if war is so good, why do we have a penalty for desertion? On Oct 20, 1:24 pm, dick <[email protected]> wrote: > * REVIEW & OUTLOOK > > <http://online.wsj.com/public/search?article-doc-type=%7BReview+%26+Ou....> > * OCTOBER 20, 2010 > > ObamaCare, for Some > > Step right up and get your waiver. > > * Article > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > > * Comments (74) > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > > more in Opinion > <http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html> � > > * Email > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > * Print > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > * > > Save This > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > ? More > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > > * > o > > o > > Twitter > > Twitter > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > > o > > Digg > > Digg > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > > o + More > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > > close > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > > o Yahoo! Buzz > > <http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?publisherurn=wsj&targetUrl=http://online.w...> > o MySpace > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > o del.icio.us > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > o Reddit > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > o Facebook > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > o LinkedIn > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > o Fark > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > o Viadeo > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > o Orkut > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > * larger > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > Text > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > smaller > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > > 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<http://www.djreprints.com> > > More In Opinion > <http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html> > > * Email > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > * Printer Friendly > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > * Order Reprints > > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870379410457554605234324...> > * > > *
-- 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.
