Insurance is mostly unregulated. (Care to name the federal agency that regulates insurance?) States have weak regulation. The feds are now requiring health insurance companies pay 80% or premiums in benefits. McDonald’s does not like this. They prefer ripping off the workers.
It was standard to do this. The new regulations prohibit it. The Big Company is asking for permission to continue to rip off people. It is not clear why this ought to be allowed.
Paul, I think you are way over the top in emotions here. If the money is paid to the Insurance Co., how is McD making any money? 'Splain that please. 
It would seem (from other, smarter, posters) McDonald’s is self-insuring with Aetna administering. So the money goes into and comes out of McDonald’s pot o’ money.
When it comes to insurance, being “sufficient for 85% of the people” seems sort of retardedly low. I mean, it means 85% of the people probably don’t really use it, and the 15% that do are getting fucked hard.
I mean - if I sold fire insurance where you paid me $100 a month and if your house burned down I gave you $5, I’m sure my insurance would be sufficient for 97% of the people who didn’t have their house burn down that year. But those 3% who aren’t satisfied have just a bit of a gripe.
Paying $700 into a $2000 policy strikes me as… bizarre.
It may be different at McDonalds, but our mini-med (all of our self-insured plans, in fact) are designed to be as cost-neutral as possible. In other words we try to collect premiums that will pay for claims and administration. If there is a little bit left at the end of the year it is held to help cover the next year’s (possible) shortfall, but if the surplus continues we find a way to give it back to the employees.
Are you self-insuring? McDonald’s is not; its plan is written by BCS of Illinois.
In post #83 Paul indicated that they were self-insured. If not, then the Aetna is the one making a profit – which after all is what they are in business to do.
ETA: wait, what, BCS? I don’t think I’ve been reading the thread closely enough, I thought this was a self-insured plan with Aetna as TPA.
American Healthcare is a Riddle wrapped in a Mystery inside an Enigma…
sighs I’m reminded of an excellent American economic theory book published around 1939 — which I cannot remember neither title nor author right now — which pointed out that the kind of people who object to government taking money from people as taxes could not get their heads around the fact that the money taken from people by corporations was no less ‘taxes’…
I rather think he did; at least to those of us who are suspicious of offers of 46% returns…
Ach ! Idealism is so damn revolting… and self-serving in the end. Individuals have different strengths and weaknesses: to presume they are interchangeable with equal potentialities and capabilities — caveat emptor says the Flim-Flam Man to the mentally challenged — denies their humanity and drains life into the grey melting-pot of the dreary blank-slaters…
:smack:
It’s not Aetna. McDonald’s and Aetna have no relationship at all. In fact, I named the correct insurer in the post you were responding to.
No, you’re not. :D:D
Sorry RNATB – I did miss those corrections.
Keep fucking that strawman.
Update: McDonalds’s has said that the WSJ report is false:
I’m surprised to see this post from you.
Some guys pay women several hundred bucks per hour to kick them in the balls. Are these guys getting ripped off just because you wouldn’t pay for that particular service?
Just comparing $700 and $2000 doesn’t show the whole picture for the reasons I stated in an earlier post.
McDonald’s could provide better insurance for the same money. (As cited in Sullivan’s blog and reposted here.) Instead they are asking for permission to keep their present policy which is well below norms.
(I do find it remarkable that McDonald’s is denouncing the article. I tell you, the WSJ has always been a right-wing paper, but they did not use to make things up. I wonder what is going on in their newsroom since the paper was bought.)
So? Just about anyone that sells a product or service could provide a better product or service for the same money.
The problem here is that you decide whether a person is in a class called “poor people,” and if they are, then you second-guess every one of their decisions. If they make a decision that you wouldn’t have made, then you think they are being taken advantage of. But that’s not the case. People have different priorities and decision matrices. Just because you wouldn’t have bought this insurance doesn’t mean people that do are getting ripped off. They are humans too–they made their decision.
Given your reasoning, what do you think McDonald’s puts in your hamburgers? If not for rules forcing them to do the right thing, they do bad things. So we have a rule about what goes in Special Sauce, and soon we will have a rule about what they can put in their insurance.
But McDonald’s takes exception to that and wishes to rip people off. Ought we to give them a waiver on food safety rules too?
Thank you Democrats?
McDonald’s doesn’t put anything in my hamburgers.
I can tell you aren’t prepared to actually think about this issue. You think that anyone that buys something you wouldn’t have bought got ripped off. So, I’ll leave you in peace. It appears your ignorance on this issue can’t be fought.
Awesome.