Wisconsin has become what many apparently see as ground zero for the war between conservatives and liberals.

Here's the left wing headline from the Daily Kos.

Why we must win the Wisconsin recalls

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/16/1065608/-Why-we-must-win-the-Wisconsin-recalls?via=blog_1

And here's the right wing headline.

David Koch: 'No stopping union power' if labor wins Walker recall

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...-union-power-if-labor-wins-walker-114964.html

Its getting mighty interesting out there.

 

The stupid dumocraps that make up the unions like the lazy ones in Wisconsin can't even afford Obama care, even with ripping of the tax payers!!!! Bunch of fucking low life stupid piece of shit democrats. What fucking losers!!!!


Unions Are Major Recipients of Obama Health Care Waivers


Submitted by Carl Horowitz on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 16:11

Printer-friendlyEmail to friend When President Obama in March 2010 signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148), the nation's most expensive social legislation in decades, he announced, "The bill I'm signing will set in motion reforms that generations of Americans have fought for and marched for and hungered to see." Yet what the law seems to have set in motion is a rush to obtain exemptions from group coverage requirements. New data show nearly 1,400 insurers, employers, unions and other organizations thus far have received waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from a requirement that forces group health plans to offer at least $750,000 in payouts per enrollee this year, a figure set to rise even higher until its phase-out in 2014. The situation is emerging as a lesson in how government, once enlarged, becomes a favor factory. And unions are receiving lots of favors.
A waiver, in essence, is a grant of permission to break the law. That raises the question: Why do so many Americans want to break the new health care law? A likely answer: Most Americans, despite the uplifting presidential rhetoric, never wanted it in the first place. Even with large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, supporters in Congress had to resort to political bribery (e.g., "the Cornhusker Kickback," "the Louisiana Purchase") and unusual parliamentary maneuvers to secure passage of the final bill. The resulting 2,800-page law, repealed by the House of Representatives (but not the Senate) and declared unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson this January, is a cornucopia of mandates and exemptions, a virtual invitation for politically-connected organizations to win unearned advantages. Twenty-six states have filed a court challenge in support of Judge Vinson's ruling.
The heart of the "Obamacare" law is a mandate that every American, save for cases of financial hardship, must carry health insurance. Those who can't (or won't) document coverage by an employer, government or individual/family policy, would face a substantial fine from the IRS. Judge Vinson, though reluctantly, has ordered all states to continue implementing the law while the case remains active. A randomly-selected three-judge panel in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is set to take up the case next month. A major obstacle to this mandate taking effect is that private insurance plans might not be able to comply with a requirement to offer a certain minimum annual payout per enrollee. In 2011, mandatory minimum coverage is $750,000, a figure set to rise to $1.25 million in 2012 and $2 million in 2013. In 2014, when the law takes effect and state-run insurance exchanges arrange for coverage, there would be no limit. Low-cost ("mini-med") health plans, typically made available to low-wage employees, effectively would be prevented from competing for the consumer dollar.

Many businesses, especially in labor-intensive industries, justifiably complained about the pending burden. In response, the Department of Health and Human Services late last summer announced that it would grant renewable one-year waivers to health plan sponsors whose insurers are unable to meet per-person coverage floors. According to a September 3 memo by Steve Larson, director of HHS' Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, waivers would be granted if the department determines "compliance with the interim final regulations would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums." Soon after, a number of major private-sector employers with high proportions of low-wage workers sought and received waivers. In the restaurant industry, recipients have included the McDonald's, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Waffle House and Jack in the Box chains. Other employers granted waivers include Cigna, Aetna and Universal Studios in Orlando.
At the end of April, fully 1,372 organizations had acquired waivers out of 1,464 applicants, a figure representing about 3.1 million individuals. Of the 1,372 approvals, 342 represented health plans sponsored by unionized workplaces - 27 for union plans and another 315 for joint employer-union plans. Even that combined figure is misleadingly low, for it covers 1.55 million workers, or half all exempt workers. There is high irony here. It was arguably organized labor more than anyone else who lobbied the White House and Congress for passage. The downside is that enrollees in health plans not receiving a waiver will pay more.
So who are the lucky unions? For starters, they include any number of affiliates of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) whose Committee on Political Education contributed $27.8 million to Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. Among them: the Service Employees Benefit Fund, which insures 12,000 SEIU health care workers in Upstate New York; Local 25 in Chicago, with about 25,000 enrollees; and the Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund, with nearly 4,550 enrollees. SEIU health and welfare funds in St. Louis and Cleveland also have received waivers. All this would seem to discredit claims that the law creates a level playing field for all Americans. Service Employees President Mary Kay Henry sees the waiver process as a minor inconvenience in a noble larger cause. "Americans cannot afford to see future benefits of the law derailed," she said. "Without the insurance protections that take effect in 2014, one of every two adults might otherwise be denied healthcare coverage due to a preexisting condition such as asthma, heart disease, diabetes or arthritis. And Americans cannot afford for their elected representatives to waste time on the job when the problems facing working families are real and urgent."
The United Food and Commercial Workers, whose Active Ballot Club PAC contributed a combined $3.5 million to Democratic candidates for federal office during the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, is another union with a hunger for waivers. Among the UCFW-sponsored health plans with at least 3,000 enrollees receiving waivers are: the Indiana Area UFCW Union Locals and Retail Food Employers' Health and Welfare Plan; the UFCW Local One Health Care Fund (Upstate New York); the UFCW Local 1262 and Employers Health and Welfare Fund (Northern New Jersey); UFCW Local 371 Amalgamated Welfare Fund (Connecticut); the UFCW Local 1000 and Kroger Dallas Health and Welfare Plan; and UFCW Local 464a (Northern New Jersey and Westchester County, N.Y.). Other unions winning exemptions are: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 915 (Tampa); United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 123 (Tampa); Asbestos Workers Local 53 (Kenner, La.); the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund (New York City); and the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades.
Some members of Congress also are seeking waivers on behalf of their respective states. Most prominently, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., an early booster of the Obama health care overhaul, is sponsoring legislation, the Empowering States to Innovate Act (S.3958), to move up the starting line for State Innovation Waivers to 2014, as opposed to 2017, as current law stipulates. The measure would give states extra time to design programs to help families and small businesses. He's attracted support from Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., Mary Landrieu, D-La., Scott Brown, R-Mass., Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. Other waivers, while not the product of legislation, have raised suspicions of congressional influence. Of the 204 exemptions granted in April, for example, 38, or nearly 20 percent, went to restaurants, nightclubs and hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district. Given that Rep. Pelosi appeared positively orgasmic at the health care law's signing ceremony of March 23, 2010, this is more than a little ironic.
To a large extent, the proliferation of waivers is a healthy development. It provides health care plan sponsors with a means of escape from an unworkable law. If that qualifies as hypocrisy, then by all means let us make the most of it. But on the minus side, it has politicized the allocation of health care, making health care providers and consumers more dependent than ever upon bureaucratic whim. The "winners" are those with the most access to power. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, finds this tendency disturbing. He's one of three House committee chairmen using new oversight powers to investigate waiver rules. "The fact that over 1,000 waivers have been granted," Upton noted in March, "is a tacit admission that the healthcare law is fundamentally flawed."
Upton isn't the only person up in arms. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the health care subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, believes that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius lacks the statutory authority to grant waivers. "The entire waivers process is predicated on the ability of the secretary to grant waivers in the first place," he said. "However, this seemingly fundamental step - the statutory basis for waiving compliance with the law - appears to have been wholly neglected by the plain language of the statute." Meanwhile, a nonprofit "527" group whose advisers include former Bush White House political director Karl Rove, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, filed suit against HHS in March to gain access to documents indicating the criteria upon waiver decisions have been based. The move followed the lack of an administration response to its January 7 request under the Freedom of Information Act. Crossroads President Steven Law, a Bush-era Labor Department official, explains his group's position: "Until President Obama is willing to grant the entire country a waiver from ObamaCare, his administration needs to come clean on how they decide who wins and loses in the waiver lottery."
This raises the ultimate issue: Why did Congress bother to pass a law that so few people seem to want for themselves? That the Obama administration has issued so many waivers, and to more than 90 percent of applicants, is a testament to the law's unpopularity. The main original purpose of the health care law was to eliminate arbitrary insurer determinations of patient eligibility based on age, preexisting conditions and other risk factors. Now we have the specter of President Obama's allies saying, "It's a great law, but it's not for us. Let someone else pay the tab." The irony is glaring. But don't expect labor leaders to admit as much. For them, access to power is the name of the game.

http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/05/26/unions-are-major-major-recipients-obama-health-care-waivers

 

Are unions getting a ‘disproportionate’ break from the health care law?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-health-care-law/2011/03/21/AB1MmN9_blog.html

 

Hey I like it when someone else's mistake can help my guys make hay and raise money.:excited:

Politico Gaffe Becomes Organizing Tool In Wisconsin Recall Effort

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...in-wisconsin-recall-effort.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

PS I just became a proud Charter member of "Wisconsin Local 1848" by clicking the petition link in the story.

 

Labor unions continued to receive the overwhelming majority of waivers from the president’s health care reform law since the Obama administration tightened application rules last summer.
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.
The Department of Health and Human Services revised the rules governing applications for health reform waivers June 17, 2011, amid a steady stream of controversial news reports, including The Daily Caller’s story that nearly 20 percent of last May’s waivers went to businesses in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district in California.
The labor unions receiving waivers include those that are monitored under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, and those that are not. The waivers granted since June 17 are valid until 2013, but recipients must make sure their employees understand the “limits of their coverage,” according to HHS documents.
HHS granted waivers on a year-by-year basis under its initial application process, but waivers granted after June 17 are valid for a maximum of two-and-a-half years. (RELATED: Full coverage of the health care law)
By and large, unions backed the health care overhaul, a law from which nearly a half million of their workers are now exempt.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/06/l...ecipients-of-obamacare-waivers/#ixzz1n1Mb5beM
​

 

Apparently you must have missed this Ace, so I'll help you out.

 

I thought I would update this because I think the Wisconsin Democrats are on the right path to victory.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/...l-david-koch-get-out-and-take-gov-walker-too/

 

March release of employment situation highly anticipated

http://www.postcrescent.com/article...0/Job-numbers-not-census-employment-Wisconsin

 

Apparently Mitt Romney must not have gotten the Koch Brothers memo.:excited:

Romney: ‘Labor Unions Play An Important Role In Our Society’


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/02/21/429342/romney-unions-important/

That phony fucker will do or say anything to try and get elected.

 

I live in madison, and 70% of the people you ask who are opposed to walker, have no idea why, or what idea they do have is so minimalistic they could only speak about it for 2 minutes. PATHETIC. This whole thing was a giant bandwagon with free beer on board.

 

That occurs on both sides. His supporters are mostly reduced to reciting right-wing talking points from Fox News.

 

Nope, didn't miss it,,those waivers will be null and void, about January 21 2013.

 

No kidding. We see that here all day every day. But it looks to me like at least a million people know what Walker did and why they want to recall him.

Then stop trying to tell the lie that the Obama Administration is giving special treatment to Unions on health care waivers.

Buy the way it appears the Supreme Court might just punt the Health care decisions until 2014.

I sure hope so because President Obama may have another supreme court justice nominee by then.

 

One more time Ace because just like we were talking on another thread. You make statements. We prove them false. And then you ignore that and just keep trying to change the subject.

The Pinocchio Test
Barrasso’s statement is misleading and lacks context, even if his numbers are right in the beginning. Nearly half of the workers affected may be in unions, but there is no evidence of favoritism toward unions—or any other group. The waivers affect less than 2 percent of Americans with health insurance. By 2014, if not sooner, the waivers will expire and the companies and workers will have to live under the health care law, like everyone else.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...MmN9_blog.html

Bullshit, when they throw the case out and find that the Health Care Reforms are constitutional it totally defeats the primary objection by you conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers.

That would belie the fact President Obama has already had two appointments and there are teetering conservatives.

 

.


And I have proven there is no evidence what so ever that the Obama Administration is favoring unions on health care waivers but you just keep trying to tell that lie like a typical conservative.

You better get after it then Ace because the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers are trailing in every poll including the Generic Congressional Ballot.

Just when is your big surge going to come there Ace?

You should know better than that. I never stop. Especially on sitting ducks imitating brainwashed parrots.

 

Always have to play the race card don't you Ace. Typical conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers. White lies are ok, huh?

But its still the same "white" lie you told that the Obama Administration was granting special favors to unions when that is proven false by the Washington Post Analysis.

Yeah, sure Ace. I believe you, just like believe Rick Santorum would not outlaw this site if he got his chance.

Fuck I get tired of humoring you sometimes.

And just to rub it in Ace according to The Young Turks there is a new national poll out tonight that does show Romney leading Obama. But since it has a margin of error of eight points (if I heard them correctly) its still virtually meaningless.

But if you weren't so brainwashed and so unwilling to look at other sources you could have wiped my nose with that one. Too bad you missed it.:excited: