September 30, 2010 03:03 PM UTC by John Stossel
Latest Unintended Consequence of Obamacare: McDonalds May Drop Health Plans for Workers

Today’s Wall Street Journal reports that McDonalds “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.”

Why? Because the central planners of the Obama administration decided in their infinite wisdom that all insurers should spend at least 80-85% of their revenues on patient care, rather than administrative costs. That’s called a “medical loss ratio” in industry speak. But there’s no evidence that spending 80% of revenue on patient care is good for customers. As health economist James C. Robinson explained years ago, “medical loss ratios” are just an accounting tool, and were "never intended to measure quality or efficiency."

McDonalds’ employees tend to be young, and don’t stay with the company long. It’s often their first job and they quickly move on to another one. That means unavoidably high administrative costs to process new workers.

So, it’s not surprising that McDonalds may have to drop their health care plans for workers. From the WSJ:

… McDonald's, in a memo to federal officials, said "it would be economically prohibitive for our carrier to continue offering" [its basic plan] unless it got an exemption

… Insurers say dozens of other employers could find themselves in the same situation as McDonald's. Aetna Inc. ... provides [similar] plans to Home Depot Inc., Disney Worldwide Services, CVS Caremark Corp., Staples Inc. and Blockbuster Inc., among others, according to an Aetna client list obtained by the Journal. Aetna also covers AmeriCorps teaching-program sponsors, who are required by law to make health coverage available.

This is just the latest example of the unintended consequences of Obamacare – or as Reason’s Peter Suderman puts it, the latest entry from the “No One Could Have Predicted! File.” This month, the rule banning insurance companies from turning down children with pre-existing conditions resulted in … insurance companies dropping those policies altogether. And as new mandates for minimum coverage come into effect, insurance companies have … announced big rate hikes to pay for it. (The Administration responded by threatening insurers, declaring they have “zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.”)

Remind me: Why is it a good idea to give the federal government more control of the health insurance market?


Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/09/30/latest-unintended-consequence-of-obamacare-mcdonalds-may-drop-health-plans-for-workers/#ixzz114b0LnDh

If the government doesn't make the changes McDonald's is asking for, they WILL drop this coverage. Period. And they WON'T be alone! Thanks to Obama Care. And I believe it's all a set up by Obama to control all aspects or our lives.

Tuesday: they have time to bother with stupid stuff like that? yet have to go "campaign" and skip the important stuff? Please. NO wait.. let's have more comedians.

Tuesday: Ha! Everything that is important makes them grouchy. Good thing they will hopefully not be so powerful in a couple months. I know I'm certainly going to do MY part to make sure they aren't.

Tuesday: That's very optimistic. It's generally accepted that he is the worst president since Carter.

Tuesday: .. The man named Elijah and at that time "a prophet" died ages ago.. The man named John who was named by his parents was also called "the baptist".

But... if Jesus was the messiah, according to OT prophecy.. Elijah had to be there, and the opening of the talk on John says he was of the spirit Elijah.

.... from a point of when someone is put into a trance in order to look back at past memories, they remember being a person. They are not that person now.

Artful Dodger: As mentioned in this video.. shame the wall street journal didn't check out the story before they printed a false rumour.

rod03801: It ain't stupid for those who have medical conditions that can be affected by that sudden increase in sound. Such as ear related problems.

And yes.. they are using that trick of louder adverts on UK TV. Not many like it.

Warning, possibly offensive material... get over it.

Pick Your Reason

When your friends can't explain why they
voted for Democrats, give them this list.
They can then pick a reason.

10. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on
a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon
of gas at 15% isn't.

9. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better
job of spending the money I earn than I would.

8. I voted Democrat because Freedom of speech is fine as long as
nobody is offended by it.

7. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun,
and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from
murderers and thieves.

6. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if
it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt
away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

5. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of
millions of babies through abortion so long as we keep all death row
inmates alive.

4. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to
free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

3. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be
allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and
give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the
democrats see fit.

2. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite
the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would
never get their agendas past the voters.

1. I voted Democrat because my head is so
firmly planted up my rear that it is unlikely
that I'll ever have another point of view.
<!--~-|**|prettyhtmlstart|**|-~-->

Sarah:

Tuesday: That then implies question to how the Lord appeared and spoke to so many in the OT... when he wasn't even born then....

(V): Too stupid when there are much more important things to deal with. I don't like seeing bright red in commercials. Shall the Senate take that up too? Please, you just want to debate everything.

if he said 120yrs, then a hell of a lot of the people (past) have missed out on so much.

Or is it only those that are churchy that get the 120yrs.?

Artful Dodger: and just how true is that....thank god I live in Australia where the recession sort of by-passed us.

Tuesday: But God did not stop speaking... nor is it that man will live less then 120 years... I thought it was 4 score and ten anyway!!

rod03801: But.. the government does have more than one person looking into things don't they??

Picking on that they are sorting out a piece of legislation that some feel needs to be sorted out is just being pedantic is it not?

Bernice: The basic strategy of Obama isn't one of restoring our economy but of ruining it. Once it's ruined, the government will grow even bigger, taxes will go up even higher, and government will control everything. They are trying to build power to control our lives. Fortunately, most Americans see through it. Obama is a liar and perhaps even an evil man.

Artful Dodger: Does that include how you put your socks on??

Tuesday: And Moses heard who's voice?

As for age.. people are living longer, people have already beaten 120.

Tuesday: At the time John the Baptist wetted Christ?

"You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

... somehow I don't think it was Darth Vader!!

October 02, 2010
No laughing matter, UK's Equality Act to be implemented immediately
Phil Boehmke
This may not be a joke, but somewhere deep in the bowls of hell, Hitler, Mao and Stalin are sharing a good laugh in Satan's Grand Ballroom as they toast Labour's Equality Act (written in an adjoining conference room) with vintage fire water.

The UK Daily Mail reports that.

Ministers yesterday announced that the vast bulk of Labour's controversial Equality Act would be implemented immediately, despite concerns about its impact on business and office life.

The legislation, championed by Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman, introduces a bewildering range of rights which allow staff to sue for almost any perceived offence they receive in the office.

It creates the controversial legal concept of ‘third party harassment,' under which workers will be able to sue over jokes and banter they find offensive-even if the comments are aimed at someone else and they weren't there at the time the comments were made.


This leftist attack on freedom and individuality creates a legal framework whereby anyone can sue their employer for anything which they perceive to be offensive. To make matters worse, there is no safeguard for the accused in the form of a warning system. The ‘victim' is not required to tell the person involved that their comments are offensive and there is no provision for a written warning either, instead this is a one and done measure. What this means is that an employee can overhear a joke which was not directed at them, perceive it to be offensive and then sue without any attempt at corrective action.

This is sure to create a morale strangling, job killing business environment where dissatisfied employees can exact their revenge on their co-workers and their employer for perceived wrongs. Now consider that the ‘Equality Act' will also apply to vendors and customers. How could any business operate under these Hitleresque new laws?

Let's say a customer goes into an automobile dealership to look for a new car, they find a model that is almost exactly what they are looking for except for the color so they tell the sales person they just don't like black, can they get the same car in white. An employee overhears the conversation, takes offense because they perceive this to be a racial slur and the law suit merry go round begins. An extreme example? But is it possible?

Other provisions include.

Under the legislation, employers will be barred from asking about the health of job applicants, leading to fears they could be landed with staff with appalling sickness records.

Workers can cite ‘discrimination by association' if they feel they have lost out because of an employer's prejudice against a relative, such as a gay brother.


Employment tribunals have also been given powers in the workplace, such as requiring managers to undergo diversity or equality training.

Companies will no longer be allowed to maintain policies which prohibit employees from discussing compensation, which the law's proponents claim will end ‘pay discrimination.' This of course will kill productivity as there will be no incentive for any worker to exceed the minimum requirements of their position. For example: If Sarah and Barry each have the same job title and have been working for their company for the same number of years, but Sarah does three times more work with only a fraction of the mistakes, she should be entitled to earn much more than Barry. If Barry has an issue with Sarah's compensation because he perceives it to be unfair, he can sue. Soon everybody will get fair pay and productivity will level off at the lowest acceptable level, everybody loses.

Why would anyone in their right mind invest their hard work and resources to build a business and create jobs with such insane anti-business laws on the books? The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) said that the new laws are just a part of a series of employment law reforms which will lay £ 11.3 billion in additional costs on the already overburdened business community. The BCC added.

Abigail Morris, policy advisor at the British Chambers of Commerce, said the Government's own impact assessment showed it would cost business £ 190 million just to get to grips with the new laws.

She said the full cost could be greater is employers face a fresh wave of trivial discrimination and harassment claims.

She added: ‘Businesses are really concerned about this. Even the Government admits it imposes an absolutely huge cost on business.'


Think it can't happen here? One month from today on November 2nd vote like our entire way of life hangs in the balance, because it really does.

Artful Dodger: It's total political correctness gone mad.

Blimey.. it's as if we in the UK haven't had legislation for decades covering race, sex, religious and other types of discrimination and harassment.

And the current government implementing this legislation if of what political party mainly...

CONSERVATIVE!!!

which just goes to prove.. Conservatism in the USA is a breed apart

(V): No, I wouldn't say so. I tend to take a more "old fashioned" view on what our Federal govt is supposed to do. As the founders intended, it is supposed to be very limited. This is NOT something the federal government should be concerned with. State? MAYBE, but even then. This is something that could be straightened out with the people on our OWN level. NOT by wasting my tax money. If they ONLY dealt with things that they were INTENDED to deal with, they could possibly do a better job at THOSE things. (I doubt it though. Anything the federal government butts into, they mess up and do it non-economically)

rod03801: So the original constitution had rules about TV and radio??

"straightened out with the people on our OWN level."

Through the legal system which takes how many years?

We have OFCOM in the UK.

(V): NO, and that's EXACTLY the point. The constitution had NOTHING about anything as silly as that, because it's not supposed to insert itself into such matters.

Doesn't need to be legal either. People could stop doing business with the offending parties. Money talks.

rod03801: So being as it's not there either way on TV and radio, it's just an opinion that it's not supposed to "insert itself into such matters." .. But then again.. ain't you guys in the USA had rules on things that can be shown on TV, especially regarding sex, foul language and Saturday morning TV?

Which implies that the gov does have some right.

As for money talks. Please.. we are talking about companies that were happy to use subliminal messaging in adverts... is that still legal?

It's not opinion it's fact, and it is covered in the constitution
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is just another example of judges illegally making law

Vikings: I see nothing about TV ads mentioned in your quote. Nothing at all.

Tuesday: to sue the government

(V): it's called free speech!

Vikings: Adverts are free speech?? Explain how please.