McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers

timesnewsnet ^ | 10/10/2010 | staff

[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."

[stephenjohnbanker]

” 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?

[sickoflibs]

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.

[stephenjohnbanker]

I agree

[firebrand]

Something about the 14th Amendment comes vaguely to mind.

[WKUHilltopper]

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

[Thermalseeker]

What do you call the tax code?

Unconstitutional. What do you call it?

[rollo tomasi]

"...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.

[patton]

A mess of bribe-induced favoritism.