What a joke. Last week there were reports that McDonald’s was going to drop its employees from health insurance coverage because Obamacare would increase the company’s costs. This was roundly denied at the time, but now, guess what? The bureaucrats have exempted McDonald’s and other companies–not to mention a big teacher’s union–from the rules that were supposed to protect us all. From the story:
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.
This is only the beginning, because once you start exempting too-big-to-fail type companies, others will demand to follow. And the government has demonstrated it can be rolled. Of course, there was a political purpose–imagine the impact on the election of McDonald’s canceled its health insurance:
“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.”
What a hoot: The only way to keep Obamacare politically viable is to exempt the biggest employers from its provisions.
Obamacare: Only binding on the little guys! I said it was a joke, but I was wrong. It’s a farce. It needs to be scrapped and a more modest and doable law put in its place.
October 7th, 2010 | 9:55 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys and Paul , Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Obamacare: Let the Exemptions Begin! » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://bit.ly/bk8r3o [...]
October 7th, 2010 | 10:32 am
Corruption. When the government makes rules and applies them to whom they wish, when they wish. The end of “equal justice under the law”.
I think there might be a law suit available here, though – something about “capricious”…!
October 7th, 2010 | 10:33 am
It’s a complete outrage! I fully believe that the American people were lied to, but we can’t just sit around and let this law ruin America’s health care system. We need to let our voices be heard and do whatever we can to improve our country’s care for the people. There are great organizations, like Revere America (www.facebook.com/revereamerica), who are working hard to get this thing repealed and replaced…let’s join them!
October 7th, 2010 | 10:36 am
“The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they’ve got.”
Right. He did. And they didn’t. Everybody wins. How awful, huh?
And if they had lost their coverage, you’d be blogging about how Obama cost all those workers their health coverage when he promised they wouldn’t. Oh, and about how Obama is horribly inflexible.
Nice political move, Wes.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 7th, 2010 at 10:40 am
padraig: That was very weak. Obamacare–it won’t apply to you!
October 7th, 2010 | 11:28 am
padraig: [Personal attack deleted. Please play nice, kg.] If Obamacare is so wonderful, then why is it exempting ANYONE? I thought it was supposed to be something EVERYONE would want?! It’s OBAMACARE ITSELF that is FORCING these companies to either drop their coverage – McDonalds – raise insurance rates, OR get on Barry’s good side so the king will exempt them! Duh duh duh. [Ad homonym deleted.]
October 7th, 2010 | 11:51 am
kg: “If Obamacare is so wonderful, then why is it exempting ANYONE? I thought it was supposed to be something EVERYONE would want?!”
No, it’s supposed to cover the 30-odd million people that have no coverage now. I mean, there is no “ObamaCare” health insurance, it’s Medicare and Medicaid. And they didn’t expect everyone to want it, that’s why the basic promise was that you could keep your existing coverage. If you have it.
kg: “It’s OBAMACARE ITSELF that is FORCING these companies to either drop their coverage – McDonalds”
McDonald’s didn’t drop their coverage, kg. That was the point of the article.
btw, Best Buy has replacement shift keys for most brands of computer. I’m guessing you wear yours out pretty quickly. ;)
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 7th, 2010 at 11:54 am
padraig: You can’t be missing the point that badly. McDonald’s didn’t drop coverage because they were exempted from Obamacare provisions. Had they not been exempted, they would have dropped coverage. So, the only way the law works is to make sure that it’s provisions don’t apply? Please.
October 7th, 2010 | 12:05 pm
[...] First Things (blog) [...]
October 7th, 2010 | 1:01 pm
Wes: “So, the only way the law works is to make sure that it’s provisions don’t apply?”
Nope. But the only way to get through a huge transition is to be flexible. Although, again, had they not made this concession, I’m sure you would have found a reason to slam them for that.
One of the biggest problems in getting any kind of health care reform was to keep employers from dropping their coverage and transferring their expenses to the feds. You even blogged on that some time ago. Well, that’s what they kept from happening. Or are YOU missing the point that badly?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 7th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
If that’s your story, padraig, you stick to it.
October 7th, 2010 | 3:32 pm
Oh, I’ll stick to reality, all right, Wes, it’s been very good to me for the most part.
All I can figure out is that the event of a politician keeping his promise is so foreign to your Republican core that you’re having trouble processing it. ;)
October 7th, 2010 | 3:36 pm
BTW, here’s a quote from your other current thread:
“At that point, President Obama would have to compromise–if he even understands the term–”
He compromised on this, and you blasted him for it.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 7th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
No, padraig. He didn’t compromise. He couldn’t get the public option passed through the Congress. Not the same thing at all.
October 7th, 2010 | 3:59 pm
So the “reality” is that it’s OK to exempt huge companies left and right, while the little guy (whom the left–like Padraig!–constantly reminds us whom they’re really for…really!) gets stuck with the bill?
Wow, reality, on the left, ain’t what it used to be.
October 7th, 2010 | 6:05 pm
I’ve received emails from a conservative brother and from a conservative colleague decrying how Obama is exempting Muslims from Obamacare! Now McDonalds!
Can a conservative please tell us what the “improved” replacement bill will look like?
The Republicans will not compromise.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 7th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
You made up the Muslim stuff. Admit it.
October 7th, 2010 | 6:46 pm
The “Muslim exemption” rumor is based on an exaggerated interpretation of a religious conscience clause (which I would expect you to fully support, of course, Wes).
Details at:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 7th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Smile when you say that, pardner!
October 7th, 2010 | 7:46 pm
;)
October 7th, 2010 | 8:26 pm
[...] asking for the exemptions after voicing support for this legislative monstrosity. According to Secondhand Smoke: “Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald’s (MCD) and Jack in the Box [...]
October 8th, 2010 | 11:34 am
My husband doesn’t follow politics very closely but he heard of these exemptions on the news. He is absolutely furious. Obamacare is ticking people off more people in new ways everyday.
October 9th, 2010 | 1:25 pm
There is a reason why Obamacare supporters can’t understand what bothers people here:
They believe in a government of men, not of laws.
Think about it: It’s all about outcomes, micromanaged by direct rulers who govern by decree. The notion of passing good laws and of blindfolded justice applying these laws neutrally to individuals and companies is foreign to them. From their perspective, if you pass bad laws and then have unelected bureaucrats grant exemptions to companies to try to limit the bad effects of the laws, what’s there to complain about?
How about the erosion of the notion of the rule of law, something leftists claim to care about and wield as a weapon when it suits them? To this kind of objection, one just gets blank incomprehension.
It’s worth pointing out, of course, that there will be people who work for other restaurants that are not exempted and who do lose their mini-insurance. But we’re presumably not supposed to talk about them.
November 27th, 2010 | 5:40 am
[...] First Things (blog) [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact