PDA

View Full Version : 50% of Latest Crop of Obamacare Waivers: Unions!!



Sev
04-03-2011, 08:11 PM
Obama has got to keep the bread and butter donation group under his wing. Nothing like a Chicago style payoff.

This thing become more of a joke every day.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42687
<span style="color: #000000">
The Obama Administration has now granted over 1,000 health care waivers. Half of the latest 129 waivers went to unions.

Jamie Durpree at the AJC reported:

The Obama Administration has rolled out another 129 waivers to one provision of the new health reform law, with almost half of those new exemptions going to various union groups. The extra waivers bring the total to 1,168...

...The waivers now cover almost three million Americans, but the feds argue that is "less than 2 percent of all Americans who have private health insurance.

Almost half of the new round of waivers were given to union health benefit programs, a fact that is sure spur new complaints from health law critics in the Congress, who see these waivers as evidence that the Obama health plan is flawed.

Karl Rove previously reported that a disproportionate number of waivers, nearly one-third, were being granted to union workers even though unionized workers make up only 7% of the private work force.

The Washington based GOP think tank known as Crossroads GPS filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday in D.C. District Court against the Department of Health and Human Services. The group is seeking documents to better understand how HHS makes decisions to grant waivers to the new health care law.

</span>

JohnnyD
04-03-2011, 11:46 PM
Excellent post.

LWW
04-04-2011, 03:19 AM
Weren't we just assured on this forum that there was zero chance and zero evidence that unions/Obama supporters were or would receive anything even resembling preferential treatment?

Qtec
04-04-2011, 03:54 AM
So out of, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 1,168 waivers ...</div></div>

65 went to unions? Where did the rest go?

Q

Sev
04-04-2011, 05:34 AM
As union members are approx about 7% of the working population its a disproportionate amount.
Of course he needs their donations for his billion dollar campaign.

LWW
04-04-2011, 06:22 AM
The real questions are why the regime and HHS refuse to reveal the criteria for who does and doesn't get a waiver.

Soflasnapper
04-04-2011, 10:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As union members are approx about 7% of the working population its a disproportionate amount.
Of course he needs their donations for his billion dollar campaign. </div></div>

But all this shows is **6%** of the total waivers granted going to unions, which is UNDER 7%. (Perhaps, and likely, some of the prior ones went to unions as well, but there is no number given for those prior waivers).

Besides, the proper measure wouldn't be the percentage of union workers of the total of workers, but the percentage of union workers as compared to all INSURED workers (because only insured workers or groups could apply for waivers). I estimate at 7% of the workforce, unions are about 11% of the insured work population, and that would be then the proper percentage they'd get of waivers, all thing remaining pro-rata.

This number doesn't even show they have reached that 7% mark (although they probably have)-- but what evidence is there that they've exceeded 11% (or whatever is a more accurate gauge of their percentage of those who have insurance)?

pooltchr
04-04-2011, 11:13 AM
Actually, since the waivers are being granted to groups, I think the number of groups is probably more significant than the number of individuals included. But either way, it is still obvious that this administration has no problem granting favors to unions. Hell, they gave them an entire automobile company!!!

Steve

Soflasnapper
04-04-2011, 12:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Weren't we just assured on this forum that there was zero chance and zero evidence that unions/Obama supporters were or would receive anything even resembling preferential treatment?

</div></div>

No, because 'resembling preferential treatment' is in the eye of the beholder, not an objective question.

If 100 unions apply for waivers, and 50 are granted, and 50 companies apply, and their entire 50 are granted, Rove and you (evidently) would say this is resembles union favoritism, nay, PROVES unions are being favored, as they 'received 50% of the waivers, although only 7% of the workforce.'

This kind of bad faith take-- because obviously, if unions only get 50% approval, and companies get 100% approval, means if anything, unions would be getting worse treatment, not better-- is hard to guard against. It requires honest people on the other side of the debate, and nobody can assure that in this country on political questions.

I say that because in the linked article, Rove appears to call waivers applied for BY COMPANIES as ALSO 'union favors,' because their employees are unionized.

Isn't it clear that any showing of favoritism would have to be based on a showing of the applied/approved/denied figures?

Just as a showing of racial discrimination in hiring is not accomplished unless you show a number of qualified minorities having applied in the first place. No such applicants, no possible showing of discrimination in hiring.

So, instead of showing anything that proves what you're saying, let's just go with misleading factoids like HALF THE WAIVERS GRANTED WENT TO UNIONS (on this small, latest round, putting the disclaimer out of the headline so as to better mislead the ignoratii). Or Rove saying it was 33%, by putting COMPANY-requested waivers at the feet of the unions.

Nice racket the right has going, when their own willing side cannot see the propaganda tricks being used to fool their own selves.

Soflasnapper
04-04-2011, 12:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, since the waivers are being granted to groups, I think the number of groups is probably more significant than the number of individuals included. But either way, it is still obvious that this administration has no problem granting favors to unions. Hell, they gave them an entire automobile company!!!

Steve </div></div>

No they did not do that (give them an entire automobile company).

What are you referring to?

LWW
04-04-2011, 01:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As union members are approx about 7% of the working population its a disproportionate amount.
Of course he needs their donations for his billion dollar campaign. </div></div>

But all this shows is **6%** of the total waivers granted going to unions, which is UNDER 7%. (Perhaps, and likely, some of the prior ones went to unions as well, but there is no number given for those prior waivers). </div></div>

Oh please.

The cabal will lick the spoon clean of such junk mathematics, but what the story says is that unions received have of the most recent 129 waivers given.

Every time there has been a batch given, unions have received many ... with municipalities and companies which endorsed dear leader taking up much, if not all, of the remainder.

LWW
04-04-2011, 01:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Weren't we just assured on this forum that there was zero chance and zero evidence that unions/Obama supporters were or would receive anything even resembling preferential treatment?

</div></div>

No, because 'resembling preferential treatment' is in the eye of the beholder, not an objective question.</div></div>

Yeah, right.

http://slapblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Obama-laughing-at-you.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is worth noting that there are 166 union benefits funds now exempted from this requirement, which account for about 40 percent of the exempted workers.</div></div>

7% of the workforce, 40% of the exempted employees, no preferential treatment.

The entire insanity of Affirmative Action is based on numbers much flimsier representing far less of a tilt.

OH DEAR! (http://slapblog.com/?p=8375)

Soflasnapper
04-04-2011, 08:36 PM
This finding is like the shocking discovery that some large majority amount of the stimulus went to zip codes with Democratic majorities. This find was excitedly talked about in the same tones as this one is now.

Turned out that was only true because the CAPITALS of states where Democrats were in power happened to be majority-Democratic, and of course, the money flowed into the states (at the capitals).

Sheesh.

So far as I've heard, and I specifically asked you to tell me what you knew to the contrary before, there have been no corporations or other non-union groups who've asked for waivers and been denied them. So if more unions ASKED than corporations or others, the imbalance is likely due to that fact (Occam's Razor cutting sharply), rather than a mythical favoritism that no one can show is occurring.

LWW
04-05-2011, 03:18 AM
To answer that the regime must reveal the list and their procedures.

They soi far have not.

You know this.

But, like a man drowning, you cling to this feeble reed.