Over 1000 waivers given to exempt groups from the fiasco of Obamacare!!

And everyone here is an expert on hypocrisy

 

What a completely false Fox News ginned up controversy.
[video]http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105180010[/video]

 

You know, I watched the video clip. How can FOX be accused of so much bias? Both sides were represented & it seems both were given equal time plus the FOX reporter seemed very neutral.

But back to dr moen, phd's post...1300 waivers, exempting 3 million people? Where do I sign up? I'm not a union member and I don't live in Pelosi's or Weiner's districts so what do I have to do to be excused from Obamacare? I wish I'd had the foresight to vocally support Obamacare way back when because, if I had, I'd be able to get a waiver now!

 

From what I have found, these are not exemptions (a permanent exclusion to law) but are instead temporary waivers.

From FactCheck.org:

"...many have been given one-year waivers to delay compliance with a key insurance mandate that was put into place this fall. The White House says it instituted the waiver process to enable those companies to continue to provide limited-benefits plans — cheap, bare-bones policies called mini-med plans — until the law is fully implemented in 2014."

"A mini-med plan’s basic benefits might include a prescription drug discount card and coverage for doctor’s visits. These plans can also include surgical and hospitalization benefits, but they usually include dollar limits on coverage, which can be as low as under $100 per day or more than $250,000 for the year, according to an Aug. 13 Kaiser Health News article. A McDonald’s executive said at a Dec. 1 Senate hearing that the annual caps in its mini-med plans range from $2,000 to $10,000."

"The new health care law aims to eliminate low annual coverage caps like those over time, and this is where the waiver issue has come in. The law says that annual coverage limits can’t be set lower than $750,000 for new policy years starting between Sept. 23, 2010 and Sept. 23, 2011. That cap will be raised each year until 2014, when the law will require companies to have no annual spending limits on most benefits in health care plans."

Full article can be found at:

Health Care Law Waivers | FactCheck.org

I do see a lot of politically-biased attempts to make these waivers appear sinister, but I see no evidence that they are.

 

So they do not have to spend as much money as the rest of the companies. Got it. How interesting it is that of 435 representatives, 20% are in Pelosi's district. Kind of makes one wonder, doesn't it?

 

The stats you mentioned appear to be from the month of April of this year, not 20% of the total waivers given, that is a significant difference.

I found this on The New American site:

"During April, the Obama Administration approved 208 waivers for its socialist health-care mandates. Funny thing is, The Daily Caller reports, the administration gave 38 of them, or 20 percent, to businesses or other entities in the district of leftist Democrat Nancy Pelosi..."

Not what I'd consider to be a neutral site. It is heavily biased.

 

I never saw that site. Regardless, their 20% figure is still accurate which you totally missed in your comments.

 

Man, just be thankful David hasnt given you his 'I worked three jobs and ate noodle raman for four years all while barefooted' bio.

 

Ginned up issue! Period!

 

Hmmmm? I wonder if there is anyone else who disagrees with you.

 

Not saying you saw the specific site I referenced, but rather that you probably saw a similar site, with the same biases.

As to missing the accuracy of the original percentage... I'm not following you. I stated: 20% for the month of April (this year) twice. From what I can find on all the biased sites, Pelosi's district received 38 out of over 1000 waivers (possibly up to 1800 now, but I can't find an actual figure above 1000) which is less than 3.8% of 1000 waivers given. The percentage is actually lower than that, at 1800 total waivers it'd be around 2.1%.

So how do you figure I missed the 20% figure?

 

You wont hear from him again.

 

I agree with the 20% for April. You would not care to reference the other figures you are trying to assimilate. would you?

BTW, I did not even get those numbers from the web and they include several swanky restaurants and the like. I wonder if Starkist is also one of those exemptions.

 

If you are referring to links, no. The figures I mentioned are all from conservative web-sites that mentioned the 38 waivers given to Nancy Pelosi's district, and spread the 20% figure (actually closer to 18.2%) to fan the flames of ignorance. They do state it (the 20% figure) was for the month of April (of this year) only, but people are implying this figure represents something it doesn't. These twists of truths are what set people off against each other, and what keeps ignorance alive.

The "over 1000" figures are also from conservative web-sites and are easy to find yourself. I do not want to endorse them by providing a link because they are extremely biased.

The largest amount of actual waivers given that I can find is "1372" on April 16th (again by a conservative web-site), the 1800 was probably a projection for end of Summer, but I'm unable to find it again or verify it.

Which brings up a question I have for you: Where DO you get your information from? If not from a conservative web-site? A conservative newspaper or magazine? Just curious.

 

Information on some of the businesses receiving these waivers can be found at:

Health Care Law Waivers | FactCheck.org

...but there is limited info on current waivers, this link was posted late last year.

 

Mine came first from the radio and then Fox.

FWIW, with Pelosi's 38 wavers, there would have to be over 16,000 waivers given just to balance her share of them.

 

Just heard - there are only 1392 exemptions given so far. I also just heard that Utah's insurance companies have been exempted for the "spending on health care" requirement (80%). Utah? I wonder where they came up with that state?

 

If Obamacare is as good as the libs say it is & saves as much money as they've promised, why would any waivers be necessary? Why wouldn't the unions, Utah, Pelosi's & Weiner's constituents be jumping on the wagon as quickly as possible?
Also, Weiner's explanation for exempting his entire district was that his area was "unique" and better able to make decisions & cut costs for themselves. Just ask dr moen, phd.

 

Besides being just another Fox ginned up non-issue, your argument is stupid. What you are trying to argue is that the people who fought for this health care law want to now be exempt from it if only temporarily. The explanation as to why these waivers were put in place for ANYONE to apply for has already been given in this thread. If that isn't good enough for you, address why not, don't just ignore the explanation and keep saying the same stupid things and make the same inane arguments. You, just like Fox, want to create an issue that doesn't exist and then throw all the insinuation you can behind your silly accusation. People have caught on to this practice and that is why the other ginned up Fox non-issue concerning the rapper Common has dies so quickly. Your self-serving selective outrage is just getting tiresome and weak.

 

If a rapper is a poet, then pornography is art. They invited a gangsta nigga to the White House. I would have no problem with that if anyone at the White House actually listened to him. A pure political move to get black votes in the 2012 election, nothing more.