. Why we can not take a action like canada did is beyond me.

Can you get your cousin to explain what "out of control" handouts we stopped? The reason we are in a fairly better position than many other countries is because of our REGULATIONS, the ones most Conservatives in the US are dead set against.

tsjct
01-31-2012, 09:11 AM
Can you get your cousin to explain what "out of control" handouts we stopped? The reason we are in a fairly better position than many other countries is because of our REGULATIONS, the ones most Conservatives in the US are dead set against.

how about unemployment benefits for one

habsheaven
01-31-2012, 09:25 AM
how about unemployment benefits for one

Huh? We have not stopped giving out employment insurance benefits. Try again.

tsjct
01-31-2012, 09:33 AM
Huh? We have not stopped giving out employment insurance benefits. Try again.

The benefits did drop off yes. And a CONSERVATIVE Tax cutting Leader led to the rebound. A conservative TAX CUTTER helped a country grow? WOW can you believe that. :party0053:

habsheaven
01-31-2012, 11:26 AM
The benefits did drop off yes. And a CONSERVATIVE Tax cutting Leader led to the rebound. A conservative TAX CUTTER helped a country grow? WOW can you believe that. :party0053:

I have no idea where you are getting your info from on this. Care to post a link showing when we stopped giving out EI benefits?

AUTaxMan
01-31-2012, 11:28 AM
Can you get your cousin to explain what "out of control" handouts we stopped? The reason we are in a fairly better position than many other countries is because of our REGULATIONS, the ones most Conservatives in the US are dead set against.

I believe Canada took austerity measures to get out of its early-mid 90s recession, something like 10% across the board cuts, no?

pr0phet
01-31-2012, 11:35 AM
These are the joys of the Internet. We can take any perfectly logical explanation and mutate it into something that is flat out wrong.

I normally don't comment on these things (and I probably won't come back here) due to my lack of firm political knowledge. What I do know is that any website who can post bias articles (for either party) and not even cite something to a credible source like the AP will not get my support.

mrveggieman
01-31-2012, 11:41 AM
These are the joys of the Internet. We can take any perfectly logical explanation and mutate it into something that is flat out wrong.

I normally don't comment on these things (and I probably won't come back here) due to my lack of firm political knowledge. What I do know is that any website who can post bias articles (for either party) and not even cite something to a credible source like the AP will not get my support.

Post of the day. :smokin:

habsheaven
01-31-2012, 12:09 PM
I believe Canada took austerity measures to get out of its early-mid 90s recession, something like 10% across the board cuts, no?

Yes we did. Imagine, that was an action taken by the Liberal govt. at the time.

AUTaxMan
01-31-2012, 12:45 PM
Yes we did. Imagine, that was an action taken by the Liberal govt. at the time.

Kind of mind-boggling. It's hard to even conceptualize liberals cutting anything but military spending today. Bottom line, though, is that largely because of those measures, Canada is in much better financial shape today than is the U.S., which has never done anything of the sort (though it needs to do so drastically).

tsjct
01-31-2012, 02:25 PM
I have no idea where you are getting your info from on this. Care to post a link showing when we stopped giving out EI benefits?

http://www.psac-afpc.com/issues/campaigns/3c/servicecanada-e.shtml

Here you go.

pghin08
01-31-2012, 03:07 PM
These are the joys of the Internet. We can take any perfectly logical explanation and mutate it into something that is flat out wrong.

These are my favorite two sentences ever.

tsjct
01-31-2012, 03:09 PM
These are the joys of the Internet. We can take any perfectly logical explanation and mutate it into something that is flat out wrong.

I normally don't comment on these things (and I probably won't come back here) due to my lack of firm political knowledge. What I do know is that any website who can post bias articles (for either party) and not even cite something to a credible source like the AP will not get my support.

http://www.psac-afpc.com/issues/campaigns/3c/servicecanada-e.shtml

habsheaven
01-31-2012, 03:40 PM
http://www.psac-afpc.com/issues/campaigns/3c/servicecanada-e.shtml

Here you go.

Here I go???

You do know the difference between employment insurance benefits and employment insurance centres, right? smh

tsjct
01-31-2012, 04:49 PM
Here I go???

You do know the difference between employment insurance benefits and employment insurance centres, right? smh

I am done! Canada Cut Spending to get out of debt. You can spin it any left way you want but the truth is SPENDING CUTS are MUCH better than SPENDING out of control like we are doing now. :smash:

habsheaven
01-31-2012, 06:18 PM
I am done! Canada Cut Spending to get out of debt. You can spin it any left way you want but the truth is SPENDING CUTS are MUCH better than SPENDING out of control like we are doing now. :smash:

Glad you are done, because you were just confusing me. lol