Look who makes RomneyCare/MassCare’s waiver decisions (Hint: Rhymes with Ess-Eee-Eye-You)
Before there was Obamacare, there was RomneyCare/MassCare.
Before there were Obamacare waivers, there were RomneyCare/MassCare waivers.
And just as the SEIU Purple Army is smack dab in the middle of exempting itself from Obamacare, it is smack dab in the middle of deciding who does and who doesn’t have to follow the RomneyCare/MassCare rules in the Bay State.
Via the Boston Globe (h/t reader Shannon):
Massachusetts regulators granted more exemptions last year to residents who said they could not afford the health insurance required by the state, waiving the tax penalty for more than half of those who appealed, according to state data.
State officials said they excused the majority of waiver applicants in large part because of the protracted sour economy, which made insurance unaffordable for more people. Under the 2006 state law that requires most residents to have coverage, regulators have significant latitude to authorize waivers by taking into account factors such as a home foreclosure.
The number of people seeking exemptions in 2010 was about the same as in 2009, and state figures show that roughly 98 percent of residents were insured last year.
Even as Republicans and many states wage a bitter battle in Congress and the courts to block the mandatory insurance requirement in the national health care law, the provision appears to retain broad acceptance in Massachusetts.
Regulators’ flexibility may be part of the reason.
“We aren’t going to make someone pay just to make them pay,’’ said Celia Wcislo, a director of 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East and a member of the Connector Authority, which oversees Massachusetts’ health care law and grants the exemptions.
No, they’ll just force small businesses and those without political connections to shoulder the burden for everyone else.
Fun fact reminder: 1199SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund is an Obamacare Waiver winner.
Background on the politicized “Connector Authority” via Cato:
When Romney signed his plan he claimed “a key objective is to lower the cost of health insurance for all our citizens and allow our citizens to buy the insurance plan that fits their needs.” In actuality, insurance premiums in the state are expected to rise 10–12 percent next year, double the national average.
…Although there are undoubtedly many factors behind the cost increase, one reason is that the new bureaucracy that the legislation created-the “Connector”-has not been allowing Massachusetts citizens to buy insurance that “fits their needs.”
Although it has received less media attention than other aspects of the bill, one of the most significant features of the legislation is the creation of the Massachusetts Health Care Connector to combine the current small-group and individual markets under a single unified set of regulations. Supporters such as Robert E. Moffit and Nina Owcharenko of the Heritage Foundation consider the Connector to be the single most important change made by the legislation, calling it “the cornerstone of the new plan” and “a major innovation and a model for other states.”
The Connector is not actually an insurer. Rather, it is designed to allow individuals and workers in small companies to take advantage of the economies of scale, both in terms of administration and risk pooling, which are currently enjoyed by large employers. Multiple employers are able to pay into the Connector on behalf of a single employee. And, most importantly, the Connector would allow workers to use pretax dollars to purchase individual insurance. That would make insurance personal and portable, rather than tied to an employer-all very desirable things.
However, many people were concerned that the Connector was being granted too much regulatory authority. It was given the power to decide what products it would offer and to designate which types of insurance offered “high quality and good value.” This phrase in particular worried many observers because it is the same language frequently included in legislation mandating insurance benefits.
At the time the legislation passed, Ed Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation reassured critics that “the Connector will neither design the insurance products being offered nor regulate the insurers offering the plans.” In reality, however, the Connector’s board has seen itself as a combination of the state legislature and the insurance commissioner, adding a host of new regulations and mandates.
For example, the Connector’s governing board has decreed that by January 2009, no one in the state will be allowed to have insurance with more than a $2,000 deductible or total out-of-pocket costs of more than $5,000. In addition, every policy in the state will be required to phase in coverage of prescription drugs, a move that could add 5–15 percent to the cost of insurance plans. A move to require dental coverage barely failed to pass the board, and the dentists-along with several other provider groups-have not given up the effort to force their inclusion. This comes on top of the 40 mandated benefits that the state had previously required, ranging from in vitro fertilization to chiropractic services.
Thus, it appears that the Connector offers quite a bit of pain for relatively little gain. Although the ability to use pretax dollars to purchase personal and portable insurance should be appealing in theory, only about 7,500 nonsubsidized workers have purchased insurance through the Connector so far. On the other hand, rather than insurance that “fits their needs,” Massachusetts residents find themselves forced to buy expensive “Cadillac” policies that offer many benefits that they may not want.
Governor Romney now says that he cannot be held responsible for the actions of the Connector board, because it’s “an independent body separate from the governor’s office.” However, many critics of the Massachusetts plan warned him precisely against the dangers of giving regulatory authority to a bureaucracy that would last long beyond his administration.
Live and learn.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Taxing medical progress to death
February 17, 2012 09:01 AM by Michelle Malkin
96 CommentsQuote of the Day: DWS Decries Those Who Impose Their Values on Others
February 16, 2012 10:30 PM by Doug Powers
175 Comments
Acting White House Budget Director Didn’t Get the Obamacare Memo
February 15, 2012 04:43 PM by Doug Powers
56 Comments
Obama Chief of Staff: No More Compromise on Contraceptive Mandate
February 12, 2012 04:26 PM by Doug Powers
114 Comments
Choosing Life and Beating the Odds
February 11, 2012 11:50 AM by Doug Powers
32 CommentsObama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation” Updated: Prez condemns “cynical” opposition
February 10, 2012 10:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
245 Comments‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
199 CommentsFormer Democrat Rep. Regrets Vote for Obamacare Due to Contraceptive Coverage
February 7, 2012 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
76 Comments
How to Make a Liberal Politician Stand Up Against Intrusive Government
February 6, 2012 04:28 PM by Doug Powers
95 Comments
Categories: Health care
Sister Toldjah
» Quote of the Day: “There is no male equivalent for abortion”Hot Air
» Open thread: The last debateRedstate
» Obama the Tax Cutter? Think AgainHot Air
» Poll: Romney on the rise in Arizona?
Is there any more virile noxious organization in the USA? Nothing short of wicked
Sickening.
But thank you, Michelle for getting the truth out.
I wonder if there is any news of states asking bhocare be fast tracked to the SC? The fact ‘some’ people or companies get waiver’s should be unconstitutional!
But the whole thing is inconstitutional.
L
If Romney get the nomination the Tea Party memebers should walk out of the GOP convention and form a third party.
There is noting that government cannot screw up.
The Unions are the face of the Communist Party USA.
Now and then I’ve wondered….
How is the effect/result of the selective granting of waivers, so that the favored are exempt from noxious, essentially punitive legislation; any different from the effect/result of a bill of attainder, as discussed in the Constitution?
http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm
Are not we unfortunates who are not granted waivers punished without a trial?
3 years ago today, Mitt Romney dropped out of the Republican Primary, breaking a promise he had made publicly less than 48 hours earlier (a promise to fight all the way to the convention).
Even though I supported Huckabee over Romney and McCain,
I wish Romney had kept his promise and stayed in the primary.
Why?
1) Integrity
2) We would have stood a chance of having someone better than John McCain become our nominee.
While McCain was significantly ahead in pledged delegates, he still had a fair way to go to clinch the nomination, and he was running out of public financing money! … A point that Michelle Malkin herself noted at HotAir:
McCain hoisted by his own campaign finance petard
posted at 8:33 am on February 22, 2008 by Michelle
Had McCain run out of money and stopped winning primaries in a three-way race, it is quite possible that none of the three (McCain, Romney, Huckabee) would have reached the 1191 majority of pledged delegates, and we would have had a BROKERED CONVENTION, from which it is quite possible that we would have come away with a nominee who was more conservative than John McCain.
I’d love to see a breakdown of the waiver decisions that the Connector Authority have made. Would make for a nice FOI request.
Planned Parenthood
ACLU
NAMBLA
Congressional Black Caucus
LGBT Legal Defense Fund
DACOWITS
Democrat National Committee
Cat Lovers of America
NEA (Both)
MSNBC
On February 7th, 2011 at 1:40 pm, granite said:
Excellent questions. Their approach is rather than pass a bill specifically to hurt their adversaries, they pass a bill to hurt everyone, and then make their allies exempt!
I suggest that there be a line item on the MA tax forms that asks:
“Are you a member of a union?” …
If you answer “YES” you are ineligible for any waiver or relief from their onerous health care penalties for non-compliance …
More explanation:
Late on Super Tuesday (February 5, 2008), Mitt Romney promised to battle “all the way to the convention”.
Less than 48 hours later, after making that promise, Romney quit at CPAC, with the lamest excuse I have ever heard for quitting a political race:
I knew in my spirit that something was wrong. Nothing had changed on the terror front between February 5th and February 7th. Something else had changed. I believe that the “behind closed doors” meeting with unnamed “prominent Republicans” on February 6th is what changed. Romney sold out to unnamed power players in the “shadow government”. I believe that these “prominent Republicans” promised to help get the VP slot for Romney, and make 2012 “his turn”, in return for Romney quitting the 2008 race.
That, not terrorism, is the logical explanation of why Romney quit. Romney sold out to unnamed power players in the “shadow government”, and lied about his reasons for quitting the race.
This is why I can never trust Mitt Romney again. He is not a man of his word.
Hangfire, are you trying to piss off Spaceycakes again?
Romney did not quit because “prominent Republicans” promised him the VP position (obviously) or the 2012 nomination. He quit because he knew if the convention was brokered, which was the best he could hope for by staying in the race, Huckabee would throw the nomination to McCain anyway.
McCain would have given Huckabee the VP position on his ticket.
If you want to blame any of the players for us getting McCain as the nominee, you should blame Huckabee.
You will not do that. He’s your guy.
Did I do t h a t ?
Somebody hacked my comment!!! I hate when that happens, Rogue.
I suppose next Romney will claim that he didn’t realize that absolutely NOTHING in the MA Supreme Court’s Goodridge decision required the governor to take any action at all?
I didn’t know that was even possible?
I was reluctantly considering Romney in 2008 but I doubt I would consider him in 2012.
GingrichRomneyPawlentyHuckabeeI am also ambivalent about Palin. The FACT that Obama is UTTERLY UNQUALIFIED does not make her qualified…
Surely, conservatives have to have better options than this?
What is a real conservative to do?
On February 7th, 2011 at 2:35 pm, Roland said:
The power players were pushing for Romney right up until the point that McCain made his decision:
You’ll note that McCain did not “give Huckabee the VP position”.
People like you want to keep blaming Huckabee for McCain becoming the nominee, but it was Romney, not Huckabee, who “released” his delegates to McCain in an attempt to hand the nomination to McCain on a silver platter.
Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul were the only two candidates who stayed in the fight against McCain until McCain clinched the nomination.
Romney quit early.
Romney lied about his reason for quitting.
Romney broke his promise less than 48 hours after publicly making it.
Romney “released” his delegates to McCain before McCain had clinched the nomination.
Thank/blame Romney for McCain becoming our nominee.
*Get behind Herman Cain; He is not a politician like Romney or any of the others, is right on all the issues, and has more management/business savvy than P-BO could ever wish for himself!
*I am a Cracker for Cain, a Honky for Herman, and proud of it!
Draft J.C. Watts as the Anti-Barry.
The Godfather’s Pizza guy! I heard about him. I’ll certainly take a look. At least he isn’t a career politician.
How strange that would be: Cain. I can just see it now. The Demonuts plan: Confuse the voters thinking it’s McCain (provided there are no pictures). I have NO FAITH in the average American voter (and some non-Americans who end up voting, I might add). The Left will play upon that confusion and once again, here we go.
P.S. Herman Cain’s website has a really nice page on Mr. Cain. I love the quote that he picked:
1. PLANNED PARENTHOOD assists in the killing of human beings.
2. NAMBLA assists in the rape of children.
but SEIU, Cat Lovers, etc. aren’t even close to such evil. Next time, please be more careful with your analogies. Thank You.
I too am a Cracker and I agree.
But so far he has not made any “lists”.
As to RomneyCare….
After he left, the Ds came in and made many changes to the plan like adding a bunch of mandatory coverages which raised the price way up. They also lowered a lot of the deductibles which also raised the price way up.
I believe that he should not get the full brunt of the negative responses since the current plan is waaaay different than what he implemented.
You missed the point entirely. If they had entered the convention with McCain with by far the largest percentage of votes, but short of what was necessary to win (the best case scenario Romney would get by staying in the race), McCain would have given Huckabee the VP position.
If under those circumstances McCain had picked Romney to put him over the top, spurning Huckabee’s offer, Huckabee’s people would have been furious, and many SoCons would have boycotted the election the way they threatened to do before McCain picked Palin.
Romney figured all of this out (he is a really smart guy), and he decided continuing the race would not serve his interests, the interests of the party or the interests of the country.
It would only serve Huckabee’s interests.
I can see why as a Huckabee supporter that scenario does not seem to you like it would have been a problem, and how you do not think Huckabee being on the ticket would be anything but good for the GOP and the country.
It’s all irrelevant, guys. Socialized medicine (or socialized anything for that matter) will never work. You’ll always end up in a balance of payments bind because the gov’t offers more than it can deliver.
Q: Why is socialism never judged by its reality but only by its lofty promises?
Can the Stupid Party be so stupid as to run Romneycare against Obamacare?
I’m not voting for:
Romney
Pawlenty
Barbour
Gingrich
Huckabee
Thune
So far my vote in the primary is for Cain.
On February 7th, 2011 at 6:46 pm, Roland said:
You’re so close… do you realize that Huckabee’s delegates threated to walk out of the Convention when McCain was floating the idea of him choosing a “Pro-Choice” VP?
If you were happy that McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, thank Mike Huckabee and his delegates. Without them, McCain would not have cared and would probably have picked a pro-abortion running mate.
What if Romney had stayed in, and Romney and Huckabee had split the remaining primaries? The two of them together would have had more combined delegates than McCain. There is no guarantee that McCain would have emerged as the nominee. If Romney had been in 2nd place and Huckabee in 3rd, the two of them could have emerged as a combined ticket, rather than one or the other of them as McCain’s running mate.
I was initially a fan of Fred Thompson until I realized that he was John McCain’s stalking horse. Thompson’s role was to pull enough of the conservative vote away from Huckabee to enable McCain to win. Mission accomplished, Fred quit the race three days later.
I do think Huckabee would be good for the country. He was THE ONLY 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE to agree to Jeff Session’s 15 point plan and pledge to build border fences on both our northern and southern borders by July 1, 2010. If Huckabee were our President right now, the border would finally be secure.
If you actually looked at Huckabee’s stand on the issues on his campaign web site, I think it would be hard to find a stand on which you did not agree with him.
Clarification…
Fred Thompson’s role was to pull enough of the conservative vote away from Huckabee to enable McCain to win the SC Primary.
Mission accomplished, Fred quit the race three days later.
(Remember that in 2000, McCain losing the SC primary to George W. Bush was a turning point in that race… McCain ensured that he would not lose SC again in 2008.)
I think you’re correct about Thompson RedPill and I further think Guiliani was the left side blocker for McCain, all orchestrated by the RNC. They will arrange another amnesty candidate for 2012, Bet on it.
Virginia Patriot,
I agree. Here’s a snippet from a post I wrote back in 2008:
I’d be willing to bet they have a similar game plan for 2012. The last thing they want is anyone who opposes amnesty and supports enforcement.
Don’t write off Jim DeMint either.