20% of all health care waivers are in Nancy Pelosi's district.

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Hello, May 17, 2011.

  1. Hello

    Hello

    Apparently after she passed the bill so she could find out what was in it, she did not like what she saw. Democrats have no shame, pass shitty laws for everyone else, then dont make any of their own special interests follow them.



    Twenty Percent of New Healthcare Waivers Are In Nancy Pelosi’s District
    May. 17 2011 - 11:39 am | 628 views | 0 recommendations | 4 comments
    By E.D. KAIN
    The Daily Caller reports:

    Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

    That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

    Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

    Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

    This is another good example of how government makes a mess of things when it attempts to create a complicated system of vouchers, subsidies, penalties and waivers. At some point it’s hard to know where the carrot stops and the stick begins. The problems with our maddeningly complex (and expensive) healthcare system are bad enough. Introducing an even more byzantine system of exceptions and special favors on top is only going to make matters worse.

    A simple public option for healthcare – Medicaid for all, for instance, plus private insurance on top of basic coverage – makes far more sense than a system that hands out waivers to the politically well-connected, or grants tax breaks for employer-provided benefits.

    This is one reason I keep beating the free-markets-plus-public-option drum. Keep it simple and work to expand access as much as possible. If we want to keep costs down in a sector with high levels of consumption and opaque prices we need to increase supply and make prices more transparent. So free up markets and provide simple public options for those who cannot afford healthcare on their own.

    This Richard Epstein piece on ‘government by waiver’ is also worth a read. To me, the real issue is a lack of consistency and stable rules. Government-by-waiver cedes far too much control to special interests, and opens the door to serious regulatory capture. Inevitably, it is those among us with the least political power who will pay the highest price for these exceptions to the rule.
    http://blogs.forbes.com/erikkain/20...activity&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=20110517