Do you want Fries with your McBribe?

indyfromaz|

I doubt the Ministry of Truth will be too happy to report this story.
Remember during the Health Care Debate this was ll about the poor, low wage person who had no health insurance and that the evil company the worked for had to be forced by the employer mandate to be “fair”??

“It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government”-President Barack Obama
Remember the threats from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius to insurers to not blame ObamaCare for Rate increases?

Sept 30th, Wall Street Journal: McDonald’s Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.
Last week, a senior McDonald’s official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain’s insurer won’t meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.
McDonald’s and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.
Democrats who drafted the health law wanted the requirement to prevent insurers from spending too much on executive salaries, marketing and other costs that they said don’t directly help patients. (Feel good economics )
McDonald’s move is the latest indication of possible unintended consequences from the health overhaul. Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees.
So the evil corporate exploiter of low income people had insurance for it’s workers but said they were thinking of dropping it because ObamaCare was going to be too expensive.
The Obama Administration immediately jumped on it : The White House pushed back hard with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Jessica Santillo claiming: “This story is wrong. The new law provides significant flexibility to maintain coverage for workers.”
Then was a rumor of a back room deal. The Obama Administration denied it.
Well, guess what…
The federal government has granted 30 companies and organizations one-year waivers to exempt them from one of the newly-implemented health care reforms.
Guess who’s one of them?  McDonalds. Gee, that only took a week!!
And it’s a one Year waiver, guess what next year is– Obama’s Re-Election campaign.
Anyone see more waivers and extension coming??
I guess that was “fair”. Some workers are now more “fair” than others.
And after all, it was such a great plan to begin with.
Waiver list: http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/patient/appapps.html
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.
Gee, I thought they were Obama’s Apparatchiks. I guess they didn’t get their bailout money (or maybe they did but turned it around and feed the Democrats Re-election campaigns instead) .
So Obama is kissing up to his Union apparatchiks AGAIN!
At least one was a Health Insurance Company: CIGNA.
The irony I’m sure is lost on the Ministry of Truth.
So how many more waivers are to come? Leaving guess who, to hold the bag?
YOU!!
Rejoice. That’s your Hope & Change for you. Aren’t you happy?
But what’s funnier is all that nashing of teeth and all that rhethoric for nearly two years about non-one losing coverages…
Without the 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 coverage in 2014.
“The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they’ve got,” Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates, said by telephone. “Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they’ve got.”(Bloomberg)
And the Spin:
“The waivers are about insuring people and protecting the coverage they have until there are better options available to them in 2014,” White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs said today.
Meaning, we’ll cover we’ll exempt you from ObamaCare until 2014 when you’ll drop them anyhow and then the taxpayers will have to pay for them anyhow through the government run health care. Isn’t that peachy!
The bulk of the new health care reforms will go into effect in 2014. At that point, some large employers that drop coverage for their workers will be subject to a fee. Consumers will also have the option of using new state-based health care exchanges to access the individual health care market.
By 2014, insurers will be completely barred from limiting annual benefits. The new regulations are being phased in until then: companies without waivers will have to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, $1.25 million in coverage in 2012, and $2 million in 2013.
“HHS is to committed strengthening employer-based coverage for employees and retirees, while building a bridge to a new competitive marketplace in 2014,” HHS spokesperson Jessica Santillo said.
The waiver granted to the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund will have the biggest impact in terms of numbers, applying to 351,000 enrollees of the Fund’s supplemental insurance plan. McDonald’s insurance carrier, BCS Insurance, received a waiver to cover 115,000 enrollees.
Gibbs said today that the White House does not perceive the need to grant the waivers as a flaw of the new health care reforms.
“This is about implementing a bill correctly,” he said, to ensure that “as reform ramps up, we protect consumers and don’t put them at the mercy of health insurance companies.”
Gee, I thought that was what ObamaCare was supposed to do right out of the gate, not in 2014.
Oh, that’s right, you don’t want the young, poor, future socialist voters to get mad at you right now. Not to mention your Union apparatchiks.
So what if it’s a bribe. So what if it’s no longer “universal” and for “everyone”.
So now that  the “fair” playing field and “everyone” is covered is out the window.
You will be stuck with the check.
Doesn’t that just make you want to vote for the Democrats!

Sleep Tight. Don’t let the IRS bite.

Leg Breakers & Truthers Unite

A Must See:  New Ray Stevens Song- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWpOcZVnBrc

***************************
TIME FOR SOME LEG-BREAKING!

Katherine Sebelius, Health Czar (Health and Human Services Secretary) is going all Chicago Style:

"Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats' efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections. Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1 percent and 9 percent to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators," reported by the Wall Street Journal.
In addition, a Mercer survey of employers found that 79 percent expect they will lose  their "grandfathered" status by 2014, and therefore will become subject to many more of Obamacare's new mandates - a much higher figure than the administration  had estimated. Employers expect those additional mandates will increase premiums by 2.3 percent, on average, and boost the overall growth of premiums from 3.6 percent to 5.9 percent in 2011.

In response to the health insurers' claims, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius fired off a letter to the head of the health insurance lobby. The news release on the HHS website makes her purpose plain:

"U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the national association of health insurers, calling on their members to stop using scare tactics and misinformation to falsely blame premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. Sebelius noted that the consumer protections and out-of-pocket savings provided for in the Affordable Care Act should result in a minimal impact on premiums for most Americans. Further, she reminded health plans that states have new resources under the Affordable Care Act to crack down on unjustified premium increases."

In the letter, Mrs. Sebelius cites HHS' internal analyses and those of Mercer and other groups to support her claim that Obamacare's effect on premiums "will be minimal" - somewhere in the range of 1 percent to 2.3 percent, on average. Mrs. Sebelius tells insurers that she will show "zero tolerance" for insurers who "falsely" blame premium increases on Obamacare, and promises aggressive action against those who do:

"[We] will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers. ... We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014. Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections."

There's word for this: It's called extortion, folks. :(

As defined: the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.

You either do it our way and do as we say and only do it our way and what we want you to do, regardless, or else we'll boot you out of the market and you'll go out business.

Which, by the way, was the plan all along. Leaving Big Brother and Mama Government as the sole choice.

But now you have the Chicago-Style Leg breakers threatening companies to play their game or else!

But don't worry, We are from the Government and we are here to protect you!! :)

Here's something elseto consider: Mrs. Sebelius threatened insurers for claiming Obamacare will increase premiums by as much as 9 percent. Yet there were no threats issued against the Rand Corporation when itestimated Obamacare will increase premiums for young adults by an average of 17 percent beginning in 2014, or against Milliman Inc. when it Trlikewise estimated premium increases of 10 percent to 30 percent for young adults. The reasons for the disparate treatment are fairly obvious. Mrs. Sebelius has less power over Rand or Milliman, and bullies always find it easier to pick on the unpopular kid. But an equally important implication is that Mrs. Sebelius knows that Obamacare's largest premium increases are yet to come. Mrs. Sebelius may be intimidating insurers now to prevent them from blaming those much larger premium increases on Obamacare. (Washington Times)

************

GROUND ZERO MOSQUE IMAM's CLOSE ASSOCIATE IS A "TRUTHER"

Imam Feisal Abdul Raif has stepped in it again. But don't expect the Ministry of Truth to tell you. They will vigorous ignore or try to discredit the following from the NY York Post.

A "Truther" by the way is an individual who has the utter irrational view that 19 High-jackers mostly from Saudi Arabia did not murder 3000 people on 9/11/01, the US Government- more specifically the newly elected George W Bush and CIA were behind it or it was Corporate America or some conspiracy of all of them. Name whatever the Left hates, they did it.

Not Islamic Terrorists.

I may be cynical, but not a complete nutjob. :)

Still, that didn't stop Rauf from telling his high-brow audience that he wants to build a coalition of religious moderates, who he said must retake the debate from extremists of all religions.

Presumably, such a coalition would not include Rauf's longtime associate, Faiz Khan -- who touts "the inescapable fact that 9/11 was an inside job."

By which, he told The Post's Jennifer Gould Keil, he means he's "certain" that "the towers of WTC 7 could not have collapsed without controlled demolition placed from the 'inside.' "

Now, Khan is not the only crackpot out there who's convinced that "the quarter known as 'militant Islam' " had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. (He maintains the World Trade Center was actually brought down by "corporate America" and "the heroin trade.")

But he is the only one, that we're aware of, who was a founding director of Imam Rauf's American Society for the Advancement of Muslims -- which, along with the Cordoba Institute, is spearheading the Ground Zero mosque.

Khan claims he severed his connection to ASMA in "2002 and 2003" -- though he spoke at the group's 2006 conference in Copenhagen, where he was described as a board member.

All of which raises yet more questions about the so-called moderate imam and the people around him.

If Rauf truly wants "the best possible outcome for all," there's only one solution -- move the mosque.

But don't worry, Just like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, where Obama was a parishioner for 20 years and never heard any of the Reverend fiery anti-american, anti-white rants this too will come to pass with the Imam's friend. Despite him actually preaching at the Burlington Coat Factory mini-mosque that already exists on the site of the Ground Zero Mosque and they were board members together.

He'll use the Sargent Schultz defense, "I know nothing!" and the liberal media will defend that to your death. :)

Media Matters, one of the co-founders of the Hunt down Tea Party Racism site has an exhaustive and vitriolic denial. That right there proves something to me. :)

So just get out a high-speed fan as the Liberals and their apparatchiks in the Liberal Media once again try and blow smoke up your ass! :)