200 more ObamaCare waivers granted

posted at 10:12 am on May 16, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

This wasn’t quite a Friday night news dump, as it doesn’t appear to have come from a late-afternoon press release, but it may have slipped by readers nonetheless.  Over the past month, the Department of Health and Human Services approved another 204 waivers to insurance plans that don’t meet the federal mandates of ObamaCare.  That brings the total to 1372 waivers, at least one of which applied to an entire state:

The Obama administration approved 204 new waivers to Democrats’ healthcare reform law over the past month, bringing the total to 1,372. …

Administration officials say the law allows the Health and Human Services Department to grant the waivers to avoid disrupting the insurance market before the law overhauls the insurance system in 2014. They say the waivers are granted through a transparent process.

“Transparent”?  Not unless we’re defining “transparent” as “opaque,” “war” as “peace,” and insisting that Oceania has never been at war with Eastasia, Winston.  The House Energy and Commerce Committee has been trying to get HHS and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to explain how waivers are granted, and who hasn’t qualified and for what reason.  HHS and the White House has been, er, slow to respond on those questions for months.

Who gets waivers?  Who doesn’t?  What are the prerequisites for waivers?  Which conditions would require approval, and which would require rejection?  No one knows, and HHS isn’t saying.  And the rather strong tilt in waivers granted towards unions strongly suggests that politics and the Rule of Whim are very much part of the decision process.

That’s a lot of things, but transparent it isn’t.


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

Who gets waivers? Who doesn’t? What are the prerequisites for waivers?

A DNC donation reciept?

BobMbx on May 16, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Exactly who’s left, known McCain voters?

Cindy Munford on May 16, 2011 at 10:14 AM

“What’s good for the goose is not good for the gander slave.

Updated that hoary old saying for the 0bama era….

cane_loader on May 16, 2011 at 10:17 AM

It’s called picking winners.

a capella on May 16, 2011 at 10:17 AM

I asked for a waiver but I had to prove union membership to get it, so alas, I left empty handed.

Bishop on May 16, 2011 at 10:18 AM

This picking of winners is direct government control.

It’s capitalism I mean socialism I mean FASCISM.

cane_loader on May 16, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Who gets waivers? Who doesn’t? What are the prerequisites for waivers? Which conditions would require approval, and which would require rejection?

….ask the unions…they sure have gotten plenty of them.

Nothing exemplifies success like having to exempt everyone from your signature legislation.

Baxter Greene on May 16, 2011 at 10:19 AM

It’s called picking winners.

a capella on May 16, 2011 at 10:17 AM

This

cane_loader on May 16, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Why do I get the feeling states like Texas and South Carolina won’t be receiving waivers anytime soon?

Doughboy on May 16, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Exactly who’s left, known McCain voters?

Cindy Munford on May 16, 2011 at 10:14 AM

I was thinking the same thing….and then it dawned on me: the people left out are bitter and cling to their Bibles and guns.

search4truth on May 16, 2011 at 10:21 AM

I asked for a waiver but I had to prove union membership to get it, so alas, I left empty handed.

Bishop on May 16, 2011 at 10:18 AM

You got off cheap.

It costs $10K to get a waiver application considered within 5 HHS working days.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 10:21 AM

I’d say “transparent” is right, but only in reference to the administration playing favorites.

What was the last administration to so clearly benefit some businesses at the expense of others? W and the no-bid contracts doesn’t count, as the country actually got services rendered for those contracts, unlike these waivers.

teke184 on May 16, 2011 at 10:22 AM

If you create jobs, you get a waiver; if you donate money to Democrats you get a waiver; if you trash Paul Ryan’s budget the day before he gives a speech on the topic, you get a waiver…Newt, call your office, your waiver has finally come in.

RedSoxNation on May 16, 2011 at 10:22 AM

Why do I get the feeling states like Texas and South Carolina won’t be receiving waivers anytime soon?

Doughboy on May 16, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Actually, Austin is SURE to be approved…just not anywhere else in TX.

search4truth on May 16, 2011 at 10:22 AM

http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

Waivers only last for one year and are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage. In addition, enrollees must be informed that their plan does not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. No other provision of the Affordable Care Act is affected by these waivers: they only apply to the annual limit policy.

So the waiver only means the existing plans can have a cap. It’s not a “get out of providing healthcare” card.

jonknee on May 16, 2011 at 10:23 AM

What are the prerequisites for waivers?

The prerequisite for a waiver is a desire to avoid the cost of implementing the policy by paying your joining the Dennis Chavez club waiver fee. It’s pay to play writ large. If you want to keep playing, you’re going to have to pay. The Dems win-win. You can either pay for our heinous bill, or you can pay to get away from it–either way, you pay.

outcomes.

ted c on May 16, 2011 at 10:23 AM

Why else did McDonalds add so many jobs last quarter; they used the “savings” from the waiver to hire additional workers…It’s not like the government has distorted incentives in the market place before without any negative effects…Just ask Fannie Mar or Freddie Mac…

RedSoxNation on May 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM

“This ain’t rock & roll – this is genocide!”

cane_loader on May 16, 2011 at 10:25 AM

Anyone want to form a “health care users” union with me, with the only goal being to obtain a waiver for our union membership?

We could be huge voting block Obama couldn’t afford to ignore.

tomg51 on May 16, 2011 at 10:26 AM

*crickets chirping*
-lsm
If W did this part 7,532

cmsinaz on May 16, 2011 at 10:27 AM

You got off cheap.
It costs $10K to get a waiver application considered within 5 HHS working days.
Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 10:21 AM

That explains why I rode my Harley to the local HHS to apply for the waiver, and when I couldn’t pay the fee a few union goons stole my bike, and I had to walk home.

Bishop on May 16, 2011 at 10:27 AM

So the waiver only means the existing plans can have a cap. It’s not a “get out of providing healthcare” card.

jonknee on May 16, 2011 at 10:23 AM

It’s an admission that Obamacare will raise premiums and decrease coverage. Read the part you didn’t decide to highlight.

lorien1973 on May 16, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Why would anybody want an exemption from this great, compassionate, sensible, beneficial legislation?

The Democrats assured everyone it would be in their best interest, after all.

Huh.

Good Lt on May 16, 2011 at 10:30 AM

The Democrat playbook to WIN:

Cherry-pick Democrat counties contributors until we have the votes health-care system we need!

cane_loader on May 16, 2011 at 10:32 AM

It’s an admission that Obamacare will raise premiums and decrease coverage. Read the part you didn’t decide to highlight.

lorien1973 on May 16, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Dude, don’t make him read more.

Obama and the Democrats said something. That’s as far as he needs to go.

Good Lt on May 16, 2011 at 10:32 AM

So the waiver only means the existing plans can have a cap. It’s not a “get out of providing healthcare” card.

jonknee on May 16, 2011 at 10:23 AM

It’s to prevent these employers from dumping millions of Americans from their health care coverage. McDonald’s all but said they could not afford to cover their employees under the new mandates in Obamacare.

The problem is with no transparency whatsoever, we have no way of knowing A)how these waivers are granted, B)how long these waivers last, and C)if there are any strings attached to the waivers. Obama laments how businesses won’t “step up” and hire new workers, but why in the hell would anyone take on new employees when you have no way to determine what it’ll cost you in the years to come?

Doughboy on May 16, 2011 at 10:35 AM

ted c on May 16, 2011 at 10:23 AM

Isn’t that called…….extortion?

And here I thought the Dems were the party of honesty, integrity, and caring about the little guy. *sigh*

capejasmine on May 16, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Bishop on May 16, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Obama did mention we all have to make sacrifices.

Consciously or consequentially…

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 10:36 AM

How can Obama get away with doing this if the law doesn’t permit waivers?

taney71 on May 16, 2011 at 10:37 AM

McDonald’s all but said they could not afford to cover their employees under the new mandates in Obamacare.

McDonalds has solved this problem.

lorien1973 on May 16, 2011 at 10:37 AM

OT: the US just reached its debt limit.

Vashta.Nerada on May 16, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Waivers only last for one year and are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage.

Uhh, considering the increases we all got in our last corporate plan costs, is there ANYONE in this country that doesn’t qualify?

michaelo on May 16, 2011 at 10:40 AM

It’s an admission that Obamacare will raise premiums and decrease coverage. Read the part you didn’t decide to highlight.

lorien1973 on May 16, 2011 at 10:29 AM

It’s quite obvious that if a plan only covers $500,000 maximum annually it will become more expensive without a cap. The smaller the group the higher the raise (that’s why more than half of waivers were for self-insured companies).

The waivers are temporary until the rest of the law kicks in.

jonknee on May 16, 2011 at 10:42 AM

The problem is with no transparency whatsoever, we have no way of knowing A)how these waivers are granted, B)how long these waivers last, and C)if there are any strings attached to the waivers. Obama laments how businesses won’t “step up” and hire new workers, but why in the hell would anyone take on new employees when you have no way to determine what it’ll cost you in the years to come?

Doughboy on May 16, 2011 at 10:35 AM

They are granted based on criteria stated here [PDF]. They last for one year. Considering so many have been granted, it can’t be too challenging.

jonknee on May 16, 2011 at 10:46 AM

The waivers are temporary until the rest of the law kicks in.

jonknee on May 16, 2011 at 10:42 AM

There’s more????/
God help us

Electrongod on May 16, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Exactly who’s left, known McCain voters?

Cindy Munford on May 16, 2011 at 10:14 AM

lol, I guess we lose twice.

hawkdriver on May 16, 2011 at 10:48 AM

What’s next? Moat permit waivers?

Rovin on May 16, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Lots of talk from the Republicans, at least some talk, about digging in to this. Why not a major assault on this aspect of Obamacare, which the public stongly opposed before the Republicans became weak-kneed?

GaltBlvnAtty on May 16, 2011 at 10:50 AM

There’s more????/
God help us

Electrongod on May 16, 2011 at 10:46 AM

It has barely started. The juicy bits kick in January 1, 2014.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Provisions

jonknee on May 16, 2011 at 10:51 AM

OT: the US just reached its debt limit.

Vashta.Nerada on May 16, 2011 at 10:37 AM

What happens if Turbo Tax Timmy decides to start raising more money than the limit without Congressional approval?

teke184 on May 16, 2011 at 10:51 AM

How can Obama get away with doing this if the law doesn’t permit waivers?

taney71 on May 16, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Because… Obama is AWESOME!

/ (Is this really necessary?)

Fallon on May 16, 2011 at 10:51 AM

hawkdriver on May 16, 2011 at 10:48 AM

At least twice, I betting on double digits.

Cindy Munford on May 16, 2011 at 10:51 AM

The worst of it is that this pos will get re-elected in 2012. Once that happens he will take off the gloves. Folks you ain’t seen nothing yet. The pubbies lack the intestinal fortitude to fight him, and the courts with the possible exception of the Supremes agree with him. If all else fails he uses executive fiat.

chicken thief on May 16, 2011 at 10:51 AM

It’s quite obvious that if a plan only covers $500,000 maximum annually it will become more expensive without a cap. The smaller the group the higher the raise (that’s why more than half of waivers were for self-insured companies).

The waivers are temporary until the rest of the law kicks in.

jonknee on May 16, 2011 at 10:42 AM

Hey, if you like your insurance, you can keep it (until your insurer or your employer goes out of business).

Change!

Good Lt on May 16, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Hey, if you like your insurance, you can keep it (until your insurer or your employer goes out of business).

Change!

Good Lt on May 16, 2011 at 10:52 AM

No one likes health “insurance” like McDonalds provided. A $10,000 annual cap is a way to say you have health insurance but then not actually be able to get sick or injured. Regardless, the waiver was approved so they’ll have another year of those sweet sweet benefits.

jonknee on May 16, 2011 at 10:55 AM

What happens if Turbo Tax Timmy decides to start raising more money than the limit without Congressional approval?

teke184 on May 16, 2011 at 10:51 AM

From Timmy:

I am writing to notify you, as required under 5 U.S.C. § 8348(l)(2), of my determination that, by reason of the statutory debt limit, I will be unable to invest fully the portion of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (“CSRDF”) not immediately required to pay beneficiaries.

He is pulling money out of the Civil Service Pension Fund.

Vashta.Nerada on May 16, 2011 at 10:55 AM

What happens if Turbo Tax Timmy decides to start raising more money than the limit without Congressional approval?

teke184 on May 16, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Uh, he already has:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/treasury-to-tap-pensions-to-help-fund-government/2011/05/15/AF2fqK4G_story.html?hpid=z1

Doughboy on May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM

I love to read these threads, because everyone acts outraged but no one can articulate exactly why they’re outraged.

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM

I love to read these threads, because everyone acts outraged but no one can articulate exactly why they’re outraged.

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Because they didn’t get a waiver? The HA audience isn’t the type to have low-cap health insurance so this mostly doesn’t affect anyone here, other than hearing “ObamaCare” and “waiver” and becoming jealous.

jonknee on May 16, 2011 at 11:08 AM

“Transparent”? Not unless we’re defining “transparent” as “opaque,” “war” as “peace,” and insisting that Oceania has never been at war with Eastasia, Winston.

C,mon, Ed, you’re behnd the times. Get with it!

“Opaque” is the new transparency. Except tor the Emperor Obama’s new clothes.

In other news, up is down, black is white, north is south, east is west, and port is starboard. More later. Stay tuned.

novaculus on May 16, 2011 at 11:08 AM

I love to read these threads, because everyone acts outraged but no one can articulate exactly why they’re outraged.

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Hey troll, you still haven’t answered my question.

If Obamacare is so awesome, why do they need to issue waivers?

fossten on May 16, 2011 at 11:16 AM

I love to read these threads, because everyone acts outraged but no one can articulate exactly why they’re outraged.

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m outraged because my health care premiums went up this past year. I had to take a lesser plan(one limiting me to a single network of hospitals) in order to keep the same rates as 2010. And considering the premiums had been unchanged for several years preceding the passage of Obamacare, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the new law directly impacts the cost of my coverage.

So it disgusts me to see this administration picking winners and losers with these waivers. Companies and entities that don’t receive them will either have to pass on higher costs to their employees or drop coverage altogether. Setting aside that this confirms Obamacare doesn’t expand coverage or lower costs(you know, the reasons it was allegedly passed in the first place!), it introduces all kinds of pay-to-play scenarios that will make DC an even bigger mess than before. Now companies will be pressured to make nice with Obama and the Dems if they want their precious waivers. It’s Chicago thug politics at its worst.

Doughboy on May 16, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Anyone want to form a “health care users” union with me, with the only goal being to obtain a waiver for our union membership?

We could be huge voting block Obama couldn’t afford to ignore.

tomg51 on May 16, 2011 at 10:26 AM

Do I get to wear a purple shirt and beat people up?

CurtZHP on May 16, 2011 at 11:17 AM

If you create jobs, you get a waiver; if you donate money to Democrats you get a waiver; if you trash Paul Ryan’s budget the day before he gives a speech on the topic, you get a waiver…Newt, call your office, your waiver has finally come in.

RedSoxNation on May 16, 2011 at 10:22 AM

Sounds like a Jeff Foxworthy bit…

“If you only recently came to be proud of your country… you might get a waiver!”

Droopy on May 16, 2011 at 11:21 AM

A $10,000 annual cap is a way to say you have health insurance but then not actually be able to get sick or injured.

jonknee on May 16, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Wait, a visit to the doctor’s office costs $10k now? Strange that I just paid out of pocket for a visit to a clinic for an eye infection and it only cost $60 + $10 for the prescription.

I know those talking points work well amongst your friends, but the vast majority of medical expenses accrued by the average person, including the birth of a child, is met by that. This is doubly true since most McDonald’s employees are young.

strictnein on May 16, 2011 at 11:21 AM

No one likes health “insurance” like McDonalds provided. A $10,000 annual cap is a way to say you have health insurance but then not actually be able to get sick or injured. Regardless, the waiver was approved so they’ll have another year of those sweet sweet benefits.

jonknee on May 16, 2011 at 10:55 AM

MiniMed plans work well for a lot of people. I have never in my life (nor has anyone else in my family of 5) used more than a few thousand dollars of health care in any one year.

What’s better for McDonald’s employees? A MiniMed plan, no plan, a high-priced comprehensive plan that soaks up much of their income, or no job because it is no longer affordable to employ them?

stvnscott on May 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Hey troll, you still haven’t answered my question.

If Obamacare is so awesome, why do they need to issue waivers?

fossten on May 16, 2011 at 11:16 AM

I think there’s an unwarranted assumption nestled somewhere in that question. Can you spot it?

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM

I love to read these threads, because everyone acts outraged but no one can articulate exactly why they’re outraged.

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM

It’s actually pretty easy to articulate. In a recurring theme, this administration picks who their laws apply to, and who they do not. Wow, that was difficult.

search4truth on May 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Do I get to wear a purple shirt and beat people up?

CurtZHP on May 16, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Do you have any experience with biting fingers off?

BobMbx on May 16, 2011 at 11:30 AM

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Can’t answer the question. Got it.

Buh-bye, waste.

fossten on May 16, 2011 at 11:34 AM

I love to read these threads, because everyone acts outraged but no one can articulate exactly why they’re outraged.

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Idiotic, as usual. 1) a huge law was passed taking over 1/6 of the economy w/o anyone bothering to read the law but that you and your fellow idiots continue to claim was a) necessary and b) is good. Yet, this great, necessary law requires waivers.

2) they are handing out waivers to the law in secret and refusing to tell anyone why waivers are or are not granted. thus, we don’t live by the rule of law, but by the whims of a tyrant. And, of course, most waivers are going to unions and/or dem supporters. So, it is pretty apparent that this is completely corrupt, but with dems, that is the norm.

The fact that you are not outraged shows, like all of your comments do, that you have no loyalty to or believe in the law, but you are fine with ruling by force. You could care less whether the constitution is observed or followed as long as your idiotic socialist plans are furthered.

Your third tier law school that takes more than 6 years to complete must be pretty pathetic to admit someone with such low ethics and such low level of reading comprehension.

Monkeytoe on May 16, 2011 at 11:36 AM

I think there’s an unwarranted assumption nestled somewhere in that question. Can you spot it?

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Fine idiot – if obamacare is so great why ARE they issuing waivers?

If the waivers are being legitimately issued, why won’t they tell anyone what the basis for approval or denial of a waiver is?

why is the left so damn corrupt?

Monkeytoe on May 16, 2011 at 11:37 AM

It’s actually pretty easy to articulate. In a recurring theme, this administration picks who their laws apply to, and who they do not.

search4truth on May 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM

That’s a recurring theme with pretty much every modern Presidency. Congress delegating waiver authority to executive agencies is nothing new.

Anything else?

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:38 AM

I guess when you pass a really great law that is going to save the nation by both a) reducing teh cost of health care; and b) keeping health care quality the same or better for everyone, which we have been assured by Crr6 and his brethren repeatedly,

Waivers are obviously testament to how great the new law is. You see, b/c the law is so awesome you let your friends and supporters not have to abide by the law.

Makes perfect sense. Yeah, Obama is a real genius. He sure knows what he is doing. It’s pretty obvious that if he released his college and law school grades he would be at least a “b” student and if he released his LSAT score he probably scored in the top 65% of takers. Pure, unaldutered, genius.

Monkeytoe on May 16, 2011 at 11:40 AM

If the waivers are being legitimately issued, why won’t they tell anyone what the basis for approval or denial of a waiver is?

Monkeytoe on May 16, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Uhhh…they did.

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:40 AM

That’s a recurring theme with pretty much every modern Presidency. Congress delegating waiver authority to executive agencies is nothing new.

Anything else?

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:38 AM

do you ever not lie? Care to point us to other laws where an administration is giving entities waivers from the law itself? With no regulations stating how such waivers are decided and no appeal process?

You really will say anything to support Obama. You have absolutely no qualms regarding the depths of dishonesty you will sink to.

Sure, congress passes authority to agencies (a practice that is troublesome in and of itself) – which in times past were required to pass regulations through a specific process and such regulatiosn could be challenged, etc.

We have nothing similar to that here.

Monkeytoe on May 16, 2011 at 11:44 AM

I could use some news about who has applied for a waiver and been rejected.

Socratease on May 16, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Congress delegating waiver authority to executive agencies is nothing new.

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Where is the authority to waiver this, and if in the statute, can that waiver be repealed.

Routine waivers of popular programs are anything but routine to get. You can read about it in the CFRs. IF you went to a connected law school like GW or Georgetown, you would know this.

NaCly dog on May 16, 2011 at 11:52 AM

IF you went to a connected law school like GW or Georgetown, you would know this.

NaCly dog on May 16, 2011 at 11:52 AM

NaCly dog,

Georgetown isn’t a law school, it’s a “law center.”

HTH.

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:40 AM

From your link:

As set out in the September 3, 2010 Bulletin, the IFR implementing Section 2711 of the
PHSA provided that the restricted annual limits may be waived by the Secretary of HHS if
compliance with the IFR would result in a “significant decrease in access to benefits” or a
“significant increase in premiums.”
The question has arisen how these terms are applied to
waiver applications. While the waiver applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis,
several factors related to the test established in the IFR may be considered as each
application is reviewed.

But but but…I thought premiums wouldn’t go up due to Obamacare!

Once again, if Obamacare is so awesome, why does it need waivers?

fossten on May 16, 2011 at 11:55 AM

MiniMed plans work well for a lot of people. I have never in my life (nor has anyone else in my family of 5) used more than a few thousand dollars of health care in any one year.

What’s better for McDonald’s employees? A MiniMed plan, no plan, a high-priced comprehensive plan that soaks up much of their income, or no job because it is no longer affordable to employ them?

stvnscott on May 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM

It works great until you’re in trouble. What is someone on a low cap plan going to do when they need significant medical care? You and your family have been fortunate which is great, but that doesn’t help someone who receives an emergency $20,000 surgery (which is something simple like an appendectomy) or has a serious medical condition.

jonknee on May 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM

That brings the total to 1372 waivers

But it’s going to reduce costs! Why on earth would ANYONE want a waiver?

/

Tim_CA on May 16, 2011 at 12:18 PM

…but that doesn’t help someone who receives an emergency $20,000 surgery (which is something simple like an appendectomy) or has a serious medical condition.

jonknee on May 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Sure it does. It pays for $10,000 of the surgery, which is tremendously helpful. But in your mind, it is still better to have nothing, have something too expensive to be manageable, or have no job at all.

stvnscott on May 16, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Who gets waivers? Who doesn’t? What are the prerequisites for waivers? Which conditions would require approval, and which would require rejection? No one knows, and HHS isn’t saying.

Nobody knows anything, nobody has seen anything, nobody has even seen a hint of anything… it’s like the information is completely invisible.

And isn’t invisibility the height of “transparency”? To be truly transparent doesn’t mean you see everything, it actually means you never see anything at all.

If we use this more commonplace definition of “transparency” then you must agree Obama’s Administration is indeed the most “transparent” of all time.

gekkobear on May 16, 2011 at 12:39 PM

What I want to know is whatever happened to “equality under the law“? The law should apply to everyone equally. There should be no such things as wavers. The desire to grant wavers is a blatant acknowledgement that the law is flawed to begin with.

dominigan on May 16, 2011 at 12:42 PM

What is most important to the transparency argument is who has been DENIED waivers and why. We know who has been approved and what the supposed criteria for approval are. We can find out who their political donations have supported in the past. But we have no information on who has been denied, whey they were denied, if their denial is in keeping with the published criteria for approval. By concealing this information, we have no way to research these companies to find out their political leanings. This is ‘transparency’ by omission and obfuscation. Orwellian, indeed.

stvnscott on May 16, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Of course, we should also remember that Obamacare was never about healthcare anyways… it was about setting up the Government bureaucracy to control choices, and thus the citizens and companies of our country.

Wavers are only a way to ensure that people/companies swallow the new order without choking. They could care less about the healthcare aspects.

dominigan on May 16, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Georgetown isn’t a law school, it’s a “law center.”

HTH.

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Good grief…the “Law Center” is made up of Georgetown law schools…you didn’t understand what he was posting?
They call themselves the Georgetown Law School…please, you have more copies to make for your bosses, don’t fiddle around on the internet…

From their website

Georgetown University Law Center began in 1870 and was the first law school established in the United States by a Jesuit institution of higher learning.

You never fail to entertain us…

right2bright on May 16, 2011 at 1:01 PM

The House needs to pass a “no waivers” bill and explain that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Then let the Senate and the White House try to explain why some people are more privileged than others.

multiuseless on May 16, 2011 at 1:02 PM

There are times where the arrogance of this Administration amazes even me. Just when I think they can’t top their previous acts, they always manage to one up themselves and few in the media question any of it.

Yakko77 on May 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Whatever happened to “equal protection under the law”??

WannabeAnglican on May 16, 2011 at 1:51 PM

You never fail to entertain us…

right2bright on May 16, 2011 at 1:01 PM

LOL, ask crr6 which one of the 10+ Hawaiian Queens the hospital O’bama was supposedly born at was named after.

Del Dolemonte on May 16, 2011 at 1:56 PM

LOL. Looks like McDonald’s got a waiver just long enough to eliminate many of their cashiers.

Law of unintended consequences apply here?

stvnscott on May 16, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Pretty soon the shortest list will be those WITHOUT waivers.

GarandFan on May 16, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Good grief…the “Law Center” is made up of Georgetown law schools…

Law schools? There are more than one? I wasn’t aware of that. Can you name them?

you didn’t understand what he was posting?

I did, but I was making fun of G-town because it’s a toilet and a joke of a law school…err…law center.

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 2:22 PM

I want a waiver

How much will it cost?

Whatever happened to “equal protection under the law”??

WannabeAnglican on May 16, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Are you referring to the Constitution, or sharia?

entagor on May 16, 2011 at 3:13 PM

At some point, this administration is going to go beyond Orwell and approach the old roleplaying game “Paranoia”.

The Computer Government is your friend. What is your security clearance, citizen?

malclave on May 16, 2011 at 3:21 PM

I love to read these threads, because everyone acts outraged but no one can articulate exactly why they’re outraged.

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Comprehension of what one reads goes a long way in understanding what another is articulating.

Obviously you lack reading comprehension, because over, and over you make a comment, a question is asked, and you avoid it with a comment saying others aren’t articulate in what they say. I don’t think that’s the problem deary. The problem is, you have no answers, so you come up with smart ass retorts, and walk away thinking you’re brilliant.

Walk away thinking…but we all know otherwise.

capejasmine on May 16, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Who gets waivers? Who doesn’t? What are the prerequisites for waivers? Which conditions would require approval, and which would require rejection? No one knows, and HHS isn’t saying. And the rather strong tilt in waivers granted towards unions strongly suggests that politics and the Rule of Whim are very much part of the decision process.

That’s a lot of things, but transparent it isn’t.

Rule of Law vs. the Rule of Whim. Excellent analogy.

scotash on May 16, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Comprehension of what one reads goes a long way in understanding what another is articulating.

Obviously you lack reading comprehension, because over, and over you make a comment, a question is asked, and you avoid it with a comment saying others aren’t articulate in what they say.

capejasmine on May 16, 2011 at 3:47 PM

No, it’s not that you’re inarticulate, it’s just that you don’t know what you’re talking about. When pressed for reasons as to why these waivers outrage them, commenters have said 1) their premiums are higher this year, and 2) they’re against selective application of the law. Well, 1) has nothing to do with these waivers. As for 2), I pointed out that executive waiver authority isn’t new, and it’s exercised every day.
So like I said, you’re outraged but you’re not sure why you’re outraged, and when you try to come up with reasons supporting your feelings they don’t make any sense. I really think you just hear “Obamacare” and “waiver” and you get upset. It’s pretty amusing.

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Abuse of power is nothing new, so that makes it A-OK!

- Noted Mental Midget

stvnscott on May 16, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Abuse of power is nothing new, so that makes it A-OK!

stvnscott on May 16, 2011 at 6:02 PM

It’s not an abuse of power. The waiver authority is granted to them by the statute.

crr6 on May 16, 2011 at 6:05 PM

I know this is impossible for a paralegal to understand, but just because something is the letter of the law doesn’t make it right.

When they publish a list of companies denied waivers and the rationale behind the denials (actual transparency), I will believe they are not abusing power. Until then, the administration’s reputation for corruption and crony capitalism stands on its own.

stvnscott on May 16, 2011 at 6:20 PM