New Health Care Waivers: 20% go to Pelosi's district

[Acid Trip]

More of the same old shit.

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

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.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

For instance, Boboquivari’s restaurant in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco got a waiver from Obamacare. Boboquivari’s advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons and $35 crab dinners.

Then, there’s Café des Amis, which describes its eating experience as “a timeless Parisian style brasserie” which is “located on one of San Francisco’s premier shopping and strolling boulevards, Union Street,” according to the restaurant’s Web site.

“Bacchus Management Group, in partnership with Perry Butler, is bringing you that same warm, inviting feeling, with a distinctive San Francisco spin,” the Web site reads. Somehow, though, the San Francisco upper class eatery earned itself a waiver from Obamacare because it apparently cost them too much to meet the law’s first year requirements.

The reason the Obama administration says it has given out waivers is to exempt certain companies or policyholders from “annual limit requirements.” The applications for the waivers are “reviewed on a case by case basis by department officials who look at a series of factors including whether or not a premium increase is large or if a significant number of enrollees would lose access to their current plan because the coverage would not be offered in the absence of a waiver.” The waivers don’t allow a company to permanently refrain from implementing Obamacare’s stipulations, but companies can reapply for waivers annually through 2014.

Café Mason, a diner near San Francisco’s Union Square, got a waiver too. When The Daily Caller asked the manager about the waiver and how the president’s new sweeping federal health care law was affecting his restaurant, he hung up the phone. The Franciscan Crab restaurant on Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco got a waiver. Its menu features entrees ranging from about $15 to $60. The Franciscan’s general manager didn’t return TheDC’s requests for comment.

Four-star hotel Campton Place got one too, as did Hotel Nikko San Francisco, which describes itself as “four-diamond luxury in the heart of the city.” Tru Spa, which Allure Magazine rated the “best day spa in San Francisco,” received an Obamacare waiver as well.

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.

But, the spa owner wouldn’t talk about it or the reason his company sought a waiver. He hung up after saying, “I’ve got clients on the other line, good-bye.”

San Francisco Honda, which has two of its three locations in Pelosi’s district, and San Francisco’s Royal Motors Group both got waivers too. Neither called TheDC back.

Blue & Gold Fleet, which describes itself as “the Bay Area’s premier provider of Bay Cruise, Ferry Service and Motorcoach Tours,” got an Obamacare waiver approved in April. The tour service company didn’t return TheDC’s requests for comment.

Nightclub Infusion Lounge got an Obamacare waiver approved in April too. Infusion Lounge calls itself a “sophisticated nightlife destination” with “Asian inspired sub-rosa lounge, fashioned by Hong Kong’s hottest designer, Kinney Chan,” which makes for a “true ultra lounge catering to both dancing hipsters and young professionals looking to relax in style.” Infusion Lounge’s owners didn’t return TheDC’s requests for comment either.

Simco Restaurants and several other affiliated chains based in the area got waivers for their businesses as well. For example, Gordon Yoshida, the manager of memorabilia store Only in San Francisco, told TheDC that Sandra Fletcher of Simco walked him through the process of getting an Obamacare waiver. Fletcher did not return TheDC’s requests for comment.

Pelosi’s office did not respond to TheDC’s requests for comment either.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/17/ne...%99s-district/

[Deepsepia]

More of the same old shit.

Yes, more wingnut nonsense. It just doesn't stop.

This is not a "year long pass from Obamacare" -- rather its a waiver of requirements that a healthcare plan not spend more than a certain percentage on administrative costs. The hospitality industry has huge employee turnover, and in a city like SF, where HIV is common, you also have major medical cost issues.

So its quite logical that these establishments got a waiver on meeting the administrative cost target.

Notice that the article doesn't actually specify what the waiver is of, and what the impact of that waiver is. In short, its just ignorant innuendo.

[Acid Trip]

Innuendo? Please. Why is the health care law good for EVERYONE except these companies? The law is not being equally enforced upon all parties and the people deciding who gets waivers are unelected bureaucrats. How is that even remotely fair? Good enough for the goose but not the gander eh?

[Deepsepia]

Innuendo? Please. Why is the health care law good for EVERYONE except these companies? The law is not being equally enforced upon all parties and the people deciding who gets waivers are unelected bureaucrats. How is that even remotely fair? Good enough for the goose but not the gander eh?

No. That's entirely wrong. First of all the "innuendo" --lots of snide comments about "fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels". That's "innuendo".

Next: What is this a waiver of?

Read the article. Does it say? It claims that the waiver is of "Obamacare".

It isn't.

So: the article is innuendo, and its ignorant.

The reporter failed to do the very first thing that a good reporter should do: find out the facts, and then he did the thing a reporter shouldn't do, which is to substitute slurs ("decadent hotels"-- what exactly makes the "Hotel Nikko" -- which caters to Japanese businessmen and tourists-- "decadent").

Its an article which appeals to prejudice and is ignorant. Just terrible.

[AntZ]

So: the article is innuendo, and its ignorant.

The reporter failed to do the very first thing that a good reporter should do: find out the facts, and then he did the thing a reporter shouldn't do, which is to substitute slurs ("decadent hotels"-- what exactly makes the "Hotel Nikko" -- which caters to Japanese businessmen and tourists-- "decadent").

Its an article which appeals to prejudice and is ignorant. Just terrible.

Really??

What reporters out there actually "find out the facts" and don't "substitute slurs"? That is the M.O. of all the reporters of the major news networks local and national! As well as all the major papers and the wire services! Welcome to the real world!

And the Hotel Nikko, IS a decadent hotel! What the hell difference does it make who it caters to?? It is a upper class hotel! Period!

[Deepsepia]

Really??

Yes, really.

What reporters out there actually "find out the facts" and don't "substitute slurs"?

None of the major dailies or newsweeklies would print something this bad.

This is a trash article. It is all innuendo about what it imagines to be the decadent lifestyle of San Francisco . . . and doesn't even specify what the "waivers" it purports to be discussing "waive" in this instance.

There is good journalism, bad journalism, and stuff that doesn't even try to be journalism. This is the latter.

When I see a lousy article I say so.

And the Hotel Nikko, IS a decadent hotel! What the hell difference does it make who it caters to?? It is a upper class hotel! Period!

Sorry, what makes it "decadent"?

Its an ordinary, very dull and not particularly high end hotel, popular with Japanese tourists and conventions. I've stayed there myself for trade shows, its equivalent to a Hilton or a Sheraton, not up to a Westin or Hyatt, but then I must have missed Nero and the Roman orgy.


Since you seem to be in doubt as to what good journalism looks like, here are a few articles from today's papers, each of them dramatically different in tone and content from this trash.

LA Times:
"California's revenue surge might stymie efforts to stabilize finances"

An intelligent, well sourced article on California's budget problems, with no partisan angle, no slurs, and lots of research.

Bloomberg News:

Oil Companies’ $21 Billion U.S. Tax Break Survives Repeal Effort in Senate

Intelligent, well sourced article on a contentious topic. Good journalism. Starts with facts, gets the positions of both political parties, gets the position of industry and environmentalists. A person reading the article, on either side of the issue, will find his position articulated without slurs.

New York Times

In Japan Reactor Failings, Danger Signs for the U.S.

Well researched article on nuclear dangers that avoids scare mongering and discusses hard technical issues with facts, not emotion. Unusual for a daily newspaper to write an article on a subject as technical as how venting works in a nuclear reactor, and what the questions are in the mechanisms involved in this process-- but the issue is obviously big enough (we have many reactors of a similar design to Fukushima operating here) that the Times' reporters did the work.

You can easily find many articles as good as the three that I cite: they're the norm for "professional journalism" . . . the original post in this thread was simply junk, and if you compare it to good reporting you'll see the difference.

[FBD]

That the article wasnt spectacularly well written is no excuse for Queen Nancy's political favors.

[Acid Trip]

This is a trash article. It is all innuendo about what it imagines to be the decadent lifestyle of San Francisco . . . and doesn't even specify what the "waivers" it purports to be discussing "waive" in this instance.

It's right there in the article. Paragraph 8, sentence 1.

"The reason the Obama administration says it has given out waivers is to exempt certain companies or policyholders from “annual limit requirements.”"

[AntZ]

Yes, really.




None of the major dailies or newsweeklies would print something this bad.

This is a trash article. It is all innuendo about what it imagines to be the decadent lifestyle of San Francisco . . . and doesn't even specify what the "waivers" it purports to be discussing "waive" in this instance.

There is good journalism, bad journalism, and stuff that doesn't even try to be journalism. This is the latter.

When I see a lousy article I say so.



Sorry, what makes it "decadent"?

Its an ordinary, very dull and not particularly high end hotel, popular with Japanese tourists and conventions. I've stayed there myself for trade shows, its equivalent to a Hilton or a Sheraton, not up to a Westin or Hyatt, but then I must have missed Nero and the Roman orgy.


Since you seem to be in doubt as to what good journalism looks like, here are a few articles from today's papers, each of them dramatically different in tone and content from this trash.

LA Times:
"California's revenue surge might stymie efforts to stabilize finances"

An intelligent, well sourced article on California's budget problems, with no partisan angle, no slurs, and lots of research.

Bloomberg News:

Oil Companies’ $21 Billion U.S. Tax Break Survives Repeal Effort in Senate

Intelligent, well sourced article on a contentious topic. Good journalism. Starts with facts, gets the positions of both political parties, gets the position of industry and environmentalists. A person reading the article, on either side of the issue, will find his position articulated without slurs.

New York Times

In Japan Reactor Failings, Danger Signs for the U.S.

Well researched article on nuclear dangers that avoids scare mongering and discusses hard technical issues with facts, not emotion. Unusual for a daily newspaper to write an article on a subject as technical as how venting works in a nuclear reactor, and what the questions are in the mechanisms involved in this process-- but the issue is obviously big enough (we have many reactors of a similar design to Fukushima operating here) that the Times' reporters did the work.

You can easily find many articles as good as the three that I cite: they're the norm for "professional journalism" . . . the original post in this thread was simply junk, and if you compare it to good reporting you'll see the difference.

Bla..bla..bla..................

So we're back to our old tricks?

If you are running defense for a topic and can't dispute the facts, go back to word fixations and attacks on the journalism! Your posting of examples was a waste of time! No one ever said that good articles DON'T exist, but the fact that all reporters fill their articles with their political leanings when they feel like is known by every clear thinking reader.

So this is the worst article ever written! O.K. Bad bad article and those bad innuendos! Have you found that the fact that those shanty hotels and scummy restaurants did not get any waivers? Was the whole story made up? Was this story even worse then the made up story of Bush's National Guard AWOL?

Wasn't the Obama care scheme going to fix the problems? Why does everyone need a waiver? So it's because these businesses have a large portion on gay employees, did West Hollywood and Grenage Village get an equal amount of waivers?