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.

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.

- Noted Mental Midget

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Law of unintended consequences apply here?

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.

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…

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

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.

…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.

That brings the total to 1372 waivers

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

/

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.

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?

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.