Obamacare waivers skyrocket to 729 + 4 states; 4 new SEIU waiver winners

[andymays]

The Real Snow Job in DC.

http://michellemalkin.com/

Excerpt:

The nation’s capital is freaking out over a winter snowstorm.
But everyone else should be up in arms over the real snow job in Washington this week.

While the Democrats continued to extol Obamacare and the president defended the behemoth law during the Date of the Union, HHS was quietly presiding over a massive Obamacare Waiver-mania explosion.
When last we examined the growing list, privileged escapees topped 222.

Now: The list now at 729 — plus 4 states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee).

Among the many new union refugees are 4 new SEIU locals :

http://michellemalkin.com/

[Tom]

The lying sack of S___ knows full well OB Care is not only worthless, it is dangerous, and it is nothing more than a vehicle for the bottom feeding democrats to steal money and re-distribute it.

The entire US Government is organized crime and the time to END it is now. We must stop this government. Obama must be removed from office - it is our nation's ONLY priority.

Time to learn from our friends across the sea - shut the damn country down -
a national strike and demand a new government be formed. And no one goes back to work until it happens.

[witchdoctor]

Tom

You heard the State of the Union speech. The main theme is "Win The Future."

or in other words (appropriately) WTF.

[ArlJim78]

2008 "Yes We Can!"

2012 "WTF?"

[JBmadera]

2008 "Yes We Can!"

2012 "WTF?"

sounds about right....is it 2012 yet? not sure we'll make it at the rate we're going (make that - the direction we're going).

[mostpost]

The Real Snow Job in DC.

http://michellemalkin.com/

Excerpt:

The nation’s capital is freaking out over a winter snowstorm.
But everyone else should be up in arms over the real snow job in Washington this week.

While the Democrats continued to extol Obamacare and the president defended the behemoth law during the Date of the Union, HHS was quietly presiding over a massive Obamacare Waiver-mania explosion.
When last we examined the growing list, privileged escapees topped 222.

Now: The list now at 729 — plus 4 states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee).

Among the many new union refugees are 4 new SEIU locals :

http://michellemalkin.com/

Michelle Malkin wants you to believe that all you have to do, if you are a union, is say "I want a waiver" and Obama will say "OK, no problem." Malkin is lying; again, as usual.

First of all there is no blanket waiver that exempts any business or organization from the requirements of HR 3590. Waivers are given for the requirement that everyone obtain coverage and for the requirement that there be no dollar limits on benefits.
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101121/NEWS/11210336/-1/news
In the case of dollar limits and organization may be granted a waiver if it can be proved that abiding by the provisions of the law would result in a "significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums," according to a memorandum from Steve Larsen, the director of oversight for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
(Bolded Portion is from the link)

A business or organization receives a waiver because it has been able to prove it meets these criteria (criterion?), not because it is a friend of Obama

States can apply for a waiver of the requirement that everyone receive coverage, if they can present a plan that
(A) will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive as the coverage defined in section 1302(b) and offered through Exchanges established under this title as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services based on sufficient data from the State and from comparable States about their experience with programs created by this Act and the provisions of this Act that would be waived;
(B) will provide coverage and cost sharing protections against excessive out-of-pocket spending that are at least as affordable as the provisions of this title would provide;
(C) will provide coverage to at least a comparable number of its residents as the provisions of this title would provide; and
(D) will not increase the Federal deficit.
sec 1332 of HR 3590.
In other words, they are doing what HR 3590 requires, but are doing it in a different way.

What the waivers do is recognize that the Healthcare law is not a one size fits all proposition. They provide a way to enforce the law more fairly.
Prove you deserve a waiver, you get one. Fail to prove it, you don't.

[NJ Stinks]

Almost every tax law ever written exempts somebody.

It's not like Malkin just unveiled the meaning of life. :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

Almost every tax law ever written exempts somebody.

It's not like Malkin just unveiled the meaning of life. :rolleyes:

Yes, but those exemptions are known up front because they were written into the law. These "exemptions" are being called waivers for a reason. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: They are being granted after the the fact because they were never written into the law.

Also, I'm glad to see that you equate BORotCare with tax laws. So, you're okay that BO broke another campaign promise that he wouldn't raise taxes on people making under 250K? A real man of his word, isn't he? Just full of integrity! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

Tom

You heard the State of the Union speech. The main theme is "Win The Future."

or in other words (appropriately) WTF.

No, I didn't. why would I listen to a stooge mouth words from a teleprompter and lie while doing it?

I am pretty sure I have heard farts that made more sense than this moron.:rolleyes:

FUBO
FUBO
FUBO
FUBO

[Tom]

2008 "Yes We Can!"

2012 "WTF?"


2011 - FUBOFUBOFUBOFUBOFUBOFUBO

[NJ Stinks]

Yes, but those exemptions are known up front because they were written into the law. These "exemptions" are being called waivers for a reason. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: They are being granted after the the fact because they were never written into the law.

Also, I'm glad to see that you equate BORotCare with tax laws. So, you're okay that BO broke another campaign promise that he wouldn't raise taxes on people making under 250K? A real man of his word, isn't he? Just full of integrity! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

I said tax laws because I know something about tax laws.

As I have said in the past, this health act will be amended as needed. Nothing wrong or abnormal about that. And if it proves ineffective or something better comes along, it will be repealed. That's the way things work here. Somebody tell Malkin before she blows a gasket.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Could one of the well-versed supporters of this bill that have vast knowledge (much more than any of the pundits) of it tell me how I go about applying for my waiver?

[boxcar]

Michelle Malkin wants you to believe that all you have to do, if you are a union, is say "I want a waiver" and Obama will say "OK, no problem." Malkin is lying; again, as usual.

First of all there is no blanket waiver that exempts any business or organization from the requirements of HR 3590. Waivers are given for the requirement that everyone obtain coverage and for the requirement that there be no dollar limits on benefits.
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101121/NEWS/11210336/-1/news
In the case of dollar limits and organization may be granted a waiver if it can be proved that abiding by the provisions of the law would result in a "significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums," according to a memorandum from Steve Larsen, the director of oversight for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
(Bolded Portion is from the link)

A business or organization receives a waiver because it has been able to prove it meets these criteria (criterion?), not because it is a friend of Obama

States can apply for a waiver of the requirement that everyone receive coverage, if they can present a plan that
(A) will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive as the coverage defined in section 1302(b) and offered through Exchanges established under this title as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services based on sufficient data from the State and from comparable States about their experience with programs created by this Act and the provisions of this Act that would be waived;
(B) will provide coverage and cost sharing protections against excessive out-of-pocket spending that are at least as affordable as the provisions of this title would provide;
(C) will provide coverage to at least a comparable number of its residents as the provisions of this title would provide; and
(D) will not increase the Federal deficit.
sec 1332 of HR 3590.
In other words, they are doing what HR 3590 requires, but are doing it in a different way.

What the waivers do is recognize that the Healthcare law is not a one size fits all proposition. They provide a way to enforce the law more fairly.
Prove you deserve a waiver, you get one. Fail to prove it, you don't.

A nice red herring. No one here suggested there are "blanket" waivers. We know the waivers are targeted (oops, can I use this PI term or is it too uncivil?).

And how do we know that these exemptions aren't merely being granted at the "discretion of the Secretary" or as "the Secretary deems necessary", etc.? Very much of the administration of BOCare is left to to the discretionary powers of bureaucrats.

And your lame argument that these waivers are being granted as political favors doesn't hold any water. It's just a big coincidence that three huge SEIU chapters in Chicago were able to obtain waivers? And another coincidence that just this union alone donated nearly 28 Mil to BO's 2008 presidential campaign. So, this poor, poor, poor, money-strapped union can afford to make this kind of donation, but it can't afford ObamaCare for its rank and file members? Really?

And here's the kicker: Look at the dates the waivers were granted:

HHS gave a waiver to Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees on Oct. 1, 2010; to Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees on Oct. 10, 2010; and to the SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees on Nov. 15, 2010.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/seiu-locals-including-chicago-chapter-wa

Now, I have a question for you, Mr. Mosty: How did the locals mentioned in the above article receive their waivers PRIOR to ObamaCare being passed? How did the HHS do that since the bill hadn't become law until Christmas Eve, remember? Just who ordered the HHS to grant the waivers and on what grounds?

I look forward to your reply. But please...don't tell me that the prescience of HHS accounted for the waivers on those dates. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I said tax laws because I know something about tax laws.

As I have said in the past, this health act will be amended as needed. Nothing wrong or abnormal about that. And if it proves ineffective or something better comes along, it will be repealed. That's the way things work here. Somebody tell Malkin before she blows a gasket.

And HHS is doing this amending?

So, you concede that ObamaCare is a tax on the people of the U.S.? And since you know so much about tax laws, tell me how I can go about getting a waiver or exemption from the IRS on the grounds I can't afford to pay my taxes? How can I get out from under paying taxes? I thought tax exemptions were all written into the law up front, so that all taxpayers know BEFORE they pay their taxes what exemptions they're entitled to and how they must qualify to take those exemptions. But this piece of garbage law is so bad that exemptions are being granted after the fact!? :bang: :bang: Oh, yeah...now I remember. That's because no one read the bill before it was passed into the law! (This is the new, enlightened, progressive way of passing 2,000+ pages of law, isn't it?)

So, tell me, which Obama do you believe: With the pre-election Obama that he would not raise taxes on people making less than 250k or with the Obama who after ObamaCare became law told us that the bill is really a tax? Which Obama do you believe?

And finally, Malkin has an awful lot of company in blowing her gasket. 27 states officially don't want ObamaCare. Not exactly a popular law... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

Could one of the well-versed supporters of this bill that have vast knowledge (much more than any of the pundits) of it tell me how I go about applying for my waiver?

1. Contribute to Obama
2. Join SEIU

[mostpost]

And here's the kicker: Look at the dates the waivers were granted:

HHS gave a waiver to Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees on Oct. 1, 2010; to Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees on Oct. 10, 2010; and to the SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees on Nov. 15, 2010.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sei...cago-chapter-wa

Now, I have a question for you, Mr. Mosty: How did the locals mentioned in the above article receive their waivers PRIOR to ObamaCare being passed? How did the HHS do that since the bill hadn't become law until Christmas Eve, remember? Just who ordered the HHS to grant the waivers and on what grounds?

I look forward to your reply. But please...don't tell me that the prescience of HHS accounted for the waivers on those dates.
By Golly, you are right. The law was passed on Christmas Eve. So how could they grant waivers in October and November of 2010 for a bill that wasn't passed until Christmas Eve? How about this explanation? it was Christmas eve
2009, you numbskull.

[mostpost]

And how do we know that these exemptions aren't merely being granted at the "discretion of the Secretary" or as "the Secretary deems necessary", etc.? Very much of the administration of BOCare is left to to the discretionary powers of bureaucrats.
If you can point to specific language in the legislation that gives the Secretary authority to grant waivers "at his discretion" rather than after a specific review, then I will grant your point; or probably not since I am certain you will misinterpret something and I will have to educate you once again. :bang:

[boxcar]

And here's the kicker: Look at the dates the waivers were granted:


By Golly, you are right. The law was passed on Christmas Eve. So how could they grant waivers in October and November of 2010 for a bill that wasn't passed until Christmas Eve? How about this explanation? it was Christmas eve
2009, you numbskull.

My bad. You're right. However, my point stands. The SEIU donated nearly 28 mil to BO's campaign and now they conveniently are granted waivers! No chance of a quid pro quo here, right? Not with this administration which is the most ethical, transparent and trusthworthy since the invention of government! :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

If you can point to specific language in the legislation that gives the Secretary authority to grant waivers "at his discretion" rather than after a specific review, then I will grant your point; or probably not since I am certain you will misinterpret something and I will have to educate you once again. :bang:

So what there may be a "specific review"? After such a review, it could still be left to the discretion of the secretary, as very much in the law is. The law was intentionally written in that vague, open-ended way so that rules could be made up "on the fly" or as "expedient". Ultimately, the secretary must follow the directives of his or her boss, who is....? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Ultimately, whenever laws are written in this fashion, it permits the president to play dictator through his czars, secretaries, and other various unelected bureaucrats.

Bottom line: With this law, as with EPA laws also (as another example) the secretary has huge discretionary powers over many aspects of this law.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Malkin would have us believe that Unions are getting waivers as a quid pro quo for supporting Obama. She implies, strongly, that most of the waivers are going to unions. The facts are different. Of the first two hundred waivers listed at the link provided by Malkin, one hundred, exactly half went to businesses. Unions received forty four. The rest went to charities, municipalities, counties, states, schools and several that I could not determine where to place them.

Your proof that Obama is granting waivers as a political favor is that you think Obama is granting waivers as a political favor.

[ArlJim78]

the law is wide open in terms of what the secretary can do, and written so as to be intentionally vague. that's one of the reasons this bill is widely regarded as the single worst piece of legislation in history.

There are more than 2,500 references to the secretary of HHS in the health care law (in most cases she's simply mentioned as "the Secretary"). A further breakdown finds that there are more than 700 instances in which the Secretary is instructed that she "shall" do something, and more than 200 cases in which she "may" take some form of regulatory action if she chooses. On 139 occasions, the law mentions decisions that the "Secretary determines." At times, the frequency of these mentions reaches comic heights. For instance, one section of the law reads: "Each person to whom the Secretary provided information under subsection (d) shall report to the Secretary in such manner as the Secretary determines appropriate."
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/04/the-empress-of-obamacare

[ArlJim78]

Malkin would have us believe that Unions are getting waivers as a quid pro quo for supporting Obama. She implies, strongly, that most of the waivers are going to unions. The facts are different. Of the first two hundred waivers listed at the link provided by Malkin, one hundred, exactly half went to businesses. Unions received forty four. The rest went to charities, municipalities, counties, states, schools and several that I could not determine where to place them.

Your proof that Obama is granting waivers as a political favor is that you think Obama is granting waivers as a political favor.

yeah, no unions there right? take off your blinders, if you think this is isn't blantant partisanship and cronyism.

[riskman]

The Truth About Health Care Wavers

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/10/truth-about-health-care-waivers

"To ensure that we protect the coverage that these workers have today until better options are available for them in 2014, the law allows HHS, in extreme cases, to issue temporary waivers from the phase out of annual limits. There are some important facts to remember about these temporary waivers:

* The waivers only apply to one provision of the law – the provisions phasing out annual limits. Insurance companies and employers that receive waivers must comply with all other parts of the Affordable Care Act.

* The waivers last one year. Insurance companies must reapply for the waivers each year between now and 2014 when annual limits on coverage will be completely prohibited and individuals will have more affordable and better private insurance choices in the competitive Exchange markets.

* All employers and insurers that offer mini-med plans may apply for a waiver if they demonstrate that there will be large increases in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage without a waiver. You can read a list of employers and insurers that have received waivers here http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

[mostpost]

yeah, no unions there right? take off your blinders, if you think this is isn't blantant partisanship and cronyism.
The waiver is granted to the entity which requests it. A school may have both union and non union workers. A school may have a health plan for all of its workers, which has contributions from the school and from the workers. The workers contributions are individual contributions. A union health plan may not even exist in these cases. It is the school that benefits and indirectly to workers (all the workers) because benefits will not be cut nor will premiums be raised.

This is so simple, it is amazing that you don't get it. Or refuse to get it.

ETA: That should read benefits will not be cut nor will premiums be raised in significant amounts.

[bigmack]

Idiotic bill is on life support, this being a glaring symptom, & Superhero MP is flying to the rescue to defend 729 accepted groups to waivers. What a waste of time this bill has become & what a waste of time trying to defend it. What a waste of money passing it and what a shame we'll have to spend more to get rid of it.

Next up, Superhero MP is going to defend Comrade Pelosi's claim that it would create half a million jobs, RIGHT AWAY.

Defend the lying SoS - Hit it, MP. :jump:

[johnhannibalsmith]

When do I get my free doctor!!!!!>!>!>!?????

Who cares about all this other unimportant nonsense... don't we have universal coverage now? When does all the good stuff start? The big change that this bill is delivering? Cheap insurance for Mostpost, free insurance for me, jobs for NJStinks and Goren...

So far its been just as predicted - more insurance, more bullshit coverage, higher premiums, job retraction, and I'd be willing to bet that one year from now that the number of "uninsured" under our universal plan is virtually unchanged from what it is now even if this thing sets sail at warp speed without impediment.

[boxcar]

Malkin would have us believe that Unions are getting waivers as a quid pro quo for supporting Obama. She implies, strongly, that most of the waivers are going to unions. The facts are different. Of the first two hundred waivers listed at the link provided by Malkin, one hundred, exactly half went to businesses. Unions received forty four. The rest went to charities, municipalities, counties, states, schools and several that I could not determine where to place them.

Your proof that Obama is granting waivers as a political favor is that you think Obama is granting waivers as a political favor.

I never said I have any "proof". However, with regards to the PROVEN "virtue, ethics, trustworthiness, transparency and honesty" :rolleyes: of this administration and the fact that nearly 28 mil in SEIU contributions went to his campaign that that this kind of money isn't exactly chicken feed, I think it's pretty likely that there was a quid pro quo arrangement here. Therefore, my skepticism on the lack of any wrongdoing or corruption is far more rational and justified than your confidence that none occurred given this president's long rap sheet of proven untrustworthiness.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

When do I get my free doctor!!!!!>!>!>!?????

Who cares about all this other unimportant nonsense... don't we have universal coverage now? When does all the good stuff start? The big change that this bill is delivering? Cheap insurance for Mostpost, free insurance for me, jobs for NJStinks and Goren...

So far its been just as predicted - more insurance, more bullshit coverage, higher premiums, job retraction, and I'd be willing to bet that one year from now that the number of "uninsured" under our universal plan is virtually unchanged from what it is now even if this thing sets sail at warp speed without impediment.

Yeah, this is one aspect that is utterly amazing because BEFORE ObamaCare was passed, the Dems were saying that thousands and thousands were dying every year because they had no insurance. And even as recent as a few days ago, Dems were crying that the repeal of BORotCare can't be allowed to happen because it IS a "matter of life and death". So with all the scare talk, how come we're not hearing how many have already kicked the bucket because BO care won't kick in largely until 2014? Where are the projections on how many millions will die between 2009 and 2014? How can the Dems in good conscience delay for a moment the implementation of ObmaCare?

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

The waiver is granted to the entity which requests it. A school may have both union and non union workers. A school may have a health plan for all of its workers, which has contributions from the school and from the workers. The workers contributions are individual contributions. A union health plan may not even exist in these cases. It is the school that benefits and indirectly to workers (all the workers) because benefits will not be cut nor will premiums be raised.

This is so simple, it is amazing that you don't get it. Or refuse to get it.

ETA: That should read benefits will not be cut nor will premiums be raised in significant amounts.
I do get it, your response is to hell with those who have to pay more and lose their jobs, just as long as you and your ideological zealots are satisfied. central planning has been tried before, the results won't be any different for us. its so simple you would have to be ignorant of history to not see it.

[ArlJim78]

what a strange coincidence, unions support democrats and Obama, supported healthcare reform, but they already have 40% of all the waivers.
how odd, I'm sure its a random anomaly and nothing more.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/unions-make-40-percent-employees-exempted-obamacare

[PaceAdvantage]

what a strange coincidence, unions support democrats and Obama, supported healthcare reform, but they already have 40% of all the waivers.
how odd, I'm sure its a random anomaly and nothing more.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/unions-make-40-percent-employees-exempted-obamacareThis must be the equivalent of when the left used to scream about Bush and his "Big Oil" buddies.

[boxcar]

This must be the equivalent of when the left used to scream about Bush and his "Big Oil" buddies.

There won't be a lib here who will be able to connect those dots relative to these waivers. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[ElKabong]

what Musty and his lib buddies not named NJ Stinks will not admit to, is that BHO is nothing more than a typical DC Politician. "Pay me, I'll pay you back since you own me".

He's the ultimate DC Houseboy. Hope and Change was all bullshit. He used a few segments of America (unions, ultra liberal factions) to get him where he is. Now he's using Wall Street brass to keep him there for 4 yrs by buddying up to them.

It's all about holding on to what he has...It's good to be king. Hcap and musty don't want to believe that, they're still stuck on Hope and Change horseshit...But it is what it s.

[newtothegame]

Waivers for Favors: Big Labor's Obamacare Escape Hatch
Friday, January 28, 2011

President Obama's storytellers recently launched a White House blog series called "Voices of Health Reform," where "readers can meet average Americans already benefiting from the health reform law."

I propose a new White House series: "Voices of Health Reform Waivers," where taxpayers can meet all the politically connected unions benefiting from exclusive get-out-of-Obamacare passes -- after squandering millions of their workers' dues to lobby for the job-killing, private insurance-sabotaging law from which they are now exempt.

At the end of last year, the Department of Health and Human Services had granted some 222 temporary waivers to businesses small and large, insurers, labor and other organizations that offer affordable health insurance or prescription drug coverage with limited benefits. On Wednesday, the agency quietly updated its online list, which now reveals a whopping total of 729 Obamacare escapees -- in addition to four states, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee -- who collectively cover about 2.1 million enrollees.

At least one eyebrow-raising waiver recipient -- the left-leaning, nationalized health care-promoting Robert Wood Johnson Foundation -- has direct ties to the White House. Obama health care czar Nancy-Ann DeParle sits on the foundation's board of trustees.

Most noteworthy: One-fourth of all the waivers (182) so far have gone to Big Labor groups across the country.

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/article/waivers-favors-big-labors-obamacare-esca#


check out some of the numbers in the story of those exempted...WOW...
And funny how those that promoted it are now exempt in alot of cases...lol