It's about discipline, order, command, and kicking our enemies' asses Euwe.




On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:51 PM, euwe <[email protected]> wrote:

> if war is so good, why do we have a penalty for desertion?
>
> On Oct 20, 1:24 pm, dick <[email protected]> wrote:
> >     *   REVIEW & OUTLOOK
> >       <
> http://online.wsj.com/public/search?article-doc-type=%7BReview+%26+Ou....>
> >     * OCTOBER 20, 2010
> >
> >   ObamaCare, for Some
> >
> >     Step right up and get your waiver.
> >
> >     * Article
> >       <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >
> >     * Comments (74)
> >       <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >
> > more in Opinion
> > <http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html> �
> >
> >     * Email
> >       <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >     * Print
> >       <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >     *
> >
> >       Save This
> >       <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >       ? More
> >       <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >
> >     *
> >           o
> >
> >           o
> >
> >             Twitter
> >
> >             Twitter
> >             <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >
> >           o
> >
> >             Digg
> >
> >             Digg
> >             <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >
> >           o + More
> >             <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >
> >       close
> >       <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >
> >           o Yahoo! Buzz
> >             <
> http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?publisherurn=wsj&targetUrl=http://online.w...>
> >           o MySpace
> >             <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >           o del.icio.us
> >             <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >           o Reddit
> >             <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >           o Facebook
> >             <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >           o LinkedIn
> >             <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >           o Fark
> >             <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >           o Viadeo
> >             <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >           o Orkut
> >             <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >     * larger
> >       <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >       Text
> >       <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >       smaller
> >       <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
>  >
> > Well, well. In the clearest evidence so far that ObamaCare is harmful in
> > practice and an election-year liability, the Obama Administration has
> > decided not to enforce some of the law's "consumer protections." At
> > least when the results are politically embarrassing.
> >
> > Over the last several weeks the Health and Human Services Department has
> > granted dozens of temporary waivers to certain ObamaCare mandates so
> > that insurers and businesses won't drop or cancel coverage. The most
> > conspicuous went to McDonald's to protect the "mini-med" plans for some
> > 30,000 hourly workers from a rule that prohibits annual restrictions on
> > benefits. Mini-med policies offer modest coverage at low premiums and
> > other low-wage fast-food chains like Jack in the Box and Denny's have
> > been granted waivers as well.
> >
> > Cigna, Aetna and a few other insurers have been given hall passes to
> > continue selling mini-meds. Another went to the United Federation of
> > Teachers Welfare Fund. The New York union offers city teachers
> > supplemental drug coverage that would have been banned under the new
> rules.
> >
> > At least this sudden regulatory flexibility is protecting the coverage
> > that people have today, as President Obama promised. But it isn't much
> > of an improvement if HHS retreats only after a national political
> > blow-up. After all, the essential point of the regulations was to
> > destroy mini-med plans and other types of coverage that Democrats claim
> > are insufficiently generous. Democrats from Mr. Obama on down call these
> > rules "the patients' bill of rights," but people don't regularly need
> > exemptions from a bill of rights.
> >
> > And is it really better that HHS will impose destructive regulations and
> > then decide on ad hoc basis who they'll hit? This is an invitation to
> > play favorites, exact political retribution and pursue whatever
> > arbitrary goals HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and her successors
> > happen to hold. ObamaCare amnesty shouldn't go merely to the CEOs who
> > can get White House aide Valerie Jarrett on the horn.
> >
> > Recall, too, that the original McDonald's memo the Journal exposed was
> > actually warning about the future damage that will be caused by the
> > forthcoming definition of the "medical loss ratio," that is, what
> > insurers are allowed to count as spending on health-care services. HHS
> > said in a statement that Ms. Sebelius has the power to waive those rules
> > too when they come out and "we fully intend to exercise her discretion
> > under the new law to address the special circumstances of mini-med plans
> > in the medical loss ratio calculations."
> >
> > In other words, HHS is pre-emptively declaring that it will grant a
> > special dispensation to rules that haven't even been finalized. Wouldn't
> > it be better to write less destructive rules in the first place? Or why
> > not give everyone a waiver from everything?
> >
> > The reality is that ObamaCare assigns HHS vast, undefined new powers
> > that will mean whatever Ms. Sebelius and her team decides they will
> > mean. The bill uses the phrase "the Secretary shall" or one of its
> > variants more than a thousand times. Earlier this year, the
> > Congressional Research Service found that ObamaCare created a "currently
> > unknowable" number of new boards, commissions and offices, adding that
> > "it is currently impossible to know how much influence they will
> > ultimately have."
> >
> > HHS is also not building this bureaucratic apparatus in a transparent
> > way. Ten of the 12 new regulations that HHS has issued in the last six
> > months have been "interim final rules" that are not open to the ordinary
> > process of public comment.
> >
> > The White House had to play favorites with Senators and special
> > interests to pass ObamaCare, and its implementation is no less ugly. But
> > the waiver wave is most telling for what it says about the architects of
> > this plan. By bending their own rules, they're conceding their
> > destructiveness.
> >
> > Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A20
> >
> > Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
> >
> > This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution
> > and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement
> > <http://online.wsj.com/public/page/subscriber_agreement.html> and by
> > copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please
> > contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
> >
> > www.djreprints.com<http://www.djreprints.com>
> >
> > More In Opinion
> > <http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html>
> >
> >     * Email
> >       <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >     * Printer Friendly
> >       <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >     * Order Reprints
> >       <
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...>
> >     *
>  >
> >     *
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at 
> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Reply via email to