Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Hypocrisy: Nearly 20 percent of NEW Obamacare waivers are gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Nancy Pelosi’s district

Nearly 20 percent of new Obamacare waivers are gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Nancy Pelosi’s district - The Daily Caller
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....

Before hanging up on TheDC, Tru Spa’s owner said new government health care regulations, both the federal-level Obamacare and new local laws in Northern California, have “devastated” the business. “It’s been bad for us,” he said, without divulging his name, referring to the new health care restrictions.

Update: Eric considers this to have been "debunked" at the Huffington Post Nancy Pelosi Is Being 'Thrown Under The Bus,' Says Company That Requested Health Care Waivers - The gist of the "debunking" seems to be to justify the waivers and assert that Pelosi had nothing to do with them - it does not debunk the large numbers in her district (or Reid's entire state), or that the large numbers of waivers are a good indicator that there are serious flaws in this law that no-one-knew-what-was-in-it-because-they-hadn't-read-it-and-you-had-to-pass-it-to-know-what-was-in-it.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Only the rich deserve health care

If you can't afford it, too bad! I'm not paying for anyone other than myself!


Keep up the good fight Rose!

Rose said...

Did you READ the article? Apparently SOME people DESERVE waivers... but not you.

Anonymous said...

Anon. Fuck off. Same old crap from you idiots all the time. Read the article shit for brains. Oh, I'm sorry, how rude, progressive.

No Rose, they don't care about the truth.

Eric Kirk said...

Debunked. Sorry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/nancy-pelosi-health-care-waivers_n_863252.html

Guy in Ohio said...

And we all know what a reputable source of information the Huffington Post is Eric ...

Debunked? I think not ...

Tom Sebourn said...

Mitt Romney had a good plan that took 500-thousand uninsured in his state to 100-thousand uninsured and didn't have to raise taxes to do it. California is likely to be next. It is legal to force residents to buy car insurance if they drive so logic would hold that if people could become sick or infected, which they do, that we could require everyone to pay into some sort of health insurance. One sick person at Walmart or McDonalds could infect large amounts of people and do serious physical and economic damage.

I don't like the idea of insurance for something that everyone has to have like health. I would rather see a basic plan that covers everyone that is funded by everyone for basic health care. Extras like cosmetic and non life saving surgery would be done elsewhere and perhaps done through private insurance plans, cash or trade.

Ultra expensive surgeries could be obtained by the rich , those with super insurance and others with little means would get a chance through a lottery system similar to how it is done now.

This might be best left up to states like Massachusetts, Vermont and California to figure out. States that don't want to go that way could see a loss of their talented work force and tourism. Who wants to work or play in a place that doesn't care about basic medical care?

Guy in Ohio said...

Tom, comparing auto insurance with health insurance just doesn't fly. When you drive your car, you risk the lives and property of everyone else. Doing that without the ability to pay for the damage you might cause to others is irresponsible and it's unfair to others. I'm sorry, but you really don't risk other people's lives just by living. It's a real stretch to say that health care INSURANCE would compensate people for, prevent or protect others from, communicable diseases.

What health insurance does do is protect you from going broke, and it protects our hospitals from suffering the financial losses they currently suffer when people who cannot pay for their care MUST be treated. This entire problem stems from the GOVERNMENT MANDATE that hospitals must treat anyone who walks through their doors, regardless of their ability to pay. As usual, the government CREATED this problem, and is now looking to the taxpayers for the solution to it.

There is a VERY SIMPLE solution to this whole mess. Remove that mandate, and allow hospitals to function like the businesses that they are. As soon as people realized that the gravy train was over, the vast majority of people would VOLUNTARILY buy health insurance. Insurance rates would come down for everybody, because once all the freeloaders were out of the system, the cost of care would drop dramatically. Anyone too stupid to buy a basic insurance plan would be stuck with going to whatever free clinics and charity hospitals were available, and get whatever minimal care was available for free.

Hey, come to think of it, isn't that the way it used to work before the GOVERNMENT got involved? And didn't it work just fine? We certainly didn't have the uncontrolled outbreaks of communicable diseases that you seem to think we'd have, and we developed a health care system that was the envy of the free world under that system didn't we?

This whole mess is just one more example of the failed social policies that Progressives insist on ramming down out throat. They simply don't work. People MUST be held accountable for their actions. Without that accountability, the society will gradually lose touch with reality and crumble.

The government, and the progressives who have hijacked it, are NOT the solution to our problems. They ARE the problem ...

Tom Sebourn said...

The way it used to be? You mean when most hospitals were not for profit? Before 30 cents of every dollar spent went to CEO's and advertising?

In your world, someone rescued from the ocean unconscious that didn't have their insurance information embedded under their skin with a RFID chip would just be let to die. Or they could bleed to death while their insurance is checked to see if they are covered for what ever ails them. How about someone attacked by a gang and their wallet stolen, head bashed in and no id or insurance card. They can't speak because they are unconscious, now what? Let them die? Should someone with a gunshot wound shop around for affordable care?

Your new Governor may just give you what you wish for.
Do what you want in Ohio, but don't try to push that crap on the civilized states.

Guy in Ohio said...

Tom, emergency room care has, and always will be available to everyone. But, it's not emergency room care that's breaking the system. Nice try though.

Guy in Ohio said...

I don't know how many times you liberals have to see Socialism fail before you accept that it's a flawed ideology. I can tolerate young liberals. They're just immature and ignorant, and most of them will eventually grow out of it. It's the old, hardened liberals that slay me. They know and understand that socialism can't really work ... but they just don't care. They're too self-absorbed and too busy getting what they can get from others to worry about what will happen when it all comes crashing down. They think that if they can just grab up everything they need before we hit the wall, they'll be fine.

Selfishness and greed are probably two of the most despicable sins.

Anonymous said...

Guy in Ohio-you're an idiot. ppl that don't have health insurance don't get preventative care. They wait until its bad enough (or don't wait at all and go when they get a tummy ache) to go to the ER; then we all get to split the bill. If they don't have insurance they can't schedule regular Dr's visits, so what the hell are you "nice trying" Tom about? If it's not Dr's visits, and by your logic, not ER visits, than what the hell is it? Your conservatard logic only works on old folks and ppl that are inbreed. Even the old folks are catching on to what you guys are actually up too. You think you can win a national election w/ only the inbreed vote? I know you're from Ohio and that works out there, but not in a "National" election.

Guy in Ohio said...

Anon, you can't read worth a crap or comprehend an intelligent comment. All you seem to be able to do is fling poop and pound on the glass. So, who's acting inbred? Quit wasting time trying to sound like you have a brain, because you're nothing but a partisan hack. Why don't you try formulating an intelligent response for once instead of getting hammered and spewing incoherent comments loaded with insults every weekend?

You'll argue against ANY reasonable solution to the health care problem that doesn't involve bigger, more intrusive government and redistribution of other peoples' property to parasites like yourself. In fact, you'll blindly argue with anything I say. We all know why. Your hatred is going to consume you ...

My comment was clear, and to the point. Government mandates caused this problem and to think that additional government mandates and meddling will fix it is insane. You simply cannot accept the fact that these misguided Socialist policies erode peoples' self esteem and will ALWAYS result in a society full of lazy, unmotivated, entitlement-minded people. That's probably because you're one of them, and don't really see a problem with that ...

Frankly, I don't really give a crap about people who are too lazy and irresponsible to take care of themselves. If they show up at a hospital, because they have neglected themselves, or have failed to plan ahead and can't afford a doctor, tough. They should be sent to a free clinic somewhere and suffer the consequences. We shouldn't BE splitting the bill with them, and if you would take your head out your ass, you'd see that that was my whole point in the first place. Why do people like you insist on dumping the irresponsibility of a bunch of losers upon the people who ARE responsible?

Tom was insinuating that my suggestion of holding people ACCOUNTABLE for their actions would result in deserving people being turned away form ER's. That's a load of crap. It's a typical liberal smear tactic, and it will not go unchallenged here.

REAL ER visits are a tiny fraction of our health care costs, and nobody is suggesting that injured people be turned away from ER's for any reason. But unfortunately, we have a growing class of lazy, irresponsible people taking advantage of the government mandate and using our ER's like free clinics.

Until we put our foot down and turn them away, what will their motivation ever be to do things any differently?

There is a fundamental difference in philosophies between people like you, and people like me. I believe that people are tough and resilient, and when properly challenged and motivated, will excel and solve their own problems. You believe that all people are victims (except evil capitalists and republicans of course), and that they need someone to take care of them. We'll never see eye to eye.

Guy in Ohio said...

You obviously missed my whole point anon. Tom was playing the typical liberal game of "smear the conservative" by implying that my approach could deny ER care to responsible, deserving people in need. That's a load of crap, and it's a lie that won't stand here. It was a very nice try though ...

Now go throw your crap and pound on the glass somewhere else. Your insults are particularly rude today ...

Guy in Ohio said...

And the word is INBRED anon. As in, to be INBRED, or, to INBREED amongst yourselves, or to be a victim of INBREEDING ...

I just love when people who don't even know the proper use of the English language call me an idiot and insult the population of an entire state ...

I got news for you pal. The people living out in California aren't looking too bright nowadays, and you're their poster child for ignorance and bigotry ...

Anonymous said...

Awesome. Someone in Ohio labeling ppl of the state of California as Bigots and as ignorant. Let me guess what's next "reverse racists"? Don't get too worked up over your English now buddy; it's a blog, not a thesis. Just because i haven't mastered the correct tenses of a word that is a staple of your ideology, doesn't mean that i can't disagree w/ your ridiculous post.

Rose said...

Not people of the state of California anon. You.

Guy in Ohio said...

Well anon, then I guess I'll just have to accept the pot calling the kettle black, won't I? Stupid is as stupid does. If you're too ignorant to speak our national language properly, I can only assume what you're trying to SAY is just as ignorant. You've proven me right time and time again ...

Calling an entire state full of people that you've never met "inbreed" is no way to win your case anon. The people of the Midwest have been sneered at, insulted and demeaned by you liberal elitists enough times now to recognize that you're our enemies. If you think adding another insult to the mix is a good idea, feel free. It will only serve to strengthen our resolve ...

mresquan said...

Obama comes from the Midwest,and he is deservedly sneered by lefties such as myself.And actually Clinton came from the Midwest as well.Come to think of it,name the last Republican president to come from the Midwest.The Bushes come from the northeast,then the south,Reagan from California,same as Nixon.So I guess that leaves Ford.

Guy in Ohio said...

Obama comes from the Midwest? Well that's a new one! He was born in Hawaii, and raised in Indonesia. I hardly think going to college at Harvard or living in Chicago for a few years qualifies him as a Midwesterner. In fact, many people don't even consider him to be a US citizen...

However, if his years in the Midwest make him a Midwesterner, then I wonder if anon considers him to be an "inbreed" too? I guess that will be my "question of the week" ...