I thought Pelosi said we would all like it?

Tell us genius... where did the 80-20 number come from and why was it chosen?

It comes from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. You can look up their reasoning if you wish.

I was asking a serious question, to which you replied with the standard bullshit answer your masters taught you. The real answer is that they would have been taxed on those cadillac plans and THAT would have pissed off a big constituency.

The waivers have nothing to do with taxes but whether limited benefit plans (not "cadillac" plans) can continue to exist notwithstanding that they violate the regulations relating to annual spending caps and the like.

It's obvious you were not asking a serious question in good faith. You seem to think that you are omniscient.
 
And it certainly couldn't happen over night, so your argument is childish, now isn't it.

No, it is not. What is childish is your pretending that rejecting "A minute, and hour, a day, a month?" is somehow equivalent to saying it would not take FIVE YEARS. You do understand the difference between a month as the longest option presented and five years don't you?
 
Here's a little more information on the waivers and the dumbassery of the Daily Caller piece in the OP:

Is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi helping companies in her district get around new health care rules? Conservatives seem to think so, but their evidence is spotty at best.

Last month, the Obama administration granted a reprieve to 204 businesses and policyholders from new health coverage rules under the Affordable Care Act, bringing the total number of waivers to more than 1370. Many of the waivers are for limited benefit or so called "mini-med" plans—controversial rock-bottom plans that provide a very limited amount of coverage (sometimes as little as $2,000 a year) to beneficiaries that are used heavily in low-wage industries like the restaurant business. New federal rules require such plans to offer a minimum of $750,000 of coverage annually, and the waivers exempt the mini-med plans from such rules on a case-by-case basis.

The Daily Caller reported on Tuesday that businesses in Pelosi’s district received nearly 20 percent of the waivers in April, pointing out that many of them went to high-end restaurants and hotels. Sarah Palin piled on in a subsequent interview with the Caller, calling the discovery "unflippingbelievable!" and "corrupt."

Pelosi’s communications director, Nadeam Elshami, pushed back against the criticisms in an email to Mother Jones, denying that Pelosi’s district received any special treatment. Her office also denied that it was at all involved in the process of granting waivers for these businesses. "It is pathetic that there are those who would be cheering for Americans to lose their minimum health coverage or see their premiums increase for political purposes," Elshami wrote Tuesday afternoon, emphasizing that health-care waivers "are reviewed and granted solely by the Administration in an open and transparent process."

In fact, the recent waiver applications from businesses in Pelosi's district were not even received by the minority leader's office. Rather, they were submitted directly to the Obama administration through a third-party company, Flex Plan Services, which provides benefit administration to companies in the Bay Area, Washington state, and elsewhere in the country, according to a statement issued by Richard Solarian, an assistant HHS secretary. On March 23, Flex Plan Services submitted applications for annual limit waivers for their clients' health plan, including 69 businesses in California, 20 in Washington state, two in Georgia, and one in Alaska, including restaurants, home health care providers, and other service-based companies. On April 4, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services approved the waiver request for all of Flex Plan Services' clients—not just the ones in Pelosi's district.

Flex Plan Services never contacted Pelosi's office about their waiver request, and her office did neither provided any information to the company about the waivers nor helped facilitate the request, according to her spokesperson.

In other words, the reason the waivers were clumped together was because Flex Plan Services—which is in charge of administrating all of these businesses' health care benefits—had issued a waiver request for the entire group of businesses. Altogether, the Obama administration has granted 1372 waivers and has denied about 100 requests. The mini-med waivers are essentially a stop-gap measure designed to keep employers from dropping health care benefits all together. The White House explains that waivers are granted if conforming to the rules "would disrupt access to existing insurance arrangements or adversely affect premiums, causing people to lose coverage," acknowledging that the low-benefits plans are sometimes the only option that some employers can offer. The Democrats' rationale is that the other changes under federal health reform will eventually allow employers to receive better, more affordable coverage under the health insurance exchange, when it begins operating in 2014.

To be sure, it’s worth closely examining which businesses and policyholders have received waivers, as well as which ones have denied them, along with the Obama administration’s rationale for making such decisions. But, as the April waivers reveal, the very fact that reprieves have been granted to businesses residing in democratic districts doesn't mean the process is unjust. And to assume that the rationale must be political or "corrupt" is to turn a real policy issue into a partisan bludgeon.


http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/pelosi-district-health-care-waivers
 
Yes, I absolutely understand why waivers are needed..... Obamacare is detrimental to small and large businesses alike. Which is why so many are begging to be released from its obligations.

Not really. As long as their competition is held to the same standards they are, they won't fall behind in the marketplace.
 
It is amazing how quiet the left is... I wonder why?

Probably because it's all been explained before, ad nauseum.

The short answer is, yes, the people will like it just like the vast majority of people in every other country with government plans like theirs, without exception. Not one country has reverted to a “pay or suffer” system.

ObamaCare is the first step and it takes time to implement all facets of the plan. Bfgrn gave an excellent analogy in post 18 regarding bridges. As ObamaCare comes on line talks will continue and adjustments made until there is one government medical plan. That takes time considering there are people who are against the idea, regardless of what is proposed.

Commentators on the Right are worried people will refuse to give up entitlements. If government medical care is so bad the people will willingly give it up. Why the concern on the part of the Right?

Of course, that’s a rhetorical question because we all know the people will like it. In fact, they’ll more than like it. They’ll demand it remain and be improved to include everyone. We know that because that’s exactly what has happened across the world, no exception.

That is what’s causing the panic on the right. Once implemented, the people will never allow it to be dismantled. Again, just like every other country that has a government medical plan, no exception.

On the bright side, by the end of Obama's second term this will all be history. Medicare and Medicaid and ObamaCare will all be rolled into one simple government plan. When a person is ill they will go to a doctor. Young. Old. Rich. Poor.

A doctor for everyone. Sort of like a chicken in every pot. :D
 
Back
Top