NYT: Obama letting big corporations off the hook with ObamaCare waivers

posted at 9:30 am on October 7, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Actually, that’s closer to the headline on MSNBC’s reprint (“White House allows big firms to dodge health reforms”) of this New York Times article than the one in the Times itself (“Waivers Address Talk of Dropping Coverage”), but the meaning is plain either way.  Instead of enforcing the ballyhooed standards and mandates for insurers that Congress passed in ObamaCare, Kathleen Sebelius and the White House blinked in the face of bad press and exempted dozens of companies from the law.  If the marketplace had uncertainty before, the administration has made the situation much, much worse:

As Obama administration officials put into place the first major wave of changes under the health care legislation, they have tried to defuse stiffening resistance — from companies like McDonald’s and some insurers — by granting dozens of waivers to maintain even minimal coverage far below the new law’s standards.

The waivers have been issued in the last several weeks as part of a broader strategic effort to stave off threats by some health insurers to abandon markets, drop out of the business altogether or refuse to sell certain policies.

Among those that administration officials hoped to mollify with waivers were some big insurers, some smaller employers and McDonald’s, which went so far as to warn that the regulations could force it to strip workers of existing coverage. ….

To date, the administration has given about 30 insurers, employers and union plans, responsible for covering about one million people, one-year waivers on the new rules that phase out annual limits on coverage for limited-benefit plans, also known as “mini-meds.” Applicants said their premiums would increase significantly, in some cases doubling or more.

These early exemptions offer the first signs of how the administration may tackle an even more difficult hurdle: the resistance from insurers and others against proposed regulations that will determine how much insurers spend on consumers’ health care versus administrative overhead, a major cornerstone of the law.

First, let’s point out that the law turned out to be unworkable, almost before it even got started.  Dictating percentages for administration costs in insurance plans isn’t the job of the federal government anyway, but more to the point, that issue is obviously not determinative in value to the consumer — as these waivers proved.  This shows what happens when people with no experience in an industry decide that they can construct it better than the market has structured itself.

The proper action would have been to repeal at least this portion of the law in order to give a level playing field to everyone.  By granting a few dozen waivers at the outset, though, the White House has amplified the uncertainty and arbitrariness in ObamaCare even further.  At least insurers and employers had a figure that they could use for planning.  Now there is no standard at all, except for whatever Kathleen Sebelius decides she likes — and whom she wants to favor.

The Rule of Law depends on an environment with clear regulation and unbiased enforcement.  From the start, ObamaCare lacked any clarity in regulation.  Congress filled the bill with the phrase “The Secretary shall determine” in place of establishing rules and regulations for the massive regulatory regime Congress created.  Now, the White House has added arbitrary enforcement to uncertain regulation and opaque processes.  This is not the Rule of Law, but the Whim of Autocracy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Ready the lawsuits.

artist on October 7, 2010 at 9:32 AM

bzzt. This is an example of the crushing hand of tyranny – not whim of autocracy

WashingtonsWake on October 7, 2010 at 9:33 AM

The only law Obama seems willing to abide by is the Law of unintended Consequences. What a helpless ship of fools.

SoRight on October 7, 2010 at 9:35 AM

Obamacare is really the Full Employment Act for Lawyers

PatriotRider on October 7, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Protect your local democrat, waive the brilliance of Obama-Kare…

tarpon on October 7, 2010 at 9:36 AM


“The Secretary shall determine”

As BossLady Michelle says … “The Culture of Corruption.”

Tony737 on October 7, 2010 at 9:36 AM

This is not the Rule of Law, but the Whim of Autocracy.

Beautifully, said, Ed. Spot on.

kingsjester on October 7, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Mendacity of Hope, Baby!

http://www.amazon.com/Mendacity-Hope-Betrayal-American-Liberalism/dp/006201126X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1286458578&sr=1-1

Really, a Chicago Dem machine crony mercantilist, folks?

Dope & Strange!

ebrown2 on October 7, 2010 at 9:37 AM

…..hmmmm…..pass the bill without reading it to find out what is inside . Then decide which companies will be exempt from the new regulations while doctors are preparing to retire in droves. I would say Barry and Nancy have it all under control. Nothing to see here.

DeweyWins on October 7, 2010 at 9:37 AM

We cannot let these people keep picking the winners and losers. They are killing us.

Cindy Munford on October 7, 2010 at 9:37 AM

artist on October 7, 2010 at 9:32 AM

Yup. I would think this would make the case for crushing O care a bit easier.

katy on October 7, 2010 at 9:37 AM

The epitomy of amateurism.

NickelAndDime on October 7, 2010 at 9:38 AM

First, let’s point out that the law turned out to be unworkable, almost before it even got started.

Inequality before the law.

Waiver the lobbyists, waiver the czars, waiver companies…Waiver this waiver that—here’s a waiver there’s a waiver, would’nt you love to have a waiver too? Be a waiver, drink from a waiver.

This whole boondoggle is a bad plan wrapped in a crappy ploy and being papered over in cheap ass slogans.

REPEAL!

ted c on October 7, 2010 at 9:38 AM

This is not the Rule of Law, but the Whim of Autocracy.

+100 blogger waivers for you Ed. Nice work

ted c on October 7, 2010 at 9:39 AM

“Well we can give you a waiver . . . BTW, how much will you be contributing to the DNC this fall?”

It’s the Chicago way.

Pay to play.

NoDonkey on October 7, 2010 at 9:39 AM

March 16, 2010 Obama: You will see ‘premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent’ under Obamacare

I said this wasn’t true when he said it.

seven on October 7, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Just wait until everyone has to start sending out 1099s to anyone they paid $600 or more.

Ha ha.

This is going to be fun.

BowHuntingTexas on October 7, 2010 at 9:39 AM

I am glad. This blunder will make it easier to kill this thing to death before it gets big enough to kill us.

Sharpen your steely knives, my friends, and prepare to stab the beast.

Brian1972 on October 7, 2010 at 9:40 AM

Fresh Air is so wonderful on this 7th day of October-

one more straw on the camel back-
ODumbo care is a *Fraud Waste and Abuse of Taxpayers’* monies.

hawkman on October 7, 2010 at 9:40 AM

Might as well tie the law to a roulette wheel that somebody in Washington has to spin each morning to determine which company has to do what that day.

Aitch748 on October 7, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Healthcare…Schmealthcare. It’ll cost you 50.00 in gas to get there in a few more weeks.

Firmworm on October 7, 2010 at 9:41 AM

except for whatever Kathleen Sebelius decides she likes — and whom she wants to favor.

or punish.

SHARPTOOTH on October 7, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Obama favors organized unions and globalists.

Of course Obama is victimizing small businesses.

No surprise.

maverick muse on October 7, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Patient: “I dropped an axe on my head and I am hemmorhaging severely.”

Dr. Obama: “Here’s a bandaid. Now shutup.”

fogw on October 7, 2010 at 9:42 AM

I want to see the political donation records of those who have been granted waivers vs. those who have been denied waivers.

rbj on October 7, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Hope and change.

albill on October 7, 2010 at 9:47 AM

Now there is no standard at all, except for whatever Kathleen Sebelius decides she likes — and whom she wants to favor.

The Rule of Law depends on an environment with clear regulation and unbiased enforcement.

Double plus ungood. Institutionalized Chicago style enforcement. I want my country back.

jwolf on October 7, 2010 at 9:47 AM

We have the rule of man. If Obama does it, it’s not illegal.

JellyToast on October 7, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Well, if nothing else, this should move Kathleen Sebelius up a couple of notches on Forbes’ “Most Powerful Women” list. Can Oprah save or destroy thousands of companies’ health care programs just on an arbitrary whim?

jon1979 on October 7, 2010 at 9:48 AM

I want to see the political donation records of those who have been granted waivers vs. those who have been denied waivers.

rbj on October 7, 2010 at 9:43 AM

A waiver is merely a “shut up device”….

We granted you a waiver, NOW STFU….
We granted you a waiver, and BTW, it expires next year…pay up sucker. No donation? No waiver?

It’s just another carrot and stick. These companies have to give up something, the freedom of speech to biatch about the legislation, or campaign donations —and, in return, they get left alone from this onerous legislation.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. This is malevolent legislation writ large and it has been foisted upon us by evil and vengeful people who are in need of an ass kicking.

oh yeah, we’re bringin’ it too.

ted c on October 7, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Now, the White House has added arbitrary enforcement to uncertain regulation and opaque processes. This is not the Rule of Law, but the Whim of Autocracy.

Thank God the “adults” are in charge.

Baxter Greene on October 7, 2010 at 9:49 AM

JellyToast on October 7, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Do you not trust Eric Holder to uphold his oath?

Oh.

NoDonkey on October 7, 2010 at 9:50 AM

OT/ unemployment claims dropped “unexpectedly” last week by 11,000. Of course to be revised up next week. That’s why I believe tomorrows “terrible” numbers will be “unexpectedly” better than “expected.”

sandee on October 7, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Predictable. We knew there was no way they’d allow millions of people to lose their health coverage right before the midterms. The problem is these waivers are gonna pit big business against small business and union and against non-union(the biggest waiver was granted to a teachers union with 370,000 employees). And it’ll make it even more of an impossibility for this bill to ever be deficit-neutral.

This is a disaster any way you look at it.

Doughboy on October 7, 2010 at 9:53 AM

When the law cannot be enforced with equality, we become subjects and soon to be serfs.

Being ‘fair’ is in the eye of the beholder.

Being equal and equitable is to treat all without favor nor rancor, and with eveness in all things without distinction to race, class, wealth or social standing.

A Nation of Laws will hold up equality as its touchstone.

A Nation of Men will say fairness so as to be unfair to some and reward others.

I will vote for a Nation of Laws as the other way has always, without fail, come to a bloody and ignoble end.

ajacksonian on October 7, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Can anyone find the complete list of all 30 ?
Good news if that if you have a law degree , BARACK is hiring to defend his OBAMACARE ?
My question is shouldn’t this be a 14th amendment slam dunk ?
What about the racial component ? More minorities in this 30 something ( prolly falls under a Affirmative action action exclusion or something )
The Hypocrisy is so funny , we take McDonalds at look at the plan ? isn’t this a GREAT EXAMPLE of what OBAMACARE was going to prevent ? i.e. mickey mouse plans that offered no real coverage ? NOW Obama has decided instead of these low wage workers getting coverage oh I dont ‘t approaching that of the D.C. crowd they get to keep their coverage that has a ceiling of $2,000 in benefits a year ?

ELMO Q on October 7, 2010 at 9:53 AM

FOR SALE: OBAMA-CARE WAIVERS! ($100,000 donations to Democrats accepted)

Rovin on October 7, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Maybe this headline could read: “Friend of Obama Allowed Off the Hook.” or perhaps “Big Donors to Obama Allowed Waivers.”

Worth looking into. One never knows.

JellyToast on October 7, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Rovin on October 7, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Great minds think alike.

JellyToast on October 7, 2010 at 9:54 AM

It’s not like this administration really cares about the rule of law anyways.

WisCon on October 7, 2010 at 9:55 AM

This from the morning Bloomberg article…

The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers. The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says.

Firmworm on October 7, 2010 at 9:56 AM

The Rule of Law depends on an environment with clear regulation and unbiased enforcement.

Yet the insurance companies, banks, Wall Street, and muti-nationals are in bed with Congress and the White House.

There is never any unbiased enforcement if there is enforcement at all….which is why the system stinks.

rickyricardo on October 7, 2010 at 9:56 AM

This corruption is just a natural consequence of Big Government. It is why all left wing governments fail after everyone cannibalizes each other.

GardenGnome on October 7, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Heard in Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood this morning:

“can you spell ‘shakedown’? I’m sure you can!”

NeighborhoodCatLady on October 7, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Crony socialism is just a necessary prelude to the totalitarian economy that real Marxists want and will have if we don’t stop them now.
Elections have consequences, as Rush succinctly says.
Vote “NO!” against creeping Communism in America this November.

Randy

williars on October 7, 2010 at 9:58 AM

Brian1972

the infernal progressive swine

In Ancient Greek culture, the boar represented death, due to its hunting season beginning on the 23rd of September, the near end of the year.

Boars:

The reality is this. No other 4-legged SPECIES is more pervasive, and have the ability to survive and thrive from climates ranging from HOT DESERT to HIGH MOUNTAINS – including the URBAN SPRAWL found in between! SWINE now exist on every continent, with the exception of Antarctica and the North Pole region.

It’s not a matter of “IF” a new disease that threatens our native wildlife or Pandemic of some kind will be hosted by this animal. It’s only a matter of time when it does; and it will spread like a wild fire as the infected wild hogs traverse the country-side, through fences, over roads, swim rivers, and climb mountains in over-abundant numbers. As the species is relocated more and more for its commercial values and spread further and further into areas in which they never existed, the threat they pose will only grow greater.

maverick muse on October 7, 2010 at 10:00 AM

A waiver is merely a “shut up device”….

We granted you a waiver, NOW STFU….
We granted you a waiver, and BTW, it expires next year…pay up sucker. No donation? No waiver?

It’s just another carrot and stick. These companies have to give up something, the freedom of speech to biatch about the legislation, or campaign donations —and, in return, they get left alone from this onerous legislation.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. This is malevolent legislation writ large and it has been foisted upon us by evil and vengeful people who are in need of an ass kicking.

oh yeah, we’re bringin’ it too.

ted c on October 7, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Ring-a-ding-ding.

steveegg on October 7, 2010 at 10:01 AM

Obamacare is actually the foundation for continued economic distress in the US, it is the very bedrock of the angst for the working citizen.

royzer on October 7, 2010 at 10:03 AM

This is not the Rule of Law, but the Whim of Autocracy.

Well said. ObamunistCare is crumbling. Ed, can they repeal only part of it? My understanding is this; the absence of a “Separation Clause” prohibits sectional repeal. That is, it’s all or nothing.

dogsoldier on October 7, 2010 at 10:04 AM

ajacksonian at 9:53
Excellent points.
More power to unelected governent officials to choose winners and losers.

GaltBlvnAtty on October 7, 2010 at 10:05 AM

The Rule of Law depends on an environment with clear regulation and unbiased enforcement.

The Leftists care nothing about the Rule of Law.

That pesky thing gets in the way of their social engineering.

pseudonominus on October 7, 2010 at 10:06 AM

The regime is buying votes one corporation at a time with our money and causing the demise of the middle class at the same time. What do these corporations have to give the Won in return?

Kissmygrits on October 7, 2010 at 10:07 AM

Wait a minute.
How can Obamacare be the road to Universal Healthcare with waivers?
This is flipping hilarious. Obama makes Carter look like a candidate for Mt. Rushmore.

ORconservative on October 7, 2010 at 10:11 AM

ted c on October 7, 2010 at 9:49 AM

And what you have described is not a socialist state — where the government owns the means of production, but a fascist state — where the government dictates to private business.

Unreal times. Carter at least was a clueless wannabe dogooder. Now we have fascists.

rbj on October 7, 2010 at 10:12 AM

the absence of a “Separation Clause” prohibits sectional repeal. That is, it’s all or nothing.

dogsoldier on October 7, 2010 at 10:04 AM

Could not the courts rule this very feature unconstitutional? After all, there is ample precedent for a court striking out certain portions of a piece of legislation while leaving others intact.

jwolf on October 7, 2010 at 10:13 AM

“Now, grant but this truth, and the question is decided. If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations.” – John Adams on Tyranny.

WashingtonsWake on October 7, 2010 at 10:14 AM

The Left must be beside themselves. By now they must realize they elected a Fascist.

percysunshine on October 7, 2010 at 10:17 AM

The Left must be beside themselves. By now they must realize they elected a Fascist.

percysunshine on October 7, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Even if they realize that, I really don’t think they mind. Just a means to an end.

jwolf on October 7, 2010 at 10:20 AM

30 Waviers granted so far
Soon, only ‘the little people’ will be required to comply with 0bamacare. YOU aren’t too big to fail.

LegendHasIt on October 7, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Defining authoritarianism.

lorien1973 on October 7, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Even if they realize that, I really don’t think they mind. Just a means to an end.

jwolf on October 7, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Check out my link above

ebrown2 on October 7, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Actually, that’s closer to the headline on MSNBC’s reprint (“White House allows big firms to dodge health reforms”) of this New York Times article than the one in the Times itself (“Waivers Address Talk of Dropping Coverage”)

This is part of the NYT’s modus operandi in supporting 0bama’s initiatives: They run the story, just so none of us evil right wingers can complain about bias if they didn’t. But they make the headline so uninteresting (and a bit misleading) that no one will want to read the story.

UltimateBob on October 7, 2010 at 10:28 AM

The Left must be beside themselves. By now they must realize they elected a Fascist.

percysunshine on October 7, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Not entirely. Many of them welcome a fascist, as long as he’s their fascist. In fact some of the great icons of the progressive movement are openly pining for a Red-Chinese style of dictatorship, where you can ‘get things done’.

Those with second thoughts are mostly those sage-like ‘independents’ that both parties worship.

slickwillie2001 on October 7, 2010 at 10:30 AM

wow..just wow..

Dire Straits on October 7, 2010 at 10:31 AM

yep that ain’t rain kids……

and ya don’t even get a lousy tee shirt

roflmao

donabernathy on October 7, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Commerce Clause!

Del Dolemonte on October 7, 2010 at 10:34 AM

FYI, McDonalds’ chief lobbyist in DC is a well-connected black Democrat….just sayin’….whoever said it was pay-to-play the Chicago way was absolutely right. This whole thing was just another giant scam to put politics at the front of all business regulation. Only the biggest companies can afford the lawyers and lobbyists necessary to get them out of all these rules and costs. Big companies = big campaign contributions, and either forced unionization or forced payoffs to the unions to keep them at bay. Small buisnesses get killed and wither away.

This is a feature, not a bug, of ObamaCare. Maybe it is now dawning on people why the Democrats risked everything and made every dirty deal possible to pass it.

Liberal fascism.

rockmom on October 7, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Too big to allow to fail, again. Another stealth bail-out, while the small business has the weight of the entire system loaded onto its shoulders.

Gangster government, comrade. Again.

paul1149 on October 7, 2010 at 10:38 AM

The Rule of Law depends on an environment with clear regulation and unbiased enforcement. From the start, ObamaCare lacked any clarity in regulation. Congress filled the bill with the phrase “The Secretary shall determine” in place of establishing rules and regulations for the massive regulatory regime Congress created. Now, the White House has added arbitrary enforcement to uncertain regulation and opaque processes. This is not the Rule of Law, but the Whim of Autocracy.

This places power into the hands of those who enacted the bill and I doubt that wasn’t the intent of all too many of the authors. The unions and corporations will make their accommodations with this monstrosity while the average guy will be left out in the cold unless he is part of a favored syndicate.

sharrukin on October 7, 2010 at 10:39 AM

As long as companies have to come begging to a government authority to survive, the Left doesn’t care how it plays out… they’ve already won.

mankai on October 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM

WHY DONT THEY JUST GIVE EVERYBODY A WAIVER?
OR BETTER STILL: JUST REPEAL THE WHOLE HEALTH CARE BILL!

gullxn on October 7, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Government picking the winners and losers in Obamacare? Feature, not bug.

PattyJ on October 7, 2010 at 10:52 AM

NYT: Obama letting big corporations off the hook with ObamaCare waivers

It’s how fascists roll.

Is HR3808 The Equivalent Of TARP 2 And Obama’s “Get Out Of Bail” Gift Card For The High Frequency Signing Scandal?

Unfortunately even if the prompt Senatorial passage of the bill was the bankers’ plan all along, they may have shot themselves in the foot by leaving it up to the president to determine if America is now a banker corporatocracy (what some may call a fascist regime), or still a place that believes in laws and regulations, as broken as they may be, in broad daylight. Our sense, is that this bill will not pass, although we have on many occasions in the past underestimated the degree of corruption in this country. On the other hand, should tens of millions of Americans have a crystallized image of one person who in their view will be “responsible” for their inability to pay their mortgage bill on time, then we just may be one step closer to the full societal collapse that many predict will accompany the end of Keynesianism.

The ball is now in the president’s court.

I have no doubt that Obanksta will absolutely sign this into law.

Rae on October 7, 2010 at 10:55 AM

This isn’t an arbitrary act by Obama.

The goal is to shut these companies up until all the gnashing of teeth can be used to his advantage. That is, until the exchange pools are ready.

It will still mean a loss of quality in care, and an increase in expense. But the companies won’t feel the pain. The taxpayer and his progeny will.

I sincerely hope the short term pain can’t be eased sufficiently to allow Republicans to go along. This thing has to die, and sadly it won’t be painless.

applebutter on October 7, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Somewhat o/t.

Those who want the Jonesboro nuts to be stopped for their offensive speach, yet want the rule of law to apply equally to all; “What’s up with that?”

I want anti-abortion advocates to be able to LOUDLY be able to protest abortion clinics.
The Jonesboro nuts need to be allowed to say their vile crap, but the family’s to see how many Americans will stand proudly between them and these kooks.
I want the obaminable ObamaCare to be completely repealed and if not, the very least, equally enacted.
I want all races to be equally protected by our Justice department and Eric “NBPP” Holder, figuratively, thrown under a HUGE bus.
I want flag burners to keep the right to burn flags and those against flag burning to take their picture and create a facebook page with their names. So if they ever apply for a job with me, I know who they are.

barnone on October 7, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Government picking the winners and losers in Obamacare? Feature, not bug.

PattyJ on October 7, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Agreed, yet I am surprised how crudely obvious they are about it. It’s an “in your face” brazen corruption that I naively had thought was not possible from a US President.

jwolf on October 7, 2010 at 11:05 AM

FYI, McDonalds’ chief lobbyist in DC is a well-connected black Democrat….just sayin’….whoever said it was pay-to-play the Chicago way was absolutely right.
rockmom on October 7, 2010 at 10:35 AM

You mean the McDonalds with corporate HQ in Oak Brook, IL?
Next, I suppose you’ll attribute some ulterior motive to the selection of GM and Chrysler dealerships that were terminated. Or the distribution of porkulus cash. I fear you place insufficient trust in coincidence.

Barnestormer on October 7, 2010 at 11:07 AM

If the marketplace had uncertainty before, the administration has made the situation much, much worse

This highlights the importance of a respect for the value of money, and an appreciation that money represents goods and labor. That equation gives a person or company a measure of control over their future. That is, “if I do this, then that will happen”. “If I put in this amount of work, I will get x return”. There’s a morality and integrity inherent in that. When govt gives away money willy-nilly for whatever reason, people lose control over their own lives.

Paul-Cincy on October 7, 2010 at 11:08 AM

What is the process for being granted a waiver…Sebelius works for us, not the other way around.

d1carter on October 7, 2010 at 11:10 AM

jwolf on October 7, 2010 at 10:13 AM

Historically if a section is found to be unconstitutional and the Separation Clause is absent, the courts have struck the entire law.

The fact that this law is falling apart and is being used selectively illustrates just a couple of the reasons it must be struck down.

dogsoldier on October 7, 2010 at 11:13 AM

jwolf on October 7, 2010 at 11:05 AM

I agree too. Are the voters asleep??

PattyJ on October 7, 2010 at 11:16 AM

I’m fine with ObamaCare. I think US Business have generally just failed to step up to their responsibilities.

Jimbo3 on October 5, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Chuck Schick on October 7, 2010 at 11:22 AM

The government says the rules apply to everyone, then start giving out waivers. What are the requirements for receiving a waiver? Size of your company? Amount of donations to the DNC? Degree of compliance with whatever initiatives the Left want to hammer your company with? Your company’s openness to unions?

Any of these measures would clearly make the law just another tool for the Democrats to reward their friends, hurt their enemies, and let small businesses suffer.

hawksruleva on October 7, 2010 at 11:28 AM

This highlights the importance of a respect for the value of money, and an appreciation that money represents goods and labor. That equation gives a person or company a measure of control over their future. That is, “if I do this, then that will happen”. “If I put in this amount of work, I will get x return”. There’s a morality and integrity inherent in that. When govt gives away money willy-nilly for whatever reason, people lose control over their own lives.

Paul-Cincy on October 7, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Well-said. Studies have shown that earning things is much more rewarding, emotionally, than having things given to you. Yet another reason that the welfare state is destroying our country.

hawksruleva on October 7, 2010 at 11:29 AM

This is going to make it very hard to repleal. Every company with a waiver has a vested interest in keeping the scam going. This is a big plus for Obama in 2012 (as noted above by others) in terms of campaign donations.

gh on October 7, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Every company with a waiver has a vested interest in keeping the scam going.

gh on October 7, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Absolutely. They will have a huge competitive advantage.

jwolf on October 7, 2010 at 11:42 AM

More like communist Russia every day. One rule for everybody, EXCEPT party members.

pgrossjr on October 7, 2010 at 12:01 PM

And so Obamacare ushers in the Soviet system where the power brokers disseminate the taken treasury from the masses and “those in power’s” favorite friends are allowed to live by different laws. How soon before the wall they are building is torn down in America? Who will come to our aid when we succumb?

Don L on October 7, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Question: every time a “big corporation” gets “bailed out” of health care requirements, doesn’t the eventual cost settle more and more on the little guys? You know, those folks who don’t have a corporate structure to stand up for them.

If you thought the revenue projections were bogus before, what do these exemptions do to the final numbers?

karl9000 on October 7, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Of course, the first exemption from Obamacare was Obama and his sycophantic Congress.

kingsjester on October 7, 2010 at 12:09 PM

“The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers. The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says”

Haven’t we already seen virtually everyone’s premiums are rising? Why these companies?

byepartisan on October 7, 2010 at 12:17 PM

By the time this Lame Duck session is over, Obamacare will only be the first item on the repeal list. There may be several items that we can rally America against and build momentum to repeal an entire package of bills.

FloatingRock on October 7, 2010 at 12:19 PM

ElRushbo has entered the fray..:)

Dire Straits on October 7, 2010 at 12:22 PM

We could even have two repeal lists: one tailored for economic issues and one for social issues. That way each list can be optimized to maximize voter appeal.

FloatingRock on October 7, 2010 at 12:33 PM

If we have to repeal the Lame Duck session, we should try to repeal their salaries and benefits, too.

FloatingRock on October 7, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Bad press > bad decisions > more bad press > more bad decisions > ObamaCare put on life support > apply DNR > pull plug > EOL

Mr_Magoo on October 7, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Got to repeal the whole thing.

ultracon on October 7, 2010 at 12:40 PM

…and crr6 says it’s over the top to label Obama fascist.

What evidence does an educated idiot need?

Saltysam on October 7, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 2