Great news: Obama says it’s okay to use the term “ObamaCare”

posted at 4:12 pm on August 15, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, clarity at last on whether “ObamaCare” is a derogatory term. Sane people say no, that it’s no more or less outre than “Bush tax cuts.” Some of the left’s dimmer lights say yes because health-care reform is an obvious political liability for them and they’d rather not have their brand all over it. To which The One says: Hey, I do care! Okay, champ. You win.

The second clip below, via Greg Hengler, is more important insofar as it’s a sneak preview of Democratic messaging next year in case the Supremes really do end up shooting down the mandate. The last thing O needs heading into a tough campaign is to have his signature policy achievement declared illegal; if that happens, the spin from the White House will be that the Court itself acted quasi-lawlessly and therefore illegitimately by defying its own Commerce Clause precedent. And the pity of it is, there’ll be some truth to that claim. Apart from a blip in the mid-90s, the Court has given Congress a blank check on commercial regulation. The case against the mandate isn’t that it’s obviously unconstitutional under current precedent, it’s that it’s quite arguably not unconstitutional, such that we’re now at the threshold of handing the federal government power to order citizens to buy certain products. A line must be drawn, not because precedent says so but because precedent in this area desperately needs correcting. In fact, as a law professor and a card-carrying statist, Obama’s well positioned to appreciate that argument. Not until the Court abandoned its decades-old doctrine of “freedom of contract” in the late 1930s did liberal laws regulating state businesses finally enjoy a firm legal footing. Sometimes, when a line of precedent is bad, SCOTUS changes its mind. Do note it for when this debate erupts next spring.

Note the Romney jab, too. I wonder how many good polls for Perry it’ll take before Obama starts talking about the high rate of uninsured in Texas instead.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The waivers are to allow the companies extra time to avoid the increased costs of Obamacare and/or to avoid the elimination of their current health care plans.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 5:01 PM

No Monkey, that’s incorrect.

Do any of you guys know? This is really fascinating.

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:02 PM

This is exactly what I’m talking about. I utter “Bush’s war” and mere moments later Del is typing out lengthy posts chocked full of talking points while writhing around and foaming at the mouth.

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Thanks for admitting that you’re trolling.

Now, answer the question I asked.

fossten on August 15, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Do any of you guys know? This is really fascinating.

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Yes

darwin on August 15, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Vince on August 15, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Easy now, her name-calling will begin.

Bishop on August 15, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Relax, Del. Just relax.

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Translated: “I still can’t refute Del’s facts”.

BTW bayam actually did use the phrase “Bush’s wars” in another thread earlier. But Bush isn’t President now.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 5:03 PM

No Monkey, that’s incorrect.

Do any of you guys know? This is really fascinating.

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Can you answer the question? You’re really boring.

fossten on August 15, 2011 at 5:03 PM

FYI – Megan Kelly said Obama made this stop in a town where unemployment is at 6.9% and many of his future stops are similar. Just something to let your liberal friends know…

miConsevative on August 15, 2011 at 5:03 PM

ROFLMAO!!! Predictable, and still unable to answer her own question. As I’ve said. We know why the waivers were given. It’s not rocket science.
capejasmine on August 15, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Ah ok. So what are they for?

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM

No, that’s the point. You’re a smug butt who is prancing around the comments like you have some secret information that those not illuminated enough to agree with you can’t comprehend. The waivers are gifts to preferred donors and political allies to avoid the deleterious effects of Obamacare. What, is it something so awesome that we all missed?

joeindc44 on August 15, 2011 at 5:05 PM

No Monkey, that’s incorrect.

Do any of you guys know? This is really fascinating.

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:02 PM

No, it is not incorrect. If they could keep their current plans at current costs, there would be no need for a waiver, now would there.

I’m sure you have some semantic argument about needing time to transition into blah, blah, blah, but honesty requires you to admit the following:

a) if the plan does not need to be changed – no need for waiver; or

b) if the costs aren’t increased, no need for waiver.

Or is that just too damn simple for you to understand. You truly have a problem with honesty.

You see, in the real world – a world you still have not experienced – you only get a waiver from something if the the change will be harmful in some way. In the case of healt insurance, that can only be either a) cost or b) coverage.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 5:06 PM

miConsevative on August 15, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Are you implying that Obama’s actions are somehow scripted today?

Nevah!

VibrioCocci on August 15, 2011 at 5:06 PM

crr6 = hexavalent chromium

darwin on August 15, 2011 at 5:06 PM

The waivers are to allow the companies extra time to avoid the increased costs of Obamacare and/or to avoid the elimination of their current health care plans.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 5:01 PM

No Monkey, that’s incorrect.

Do any of you guys know? This is really fascinating.

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Actually, Monkey IS correct, you little worm.

In order to protect coverage for workers in mini-med plans until more affordable and more valuable coverage is available in 2014, the law and regulations issued on annual limits allow the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to grant temporary waivers from this one provision of the law that phases out annual limits if compliance would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums. Plans that receive waivers must comply with all other provisions of the law and must alert consumers that the plan has restrictive coverage and includes low annual limits. Additionally, these waivers are temporary and after 2014, no waivers of the annual limit provision are allowed.

fossten on August 15, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Barrycair Waivers?

Barrycair Waivers are hush money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Limerick on August 15, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Ah, here it is

And our current great recession has nothing to do with George Bush’s wars. Anyone who makes that claim is just as misguided.

bayam on August 15, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Billy Jeff Clintoon, December 1998, trying to distract attention away from his Impeachment:

“Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. … I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.”

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 5:07 PM

No, that’s the point. You’re a smug butt who is prancing around the comments like you have some secret information that those not illuminated enough to agree with you can’t comprehend. The waivers are gifts to preferred donors and political allies to avoid the deleterious effects of Obamacare.
joeindc44 on August 15, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Joe,

I’m afraid that’s also incorrect. You clearly have an internet connection. Why don’t you try googling the answer?

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:07 PM

ROFLMAO!!! Predictable, and still unable to answer her own question. As I’ve said. We know why the waivers were given. It’s not rocket science.
capejasmine on August 15, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Ah ok. So what are they for?

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM

It’s been answered. Now YOU answer the question, if you ever want to be taken seriously around here, you little coward.

fossten on August 15, 2011 at 5:08 PM

fossten on August 15, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Thanks fossten. As you can see, Monkeytoe was incorrect.

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:09 PM

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:02 PM

FO a$$wipe. You’re not worth spit. I have total contempt for you.

crr666=satan sandwich

Vince on August 15, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Thanks fossten. As you can see, Monkeytoe was incorrect.

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Proof by assertion is a logically flawed argument.

How many bjs did you give to pass your law exams, I wonder…

fossten on August 15, 2011 at 5:09 PM

fossten on August 15, 2011 at 5:06 PM

That may make her leave.

a capella on August 15, 2011 at 5:10 PM

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:09 PM

As we can all see, you cannot answer the question.

You lose.

fossten on August 15, 2011 at 5:10 PM

This from a source lying liberal crr6 likely trusts, the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/health-care-waiver-program-obama_n_879515.html):

The waivers address a provision of the law that phases out annual dollar limits on coverage by health insurance plans. Starting this year, plans could not impose a limit below $750,000. But some plans, offered mainly to low-income workers, currently provide $50,000 a year in coverage, and in certain cases much less.

Those plans would have been forced to close down or jack up premiums significantly, leaving more people uninsured.

Gee – either close down teh plan (i.e., make coverage worse) or cost a lot more. Exactly what I said.

I suppose that has different meaning to a liberal though.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Grants exemptions to plans that don’t meet the new, exciting, astronomically expensive minimum coverage requirements.

In other words, Obama knows this shyt will get people laid off and force some businesses to go under so they’re backing off until they can figure out what to do.

darwin on August 15, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Gee – either close down teh plan (i.e., make coverage worse) or cost a lot more. Exactly what I said.

I suppose that has different meaning to a liberal though.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 5:11 PM

LALALALALALALAICANTHEARYOULALALALALALALALA

/crr6

fossten on August 15, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Do any of you guys know? This is really fascinating.

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:02 PM

I already answered it.

Chuck Schick on August 15, 2011 at 5:12 PM

diaf, ccr6. Own the smug, tell us where we’re wrong. I’ve looked at the link, and the tell is “if compliance would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums.” Yeah, so why are the recipients politically connected or given to businesses that received embarrassing press?

joeindc44 on August 15, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Do any of you guys know? This is really fascinating.

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:02 PM

I’d bet even your own mother can’t tolerate more than 5 minutes of you, and your stupidity.

capejasmine on August 15, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Do any of you guys know? This is really fascinating.

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:02 PM

YOU have proven today that you are a silly goose.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Thanks fossten. As you can see, Monkeytoe was incorrect.

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:09 PM

How in your little mind was I incorrect. I said the waivers were to protect plans taht would otherwise be eliminated or prevent having to increase costs. That is exactly what the article quoted by Fosten says. Are you really that stupid. I always knew you were dishonest, but I thought you had at least average intelligence.

How do you not see a waiver to stop from having your plan eliminated or the price of your plan jacked up is a waiver to stop your plan from being eliminated or the price jacked up? What freakin world are you in?

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 5:13 PM

“Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district. Funny how that happens.

joeindc44 on August 15, 2011 at 5:14 PM

I’m hesitant to answer because I don’t think you understand what the waivers are for. If you understood that, you’d also understand why his question doesn’t make much sense.

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 4:50 PM

I can’t wait till she finally answers. Something tells me it’s gonna be something along the Bidenesque “To save more money we need to spend more money!” or the Pelosian “Unemployment insurance is the best job creator!”

Our small little brains just can’t understand such logic.

miConsevative on August 15, 2011 at 5:14 PM

The waivers are gifts to preferred donors and political allies to avoid the deleterious effects of Obamacare. What, is it something so awesome that we all missed?

joeindc44 on August 15, 2011 at 5:05 PM

crr6 has not answered why she believes that congress and Obama s/b exemptions to their wonderful ObamaCare.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2011 at 5:15 PM

crr6…where are you…helloo?

fossten on August 15, 2011 at 5:15 PM

I’m still waiting to hear crr6′s tax plan.

darwin on August 15, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Did he stack his audience?
None of these questions are even remotely hard hitting.

ArmyAunt on August 15, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Do any of you guys know? This is really fascinating.

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:02 PM

I already answered it.

Chuck Schick on August 15, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Actually, I’ll give the real answer – to repay those who got him elected.

miConsevative on August 15, 2011 at 5:15 PM

In crr6′s world, those waivers aren’t being awarded so that the business can keep its plan from being eliminated or prices from going up.

No, there is some other hidden reason that has nothing to do with whether the company can still offer the same plan or whether the premiums will skyrocket.

He won’t say what that mysterious reason is that the press isnt’ reporting though. You see, we are suckers for relying on the corporate shill media that doesnt’ speak truth to power.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM

I’d rather take a pill than have that fool care for me.

SouthernGent on August 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM

FO a$$wipe. You’re not worth spit. I have total contempt for you.

crr666=satan sandwich

Vince on August 15, 2011 at 5:09 PM

She’s not worth your emotion.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Hey monkeytoe, that wasn’t even an article, it was the damned government freaking website.

That’s why crr6 ran like a scared rabbit.

fossten on August 15, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Gee – either close down teh plan (i.e., make coverage worse) or cost a lot more. Exactly what I said.

I suppose that has different meaning to a liberal though.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 5:11 PM

You hit on the most important feature of the waivers before but did not elaborate. Of course the most obvious reason for the waivers is to prevent millions of voters from losing their coverage just in time for the 2012 elections.

When I informed my employees their free health insurance would end December 31 thanks to the PPACA, I was sure to let them know why. From what I can tell, they are all freshly minted Republicans now.

stvnscott on August 15, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Bishop on August 15, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Much to my chagrin, I beat her to it.

She’s not worth your emotion.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Yeah, I know.

Vince on August 15, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Wow I can’t wait to watch this stuttering clusterfuck debate Gov. Perry.
Pop that popcorn!

ArmyAunt on August 15, 2011 at 5:20 PM

When I informed my employees their free health insurance would end December 31 thanks to the PPACA, I was sure to let them know why. From what I can tell, they are all freshly minted Republicans now.

stvnscott on August 15, 2011 at 5:17 PM

What was the percent increase overall to keep their coverage, if you don’t mind my asking.

Chuck Schick on August 15, 2011 at 5:20 PM

THIS JUST IN-Paul Krugman has been holding secret meetings with alien visitors from the Twin Planets 4Q and 4Q2. The Twin Planets are unique, according to Mr. krugman, in that there have been no wars, no strife, no sickness and no economic downturns (except for two a two week period in 1767 when 4Q2 had an unemployment rate that reached .01%)on both for over 400 years! “There can be no doubt”, (Krugman reported the emissary from 4Q as saying) “that Obamacare is the reason for our medical, financial and psychological success. Obama Bless all of us.”

MaiDee on August 15, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Associated Press is shameless…

CANNON FALLS, Minn. (AP) — President Barack Obama launched a rare direct attack Monday on the GOP presidential field, criticizing Republican hopefuls for their blanket opposition to any compromise involving new taxes.

SouthernGent on August 15, 2011 at 5:21 PM

I don’t need your permission Barry, in order to call that screwed up legislation ObamaCare.

GarandFan on August 15, 2011 at 5:21 PM

I’m sure crr6 is busy at Kos or some similar cite trying to find an argument why the waivers are not about allowing companies to put off having their plans canceled or premiums inceased. We’ll soon get an argument about how the waivers are not an admission about the increased costs Obamacare is imposing or the fact taht people don’t get to keep their insurance plan as promised – even though, as Fosten points out – teh gov’t’s own website admits that such is exactly why the waivers were offered.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Please. The waivers are sold as a ticket to get donations later or lose the waiver. That is the racket. That is the Chicago way.

Limerick on August 15, 2011 at 5:21 PM

I admit, it’s interesting that HHS actually posted a page on waivers, I wish I had the google-fu interest to see when that page went up versus the granting of waivers. See, to us cons, the waivers are fishy. Troll is acting like this has been a transparent process, not an ad hoc butt covering operation due to, having passed the law, we now know what’s in it.

joeindc44 on August 15, 2011 at 5:22 PM

*facepalm*

What shameless BS. I guess I could just as easily say “OBAMA, CARE” about what you’re doing to this f’ing country.

Ryan Anthony on August 15, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Someone please read this and then show me the part that explains how the waivers secretly prove that Obamacare is a good thing like cur6 is implying, because I just don’t get it. Poor dumb me with my 3rd tier legal edumucation.

GAO Report: ObamaCare Waivers Issued to Prevent Premium Increases Caused By Health Law’s MandatesPeter Suderman | June 15, 2011

For months, it’s been unclear how the Obama administration’s Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO)—the new bureaucracy set up to regulate health insurance under ObamaCare—was deciding whether to hand out waivers to businesses and unions seeking exemptions from some of the law’s requirements. Now, thanks to a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), we have a somewhat better idea: The administration was handing out waivers in order to prevent large health insurance premium hikes that last year’s health care would have otherwise caused.

According to the GAO, which prepared its report with the help and guidance of CCIIO, the Obama administration’s new insurance regulators “granted waivers on the basis of an application’s projected significant increase in premiums or significant reduction in access to health care benefits.” It’s not a bright-line test, however; there’s still a discretionary element. As the report’s authors explain, “officials told us that they could not exclusively rely on specific numerical criteria to define a significant increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to benefits, because applicant characteristics and circumstances varied widely.” So the process is still not fully transparent.

But what’s most important about the report is how it reveals, yet again, that the folks running the ObamaCare show are aware of the effects the law will have on the price of insurance. Like the Obama administration’s decision to grant the state of Maine a waiver from ObamaCare’s medical loss ratio requirement, the GAO’s description of the waiver process is about as straightforward an admission as anyone is likely to get fulfilling ObamaCare’s new insurance requirements does indeed drive up premium prices and/or reduce health insurance benefits.

Now, the administration would likely contest that argument as unfair. After all, they did issue waivers to businesses and union groups where the premium hikes or benefit losses were expected to be largest. But if anything, the waiver process simply shows that the Obama administration knows that, despite all of the president’s claims about bringing down the cost of both care and insurance premiums, the legislation, as passed, will make health insurance more expensive for a very large number of individuals—hence the issuance of 1,347 waivers covering more than 3 million people.

cynccook on August 15, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Many, if not most, conservatives become unhinged when they hear “Bush’s war.” Why?

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 4:35 PM

No they don’t. We also don’t become unhinged when we hear “Bush Tax Cuts.”

Good Solid B-Plus on August 15, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Are you really that stupid. I always knew you were dishonest, but I thought you had at least average intelligence.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Yes! That stupid, and nope! Not much intelligence there, as far as I and I assure you, many here, can’t see.

capejasmine on August 15, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Well hot damn! Where did crr6 go? I was really looking forward to that educamation.

Nikkia2112 on August 15, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Chuck Schick on August 15, 2011 at 5:20 PM

I gave them all mini-med plans free of charge with a $25K limit. They used it for routine visits, prescriptions, minor emergencies, etc. My insurance company rep told me the plans would be illegal as of January 1 and that I would have to upgrade to full coverage group plans (unless I applied for and was granted a waiver at considerable cost). The new plans were prohibitively expensive at more than double. Sorry, I don’t remember the exact amount. Anyway, I eliminated their free health care plans and gave them all raises equal to the amount I was spending on the plans.

In the end, I saved myself a ton of administrative time and money by doing away with the plans. Thank you, President Obama!

stvnscott on August 15, 2011 at 5:26 PM

I’m sure crr6 is busy at Kos or some similar cite trying to find an argument why the waivers are not about allowing companies to put off having their plans canceled or premiums inceased. We’ll soon get an argument about how the waivers are not an admission about the increased costs Obamacare is imposing or the fact taht people don’t get to keep their insurance plan as promised – even though, as Fosten points out – teh gov’t’s own website admits that such is exactly why the waivers were offered.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 5:21 PM

I’ve asked her this question numerous times whenever this subject comes up, and true to form, she’s run off EVERY TIME.

fossten on August 15, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Are you really that stupid. I always knew you were dishonest, but I thought you had at least average intelligence.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 5:13 PM
Yes! That stupid, and nope! Not much intelligence there, as far as I and I assure you, many here, can’t see.

capejasmine on August 15, 2011 at 5:25 PM

I disagree. She doesn’t answer because she’s totally intellectually dishonest.

fossten on August 15, 2011 at 5:28 PM

crr6, the Buffet thread is still alive and waiting for you.

rogerb on August 15, 2011 at 5:29 PM

This thread proves without a shadow of a doubt that ccr6 is not worth our attention. Can we all agree to ignore it from now on?

Ann on August 15, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Semi-OT: The company that this fraud kept flogging as a source of green jobs is sucking the green weenie:

Evergreen Solar Inc., the Marlboro clean-energy company that received millions in state subsidies to build an ill-fated Bay State factory, has filed for bankruptcy.

Evergreen, which closed its taxpayer-supported Devens factory in March and cut 800 jobs, has been trying to rework its debt for months. The company announced today it is seeking a reorganization in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware and also reached a deal with certain note holders to restructure its debt and sell off certain assets.

The company also said it will lay off another 65 jobs in the United States and Europe, mostly through the shutdown of its Midland, Mich., manufacturing facility. That would leave Evergreen with about 68 workers according to a headcount listed in the bankruptcy filing.

If I were an employee at Johnson Controls or any company The Puttster plans on visiting, I would flee like the wind.

The War Planner on August 15, 2011 at 5:30 PM

cynccook on August 15, 2011 at 5:24 PM

And if you read my link above from Friday- they have to now drop the mandate from millions of middle class families due to their ridiculously rosy projections- as in they knew damn well it was wrong- about how much money they’d need to subsidize insurance in the exchanges.

So those families ARE WAIVED COMPLETELY FROM OBAMACARE MANDATES as of 3 days ago. But the problem is that now if they do want insurance, they’re going to have to pay alot more for it because of all the guaranteed issuance regulations.

Chuck Schick on August 15, 2011 at 5:30 PM

The waivers are gifts to preferred donors and political allies to avoid the deleterious effects of Obamacare.

joeindc44 on August 15, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Joe,

I’m afraid that’s also incorrect. You clearly have an internet connection. Why don’t you try googling the answer?

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:07 PM

The UFCW’s political action committee spent $673,309 in independent expenditures promoting the election of Barack Obama in 2008.

That PAC–the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Active Ballot Club–also contributed $1.8 million to Democratic federal candidates in 2008 and $1.7 million to Democratic congressional candidates in 2010

List of UFCW waivers:

1. Indiana Area UFCW Union Locals and Retail Food Employers’ Health and Welfare Plan covers 6,885 enrollees.

2. UFCW & Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Health & Welfare Fund covers 107 enrollees.

3. UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund covers 77 enrollees.

4. UFCW Local One Health Care Fund covers 4,335 enrollees.

5. Local 888 UFCW covers 4,004 enrollees.

6. UFCW Local 1262 and Employers Health & Welfare Fund covers 3,028 enrollees.

7. Local 377 UFCW covers 1,142 enrollees.

8. UFCW Local 371 Amalgamated Welfare Fund covers 3,800 enrollees.

9. UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust covers 68 enrollees

10. UFCW Local 227 covers 1,125 enrollees.

11. UFCW Maximus Local 455 covers 59 enrollees.

12. UFCW Local 1262 covers 5,390 enrollees.

13. United Food and Commercial Workers Retail Employees and Employers Health

and Welfare Plan covers 98 enrollees

14. United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund covers 821 enrollees.

15. United Food and Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona covers 516 enrollees.

16. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1000 and Kroger Dallas Health and Welfare Plan covers 7,389 enrollees.

17. Delmarva United Food and Commercial Workers covers 2,405 enrollees.

18. United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Local No. 348 Health & Welfare Fund covers 13,663 enrollees.

19. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1445 New Hampshire covers 148 enrollees.

20. The waiver for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1459 and Contributing Employers Health and Welfare Fund covers just four enrollees.

21. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 464a covers 8,228 enrollees.

22. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 911 covers 582 enrollees.

23. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1000 covers 3,855 enrollees.

24. Wisconsin United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Health Plan covers 775 enrollees.

25. United Food and Commercial Workers Union (Mount Laurel, NJ) covers 4,100 enrollees.

26. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1459 covers 1,400 enrollees.

27. United Food and Commercial Workers and Participating Employers Interstate Health and Welfare Fund covers 6,780 enrollees.

28. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1995 covers 2,779 enrollees.

HTH

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 5:32 PM

In the end, I saved myself a ton of administrative time and money by doing away with the plans. Thank you, President Obama!

stvnscott on August 15, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Thanks for that. I’ve heard a few of nearly the exact same stories.

Chuck Schick on August 15, 2011 at 5:33 PM

I disagree. She doesn’t answer because she’s totally intellectually dishonest.

fossten on August 15, 2011 at 5:28 PM

Crr6 sucked you guys in. If she had a defense of the indefensible, she would answer. Of course all of you are right regarding the waivers. I see this sort of thing on facebook, with liberal Obama supporters trying to defend the indefensible, resorting to condescending insults to throw critics off, trying to change the subject, or frustrate you into giving up.

I often like reading Crr6′s Obamacare posts when they involve the legal issues to hear liberal arguments and then see you guys poke holes in them. It is often useful to me to see these exchanges and learn from them. But with the type of non-answers in this thread, it means she is just trying to cause problems and waste everyone’s time.

All of you should expect Crr6 to do more and more of these types of techniques as more of Obama’s indefensible failures rack up.

redeye on August 15, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Gee – either close down teh plan (i.e., make coverage worse) or cost a lot more. Exactly what I said.

I suppose that has different meaning to a liberal though.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 5:11 PM

It’s interesting, too, that if those businesses had to pay the increased costs of coverage, they would have had to lay off workers, thus driving unemployment to stratospheric heights.

O-care is more expensive than other plans allowing consumer choice because O-care comes with more mandates of coverage, coverage that the consumer may not want or need.

onlineanalyst on August 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Much to my chagrin, I beat her to it.
Vince on August 15, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Still not a problem. She likes to pretend her horse is higher than everyone else’s, lamenting the coarseness of the dialogue, then firing out some slur the very next comment.

Bishop on August 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Bush’s War!

(waits for everyone here to become unhinged)

See, it’s funny because crr is a liar.

Good Solid B-Plus on August 15, 2011 at 5:42 PM

The waivers are gifts to preferred donors and political allies to avoid the deleterious effects of Obamacare.

joeindc44 on August 15, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Joe,

I’m afraid that’s also incorrect. You clearly have an internet connection. Why don’t you try googling the answer?

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Three local chapters of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)–whose political action committee spent $27 million supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election–have received temporary waivers from a provision in the Obamacare law.

The three SEIU chapters include the Local 25 in Obama’s hometown of Chicago.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Obama’s green pet explodes, gone, bankrupt.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2011 at 5:47 PM

They got stimulus money and promised 800 jobs.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Hilarious. Darwin is alive and well in the marketplace and doesn’t seem to have a political connection.

Limerick on August 15, 2011 at 5:52 PM

In fact, as a law professor and a card-carrying statist, Obama’s well positioned to appreciate that argument.

Dude? Are you trying to tweak? He was unarguably NOT a law professor….. he was like a substitute teacher for the associate professor who’s cat got sick one day. There is a big big difference.

ted c on August 15, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Dude? Are you trying to tweak? He was unarguably NOT a law professor….. he was like a substitute teacher for the associate professor who’s cat got sick one day. There is a big big difference.

ted c on August 15, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Why did the cat hate the students so much?

stvnscott on August 15, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Why did the cat hate the students so much?

stvnscott on August 15, 2011 at 5:52 PM

it was a cat…they, like liberals, only care for themselves of course./

ted c on August 15, 2011 at 5:55 PM

The professor must be busy with another “student” this evening.

CurtZHP on August 15, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Another 15 months of this sort of news and we can win with the reanimated corpse of Barry Goldwater.

Chuck Schick on August 15, 2011 at 5:57 PM

It’s been answered. Now YOU answer the question, if you ever want to be taken seriously around here, you little coward.

fossten on August 15, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Wait, there are people here that take crr6 seriously now?

ButterflyDragon on August 15, 2011 at 5:59 PM

it was a cat…they, like liberals, only care for themselves of course./

ted c on August 15, 2011 at 5:55 PM

I always had a feeling cats were libtards. No wonder I’m a dog person.

Pretty sure kittens are conservative, though.

stvnscott on August 15, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Wait, there are people here that take crr6 seriously now?

ButterflyDragon on August 15, 2011 at 5:59 PM

I take her seriously as a textbook case of arrested development.

stvnscott on August 15, 2011 at 6:01 PM

OT:

Please accept my mea culpa for last night’s posts on the Rick Perry/Palin thread. I offended a lot of people for no reason, and I sincerely apologize. Especially to you Gryphon and to Voter from WA.

/Taking a self-inflicted time out

Key West Reader on August 15, 2011 at 6:01 PM

redeye on August 15, 2011 at 5:36 PM

I agree with you. However, don’t put it past people here. I think most know why crr6 comes here, and posts on certain threads, and posts in non answers, and demeaning ways.

They feel threatened, and know their Obaby is in trouble. So they either like trying to ire people, or they are trying desperately to pursuade anyone into their line of thinking.

I’m betting they’ve tried this on kindergarteners to no avail.

capejasmine on August 15, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Bush’s War!

(waits for everyone here to become unhinged)

See, it’s funny because crr is a liar.

Good Solid B-Plus on August 15, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Funny how when I Google “bush’s war” I get 2,360,000 results.

And the first result is from the publicly funded DNC outlet known as P-BS.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

The always entertaining Jules Crittenden trashed this bit of PBS/DNC Propaganda thusly:

If you don’t want to read this entire review, or watch all four and a half hours of Frontline’s big fifth anniversary Iraq extravaganza, Bush’s War, here’s the short version:

Bush lied, people died.

It’s hard to know where to start with everything that is wrong with this two-part series, airing at 9 p.m. March 24 and 25 on PBS.

-snip-

Let’s start with the title. This documentary is not actually about George Bush, or his war. It is about his Cabinet’s infighting. In fact, they probably should have called it “The Cabinet’s Infighting,” though that might not be a big viewer draw. Maybe “The Cabinet Infighting of Bush’s War.” Too clunky. How about: “Cheney-Rumsfeld Lied, People Died.” That’s catchier, and would not only get the viewers but lots of press.

Because this entire documentary, from beginning to end, is not even a Bush-bash, it’s all Cheney-Rumsfeld bash. Bush, in the documentary named after him, gets some cameos, a walk-on here and there. He does have some speaking parts, he’s not entirely a spearholder. But Frontline makes it clear in what disregard they hold the president of the United States. He is a chump who gets pushed around and manipulated by Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, despite the best, but tragically flawed efforts of Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet.

-snip-

The Frontline documentarians, of course, avoid expressing any opinions. They rely on the liberal use … pun intended … of a series of scribblers from the New York Times, the Washington Post and other publications to do that for them.

-snip-

This is probably a good place to mention one of the (other) fundamental shortcomings of this documentary. It takes place in a fishbowl. A Washington D.C. fishbowl, in which history largely doesn’t exist. The Sept. 11 attacks are presented only as a horrific event that prompted Cheney and Rumsfeld to start rabidly pushing for the invasion of Iraq. The history of Saddam Hussein, and the many reasons why his removal made sense and still makes sense get lip service at best.

-snip-

In what is Frontline‘s greatest omission and failure, the counter-insurgency strategy is, charitably, only marginally part of this presentation. The development of the surge strategy gets short shrift. To the extent it is discussed at all, it is presented as something Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow dreamed up, based on Col. H.R. McMaster’s experience in Tal Afar, apparently highlighted to further stress what a bonehead Rumsfeld is. The more complex gestation of that strategy is not even alluded to. Its implementation is presented as something only intended to prevent Bush from exiting office with a defeat. The entire year of 2007 is relegated to a single narrated paragraph at the end.

Let me repeat that. The entire year of 2007 is relegated to a single, intoned paragraph, which basically suggests disaster is imminent.

-snip-

But this documentary is not in fact about the Iraq War, or about American interests in a new century, where circumstances have been dramatically altered by events set in motion long before George Bush took office. Nor, as I mentioned, is it actually about George Bush. Bush’s War is a narrowly focused, warmed-over Donald Rumsfeld-Dick Cheney hatefest.

Meanwhile, do a search and replace Bush’s name with the guy in charge now. You will get many more results, but most of them are like these:

In Obama’s Wars, Bob Woodward provides the most intimate and sweeping portrait yet of the young president as commander in chief. Drawing on internal memos, classified documents, meeting notes and hundreds of hours of interviews with most of the key players, including the president, Woodward tells the inside story of Obama making the critical decisions on the Afghanistan War, the secret campaign in Pakistan and the worldwide fight against terrorism.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 6:13 PM

To be fair, P-BS did do a Frontline show called “O’bama’s War”.

But as the NY Times noted when they “reviewed” it, this show wasn’t about O’bama’s War at all. It was just another excuse for the Democrats at P-BS to bash you know who!

On a visit to Kabul, Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration’s special representative to the region, says that the United States must undo the missteps of the last eight years. Kabul is one of them.

“The U.S. has spent a lot of time trying to build a strong central government in Afghanistan,” says Seth Jones, the author of “In the Graveyard of Empires,” which argues that the Bush administration’s focus on Iraq allowed the Taliban to rise again. “That is completely ahistorical in Afghanistan.”

Dr. Goebbels would be proud of them.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 6:14 PM

In fact, as a law professor and a card-carrying statist, Obama’s well positioned to appreciate that argument.

Dude? Are you trying to tweak? He was unarguably NOT a law professor….. he was like a substitute teacher for the associate professor who’s cat got sick one day. There is a big big difference.

ted c on August 15, 2011 at 5:52 PM

He was a law professor, because the University of Chicago says he was one.

Whether or not their “definition” would be accepted by other schools is nebulous.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 6:17 PM

As long as OblameO says so.

Did Hot Air stop?

tarpon on August 15, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Well that’s nice. But I remember during Bush’s presidency if someone said Bush’s war around a conservative….it was generally a very short amount of time until spittle began flying from the Bush supporter’s mouth.
Frankly, I can’t blame them too much. It was an unfair term, and I
never used it.
crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Really? I’ve never given the term a second thought. Can you point to a specific example of a popular conservative gettin’ all Barney Frank-flecked about this term? I don’t care at all what the left (or other cons, for that matter) label it.

Of course, it’s libs that care about labels, so it’s not surprising that you believe cons care anything about what it’s called

spinach.chin on August 15, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Joe,
I’m afraid that’s also incorrect. You clearly have an internet
connection. Why don’t you try googling the answer?
crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Awwww, look… She believes everything The Messiah says.

That is adorable.

spinach.chin on August 15, 2011 at 8:21 PM

How many bjs did you give to pass your law exams, I wonder…

fossten on August 15, 2011 at 5:09 PM

She didn’t pass the bar…I exposed her months ago as a wannabe, she is at best a paralegal. Maybe a University of Phoenix court reporter or paralegal, at the very most.
Like I said, I exposed her months ago and she had no retort…except now she says “Oh I knew what you meant I was just leading you on”…weak at best.
But she is entertaining and good at Googling, just not so good a “law”…

right2bright on August 15, 2011 at 8:22 PM

How about we start calling it: 0bamadontcare

lewis1940 on August 15, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Hey, Barry, it’s ObamaScare, not Obama Cares. For someone blessed with such large ears, you sure choose not to hear too good.

Christien on August 15, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Obamasuck

Ronnie on August 16, 2011 at 2:00 AM

Well he is OJESUS!!!!

Our American Messiah.

PappyD61 on August 16, 2011 at 7:21 AM

Even if it doesn’t cost you a job, it will cost you a lot of time. Where I work we now have to gain some 5000 ‘points’ by 10/1 in order to AVOID a $50/pay period FEE.

So not only do I have to fret about “points”, and follow all this “point” crap online, BUT in order to get “points” you have to participate in a bunch of Health Activities. yesterday they had about 100 employees walking around the parking lot. They now have 8 sessions of this per week (and it still full, whatever that means but I couldn’t get the time slot I needed)(6weeks of walking is 350pts)

None of the listed gyms are in our area.

Also NONE of this Corporate Activity is for my spouse.

So in essence we just got another pay CUT.

FUBO.

orbitalair on August 16, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Soooooo. Is anyone able to answer this? You guys seem pretty upset about the waivers. And yet none of you can explain what they’re for.

Pretty funny.

crr6 on August 15, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Nor can you explain it. Nonetheless, the reason is clear when one looks at who got it and how supportive they’ve been of Obamneycare.

When Sebelius was summoned to explain the rhyme & reason for the waivers, she declared that no more waivers would be given. Now months later and off the radar, here comes more waivers. Nice try, puke.

AH_C on August 16, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2