|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 8, 2011 22:56:20 GMT -8
What is it with all these waivers and determinations from just one person as to the application of the law of the land? This way of handing out candy from the Executive branch to some institutions and keeping it away from others at the whim of one person is ripe for error, favoritism, corruption, retribution, etc. If the law sucks and needs someone to interpret it and/or stop it where it is actually detrimental, send it back to Congress for more legislative work. I can see her explaining as to why some companies or Unions get a waiver and other don't. "all employers are equal but some employers are more equal than others"  www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.org/article/28646/Sebelius_Powers_Under_Health_Law_Raise_Concerns.html |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 9, 2011 9:31:03 GMT -8
What is it with all these waivers and determinations from just one person as to the application of the law of the land? This way of handing out candy from the Executive branch to some institutions and keeping it away from others at the whim of one person is ripe for error, favoritism, corruption, retribution, etc. If the law sucks and needs someone to interpret it and/or stop it where it is actually detrimental, send it back to Congress for more legislative work. I can see her explaining as to why some companies or Unions get a waiver and other don't. "all employers are equal but some employers are more equal than others" www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.org/article/28646/Sebelius_Powers_Under_Health_Law_Raise_Concerns.htmlShould be no waivers. Manditory should mean just that.  |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 9, 2011 18:40:41 GMT -8
What is it with all these waivers and determinations from just one person as to the application of the law of the land? This way of handing out candy from the Executive branch to some institutions and keeping it away from others at the whim of one person is ripe for error, favoritism, corruption, retribution, etc. If the law sucks and needs someone to interpret it and/or stop it where it is actually detrimental, send it back to Congress for more legislative work. I can see her explaining as to why some companies or Unions get a waiver and other don't. "all employers are equal but some employers are more equal than others" www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.org/article/28646/Sebelius_Powers_Under_Health_Law_Raise_Concerns.htmlShould be no waivers. Mandatory should mean just that. Imagine your competitor gets a Health Care waiver and your company doesn't. You have three options: One: Take it in the rear and forever compete on an uneven business playing field; Two: Choose to fight it out in court as an equal protection case with nothing but liberal judges and attorney fees in front of you for years; Three:Donate to the Committee to Re-Elect Barry and try again for the waiver with the Administration. As Ace Ventura Says "Hmmm, Let me think?" |
|
