Obamacare: Kathleen Sebelius admits the healthcare law is not good for New Hampshire
Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said at the Capitol on Thursday that the health care law’s medical spending requirement for health insurance companies is “not good for the people of New Hampshire.”
a state like New Hampshire where there are only two plans in the market; the smaller plan has 30 percent and they have said definitively they can’t meet 80 percent this year – they will have to leave the market – that’s not good for the people of New Hampshire
Those words were spoken by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius while answering a question about whether she was concerned that more states would ask for Obamacare waivers. She admitted that under Obamacare the smaller of the two healthcare providers in the state would be forced to drop coverage for New Hampshirites, leaving the residents of New Hampshire subjected to what is for all intents and purposes a monopoly in the healthcare industry in this state.
One would naturally think that if New Hampshire were to ask for a healthcare waiver that it would be granted to the state–after all, she did admit that the law as currently written would hurt the residents of New Hampshire. Well, New Hampshire did apply for a healthcare waiver…..and was denied!
In the interest of being fair it should be noted that the Department of Health and Human Services did reach a compromise of sorts which would lower the requirements of the state to help us transition into compliance with the new healthcare law but in light of the waivers previously granted this is simply not good enough and the question must be asked, why was New Hampshire not granted a full waiver?
Almost 1,400 big unions which support Democrats and corporations have asked for and received healthcare waivers, along with the state of Maine. Harry Reid was able to exempt Nevada from the law during the healthcare debate and 20% of ALL healthcare waivers have been granted to Nancy Pelosi’s district alone. Yet in spite of the fact that the HHS admits this law will hurt New Hampshire, we have not been granted this same privilege.
While Republicans fared well across the country last November, no state saw the Republicans make more gains than the state of New Hampshire and while the attorney general, Michael Delaney, has been asked to join the other states in challenging the constitutionality of the healthcare law he has declined to do so. So the newly elected Republican legislature has made a misguided attempt at thwarting the state constitution by trying to pass a law which would bind the attorney general to join the healthcare challenge.
It seems too coincidental to me that while the SEIU and other Democrat donors, along with the state of Maine with their two RINO senators, and districts which overwhelmingly support Democrat candidates, were granted healthcare waivers, while a state which overturned Democrat control in overwhelming numbers and is attempting to “coerce” the attorney general into fighting the constitutionality of the law was denied a waiver.
It is becoming more and more obvious to me that these waivers are being granted as favors to those that support the Democrats and their causes while denying the waivers is being used as punishment for not toeing the Democrat line. It also leads me to ask: if this bill was carefully crafted and was good law, why the need for all of these waivers in the first place? Perhaps somebody should have read the bill before it was voted on.
Now that none other than Kathleen Sibelius herself has admitted that this law hurts the state of New Hampshire I feel as if Michael Delaney should feel obligated to take this fight to the Supreme Court. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty.