In this case at least, the President meant what he said

Last year, not too long after President Obama took office, he held a town hall meeting down in Florida and was asked questions regarding jobs, college tuition and health care by a rather breathless young chap, Julio Osegueda, a college student and McDonald's employee.







Remember when the President said that if you liked your current healthcare plan, you could keep it? Well, in the case of Mr. Osegueda who, at the time did not have health insurance, the President in a very perverse way via ObamaCare may fulfill that pledge.

McDonald's denies it McDonald's Senior VP Steve Russell, who is the head of human resources, calls reports that the company will drop its coverage "completely false." Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has also denied The Wall Street Journal's report, calling it "flat out wrong."

"I am sorry that they were not more accurate in their reporting," Sebelius said.

--

McDonald's has threatened to terminate health benefits for almost 30,000 hourly workers if the government doesn't give the corporation a pass on a provision of this year's health care legislation, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The restaurant chain's insurer has refused to meet a 2011 requirement to spend 80 to 85 percent of its revenue from premiums on actual medical care, a McDonald's official told the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services last week. That high of a percentage, McDonald's says, according to the WSJ, doesn't make sense given the high cost of dealing with frequent worker turnover. The requirement was designed to curb executive salaries and other expenses not directly related to health care.

In a memo quoted by the WSJ, McDonald's said it would be "economically prohibitive" for their insurance provider to continue offering plans, in which workers currently can pay $13.99 a week ($727.48 annually) for $2,000 of annual coverage, $24.30 a week ($1,263.60 annually) for $5,000 of annual coverage or $32.30 a week ($1,679.60 annually) for $10,000 of annual coverage, according to the WSJ.

"We're not going to walk away from health-care insurance completely, but we're going to have to look for alternatives if we can't get the resolution we're seeking from Health and Human Services," McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud told Bloomberg.

(italicized is an update to the original news story)

The original story makes absolute sense. Why should McDonald's insurers comply with those ObamaCare proportion mandates when they are covering so many low/minimum wage workers that turnover on a regular basis? You think that there might be a tad bit more spent per employee on admin/overhead for those employees as opposed to higher wage earners who stay with the company for a longer period of time? This isn't rocket science except for those in the regime who think those admin. costs can magically be absorbed by McDonald's. In that case, it isn't rocket science for the regime either, rather voodoo.

And the fact that the update involves that thug Kathleen Sebelius indicates that either McDonald's is going to deny it in public for the time being and then just drop the coverage later on or there was some arm-twisting going on by the regime to comply with the mandates and retain the coverage.

We're going with the former.

About that cost curve....

(This post has been bumped from a scheduled post to real-time as the addendum at the bottom relates directly to late-breaking matters with respect to ObamaCare and McDonald's)


One of the main selling points in pushing ObamaCare was that it would bend the cost curve downward. That notion just months after ObamaCare's passage looks to be going down in a flaming wreck across the board and across the nation.

Despite assurances from the Obama administration that the recently signed healthcare reform law would save Americans money, benefit professionals are seeing huge medical premium hikes and decreased benefits.

Employers and ultimately taxpayers could get sticker shock as plans companies begin to renew their medical benefits packages for 2011.

A Manhattan health benefits consultant says insurance companies are telling employers they will pay have to pay much more in 2011 -- and for reduced coverage.

"It should be noted that premium increases were in excess of 30 percent over the previous year," said Barbara Brody of Barbara A. Brody & Associates. Brody said average rate increases next year for Manhattan-based firms she advises could be as high as "67 percent but will average 30 percent."

That's because insurance companies, faced with higher costs after the passage of a giant health reform measure, plan to pass most of the costs onto consumers, according to several industry observers.

Of course, this isn't rocket science. When you dump 30 million more people onto the healthcare roles and you legislate that the health insurance providers can no longer deny people with pre-existing benefits, that is certainly going to cost more and health insurers, with profit margins in the 2 to 6% range simply cannot absorb that and will pass it along to its customers in the form of higher premiums. That's the way things work in the real world as opposed to the Harvard faculty lounge.

But perhaps Team O knew this but completely miscalculated how soon the market reaction would occur, as in, they did not anticipate this reaction until after the mid-terms.

Just this week McDonald's said it may drop its health-care plan for 30,000 employees unless it gets a waiver on the annual coverage.

However, a spokesman for the Obama administration says the benefits of the recently signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, designed in part to provide health insurance to tens of millions of Americans without coverage, will be phased in over the next decade.

Color us confused. McDonald's is threatening to drop coverage for these low-end wage-earners precisely because of the additional coverage they will be forced to provide their employees that will be phased in over the next decade. This concept is lost on either the writer of the article or Team O.

And this business with McDonald's should serve as a warning. What was already the most politicized piece of legislation in recent history what with its kickbacks and special deals and exemptions will become only more so now that businesses will lobby and lobby hard to get themselves exempted from the onerous provisions of ObamaCare once they figure out what is coming their way.

We suppose this was what was meant when they told us that we needed to pass the bill now so we can "fix it" and make it better in the future.





(Addendum #1): And as if on cue...

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.

An alternate to the very first sentence of the news item would be: "Nearly a million workers won't get dumped from their companies' health plans as those companies have been exempted from provisions levied upon them by ObamaCare that otherwise would be too onerous."

"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.

Bingo! ObamaCare is not about health care. It never has been - it is and will continue for ever more to be about politics and the wielding of political muscle. What is it about the above that indicates anything other?

And what about the self-employed, individuals, students and small businesses that purchase similar low premium/low benefits plans that McDonald's does? Will they be exempted as well? Please. They won't because they have no juice up on the Hill. This is precisely what we were talking about when we said the most politicized piece of legislation ever will become even more politicized.

Mark it down: As Laszewski alluded to above, the regime will spin this as some sort of victory for the little guy working for the big slavish corporations. As if, through their benevolence they have let the workers keep the health care plan they already have.

This abortion is a full 3-4 years away from full implementation and already the jockeying, greasing and currying of favors has begun.


(Addendum #2): Capt. Ed adds:

The Rule of Law depends on an environment with clear regulation and unbiased enforcement. From the start, ObamaCare lacked any clarity in regulation. Congress filled the bill with the phrase “The Secretary shall determine” in place of establishing rules and regulations for the massive regulatory regime Congress created. Now, the White House has added arbitrary enforcement to uncertain regulation and opaque processes. This is not the Rule of Law, but the Whim of Autocracy.

To which commenter Washingtons Wake responds:

This is an example of the crushing hand of tyranny – not whim of autocracy

Exit question(s): How deliciously perverse would it be for tea partiers to protest Jack in the Box headquarters here in San Diego for not offering all their workers all the benefits of ObamaCare as so graciously bestowed upon us by our minders in the regime? After all, isn't it about equality?

Free the Panda!

.

We're a little late to the party as this story has been blowing up on the conservative interwebs this past week and rightly so because it really is the free-market feel-good story of the year.

Recall the Happy Meal ban put in place in San Francisco where McDonald's was prohibited from including any toys with said meal.

Don't get us wrong. We despise McDonald's. Not for their ubiquitous success nor for their LSD-inspired characters but simply because they serve up the worst hamburgers known to mankind. We haven't had one of their burgers in probably 15 years such is the revulsion with which our digestive tract greets them.

Having said that, we are pleased as punch with respect to this free-market end-around to the benevolent liberal fascism being imposed on the citizenry of San Francisco.

A ban against toy giveaways with high-fat meals doesn’t seem to have fazed San Francisco McDonald’s franchise owners. They’ve found a way to circumvent it.

Instead of doing away with the small Happy Meal toys that usually come free with each Happy Meal purchased, San Francisco McDonald’s owners will now charge 10 cents for the trinket. They say the extra money will go toward the Ronald McDonald House, a McDonald’s charity that supports sick children and their families.

Scott Rodrick, owner of 10 of the 19 McDonald’s in San Francisco, told the San Francisco Chronicle that the 10 cent cost “complies with the letter of the law.

“This law is not what my customers wanted or asked for, but the law’s the law,” he told the newspaper.

Your dern tootin' it's the law and there are unintended consequences to such laws that are solely about politics and not public health as so ably demonstrated by Mr. Rodrick.



And cue the nanny state whining:

But Dr. David Katz, director of the Yale Prevention Center, supports the toy ban, saying that the toys and the trinkets “clearly goad children to prefer and request less nutritional meals.”

He said the 10-cent charge shifts the toy, and less nutritious meals, from default mode and into parental decision-making.

Without any goading whatsoever, we would've preferred Fruit Loops and Skittles at every meal while growing up but Mom and Dad had other ideas. Slouching off parental responsibilities upon corporations is counter-intuitive, counter-productive and completely misses the point.

The government leveraging the law to alter the menus of fast food restaurants as a replacement to sound parenting makes about as much sense as it sounds.


Thank you, Mr. Rodrick, you've made our week.

About that cost curve Pt. III

If we're beginning to sound like a broken record around here, don't blame us... just meet us at the polls on November 2nd.

WASHINGTON – Aerospace giant Boeing is joining the list of companies that say the new health care law could have a potential downside for their workers.

In a letter mailed to employees late last week, the company cited the overhaul as part of the reason it is asking some 90,000 nonunion workers to pay significantly more for their health plan next year. A copy of the letter was obtained Monday by The Associated Press.

"The newly enacted health care reform legislation, while intended to expand access to care for millions of uninsured Americans, is also adding cost pressure as requirements of the new law are phased in over the next several years," wrote Rick Stephens, Boeing's senior vice president for human resources.

Boeing is the latest major employer to signal a shift for its workers as a result of the legislation, which expands coverage to more than 30 million uninsured people and ranks as President Barack Obama's top domestic achievement. Earlier, McDonald's had raised questions about whether a limited benefit plan that serves some 30,000 of its employees would remain viable under the law. That prompted the administration to issue McDonald's a waiver from certain requirements under the law.

Those last two sentences are somewhat of a non-sequitur as the article does not suggest that Boeing will lobby-up as McDonald's did and ask for an exemption. Unless the non-union employees the article is referring to are on low cost/low benefit plans provided via Boeing and Boeing will indeed be going hat in hand and with an open check book to the White House to request their own little carve-out.

How dare we suggest anything untoward with respect to the administering of ObamaCare, you say.

This byzantine 2,800 page monstrosity what with its scads of ambiguous "to be left to the discretion of the Secretary (of Health and Human Services)" directives is a lobbyist's dream. So in the spirit of the current smear campaign against the Chamber of Commerce, prove that there was not some greasing of the skids that went down with the McDonald's carve-out.

Spokeswoman Karen Forte said the Boeing plan is more generous than what its closest competitors offer, and the company was concerned it would get hit with a new tax under the law.

The tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans doesn't take effect until 2018, but employers are already beginning to assess their exposure because it is hefty: at 40 percent of the value above $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for a family plan.

"We want to manage our costs so this tax doesn't apply to our plan, but that's down the road," said Forte. "If this health care law hadn't passed, would we be making changes to the health care benefit? Absolutely. For competitive reasons."

In the letter to Boeing employees, Stephens said out-of-control health care inflation is hampering Boeing's ability to compete with other manufacturers. Its major civilian aviation competitor, Airbus, is based in Europe, where governments shoulder the burden of health care costs.

This helps explain what will be happening to the union workers alluded to at the top of the article: their time is coming.

And please note what Forte said about "managing" the costs so that the tax doesn't apply to the current Cadillac health plans. If you were to suppose that those union workers would be "managed" from their Caddy and into a Chevy, you move yourself to the head of the class. How else is Boeing going to avoid that 40% whopper without slashing benefits?

Finally, it's also important to note what Stephens says about out-of-control health care inflation and Forte saying they would be making these changes even without the dawning of ObamaCare in America.

The take-away is that ObamaCare has done nothing to address this inflation... nothing whatsoever... and has only exacerbated the situation by mandating additional benefits that must be taken out of the hide of the consumers in the form of higher premiums.

ObamaCare: doing absolutely nothing to solve current problems while creating a myriad of new ones for the future.

Free Captain Elliott's Party Boats!

President Obama told us that with ObamaCare, if we liked our health care plan, we could keep it. Well, we can keep it, if we're granted a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, that is.

When McDonald's applied for their waiver back in September, it was done so that they could keep their low-wage employees in their current plans and not be forced to dump them from their coverage because of the added expenses tacked on by the benefits McDonald's would be mandated to offer because of ObamaCare. (We blogged about that whole debacle here).

Once both McDonald's and Jack in the Box were granted waivers the flood gates have opened so that now 111 entities, representing 1,175,000 employees, have been exempted from ObamaCare (complete list, here). No information from DHS as to how many more companies are currently in the pipeline seeking waivers.

And how is it that you know a law has been thoroughly compromised and is so convoluted as to be completely counter-productive? When the groups that fought hardest for ObamaCare are themselves seeking exemption status. Count United Food and Commercial Workers, Allied Trade Health and Welfare Trust Fund, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union No. 915, Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund, Employees Security Fund, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 227, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 455 (Maximus), United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1262 and Musicians Health Fund Local 802 among those unions that have been freed from ObamaCare.

At the link above, it explains that the waiver only lasts one year at which time we are assuming you have to go through the whole process again. That will keep a few people busy, no?

Exit question: In keeping with the spirit of inquiry of the Obama administration prior to the midterms in seeking to find out just who was giving money to groups like the Chamber of Commerce who were, in turn, giving to Republican candidates, just what was exchanged by these groups in return for being exempted from ObamaCare? Surely, we can't be expected to believe that legislation fashioned in the sleaziest, back room manner is suddenly free of quid pro quo? That would require a suspension of disbelief of which we are just not capable at this time.


Here's a little red meat to wrap up your day - Michelle Bachmann and the One-eleven.




H/T: Michelle Malkin

Town Hall Meeting?

Now just what in the Sam Hill is going on around here? Eeeeasy there, turbo. We requested that site contributor, the Substitute who was out at the Clinton rally yesterday, give us his thoughts on the event and the primary debate which he did so here. We'll get back to our regularly scheduled McCain bashing later so let's just chalk all this up to a conscious desire to find something appealing about the remaining candidates all of which we have serious political misgivings. Senor Substitute, you're on:

Ever been to a campaign rally? Whether you are GOP or Democrat and haven't been to one of these things, it's kind of an interesting experience to go through. But first: What's in a name? When I was a wee lad these things were known as "Campaign Rallies". It has since morphed into "Town Hall Meeting" to give it that intimate folksy charm we all like so much. Think McDonald's turning the cold, stale, "Welcome to McDonald's. Can I help you?" into"What can I make for you today?" as if the girl on the intercom is going to go back and cook me up a quarter-pounder with tender loving care.

Anyway...

I arrived at SDSU 2 hours before the event at the 12,000 seat Cox Arena. The line was almost 3/4 of a mile long and growing quickly. The gates would not open for another hour. Clinton campaign staff came around and said that if I didn't fill out their form, I wouldn't get in. Pretty comprehensive, this form. Cell phone. Work phone. Home phone. Address. Email address. Did I want to join the campaign. How much would I pledge. What I did for work. Pretty smart, if you think about it. They just got thousands of contacts of enthused possible foot soldiers in a 1 hour stop.

I was as vague as possible filling it out. And ended up getting in anyway. After 1 hour, the line started to move. It literally snaked through half the massive SDSU campus. Along the way, various groups for this, that, and the other thing trying to give away brochures or sign people on for theircauses. Here, the marijuana legalization brotherhood (You know, it makes really good rope!). There, Stop Animal Abuse. Towards the arena entrance were the Contras: Republicans with hand-made signs that gave me little hope for much of a conciliatory note from the far-right wing of the GOP if Clinton gets the Democratic nod. After all, "Life's a bitch. Why would you elect one?" doesn't quite have the same ring as "I want a kinder, gentler nation."

Security wasn't quite as tight as I figured. Backpacks banned. Women had their purses checked. But that was it. But I was to find out that when a former First Lady and presidential front-runner comes strolling on stage, the eyes of Secret Service are everywhere. (Later, after the "Town HallMeeting", as Hillary plunged into the crowd for autographs, the agents were the very definition of White-on-Rice)

A few local political hacks came on stage at the appointed 1:30 starttime -- and spoke, and stalled, and stalled. They ran out of things to sayafter 15 minutes. One of them finally teased us with a "I think someone very important is here", and with that all of them left the stage to an excited crowd. Then nothing.

10 minutes passed. 20 minutes. Half an hour. 40 minutes. 45 minutes. Nothing. The crowd, filled to the rafters by now, finally started entertaining itself with a display of (paper) air plane superiority that would have made the Luftwaffe proud. I put on my sunglasses for protection.

But where was the candidate? Finally, 55 minutes late, pool press and agents appear. The candidate was not far behind. A guy I spoke with later at the trolley stop about husband Bill's legendary habit of running on the same delayed schedule when he was President called it "Clinton-SavingsTime". More introductory speakers. In quick succession two guys I'd only marginally heard of (they were booed lustily by a now-impatient crowd), thenL.A. Mayor Anthony Villaragosa. Then SDSU President Stephen Weber.

And Clinton's face finally pops from around the corner. Electricity from nowhere. Cheers. Weber brought her on stage. He then preceded to go another 3 minutes with a long diatribe about education and San Diego technology. The crowd was beyond caring.

Hillary. Microphone. Finally. The energetic vibe was quite palpable.

The rest was stump-basic. Education. Iraq. Vets care. Immigration.Economy. Can't wait to get George out. All designed to energize the crowd and the party.

But, ya know, I still have a soft-spot for McCain.

See you in November.

- The Substitute

A little bit of Chicago-style politics in Connecticut?

After originally approving insurance premium rate hikes for as high as 47% for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, the state of Connecticut Insurance Department has has reversed course and rejected premium hikes of 20% for individual health plans.

In the 22-page decision, Franklin recommends that Acting Insurance Commissioner Barbara C. Spear deny the increases. The department did an actuarial analysis with revised assumptions and concluded that a zero-percent increase would be both "reasonable and actuarially sound." Spear signed the decision Friday, officially denying the rate request.

(italics, ours)



It should be noted that previous Insurance Commissioner, Thomas Sullivan, who had approved the rate hikes originally back in September has since resigned to take another job ahead of outgoing governor Jodi Rell, and who told Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, who had complained about the rate hikes to take his complaints to Congress.

So, we go from rate hikes ranging from 20-47% that were approved without change by the state's Insurance Department to no rate hikes at all? Those must've been some very significant "revised assumptions".


Let's go to the White House blog and see what Nancy-Ann DeParle, the director of the White House Office of Health Reform had to say about all this and see if it sheds any light into what is going on in Connecticut.

On Friday, consumers in Connecticut got some good news when the state insurance commissioner rejected Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield’s plan to raise insurance premiums by 20 percent. The premium increase would have raised rates for 48,000 consumers. After a thorough look at the facts, Connecticut officials determined that the rate hike was “excessive” and that no rate increases would be necessary. You can read media coverage of the Connecticut decision here.

The work in Connecticut shows the power of premium review – a process used by states to evaluate and approve proposed health insurance premium increases. Today, some states have stronger premium review processes than others, so the Affordable Care Act included $250 million in grants to states that will help them strengthen their premium review efforts and protect consumers. We’ve already seen premium review hold down rate hikes in California, Massachusetts, Maine and now, Connecticut and we expect to hear more good news from other states in the months ahead.

You know, if we didn't know any better, we'd have sworn that DeParle was talking about some sort of quid pro quo arrangement. Was that $250 million to ensure state insurance commissions made sure there were no rate increases? This is ObamaCare we are talking about, after all.

Supporting state efforts to crack down on premium hikes is just one of the steps the Affordable Care Act takes to help control health care costs for families nationwide. In addition to setting up exchanges -- new competitive health insurance marketplaces where Americans can shop for affordable coverage options – the law:

•Requires insurance companies to publicly justify any unreasonable premium increases beginning in 2011.
•Requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of premium dollars on health care instead of overhead, salaries or administrative expenses, in 2011. If they don’t, they will be required to provide a rebate to consumers.

And this is precisely why companies like Jack in the Box and McDonald's applied for and were granted waivers for the health plans of their low-wage employees. Overhead costs as a percentage of what is spent on these high-turnover employees are naturally going to be higher and what this points to is the folly of the one-size-fits-all approach taken by ObamaCare.

•Insurance companies who unreasonably raise rates between now and 2014 may be denied the opportunity to participate in the new exchanges.

Uhh, according to what just happened in Connecticut, the rates weren't raised precisely because the Insurance Department deemed them to be unreasonable so we have no idea what that statement meant. And the whole concept of "unreasonable" now seems to be a moving target, at least, in Connecticut.

Oh, that's right. This is just thinly-veiled threat language directed at the insurance companies that they better not make too many waves by even requesting "unreasonable" rate hikes. We'll let that thug, Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services explain it in plain language that leaves nothing to the imagination:

"There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the insurance lobby.

"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," Sebelius said. She warned that bad actors may be excluded from new health insurance markets that will open in 2014 under the law. They'd lose out on a big pool of customers, as many as 30 million people nationwide.

So, to be clear: Not even will health care providers be forbidden from seeking "unreasonable" rate hikes, they will not even be permitted to voice their opinions on the matter.


Some greasin', some threatin'... it all kind of makes sense.

The kitchen is no place for this woman

Continuing in the grand tradition of pet causes, the wife of the Smoker-in-Chief, Michelle Obama, has chosen childhood obesity and healthy eating as her particular cause.

A few days ago she addressed the National Restaurant Association regarding the virtues of offering healthy alternatives on the menu and disclosure with respect to providing calorie data for individual menu items.

Look, we've really no problem with the First Lady using her bully pulpit to "encourage" restaurants to offer more healthy options but as can be expected from members of the regime, even those not technically on the payroll, they go seamlessly from simple and harmless nagging to codifying menu changes by fiat.

After playing nice for the first three-quarters of her speech employing words as "asking", "challenge" and "encourage" implying voluntary cooperation, she gets down to brass knuckles.

That’s why we’re committed to helping increase that demand and making it easier for you to do what’s right. And we’ve started by requiring chain restaurants to provide calorie counts on their menus and menu boards. And I am grateful for the support we’ve received from the NRA to get this done. And I want to encourage restaurants that aren’t providing calorie counts to join us in this effort.

How much awfulness can be packed into one paragraph?

Translation:

Americans are too damn stupid to make these decisions on their own so we'll "help" by forcing you to do what we think is right and we've begun this dictatorial process, thank you, by telling you what is required to be on your menus, menu boards and any thing else bearing the name of your establishment. And we're grateful that you've pretty much allowed us to steamroll you on this (not that you had any choice in the matter) and let's just say we know who all those other restaurants are out there that escaped our clutches and which we will be strong-arming into compliance at a later date.

These people are simply drunk with power.

We had almost forgot about this whole menu thing. We believe the cut off for compliance with this ridiculous regulation is 20 or more restaurants. So, imagine if you own 21 or 22 restaurants: you will be faced with making a decision to comply with a needless and expensive regulation (how exactly does one go about getting a calorie count for every single item on their menu and however it is done, do you think the going rate for CalCount Inc.'s services just went up a tad as a result of this regulatory capture?) or cutting back on your restaurant locations and putting a few dozen more people out on the street. And conversely, factor in yet another reason to not expand and not add more jobs in the private sector for that restaurant owner of 18 or 19 locations.

This probably is no big deal for massive chains like Denny's or McDonald's who have the resources to comply but as we've seen with ObamaCare and how it hoses the smaller insurance providers, these menu regs will be another unwanted expense on the small and medium-sized chains.

How to fight back? Patronize these Mom and Pop shops or medium-sized chains that may be on the cusp of this regulation. We're open to other suggestion and, as always...

While we were away....

Our little min-blogging vacation over the weekend did not stop the bad news from rolling in with respect to the “new” federal healthcare law aka ObamaCare that will kick in starting October 1st.



First, the law continues to poll badly even while having many of the favorable benefits of the law front-loaded.



This unpopularity and the um, uneven, roll-out of the law, however is somehow the fault of the GOP.




Doctor rationing to begin in California:

The doctor can't see you now.

Consumers may hear that a lot more often after getting health insurance under President Obama's Affordable Care Act.
To hold down premiums, major insurers in California have sharply limited the number of doctors and hospitals available to patients in the state's new health insurance market opening Oct. 1.
New data reveal the extent of those cuts in California, a crucial test bed for the federal healthcare law.

Healthcare Company to Lay Off Over 100 Because of Obamacare:

A Georgia health care company will lay off over 100 employees due in part to Obamacare, according to a WSB-TV report:

"We have confirmed more than 100 Emory health care employees are going to lose their jobs in part because of the Affordable (health) Care Act," said a local anchor.

"I think it's bad it's affordable health care and people are losing their jobs," said a man interviewed by the reporter.

"It's sad. It really is," said another man. "A lot of people are going to lose their homes and cars and everything they worked all their life for."

Progressive darling Trader Joe’s to eliminate health care plans for part-time employees:

After extending health care coverage to many of its part-time employees for years, Trader Joe’s has told workers who log fewer than 30 hours a week that they will need to find insurance on the Obamacare exchanges next year, according to a confidential memo from the grocer’s chief executive.

In the memo to staff dated Aug. 30, Trader Joe’s CEO Dan Bane said the company will cut part-timers a check for $500 in January and help guide them toward finding a new plan under the Affordable Care Act. The company will continue to offer health coverage to workers who carry 30 hours or more on average.

Mickey Ds looking to get out from under ObamaCare’s onerous regulations:

Franchise restaurant owners have come to Washington seeking a change to ObamaCare that they say could prevent them from having to cut their employees’ hours.

The healthcare law requires large employers to provide insurance to employees who work at least 30 hours per week.

Franchise owners say the employer mandate threatens to erase their narrow profit margins and are telling lawmakers they need to overhaul the law before it’s too late.

“Employees won’t have the hours they need, and they won’t get employer-sponsored healthcare, either,” said Steve Caldeira, president and CEO of the International Franchise Association (IFA).

“[Franchisees] are dealing with high commodity costs, high energy prices, higher taxes from the ‘fiscal-cliff’ deal, and now they are trying to work through ObamaCare,” he said.

More than 300 members of the franchise association are making the rounds on Capitol Hill to lobby for the ObamaCare changes. Monday’s visitors included IFA members from Mr. Rooter, McDonald’s and Dunkin Donuts.

So, if Congress and Big Business are getting breaks from the law, why not the fast food sector? After all, now that health care in this country has been sufficiently politicized, the law will not be about “care” rather picking winners and losers.

The amount of lobbying being done on Capitol Hill by entities looking to get away from this law should tell you everything you need to know about it.





Finally, the President's BFF, Warren Buffett says it's time to scrap the law and start over and we whole-heartedly agree:

"Healthcare costs in the United States are like a tapeworm eating at our economic body.

"Those words come from famed investor Warren Buffett, who said he would scrap Obamacare and start all over.

"'We have a health system that, in terms of costs, is really out of control,' he added. 'And if you take this line and you project what has been happening into the future, we will get less and less competitive. So we need something else.'

"Buffett insists that without changes to Obamacare average citizens will suffer.

"'What we have now is untenable over time,' said Buffett, an early supporter of President Obama. 'That kind of a cost compared to the rest of the world is really like a tapeworm eating, you know, at our economic body.'

"Buffett does not believe that providing insurance for everyone is the first step to take in correcting our nation's healthcare system.

"'Attack the costs first, and then worry about expanding coverage,' he said. 'I would much rather see another plan that really attacks costs. And I think that's what the American public wants to see. I mean, the American public is not behind this bill.'"

This common sense approach to overhauling our healthcare system is precisely why it doesn't stand an ice cube's chance in hell in Washington D.C.

Airbrushing

Book-burning righties on the march again?

Um, not exactly.

Allow us to get our righteous indignation on.

A new edition of “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” is missing something.

Throughout the book — 219 times in all — the word “nigger” is replaced by “slave,” a substitution that was made by NewSouth Books, a publisher based in Alabama, which plans to release the edition in February.

Alan Gribben, a professor of English at Auburn University at Montgomery, approached the publisher with the idea in July. Mr. Gribben said Tuesday that he had been teaching Mark Twain for decades and always hesitated before reading aloud the common racial epithet, which is used liberally in the book, a reflection of social attitudes in the mid-19th century.

“I found myself right out of graduate school at Berkeley not wanting to pronounce that word when I was teaching either ‘Huckleberry Finn’ or ‘Tom Sawyer,’ ” he said. “And I don’t think I’m alone.”

Mr. Gribben, who combined “Huckleberry Finn” with “Tom Sawyer” in a single volume and also supplied an introduction, said he worried that “Huckleberry Finn” had fallen off reading lists, and wanted to offer an edition that is not for scholars, but for younger people and general readers.

“I’m by no means sanitizing Mark Twain,” Mr. Gribben said. “The sharp social critiques are in there. The humor is intact. I just had the idea to get us away from obsessing about this one word, and just let the stories stand alone.” (The book also substitutes “Indian” for “injun.”)

Yes, you are. Yes, you are sanitizing Mark Twain. How can "cleaning-up" any unsavory language be considered anything but? And so noble of this guy, Gribben, to take it upon himself to unburden the unwashed masses our obsession with this word.

Mr. Gribben said no schools had expressed interest yet in teaching the book — nor did he say what ages he thought the edition appropriate for. In his introduction, however, he writes that “even at the level of college and graduate school, students are capable of resenting textual encounters with this racial appellative.”

If that last sentence means what we think it means, that was precisely Twain's intent: to inform the reader of the ugliness of slavery and racial prejudice. Doesn't anyone think things through anymore?

But hey, why stop there? Why not scrub the books of any and all unpleasantness and unseemly situations? (Because white washing fences really sucks) And we'll label it the McDonaldization of American literature because it really is the bland, predictable sameness that you get at every single franchise that has been the key to McDonald's success.

Part of the reason the NFL is so successful is because of its rigid consistency. On any given Sunday during the fall, you can turn on the T.V. at 10 A.M. Pacific and again at 1:15 P.M. Pacific and be assured that you will be witnessing a professional football game kickoff. Same for Sunday and Monday evenings. You can bank on these things happening.

So let's gut the American classics in the same manner in order to make sure everyone is reading the same thing to ensure, in part, that no one is resenting any textual encounters with racial appellatives.

We remember reading both Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn back in the 5th or 6th grade but do you know what we don't remember? We don't remember being traumatized by the word "nigger". And do you know what else we don't remember? Thinking that the usage of the term in these American classics somehow constituted an implicit approval of the term.

It's a crazy notion, we realize, but we do remember that a grade-schooler could read these books and come away from the books with the distinct notion that the "offending" term was vile and dehumanizing which, of course, was the very intention of the author.

How can this guy Gribbin call himself a professor of English and not realize this?

It's madness and it's got to stop.

It's the freedom, stupid

President Obama is insistent that health care legislation gets passed through Congress and on his desk for his signature… Now! This, despite the fact that the majority of the provisions contained therein won’t take effect for 3 or 4 more years (except the taxes… count on those immediately).

It’s apparent that porkulus, cap and trade and health care reform aren’t as advertised. Porkulus wasn’t really about stimulating the economy as the administration now admits but rather about payoffs and establishing a baseline for all future spending. Cap and trade is not really about controlling carbon emissions but instead, increasing regulation of “unsavory” energy sources in favor of “correct” alternative energy and flat-out guilt for this country achieving the highest standard of living on the planet. And health care reform is certainly not about improving the quality of health care and controlling the costs but rather it is about establishing a framework by which government can intrude more and more into your personal matters.

So what gives? Why are proponents of the President’s agenda rushing at full speed to see their implementation when they themselves can offer no coherent defense of each new chink in the armor that is seemingly revealed on a daily basis?

What we are witnessing with the Obama agenda cram-down is a manifestation of the basic and fundamental distrust that statists hold for people exercising their freedoms and living lives largely unconstrained by proper rules of etiquette as outlined by them. Do they not know that bearing more than two children, grilling red meat, drinking Lite beer and driving SUVs is simply a shameful lifestyle?

We’ve held for years that the contempt the Wal-Mart haters have for America’s largest private employer does not have so much to do with Wal-Mart being non-union but rather the people inside, both the employees and the customers. Employees that have the temerity to declare they actually enjoy working for Wal-Mart and the customers with their children, aunts, grandfathers, etc. in tow, snatching up the bargains, eating at the in-house McDonald’s, buying silk plants and box wine and which all contribute to the ramshackle, outdoor bazaar feel to the place on a typical Saturday afternoon.

Wal-Mart at rush hour is the very picture of diversity that statists pay lip service to yet the white coastal effetes that dictate statist policy are loathe to recognize, let alone, admit… that’s America, mom-jeans and all.

We never thought that buying a horribly loud Hawaiian shirt for $8 could also be a delightful act of socio-cultural defiance… so make that two horribly loud Hawaiian shirts.

H/T: NRO

P.S. Absolutely no rhyme or reason for the picture of the '58 Chevy Bel Air taken at the weekly La Mesa car show a couple weeks back. It just felt right.

No longer just crappy Italian food...

.


... but reduced work hours and dropped healthcare coverage as well.



After all the dust had settled upon the passage of ObamaCare in the spring of 2010 and people, unlike Congress, had a chance to actually find out what was in one of the most sweeping pieces of legislation in decades, it was discovered that by accident or design there were some rather perverse incentives built into ObamaCare. By perverse incentives, we mean that the outcome of some or many aspects of ObamaCare would work out exactly the opposite as intended.

Predicting the outcome of these perverse incentives didn’t take a Ph.D. as some of the mandates contained within ObamaCare were going to lead to the most obvious of results. Take for instance the additional coverage that would be mandated for full-time employees and think about what possible outcome it might result in if the employer felt the additional cost of that additional coverage too burdensome to bear.


From the Washington Examiner:

If you want to know how Obamacare will affect future U.S. employment, look no further than this week's Orlando Sentinel report on Darden Restaurants -- the company that owns popular chains like the Olive Garden and Red Lobster. Currently, all 185,000 Darden employees are offered health insurance, but that's about to change, thanks to Obamacare.

Obamacare fines large companies that fail to offer health insurance to their full-time employees. This would not be a problem for Darden, except that many of its employees have affordable health plans whose coverage is not robust enough to fulfill the requirements of Obamacare's individual mandate. Such plans are popular with restaurants, whose profit margins tend to be small, because they let employers offer benefits at a very reasonable cost. But such plans have coverage limits and other features that Obamacare bans, so they will likely be discontinued beginning in 2014, if not sooner.

And so in order to avoid paying fines or buying massively more expensive health plans that are Obamacare-compliant, Darden is now experimenting with limiting its employees' hours instead. By keeping workers to fewer than 30 hours per week, Darden can categorize them as "part-time." Thus, the company avoids the Obamacare fines and leaves employees to the new government health insurance exchanges, where they may receive subsidies to purchase insurance. At least two other restaurant chains -- White Castle and McDonald's -- are considering similar plans.

The perverse incentive built into ObamaCare has employers seriously considering cutting their employees' hours to part-time status so they don't have to provide any health insurance to them.

Cutting the hours and thus the take-home pay of your employees and gutting their health care insurance at the same time. What's not to like about that?

Yet another Obama policy that is not only counter-productive to the health care of this nation's workforce but one that puts a drag on the economy when that is the last thing we need.

.