"This is why governement should be as small as practicable."

You're right Phil. Government should be as small as possible. That way you have nothing to get in the way of private unaccountable tyrannies, none of whom I get to vote for.

CNS news, Phil? How about you link this story to say, a reliable news source, like the NY Times or the Huffington Post.

-- Modified on 1/24/2011 1:39:37 PM

The unions spent millions of dollars promoting Obama care and they all want out and are getting waivers.  

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/seiu-locals-including-chicago-chapter-wa

Because of changes in the law, my policy has been forced to change and it became more expensive.  (I am getting "more" How could it not become more expensive.)

But after jamming it down my throat, the people who promoted it think it should be for others and not them, so they get waivers.

This is why governement should be as small as practicable.  (I didn't say non-existent, so don't give me Somalia and pirates and anarchy.) When there are decisions to be made, they will favor those who support them, even if they don't deserve it on the merits.  As much as you can remove from the realm of conflict of interest the better.  If the Feds need to by 1,000 new cars the will go to GM, without looking at the merits of the Ford model.

Stop! Hold the presses! Phil just declared the ideals of small government an "extreme" position!Who the hell is telling you what kind of insurance you can have? When it comes to health care in this country, there are some combination of 3 options. 1) you can have a government run single payer health care system. We don't have that, but you pooh-pooh it regardless. 2) We can have a private non-profit system (much like a distributist credit union model). That's not even in the cards. Or 3) We can have private business act as third parties dictating what health care we can and can't have. Those businesses are, by definition, unaccountable private tyrannies. That is the logical connection. I am very sorry you have a very difficult time with logic, Phil. The entire basis of your OP is that "Unions want out of ObamaCare!", and Obama is going to give them a pass on it, because they gave him money in 2008. The lunacy of this entire argument is that Goldman Sachs donated FAR more to Obama, and they are reeking those rewards. Secondly, if Obama was beholden to unions, instead of seeing them as an easy source of campaign funds that he can ignore once elected, then you'd think Obama would have at some point bothered to mention, much less push for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Now for the kicker. Prior to HCR, insurance companies were allowed to impose annual or lifetime limits. The Affordable Care Act, which you dubed ObamaCare, makes those limits ahem...ILLEGAL...starting in 2014. However, it will remain legal for HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES to institute those limits for another few years. The exemption that you're talking about, are exemptions that ban those limits from the HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES right now, rather than wait until 2014. And you're calling that "unions running from ObamaCare"?

Now I know I'm a dumb-dumb and all, but to me that sounds like they're sprinting towards ObamaCare, a full three years ahead of schedule....no, I didn't mean in all seriousness that the Huffington Post was a more reliable news source than the link you provided...until now, that is. Michael Moore once said of Republicans, "they're such great liars." I'd have to disagree with Moore. They're not great at it, and neither is your link.

-- Modified on 1/24/2011 11:54:33 PM

First, as I predicted, someone would exaggerate my position. You just jumped right into what I was NOT saying and made up a position so far to the extreme that no one could think I was advocating that idea.  

I say they should be small as possible, and you just jump right to the extreme of private unaccountable tyrannies.  

I do not want someone telling me what kind of insurance, and you stretch that right to private tyrannies.  Yep. Sure is a logical connection there.

Exaggerating a person's position way beyond what he means is silly and a lame form of debate.  I can play it also, if you want. Willie likes government with a lot of power, so he wants government to mandate what time you wake up, what you eat for breakfast, what color socks you wear, and which side of your wife's cheek you kiss her on first.

See.  I can take your position, exaggerate beyond what anyone seriously suggested and make it look silly also. Wow. That really shows you.

As to the source, when you want a different link, are you saying it is not true?  If you are doubting the veracity, I may look. If you are just asking, that's a waste of time.  However, if I take the time to look and come up with some other source, I would want a big, "I  am sorry."

And you are not seriously saying Huff Po. is "relialbe" I hope

You questioned the veracity of the story.

Here you are - a link to the Dept of Health and Human Services that lists waivers granted.  Count the unions that want out of Obama Care.  Lots.  They just want to jam it down my throat or up something else.

Now you may disagree with me on conclusions, but the source that I had was factually correct, as I am sure you will admit.  

Happy.

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

So let me try this...I have no way of validating my this but lets assume that most unions supported the President Obama during the election.  So that means by default, that every union must support every policy enacted by the President.  Likewise, every conservative during the Bush Administration should have support every one of his policies....which they did not.

It's a foolish argument.  Just because people may have a certain ideology does not mean that everyone is going to march lock step.  We hall have free will, even unions, even businesses.

Get real...serious Health Care reform was needed.  What was enacted was not a government take-over as those on the far right would claim. We now have laws that prevent denial of coverages based upon pre-existing conditions, eliminations of caps imposed by insurance companies, and the ability to cover approximately 30 million more Americans that previously did not have coverage.  Are there problems in the bill, absolutely.  Hopefully, the new congress will get serious and help improve on what was passed.

Every single position you hear today are exaggerated and exasperated. No one tells the truth, no wants to tell the truth and no one wants to hear the truth. Why bother, every single position is insult to intelligence, all with cockamamie analysis and opinions to see how much I can get by fooling the people.

Health Care is not even kick in until 2014. According to the law, if a company doesn't change the policy from 2010, they don't have to comply with any new regulations until 2014. The only requirement is that, there cannot be life time max. Please don't bring up preexisting condition, if you are on a employer plan, pre-existing condition is not an issue ( I am talking about large union shops).

So the story is questionable.

The coy "assume most unions supported Obama..." starts out with the innuendo of dishonesty. You know full well they did, this was his signature issue.

No, it doesn't mean you support everything your candidate did, but it sure come close when it gets to his core issues.

In any event, during the health care debate every major group, from AARP to AMA to - YES - the unions, got their two cents in.  

There were groups that were against it, and they said so.

Now, using your common sense and gut instinct, do you think the unions opposed or supported?  They have a thousand lobbyists on the Hill who are engaged in every issue.  Were there lobbyists saying, "We are against this. Don't vote for it."  

Likewise, there is a bill now to repeal.  LET'S TRY TO BE A LITTLE HONEST FOR A SECOND.  Do you think that unions are now saying, "We don't like the bill and are in favor of repeal?" or are they saying "Don't repeal, but give us a waiver.

Finally, here is my objection. During the campaign, Obama said that 15% of the people didn't have health insurance.  When the bill was proposed, Bachus, the author, said it would affect every family in the United States.  Accepting, argumendo, that 15% did not have insurance, which I think was high, why do you impact 100% WHEN THE PROBLEM IS ONLY FOR 15%.

In fact, if the author is right and it will affect every family in the United States, why isn't it a take over?  I had a policy that I liked in terms of coverage and cost.  That policy was forced to include other things that I didn't want.  Yes, they took over my policy.

Repeal it and address the problem of 15%.

Yes. It is an application. They want out. They want me to be forced in, but they are asking to be let out.

In regards to the "Honesty" assertion....nothing I said in my post was untrue.  I even conceded that most union groups supported Obama.  So I'm not sure where you come off saying I was being dishonest.  I simply chose NOT TO MAKE AN ABSOLUTE, unlike you.

Secondly, prior to Health Care reform, we all pay the cost for those not being covered by insurance.  Health Care reforms exposed some of those hidden costs.  As a business owner, premiums that I payed increased 26% just last year and I'm expecting another sizable increase this year.  That's unsustainable in anyone's book.

Secondly, I must reiterate that the gov't DID NOT take over your health care. In the overwhelming majority of cases, you get health care insurance from PRIVATE companies, not the gov't.

The honestly was adressing the "gosh and golly, did they really support....."

You know full well they did.  It was an absolute, or as close to it as you can get.  There was not a peep of dissent.

Second, why didn't they take over my health care.  I had a policy that I shopped for and chose. I was happy with it. Then one day they said "NO. YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT ONE. Here is what you get."

If that isn't taking over my health care, what is.

Third, none of the provisions cut costs. You will keep getting increased uintil you can't afford it and dump your employees into the public pool.  

It is true that may people get insurance from private companies, but if the government mandates what they provide, it is the same thing.

There are two ways the State can control. One is by taking over. The other is by leaving the parties as they exist, but saying here is what you have to provide.  Thus, there is a private company providing, but everything they offer is under the mandate of the fed.  And why isn't that a take over?

you can keep the policy. There is nothing in the bill that affects you. The only item that affects private insurance this year is (1) No max, (2) you can cover your off spring till they are 21.

Every one of the Private Policies are grandfathered until 2014 if they do't make substantial changes to their 2010 policy. I said this in the previous post but you will still argue based on a post on some obscure website no one has heard off.

At the rate our infrastructure and social support system is deteriorating with tax cuts and pork, we are racing towards mediocre quite rapidly. We as citizens are only too happy to support mediocre politicians and their mediocre ideas at best. Instead of them holding them accountable, we keep on electing them based on the absurd and illogical sound bites. We as nation have transferred power to PR folks, spinmeisters and self styled experts who gets paid to express the opinion the media outlet wants. In others words, we have outsourced thinking for ourselves to all of the above and add obscure web sites and bloggers to the list.

The law requires that certain procedures are covered, that there are different caps and different deductibles that I now have.  If they cap is higher (or no cap) then it has to cost more.  Think of it this way: If you have $100K coverage on  your car, and then they said you had to have $200K it would have to cost more.  Likewise, if they said that something else had to be included, it woud have to cost more.

By mandating that every policy (INCLUDING MINE) have features it didn't have before, it has to cost more, and it does.

I keep the same number on m policy, so it is true, I have "The same" policy. It is just differnent terms.

EVEN NO MAX.  Think - If you had $100 K coverage on your car, and then it was "no max," what would that do to the cost.  Is a million dollar house insured the same as a 2 mil house. No.  It has greater exposuse, so it has to cost more.

That is exactly what happened here.  I had X coverage and they changed it.

SOme things may not kick in right now, but insurance plans (and pays) for the long term.  If higher caps kick in next year, they have to raise rates.

And you still avoid the issue.  THE GROUPS THAT SUPPORTED THE BILL OR THAT SUPPORT OBAMA WANT OUT.  THEY DON'T WANT THE BILL REPEALED. THEY WANT A WAIVER. THEY DON'T WANT IT IMPOSED ON THEM, THEY WANT IT IMPOSED ON ME.
IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT, LET THEM JOIN THE REPEAL.  AS WE SAID IN THE 60'S - PART OF THE PROBLEM OR THE SOLUTION. if they want a waiver but favor keeping the bill, they are part o fthe problem.

You should actually be a supporter of HCR. It is a bonanza for the capitalist class. Prices go up and the level of service goes down. More services might be covered but they are services that you dont use that you pay for anyway.

HCR, or at least the version of it that has been rammed down our throat is indeed a bonanza for the so called capitalist class. It certainly isn't any good for the rest of us, even though by definition, I am part of the capitalist class. I make my money of "capital invested", not necessarily the sweat off my brow. lol

Charlie does state that "prices go up and the level of service goes down" I don't see any major disagreement on that point. Just calling something "reform" doesn't make it so.

An insult, and no effort to address anything I said, apart from an innuendo about me personally favoring bonanzas.

And my post is wacky?

Bark. There is not god. Bark. Small "g."  Wow, that's a clever slant on spelling. Bark.

The title is "wackier."  That is the starting point.  From there it gets worse.  I don't desire a "bonanza" for the capitalist, even though I do have some investments.

I think you are a liberal.

really insult you. You said that you are a lawyer, a profession peopled by the minions of the lackeys of the running dogs of capitalism. Lawyers have a habit of trying to pull weasel moves for personal gain. You are constantly ready with a giant supply of facts of dubious origin that you try to pass off as common knowledge. All of this is evident for all to see in your posts Phil. Am I being too critical Phil?

Wow. That is really clever wording.  "[m]inions of the lackeys of the running dogs of capitalism..."

The left is like a religion.  It has its phrases that are very similar to rote prayers of the devout that they can chant and that negate the need for thought, "Running dog, running dog, running dog...."  No need to seriously criticize the content in any analytical way when you can say, "Running dogs, running dogs, running dogs....."

This is typical of you. 90% insult, with a lot of rhetoric.  "Running dog, running dog, running dog. I haven't had a slew of facts in any post in this thread. I had two or three to illustrate a point.  (SHIT. That is terrible, using a couple facts to illustrate a point.

And the origin was rather good. From the govt website itself.  Can you find a better source, or do you just want to complain?

Next you do a quick jump behind a generalization about attorneys. It may very well be true that many are like that.  I dare say you will have to look hard to find a post where I defended the profession.   But you just write of someone you don't know with a generalizaton and a slur.

The objection I have to your being critical is that it is such an inaccurate and canned response.  "Running dogs, running dogs, running dogs."

I will say that as someone who has had two dogs that I dearly love, I do find it offensive for you to portray my canine friends in a negative light.  They both ran in a very elegant fashion,and there was nothing negative about my dogs, evn when running, thank you very much.

By the way, you forgot that there is not god.  (Still with the clever small "g.")

refers to don't you Phil? You are such a tortured individual Phil. Being a minion of a lackey is no fun is it Phil? Phil I cant bring myself to dispute your mundane "facts" that dont really support your arguments. To do that would add some level of validity to your pompous posts.

All I can say is I got a huge grin reading this and want to thank you.  Disputing facts would give them less validity that disproving them, but chanting a mantra rebuts them best.  

"Ohhhhmmmmm.  Running Dog.  Bark. Ohhhhhmmmm. Minnion. Bark. Ohhhhhhmmmmm."

Yes, it works. I feel better.

i made no attempt to address your "facts" because you passed them off as common knowledge.

Bark. Running dog. Bark. Running dog. Bark.

Still more effective to say why not true, even if disguised as common knowledge. Or you can just go mantra on me with "Bark. Running dog. Minnion. Bark. Running dog. Lackey. Bark. No god." (and again no capital "G".)
Bark.

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE