McDonald's May Drop Health Plan

[Greenbeard]

... You also know that this type of plan is far from different. Many corporation are using it. Hair spliting defenses are usually the playground of the losing debate side.

You don't say...

 

[Old Rocks]

You want a real Heath Care Plan? Then look at the nations that have successful Health Care Plans. The ones that pay per capita about half of what we do, cover all their citizens, and get far better results. Of course, that involves creating a system that is not a for profit system.

Yes, we should go to a single payer system, such as Canada has.

 

[Old Rocks]

McDonald's May Drop Health Plan

McDonald's Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.

McDonald's Says It May Drop Health Plan - WSJ.com

McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.

They may have to drop coverage because of the law-- this is what is being called an unintended consequence of Obamacare. They offer cheap insurance when many and now the payout will not meet with federal guidelines.

It's not about what Actually Happens, it's about Good Intentions!

And Beleive me, they had the Best of Intentions!...

I'm Certain that Obammy and the DemocRATS weren't Thinking about Trying to Secure Generations of Voters with yet ANOTHER Giveaway at the Expense of other People!



peace...

A good Health Care System is not a givaway. It has to be funded with taxes, same as defense or social security. Other nations are successfully doing it, with far better results than the Health Care System we have in this nation. Far better results for much less money.

 

[Meister]

McDonald's May Drop Health Plan




McDonald's Says It May Drop Health Plan - WSJ.com





They may have to drop coverage because of the law-- this is what is being called an unintended consequence of Obamacare. They offer cheap insurance when many and now the payout will not meet with federal guidelines.

It's not about what Actually Happens, it's about Good Intentions!

And Beleive me, they had the Best of Intentions!...

I'm Certain that Obammy and the DemocRATS weren't Thinking about Trying to Secure Generations of Voters with yet ANOTHER Giveaway at the Expense of other People!



peace...

A good Health Care System is not a givaway. It has to be funded with taxes, same as defense or social security. Other nations are successfully doing it, with far better results than the Health Care System we have in this nation. Far better results for much less money.

 

[saveliberty]

A good Health Care System is not a givaway. It has to be funded with taxes, same as defense or social security. Other nations are successfully doing it, with far better results than the Health Care System we have in this nation. Far better results for much less money.

We have a good health care system. People are arguing the degree and costs.

Government doesn't have to be part of the funding.

Since other countries don't count the folks who die before treatment, results are skewed.

Rationing by government of these services is not a good idea.

 

[Claudette]

Wow.

Guess all that rioting in Europe is just for the hell of it.

Something about raising the retirement age from 60 to 62 because they are going broke.

Now I'm sure their HC programs don't have a thing in the world to do with that doncha know. LOL

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The entire point of the NAIC's current exercise (which isn't done, by the way) is to define what kinds of spending count toward the medical loss ratio. It goes much further than just benefit payouts; it'll include quality improvement efforts, HIT investments, fraud prevention measures, and so on. The draft blanks the NAIC approved six week ago have pages of these things. The medical loss ratio requires them to spend on activities and investment that increase value for premium-payers, not just straight benefit payouts.

Does that change the fact that if a person is perfectly healthy, never goes to a doctor, and never files a claim none of his premiums are going to count toward the medical loss ration? I specifically used a single person as an example to avoid potential arguments about what is, and is not, part of that ratio. I am not talking about the average here, just one account.

I realize this is probably the first time most people have ever watched the administrative rulemaking process in action but this is how it works. Congress sets relatively broad goals (in this case, better use of premium revenue) and leaves it to experts to fill in the details. For this one, that involves regulators in HHS, NAIC staff, and representatives of the business and insurance industries and anyone else affected by the legislation (as always, anyone can provide input on proposals).

But it's disappointing to the see the unfortunate effects of the 24-hour news cycle on people's brains--they're completely fried. Not everything is a crisis, nor is there anything wrong with exemptions or variations on a rule for plans with special characteristics. Regulations are not a patch, they are the law. Actual legislation is always too vague to be of practical use, since legislators don't possess the technical knowledge to to work out in excruciating detail how to make grand policy ideas work. Presumably somebody still teaches high school government classes.

Anyway, the law specifically says:

Definitions- Not later than December 31, 2010, and subject to the certification of the Secretary, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners shall establish uniform definitions of the activities reported under subsection (a) and standardized methodologies for calculating measures of such activities, including definitions of which activities, and in what regard such activities, constitute activities described in subsection (a)(2). Such methodologies shall be designed to take into account the special circumstances of smaller plans, different types of plans, and newer plans.​

What a failure! They said "come up with a definition of medical loss ratio that requires more spending more premium money on worthwhile activities but take into account that not all plans are created equal." That, as you may have gathered, is the part regulators are at right now.

You people need to relax. Stop flipping out over every news story. This reminds me of the uproar on here when it was suggested in the media that the uncapping of benefit limits would destroy mini-med plans. Guess what? It didn't. The regulations treated them as what they are: different than regular insurance plans.

All of which is irrelevant not only to my post, but to the entire discussion, since it is not the administration that is going to decide what the rules are for these types of accounts, it is the states. That was clearly mentioned in the article I linked to in the WSJ.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A good Health Care System is not a givaway. It has to be funded with taxes, same as defense or social security. Other nations are successfully doing it, with far better results than the Health Care System we have in this nation. Far better results for much less money.

First, if the person receiving the benefits does not pay for them, it is a giveaway. that is true if it is paid for by taxes, or through charity, like the way Catholic Hospitals used to be run.

Second, why don't we do a side by side comparison between the health care system in any country you care to name and the one in the US to get a realistic idea of who actually has the best system. Or are you afraid to take the challenge?

 

[uscitizen]

A good Health Care System is not a givaway. It has to be funded with taxes, same as defense or social security. Other nations are successfully doing it, with far better results than the Health Care System we have in this nation. Far better results for much less money.

First, if the person receiving the benefits does not pay for them, it is a giveaway. that is true if it is paid for by taxes, or through charity, like the way Catholic Hospitals used to be run.

Second, why don't we do a side by side comparison between the health care system in any country you care to name and the one in the US to get a realistic idea of who actually has the best system. Or are you afraid to take the challenge?

Ohh we have a very good health care system, too bad it is bankrupting us.

 

[Rozman]

FOXNews.com - Report: McDonald's May Drop Health Care Plan

At what point is it ok to say "we told you so"?

The only people who didn't see this coming were those who didn't read the bill, or those who are too stupid to understand it.

Obama is screwing us over a barrel.

threads merged-del

The one's who didn't see this coming?....like the ones who voted for it....like the President who doesn't have a clue as to what's in it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A good Health Care System is not a givaway. It has to be funded with taxes, same as defense or social security. Other nations are successfully doing it, with far better results than the Health Care System we have in this nation. Far better results for much less money.

First, if the person receiving the benefits does not pay for them, it is a giveaway. that is true if it is paid for by taxes, or through charity, like the way Catholic Hospitals used to be run.

Second, why don't we do a side by side comparison between the health care system in any country you care to name and the one in the US to get a realistic idea of who actually has the best system. Or are you afraid to take the challenge?

Ohh we have a very good health care system, too bad it is bankrupting us.

I thought you said other countries had better systems.

My challenge is still open.

 

[CaféAuLait]

MickeyD's get's their waiver along with many others to include Unions...

White House issues waivers on new health insurance rules

McDonald's among winners in administration's efforts to counter resistance to reforms

NYT: U.S. waivers on health insurance - Health - The New York Times - msnbc.com

 

[saveliberty]

A bad plan forms its first big crack.

 

[Trajan]

Instead of saying hey this is the way its gonna be, they took the usual politically ( cowardly) expedient way out, they made it a non issue, well that is except for the po' peeples who neds da care...

you know, the folks this was supposed to be all about.......


Politically, long term, I see this as another thread unraveling as to Obama care overall. I don't think the rep.s will attempt to repeal OC outright, I think they will let it die the death of a thousand cuts and use each and every cut to highlight the bills, well, ‘poor construction’,
Like next year when these waivers run-out and this becomes an issue again, they will make sure the public knows, this bill needs fixing, again, it blows and they are going to starve it of funds or do whatever they legislatively it within their power to do.

The crux of this particular issue has not even been fought yet, not even close.

The low end market in this context is a highly transient one, admin. costs there fore are high, BUT the gov. mandated admin./profit spending restriction on premiums paid, to a 10-15 percentile, telling them you WILL spend more than 85% of every dollar on care or else, you see they legislated that the costs will go Poof and disappear, isn't that easy? And that's just [part of it....


Or that is they will force the ins.co. to bail on writing these policies at all, which is when uncle sam will get into the game, which of course is really the plan anyway.....

I have feelings from a purely political advantageous standpoint this bill will cast a pall/shadow of the Dem party for a decade, the gift that keeps on giving.

And all because the “O” farmed it out to nancy and harry and did not care to play ball with the other kids.


and this article Title for the NY Times piece up on mslsd......
As much as it pains me to say so, this headline is a great deal more, uhm, indicative of what went on

White House allows big firms to dodge health reforms
McDonald's, insurers get waivers to maintain coverage far below the new law's standards
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39548132/ns/health-the_new_york_times

 

[CountofTuscany]

McDonald's May Drop Health Plan

McDonald's Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.

McDonald's Says It May Drop Health Plan - WSJ.com

McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.

They may have to drop coverage because of the law-- this is what is being called an unintended consequence of Obamacare. They offer cheap insurance when many and now the payout will not meet with federal guidelines.

Amazing. Here is a company who has been doing the right thing all along and now government gets involved and makes it impossible for them to continue.

 

[Trajan]

oh and whats not trumpeted by the msm, is the fact that apparently the United Federation of Teachers got a waiver too, one of the bills biggest spptters, who the hell is left?