Obama Grants Waivers

[Crabcake Johnny]

Cracks are starting to form:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/07insure.html?_r=2&hp

This paragraph is relevant to what Somarco's been saying:

"Policy experts say much of the authority to enforce the new law rests with the states, and they say the federal government may have little ultimate control over whether insurers will keep offering coverage in specific markets."

 

[Full Throttle]

Cracks are starting to form:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/07insure.html?_r=2&hp

This paragraph is relevant to what Somarco's been saying:

"Policy experts say much of the authority to enforce the new law rests with the states, and they say the federal government may have little ultimate control over whether insurers will keep offering coverage in specific markets."

A national risk pool or even state risk pools funded with federal dollars would have accomplished everyone having access to coverage for a much less of a price tag (tax dollars and premiums). Expanding Medicaid access like they did in the bill could have been used as well to help the "poor" without this mess (at least before state budget gaps are factored in).

All the legislation did was:
1. Create a lot more expensive government bureaucracy and meddling in our lives.

2. Created a much more expensive and inefficient "risk pool" by making the entire system GI with no waiting periods. This will work to further erode the responsible middle class that will be burdened with much higher premiums.

3. Perverted the entire health care delivery system beyond repair.

I've said all along that the system needs to change or we will have $30,000 family deductibles because that will be all we can afford. But this did nothing to control costs, it actually accelerates them and encourages people to be less of a consumer. As far as access, it was an extremely inefficient way to accomplish it as discussed above.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

The is the result of meaningless legislation designed to elicit an emotional response from voters.

The MRLs are 80% and 85%? Because those are pretty numbers? If MRLs were based on actual research we'd see figures like 78.5% or 81%.

Same with "no annual caps." It's "pretty" to say and impacts voters. But as we can see, no research was done on the impact for the entire industry.

Now that the effect of the pretty words are being felt Obama's in an embarrassing position and has to start offering concessions.

 

[Full Throttle]

The is the result of meaningless legislation designed to elicit an emotional response from voters.

That's like me being elected president and trying to reform auto industry. After all, people are complaining that cars are expensive and they need them to get to work. I would be just as qualified as Obama was to tackle health care. To compensate for being under qualified, I would hire a bunch of people on my staff who have long complained about the industry. Maybe a few union reps to help draft the legislation.

 

[HealthGuy]

Begging the messiah Obama for a waiver around the Obamaination health plan. Nauseating. Is this Orwell's 1984?

 

[669comche]

Its only a matter of time before everyone realizes that his plans are not readily workable.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

In the political game of chess Obama thinks one move ahead. When passing the legislation he was all excited with the opponent's king in check. In reality he's three moves away from being mated.

 

[GreenSky]

So not only do we have to pass it to know what's in it, we now can modify anything we want after it's passed.

What the hell is the reason for even having a legislature?

Rick

 

[medx]

Cracks are starting to form:

U.S. Waivers After Threats of Lost Health Coverage - NYTimes.com

This paragraph is relevant to what Somarco's been saying:

"Policy experts say much of the authority to enforce the new law rests with the states, and they say the federal government may have little ultimate control over whether insurers will keep offering coverage in specific markets."

How can the government offer waivers to 29 companies and not all the rest? Seems like an equal protection class action law suit waiting to happen to me. The government cannot discriminate on the basis of ability to pay!

Fascist economics. The government allows private business to exist, but picks winners and losers. Some folks get waivers, some folks are punished by rigid revenue enforcement. Business must support the folks in power if they want to stay in business.
Medigap

 

[Rivers1]

Another example of DC playing by their own rules. We minions are powerless and therein lies the problem with big government control over it's population.