Obamacare undermines government

[Pepper]

You're confusing correlation with causation.

Right now, to get a waiver, about all you have to do is apply for a waiver. The ACA is being phased in.

If someone here thinks that you've presented some great case by pointing out that waivers have gone to unions, then they aren't particularly well informed, and I don't really care what their opinion of me might be. I am not unbiased. Neither are you. But I am well-informed. I hope that you are the same.

 

[Rick]

Both political parties do it.

As I endlessly repeat here, and with unfortunately little effect, I am not a supporter or defender of the republican party, with its RINO establishment.

 

[Dr.Who]

You're confusing correlation with causation.

Right now, to get a waiver, about all you have to do is apply for a waiver. The ACA is being phased in.

If someone here thinks that you've presented some great case by pointing out that waivers have gone to unions, then they aren't particularly well informed, and I don't really care what their opinion of me might be. I am not unbiased. Neither are you. But I am well-informed. I hope that you are the same.

Are you suggesting that no company has been denied a waiver? Perhaps you are suggesting that very few have been denied a waiver? Well, actually you are not suggesting that at all, if what you say is true then that would just be a fact.

So please support your view that all one has to do to get a waiver is apply for one.

One way you could do this is to show that of all the companies that have applied for one that basically all of them have received a waiver.

You could also show us that the waivers that have been given out were not done with favoritism by showing that the companies that have not received waivers are not substantially any different than those that have received waivers.

Good luck with that since the most transparent admin in history has not released the information to say how many applications have been received nor who was denied.

But if they were given out without favoritism then maybe someone could tell us why over 50% of the companies that have applied for waivers are all unions - not companies that have unions but actual unions.

Again, does it matter if it was done with favoritism? Well not really, as long as some people get waivers and some do not it is still not equal protection under the law and it still undermines the rule of law.

 

[Dr.Who]

As I endlessly repeat here, and with unfortunately little effect, I am not a supporter or defender of the republican party, with its RINO establishment.

Yet you failed to criticize the conservatives in your post filled with criticism of the left.

You might hurt their feelings if you leave them out.

 

[Pepper]

Are you suggesting that no company has been denied a waiver? Perhaps you are suggesting that very few have been denied a waiver? Well, actually you are not suggesting that at all, if what you say is true then that would just be a fact.

So please support your view that all one has to do to get a waiver is apply for one.

One way you could do this is to show that of all the companies that have applied for one that basically all of them have received a waiver.

I haven't heard of anyone being denied.

In my reading, I found an article that said that that's pretty much all you had to do was apply, and it would be granted. The suggestion was that it was far too loosey goosey, not that they were being given a political favors. I'm sorry that in the process of looking, I lost track of the link. It was an opinion piece, so you can make of that what you will.

You could also show us that the waivers that have been given out were not done with favoritism by showing that the companies that have not received waivers are not substantially any different than those that have received waivers.

Good luck with that since the most transparent admin in history has not released the information to say how many applications have been received nor who was denied.

But if they were given out without favoritism then maybe someone could tell us why over 50% of the companies that have applied for waivers are all unions - not companies that have unions but actual unions.

Again, does it matter if it was done with favoritism? Well not really, as long as some people get waivers and some do not it is still not equal protection under the law and it still undermines the rule of law.

You made a claim that you can't sustain. You're still making it. I think you're just a bit too rigid for the real world, too much of an idealist. Not that idealism doesn't have its place, but you really want all the blocks to line up just so.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/03/feder_aca_testimony.html

Therefore, the administration has been willing to grant waivers from some of the law’s early requirements, which, if fully imposed, might leave people with nothing. The aim of the law’s early requirements and benefits is to make matters better, without making them worse, until the full law goes into effect in 2014. Far from indicating weaknesses in the ACA, these waivers reflect its strength in matching requirements with capacity. It behooves administrators of the ACA to be sensitive to disruptions alongside improvements and to assure a balance that enhances people’s protections, as the law intends.

The entire article is very good. As it is testimony before Congress, it was make under oath.

 

[Dr.Who]

You made a claim that you can't sustain. You're still making it.

Which claim have I made that I can't support?

I am saying that some companies have been denied and of those that have been approved a huge percent are political supporters of Obama.

The need to support statements goes both ways.

Please tell us that none have been denied and that those that have been approved are being given out fairly then support it yourself.

What needs no support is the statement that if any waivers are given out that it represents a failure to enforce laws in accordance with the rule of law.

 

[Pepper]

Which claim have I made that I can't support?

I am saying that some companies have been denied and of those that have been approved a huge percent are political supporters of Obama.

The need to support statements goes both ways.

Please tell us that none have been denied and that those that have been approved are being given out fairly then support it yourself.

What needs no support is the statement that if any waivers are given out that it represents a failure to enforce laws in accordance with the rule of law.

You cannot support your claim that these are political favors.

I gave you an excellent link that explained why there is a need for waivers. You are making the perfect the enemy of the good.

 

[Dr.Who]

You cannot support your claim that these are political favors.
.

It is almost statistically impossible that they are not.

If you want to believe that this is like flipping a coin a hundred times and having it come up heads every time then you won't be convinced by anything.