November 16, 2010

Under the Government's Wing

Transparency? Equality? ObamaCare Waivers Issued to 111 (One Hundred Eleven) Companies

Monique Chartier

... a one year waiver but how easy will it be to simply grant an extension after the first year ... and after the second ... and so on? (Kind of like Gina Raimondo and the one year moratorium she issued on her tax returns.)

These waivers [H/T Fred Thompson Show] raise, first of all, two bigger picture questions.

1) If you have to issue so many waivers to it, is the law in question - whatever the law may be - such a good idea to begin with?

2) Doesn't this rather blatantly violate the principle of equality under the law? With ObamaCare and its waivers (some companies must comply; some do not), haven't we definitively moved into the surreal and patently unfair realm of "Some animals are more equal than others"?

Additionally, this waiver situation is notably lacking in transparency: HHS has taken some pains to bury both the waiver application page (... and the pertinent PDF's on the HHS link are now damaged; does the application page magically get repaired if the proper* contribution has been made?) and the list (posted after the jump) of those 111 companies which have so far obtained the waiver was released by the administration at a point - last Friday afternoon - notorious for being the low point of the media attention cycle.

One of the largest segments receiving this waiver is labor unions. Habledash points out that this waiver to comply with ObamaCare is ON TOP OF the exemption that they previously received for their "Cadillac" plans. You don't suppose these waivers are related to the *multi millions that labor unions have been pouring into the campaign coffers of President Obama and the Democrats, do you?? Nah ...

Companies waived from ObamaCare

Protocol Marketing Group
Sasnak
Star Tek
Adventist Care Centers
B.E.S.T of NY
Boskovich Farms, Inc
Gallegos Corp
Jeffords Steel and Engineering
O.K. Industries
Service Employees Benefit Fund
Sun Pacific Farming Coop
UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust
HCR Manor Care
IBEW No.915
Integra BMS for Culp, Inc.
New England Health Care
Aegis Insurance
Alliance One Tobacco
Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund
Assurant Health (2nd Application)
Captain Elliot’s Party Boats
Carlson Restaurants
CH Guenther & Son
CKM Industries dba Miller Environmental
CWVEBA
Darden Restaurants
Duarte Nursery
Employees Security Fund
Florida Trowel Trades
Ingles Markets
Meijer
O’Reilly Auto Parts
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund
Sun Belt
UFCW Local 227
Uncle Julio’s
United Group
US Imaging
Vino Farms
Advanta
Agricare
Alaska Seafood
American Fidelity
Convergys
Darensberries
Gowan Company
Greystar
Macayo Restaurants
Periodical Services
UniFirst
Universal Forest Products
UFCW Maximus Local 455
AHS
GuideStone Financial Resources
Local 25 SEIU
MAUSER Corp.
Preferred Care, Inc.
Ruby Tuesday
The Dixie Group, Inc.
UFCW Local 1262
Whelan Security Company
AMF Bowling Worldwide
Assisted Living Concepts
Case & Associates
GPM Investments
Grace Living Centers
Mountaire
Swift Spinning
Belmont Village
Caliber Services
Cracker Barrel
DISH Network
Groendyke Transport, Inc
Pocono Medical Center
Regis Corporation
The Pictsweet Co.
Diversified Interiors
Local 802 Musicians Health Fund
Medical Card System
The Buccaneer
CIGNA
Greater Metropolitan Hotel
Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund
GS-ILA
Allied
Harden Healthcare
Health and Welfare Benefit System
Health Connector
I.U.P.A.T
Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
Transport Workers
UFT Welfare Fund
Aegis
Aetna
Allflex
Baptist Retirement
BCS Insurance
Cryogenic
Fowler Packing Co.
Guy C. Lee Mfg.
HealthPort
Jack in the Box
Maritime Association
Maverick County
Metro Paving Fund
PMPS-ILA
PS-ILA
QK/DRD (Denny’s)
Reliance Standard
Tri-Pak
UABT

4:00 PM
Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

"2) Doesn't this rather blatantly violate the principle of equality under the law? With ObamaCare and its waivers (some companies must comply; some do not), haven't we definitively moved into the surreal and patently unfair realm of "Some animals are more equal than others"?"

I sent a check for thousands to the federal government in September, tanning salons being the first to be taxed to fund The Affordable Healthcare Act.

I was never contacted by the IRS, or anybody with instructions of how to file, where to file or anything. I sent my check to the general treasury, using IRS form 720 as a guide.

Health clubs with tanning facilities are exempt from the tax. They must be more equal under Obama's plan than me.

This whole thing is most certainly "surreal."

Posted by: michael at November 16, 2010 4:18 PM

Michael

Sent it to the General Treasury? There's your problem right there. Should have sent the check to Friends of Obama. As a business owner, you stand in grave peril of going over to the dark side and resenting rather than welcoming the meddling of our overlords and self-declared betters. Don't worry, they know what's best for us all.

BTW, what a dodgy list that is, giant companies side by side with businesses you never heard of side by side with union locals... I'd love to know the common thread.

Posted by: chuckR at November 16, 2010 5:22 PM

"I was never contacted by the IRS, or anybody with instructions of how to file, where to file or anything"

I wonder why you weren't helped by the 16,000 additional IRS agents hired under ObamaCare, Michael. It's not like the tanning tax was part of ObamaC ... oh, wait.


" you stand in grave peril of going over to the dark side and resenting rather than welcoming the meddling of our overlords and self-declared betters"

Heh. If that's the dark side, Michael has lots of company there.

Posted by: Monique at November 16, 2010 7:00 PM

"Heh. If that's the dark side, Michael has lots of company there."

Now that was funny!

Posted by: michael at November 16, 2010 7:56 PM


The idea that some animals are more equal than others is also reflected in our state income tax laws.

If one earns enough to be liable for state income tax and then falls on hard times so that one can't meet the obligation,the state refuses to let one in that position reknew their driver's license and vehicle registration. It could simple be a matter of owing a few hundred dollars. Doesn't matter. One is punished as if one had committed a crime.

Is it needless to say this creates hardship for people who already have enough? It's pretty tough to look for work if you can't drive legally. It's pretty tough to even get the basics to sustain life nowadays if you can't drive.

Yet,people who are not liable for any state income tax,such as people on welfare and students who are still supported all or mostly by their parents,can have driver's licenses and register motor vehicles.

Those animals are more equal. It's totally unjust.

Posted by: helen at November 16, 2010 8:46 PM