Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (613423)	5/28/2011 12:30:15 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576648

So after arguing that the businesses that got waivers exceed the standard, you are now arguing that businesses that exceed the standard aren't eligible for waivers: He "argues" by making up assertions off the top of his head. If the first attempt fails too badly, he'll switch to some other assertion, even if its the opposite of what he said at first. In this case, the last position seems to be right .... businesses do seek waivers to protect the limited plans already offered. Example: Obamacare forbids insurers from placing annual and lifetime limits on health plans. These “consumer protections” have endangered the limited coverage plans that some employers currently offer. Unable to provide more comprehensive coverage, those employers would be forced to drop coverage altogether if they abide by the new law. To avoid this consequence of the new law, employers are flocking to secure the waivers offered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to keep their employees covered. At the hearing, Steven Larson, Deputy Administrator and Director for the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, argued that waivers act as a bridge from now until 2014, when Obamacare will be fully implemented. Larson said the waivers were always on the table to phase out mini-med plans. But Heritage Senior Research Fellow Ed Haislmaier pointed to 21 different sections in the new law that authorize the HHS Secretary to provide waivers for specific purposes—and authority to grant waivers for annual and lifetime limits was not among them. In his testimony, Haislmaier argued, “HHS has exceeded its statutory authority in creating this waiver process. The statute does not explicitly grant HHS authority to waive the application of this provision.” It’s simple, really: If Congress intended to institute a waiver process for this particular provision of Obamacare, they would have included it in the legislation. ..... Scott Wold, an employee benefits attorney in Minnesota, has had hands-on experience working with employers applying for waivers from the annual limit restrictions. In his testimony, Wold stated that he “encountered several issues or difficulties with the process,” particularly with regard to eligibility for health reimbursement accounts (HRA), a type of consumer-directed health plan. Wold believes that the confusion surrounding HRA eligibility and the nebulous application process has “likely resulted in many sponsors of HRAs not requesting a waiver.” Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, further questioned the fairness of the application process. He noted that HHS bureaucrats know exactly what company’s application they are reviewing and whether they are union plans. This has arguably led to the disproportional acceptance of waiver application from large corporations and unions. Haislmaier further emphasized that the use of a waiver process has led to a system that is based not on “the rule of law” but rather on “the rule of ‘who you know.’” Heritage Foundation Link on Waivers "Who you know!" That explains why hoity toity restaurants serving the elite in Pelosi's district got a lot of waivers. They knew Madame Pelosi. More: ..... An initial concern is favoritism. One may assume that when the executive waives compliance with a law, it will grant waivers only to the most deserving applicants. Inevitably, however, it will find deserving applicants among those who have close contact with the administration, including many who are politically aligned with it. Making matters worse, the executive tends to use waivers to co-opt political support for insupportable laws. When Americans are subject to severe legislation, they can unite to seek its repeal. All persons subject to a harsh law ordinarily must comply with it, and therefore will cooperate to fight it. Waivers, however, allow the executive to preserve such legislation by offering relief to the most powerful of those who might demand repeal, thereby purchasing their non-resistance at the cost of other Americans. Waivers thus shift the cost of objectionable laws from the powerful to others, with the overall effect of entrenching bad laws. Waivers further undermine the political process by permitting lawmakers to escape the political consequences of drafting onerous laws. Lawmakers ordinarily have reason to worry about imposing severe rules. Waivers, however, remove the incentives for responsibly moderate legislation. Indeed, waivers transform irresponsible legislative burdens into occasions for executive beneficence. Even more seriously, waivers are a threat to government by and under law. When the government grants a waiver or dispensation, it does not act through law, and yet it purports to liberate the recipient from the obligation of law. In other words, when the government grants a waiver, it acts above the law to permit others to act above the law, thus making waivers doubly lawless. Waivers thereby endanger equal freedom under law. ..... National Review on Waivers The waiver processs is utterly non-transparent ... they just release the names of companies that have been granted waivers and thats it. We don't know who has applied for waivers and been turned down or discouraged. ..... In a Tuesday letter to Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius, the lawmakers said the refusal to release information surrounding the Obamacare waiver process highlights the lack of transparency in the administration. “The Administration’s refusal to make public the names of those companies and entities which have been denied waivers, and the reasons for why those waivers were denied, are prime examples of the lack of transparency which has become a hallmark of this Administration,” they wrote. “The absence of full disclosure about both the approved and denied waivers prevents the American people the ability to know how the health care law is being implemented ..... Read more: dailycaller.com