Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: House begins probe into 222 waivers for ObamaCare
Source:
Hot Air
URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/ ... nto-222-waivers-for-obamacare/
Published: Jan 24, 2011
Author: Hot Air
Post Date: 2011-01-24 12:40:40 by Happy Quanzaa
Keywords: ObamaCare, corruption
Views: 39055
Comments: 41
Fred Upton proves himself to be a multitasker this week. Earlier today, I wrote about his plan to fight the EPA on the expansion of climate-change regulation, and now Upton has his eyes trained on Health and Human Services. Upton and one of the chairs of his Energy and Commerce subcommittees have launched a probe into the 222 waivers granted by the Obama administration from ObamaCare insurance coverage mandates: On Thursday, Upton and Stearns sent CCIIO director Jay Angoff a letter with questions about the office’s structure, authority and recent decision to grant waivers throughout several industries, exempting companies from complying with the bill’s requirements. “Most troubling is that your office is currently responsible for deciding who does not have to comply with the massive new regulations imposed by the PPACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act],” said the letter. “Currently your office has approved waivers from the PPACA’s annual limits requirements for 222 applicants.” According to the letter, Angloff told Rep. Michael Burgess that the administration had also denied some waiver requests, but apparently didn’t elaborate on who got denied and why. Upton and Stearns want an explanation of the processes and requirements for waivers from the PPACA. They are also likely looking at denied and approved waivers to determine whether there is a fair and objective process, or if political considerations went into granting the explosion of waivers. This points out one of the “most troubling” flaws in ObamaCare, which is its absurd level of ambiguity. The law is filled with the phrase “The Secretary shall determine” where regulation is mandated by Congress. This goes beyond the sheer complexity of what Congress attempted to do and speaks directly to the manner in which it got done. The law is so ambiguous that not even the White House knows how it will get implemented, let alone the providers, insurers, and consumers of medical care. Employers have no real idea what costs will now go into hiring, which is one reason (among many) that businesses have grown reluctant to add staff. Even apart from the practical ambiguity in ObamaCare, the new system damages the principal of the rule of law. Instead of creating the regulations explicitly so that Americans could understand the costs of compliance, Congress punted most of the regulatory duties to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch. The waivers that immediately resulted show that rather than following a rule of law, Americans must now follow a rule of bureaucratic whim. That’s one of the “most troubling” aspects of ObamaCare — and a demonstration that the 111th Session of Congress utterly abdicated its duty in favor of political expediency. If regulating one-sixth of the national economy was too complicated for Congress to do with specific laws that eliminated ambiguity, then Congress shouldn’t have taken on the task in the first place.
One day after the House voted to repeal Obamacare, some lawmakers are turning their attention toward the bureaucracy created by the bill. Reps. Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Cliff Stearns, chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, are investigating the new Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO).
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Happy Quanzaa, Ferret Mike, lucysmom, go65 (#0)
Investigate all 222 wavers in a nation of millions? Way to spend tax payer money on useless probes, Republicans...... How is that for small govt?!
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Just think how simple the bill could have been if it said "Medicare for all".
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
yep.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
How would we pay for it?
Investigate all 222 wavers in a nation of millions? Way to spend tax payer money on useless probes, Republicans...... How is that for small govt?! 222 wavers in a nation of millions. it's not waivers for individuals numbnuts, it's waivers for the union assclowns like yourself and the other deadbeats who frequent this board.
“Currently your office has approved waivers from the PPACA’s annual limits requirements for 222 applicants.” 222 applicants out of a nation of millions. Republican sure don't do this here reading thing well. Thanks for wasting taxpayer money on useless endeavors.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Same way we pay for the military?
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
The same way we pay for Medicare - a combination of premiums plus additional taxes. Those would be offset by the potential reduction versus cost of private premiums. And it would remove a huge burden from businesses by ending employer-funded healthcare, thus improving our competitive ability versus foreign markets.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Americans already pay for national health insurance -- they just don't get it. www.pnhp.org/resources/60...-enough-to-cover-everyone Read the PDF at the link for more ideas on names to call what you imagine to be the left.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
It would also encourage small business creation, and the ability of small businesses to attract the skilled employees they need to grow their businesses.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Exactly, think about how many people would start their own business save not for the risk of losing health insurance. Conservatives ought to love single-payer.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Or maybe they really love big business and wish to stifle competition.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Americans don't want a single payer system. Read the PDF at the link for more ideas on names to call what you imagine to be the left. For more names to call? Have I called you a name?
I don't know if that's true. They don't want what they've been told about it, that's for sure. For more names to call? Have I called you a name? If you haven't, I apologize.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Any questions?
ME: Thanks for admitting that you ARE trying to spin this (AZ shooting, and terrorism) onto Palin, and conservatives in general. "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
What in the world could possibly make you think that government can manage your healthcare better or at less cost than you can? We are talking about the same .gov that spends $600.00 for a toilet seat aren't we? And it would remove a huge burden from businesses by ending employer-funded healthcare, thus improving our competitive ability versus foreign markets. And transfer that huge burden to citizens via higher taxes.
You are actually arguing against capitalism?
that purple shirt must be affecting your ability to read, union stooge. I glad to see that you now realize it's "waiver" not "waver" like you posted before. Just who are the nation of millions you posted? Is it a millions of people or is it millions of organizations? Do you understand the difference? the 222 is organizations, here just a few examples. The Service Employees Benefit Fund, which insures a total of 12,000 SEIU health care workers in upstate New York, secured its Obamacare exemption in October. The Local 25 SEIU Welfare Fund in Chicago also nabbed a waiver for 31,000 of its enrollees. SEIU, of course, was one of Obamacare’s loudest and biggest spending proponents. The waivers come on top of the massive sweetheart deal that SEIU and other unions cut with the Obama administration to exempt them from the health care mandate’s onerous “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health care plans until 2018. Other unions who won protection from Obamacare: – United Food and Commercial Workers Allied Trade Health and Welfare Trust Fund – International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union No. 915 – Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund – Employees Security Fund – Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund – United Food and Commercial Workers Local 227 – United Food and Commercial Workers Local 455 (Maximus) – United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1262 – Musicians Health Fund Local 802 – Hospitality Benefit Fund Local 17 – Transport Workers Union – United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund – International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (AFL-CIO) – Plus two organizations that appear to be chapters of the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA)
Nope. Just posting the counterpoint to that graphic.
I'm relatively new here, so please bear with me. Are you arguing for socialism?
What is wrong with Ferret Mike advocating for Socialism? Most conservatives love the socialist origin "Pledge of Allegiance" and go crazy when people want to opt of reciting it in schools. I am an advocate for the social market economy which is what defeated communism over the American version of capitalism. Polish people fighting for freedom wanted to be more like West Germany not West Virginia.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Compare the cost of medicare administration with that spent on private insurance. And ask your health care provider how many full-time staff he or she has to manage the myriad of different insurance claims.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
False logic. A better question would be, compare the cost of current administration- including all the governmental regulations, bullshit regulations and hoop- jumping- with how truly sickening it'll be under oBUMa-care... And then tell me how government intrusion into things they don't know diddly-SHIT about has "improved" anything...? Now THAT would be a good question. But you'll never go down that path, because you're a dyed-in-the-wool SOCIALIST.
ME: Thanks for admitting that you ARE trying to spin this (AZ shooting, and terrorism) onto Palin, and conservatives in general. "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
Gots ta watch them socialists, yep. Why, I asked some o thems Raccons da utter nite iffa theys was socialists and ya know what? They jus' runned the hell off. Damn. Guess that proved what them critters was. Yep, they could only be socialists ifa they done that.
Out of a nation of millions....
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
What's up with you kooks wanting medicine without govt oversight? You want snake oil sold as medicine? You want more cases like the thalidomide babies? The thalidomide tragedy led to much stricter testing being required for drugs and pesticides before they can be licensed. Also the cost difference between private and public health is the profit motive. You eliminate the need to make a profit from denying you health insurance and that money can be used to treat more people. I don't get why you for profit health insurance loving right wingers defend a model of health where the model is to deny you health care as much as possible so the stock holders can make money off of you. The profit motive is the real death panel......... In a rational world incentives for health insurance companies should be based on how healthy client is or how successful the treatment but you can't monetize that.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Conservative don't understand cause-effect, they think all regulation is some sort of master government plan to enslave us all. They don't realize that things like financial oversight came as a result of massive financial fraud, and that social security and medicare came about as a result of elderly poverty rates exceeding 25%. It's all a conspiracy you know.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
There is that under lay of conspiracy in these kooky views. Remember when the Republican party was all about conserving nature and passing food and drug regulations? Those were the days........... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act The Pure Food and Drug Act of June 30, 1906 is a United States federal law that provided federal inspection of meat products and forbade the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated food products and poisonous patent medicines. he Act arose due to public education and exposés from Muckrakers such as Upton Sinclair and Samuel Hopkins Adams, social activist Florence Kelley, researcher Harvey W. Wiley, and President Theodore Roosevelt.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
The applicants are companies and unions, goofball, not individuals. Here are the first half: 1. Protocol Marketing Group 2. Sasnak 3. Star Tek 4. Adventist Care Centers 5. B.E.S.T of NY 6. Boskovich Farms, Inc 7. Gallegos Corp 8. Jeffords Steel and Engineering 9. O.K. Industries 10. Service Employees Benefit Fund 11. Sun Pacific Farming Coop 12. UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust 13. HCR Manor Care 14. IBEW No.915 15. Integra BMS for Culp, Inc. 16. New England Health Care 17. Aegis Insurance 18. Alliance One Tobacco 19. Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund 20. Assurant Health (2nd Application) 21. Captain Elliot's Party Boats 22. Carlson Restaurants 23. CH Guenther & Son 24. CKM Industries dba Miller Environmental 25. CWVEBA 26. Darden Restaurants 27. Duarte Nursery 28. Employees Security Fund 29. Florida Trowel Trades 30. Ingles Markets 31. Meijer 32. O'Reilly Auto Parts 33. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund 34. Sun Belt 35. UFCW Local 227 36. Uncle Julio's 38. US Imaging 39. Vino Farms 40. Advanta 41. Agricare 42. Alaska Seafood 43. American Fidelity 44. Convergys 45. Darensberries 46. Gowan Company 47. Greystar 48. Macayo Restaurants 49. Periodical Services 50. UniFirst 51. Universal Forest Products 52. UFCW Maximus Local 455 53. AHS 54. GuideStone Financial Resources 55. Local 25 SEIU 56. MAUSER Corp. 57. Preferred Care, Inc. 58. Ruby Tuesday 59. The Dixie Group, Inc. 60. UFCW Local 1262 61. Whelan Security Company 62. AMF Bowling Worldwide 63. Assisted Living Concepts 64. Case & Associates 65. GPM Investments 66. Grace Living Centers 67. Mountaire 68. Swift Spinning 69. Belmont Village 70. Caliber Services 71. Cracker Barrel 72. DISH Network 73. Groendyke Transport, Inc 74. Pocono Medical Center 75. Regis Corporation 76. The Pictsweet Co. 77. Diversified Interiors 78. Local 802 Musicians Health Fund 79. Medical Card System 80. The Buccaneer 81. CIGNA 82. Greater Metropolitan Hotel 83. Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund 84. GS-ILA 85. Allied 86. Harden Healthcare 87. Health and Welfare Benefit System 88. Health Connector 89. I.U.P.A.T 90. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. 91. Transport Workers 92. UFT Welfare Fund 93. Aegis 94. Aetna 95. Allflex 96. Baptist Retirement 97. BCS Insurance 98. Cryogenic 99. Fowler Packing Co. 100. Guy C. Lee Mfg. 101. HealthPort 102. Jack in the Box 103. Maritime Association 104. Maverick County 105. Metro Paving Fund 106. PMPS-ILA 107. PS-ILA 108. QK/DRD (Denny's) 109. Reliance Standard 110. Tri-Pak 111. UABT
I am sure the USA has millions of organizations.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Nothing, as long as he does it in a socialist country. Americans don't want socialism.
Americans don't want socialism. Try taking away their medicare and social security and see where that gets you.....
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Try taking away their medicare and social security and see where that gets you..... I won't have to. Government will do that out of necessity. Sooner or later you run out of other peoples money.
The rich have plenty of people's money and it was stolen because their wealth increased at a faster pace than the 99% of the population they stole it from.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Then I suggest you go and get your share back from the rich. Just pick a gated mansion and go get yours.
Just pick a gated mansion and go get yours. In time. They did it in Tunisia. All power to the people! 99% of the American people vs the top 1% that control the nation's wealth and that gap is growing,,,,,,
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
You mean "All money to the people", don't you? Distributed equally?
Distributed equally? Why not? It can be shown the top 1% stole the money from the rest of the 99% or income distribution would have been more equitable. That income inequality shows the system was rigged.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Now THAT, coming from YOU, is FUNNY!
ME: Thanks for admitting that you ARE trying to spin this (AZ shooting, and terrorism) onto Palin, and conservatives in general. "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
Distributed equally? Why not? I'll tell you why not....because there isn't enough money. You could distribute all the money we have equally, and we'd all be equally poor. There will always be poor people. You cannot eliminate it. There will always be people who will not be productive. Not that they cannot, that's another story, I mean WILL NOT. If you take from those that produce and give to all equally, what incentive do those that produce have to keep producing? None, so they eventually stop producing. Then what? It's human nature, that's why socialism will always fail and there will always be those who are productive and those who are not.
“Currently your office has approved waivers from the PPACA’s annual limits requirements for 222 applicants.”
#2. To: Godwinson (#1)
#3. To: lucysmom (#2)
Just think how simple the bill could have been if it said "Medicare for all".
#4. To: lucysmom, go65, Godwinson (#2)
Just think how simple the bill could have been if it said "Medicare for all".
#5. To: Godwinson (#1)
“Currently your office has approved waivers from the PPACA’s annual limits requirements for 222 applicants.”
#6. To: calcon (#5)
(Edited)
it's not waivers for individuals numbnuts, it's waivers for the union assclowns like yourself and the other deadbeats who frequent this board
#7. To: We The People (#4)
How would we pay for it?
#8. To: We The People (#4)
(Edited)
How would we pay for it?
#9. To: We The People (#4)
How would we pay for it?
#10. To: go65 (#8)
And it would remove a huge burden from businesses by ending employer-funded healthcare, thus improving our competitive ability versus foreign markets.
#11. To: lucysmom (#10)
It would also encourage small business creation, and the ability of small businesses to attract the skilled employees they need to grow their businesses.
#12. To: go65 (#11)
Conservatives ought to love single-payer.
#13. To: lucysmom (#9)
#14. To: We The People (#13)
Americans don't want a single payer system.
#15. To: We The People (#4)
How would we pay for it?
Brian S(ocialist): I have never hidden that fact...
#16. To: Capitalist Eric (#15)
#17. To: go65 (#8)
The same way we pay for Medicare - a combination of premiums plus additional taxes. Those would be offset by the potential reduction versus cost of private premiums.
#18. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
#19. To: Godwinson (#6)
Republican sure don't do this here reading thing well.
#20. To: We The People (#18)
#21. To: Ferret Mike (#20)
#22. To: We The People, Ferret Mike (#21)
#23. To: We The People (#17)
What in the world could possibly make you think that government can manage your healthcare better or at less cost than you can?
#24. To: go65 (#23)
Compare the cost of medicare administration with that spent on private insurance.
Brian S(ocialist): I have never hidden that fact...
#25. To: Capitalist Eric (#24)
#26. To: calcon (#19)
The 222 is organizations, here just a few examples.
#27. To: Capitalist Eric, go65 (#24)
A better question would be, compare the cost of current administration- including all the governmental regulations, bullshit regulations and hoop- jumping- with how truly sickening it'll be under oBUMa-care... And then tell me how government intrusion into things they don't know diddly-SHIT about has "improved" anything...?
#28. To: Godwinson (#27)
What's up with you kooks wanting medicine without govt oversight? You want snake oil sold as medicine? You want more cases like the thalidomide babies? The thalidomide tragedy led to much stricter testing being required for drugs and pesticides before they can be licensed.
#29. To: go65, Capitalist Eric (#28)
(Edited)
#30. To: Godwinson (#6)
Currently your office has approved waivers from the PPACA’s annual limits requirements for 222 applicants.
#31. To: no gnu taxes (#30)
#32. To: Godwinson (#22)
What is wrong with Ferret Mike advocating for Socialism?
#33. To: We The People (#32)
Nothing, as long as he does it in a socialist country.
#34. To: Godwinson (#33)
Americans don't want socialism.
#35. To: We The People (#34)
Sooner or later you run out of other peoples money.
#36. To: Godwinson (#35)
#37. To: We The People (#36)
(Edited)
Then I suggest you go and get your share back from the rich.
#38. To: Godwinson (#37)
All power to the people!
#39. To: We The People (#38)
You mean "All money to the people", don't you?
#40. To: go65 (#28)
Conservative don't understand cause-effect
Brian S(ocialist): I have never hidden that fact...
#41. To: Godwinson (#39)
You mean "All money to the people", don't you?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]