Good Article....



On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:24 PM, dick <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>    - REVIEW & 
> OUTLOOK<http://online.wsj.com/public/search?article-doc-type=%7BReview+%26+Outlook+%28U.S.%29%7D&HEADER_TEXT=review+%26+outlook+%28u.s.>
>    - OCTOBER 20, 2010
>
> ObamaCare, for Some Step right up and get your waiver.
>
>    - 
> Article<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#articleTabs=article>
>    - Comments 
> (74)<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#articleTabs_comments>
>
> more in 
> Opinion<http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html>»
>
>    - 
> Email<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>    - 
> Print<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>    -
>
>    Save 
> This<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>  ↓
>    
> More<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>     -
>       -
>       -
>
>       Twitter
>       [image: 
> Twitter]<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>       -
>
>       Digg
>       [image: 
> Digg]<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>       - + 
> More<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h>
>     
> close<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#dummy>
>       - Yahoo! 
> Buzz<http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?publisherurn=wsj&targetUrl=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=wsj_share_ybuzz>
>       - 
> MySpace<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>       - 
> del.icio.us<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>       - 
> Reddit<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>       - 
> Facebook<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>     - 
> LinkedIn<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>       - 
> Fark<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>       - 
> Viadeo<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>       - 
> Orkut<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>    - [image: 
> larger]<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>    
> Text<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>  [image:
>    
> smaller]<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>
>   Well, well. In the clearest evidence so far that ObamaCare is harmful in
> practice and an election-year liability, the Obama Administration has
> decided not to enforce some of the law's "consumer protections." At least
> when the results are politically embarrassing.
>
> Over the last several weeks the Health and Human Services Department has
> granted dozens of temporary waivers to certain ObamaCare mandates so that
> insurers and businesses won't drop or cancel coverage. The most conspicuous
> went to McDonald's to protect the "mini-med" plans for some 30,000 hourly
> workers from a rule that prohibits annual restrictions on benefits. Mini-med
> policies offer modest coverage at low premiums and other low-wage fast-food
> chains like Jack in the Box and Denny's have been granted waivers as well.
>
> Cigna, Aetna and a few other insurers have been given hall passes to
> continue selling mini-meds. Another went to the United Federation of
> Teachers Welfare Fund. The New York union offers city teachers supplemental
> drug coverage that would have been banned under the new rules.
>
> At least this sudden regulatory flexibility is protecting the coverage that
> people have today, as President Obama promised. But it isn't much of an
> improvement if HHS retreats only after a national political blow-up. After
> all, the essential point of the regulations was to destroy mini-med plans
> and other types of coverage that Democrats claim are insufficiently
> generous. Democrats from Mr. Obama on down call these rules "the patients'
> bill of rights," but people don't regularly need exemptions from a bill of
> rights.
>
> And is it really better that HHS will impose destructive regulations and
> then decide on ad hoc basis who they'll hit? This is an invitation to play
> favorites, exact political retribution and pursue whatever arbitrary goals
> HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and her successors happen to hold. ObamaCare
> amnesty shouldn't go merely to the CEOs who can get White House aide Valerie
> Jarrett on the horn.
>
> Recall, too, that the original McDonald's memo the Journal exposed was
> actually warning about the future damage that will be caused by the
> forthcoming definition of the "medical loss ratio," that is, what insurers
> are allowed to count as spending on health-care services. HHS said in a
> statement that Ms. Sebelius has the power to waive those rules too when they
> come out and "we fully intend to exercise her discretion under the new law
> to address the special circumstances of mini-med plans in the medical loss
> ratio calculations."
>
> In other words, HHS is pre-emptively declaring that it will grant a special
> dispensation to rules that haven't even been finalized. Wouldn't it be
> better to write less destructive rules in the first place? Or why not give
> everyone a waiver from everything?
>
> The reality is that ObamaCare assigns HHS vast, undefined new powers that
> will mean whatever Ms. Sebelius and her team decides they will mean. The
> bill uses the phrase "the Secretary shall" or one of its variants more than
> a thousand times. Earlier this year, the Congressional Research Service
> found that ObamaCare created a "currently unknowable" number of new boards,
> commissions and offices, adding that "it is currently impossible to know how
> much influence they will ultimately have."
>
> HHS is also not building this bureaucratic apparatus in a transparent way.
> Ten of the 12 new regulations that HHS has issued in the last six months
> have been "interim final rules" that are not open to the ordinary process of
> public comment.
>
> The White House had to play favorites with Senators and special interests
> to pass ObamaCare, and its implementation is no less ugly. But the waiver
> wave is most telling for what it says about the architects of this plan. By
> bending their own rules, they're conceding their destructiveness.
> Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A20
>
> Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
>
> This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and
> use of this material are governed by our Subscriber 
> Agreement<http://online.wsj.com/public/page/subscriber_agreement.html>and by 
> copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies,
> please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
>
> www.djreprints.com
>  More In 
> Opinion<http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html>
>
>    - 
> Email<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>    - Printer 
> Friendly<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>    - Order 
> Reprints<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703794104575546052343243306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#>
>    -
>
>    -
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at 
> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

<<icon_smaller.gif>>

<<icon_email.gif>>

<<icon_reprint.gif>>

<<icon_twitter.gif>>

<<icon_digg.gif>>

<<icon_larger.gif>>

<<icon_print.gif>>

Reply via email to