21 May

Healthcare Waivers-Political Favors? [Reader Post]

Obama is hitting campaign mode full speed ahead as could be seen in his riding the Osama wave last week and his typical characterizing the mission as: “I wanted to make sure that if I sent them in, that I could get them out again.” Never mind the ‘we’, it has always been about Obama, and not the collective. The pandering last week however, became insufferably obvious.

Now comes the health care waivers…we find that a good percentage of the recent health care waivers issued by the Department for Health and Human Services have gone to businesses in Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district, and not just any businesses, but swanky spas, restaurants and nightclubs.

In theory, to avoid disruption in the insurance market, the healthcare overhaul gives HHS the power to grant waivers to firms that cannot meet new annual coverage limits in 2011. The waivers have typically been granted to so-called “mini-med” plans that offer limited annual coverage – as low as $2,000 – that would fall short of meeting the new annual coverage floor of $750,000 in 2011.

“We don’t want to take away people’s health insurance before they have some realistic other choices,” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in an interview with The Hill earlier this year.

Republican lawmakers have seized on the waivers as proof that the law they want to see repealed is flawed, and they have accused the administration of giving them waivers as gifts to union allies. The administration has rejected both claims as Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have asked HHS for in-depth details about every waiver decision and request.

Most requests for waivers have been accepted, but dozens have been denied because they “did not demonstrate that compliance with the minimum annual limits requirements would significantly increase premiums or decrease access to benefits,” an HHS spokeswoman told The Hill in January.

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

Really? 351000 members of the New York Teachers Assn, also received a one year waiver until they could be assured they wouldn’t see increases or loss of coverage. Congress and their aids are exempt. Obama and his cronies are exempt. SEIU files for exemptions every month for more members. More and more corporations are added monthly. Yeah, this is a really good deal isn’t it?

This would appear to totally invalidate the whole basis of the argument the executive branch presented to the Supreme Court that for the health care plan to work, all had to participate. So, are they now going to reopen that case and reconsider it? Even so, on top of this, some insurance companies are dropping coverage of children because they cannot afford to cover children with preexisting conditions.

Yeah, I’de like to see these 30 million illegals buy their insurance like of us, maybe they will be offered a wavier at the polls………………………and ‘ALL’ apparently means ‘all the rest of us.’

FacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Baracks Broken Promises, Economy, Nancy Pelosi, ObamaCare Results, Obamanomics, Politics, Socialism, Socialized Health Care. Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, May 21st, 2011 at 10:20 am
| 281 views

10 Responses to Healthcare Waivers-Political Favors? [Reader Post]

  1. Buffalobob says: 1

    Now we know why AARP supported obamacare. Their insurance companies will not have to comply.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. Esdraelon says: 2

    @Buffalobob:

    That’s a fact, Bob.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. anticsrocks says: 3

    AARP should change it’s name to AAFSITRP.

    A=American
    A=Associationg
    F=For
    S=Sticking
    I=It
    T=To
    R=Retired
    P=People

    Sorry, that’s as clever as it gets when I am this tired. I am sure someone else can come up with a better name and acronym.
    .
    .

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. FAITH7 says: 4

    These are the same people who lumped all Americans together as ‘stupid”, which I take issue with by the way. The many who could, and who aren’t [stupid] – those who could [see through] this mess went to Washington and Protested for hours against this pile of crap, lies, smoke screens and [ ]… THEY STILL jammed it down Americas throat… Now this! Could that many people have been wrong about the crapola in this Bill??? I’ll answer that – [NO]!

    Intelligent Americans saw another Liberal /Progressive fail… It’s absolutely stunning!

    So now..Who is going to investigate who is getting the waivers and who is being denied the waivers… who is going to call them [Pelosi / Reid and those who voted for this ] out on this?? The GOP had better get their act together and soon!

    GOP needs to get out a better message to counter the new [Senior Scare Tactic] commercial that’s out too! The GOP had better get a better Offense…soon!

    So frustrating…

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. Nan G says: 5

    In the US Constitution is a prohibition on ”Bills of Attainders.”
    (sp???)
    What that means is that a President or Congress cannot pass laws that TARGET certain persons.
    Yet ObamaCare does just that, only after-the-fact.
    The one-size-fits-all was passed…..
    Then the exemptions began.
    These exemptions should be illegal.
    They each target one small group.

    America’s Founders put that prohibition in the Constitution so that favoritism would not be institutionalized.
    But Obama found a workaround.

    Is there even a legal appeal about them going up through our court system?

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. Zac says: 6

    Association for
    Assholes and
    Robbing
    Pansies

    Association for the
    Abomination of
    Right
    Americans

    Abolitionists for the
    Ability to
    Read the
    ABC’s

    Absent of the
    Ability to
    Reason
    Willingly

    Amnesiacs for the
    Advancement of
    Rememberable
    Wiskey

    Aurthor the
    Ardvark is a
    Real
    Wiener

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. anticsrocks says: 7

    @Zac: LOL, see? Told ya so. Thanks Zac!

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Zac says: 8

    Well Antics it seems these funny threads that make the bad news bearable. Anytime!

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  9. Esdraelon says: 9

    @Zac:

    LOL!~

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  10. johngalt says: 10

    @Nan G:

    America’s Founders put that prohibition in the Constitution so that favoritism would not be institutionalized.
    But Obama found a workaround.

    And this is how we devolve, from a Constitutional Republic, towards a Democracy, where the rule is by the majority(of men). Law need not apply. This is the reason for voting in those who desire a return to Constitutional government, who desire limitations upon the government to be put back in place.

    Without it, we are quickly moving towards the end of our Republic.

    ReplyReply
    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>