The Department of Health and Human Services is granting waivers exempting insurers and employers from requirements under the new health care law, according to The New York Times. “Concerned about the potential disruption […] the administration has granted dozens of additional waivers and also made clear that it would modify other rules affecting these policies.”

Contrast that news with the many claims that were made during the debate over health care (and since its passage) that a reform law would, almost automatically, strip consumers of their right to choose their policies or receive proper care. Government takeover, death panel, bureaucrat between you and your doctor…any of this ringing a bell?

According to the Times, “The administration says it is responding to concerns from employers and others that many workers have no other alternative.” HHS, partly in response to complaints from McDonald’s, is exempting some so-called “minimeds,” policies with low premiums but limited coverage.

In a similar vein, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice today clarifying its stance on greenhouse gas limits, set to take effect in 2011, for industrial facilities like oil refineries and power plants. The guidance identifies the factors EPA will consider when reviewing permit applications from stationary sources covered by the regulation, which requires facilities emitting more than 75,000-100,000 tons of greenhouse gases to reduce their emissions.

According to The New York Times (different article), “Industry groups have argued that meeting the new requirements will be so costly and time-consuming that they constitute a de facto moratorium on construction of new plants or major expansions of existing ones.”

EPA air chief Gina McCarthy objects to that ridiculous claim: “She said the agency was taking a moderate approach to the regulation, allowing states and other bodies that grant air pollution permits to consider cost and available technology as factors to be considered when requiring modifications of plant operations.” That is, in part, the purpose of today’s guidance, which emphasizes energy efficiency, according to the Times. “[McCarthy] said that many facilities would be able to meet the law by adopting more efficient means of producing energy, thus reducing overall emissions. Many such modifications will pay for themselves, she said.”

There’s a fine line between providing flexibility and undermining the law. The heath care law is intended to force certain plans to treat its enrollees more fairly. EPA greenhouse gas limits are supposed to generate a significant enough impact that climate change is slowed, and, ultimately, stopped and reversed. If “flexibility” takes the form of free passes, lax enforcement, or industry subservience, the public is left at risk.

But the broader point is that regulation is dynamic. It involves real people, capable of weighing facts and considering extenuating circumstances, making decisions in real time. Arguing that regulation can cripple an entire industry is an obvious exaggeration predicated upon a viewpoint that is far too cold and mechanical.