This is pure liberal hypocrisy at it's finest.
YouTube - ‪Nancy Pelosi Scandal: Healthcare Waivers For Constituents‬‏
YouTube - ‪Nancy Pelosi Scandal: Healthcare Waivers For Constituents‬‏
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Liberal Hypocrisy: Nancy Pelosi's district gets the most Obamacare waivers
- Thread starter FreakyLocz14
- Start date
Isthmus
Android Expert
It's called time needed to come in compliance wit the law. read the links above, they will explain the reasoning.
That said, I agree that the plan is a step in the right direction but it is far from perfect and can deal with extensive revision.
2strokenut
Well-Known Member
There are times when not complying with an unjust law is warranted, depending on who you ask.
so the year thats already passed, and the time to yet come is not enough
yeah, ok
could it be that people know its gonna cost too much and wanna put it off as long as possible?
Isthmus
Android Expert
And that is why we have an independent judiciary designed to handle these very issues. If you choose to not comply with the law and not make use of the judiciary to argue your point, then you will not be in compliance with the law and will be subject to the government's law enforcement powers. Or are you suggesting taking the law onto your own hands?
The majority of states have already filed suit against the federal government and many ballot initiatives have passed to prevent the state government from complying with the unconstitutional, liberty-destroying, individual mandate.
Isthmus
Android Expert
What???
You can't make broad generalizations like that without making a point. so what if states file suit against the federal government to try and define or limit its powers. That is not the issue. the issue being discussed is that the method for doing so is the judiciary.
You were advocating non-compliance and alluding to more.
You can't argue one point by making a different unrelated one.
Isthmus
Android Expert
And these links make my point innaccurate how exactly? It seems to me that in every case the judiciary has become the ultimate definer of what is legal or not regarding every one of the issues linked. Sure individuals can choose not to comply, but then they become subject to the government's enforcement powers and/or judicial action. is that not the case here?
Non-compliance with unjust laws is called civil disobedience, and it has resulted in major civil rights victories throughout our history.
the judiciary says 1 thing, and the government ignores them, they enforce it anyway
Sigh, once again fox news completely slanting the news, leaving out critical details.
But really let us look at this.
What is a waiver...What fox news did not tell you.
Affordable Care Act offers Waivers that only last for one year and are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage.
So why unions? Because the health coverage of the evil socialistic network of unions offer better coverage that can not be met cost per quality wise. If you are getting better coverage and you are spending less, you get a waiver. The evil unions offer the best coverage vs cost then any other system.
So why California? Well that is a little tricky. Most of the coverage offered in california is offered on what is called mini med coverage. Mini med coverage is a insurance that only covers minor problems. Any major problem and the insurance is worth less. These plans are high profit because the chances of paying out is very low. These plans pray on the poor.
These plans are not illegal to have. But in order to get new insurance the companies have to get insurance that offers no spending limit. In the state of california, does not really offer a lot of plans that have no spending limit. An since it will not be until 2014 that insurance companies will be forced to offer such plans, it will not be until 2014 that companies can get a good rate on those plans.
But let us make this very clear. LESS THEN 1% of all coverage offered in the united states was told they had to get different coverage. LESS THEN 1% of all the covered insured are facing problems with the new healthcare bill. LESS THEN 1%.
I really wish the government would create more laws in which LESS THEN 1% where having a problem with them.
But really let us look at this.
What is a waiver...What fox news did not tell you.
Affordable Care Act offers Waivers that only last for one year and are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage.
So why unions? Because the health coverage of the evil socialistic network of unions offer better coverage that can not be met cost per quality wise. If you are getting better coverage and you are spending less, you get a waiver. The evil unions offer the best coverage vs cost then any other system.
So why California? Well that is a little tricky. Most of the coverage offered in california is offered on what is called mini med coverage. Mini med coverage is a insurance that only covers minor problems. Any major problem and the insurance is worth less. These plans are high profit because the chances of paying out is very low. These plans pray on the poor.
These plans are not illegal to have. But in order to get new insurance the companies have to get insurance that offers no spending limit. In the state of california, does not really offer a lot of plans that have no spending limit. An since it will not be until 2014 that insurance companies will be forced to offer such plans, it will not be until 2014 that companies can get a good rate on those plans.
But let us make this very clear. LESS THEN 1% of all coverage offered in the united states was told they had to get different coverage. LESS THEN 1% of all the covered insured are facing problems with the new healthcare bill. LESS THEN 1%.
I really wish the government would create more laws in which LESS THEN 1% where having a problem with them.
Take the mandate out of it then it's a decent bill.
Says who? With out the mandate, you would have the current system in which the national healthcare system is "dont get sick." The only way to drive down cost is to force people to get insurance. This in not illegal and will force prices down.
Never before has the federal government forced every individual in the country to purchase a private commodity on the private market. This such a violation of our fundamental liberty that I frankly don't care what the justification for it is.
2strokenut
Well-Known Member
Yeah its Fox News fault...
From another article
Health Care Law | San Francisco | Nancy Pelosi | The Daily Caller
Quote:
The reason the Obama administration says it has given out waivers is to exempt certain companies or policyholders from
DoAndroidDream?
Well-Known Member
Obamacare failed the moment they took the public option off the table.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
You are not the only one asking the simple question.
The HC Bill will be deemed unconstitutional and hopefully, we will get a new congress and president that knows how to do things right.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Wrong.
1- Eliminate state mandates. Do you know what a mandate actually is?
2- Encourage competition by allowing insurance companies to sell insurance over state lines
3- Tort reform
To begin with.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
It is unconstitutional and that is all one needs to say about it. It must go and hopefully, it will. Replaced hopefully, by something that is less than 2500 pages or so.
and iirc it doesnt apply to congress at all, their hc remains unchanged
if they cant write a law they can accept for themselves, then why is it ok for the people?