[Ehlgamxf]

Weekly Standard:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...flat-out-wrong

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius says a report in the Wall Street Journal that McDonald's may drop its limited benefits health insurance plans for 30,000 workers is "flat out wrong." The Journal reported this morning:

"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. [...]

"Federal officials say there's no guarantee they can grant mini-med carriers a waiver. They say the answer may not come by November, when many employers require employees to sign up for the coming year's benefits."

Sebelius suggested that McDonald's may in fact get a waiver from HHS that would enable the fast-food giant to continue offering limited benefits plans to its employees. But neither Sebelius nor McDonald's officials have ruled out the possibility that the company would drop such insurance coverage, which is what the Journal claimed.

"The McDonald's H.R. director Steve Russell has put out a statement flatly denying the statement that they are considering withdrawing from the insurance market," Sebelius said. But Russell didn't say the company isn't "considering" dropping the "mini-med" plans. Russell merely said in a statement this morning that it's "false" to say "we plan to drop health care coverage for our employees."


"These reports," Russell continued, "are purely speculative and misleading." Further, The New Republic points out that the "health plans" in question are not what most people would consider health insurance, but more of a supplemental benefit.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-coh...ini-med-policy

As the Journal story makes clear, the policies in question are so-called mini-med plans with very limited benefits. In the case of McDonald's, according to the Journal, there are two options: Employees who go with the minimum plan pay $14 a week for a policy that won't cover more than $2,000 in medical bills a year. Employees who opt for the "generous" option pay about $32 a week for a policy that maxes out at $10,000.

To call that "insurance" is to distort the definition, since these policies would do very little to help people with even moderately serious medical conditions.... In the long run, McDonald's employees need policies that protect them in case of serious medical problems. And they need policies they can afford. They'll get those policies thanks to the Affordable Care Act -- but not until 2014, because the administration and Congress couldn't come up with enough money to implement the full scheme sooner.

For now, some fast-food workers can take advantage of the law's early benefits, like the temporary insurance plans for people with pre-existing conditions that the administration and the states have been starting. But for the most part these people will have to wait.

[freddystone]

Americans are just going to have to bite the bullet sooner or later. To cover every citizen, the cost must be spread among all citizens. Maybe that will come in the form of income tax, or a VAT, but it has to come. What we cannot do is allow certain entities to severly underinsure their workers because that will just defeat the entire purpose of health care reform. We are paying, no matter what. Let's find a truly equitable and efficient means of caring for our citizens' health needs.

[gogFloark]

Feeling screwed, America? Feel like ya were sold a bill of goods? You were.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...terstitialskip

McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers

By Drew Armstrong, Bloomberg Business News

Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.

Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.

Without waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014.

"The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got," says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got."

The United Agricultural Benefit Trust, the California-based cooperative that offers coverage to farm workers, was allowed to exempt 17,347 people. San Diego-based Jack in the Box's waiver is for 1,130 workers, while McDonald's asked to excuse 115,000 .

[Varbaiskkic]

Actually reading the story produces this simple fact: The waiver allows these employees to KEEP their coverage. What it exempts the companies from is a provision in the law that would set minimum amounts of coverage and percentage of premium attached to actual care. Those provisions are not aligned with the way these "mini-plans" work, so to allow these employees to keep the coverage they have, the waivers were granted.

Wow, the Utah school system didn't do you any favors in the reading comprehension department, did they?