Obama Is Leveling the Playing Field Again

[bonnie]

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

By Drew Armstrong, Bloomberg Business News

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 (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), 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."

The United Agricultural Benefit Trust, the California-based cooperative that offers coverage to farm workers, was allowed to exempt 17,347 people. San Diego-based Jack in the Box's waiver is for 1,130 workers, while McDonald's asked to excuse 115,000.

The plans will be exempt from rules intended to keep people from having to pay for all their care once they reach a preset coverage cap. McDonald's, which offers the programs as a way to cover part-time employees, told the Obama administration it might re-evaluate the plans unless it got a waiver.

McDonald's and Jack in the Box didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

The waiver program is intended to provide continuous coverage until 2014, when government-organized marketplaces will offer insurance subsidized by tax credits, says HHS spokeswoman Jessica Santillo.

The regulations would have hit some insurance plans for young adults in the universal coverage program run by the state of Massachusetts. The program, enacted in 2006, has a plan for individuals ages 18 to 26 who can't get coverage through work, covering about 5,000 people. The waiver obtained by the state "will give us time to implement the transition plan in a manner designed to mitigate premium increases," says Dick Powers, a spokesman for the state program.

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. The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says.

© 2010 Bloomberg L.P.

[Guest]

I think it's funny, and profound, that the BO regime needs to give a waiver to these companies, to protect their employees from being screwed by this new and wonderful law, (bama care) that is supposed to help everybody. Especially those with lower incomes.

[bonnie]

Quote:

I think it's funny, and profound, that the BO regime needs to give a waiver to these companies, to protect their employees from being screwed by this new and wonderful law, (bama care) that is supposed to help everybody. Especially those with lower incomes.

Can't hardly wait to see how high the savings will go before it ends

[Dr. Shane]

I don't see how the title of the thread is connected to its content.

[bonnie]

I don't see how the title of the thread is connected to its content.

Wasn't it that said that Obama was leveling the playing field by "forcing businesses" to follow his Obama care instead of "pocketing" the profits.

Sonehow with insurance companies opting out of offering some policies or dropping insurance altogether the "cheaper" doesn't seem to be true

[Dr. Shane]

Wasn't it that said that Obama was leveling the playing field by "forcing businesses" to follow his Obama care instead of "pocketing" the profits.

I don't know who said that. I certainly didn't. I stated that while I agree with employer mandates but disagree with the health-care reform bill as a whole. This story is not about employer mandates. It is about companies having to change the type of insurance coverage they provide. The companies in this story have been providing insurance.

I definitely favor employer mandates. For far too long, unscrupulous employers have cheated their workers out of health-care benefits. The mandates themselves should cause the cost of insurance to drop because more people would be participating. The reason the cost is going up is because of other areas of the health-care reform bill.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Wasn't it that said that Obama was leveling the playing field by "forcing businesses" to follow his Obama care instead of "pocketing" the profits.

I don't know who said that. I certainly didn't. I stated that while I agree with employer mandates but disagree with the health-care reform bill as a whole. This story is not about employer mandates. It is about companies having to change the type of insurance coverage they provide. The companies in this story have been providing insurance.

I definitely favor employer mandates. For far too long, unscrupulous employers have cheated their workers out of health-care benefits. The mandates themselves should cause the cost of insurance to drop because more people would be participating. The reason the cost is going up is because of other areas of the health-care reform bill.

[bonnie]

I don't know who said that. I certainly didn't. I stated that while I agree with employer mandates but disagree with the health-care reform bill as a whole. This story is not about employer mandates. It is about companies having to change the type of insurance coverage they provide. The companies in this story have been providing insurance.

[Dr. Shane]

[stumbling through messy bedroom]

[opening up closet door]

[[kicking shoes out of the way that prevent the door from fully opening]

[turning on the flashlight]

[looking up at the top shelf]

[pulling down the economy professor hat]

I do not need coverage for substance abuse nor for STD,yet that is part of why premiums are so high.

Of course you do. We all do. We have to spread the cost of medical treatment across a broad base so that it will be affordable. Unless we don't want to treat *anyone* for substance abuse and STDs.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Of course you do. We all do. We have to spread the cost of medical treatment across a broad base so that it will be affordable. Unless we don't want to treat *anyone* for substance abuse and STDs.

The ability of others to have affordable health insurance is their business,not mine.It is up to them to correct the problems that put them in high risk or pay the piper. When my husband was working we carried Blue Cross-Blue Shield and had a very high deductible.Nor did we abuse the insurance as many people do that have a low deductible.

No,I don't care to cover STD for others. There is a way to avoid that problem.I will never have to be treated for that and neither will my husband.

Nor do I care to pay for treatment of substance abuse.There is also a way to avoid that.Of those that I personally know that have had their children in for treatment of substance abuse not one was successful. A few on them kicked it out patient help and a strong desire to quit.

[Dr. Shane]

The ability of others to have affordable health insurance is their business, not mine.

Wrong. It is because of this kind of attitude that I knew I had to vote for Barak Hussein Obama. While Cain crys, "I am not my bother's keeper." the Good Samaritan nurses the illegal Mexican back to health and pays all of his health-care.

Health-care is a public health issue. We (as a society) do not want a bunch of people running around with substance abuse problems and/or STDs. That just isn't good for society. Many people are killed by drunk drivers each year. Many innocent spouses have gotten STDs from their wandering spouse. Thousands of innocent people are victims of crimes perpetrated by drug addicts. It is in society's best interest to insure that everyone has access to health-care for STDs and substance abuse.

Praise God Obama is president. Without him, hundreds... no thousands.. no, correct that... millions of Americans would be without health-care insurance.

Now the health-care reform bill does have some major problems. But that will be corrected if we elect a Republican Congress. Republicans, working with our wonderful, compassionate, loving, empathetic, dedicated, honorable and committed President will work out the kinks and the American people will have a better country as a result. Americans may even choose to re-elect this President Obama in a couple of years.

[bonnie]

Wrong. It is because of this kind of attitude that I knew I had to vote for Barak Hussein Obama. While Cain crys, "I am not my bother's keeper." the Good Samaritan nurses the illegal Mexican back to health and pays all of his health-care group.

[bonnie]

.I know you believe more in the slightly stale promises of Obama but thankfully people like yourself are getting smaller in number.I had my pre-op consult yesterday.The Dr,who watches this far more closely than you and keeps abreast of all information that could impact his practise would laugh at anyone trying to convince him of higher quality of care for millions more while cutting back on the amount of money spent.

Medicare and medicaid is to be cut if nothing changes by 500 billion dollars.That is to be spread out among millions more patients.Can't be done.My Dr is not sure what they can do about their medicare and medicaid patients in the coming couple of years.One thing he is sure of is rationed care.Once my knee surgery is healed he wants me as quickly as possible to have hip replacement. As this type of surgery is the most common and is not life threatening he foresees this is where it will be seen first.

HIs opinion based on all the current up to date information and what the CPA for the clinic tells him,I will take his educated opinion over Obama and his funny math or you.

[Dr. Shane]

where did you read that the Good Smaraitan took on the responsibility for life.

[Dr. Shane]

thankfully people like yourself are getting smaller in number.

No, I don't think so. In fact, I think more and more people are considering themselves to be independent or moderate. We decide the elections. We voted for Obama in 2008. We are going to vote in a Republican Congress this year. Not sure what we will do in 2012.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

thankfully people like yourself are getting smaller in number.

No, I don't think so. In fact, I think more and more people are considering themselves to be independent or moderate. We decide the elections. We voted for Obama in 2008. We are going to vote in a Republican Congress this year. Not sure what we will do in 2012.

Read the stats as to the numbers opposed to Obama care.

Gee,it almost sounds as if you are the leader of this "we" Have you checked with all your subordinates to see if what you say is true.

I am sure "we" will consult you while deciding who to vote for in 2012

I suspect we may get a change .Even those that like to straddle the fence come in handy now and again

[Dr. Shane]

Moderates like me don't have a leader that we follow. We are independent thinkers.

[bonnie]

And on the morrow he took out two shillings, and gave them to the host, and said, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee. (Luke 10:35)

[bonnie]

Moderates like me don't have a leader that we follow. We are independent thinkers.

That explains a lot as to the Good Samaritan story.

[Dr. Shane]

That says if the cost was more than the amount of payment he gave,he would settle up when he came back thru there. Try as I will I cannot find in that verse where it says the Good Smaritan continued to support the injured man thru life

[bonnie]

Quote:

That says if the cost was more than the amount of payment he gave,he would settle up when he came back thru there. Try as I will I cannot find in that verse where it says the Good Smaritan continued to support the injured man thru life

Quote:

We were not talking about caring for someone their entire life. We were talking about health-care coverage for STDs and substance abuse. Those are not life-long conditions.

Many times they are

Quote:

I lived in Minnesota from 1986 to 1997 and was active in a 12 step program that entire time. I knew many that did not have access to a treatment facility. Hopefully things have changed there. That would be great. In Texas and many other places, many still do not have access to substance abuse treatment.

They could have if asked drug ompanies would they help in your circumstances.They would verify.People do have to take some personal responsiblity

No, they haven't... although I support MADD and was a member of a SADD chapter when I was younger. Alcoholism is an illness and the consequences of drinking simply do not cause an alcoholic to stop. It is tragically sad. They need help. They need access to substance abuse treatment facilities.

For me, I think I will look to the bible and place my trust there,even if I don't have all Andy Griffeth's CD's

The Bible is great. No doubt. But Andy's gospel music is so inspirational. It is now available on i-tunes. It would be great to listen to during those long emergency room waits until Obama-care kicks in.

[bonnie]

Quote:

That says if the cost was more than the amount of payment he gave,he would settle up when he came back thru there. Try as I will I cannot find in that verse where it says the Good Smaritan continued to support the injured man thru life

Many times they are

Quote:

I lived in Minnesota from 1986 to 1997 and was active in a 12 step program that entire time. I knew many that did not have access to a treatment facility. Hopefully things have changed there. That would be great. In Texas and many other places, many still do not have access to substance abuse treatment

They could have if they asked drug ompanies would they help in your circumstances.They would verify.People do have to take some personal responsiblity

Quote:

No, they haven't... although I support MADD and was a member of a SADD chapter when I was younger. Alcoholism is an illness and the consequences of drinking simply do not cause an alcoholic to stop. It is tragically sad. They need help. They need access to substance abuse treatment facilities.

Quote:

For me, I think I will look to the bible and place my trust there,even if I don't have all Andy Griffeth's CD's

Quote:

The Bible is great. No doubt. But Andy's gospel music is so inspirational. It is now available on i-tunes. It would be great to listen to during those long emergency room waits until Obama-care kicks in.

Not sure what Andy Griffeths music has to with any ot this.Again,those that are much smarter than you and educated in this field strongly disagree with your utopian viewpoint

[olger]

I don't know how businesses got in the "business" of having to provide health care to employees, but it should never have happened in America. People used to be responsible for themselves in America and those were better days, when acheivement reigned.

There is a coming war between achievers and moochers in America.

[Dr. Shane]

Health insurance is itself a mixed bag. Before health insurance existed, people had to pay the doctor just like they pay a car mechanic or any other repairman. Of course, under that system, a lot of people didn't go to the doctor when they needed to, and doctors and other medical professions didn't earn nearly the amount of money that they do today. A lot of doctors ended up not getting paid or working for a bag of apples. So health insurance came along and solved a lot of problem while creating a whole bunch more.

An employee looking to his or her employer for health-care insurance isn't "mooching". The worker is providing some sort of good or service for the employer and is thus deserving of fair compensation. As society and the health-care industry has changed, the definition of "fair compensation" has changed too.

The employer plays a lot of roles. The employer has to withhold taxes from the workers payroll check. That makes every employer a tax collector. Most have to collect sales tax for the state too. They employer has to check the legal status of its employees. That makes every employer a Border Patrol agent. Providing health-care insurance is an added role that employers now must take on - many already have.

Employer mandates does level the playing field. Let's consider two glass companies that sell windows. One provides health-care insurance for its employees and the other doesn't. How can the one that does compete with the one that doesn't? The only way it can is to lower its profit margin. So the company that provides health-care insurance can only mark up their jobs by 12% while the company that doesn't provide health-care insurance is able to mark up its jobs 15%. Employer mandates will mean the company only marking up jobs 12% can start marking them up 15% like his competitor.

[bonnie]

I don't know how businesses got in the "business" of having to provide health care to employees, but it should never have happened in America. People used to be responsible for themselves in America and those were better days, when acheivement reigned.

There is a coming war between achievers and moochers in America.

We have a nation of victims and it is beneficial to keep them victims and to create more victims.