Friday, May 20, 2011
If Obamacare is so great, why would anyone even want to be granted a waiver from participation? The answer is related to the one for another question: Why do Obama supporters hate it when we call the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act "Obamacare"?
So this waiver-granting business has basically turned into sort of a protection scheme for the good fellas in the neighborhood. Here's an article on the blatant cronyism going on. Excerpt:
In a double standard befitting of Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s reign as the crowned queen of healthcare reform, high-end businesses in her Northern District of California are now receiving ObamaCare waivers.
According to news sources, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius awarded the exemptions to posh restaurants, upscale nightclubs and hotels in the heart of Pelosi’s district.
Did Pelosi finally read the bill that she helped ram down the throats of American businesses and individuals? The business owners in her district certainly did and they are opting out as fast as possible! Nearly 20% of the waivers awarded last month went to businesses in Pelosi’s district.
Just issued by HHS were 204 new waivers in addition to the nearly 1,200 “get-out-of-ObamaCare” waivers already granted to health care providers, drug companies and more favored unions representing over 3 million citizens in total. On Monday, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) called for every American to be granted a waiver.
Is Nancy Pelosi a member of the Sicilian Mafia, the Cosa Nostra? I don't know. She's probably eligible. Here's a better question someone should look into: Do they allow waivers in the U.K. and Canada for their socialized medicine system? Those are systems that the nanny statists in our country always coo over.
I would love to have an Obamacare waiver for my small business. My health insurance premiums went up $1,500.00 per year since Obamacare was signed. Go here if you want to apply for a personal waiver from Obamacare. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to come, especially if you have to pay for ambulances out-of-pocket.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Every paragraph in this article is great and I find myself mumbling "uh, yeah..." at the end of each. But I'll excerpt my two favorites.
One final fact is worth noting. Healthy labor markets are characterized not only by high levels of hiring, but also by high levels of separations. Although it is true that the importance of quits relative to layoffs rises during good times, even the number of layoffs was greater in the strong labor market of 2006-07 than it is now. No one would suggest that layoffs are good for workers, but what is good is a fluid labor market, where workers and firms constantly seek to produce better products and to find more efficient ways to produce them. High labor market churn is a characteristic of a strong economy. It generally means that workers are moving to better jobs in growing sectors that pay higher wages and away from declining sectors that pay lower wages.
Allowing maximum flexibility encourages fluidity and means that employers are willing to hire workers who lose their jobs elsewhere. Many European countries have restricted mobility by imposing severance pay penalties on employers that lay workers off. More than reducing layoffs, these rigidities make employers reluctant to hire because of the penalties that they will later incur if a layoff is necessary. Such restrictions are in large part responsible for the chronically high rates of unemployment that have been prevalent in many European countries.
The impact of the practice of making it difficult to lay people off on hiring cannot be understated. Businesses are already making a big commitment when they hire a person, and making it more difficult to let people go will raise the scrutiny given to applicants at the hiring end. Another instance of unintended consequences released by do-gooders and politicians who use attacks on business to score easy points with their base. And you're not going to solve the problem by scolding businesses for not hiring either.