ObamaTolls©

PowerLine's John Hinderaker gets the WaiverMania impetus exactly right:

"[T]he vicious strategy at the heart of Obamacare [is to] pass terrible legislation, and then collect a toll by exempting your friends--those who pay you lots of money--from that legislation, while your enemies have to live with it."

In this case, the toll actually came before the legislation: look at how many of these waivers go to PresBo's union buddies, who so vociferously (and generou$ly) supported him and his policies. These organizations allegedly represent the interests of millions of workers, those for whom ObamaCare© was ostensibly designed to protect. One wonders how to reconcile these transparently contradictory goals.

I can, however, think of a term which describes it.

WaiverMania: Piling On

Earlier this week, Bob made a compelling case that the Employer Mandate was, like the Individual one, unconstitutional. As long as we're on the subject, then, let's open this can o'worms even further:

"The Department of Health and Human Services has granted 733 waivers from one of the statute’s key requirements ... Congress can pass statutes that apply to some businesses and not others, but once a law has passed ... how can the executive branch relieve some Americans of their obligation to obey it?"

In other words:

"Are Health-Care Waivers Unconstitutional?"

It's almost as if the folks that passed this train-wreck hadn't read it.

ObamaWaivers© for Thee and Me?

Looks like WaiverMania's heating up, but this time it may be good news:

"A House Republican is pushing a new bill that would allow individuals to get a waiver from major provisions of the new healthcare reform law, including the so-called individual mandate."

Hey, it's only fair: unions, restaurants, even states get a waiver, why not those of most likely to be negatively impacted by ObamaCrap?

And in a swell bit of hypocrisy, "the administration says ... that limited insurance is better than no insurance at all."

Really?

So "low value" (meaning, of course, affordable) insurance is okay for now, but we look forward to making health insurance unaffordable in a few years.

Daggum rockit surgeons, I tell ya!

AARP Waivermania

We've long noted AARP's disingenuous (some would say hypocritical) support of ObamaCare©. Well, on a tip from FoIB Bob D, we learn about the quid-pro-quo:

"While other health policies must go through a rigorous rate review under ObamaCare and justify any premium increases of more than 10 percent, AARP's Medigap policies are to be exempt from the federal review and restriction."

[ed: For an explication of that "more than 10%," see Mike's excellent analysis here]

One presumes that 10% is equal to 30 pieces of silver.

Brett Baier has more:

WaiverMania: Catch the Waive! [UPDATED & BUMPED]

By our most recent count, 222 plans had been granted waivers from all or part of ObamaCare©.

You just knew there'd be more, but who could have known just how many?

IB readers had a clue.

And they were right:

"President Obama’s health department made public new waivers for more than more than 500 groups."

Although I was told that there'd be no math, that figure is more than double the previous total. At this rate, we may not have to even worry about ObamaCare© at all: pretty soon, everyone will be waived.

We wish.

The current tally, by the way, stands at over 2 million participants whose plans are not subject to the draconian mandates set forth in the plan we had to "pass to see what's in it."

Never let it be said, though, that HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious has no sense of humor:

"HHS said Wednesday night that it wants to make the waiver process transparent."

Oh, it's transparent, Kathy: we can see right through you.

UPDATE: Well, well, well. Apparently, those Republican party-poopers in Congress aren't catching The Waive:

"The Obama administration’s waivers ... are a “perfect example of special interests” having influence in the administration and will be looked into by Congress"

Sen Charles Grassley of Iowa is calling the Obamastration on its early promise to eschew "special interests," citing the fact that so many of those granted waivers seem to be unions and their ilk. Although the investigations will take place in the House, the Senator has pledged to aid them in their quest to shed some light on the process.

Things could get interesting...

Karma's a (W)itch

Looks like somebody didn't send in their WaiverMania check to HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious:

"One of the largest union-administered health-insurance funds in New York is dropping coverage for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants ... The union blamed financial problems it said were caused by the ... new national health-insurance requirements."

Looks like they won't be #112 on "the list."

I found this little tidbit interesting:

"Currently about 6,000 children are covered by the benefit fund, some until age 23."

"Age 23?" Under ObamaCare©, that's supposed to be "age 26." Someone miss the memo?

For its part, the union is pointing the finger of blame at the Empire State, claiming that, under directives that took effect 2 years ago, "it expected that ... many of its members would qualify for state assistance for health-insurance coverage." So the wonderful gunion members counted on saps, er taxpayers to foot their bills?

State officials, on the other hand, are having none of that:

"The state is not forcing 1199 to do anything regarding its employee health insurance,” said Jeffrey W. Hammond, spokesman for the New York Department of Health."

Classic Mexican standoff, or missed opportunity? You be the judge.