1 We need a waiver for the entire country.I am hoping the Supreme Court will come down on the right side for this one.

This law is blatantly unconstitutional on almost all grounds.

2 Don't these waivers form the basis of some sort of lawsuit? 

And...what happens at the end of their 'one year exemption'?

3 And...what happens at the end of their 'one year exemption'?

You have to donate more money to Obama.

4 Some enterprising soul needs to create an excel chart comparing a list of the organizations granted waivers to a list of Obama's donors. I'm betting such a comparison would be instructive.

5

(remember, reporters are, generally stupid)

Ha, talk about stating the obvious.

6 It's surprising that nobody has yet taken this waiver procedure legally. The legislation sets forth no standards by which the HHS grants or denies a waiver. It does not appear that there is any requirement that HHS make findings of law and fact justifying the grant or denial of the waiver. The sole standard appears to be whether the grant helps or harms the administration. It's an arbitrary exercise of allegedly delegated legislative power.

7 It's surprising that nobody has yet taken this waiver procedure legally. The legislation sets forth no standards by which the HHS grants or denies a waiver.

The Obamacare Act says that the head of HHS is the sole arbiter of any standards for waivers. It is whatever she feels like any particular day. So there is your standard.

8 Grim milestone.

9 And doesn't it only make sense that the rate of waivers would eventually decrease towards zero?  FNG MFM.

1.  Waivers for everyone! 
2.  *
3.  Profit

10 Wow, it is so good that you have to get it waived just to deal with the win that is included. "It's so good I need a waiver just to comprehend it!"

11 I got yer standards right here!  I'm da boss and what I say goes.  So, fuck off!

Ahem..  So is it time for my meeting with the UAW yet?

12 And...what happens at the end of their 'one year exemption'?

You have to donate more money to Obama.

Posted by: Crom at March 07, 2011 07:29 AM (fA+FT)

And just in time for the 2012 campaign too (another feature)!

13 'Waiver' = 'just the tip'

14 I agree with vic.. SCOTUS is our only hope on this one.. especially after looking at our current crop of frontrunners for president in 2012.

15
The conservatives are always bitchin' about something, and today it's the waiver process, tomorrow it's something else.  Bitch, bitch, moan and bitch.

16

"It is whatever she feels like any particular day."

And depends on objective factors such as whether you are a Democrat or not, union or not, whether you have made and will continue to make significant contributions to the Obama campaign, whether or not you or your company are important enough to create a PR problem if you are not granted a waiver, whether you or your company are big enough to be a current or future 'player' that could be of assistance to Obama, all that.

Life in a social democracy is wonderful isn't it? 

17 If you like your suck-up relationship with a massive federal bureaucracy, you can keep your suck-up relationship with a massive federal bureaucracy.

18 The country needs a waiver on this presidency...

19

What the reporter meant, and failed to convey, was that the rate of the increase in healthcare waivers has been decreasing. English iz hard.

It's math.  First derivative, second derivative (see previous thread).

I guess this is "social justice": the corrupt use of special favors.

20 Is a waiver for the first year only, or is it something that can be granted again and again to those who 'properly behave?'

21 The department also said the number of waivers has been steadily decreasing. HHS approved more than 500 in December, which it attributed to most plan years starting Jan. 1. It then approved 200 waivers in January and 126 in February.

It's hard to tell if that's just bad reporting (remember, reporters are, generally stupid) or if HHS really did tell him that the number of waivers has been decreasing. I'm going to go with the former, though, because that paragraph looks like it was plucked and poorly paraphrased from the official talking points on the ObamaCare website.

 

The media is stupid, but they also lie, so I think it's a combo of both.  One of the headlines on my AOL page this a.m. was something along the lines of "Republican Budget Cuts Could Result in Food Shortages".  I'm guessing (I refuse to read it) that they are trying to posit that decreased farm subsidies will result in world hunger.  How about a headline like "Foolish Pursuit of Bio-fuels Will Result In Famine"?  Geez, I hate the MFM!

22 If you like your suck-up relationship with a massive federal bureaucracy, you can keep your suck-up relationship with a massive federal bureaucracy as long as you pay the piper on time.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 07, 2011 08:04 AM (B+qrE)

FIFY

23 Most people knew this was bad legislation when it was passed.  When the Dems had to twist arms and bribe their own party members for their votes.  When Pelosi told us we had to pass the legislation before we read it.  Well hell, anyone with half a brain had to know it was a piece of shit being rammed down our throats.

24 I've always enjoyed a good waver!

25 ASSCLOWNHOLE

26 Is a waiver for the first year only, or is it something that can be granted again and again to those who 'properly behave?'

Posted by: nickless at March 07, 2011 08:07 AM (MMC8r)

IANAL, but I think a waiver is temporary (and subject to review) while an exemption would seem to be more permanent in nature.  Viewed this way the waiver seems to be less likely to legal challenge and has the benefit of being revocable if the waivee steps out of line.

27 Everyone should get a waiver except who voted for this dangerous POS.

28

(remember, reporters are, generally stupid)

Ha, talk about stating the obvious.

Posted by: Case at March 07, 2011 07:31 AM (0K+Kw)

Don't forget lazy; you can be dumb and still be diligent enough to get something right at times.  But if you're stupid and lazy, well, you get what we have today.

29 Wait a minute. What about health care for everyone? Aren't these employees being consigned to back-alley boob jobs and tonsillectomies, easy prey for roving packs of amputation-crazed Jew doctors? How could Obama be so cruel to poor Juan from McDonalds? Who's going to pay for his care when he comes to work tweaking on meth and starts bobbing for french fries?

30

The media is stupid, but they also lie, so I think it's a combo of both.  One of the headlines on my AOL page this a.m. was something along the lines of "Republican Budget Cuts Could Result in Food Shortages".  I'm guessing (I refuse to read it) that they are trying to posit that decreased farm subsidies will result in world hunger.  How about a headline like "Foolish Pursuit of Bio-fuels Will Result In Famine"?  Geez, I hate the MFM!

Posted by: runningrn at March 07, 2011 08:07 AM (ihSHD)

I just read that article and it is 'OMG...we're all gonna die!'.  I read about a dozen or so comments and with the exception of maybe 1 person, they were most 'Who wrote this BS?!  Cut more!'

31 Why aren't they lining up for the free candy?

32

 "Republican Budget Cuts Could Result in Food Shortages".

Don't worry.  We'll get longer growing seasons with all that sweet, sweet global warming.

Any day now...28 degrees in Des Moines...any day now...

33 Oh, and why aren't the Republicans making this known?  If I were them, I'd be out there on the talk show circuit with big charts showing who's getting the waivers, and questioning if Obamacare was so necessary, then why are all these people (show the crony connections) exempt from it?  This is a golden opportunity to show how effed up the whole health care "reform" law is, and how a lot of big corporations are getting the exemptions (you know how supposedly, it's the Republians who are in bed with big Fast Food and other evil entities).  Geez, the Republicans suck!

34 in the end....the unions will ALL BE PROTECTED....and the private sector screwed......who is john galt?

35 Once again the demo party is leading away from the concept of equality before the law. Hell, they are instituting unequal results based on political grease. Damn these demo's are so moral.

36

35 Oh, and why aren't the Republicans making this known?

What, like we're going to cover that?

37 Waivers sound a lot like favors.

38 Oh, and why aren't the Republicans making this known?

What, like we're going to cover that?

Posted by: MSM at March 07, 2011 08:28 AM (BvBKY)

I keep wondering how anyone gets a non-conforming message out to the masses in such a way that it might make a dent in the 12% that could swing an election.  Reading a blog like this requires some (admittedly small) level of literacy and interest, so I doubt conservative blogs will do the trick.  YouTube videos are easier to view, but it is hard for any conservative commentator to go viral against "jackass" level competition in the intended audience.

I do think if an articulate repub spokesman made a speech on the Capitol steps every day rain or shine it would eventually show up on Drudge.  But that would be work. sooo....

39

35 Oh, and why aren't the Republicans making this known?

Honestly, runningrn, it doesn't matter now.  What good can it do?  Right now, the focus is on the bill as a whole and the unconstitutionality.  In 2012, we focus on the corruption.

40 "Republican Budget Cuts Could Result in Food Shortages"

Americans are fat, anyway. Everyone is going to have to give up some pie and make sacrifices for the greater good. Nobody gets dessert. 

41 The country does need a big shot of penicillin... but sadly... that may not be enough, as our communist infection is going septic. Amputate?

42

I should have gotten a law degree because this makes so sense. How can people be exempted from the law?

I know the military is exempted from some EPA and OSHA stuff, but that's beause of national secuirty and is legitimate.

I don't understand how they can hand out "get out of obamacare
 passes

43 So, a Republican goes on Meet the Press and the cocksucker asks him if he denounces the harsh rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh and the Republican starts talking about Obamacare waivers. Is that so hard? Democrats do it every day. No brains? No balls? Anyone?

44 We need to stimulate the economy by giving tax cuts to women who breastfeed their children into adulthood, which is also a great diet plan. No one will want to eat after watching midgets suckle from Democrat women.

45

Honestly, runningrn, it doesn't matter now.  What good can it do?  Right now, the focus is on the bill as a whole and the unconstitutionality.  In 2012, we focus on the corruption.

 

I think it does matter.  The general public is completely unaware of how evil and corrupt this bill is.  They have no idea that there are people who've been exempted from this p.o.s. legislation (even if it's temporary, do you think anyone will ever have the political will to rescind the waivers in the future?)  We need people to be informed, otherwise another Obama gets elected or another Democrat controlled congress gets into power.  I'm doing what I can to educate those people around me about what a monstrosity Obamacare is, and how it is going to vastly reduce quality of care and consumer choice, and how it is going to increase cost and government meddling in one's private affairs.  It is essential that we get this thing defunded, and we need as many voices screaming against this madness as possible.  People think "Well, I guess it's only fair that we do Obamacare because then everyone will have axcess to the same thing."  Au contraire.  Look at the waivers, including the first people that excluded themselves from this piece of crap legislation, the people who wrote it.

 

OK, off to work I go.  You bet I'm bringing this up at work.

46 So why can't the 'Pubs put in an earmark that directs the HHS secretary to issue a waiver to everyone?

47 When I think of exemplary healthcare, the first thing that comes to mind is the fry cook from Taco Bell and the Pizza Hut delivery guy. Let them eat rat barf!

48 Anyone else run into the leftist talking point claiming the Obamacare legislation says there's no penalty for not paying?

I did, and when I pointed out all these waivers to the little twat, he whined that I "wasn't interested in the facts" and went away.

49 Is there a comprehensive (but growing) list of all the waivers?

Are big companies and public employees getting the waivers and the little companies the ones getting royally fucked?

50 has the benefit of being revocable if the waivee steps out of line fails to meet their Democrat fundraising goals.  (Fixed)

51 the blog section of theblaze had a picture of the beer the obamas made.....the label on the bottle was crooked...just like them.......

52 Forget about the unconstitutionality of the law itself (which it is). How can any individual or institution be be bound by a law when a select few are exempted from it? I should think that that in itself is unconstitutional. Send all of these commies to the mikvah in cement overshoes, stat.

53 How many small businesses received waivers, or even know how to apply?  Shouldn't the status quo be reversed - you get a waiver automatically; and HHS has to prove it doesn't cause undo hardship.

54 I wonder if some of these unions getting waivers are like the WI teachers union that is actually making money off its taxpayer-funded healthcare.

55 .....with liberty and justice for all..... union members who represent 12%(?) of the working population.....

56 [from the side alleyway]  Pssst!   Psssssssst!  Buddy!  Hey pal!!  C'mere.  Need some O'Care waivers?  I got a million of them, dirt cheap, too.  Yeah, they fell off a truck.

57 Someone needs to come up with a bumpersticker with something along the lines of...."I got an obamacare waiver....did you? Neeener neeener boo boo".

58 Ahhh Crony capitalism.  Donate to a Democrat and you can do whatever you want.

59 Waivers, shmavers.  Barry's working on his short iron game.

60

Hey, all.  Anybody in the Seattle area?  Michelle Malkin's lead story this morning is a personal one, as it appears her cousin in Seattle has gone missing.

Missing: Marizela Perez

"She is a University of Washington undergrad and she has been missing since Saturday afternoon, when she left the Rainier Beach neighborhood headed to the UW Seattle campus. Her parents have been trying to reach her all weekend; she apparently never made it to campus and has not been heard from by phone/Internet. TheyÂ’ve filed a missing persons report with the Seattle Police Department. Hospitals have been alerted, according to family members, and bus and train routes have been checked. No sign."

If any M&Ms are in the Seattle area, MM is trying to spread the word via Facebook and other social media.  There's a picture of Marizela at the link.  Please be on the lookout, and let others know!

61 Monty Hall, Carol Merrill, and Jay Stewart are now running HHS.

62 (remember, reporters are, generally stupid)

Remarkably so.  I suppose most citizens would realize this by simply watching local or national news casts, but if you ever require affirmation of that fact, engage a reporter in an official capacity.  About five years ago it became necessary for me to deal with press on occasion to respond to activist claims on behalf of my company.  Facts, logic, and reason are an anathema to most "journalists" I have dealt with.  This is due in part to their politics of course, but do not discount the role played by breathtaking stupidity.  

63

@21

As early as 1944, von Hayek warned us in The Road to Serfdom that not all people would be equal before the law.  In a (futile) attempt to achieve their goals, the socialists would have to decide who was deserving and who was not.

Let us pray that at least 5 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court see the obvious and that Obamacare violates the equal protection before the law.

64 This is due in part to their politics of course, but do not discount the role played by breathtaking stupidity. 

Their inane politics and stupidity, coupled with a desire to "change the world", are a very dangerous combination.

65 Comrades, this is just another glorious benefit of crony socialism

66 Is there a comprehensive (but growing) list of all the waivers?

Are big companies and public employees getting the waivers and the little companies the ones getting royally fucked?

Posted by: moron at March 07, 2011 08:50 AM (nEa/y)

The list is here but it hasn't been updated since Jan. 26th.

http://tinyurl.com/39pubvx

67 66 This is due in part to their politics of course, but do not discount the role played by breathtaking stupidity. 

Their inane politics and stupidity, coupled with a desire to "change the world", are a very dangerous combination.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 07, 2011 09:09 AM (9hSKh)

Agree.  See:  Roosevelt's New Deal  See: DDT ban  See: Vietnam War under Pres. Johnson and Great Society  See: Mideast under Pres. Carter.  See: US Foreign Policy under Pres. Clinton & Sec State Al(notso)bright.

Now, I will concede the point that these policies would have worked beautifully, if reality had not intruded and defeated them. 

68 @44 I know the military is exempted from some EPA and OSHA stuff, but that's beause of national secuirty and is legitimate.

Probably not exempted from as much as you would think.  At least the Navy sure as heck is not.  You know those common cleaning products like Windex you have around the house?  Yeah, that was hazmat to us-MDSS, accountability out the yazoo, all that jazz.

69 @45 I believe Michelle Bachmann did exactly what you are talking about-though she was too busy beating on some chicanery with $100 billion or so in the Healthcare Bill to get to waivers, while David Suckerofcock Gregory wanted her to answer questions about whatever the hell it is David Suckerofcock Gregory thinks Republicans should be answering for.

70 Are big companies and public employees getting the waivers and the little companies the ones getting royally fucked?

Rhetorical question?

71

Waivers to those who give generously to the dem party and those who pushed for Pelosi/Obamacare in the first place.

 

fuckers.

 

72 ObamaCare's primary purpose appears to have been to create a mechanism for creating another gate to favor cronies over non-cronies.

73 As early as 1944, von Hayek warned us in The Road to Serfdom that not all people would be equal before the law.

This is why the founders severely limited the federal government in power. They even stated specifically what the federal government was allowed to do in Article 1, Section 8. All else was retained by the States and the People.

Even before the ink was dry the Adams & the Supreme Court sought to undo that list. Over the years that list has been rendered almost meaningless unless there is something in it the liberals like.

During the Bush years when the liberals were screaming about Bush abuses and the government authority if you asked them about why then did they always scream for more and more federal government control you would get a blank look. Just breath taking stupidity.

Any government powerful enough to provide for your well-being from cradle to grave is powerful enough to control your life from cradle to grave.

In addition, the more power any government gets, the more corruption is inherently brought in. But for some reason one can not convince the liberals of how true this is.

74 and several private companies, including the parent company of Pizza Hut and KFC, got a reprieve from ObamaCare.

Interesting. What menu changes did they promise FKOTUS for this consideration?

75

--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.

 

They only did the extra waivers to get up to the magic number of 1040 ... which is to remind everyone that the IRS is the one running the health insurance payment extortion racket for ObamaCare.

BTW, For all who are worried, don't fret.  We are still within the "rule of law" until the number of waivers goes over 3,000.  Once we hit 3,000, though ... whoa!  At that point it'll be "rule of Man" for us and empathetic latinas determining everything.  But, we're still 1,960 waivers away from that descent into tyranny.

76 If any of you had the experience to visit the USSR back in the day, all of this will come in to focus for you. You had the regular populace (who were f*cked, constantly) then you had the Party people (who got the best of everything) then you had the "nomenclatura" who were the officers of the Party, held titled positions, etc., who also had preferred status, but not as high as the Party officials.

Classes of people.

None of this pretense at equality. Never.

77

But I thought it was 'necessary and proper' for EVERY American to have skin in the game or else we would not realize the eleventy trillion dollar savings and 3000% reduction in premiums.

Equal protection for me and my union buddies and Big Hamburger, but not so much for thee.

Fore!

78 The number of waivers is going down because there is only a finite number of companies and organizations in bed with the Administration.

79 Ah, the infamous democrat Social "Just Us" at work.

80 26 I've always enjoyed a good waver!
_______

There's one of those big LED message signs on my way to work that exhorts me to "never waiver from safe behavior". I'm not sure what it's telling me to do.

81 They're tiny waivers, you bunch of Rethuglican hacks.

82 45 So, a Republican goes on Meet the Press and the cocksucker asks him if he denounces the harsh rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh and the Republican starts talking about Obamacare waivers. Is that so hard? Democrats do it every day. No brains? No balls? Anyone?
Posted by: SurferDoc

Those shows don't work that way. If the Conservative starts to talk about the Obamacare waivers, and the question was about the evil Conservatives, the host will then accuse the Conservative of "trying to change the subject".

When the liberal does it, the host then says "you bring up an interesting point". That is how the game is played because at this point, the host realizes that the daily Democrat talking points have changed, and he now knows what the talking points for the rest of the show are.

83 Those shows don't work that way. If the Conservative starts to talk about the Obamacare waivers, and the question was about the evil Conservatives, the host will then accuse the Conservative of "trying to change the subject".

Either that or they just edit it out to the cutting room floor and substitute a different answer. Conservatives should not go on any ABC, CBS, NBC, of CNN news show unless it is live or unless they get a signed contract, in blood, that says no editing will be done.

84 Does anyone else think they're waiting it out until 2013, hoping for a Republican prez?

85 Once we hit 3,000, though ... whoa!

Explain? Or have I not had enough coffee yet to stimulate my humor sensors?

86 The Obamacare Act says that the head of HHS is the sole arbiter of any standards for waivers. It is whatever she feels like any particular day. So there is your standard.
Posted by: Museisluse at March 07, 2011 07:38 AM

-------

Is there a provision in the bill for the design of a scepter?

2000+ pages and that's all there is to the waiver process.

87 ditto to runningrn... The level of corruption this represents is appalling. To me, its even more offensive than the mandate. On the upside, if an R gets in office after the 2012 elections, I would think (s)he could do a blanket waiver for everyone. And as Vic stated, the bigger the government, the more extensive the legalized corruption is. Picking winners and losers... that is exactly what corruption is.

88 And as Vic stated, the bigger the government, the more extensive the legalized corruption is.

Most of this is NOT "legal" corruption. It is corruption in the most illegal sense of the word. The problem is that there is nobody who will police them.

This is why once again I say the only solution is to limit government power to the absolute minimum. But we shot that wad long ago.

89 Looks like we need Sarah to post about this on Facebook.  That always seems to get O's attention.

90 Most of this is NOT "legal" corruption. It is corruption in the most illegal sense of the word. The problem is that there is nobody who will police them.

This is why once again I say the only solution is to limit government power to the absolute minimum. But we shot that wad long ago.

Posted by: Vic at March 07, 2011 12:29 PM (M9Ie6)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The problem has been around for a while.

91 Most of this is NOT "legal" corruption. It is corruption in the most illegal sense of the word. The problem is that there is nobody who will police them.

Yes, this is the heart of the problem.  In a Dem admistration there is no policing, no equality before the law, no justice.  The only real solution I see is for Repub's to run the show, because the D's and their loony base will shout out at the slightest infraction.  Fair, no, but it's the only way I see things can work in a practical sense.  I don't like one party rule, and eventually the R's screw up and we end up back with a Dem admin.  Rinse, repeat.

92

If the DOJ won't assure that justice is administered fairly and properly, and the president is complicit, what recourse is there?  The Supremes?  Is there another way for We The People to get rid of Holder and assure whoever runs the DOJ will do their job?

 

93 Obama gets a waiver for everything he does/doesn't do; why should he not give them out to others for Obamacare--only fair.

94 Just want to say what a great blog you got here!I've been around for quite a lot of time, but finally decided to show my appreciation of your work!

95 sssss