Well, either they were stupid or they were planned. Usually the folly of poorly done laws takes a bit longer than this to become recognized but in truth some of these were fairly predictable.
Let’s start off with the tremors in Obama care that have become palpable.
Stronger children’s coverage rules may raise insurance costs
Some families might face higher insurance premiums because of a requirement in the new healthcare law that plans cover sick children, state insurance commissioners said Friday.
The rule barring insurance plans from turning away sick children or denying coverage for specific illnesses for children who are already covered was one of the most popular parts of the new law.
Might face higher premiums? Are you kidding me? EVERYONE is going to see higher premiums.
LINK AND QUOTE FROM LVRJ DELETED DUE TO COPYRIGHT ISSUE.
Wary observers. Translation: Not Democrats. You cannot add 30 million people into the system and lower the costs of care. We said it over and over and over. You cannot promise those with pre-existing conditions unending care and lower costs.
Some major health insurance companies will no longer issue certain types of policies for children, an unintended consequence of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law, state officials said Friday.
Well, I’ll be darned. People won’t get insurance for their kids until the kids are sick since you can’t refuse a child with an illness and there’s no point in having insurance until you need it. This is like allowing someone to go to the bank when they need money and take some out without ever having made a withdrawal. Such a bank wouldn’t last long. Guess what? Neither would such an insurance company.
Unintended consequence? Maybe, but certainly not “unexpected.” Unless you’re a Democrat.
The administration reacted sharply to the pullback. “We’re disappointed that a small number of insurance companies are taking this unwarranted and unnecessary step,” said Jessica Santillo, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services department. “If insurance companies need more money to cover these kinds of cases, they can just go out to their money tree and pick some.”
OK, maybe I made up a little of that. But you get the idea.
And how about that financial reform? Anything named Dodd-Frank is inherently worth crap.
Goldman Sachs has figured out a novel approach to getting around the Volcker Rule’s restrictions on trading: it’s remaking its risk-taking traders into asset managers, and the rest of Wall Street may soon follow, FOX Business Network has learned.
The big Wall Street firm has moved about half of its “proprietary” stock-trading operations — which had made market bets using the firm’s own capital — into its asset management division, where these traders can talk to Goldman clients and then place their market bets.
The move is designed to exploit a loophole in the Volker Rule, part of the recently signed financial-reform legislation named after presidential economic adviser and former Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker. The Volcker Rule is supposed to scale back on Wall Street risk taking by ending what’s known as proprietary trading, where firms use their own ideas and capital to make market bets.
It took no time at all for Goldman to find a way around one of the more important restrictions in the bill.
Goldman’s move also underscores the weakness in the Volcker Rule, which was designed to reduce the same type of risk-taking activities that led to the 2008 financial meltdown. Simply by labeling a trade “customer related” the firm can still make large market bets, and thus engage in some of the same risk taking the rule was designed to eliminate.
A spokesman for the firm had no comment, but people close to Goldman say Goldman will now be weighing other similar moves — taking traders out of the firm’s brokerage division and moving them to other areas of the firm where they can deal with clients and circumvent the rule.
And another eye-opener:
So much for transparency.
Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from “surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities.” Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.
Exactly what is the point of oversight if it is not to be public?
That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings.”
The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business Network. Steven Mintz, founding partner of law firm Mintz & Gold LLC in New York, lamented what he described as “the backroom deal that was cut between Congress and the SEC to keep the SEC’s failures secret. The only losers here are the American public.”
None of this is going to work as advertised, and this is just the beginning.
More Obama promises onto the garbage heap of history.