Number of Obamacare Waivers Now Over 1,000 … “they gave out waivers is an admission of guilt. Basically they’re saying, You’re right. We screwed up.”
Because Obamacare is so good for America, right? If so, why would any waivers be necessary?
As reported at The Hill … the number of Obamacare waivers has now climbed over the 1000 mark. Remember that list of 111 companies that got special waiver exemptions to Obamacare. As reported at the Gateway Pundit, by January the number of companies granted Obamacare waivers jumped from 229 to 729 covering over 2.2 million employees. Now it is March 2011 and the number is over 1000and counting.
HHS posted 126 new waivers on Friday, bringing the total to 1,040 organizations that have been granted a one-year exemption from a new coverage requirement included in the healthcare reform law enacted almost a year ago. Waivers have become a hot-button issue for Republicans, eager to expose any vulnerabilities in the reform law.
Obamacare … Obamabust
“The bottom line here is that they gave out waivers is an admission of guilt. Basically they’re saying, “You’re right. We screwed up.” That’s the bottom line here. They did not create a law that benefits all of us.”
Posted March 6, 2011 by Scared Monkeys
Barack Obama, Government, Obamacare, Obamanation, Unions, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | 15 comments
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
15 Responses to “Number of Obamacare Waivers Now Over 1,000 … “they gave out waivers is an admission of guilt. Basically they’re saying, You’re right. We screwed up.””
Leave a Reply
[...] Scared Monkeys has more: Because Obamacare is so good for America, right? If so, why would any waivers be necessary? [...]
I noticed Steve has not been mouthing off on this thread about how great Obamacare is and why if Obamacare was such a good bill for “We the People” why so many businesses need waivers. Including numerous unions.
Here’s another bit of news: DOUBLE COUNTING CONFIRMED as a way of funding this…
Steve is back at his day job of knowing everything…lol
“The Obama Misery Index and the Rise of Obamavilles” is the best blog post I’ve read in a long time. This is why President Obama will be a one-term president! http://t.co/hhFr73z
I can’t recommend this piece highly enough. This will be all the ammo we’ll need when talking to other voters during the 2012 general election.
This says: “. . . granted a one-year exemption from a new coverage requirement included in the healthcare reform law . . .”.
In case you wonder, like I did, what this “waived requirement” is all about, read on.
According to HHS, these waivers are limited to one aspect of the law: restrictions on the annual limit requirements of ACA. Instead of forcing policy changes (and associated premiums increases) too quickly on minimal coverage policies, a waiver is available as set out in the law.
Applying for (and getting) a waiver is a provision of the new law. I’ve yet to hear the case made why following this part of the law has negative aspects, or what the basic argument is against them, other than they simply exist and are being legally used.
SM: and the waiver will be extended again abd again and again. If Obamacare was such a brilliantly written law, why are unions asking for exceptions from it?
Sorry Steve, defending Obamacare is a loser.
Steve was just lonely, so he spread himself all over SM. Obviously, no one wanted to listen to him in real time.
Obama could really improve his public image by admitting he has been experimenting with all things, he’s been wrong and rescind everything.
2,3: you guys are just too cute.
If commenting here is mouthing off, I’m glad to be mouthing-off along with such a distinguished mouth.
I suppose double-counting means something to you; to me it means your caps-locks keys are stuck, and you’re attempting to say something meaningful with a random 2-word phrase.
If, as you say, I know everything, I guess that is supposed to be in contrast to you. So why should I or anyone else care about your 2-word philosophy?
#6, Oh Steve, that’s your brilliant comeback? That’s it? U B slipping.
So according to Steve’s philosophy, by not responding to the Sebelius “double counting” comment, STEVE AGREES.
From Big Govt, Sebelius admits double counting.
Yesterday the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee heard testimony from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Representative John Shimkus (R-IL) asked about the double counting of the $500 billion of savings which seemed to still helping the bottom line of Medicare and contributing to the funding of Obamacare. He asked Sebelius which program was supposed to receive the benefit of that Medicare cut, she answered, “Both.”
…while two years were taken and wasted to pass a bogus health care bill that will, of course, go by the wayside soon enough, the economy was tanking and people were losing their jobs left and right. Death panels appear to be a reality for young and old alike.
President Obama was also busy rewarding the abject failures of Wall Street with the money supplied by the taxes off the backs of Main Street and allowing the middle class to be dwindling on an accelerated basis.
Typical of the arrogant hypocrisy of the left, he totally ignored those out of work, the 99ers, and did not fight for a tier five while passing out those bonuses to Wall Street and asking for more from the middle class.
Today’s job increases are a sham.
So, to repeat, it seems that it was easier to push an unwanted and useless health care bill (this one) than work on the economy and jobs.
…unions want a waiver…that is rich!
What Sebelius “double counting” comment is that?
And from what inspiration of yours does this logic of “agreement” spring forth?
I sure hope these gaffs aren’t a sign of your mouth becoming less distinguished!
I wasn’t defending ACA, I was trying to highlight and thereby help explain it. I don’t disagree with your basic claim that extensions might be resubmitted (as the law allows that), although the availability to access exchanges in 2014 is expected to eliminate the type of health plans needing extension.
I do wonder why you only mentioned unions as requesting extensions, as there are plenty of examples of non-union waivers listed by HHS. FWIW, individual insurance companies appear to have some of the largest number of enrollees listed.
I’m still hoping someone can speak to the actual negative aspects of a waiver, rather than simply claim it is bad because, well, it is bad.
Why do you feel or liberals for that fact think they need to help explain things to us?
Do you work in HHS? Have you read the entire 2,000 pages? I doubt it.
You are the one here touting that Obamacare is the right thing to do; even though it’s going to bankrupt my children and my grandchildren even further. If his plan was so GREAT and so GREAT for the American people; then why is he giving waivers to companies like McDonalds?
Why are you touting the approval of waivers?
The reason these companies want waivers because they know Obamacare will break them. It’s that simple.. No need for talking in circles.
Oh you mean the individual insurance companies that lobbied for these waivers; you know the lobbyists that Obama claimed would not affect the way he governed or the way Congress works?
Most of these waivers have gone to Obama supporters; mainly those from the 2008 election…and that’s a fact….
I appreciate your response, and will try to provide a clear my reply.
Unless I’m mistaken, you may have called me liberal (it wasn’t totally clear). What about my comments in this thread indicate a political philosophy? What have I advocated for that is political in nature. Does what I’ve said have a liberal, conservative, libertarian, or any slant to it? Your conclusion puzzles me.
As I said earlier, with no explanation given as to what a waiver was, or even why it was considered bad, I had to look them up to find out at least some basic information. Having done that, it just seemed to be a good thing to share what I found, including link(s) for others to verify, hopefully so we could all have a better discussion. Additionally, I’m still waiting to find out why this basic (not special, as described) aspect of the law is considered negative. BTW, I found no description of a “special” waiver in the law, as was mentioned.
I have no special connection to this law or HHS, I’m just able to use Google to find things as many others do.
I disagree I’ve touted ACA or waivers in any manner. In paraphrasing language I’ve found at linked pages, I wasn’t trying to offer support, just information.
I respect your opinion that you believe this law will bankrupt your children and grandchildren. You certainly know more about your families personal finances than I as a stranger would. I know I’ve had similar ideas about my kids future (no grand-kids yet) when I consider the history of the debt exploding from under $1 Trillion just before Reagan to near $10 Trillion under GW Bush.
Obviously, I don’t know why any company was granted a waiver. However, you must have better or different data than I found at HHS, because McDonalds was not listed there when I just looked.
I also respect your opinion on why companies request waivers. However, with only an opinion and no evidence offered, I would find it difficult to consider something like that.
I wasn’t trying to talk in circles, unless you’re referring to my final sentence in comment 12. That was absolutely on purpose, as it seems waivers are described as being bad because they are, wait for it, WAIVERS!!! I was trying to play off the apparent circular thinking I thought I was experiencing, because no one had an explanation why they were bad.
If you have any links, I’d be interested in learning more about insurance companies that lobbied for waivers, or about companies on the waive list that were/are Obama supporters. I’ve not seen anything on these topics.
[...] in D.C. District Court against the Department of Health and Human Services. At issue is the Obama administration’s criteria for granting 1,040 of the temporary health care reform waivers…to businesses, labor groups and a handful of states. Those organizations are being allowed to opt [...]