• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McDonalds, 29 other firms, tp get Obamacare waivers


DP Veteran
Dec 20, 2009
Reaction score
Political Leaning
here you have it folks, the end game. the US Government (in particular the Executive Branch) now has near-total ability to pick winners and losers in the economy based not on who provides the most-desired service for the lowest cost, but whatever metric it chooses (whether or not you are a 'good global citizen', whether or not you donated to the President's reelection campaign, whatever). now, i find it rather disgusting that they are going to do this by not enforcing the law (whatever else Obamacare is, surely they figure they signed it into that); but i suppose i shouldn't be too surprised, given the fact that they sued Arizona over making up for their choosing to do just that. If I'm Burger King, i'm getting my lawyers overtime on this.

Remember, Government Healthcare is not about Healthcare. It's about Government.

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.
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."

[cpwill notes: gee, you think? gosh, it seems like at the time that's exactly what opponents were saying would happen]

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...
I am in no way, shape or form surprised that this is happening.

This administration, and it's leader, are inept, inadequate, and incompetent.
I think you missed the point:

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.
no, that's part of the point.
Top Bottom