111 unioins exempt from 'Obamacare'
 

Many of these exempt orginizations are the very same ones that called for this legislation.

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations...or_waiver.html

Not surprising....friggin back room deals. The only thing I see on C-Span is nothing. :down:

Sigh...why can't we have a politics subforum???

What, no actual response? I expected more from you.

Why bother?

So dome of the very people who called for the legislation happen to be among the people who are using the legislation...wow whodathunkit:har:

I didn't realise Captain Elliots party boats was a union though, just like a I didn't realise a whole big pile of that 111 who applied for and got waivers were unions.
Then again perhaps they ain't unions and are just companies that are availing of the legislation....but that wouldn't make sense as the title of this topic clearly intends to say the 111 are unions ......or is that onions:rotfl2:

So lets see if I have this right, anyone can apply for a waiver and if they meet the criteria they can get one.
Thats just so unfair on people who either don't apply or don't meet the criteria.

What? here Ill fix it for you.

"So some of the very pepole who called for the legislation happen to be among the pepole who are AVOIDING the legislation"

Whats with the cherry picking ? Fishing boat :haha:

What about American Fidelity 9,000 plus

Or everyones favorite outfit SEIU 31,000 plus

or CIGNA at 265,000

These are not insignifigant numbers.

CAPS LOCK strikes again,:rotfl2:
If they were avoiding the legislation they wouldn't be using the legislation. The whole waiver scheme is part of the legislation.


Hey its Party boat:yeah:
Is it 111 unions or not?
the fact that it isn't 111 unions doesn't make it cherry picking, it just shows that you were having to make stuff up to try and justify your rant.
Its funny that you focus on the unions when it looks like the some of the major players with waiver applications happen to be health care companies and health care insurance companies.
Surely you should be complaining that the "socialist" program is a present to big business and panders to their interests:up:

Semantics... have a nice day. :salute:

Facts.....those are the things you should face before you let your regular outrage meter blow steam.

That would be so nice!

I'd be curious to know the reason why Neal refuse it ?:06:?

Now you've got it! :up:

The reason is that, despite what a few members seem to believe, SubSim is not a political forum. While political discussion is tollerated, it is clearly stated that topic spamming is discouraged. Creating a sub-forum dedicated soley to politics would not only encourage the type of topic spamming that we are trying to avoid, it also would mark a change in the direction of SubSim; away from being a website dedicated to naval combat simulations, as well as military history, video games in general and computer hardware by direct association, to a site explicitly dealing with social and political issues. Since the political is off topic in relation to the purpose of the website, it is placed in General Topics along with other off-topic posts. Creating a forum specific to politics would be an overt endorsement of political speech that I believe the site owner would like to avoid. It is not by accident that General Topics is listed towards the bottom of the board.

In short, Neal has said repeatedly that while some political discourse is acceptable, SubSim is not the place for political 'campaigning', as it were. Members are reminded that there are a plethora of sites that cater to those sensibilites, and are encouraged to use one of them if that is his intent.

That is perfectly understandable.

It doesn't seem to be clear for everyone, thanks. ;)

You're abolutely right; it does not seem to be clear to everyone, and I think that the solution is that members need to refrain from spamming, and moderators need to be tougher on those that engage in topic spamming. That goes for all sub-forums across the board. I need to do a better job as well.

To paraphrase from my (internet) boss, Mr. Stevens, there are three types of people that use internet forums: People who understand the rules, people that don't understand the rules and people that need to be hit with a stick. As moderators, we have to do a better job of keeping the third type from disrupting the enjoyment of the first two.

@SteamWake (and everyone else).

Please feel free to continue with this thread, I'm not the one who have to tell you if you're spamming or not.

It just annoys me how polarized some people are here and how they tend to oversimplify everything.

Trust me I like a big stick.

I don't mind the political stuff as long as like Takeda says isn't the same person posting the same thing ad naseum.

You might remember a guy called subman1. He ended up in the brig.

Union scum at it again.Unions are like many things, started with noble cause but those in charge use it as a cash cow and as their way to power since theyd more than likely be just another guy on the assembly line if not for their position.They slap a shirt and ti on some guy and call him President of the Union, he suddenly gets respect even though hes prob just a thug and simpleton.Unions have numbers though and they vote, so Dems play to them via class warfare, its digusting.

Because it might be a pleasant change. You never discuss - you sit on a high horse and mock anyone from "the other side", all the while denying the fact that you're exactly like them.

Same thing. As Takeda Shingen noted, Neal tolerates political discussion...barely. Some actual discussion might be nice, as opposed to diatribe.

First of all, I don't think it would very much encourage topic spamming. The people who would post topics about politics are already posting topics about politics at this very moment. The only difference is that they'd do it in another forum.
Secondly, I can't quite agree with the assumption that it would mark a change in the direction of subsim. Trust me, if you google for "political forum", you're not gonna find subsim. That ain't gonna change if you separate the political forum. The only members will be people who play submarine simulators. The only change would be that lots of people who as of now post their topics in GT, would then post in a separate political forum.

Thirdly, I'd enforce the "topic spamming rules" a bit stricter. Either allow it, or don't allow it, but not semi-allow it such as now. How many "The Dems are BAAAAD"-threads are there? (this is NOT any criticism on the moderators, but more on the rules)

This isn't the first complaint about this. The very fact that many members are starting to complain about the abundance of political threads, is a sign that *something* has to change.

So then a Political Forum could be made a subforum of GT. It would definately keep similar topics together, and as a subforum of GT it wouldn't be off-topic in relation to the website.

In that case, as I more or less stated above, disallow it altogether.
But none of those sites is as great as subsim:yeah:


In any other circumstance I would have PM'ed these points of concern to either Neal or a GT moderator, but personally I think this is a point to which many other members might want to add something, either for or against a separate forum. I really do not care what's gonna happen, but as I said, the relatively large amount of complaints lately is a sign that something has to change.

A good suggestion, and one which would work in this forum as well as a dedicated political forum. "Either post reasonable discussion, or not at all."

Possibly, but then you'd have people posting politics here anyway. How many threads appear in the actual game sections that are about new movies, books etc?

There's an idea. Ban all political discussion, period, and see how many people who post in them come around anymore. As far as complaints go, if someone doesn't like a thread they don't have to read it. I frequent most of the forums here every day, and there are certain threads that I've read once and don't bother opening again.