An Easy Way to Prevent Unintended Consequences: Don't Pass Laws That Cause Them
The AP's Q&A on the Obama administration's 1,400 health care waivers, which exempt specific businesses and union organizations from certain provisions of the health care law, strongly implies that the waiver process is best understood as "a safety valve" designed to "prevent unintended consequences." There is, however, an easier way to prevent such unintended consequences: Don't pass laws that cause them in the first place.
That's why the mounting pile of waivers is best viewed as evidence that not only is the law not working, but the administration knows it isn't working. The administration has admitted as much: Take Maine, for example. In March, the state was granted a waiver from ObamaCare's medical loss ratio provision, which requires health insurers to spend a certain percentage of premium revenue on "clinical services," in order to ensure that a health insurer that's been accused of selling "junk insurance." According to Steve Larsen, one of the Obama administration's top insurance bureaucrats, the rule was rescinded because it "has a reasonable likelihood of destabilizing the Maine individual health insurance market." When provisions designed to be applied universally are instead applied selectively, it suggests rather strongly that the provisions in question are faulty.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
When provisions designed to be applied universally are instead applied selectively, it suggests rather strongly that the provision in question is faulty.
I beg your pardon!
That’s why the mounting pile of waivers is best viewed as evidence that not only is the law not working, but the administration knows it isn’t working.
Or, they’d planned on this the whole time, and it is working as intended, to destroy the health insurance market in anticipation of single-payer. In the meantime, however, they’ve gotta keep scratching their friends’ backs.
Or that they were creating a whole new type of favor the party in power can dole out to favored people and organizations. Obama, building brand new roads to corruption.
The public schools have been teaching us for years all the problems that gov’t solved. There are no problems that gov’t cannot/should not solve. No matter how often gov’t fails, the public keeps falling for their bullshit. This time they’ll get it right! Time to join the sovereign citizen movement.
albo’s iron rule of health care waivers:
The chance of a waiver being granted is directly proportional to the amount of money the applying entity has donated to the DNC.
Precisely. BO’s fundraising totals belie the idea that waivers aren’t “working”.
So, does “equal protection” not apply to this sort of thing, or what?
“”The chance of a waiver being granted is directly proportional to the amount of money the applying entity has donated to the DNC.””
Maybe, I wouldn’t be surprised. The fun will continue when the next administration takes over.
Those waivers pose an unfair advantage against those who are not politically connected enough to get one. Who knows, that might have been part of the plan from the start, only it got away from the legislation’s crafters.
Props on losing the abominable acronym PPACA, Peter. You’re halfway to using the colloquial ObamaCare!
I still don’t think that private sector insurance as intended (in any sense of the word) to survive under ObamaCare. I don’t think it was an accident that Sebelius was given unlimited and unreviewable discretion to issue waivers, either.
Do the math. This was designed as a favor factory, and is working exactly as intended.
I’m still mystified as to why no one has filed suit on the grounds that the waiver provision is unconstitutional. (Maybe thats happened and I havent read about it.) I am not a con law scholar but to me it seems to violate both equal protection and the separation of powers.
Any conlaw folks out there with thoughts on this?
Standing may be an issue here.
You’d have to ask the legal eagles, but I’ll bet that just not liking the law won’t get you into court.
Now, if you were denied a wavier and a competitor granted one…
Obama’s divinity questioned, but reaffirmed by our reporters.
I think without being denied a waiver, you wouldn’t have standing. I don’t think it would matter if a competitor got one or not.
Which means the Obaminators can stop any challenge just by handing out a waiver to the plaintiff.
There might be a way for a beneficiary of a health plan that gota waiver to file a challenge. They were denied the benefits of the law by an illegal exercise of administrative authority? Sounds plausible to me.
The fun consequence of this is, that it provides a guaranteed way to get a waiver once any of your competitors gets one: you just file the paperwork for the waiver and prepare the paperwork for the suit…
Waivers? Everyday, Americans move closer to living by the ethos of Banana Republic humans.
But not passing laws could just as easily have unintended consequences if by not passing them you intend to avoid such consequences. I don`t think Suderman is playing with a full deck.
In March, the state was granted a waiver from ObamaCare’s medical loss ratio provision, which requires health insurers to spend a certain percentage of premium revenue on “clinical services,” in order to ensure that a health insurer that’s been accused of selling “junk insurance.”
Maybe it’s the pain pills but what are they trying to ensure?
Proofread next time, Suderman.
The waivers are an affront to the principle of equality under the law.