WSJ story accurate on McDonald's health plan
Everybody is trying to knock down Janet Ademy's story in the Wall Street Journal on McDonald's health plan. The fast-food chain told HHS that it might have to drop its "mini-med" plan for thousands of workers because of requirements in the new health-care law.
McDonald's and the Obama administration took issue with the accuracy of a published report on the dispute Thursday, saying the restaurant chain has no plans to drop health coverage for employees. But McDonald's said it may have to replace its plan with another form of insurance.
But there's nothing wrong with the WSJ story. It quotes a letter McDonald's sent to HHS saying it might scrap the plan.
"Having to drop our current mini-med offering would represent a huge disruption to our 29,500 participants," said McDonald's memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. "It would deny our people this current benefit that positively impacts their lives and protects their health—and would leave many without an affordable, comparably designed alternative until 2014."
McDonald's won't have to drop the plan. It'll get an exemption. But the story shows what happens with such complex legislation and the jerry-rigged health system we have built for ourselves. Dare I say -- Universal health care would have been a lot simpler (and cheaper) with a single-payer system instead of the crazy quilt of employer sponsors and private-insurance carriers that we have.







Comments
Can anyone explain why McDonald's will get an exemption? How does our political system work? The squeaky wheel gets the grease?
I thought that part of the point of the health care bill was to ensure that people got real coverage. While McDonald's mini-med program is better than nothing, it certainly doesn't come anywhere close to what the bill calls for.
Posted by: Andy O. | October 1, 2010 9:47 AM
As time goes on, every big employer that complains and faces problems will get an exemption. What happens when all the big employers (government included) get exemptions? Oh, more debt piles up. We already can't pay for this ridiculous health care bill and each exemption only adds to the cost. This is why I hate politicians - they can't make something easy, they have to make it so complicated that they don't even understand how it negatively impacts businesses which in turn negatively impacts common citizens. Either do a single-payer system or don't but don't make it so complex that no one understands how it will work and how we will pay for it.
Posted by: Ben | October 1, 2010 10:04 AM
We have not yet even started to see the unintended consequences of this terribly written and conceived plan.
Cost WILL rise at the same level as they were prior to it and services will be rationed.
Posted by: Skeptical of ObamaCare | October 1, 2010 11:38 AM
Is that really much of a loss? It essentially gives you a discount on the first $2000 of health care expenses. One trip to the emergency room in an ambulance can easily exceed that.
Posted by: Eric | October 1, 2010 11:59 AM
Jay,
Do we get to choose who runs our single payer system? If so let's choose the French. I hear the British NHS sucks and the Canadians still haven't figured out how to remove a prostate in less than 4 months.
Posted by: Dan | October 1, 2010 1:18 PM
Jay, You may want to start using your spell check. The term is actually jury-rigged, not jerry-rigged. Unless of course you are a Seinfeld fan.
Posted by: Jeff | October 1, 2010 2:52 PM
Given that McDonald's is not trying to offer anything close to a comprehensive plan to its employees, as can be seen based on the minimal amount that it costs an employee, the issue is that the health reform bill poses the same requirements on all health plans regardless of their scope. The sort of health buffer that McDonald's provides is not really a health plan in any sense so an exemption is not out of line.
Posted by: Wellescent Health Blog | October 1, 2010 3:55 PM
Nothing really to add or to say that hasn't been said before.
But it's hard to not at least pop up on the topic.
Posted by: MrRational | October 1, 2010 4:11 PM
McDonalds will get an excemption because what it offers is not health insurance ... insurance is pooling of risk to mitigate the financial consequences of disaster.
What they are offering is a pre-paid plan (like dental insurance), which is really a rip-off for a low wage individual who really doesn't need insurance to see a doc or pay for a prescription, what they really need is catastrophic insurance for a real medical issue.
I actually take more exception to the company that has done so much to drive obesity in this country even trying to sell this stuff as health insurance.
Posted by: Lisa | October 1, 2010 7:18 PM
McDonald's says the report is "completely false." Does that matter, or is it not worth mentioning in your article?
Posted by: ignatzz | October 1, 2010 8:42 PM
why does mcdonalds get an exemption??? not really fair...
Posted by: Self Health Insurance | October 3, 2010 7:55 PM
Since 50% of the country wants no plan and 50% want single payer, it seems pretty simple. Two plans. Certainly the groups are large enough and we have enough companies to support it.
The only problem is that the Congress doesn't really want either because they already have the health plan that they need. So let' take it away from them and see how fast we get a solution that works.
Posted by: Gordon | October 4, 2010 4:14 PM
Jeff, you might want to do a Google search before you criticize someone else.
The origin of the term "jerry-rigged" and "jury-rigged" are unknown, and both terms are interchangeable.
Posted by: Anthony | October 8, 2010 9:44 AM