None of this is surprising.  The Dems knew it and the rest hid their    
   heads in the sand.  Socialist efforts always has many negative    
   consequences...   
      
   ======================================   
      
   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870448300457552398046457351   
   8.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion   
      
   Healthamburglar    
   McDonald's meets ObamaCare.   
      
   Among President Obama's core health-care promises was that Americans can    
   keep their current coverage if they like it. Among the reasons that a    
   new ObamaCare squall blows in every other day is that this claim simply    
   is not true, as people are discovering.    
      
   The latest fracas was incited by Janet Adamy's scoop in the Journal this    
   week that McDonald's Corp. may be forced to cancel its current coverage    
   for 29,500 employees as a result of ObamaCare. McDonald's told Health    
   and Human Services regulators that new mandates will make its plans    
   "economically prohibitive" and cause "a huge disruption" unless it gets    
   a waiver.   
      
      
    .At a Christian Science Monitor breakfast Thursday, HHS Secretary    
   Kathleen Sebelius claimed that the Journal story was "flat-out wrong,"    
   adding that "I'm sorry that they were not more accurate in their    
   reporting." If only for the sake of her own credibility, at some point    
   Ms. Sebelius is going to have to try to persuade people who actually    
   know something about the industries she regulates.   
      
   In a statement, McDonald's did say that it was "completely false" to    
   suggest that "we plan to drop health care coverage for our employees,"    
   and "regardless of how the regulations evolve over the next several    
   months, McDonald's is committed to providing competitive pay and    
   benefits." No doubt that's true: McDonald's will still need to attract    
   workers—not to mention that corporations of its size and brand    
   recognition are very sensitive to political intimidation.    
      
   But McDonald's didn't deny that the new rules will wipe out its existing    
   plans. And that's precisely the point. The entire philosophical and    
   policy architecture of ObamaCare is explicitly designed to standardize    
   health benefits and how those benefits should be paid for. Those choices    
   and tradeoffs will be made for everyone by Ms. Sebelius's regulators.   
      
      
   At issue in the McDonald's dust-up is a type of low-cost, low-benefit    
   insurance known as "mini-med." These plans cover most medical services    
   but generally have an annual deductible or benefit cap between $1,000    
   and $10,000. Unlike more comprehensive plans, there's no catastrophic    
   coverage. Essentially, the very low premiums—under $100 a month—amount    
   to prepaying for routine expenses like office checkups and E.R. visits.    
      
   Around 2.5 million consumers are covered by "mini-med" policies, most of    
   them concentrated in low-wage industries like fast food, hospitality and    
   retail that have large numbers of part-time or temporary workers. In the    
   case of the restaurants, 75% of the workforce turns over every year and    
   nearly half are under age 25. Mini-med plans are a temporary stopgap for    
   businesses that have low margins and face high labor and health costs.   
      
   But Democrats hate mini-med and other skinny-benefit plans, calling them    
   "underinsurance." ObamaCare is meant to run them out of the market by    
   mandating benefits, eliminating coverage caps and certain technical    
   rules about how premiums must be spent. This despite the fact that    
   Arkansas, Connecticut and Tennessee sponsor their own mini-med plans for    
   state residents as better than having no insurance at all.   
      
   In other words, the choice is between relatively affordable coverage    
   that isn't as generous as Democrats think it should be and dumping    
   coverage entirely. McDonald's may eventually offer the high-cost plans    
   that Ms. Sebelius favors, or get its waiver, but many of its less    
   profitable or smaller competitors won't. While subsidized ObamaCare    
   options will be available in 2014, those costs will merely be    
   transferred to taxpayers.   
      
   Ms. Sebelius facetiously called the Journal "my favorite newspaper" at    
   the Monitor breakfast, and she'll no doubt continue to shoot the    
   messenger. What everyone else should understand is that the almost daily    
   damage we're seeing as this law takes effect is not unintended. It is    
   the heart and soul of ObamaCare.   
      
   CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999    
   Stop the Democrat party oil embargo ....   
      
   --- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10   
    * Origin:  (1:226/600)