Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 773422" data-attributes="member: 2189">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,In the WSJ article, the McD's plans were described thusly,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!</blockquote>

Verification