As our country slips from the Republic (if we can keep it) we were given by our God-inspired founders into a Democracy, the government itself ignites this change by continuing to ignore the rule of law. If President Obama’s healthcare law is truly as great as it was sold to be(although it does not insure everyone, as its stated goal sought), then why are there so many exceptions*? Exceptions mean there is no rule of law but rather a select few who are favored or receive special advantages. This is the opposite of a free market, as all business are not operating on equal footing because this administration has no respect for the rule of law–its own law! Rather, the Obama administration is interested in being king-makers (or duke-makers, depending on your position). This, of course, is the same problem with “regulations”, which I’ll leave for another day.

*The Department of Health and Human Services under the Obama administration as of November 1, 2010 has provided 111 exceptions to the healthcare law. Clearly, companies see this as a problem, or they would not seek an exception.

Comments

  • David Kaiser, Editor

    So explain the waivers to companies with ten and even hundreds of thousands of employees on that list, such as Aetna, Cigna, BCS, UFT Welfare, etc?

    • Edgar

      I have to confess I didn’t notice those plans with a large number of enrollees. That being said the vast majority of plans listed had below 100 enrollees, so my volatility argument still stands. It turns out that by focusing on volatility I did take away from the real reason for these waivers. These waivers are for any insurance plan that would have to reduce coverage because of the removal of these annual limits. The USA Today reported on these waivers, and I think they do a better job at offering the correct context than I do. Here’s the link: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm

      By not providing context I can’t really take the argument seriously. Scott could’ve made a compelling argument against the waivers, but instead he chose to omit the context, and as a result instead of a providing a critique he just provided propaganda.

      The main purpose of my post was to express my frustration about how the context for these waivers was missing. You should always provide context when commenting on an issue.

      With that said is it possible that we’re looking at an example of crony-ism? Honestly I think it’s entirely possible. I also think it’s entirely possible that these waivers are completely legitimate. In all truthfulness this posting does not give me enough information to arrive at a conclusion one way or the other. Remember in Scott’s previous posting he was criticizing Obama for doing his job by traveling to India.

      • Edgar

        In editing my post I got some paragraphs out of order. When reading my post please switch paragraphs 2 and 3. Sorry.

      • Scott A. Robinson

        What you are arguing isn’t even the point. The point is, this country is based on laws. If there is a problem with the law, it should be changed so it applies equally to everyone. Creating “exceptions” or managing by “regulations” becomes an aristocratic system of politics and favors, giving preference to whomever is supported by the administration currently in power.

        If you look through that list, it is pepper with unions who typically donate on a 9:1 scale to Democrats.

        Concerning my previous post, the President’s job is not to travel to India and spend $200 million per day. There are other options, especially at a time that the nation is struggling. He is completely hypocritical.

  • Edgar

    This is a perfect instance of taking a grain of truth, removing all context, and then drawing a completely false conclusion based on the limited information. Honestly Scott I know you don’t like Obama, but you really should at least attempt to have an honest debate. Your omission of the context of these waivers demonstrates that you look at each issue with the intent of finding fault with Obama. This is hardly the process someone follows if they’re trying to really understand an issue.

    Since you omitted the context for these waivers I’ll supply it for you. The new Health Care bill that went into place eliminates annual limits for essential health care services. While this sounds great it causes problems for the so called “min-med” plans. The mini-med plans are more prone to volatility since they insure far fewer people than larger health insurance plans. You could see how the removal of annual limits would make min-meds unfeasible. The point of the new Health Care legislation is to make Health Care coverage more accessible, and eliminating a source of health care is counter productive to this goal. For this reason min-meds can apply for waivers so they won’t be bound by annual limits. You can get an explanation for these waivers here: http://www.thompson.com/public/newsbrief.jsp?cat=BENEFITS&id=3105