8 Jan

ObamaCare Waivers…88% Go To Labor Unions

                                       

There is no way anyone can argue that the ObamaCare waiver process isn’t benefiting Obama’s crony’s and supporters:

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.

By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.

So it looks like most of the liberals who support Obama don’t want anything to do with ObamaCare.

Shocker!

So lets ask a few questions. If ObamaCare is so awesome, is so helpful and affordable, why are so many businesses, state and local governments, and labor unions seeking exemptions from it? And why did Obama grant the exemptions.

But with the newly released report from the Department of Health and Human Services revealing such a heavy tilting of waivers toward Big Labor, the Obama Administration’s move will give further ammunition to Republican presidential candidates like Gov. Mitt Romney who have labeled Mr. Obama a “crony capitalist.”

Hopefully the Supreme Court will issue us all waivers later this year

YouTube Preview Image

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Constitution, Economy, Health Care, Nanny Government, ObamaCare Results, Obamanomics, Politics, POWER GRAB!, Socialism, Socialized Health Care. Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, January 8th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
| 1,336 views

24 Responses to ObamaCare Waivers…88% Go To Labor Unions

  1. Nan G says: 1

    Isn’t the Supreme Court allowing several hours worth of arguments before they deliberate and come up with their ruling?
    How appropriate that this line of reasoning at least be covered during the arguments.

    ReplyReply
  2. Pingback: VIDEO: ObamaCare Waivers…88% Go To Labor Unions | Foundation Life

  3. Meremortal says: 2

    If ObamaCare is so awesome, is so helpful and affordable, why are so many businesses, state and local governments, and labor unions seeking exemptions from it?

    Because their current plans are vastly superior. Going on Obamacare would result in a net loss of benefits. Some of us are more equal than others.

    ReplyReply
  4. anticsrocks says: 3

    Can’t wait for Ivan or Greg or Larry to defend the waivers…

    ReplyReply
  5. Greg says: 4

    So lets ask a few questions. If ObamaCare is so awesome, is so helpful and affordable, why are so many businesses, state and local governments, and labor unions seeking exemptions from it?

    Let’s make a guess:

    Because the nation is still trying to recover from a prolonged economic downturn that has disproportionately affected small businesses, the tax revenues that are used to fund state and local governments, and the working and middle classes, of which labor unions memberships are almost entirely comprised.

    Why would we expect similar exemptions to be granted to corporations that have been pulling in record profits quarter after quarter? Does anyone think they need special considerations to cope with the downturn?

    ReplyReply
  6. malize says: 5

    Of course it has nothing to do with labor unions being primarily Democrat backers…nope, not a factor.

    ReplyReply
  7. Nathan Blue says: 6

    @Greg: Hi. Can you give some data on this? I know some corporations have made lots of money–and held on to it since it is still a “rainy day,” but I haven’t seen any data suggesting that American corporations in general haven’t suffered as much as small business, and hence, employees.

    I would like some hard data, not conjecture and not opinion…and not gleanings from the media. If know any public corporations that others are claiming have made record profits yet laid off lots of workers, let’s at least look at their annual report and see if it tells another story.

    This could be a fun exercise. I ask cordially.

    ReplyReply
  8. Greg says: 7

    @Nathan Blue, #6:

    Here’s a November 25, 2011 article on the topic of record corporate profits from the New York Times.

    If you’d like different sources, Google “record quarterly profits during recession”. There are plenty to choose from. To my knowledge, no one has suggested that what the media has been reporting since mid-2009 has simply been made up. The rich have not been getting poorer.

    No doubt individual examples of annual reports could be found to demonstrate both the truth of this and to demonstrate the exact opposite. So far as the NYT’s point is concerned, it’s the overall situation that’s relevant.

    ReplyReply
  9. Meremortal says: 8

    @Greg: Let’s make a guess?

    Even after your ‘guess’, the question remains…Why does ANYONE want a wavier from the greatest and cheapest healthcare value in the history of humanity? We were told this program would lower our healthcare costs by 3,000% by President Obama (Seriously, he said that).
    The answer is obvious. The current union healthcare plans are superior to Obamacare and going downhill to join the rest of the country is not acceptable to the unions, or our politicians who also don’t have to be on the new marvelous system.
    Oh, to be one of the ‘more equal’ class.

    ReplyReply
  10. liberalmann says: 9

    Really? You’re back on this crap wagon? ANY company can apply for a wavier if the employer can prove they can provide similar coverage at a better rate. This is another good thing for average Americans. But ignorant wingnuts (like you) spread this lie, and get their minions to follow and shoot themselves in the foot. And Meremortal is a good example. Reeeal smart.

    ReplyReply
  11. MataHarley says: 10

    libbozo.. have you ever composed an original thought and opinion that is over a few sentences, and didn’t come from some progressive headline somewhere?

    ReplyReply
  12. Meremortal says: 11

    @liberalmann: ANY company can apply for a wavier if the employer can prove they can provide similar coverage at a better rate.

    Where to begin? I’m like a flea over a jackass here.

    1. Any can apply, but it seems only certain favored companies are chosen to receive.
    2. Under Liberalmann’s terms above, it’s waivers for everybody!
    3. Shouldn’t you be a little embarrassed if 543,000 companies can prove they can provide superior coverage at a lower price than your wonder program that enjoys a huge economy of scale advantage?

    Sometimes this stuff is too easy.

    ReplyReply
  13. Libermann says: 12

    Meremortal, you are right. And you are very smart. I apologize. I must turn over a new leaf. I’ve been such a fool.

    Everyone, you’ve only tried to help me, and I’ve been a total jerk. I’ll make it up to you all somehow.

    I’ll have to change my name to FormerLibmann. What do you think?

    ReplyReply
  14. Nathan Blue says: 13

    @Greg: Thanks for the info. I’d argue that what the media is reporting is sensational, considering that this data is very difficult to analyze and suggests many, many factors that have brought the US economy to this point. Personal Wages have been decreasing for decades. Though the spike in profits for corporations (as said by all the graphs out their in media-land–I’d love to do my own analysis and pull my own data, but who’s paying me?) is something to study, it hardly suggests that there is a robber baron-style exploitation of the masses in motion.

    If anything, businesses in America are failing or moving due to bad tax policy that needs to be overhauled (I’m in that camp, sorry to say).

    Anyway, thanks for the dialog.

    ReplyReply
  15. Nathan Blue says: 14

    @liberalmann: I’m not sure it’s that simple. I have several friends in Healthcare that routinely complain about Obamacare and their efforts to not use it. To be fair, I do not know the specifics of their situation, so take it for what it is worth.

    Oh, and try to dialog a little more rather than “win” a discussion. It’s really lowering the real estate here at FA.

    ReplyReply
  16. MataHarley says: 15

    @Greg, aren’t you missing something rather important in your link?

    uh… lemme help.

    Exactly when, and under what POTUS, have those profits gone up? And shouldn’t you be whining to your boy in the WH?

    ReplyReply
  17. Greg says: 16

    Charts 1 and 2 from the top are interesting, with regard to long-term trends. Chart 3 makes me wonder why anyone would be complaining about excessive corporate tax rates. The rate today would seem to be only about half of what it was in 1960.

    ReplyReply
  18. Aqua says: 17

    @ Greg:
    It’s called competition. If the gas station down the street is selling gas for $3.80 a gallon, and the one two blocks away is selling it for $3.40 a gallon, where would you go?
    If the US has a corporate tax rate of 30% and China has a tax rate of 20% (not to mention lower regulations and ease of doing business) where would you go?

    ReplyReply
  19. Pingback: Obama expands “hardship” waiver for illegal immigrants | Random Ramblings from IowaDawg

  20. MataHarley says: 18

    @Greg, not surprising you view the charts within your social justice ideology.

    INRE chart #2 and the trends, I’ve tried to point out to you that personal income statistics do not include the benefits provided instead of wages. i.e. wages appeared higher back in the 60s-70s, but few employers were providing group health, pension plans or 401Ks. This started up in the early 80s, and has increased from there. As you can see, the chart reflects less “take home” pay in exchange for the benefits they had to pay out of pocket before. And the corporate profits after tax also started taking a hit.

    Chart #4 shows Clinton to be the guy who raised taxes on the “middle class”… a term you love, I know.

    And it appears you are dodging the most important observation that should be making you grind you teeth on your personal causes of wealth gap… that everything you whine about has become more exaggerated under this POTUS.

    So I take it you’ll be voting against Obama in November? Or does the “D” mean more to you than your rhetoric?

    ReplyReply
  21. Greg says: 19

    @Aqua, #17:

    China is pursuing its own national interest by creating a tax, labor, and regulatory environment that tempts corporations to move their manufacturing there with the promise of higher profits. All one has to do to take advantage of that is to put higher profits ahead of the interests of one’s own nation.

    The obvious, unstated truth is that, for some, there is no single corporate value higher than maximized profits.

    What level of pay and benefits would American workers have to settle for in order to effectively compete with Third World workers? How much would we have to lower our environmental standards to allow U.S. industry to produce goods as cheaply as they’re made in China? Why should American consumers want cheaper goods, when the hidden cost is the progressive erosion of the American standard of living?

    @MataHarley, #18:

    And it appears you are dodging the most important observation that should be making you grind you teeth on your personal causes of wealth gap… that everything you whine about has become more exaggerated under this POTUS.

    That’s because this particular POTUS took office at the height of the worst and most prolonged national and global economic downturn since the Great Depression of the previous century–a downturn that began one full year before he even took office.

    I’ll be voting for Obama in November. All the reasons I voted for him the first time remain. Add to that the fact that once again I see no acceptable alternative.

    ReplyReply
  22. malize says: 20

    This “economic downturn” was only ever near or worse than the Great Depression in scale or scope when its convenient for the Obama administration to bewail the state of the economy…i.e., as an excuse for why their Keynesian b.s. has failed.

    ReplyReply
  23. Aqua says: 21

    @ Greg: #19
    I think you are taking it to an extreme. I’m pretty sure most companies want to keep the corporations here in the “interest of their nation.” When you are being demonized, taxed, and regulated to the point that you no longer feel your country cares if you leave or not, what do you do. If you want one example, just one, of the over reaching, zealous nature of the left wing driven EPA, you need look no further than the case appearing before SCOTUS right now. Sackett v EPA is going to be an absolutely beautiful slap-down of the EPA. Now triple or quadruple what the Sacketts are going through and you have what it is like to be a corporation in the US.
    No one is asking to sacrifice the environment, but how about some common sense being applied to the regulations. Just an emoticon (in honor of Megan) of common sense.

    ReplyReply
  24. JM says: 22

    I’m a physician and I can tell you that healthcare reform is going to do nothing more than trample on the rights of our citizens, degrade the quality of healthcare in this country, and redistribute wealth just as our socialist President Obama intended. Oh yah, it will force physicians and nurses into labor unions as well, so that Obama can finally tell all of the union lobbyists and bosses that his debt is paid in full.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site