One thing that lingers in my mind after the news broke last week that dozens of companies were applying for a one year "mini healthcare plan" waiver is the question of who and why.
Sure, I am glad that people will get to keep the insurance (and doctors) they want and businesses wont be forced into laying off tens of thousands of people.
To me, however, there remains an unanswered question as to the criteria what determines whether a company will be eligible for a waiver and is it objective.
I ask this in light of the Obama administration's past stated goal of transparency.
Outside of a handful of the first 29 companies to recieve the "McWaiver," we know very little regarding the ifs, whens and whys. We do not know who or why at least one company failed to recieve a McWaiver. We do not know the litmus test or whether the law is being applied equaly.
This should trouble anyone, less any administration unilaterally decide who might recieve a waiver and who would not based solely on political contributions.
Up to this point, that is not the case.
After searching opensecrets.org for donations by McDonalds and Cigna one can find neither donated soley to Democrat organizations. This is a positive sign.
Still, there are no insurances or safegards to prevent abuse which I am aware of - just the word of the Obama administration.
I would hope that more journalist might investigate the matter and some safegaurds would be put in place to prevent political patronage in such matters.