Skip to content

Obamacare: Kathleen Sebelius admits the healthcare law is not good for New Hampshire

May 19, 2011

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.

20 Comments leave one →
  1. May 20, 2011 6:01 am

    It sounds like she was trying to insinuate the smaller NH plan was inadequate, and trying to deflect the inadequacies of Obamacare. But with over 1000 waivers so far, she can’t really bluff us. That will inevitably lead to these kinds of awkward moments.


    • May 20, 2011 7:15 am

      Yes the smaller plan was inadequate under the rules of Obamacare and we can really see the adverse effects of Obamacare with this story; Obamacare is supposed to help to get everybody affordable healthcare and yet in reality it is doing the opposite by chasing insurers away. (Of course this is the real goal of Obamacare in the first place.)


  2. May 20, 2011 9:27 am

    Good grief. It’s so obvious that states like NH need more flipping competition b/t health insurers, and instead all they get is the chance to beg the almighty fed to treat ’em like a crony.


    • May 21, 2011 7:53 am

      Yep, this law is doing exaclt the opposite of what it is supposed to…..or is it?!


  3. May 20, 2011 12:32 pm

    Without the waivers, Obamacare would be long gone. Millions of people would have lost their insurance. Waivers have kept Obamacare on life-support. This helps to keep people clueless. What a country.


    • May 21, 2011 7:54 am

      Exactly, this is just to buy enough time to get Barack Obama re-elected. Then the waivers will expire, companies will drop insurance, insurance companies will go out of business, and the government will step in with single payer.


  4. May 20, 2011 6:05 pm

    Why can’t the government or at least the Republicans see that if insurance companies could sell across state lies there would be so much more competition?
    Cost would go down for the insurance compnies and consummers would more options at better prices.


    • May 21, 2011 7:55 am

      That and TORT reform should be on the table as a t least part of the solution.


  5. mamapajamas permalink
    May 20, 2011 8:39 pm

    OK. Now that the STATES of Nevada, Maine, and New Hampshire are getting waivers, we are WAY past a violation of the Equal Protection clause.

    When is someone going to do something about this?


    • May 28, 2011 9:52 pm

      Mamapajamas, you asked the same question I have been asking. These waivers are clearly a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Are the courts addressing this matter? Where are the legal scholars? Are they saying anything about “equal protection? ”


      What we have is the arbitrary rule of the Presidency and the Congress — depending on which political party is in control — to decide who’ll be the winners and the losers within the marketplace.

      Below is an excerpt from the “Human Events … The National Conservative Weekly” (Vol. 67, No. 19; May 23, 2011):

      “ObamaCare … Rife With Corruption” (Human Events Editorial)

      “[Paragraph 6]: The power to tax and regulate is the power to destroy … but the **real** value of such power to the ruling class is their ability to grant exemptions from destruction. A waiver from the staggering costs of ObamaCare is a fantastic competitive advantage to the favored recipients. It’s worth **millions** to the large companies and labor unions that scored most of the 1,300 indulgences granted by the royal court thus far.”

      This **crony capitalism** is disgusting and utterly immoral. If you know anybody who subscribes to the “Human Events” newspaper, it is worth reading the full editorial.

      From my comments in another blog …


      • May 29, 2011 8:03 am

        Kelly, you are exactly right, this is not equal protection under the law but rather greater protection from the law.


  6. mamapajamas permalink
    May 20, 2011 8:41 pm

    Oh… wait. I read that wrong. NH DIDN’T get a waiver.

    Never mind. With two other states getting waivers, my point still stands.


    • May 21, 2011 7:56 am

      Yes, your point is still valid. Some companies, unions, and states are getting more protection under the law, not equal protection.


  7. May 21, 2011 12:09 am

    I think that this all goes to a larger lesson-that big government, no matter who is running it, ends up being corrupt. And the bigger it is, the more corrupt it becomes. We are watching it all unfold right before out lives.


    • May 21, 2011 12:23 am

      They should be “right before our eyes.”


    • May 21, 2011 7:56 am

      I think you have summed up government very well indeed.


  8. June 2, 2011 4:22 am


    I am so thankful you are blogging on behalf of us American citizens to fight for our constitutional rights.

    Please click onto the link below. It is my new “Healthcare Bill of Rights.”


    • June 2, 2011 6:03 am

      I am going to check it out right now.


  9. June 7, 2011 2:57 pm

    Here is the latest scoop on the ObamaCare waivers …


    • June 7, 2011 8:53 pm

      Thanks for the link, I will check it out.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: