"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
"The Secretary of Health and Human Services has arbitrarily given waivers
to
1,040 businesses and five entire states from harmful provisions of
ObamaCare. Despite union workers only making up 11.9% of the workforce,
45.55% of waiver beneficiaries are unionized!

While powerful liberal unions are now reaping the benefits of their tens
of
millions of dollars in support for President Obama?s campaign, the rest of
America is left fully complying with the destructive ObamaCare law,
leading
millions to ask:

Yo, Where?s MY Waiver?

In the land of equal protection under the law, all deserve to be protected
from ObamaCare's harm or none should.

If you agree, send an email to the Obama Administration asking for YOUR
waiver from provisions of ObamaCare that harm YOU!"

http://wheresmywaiver.com/

The waivers wouldn't apply to any but a few people, Rich. Their purpose is
to allow for already-contracted plans that limit coverage to less than
$750,000/yr. That applies to 18 million people, most of whom work for large
corporations.

In the case of Maine and a few other states, the waivers are to allow
insurance companies to keep 35% of their gross, rather than 20%, because
those companies are so poorly run that they probably would leave the state.
But Maine has only a few insurers as it is. They probably couldn't pick up
the slack right away.

--
Ed Huntress

rangerssuck wrote:

Rich - You do realize, don't you, that the anecdote about the public's
misconception about the funding of CPB was meant to highlight the
absurdity of your quest for a waiver, don't you? You did read Ed's
explanation of the waivers, didn't you?

What, exactly, is "absurd" about wanting equal treatment under the law.

If Obama's union handlers can have a waiver, howcome the law discriminates
against me? Or you, for that matter. If the law allows for _some_ people
to have a waiver, it should allow _all_ people to have a waiver, otherwise
it violates the "equal protection" provision of the Constitution.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

On Apr 5, 8:17*am, Rich Grise wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

Rich - You do realize, don't you, that the anecdote about the public's
misconception about the funding of CPB was meant to highlight the
absurdity of your quest for a waiver, don't you? You did read Ed's
explanation of the waivers, didn't you?

What, exactly, is "absurd" about wanting equal treatment under the law.

If Obama's union handlers can have a waiver, howcome the law discriminates
against me? Or you, for that matter. If the law allows for _some_ people
to have a waiver, it should allow _all_ people to have a waiver, otherwise
it violates the "equal protection" provision of the Constitution.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Rich -

If the law allows SOME vehicles (police cars, fire trucks, ambulances)
to exceed the speed limit, should it allow ALL vehicles to do so? Your
"equal protection" allows you to request a waiver. It does not
obligate the government to issue said waiver, unless you meet the same
criterea as the other applicants whose waivers were issued.

Now, while we're at it - It has been widely reported that GE paid no
income tax last year. Gunner has also reported that he paid no income
tax. Where's MY free ride?

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

If the law allows SOME vehicles (police cars, fire trucks, ambulances)
to exceed the speed limit, should it allow ALL vehicles to do so?

By what strange mental twist do you equate Obama's liberal unionist
buddies
to "police cars, fire trucks, ambulances"?

What makes them so special? Whose life are they on the way to save, other
than their own greed?

Thanks,
Rich

The fact is that they work for big companies, many of which are self-insured
(it may say Blue Cross on your card, but it isn't), and many of which have
put benefit limits on their employees that are lower than the amount
permitted under the Affordable Care Act. Forcing those companies to increase
their costs while the economy is still weak would hurt *lots* of jobs.

How about you? What is it about your insurance that would qualify you for an
exemption?

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

If the law allows SOME vehicles (police cars, fire trucks, ambulances)
to exceed the speed limit, should it allow ALL vehicles to do so?

By what strange mental twist do you equate Obama's liberal unionist
buddies
to "police cars, fire trucks, ambulances"?

What makes them so special? Whose life are they on the way to save, other
than their own greed?

Thanks,
Rich

The fact is that they work for big companies, many of which are
self-insured (it may say Blue Cross on your card, but it isn't), and many
of which have put benefit limits on their employees that are lower than
the amount permitted under the Affordable Care Act. Forcing those
companies to increase their costs while the economy is still weak would
hurt *lots* of jobs.

How about you? What is it about your insurance that would qualify you for
an exemption?



What is it that makes you think Rich even HAS insurance ?

rangerssuck wrote:

If the law allows SOME vehicles (police cars, fire trucks, ambulances)
to exceed the speed limit, should it allow ALL vehicles to do so?

By what strange mental twist do you equate Obama's liberal unionist buddies
to "police cars, fire trucks, ambulances"?

What makes them so special? Whose life are they on the way to save, other
than their own greed?

Thanks,
Rich

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
newsI2dnVQ3H7_EBQbQnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

If the law allows SOME vehicles (police cars, fire trucks, ambulances)
to exceed the speed limit, should it allow ALL vehicles to do so?

By what strange mental twist do you equate Obama's liberal unionist
buddies
to "police cars, fire trucks, ambulances"?

What makes them so special? Whose life are they on the way to save,
other
than their own greed?

Thanks,
Rich

The fact is that they work for big companies, many of which are
self-insured (it may say Blue Cross on your card, but it isn't), and many
of which have put benefit limits on their employees that are lower than
the amount permitted under the Affordable Care Act. Forcing those
companies to increase their costs while the economy is still weak would
hurt *lots* of jobs.

How about you? What is it about your insurance that would qualify you for
an exemption?



What is it that makes you think Rich even HAS insurance ?

That is an open question. But assuming he does, it would be good to know
what he thinks is happening to his costs under the ACA, and therefore what
would justify an exemption.

But I don't seriously expect an answer. Rich, like most of the other
righties, just salute whenever they read some right-wing polemic, and then
jerk their knees so high they do a backflip.

I think Gunner just strained a tendon between his ears on the debt issue,
for example. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 5, 6:34*pm, Rich Grise wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

If the law allows SOME vehicles (police cars, fire trucks, ambulances)
to exceed the speed limit, should it allow ALL vehicles to do so?

By what strange mental twist do you equate Obama's liberal unionist buddies
to "police cars, fire trucks, ambulances"?

What makes them so special? Whose life are they on the way to save, other
than their own greed?

Thanks,
Rich

Rich, I think you know damned well that I wasn't trying to equate
anyone with a police car. I was giving a different example of a
situation in which your overly simplistic understanding of the equal
protection clause would not apply.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
newsI2dnVQ3H7_EBQbQnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

If the law allows SOME vehicles (police cars, fire trucks, ambulances)
to exceed the speed limit, should it allow ALL vehicles to do so?

By what strange mental twist do you equate Obama's liberal unionist
buddies
to "police cars, fire trucks, ambulances"?

What makes them so special? Whose life are they on the way to save,
other
than their own greed?

Thanks,
Rich

The fact is that they work for big companies, many of which are
self-insured (it may say Blue Cross on your card, but it isn't), and
many of which have put benefit limits on their employees that are lower
than the amount permitted under the Affordable Care Act. Forcing those
companies to increase their costs while the economy is still weak would
hurt *lots* of jobs.

How about you? What is it about your insurance that would qualify you
for an exemption?



What is it that makes you think Rich even HAS insurance ?

That is an open question. But assuming he does, it would be good to know
what he thinks is happening to his costs under the ACA, and therefore what
would justify an exemption.

But I don't seriously expect an answer. Rich, like most of the other
righties, just salute whenever they read some right-wing polemic, and then
jerk their knees so high they do a backflip.


Me thinks way too many who are "opposed to "Obamacare" are in reality ****ed
off because now they will now actually have to contribute--whereas before,
all they had to do show up at the emergency room and pretend like they don't
have any money.

I think Gunner just strained a tendon between his ears on the debt issue,
for example. d8-)


Sorry, no tendons--except for the voices, empty space ...

--

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:89mdneIQSpzFAgbQnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
newsI2dnVQ3H7_EBQbQnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

If the law allows SOME vehicles (police cars, fire trucks,
ambulances)
to exceed the speed limit, should it allow ALL vehicles to do so?

By what strange mental twist do you equate Obama's liberal unionist
buddies
to "police cars, fire trucks, ambulances"?

What makes them so special? Whose life are they on the way to save,
other
than their own greed?

Thanks,
Rich

The fact is that they work for big companies, many of which are
self-insured (it may say Blue Cross on your card, but it isn't), and
many of which have put benefit limits on their employees that are lower
than the amount permitted under the Affordable Care Act. Forcing those
companies to increase their costs while the economy is still weak would
hurt *lots* of jobs.

How about you? What is it about your insurance that would qualify you
for an exemption?



What is it that makes you think Rich even HAS insurance ?

That is an open question. But assuming he does, it would be good to know
what he thinks is happening to his costs under the ACA, and therefore
what would justify an exemption.

But I don't seriously expect an answer. Rich, like most of the other
righties, just salute whenever they read some right-wing polemic, and
then jerk their knees so high they do a backflip.


Me thinks way too many who are "opposed to "Obamacare" are in reality
****ed off because now they will now actually have to contribute--whereas
before, all they had to do show up at the emergency room and pretend like
they don't have any money.

I'm sure there's some of that. But I think most of it is that people don't
know what's going on, economically, because they've never made a real
attempt to understand; the Republicans have labelled every government
involvement in anything "socialism"; socialism is bad; and therefore Obama
is bad and anything he proposes is bad. Besides, he's black and has a funny
name. And many aren't sure that Hawaii is part of the United States. g



I think Gunner just strained a tendon between his ears on the debt issue,
for example. d8-)


Sorry, no tendons--except for the voices, empty space ...

Nah, there's lots of cartilage and other stuff in there. It's pickled for
preservation in desert temperatures.

--
Ed Huntress