If Unions Don't Have to Comply with Obamacare, Why Should the Rest of Us?
Last Friday, the Obama administration granted 200 more Obamacare waivers to companies. It's become something of a weekly event. You can get a full list of the companies exempted here -- over 1300.
The Republican Policy Committee reports that over half of the workers that have been exempted so far belong to unions:
The plans newly approved for waivers cover more than 160,000 people, bringing to nearly 3.1 million the number of individuals in plans exempted from the health law’s requirements. Of the participants receiving waivers, more than half – over 1.55 million – are in union plans, raising questions of why such a disproportionate share of union members are receiving waivers from the law’s requirements. The percentage of participants receiving waivers that come from unions also continues to rise – the number was 48% in April, and 45% in March.
And that's on top of what unions already got in the original Obamacare wheelings and dealings. Their generous "cadillac" insurance plans won't be taxed until 2018 (adding $120 billion to the bill's cost over ten years). For those interested in how this administration has helped unions, you may enjoy my better half's story in The Weekly Standard a few weeks ago.
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: If Unions Don't Have to Comply with Obamacare, Why Should the Rest of Us?
I'm still waiting for my speed limit waiver, and my public urination waiver. Those are hard to get too.
May '11
Re: If Unions Don't Have to Comply with Obamacare, Why Should the Rest of Us?
Come on Mollie, you know very well why "the rest of us have to pay", even a Canadian living in Tokyo can figure that out, you have not given enough to Obama's stash, so you pay. Sad, but true.
Edited on May 19, 2011 at 6:45amRe: If Unions Don't Have to Comply with Obamacare, Why Should the Rest of Us?
I'm sorry, I can't shake that image of President Obama massaging the shoulders of Richard Trumka.
Re: If Unions Don't Have to Comply with Obamacare, Why Should the Rest of Us?
In somewhat related news, Tim Carney has a piece titled "In which I give in to Obama's Nixonian demands on what the media should cover.
The White House complained that the Boston Herald hadn't given more coverage to Obama's last visit. So Carney complies, explaining:
And then he names them, from "Drug company CEO Reinier Beeuwkes, who gave $20,000 to the DCCC. Beeuwkes's company, Ischemix, is a member of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which endorsed Obamacare" to "Joanne Egerman, a Planned Parenthood board member and wife of health-care CEO Paul Egerman." She also gave $20K.
Re: If Unions Don't Have to Comply with Obamacare, Why Should the Rest of Us?
This is what you get when you import Chicago style Democratic politics to Washington. Corruption is business as usual.
May '10
Re: If Unions Don't Have to Comply with Obamacare, Why Should the Rest of Us?
This is one of the many infuriating aspects of the health care law. The very groups (I'm thinking unions as an example), and the very politicians (I'm thinking Nancy Pelosi with her giant gavel on the day the bill was passed as an example) who supported this and rammed it through are the ones getting the waivers, for themselves and their constituencies. It is the height of arrogance and corruption.
In a column in February, Deroy Murdock argued that the waivers alone are evidence that it is bad law and that, because some are receiving waivers and others are not, the law violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Jul '10
Re: If Unions Don't Have to Comply with Obamacare, Why Should the Rest of Us?
HHS has granted Obamacare waivers to the entire states of NV and NH.
Maybe all the battleground states will be so lucky.