President Obama!

[Lue C Fur]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Report: McDonald's May Drop Health Care Plan[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703431604575522413101063070.html[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]McDonald's Corp. has notified federal regulators it's health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers isn't compatible with a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]McDonald's Corp. has notified federal regulators its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers isn't compatible with a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, raising speculation about the fate of those employees' health coverage.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans. The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]While many restaurants don't offer health coverage, McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]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 percent to 85 percent of its premium revenue on medical care, the Wall Street Journal reported.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]But McDonald's issued a statement Wednesday denying that it planned to drop coverage for its employees and defending its benefit plans.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]"We've had the opportunity to speak with regulatory agencies directly to better understand the implications of the law and to share our point of view," Steve Russell, a senior vice president with the company, said in the statement. "Moving forward, we will continue to have an open dialogue with legislators as well as regulators."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings[FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]—[/FONT]totaling more than $1 billion[FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]—[/FONT]over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees. [/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]



[/FONT]

 

[Lue C Fur]

Re: Obamanomics

 

[1989]

Re: Obamanomics

Can't the "rich" just shift their income as capital gains instead of taking a large salary?

 

[1989]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Report: McDonald's May Drop Health Care Plan[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703431604575522413101063070.html[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]McDonald's Corp. has notified federal regulators it's health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers isn't compatible with a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]McDonald's Corp. has notified federal regulators its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers isn't compatible with a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, raising speculation about the fate of those employees' health coverage.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans. The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]While many restaurants don't offer health coverage, McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]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 percent to 85 percent of its premium revenue on medical care, the Wall Street Journal reported.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]But McDonald's issued a statement Wednesday denying that it planned to drop coverage for its employees and defending its benefit plans.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]"We've had the opportunity to speak with regulatory agencies directly to better understand the implications of the law and to share our point of view," Steve Russell, a senior vice president with the company, said in the statement. "Moving forward, we will continue to have an open dialogue with legislators as well as regulators."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings[FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]—[/FONT]totaling more than $1 billion[FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]—[/FONT]over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees. [/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]



[/FONT]

Paying $728 a year for $2000 in benefits seems criminal.

 

[Jones]

McDonald's denies report of dropping health care

 

[Lue C Fur]

McDonald's denies report of dropping health care

Is that like Clinton saying that he did not have sex with Monica?

What else would Mcdonalds say...its true? LOL

 

[1989]

Is that like Clinton saying that he did not have sex with Monica?

What else would Mcdonalds say...its true? LOL

With crappy health plans like those...The better PR move would probably have been "Yes, we are dropping these plans in favor of better plans for our employees"

 

[Jones]

Is that like Clinton saying that he did not have sex with Monica?

What else would Mcdonalds say...its true? LOL

If they really are going to drop the health plan there is no point in lying about it. It wouldn't serve any purpose.

 

[over9five]

What else would Mcdonalds say...? LOL

"The untrue story about us dropping healthcare was an evil plot by The Hamburgler"

 

[Lue C Fur]

If they really are going to drop the health plan there is no point in lying about it. It wouldn't serve any purpose.

They never said they WOULD drop health care....

McDonald's, in a memo to federal officials, said "it would be economically prohibitive for our carrier to continue offering" the mini-med plan unless it got an exemption from the requirement to spend 80% to 85% of premiums on benefits. Officials said McDonald's would probably have to hit the 85% figure, which applies to larger group plans. Its insurer, BCS Insurance Group of Oak Brook Terrace, Ill., declined to comment.

"Having to drop our current mini-med offering would represent a huge disruption to our 29,500 participants," said McDonald's memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. "It would deny our people this current benefit that positively impacts their lives and protects their health—and would leave many without an affordable, comparably designed alternative until 2014."

 

[Jones]

First you said they might drop their health care plan:

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Report: McDonald's May Drop Health Care Plan[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703431604575522413101063070.html[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]


[/FONT]

Then you said they were lying when they said weren't going to drop it:

Is that like Clinton saying that he did not have sex with Monica?

What else would Mcdonalds say...its true? LOL

Now you say they they were never going to drop it in the first place.

They never said they WOULD drop health care....

I don't know where you're going with this.

 

[Lue C Fur]

First you said they might drop their health care plan:
Not me...the WSJ and the golden arches.
Then you said they were lying when they said weren't going to drop it:
Really...where did i say they were lying?
Now you say they they were never going to drop it in the first place.
They never said they would...might though or could. You really need some reading comprehesion classes.
I don't know where you're going with this.
I think your confused...maybe to much Obama Kool-aid?

 

[Jones]

Then you said they were lying when they said weren't going to drop it:
Really...where did i say they were lying?

What exactly did you mean by this then?

Is that like Clinton saying that he did not have sex with Monica?

You posted an article saying that they might drop healthcare, I posted a statement from McDonalds saying that weren't going to that. You then suggested they were just lying about not dropping it (your Clinton/ Lewinsky comment). Now you're backtracking and blaming everything on "Obama Kool-aid."

 

[Lue C Fur]

What exactly did you mean by this then?
You posted an article saying that they might drop healthcare, I posted a statement from McDonalds saying that weren't going to that. You then suggested they were just lying about not dropping it (your Clinton/ Lewinsky comment). Did i hit a nerve with that comment. Now you're backtracking and blaming everything on "Obama Kool-aid."

Sounds like to me your doing the typical Dimocrat dance...again, your reading comprehension skills are lacking. What is so hard for you to understand?

 

[wkmac]

If you read both the WSJ and the MSNBC story, there is truth so to sepak in both claims. In the MSNBC, they stated the following concerning the new law requirements,

Next year, the health care law passed by Congress will require insurers to pay minimum percentages of 80 percent and 85 percent of the premiums they collect toward medical care, figures that may be hard to meet for some of these limited plans.

In the WSJ article, the McD's plans were described thusly,

McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.

Now assuming both articles are correct, based on the current limits of the present McD's plan, they may not comply with new regulatory requirements and thus going forward unless McD's doesn't get a wavier for their current plan, an ending of the current plan it would seem to me to be all but a given. What replaces is another story but something would have to change or give. My sense is McD's and I'm sure others have done also is using a type of pressuring threat of lobbying in the hopes that they could achieve a wavier and thus keep possible costs down in order to drive profits. Otherwise, without a wavier the company could either incur higher costs themselves or shift those costs to the emloyee which could reduce hourly rates and thus possibily effecting the level of their employment staffing. Right now from my POV it's still unclear how all of this is going to effect the bottomlline of either the employer, the employee or both. Thus again another huge problem of the whole thing to begin with.

Also concerning McD's denying the insurance cancellation, my guess on that is that the WSJ story broke, many people like Lue made the conclusion he made, mostly driven by politics rather than anything else and then to keep McD's 30k employees effected from freaking out, they released the denial that insurance would be cancelled. I don't think the insurance will end for now and in the case of McD's employees, it would seem according to the report of the law will get better as in more coverage. However, someone will have to pay for all of this and who that ends up being is still very unclear.

Under the new law as I understand it, our kids living at home, whether in school or not up to age 26 will now continue to be covered on our insurance but who's going to pay for this extended coverage? You could say that UPS and Teamsters in the case of union coverage employees will have to "end" our present insurance in order to comply with the new legal requires and how would we react if something came out that our insurance as a result of new requirements was going to end which in it's current format will?

This whole scheme IMO was a corp./state colusion designed to consolidate the healthcare and drug markets and those on the inside will benefit. Just go look on Wall Street once the deal was signed, sealed, delivered and see whose stock went up and who went down and you'll know who was in on the inside. IMO republicans were playing the "please don't throw me in the briar patch" trick during this whole deal and the democrats sold their soul to the very corp. crony capitalism they so often rail against. Oh, and to the republicans who say they will repeal the healthcare plan once in office I aks this, name me one democrat passed plan in the past that you clowns repealed once you took back over and to the democrats I ask the same question from the opposite perspective!

You're both frauds!

 

[av8torntn]

Under the new law as I understand it, our kids living at home, whether in school or not up to age 26 will now continue to be covered on our insurance

I'm sorry but if you are 26 you are not a kid.

 

[wkmac]

I'm sorry but if you are 26 you are not a kid.

I know but I put that in there just for you so you've have something to chime in on!

Your welcome.

Your kids are your kids no matter how old they are or no matter where they live!

 

[moreluck]

my baby is 37 and 1/2 !!

 

[wkmac]

The Darkside of the US Gov't when it comes to the well being of the regular folk.

And if you are naive to think this is just a single isolated case.

Most americans are comfortable with ignoring the dirty secrets from the dark corridors of power.

And then we think for one minute these same people will do right by us in something as important as healthcare? And in what other areas do we blindly trust them in and accept ever word they say as gospel fact?

 

[Jones]

Sounds like to me your doing the typical Dimocrat dance...again, your reading comprehension skills are lacking. What is so hard for you to understand?

There's nothing hard to understand. You're all wide eyed and desperately spinning your tires in reverse, shrieking "Obama Kool-aid! Obama Kool-aid!" to try and distract everyone from the mess you made in your diaper. Just another day in current events