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."
Government of men, not laws. Some folks call it crony capitalism, but it's really fascism.
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.
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.
“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.
Message to the private sector, pay your tribute or, God forbid, something should happen to your business.
“The gubmint cannot discriminate on the basis of ability to pay!”
Really? What do you call the tax code?
Bingo - it is the definition of Facism.
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.
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.
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.
We're descending into an unholy combination of FASCISM and ANARCHY!
Leni
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!
how very “atlas shrugged”
This is the Soviet Model, comrades. And the state-run media nods and approves.
How is that “Fair” since liberal Democrats are always obsessed with what is fair?
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.
Obamacare waivers: Torquemada Sebelius spares McDonald’s, unions
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/10/06/obamacare-waivers-torquemada-sebelius-spares-mcdonalds-unions/
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.