Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers
timesnewsnet ^ | 10/10/2010 | staff

Posted on 10/07/2010 4:09:38 AM PDT by safetysign

USA Today is reporting that nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.

Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's and Jack in the Box won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.

Without waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014.

"The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got," says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2tiermedicine; abovethelaw; dictatorhere; exemptions; islamexcepted; mcdonalds; obamacare; payoffsinplay; specialdeals; specialexemptions; taxes
Another bombshell concerning Nobamacare.
1 posted on 10/07/2010 4:09:41 AM PDT by safetysign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: safetysign

Sounds like somebody’s highly-paid lobbyists earned their coin.


2 posted on 10/07/2010 4:13:08 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

Just repeal this pos and flush it.

LLS


3 posted on 10/07/2010 4:13:12 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign
Goes to show how poorly thought out Obamacare is. Now the little guys who didn't get an exception are even more ticked about it than before.
4 posted on 10/07/2010 4:14:15 AM PDT by libertylover (The problem with Obama is not that his skin is too black, it's that his ideas are too RED.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign
“The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got,” says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. “Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got.”

“The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got,” says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. “Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would NEVER VOTE DEMOCRAT AGAIN IF THEY lose the coverage they've got.”

5 posted on 10/07/2010 4:15:58 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

BUMP


6 posted on 10/07/2010 4:16:48 AM PDT by BunnySlippers (I love BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

Where’s my exception? OH, I don’t pay BIG LOBBY BIG MONEY to bribe my government officials into doing something. That’s all this health plan garbage is — is making the PLAYERS PAY where before they didn’t have to—


7 posted on 10/07/2010 4:17:14 AM PDT by browniexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

...the government picking and choosing who gets what and for how long, and Obama is missing his golf game something terrible.


8 posted on 10/07/2010 4:19:27 AM PDT by Doogle (IT'S THAT TIME AGAIN....PLEASE donate, because it's the RIGHT thing to do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

How can the gubmint offer waivers to 29 companies and not all the rest? Seems like an equal protection class action law suit waiting to happen to me. The gubmint cannot discriminate on the basis of ability to pay!


9 posted on 10/07/2010 4:19:53 AM PDT by Thermalseeker (Stop the insanity - Flush Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

The entire Obummercare is going to ended very quickly. A criminal wrote the blueprint while in jail, and a bunch of criminals passed it against the will of the people, The disparate treatment that will ensue will be the downfall of Obummercare. Look at the track record of Obummer - everything he touches fails or falls apart. The AnnebergChicago Education Itiative that Obummer oversaw - how did that work out. Chicago Public Schools have a poor track record, and yet the Annenberg Foundation how many millions to improve the schools. the only thing that was improved was the bank accounts.


10 posted on 10/07/2010 4:28:08 AM PDT by hondact200 ( Lincoln Freed the Enslaved. Obama Enslaves the Free. Obama is Americas Greatest Threat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

Rule of a dictator, this is NOT Rule of Law.


11 posted on 10/07/2010 4:29:56 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

Good for me and not for thee.....


12 posted on 10/07/2010 4:31:28 AM PDT by wetgundog (" Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is no Vice")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

“The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they’ve got,”

And now we have an unintended consequence. Socialism requires a single unitary executive having discretion to change the law to force a desired outcome. It is exactly what our founders tried to prevent with our constitutional system of checks and balances.


13 posted on 10/07/2010 4:33:18 AM PDT by MontaniSemperLiberi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

This sounds illegal................
So everyone has to follow the law except.....
VOTE THE LEFT OUT COME NOVEMBER


14 posted on 10/07/2010 4:45:25 AM PDT by blueyon (The U. S. Constitution - read it and weep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Exactly the Government gets to play favourites. Not the rule of law.


15 posted on 10/07/2010 4:46:57 AM PDT by Timocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

Does the law authorize issuing waivers?


16 posted on 10/07/2010 4:58:16 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

So, 29 companies are exempt? What about the thousands of other companies in the very same position? This is a class action lawsuit waiting to happen.


17 posted on 10/07/2010 4:59:36 AM PDT by McGavin999 ("I was there when we had the numbers, but didn't have the principles"-Jim DeMint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libertylover

And create another party that can sue against the law.


18 posted on 10/07/2010 5:02:13 AM PDT by tbw2 (Freeper sci-fi - "Sirat: Through the Fires of Hell" - on amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

Yep. No Equal protection under the law...


19 posted on 10/07/2010 5:02:25 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Does the law allow for these waivers?

Yep,

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/patient/ociio_2010-1_20100903_508.pdf


20 posted on 10/07/2010 5:02:40 AM PDT by EBH (We have lost our heritage of "making money.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: EBH
Fascist economics. The government allows private business to exist, but picks winners and losers. Some folks get waivers, some folks are punished by rigid revenue enforcement. Business must support the folks in power if they want to stay in business.

Government of men, not laws. Some folks call it crony capitalism, but it's really fascism.

21 posted on 10/07/2010 5:18:06 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: safetysign; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; dools0007world; Gilbo_3; ...
Same subject as above post here:
White House allows big firms to dodge health reforms (Obama makes exceptions in following the law)

Here is the first part of the law to repeal given all these exemptions. Also, if Republicans were smart they would now attack Obama for giving these exemptions as this was a part of the bill they took credit for.

22 posted on 10/07/2010 5:19:14 AM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libertylover

The point of all leftist legislation

is to assign “discretion” (ie, power) to elite individuals in government.

They don’t NEED to read anything else about the bill or its details once they are told who gets the power to decide.

Another concept to understand is that fixed, equally applied laws do NOT give the government or their entrenched leftist bureaucrats the power they desire. Fixed and equally applied laws are an impediment to power.


23 posted on 10/07/2010 5:21:06 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mlo

“at the discretion of the Secretary of applicable government agencies”

is the main body of Obamacare.

They WILL use this to deny care to their political opponents and groups that support their political opponents.


24 posted on 10/07/2010 5:23:11 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

Message to the private sector, pay your tribute or, God forbid, something should happen to your business.


25 posted on 10/07/2010 5:24:17 AM PDT by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker
They are making sure that this Un-Constitutional Health-Scam Bill becomes even more UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
26 posted on 10/07/2010 5:30:52 AM PDT by Chief901 (Barak H. Obama - The H stands for "Hoover")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

“The gubmint cannot discriminate on the basis of ability to pay!”

Really? What do you call the tax code?


27 posted on 10/07/2010 5:37:20 AM PDT by patton (Obama has replaced "Res Publica" with "Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Bingo - it is the definition of Facism.


28 posted on 10/07/2010 5:39:52 AM PDT by patton (Obama has replaced "Res Publica" with "Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

I don’t think they had to twist too many arms. Letting some of the branches fall off the tree is better than the tree itself toppling over. Of course, this tree is rotten and will collapse soon enough but this is simple pre-election damage control.


29 posted on 10/07/2010 5:46:46 AM PDT by relictele (Me lumen vos umbra regit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: safetysign
This was a move by Obama and the HHS to avoid the bad press of having hundreds of thousands of low wage workers losing what little bit of coverage they had. Plain and simple.

They were hell bent on close to 2 million people having their coverage legislated out of existence. It's only the fact that McDonald's threw their weight around and was going to cause a stink to save their 30,000 part-time and hourly employee's coverage that HHS backed off.

Sitting in the wings we're about million and a half more part-time, low wage, and temporary workers in the same boat. HHS was hoping to get away with this, but McDonald's called them out on it.

30 posted on 10/07/2010 5:59:04 AM PDT by lovecraft (Specialization is for insects.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

I agree, this has to be a lawsuit ... I cannot believe what I’m seeing here. This government “selectively” imposes (or not) health care? This is ludicrous.


31 posted on 10/07/2010 6:17:03 AM PDT by ThePatriotsFlag (You are just jealous because the voices aren't talking to YOU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: safetysign
It used to be our socialist government extorting big business, now it's also big business extorting government.

We're descending into an unholy combination of FASCISM and ANARCHY!

Leni

32 posted on 10/07/2010 6:32:10 AM PDT by MinuteGal (Are any Americans better off than they were 4 trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign
Question ... 14th Amend ... Equal Protection:

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits states from denying any person "the equal protection of the laws." Until the mid-20th century the requirement was applied minimally — except in some cases of racial discrimination, such as the use of literacy tests and grandfather clauses to restrict the voting rights of blacks. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court of the United States upheld "separate but equal" facilities for the races, thus sanctioning racial segregation. Beginning in the 1960s, the court under Chief Justice Earl Warren dramatically expanded the concept, applying it to cases involving welfare benefits, exclusionary zoning, municipal services, and school financing. During the tenure of Chief Justices Warren E. Burger and William H. Rehnquist, the court continued to add to the types of cases that might be adjudicated under equal protection, including cases involving sexual discrimination, the status and rights of aliens, abortion rights, and access to the courts.

So it looks to me like it keeps the STATES from not being "equal in protection". My question is ... does the 14th amendment clause of equal protection apply here? Is there something in this that makes the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT mandated to give all citizens "equal protection" under FEDERAL law? I tried the "equal protection" thing on my next door lib and got blown away with "that's for states, the Federal Government is not affected by that clause"...so I looked it up and above is what I found. If you've got "ammo" that fits this political gun, send me some!

33 posted on 10/07/2010 6:34:12 AM PDT by ThePatriotsFlag (You are just jealous because the voices aren't talking to YOU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign
The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers What other unions are getting special treatment from ObamaCare?
34 posted on 10/07/2010 8:16:46 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

how very “atlas shrugged”


35 posted on 10/07/2010 8:19:14 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign
If you want the exemption, pay the appropriate amount in political contributions to THE party.

This is the Soviet Model, comrades. And the state-run media nods and approves.

36 posted on 10/07/2010 8:19:24 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign
I demand EQUAL PROTECTION from ObamaCare!!
37 posted on 10/07/2010 8:26:44 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

How is that “Fair” since liberal Democrats are always obsessed with what is fair?


38 posted on 10/07/2010 9:00:15 AM PDT by JSDude1 (DARE TO DREAM THE DREAM...Work like you want 100 Seats on November 2! -J.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

So now the multi-thousand page monstrosity gets even more complicated. Perhaps they can come up with a different version of Obamacare for each business in the country, and hire a team of government employees to enforce each version.


39 posted on 10/07/2010 9:05:39 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Half of all Americans are above average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Obamacare waivers: Torquemada Sebelius spares McDonald’s, unions

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/10/06/obamacare-waivers-torquemada-sebelius-spares-mcdonalds-unions/


40 posted on 10/07/2010 9:23:41 AM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

” Also, if Republicans were smart they would now attack Obama for giving these exemptions as this was a part of the bill they took credit for. “

Somebody accuse Republicans of having brains?


41 posted on 10/07/2010 10:03:59 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

If you havent picked up on it (which I think you have) after 16 years of Democrats complaining/blaming about Republicans I want to see Republicans use this once every 2 decade opportunity to fry Democrats. That was what I was getting at with Angle.


42 posted on 10/07/2010 10:17:02 AM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

I agree


43 posted on 10/07/2010 10:38:16 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

Something about the 14th Amendment comes vaguely to mind.


44 posted on 10/07/2010 10:44:30 AM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safetysign

How can the executive branch waive an act passed by the legislative? They just make it up as they go?


45 posted on 10/08/2010 1:24:17 AM PDT by WKUHilltopper (Fix bayonets!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patton
What do you call the tax code?

Unconstitutional. What do you call it?

46 posted on 10/08/2010 4:09:21 AM PDT by Thermalseeker (Stop the insanity - Flush Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ThePatriotsFlag
"...does the 14th amendment clause of equal protection apply here?"

No the 5th does that with ..."due process..." according to the USSC if discrimination is evident.

"The "equal protection of the laws" is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than "due process of law," and, therefore, we do not imply that the two are always interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recognized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process." Bolling v Sharpe

The "equal protection clause" of the 14th has been used as a mechanism to "reverse incorporation" by the Courts using the due process clause of the 5th. Of course, our government has ways to be "inconsistent", my bet is the majority of the Court will ignore the spirit and letter of the Constitution as well as past decisions based on equal protection under the law by previous USSC.
47 posted on 10/08/2010 4:38:57 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

A mess of bribe-induced favoritism.


48 posted on 10/08/2010 6:19:31 AM PDT by patton (Obama has replaced "Res Publica" with "Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson