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

Big business buys government again at the expense of the "little people".

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.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... titialskip

White House defends waivers from new health law
Oct 7, 6:11 PM (ET)

By ERICA WERNER

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House on Thursday defended granting waivers to some employers from a key provision of the new health care law, saying it was the best way to keep people insured until the law fully takes effect.

At issue is a new requirement banning annual caps on benefits, which began phasing in last month. Many employers and insurers that offer low-cost, low-benefit insurance plans known as "mini-med" plans would not have been able to comply with the new requirement without raising monthly premiums to virtually unaffordable levels.

So the administration has granted 30 waivers to date exempting companies from the requirement for a year.

Waivers went to companies including Jack in the Box, Cigna and the company that insures some McDonald's workers, and another 114 applications for waivers are under review by the Health and Human Services Department. One waiver request has been denied, but HHS declined to identify which company was involved.

"The waivers are about ensuring and protecting the coverage that people have until there are better options available to them in 2014," when the health law is fully implemented, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters. "We want to ensure that in the time that it takes to implement the law and to give people better options, that they don't find themselves at the mercy of an insurance company jacking up their rates. And that's why those waivers were granted."

Another issue is a different provision in the law that will require that a specified percentage of health plan expenditures - 80 percent to 85 percent - be spent on medical as opposed to administrative costs. That provision doesn't take effect until next year, but it got attention last week when the Wall Street Journal reported that McDonald's had alerted the administration it would not be able to comply. The administration subsequently indicated it would be flexible in applying the regulation.

Both complications arise because of the decision by lawmakers and the White House to trigger certain protections in the legislation before the bulk of the law takes effect. After the contentious debate around the health care bill, policymakers didn't want the public to wait until 2014 to see any benefit.

Once 2014 rolls around, nearly everyone will be required to carry insurance, and insurance marketplaces called "exchanges" will be established in which individuals will be able to shop for comprehensive insurance plans with government subsidies. Before that transformation takes place, new rules applied to the current system require the government to show flexibility in some cases.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101007/D9IN4BA80.html

This is BS. If they can't fairly apply the law equally to everyone, the law is BS. It's BS anyway. Where's a friggin judge when you need em?

Where's a friggin judge when you need em?

So far the government seems to be able to pick liberal judges to hear their cases.