2013
The New York Times is reporting the following:
White House Exempts Some From Health Law Penalties
WASHINGTON — Millions of people facing the cancellation of health insurance policies will be allowed to buy catastrophic health plans and will be exempted from penalties if they go without insurance next year, the White House said Thursday night.
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, disclosed the sudden policy shift in a letter to Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, and five other senators.
It was another effort by President Obama to cushion the impact of the new health care law and to minimize political damage to himself and Democrats in Congress who adopted the law in 2010 over solid Republican opposition.
Policy shift you say? The law is quite clear that people under age 30 are the ones eligible for catastrophic coverage. There are exceptions for hardship and you must apply. Here is what healthcare.gov says about exemptions.
This policy shift is yet another example of playing fast and loose with the law for political expedience. It seems to me what they are really doing is pointing out the many flaws in the law for people to see.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Hello! This post couldn’t be written any better!
Reading through this post reminds me of my good old room mate!
He always kept talking about this. I will forward this page to him.
Fairly certain he will have a good read. Thank you for sharing!
LikeLike
I’ve been surfing online greater than 3 hours these
days, but I never found any interesting article like yours.
It’s beautiful value sufficient for me. Personally, if all webmasters and bloggers made just
right content material as you did, the internet might be a lot
more useful than ever before.
LikeLike
I’m tired of your negative diatribes, Quinn! As a self-appointed healthcare benefits expert, what are your better ideas? What is your better plan? Are you merely an obstructionist with Cruz, Paul, Boehner, et al ? If not the PPACA, aka “Obamacare”, then what? Do you have an alternative plan that is superior? I think not. You seem to be much more vocal with criticism and very light on creativity.
LikeLike
You see Wilson the problem is, there is no plan. There are politically driven promises based on the myth we can have it all. Health care can cover every expense, but be affordable at the same time. The problem is not us and how we view health care, it’s the insurance companies. Competition among insurers will hold down prices, but no mention of competition among providers. Don’t touch tort reform, but mandate coverage for contraceptives. Put a law in place, but take care of your union friends with exemptions and special provisions.
If the objective is only to expand coverage without regard to actual cost concerns, then Obamacare will do it to some extent. If the objective is to change the system for all, then Obamacare is making things worse by creating the illusion that the problem is solved merely by subsidizing this or that and by shifting costs from one place to another.
Merely look at Massachusetts for the future of Obamacare and tell people the truth. You can’t have it all and affordable at the same time.
LikeLike
If there is a better idea and/or an alternative plan of action in those three paragraphs, I can’t find it?
LikeLike
You need to read this blog more closely. I have written about various things that should be done many times.
LikeLike
So Wilson, you have no problem with skirting the law and ignoring the words on the page. If the law says you must apply for a hardship exemption, it’s ok to ignore that and grant a blanket exemption so you look good politically? Is your philosophy the ends justifies the means when it comes to the government?
LikeLike