McDonald’s May Cut Health Coverage
More unintended consequences.
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.
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% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.
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.
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.
McDonald’s move is the latest indication of possible unintended consequences from the health overhaul. Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees.
You have to admit it… he DID bring us change, and he never promised that it would be a change for the better.
On one hand, we can assume this is just the result of uninformed Democrat politicians who have no real concept of a free market economy… that these are unintended consequences brought on by ignorance. Perhaps that might be the case for some of the “yes” men in Congress… just voting along party lines.
I don’t believe that this is unintended at all. The folks who created this health care bill, and the resulting health care crisis, knew exactly what Obamacare would do to the private sector businesses during the recession. Their goal is to control your health care choices and the health security of the nation. To accomplish this, the health care system we have needed to fail. Viola… Obamacare. What progressives failed to do in a century, Obamacare accomplished in a single vote.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 30, 2010 at 0813 hrs
The typical left complaint that it’s always the little guys that take in the shorts .. comes true again.
Posted by Brian Dunbar on September 30, 2010 at 0910 hrs
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 30, 2010 at 0924 hrs
We wouldn’t want this or any other corporation to miss its Wall Street earnings forecast and piss off the stakeholders.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 30, 2010 at 1025 hrs
Apparently, Joe is confusing a business with a charity.
I always wonder when people complain that a business is greedy… do those people give their excess income to the poor, or needy? Clearly, if it’s the responsibility of business to forgo profit in favor of benefits and wages, then it must also be the responsibility of the individual to forgo personal luxuries in favor of the poor and needy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 30, 2010 at 1053 hrs
A few paragraphs into the article I was asking “Why doesn’t McDonalds get another insurer? I bet other insurers would want that contract.”
From the article:
“A spokeswoman for McDonald’s said it would look for other insurance options if it couldn’t get the waiver.”So in other words, McDonald’s is going to bat for its insurer that wants the waiver rather than having to re-bid its insurance carrier. I suppose one could say that McDonald’s is afraid that if its current carrier doesn’t want to cover these employees no one else will either. That could be, but it looks more like McDonald’s and the insurer using a scare tactic to get a waiver, with other insurers sure to insist on waivers also, and then VOILA! the reform is nullified because all the big players have waivers from the law as if nothing happened.
I know that the objective of businesses is to make as much money as possible, but if you’re in the insurance business, it’s also your job to provide coverage. If you don’t satisfy the client, the client might walk. So adapt or die. Don’t whine to the government that you might lose business if you don’t get special treatment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 30, 2010 at 1158 hrs
Don’t whine to the government that you might lose business if you don’t get special treatment.
Can they whine if the government enacts laws that drives the cost of doing business up?
Posted by Brian Dunbar on September 30, 2010 at 1317 hrs
if you’re in the insurance business, it’s also your job to provide coverage.
What if the government specifies exactly the type of coverage that you MUST provide, mandates that you provide it, and then forces you to accept less money for the coverage that the coverage costs? Can you whine then? I guess that would be the “die” part of your “adapt or die” strategy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 30, 2010 at 1336 hrs
Son of L, where does it say anything about accepting less money than the coverage costs? Nowhere I read.
In fact, the article makes it impossible to run a real analysis of whether this drives up the cost to do business. The article does say that of the 29,500 employees covered, 85% (25,075) make medical claims of less than $5k per year. That’s still a lot of money to cover those employees, but since we’re not given the total cost of premiums, we have no way of knowing what fraction of that total is being paid out by the insurer. This could be one big red herring on their part.
It also begs the question of how ARE the premiums being spent if insurers are balking at paying more towards actual treatments. Isn’t that why we and our employers pay premiums in the first place?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 30, 2010 at 1437 hrs
I am not a fan of obama care but read the article. $14 a week for $2000 of annual coverage. Thats not much of a insurance plan. I would prefer to have somthing that would cover a major medical expense and not the routine stuff. But I guess when obama care kicks in that woun’t be an option.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 30, 2010 at 1546 hrs
A) the plan “kicked in ” in the last week
b) the sky hasn"t fallen-but if it’s grey and not Blue-it’s barrack"s fault
C) A universal socialist, canadian, “You will die a painful death waiting for a doctor ” health care system would make all this hand wringing moot
4) if you don’t think your health care isn’t “Rationed” now, think again.
Government bureaucrats ,Blue Cross Blue Shield bureaucrats- whats the diff when they tell you you can’t have a procedure or that they they will pay 20%The McDonalds program is better than nothing- but only slightly better than nothing
NOTE- please read Tom Friedman’s article about the Tea Kettle party in the Journal today. Everything he says in there is true- and that is a party I could get behind
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 30, 2010 at 1753 hrs
Government bureaucrats ,Blue Cross Blue Shield bureaucrats- whats the diff when they tell you you can’t have a procedure or that they they will pay 20%
I, or my surviving family, can sue Blue Cross if they wrongly deny coverage or treatment and get compensation. You can’t do that to a government bureaucrat because of sovereign immunity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 30, 2010 at 2241 hrs
You also cannot go to a differant plan in the event that you do not like the options your current plan offers. We did that a couple years ago. My wife’s plan was good but we are getting older and needed coverage for the aging crowd. Catastrophic coverage of a sort came in great this year when I was diagnosed with a brain tumor. It was covered under my wife’s plan but it would have been more expensive than the plan I had so it is a good thing that we switched. Govt. plan does not offer that. If they are the only game in town and you don’t like it then what?
Posted by fishaddict on October 01, 2010 at 0823 hrs
According to the below linked article, McDs was going to change insurance companies and not stopping coverage.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2010 at 0926 hrs
@liberalsavetheworld - that’s a good news, to think that they are the number cause of obesity in our country.
Posted by health supplements on October 19, 2010 at 0145 hrs
This is the welcome thing from mcdonald.Hope other companies will arrange their employee in soon.
Posted by Medical billing john on October 27, 2010 at 0548 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 45
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2013 06:11 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).