McDonalds Threatens to Drop Insurance

[Offshore]

Access to health care is a right and the ability to purchase affordable health insurance will be a right after 2014.

That is the stupidest post I've ever read on this forum.

 

[Green Hornet]

Keep hoping and changing, it will be repealed, the people have spoken, and will speak loudly this November, and again in 2012. The socialist ideal to fill every persons "needs" by the government is unsustainable, even Castro has had a recent change of heart about the whole idea-l of a goverment as nanny state.

Mr Rex,

Setting aside your second sentence, please expand on how it will be repealed and what people have spoken and what they have spoken about?


Thanks

 

[Mr Rex]

Coy are we? The general populace was never in favor of Obamacare, and a few states even had referendums that shot it down when the people had a chance to voice their opinion, many more may follow.. For your perusal:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

 

[George Hatch]

I'm kind of surprised that the obvious fact gets left out of this discussion. If/when McDonalds brings itself into compliance with the requirements for more comprehensive health care coverage for its workers those costs will mostly not come out of their profits. None of the various McD franchises will operate at a loss just so they can comply with the law.

What's going to happen at McDonalds is that they'll pass those costs along to their consumers. And it won't just be McDonalds that does that; there will be lots of other companies that will do that as well. I'm thinking many of the consumers are going to notice the difference. In effect, they'll get to pay twice for these increased costs.

There is no free lunch. No politician is going to pay our mortgages for us or put gas in our cars. And we ain't going to be able to extract all these extra costs from the wallets of "the rich".

Expanding the number of payers will not reduce the costs incurred by the users. That's because the number of regular users will increase at the same or higher proportion. We already have shortages in MDs and other health care workers in some areas. Increasing the number of regular users of health care services will add to that burden, not reduce it.

Until we start addressing the various cost-multipliers, which include the effects of government regulation as well as legal costs *at all levels of the health care system* we will all see continued cost increases.

Just as an example, Americans consume something like 50% of the pharmaceuticals used on the entire planet. No matter how you cut it there's no good reason for that.

Defensive medicine is another problem. In the U.S. doctors commonly base their decisions on ordering tests on the idea of "why shouldn't we order it?", whereas the mentality in the Euro systems is "why should we order it?".

Rationing? We already have rationing. Whether we ration a service by cost or by government fiat makes absolutely no difference to the availability. We might as well acknowledge the reality of rationing and stop whining about it.

Government regulation at every level of the system adds to the administrative costs all up and down the line, and that doesn't even include the direct effects of the regulations themselves. One health care advocate told me that as a result of government regulation all prescription drug plans cover ED drugs like ****** whether the individual has use for it or not. Everyone's cost is higher in order to subsidize those who use those drugs.

Malpractice premiums in France and the UK are about 1/10th the cost of the typical coverage costs per MD here in the U.S.. That doesn't include the effects of our tort system on the operations at all the other components in our health care system. How many lawyers and administrative staff do these companies hire or retain in order to oppose the lawyers who work on behalf of the patients? What's the effect on the increased levels of documentation and administration that are directly tied to these company's legal liabilities?

The profit margins at the health insurance companies supposedly run in the 5% - 6% ranges, but the profit margins at the pharma companies starts at about 15% and supposedly runs as high as 30%. Whats up with that?

The time for scapegoating any one group for our current problems with health care has long passed. Blaming McDonalds or Sears for their health care policies and saying it's all the corporations' fault is just plain ignorant. They have their share of the blame, sure; but so do a lot of other players, right down to and especially including the consumers.

It's not "their" fault. It's "our" fault. And until people grow up and acknowledge this fact the various special interest groups will continue to mine the discontent of the masses for their own partisan gain.

 

[Green Hornet]

I'm kind of surprised that the obvious fact gets left out of this discussion. If/when McDonalds brings itself into compliance with the requirements for more comprehensive health care coverage for its workers those costs will mostly not come out of their profits. None of the various McD franchises will operate at a loss just so they can comply with the law.

What's going to happen at McDonalds is that they'll pass those costs along to their consumers. There is an elasticity issue. Typically, 100% of the costs can not be passed on. it won't just be McDonalds that does that; there will be lots of other companies that will do that as well. I'm thinking many of the consumers are going to notice the difference. In effect, they'll get to pay twice for these increased costs. I would love to see the cost of fast food triple. Then the true cost of using the product on our helathcare system might be identified and the use of it might decrease.

There is no free lunch. No politician is going to pay our mortgages for us or put gas in our cars. And we ain't going to be able to extract all these extra costs from the wallets of "the rich".

Expanding the number of payers will not reduce the costs incurred by the users. That's because the number of regular users will increase at the same or higher proportion. We already have shortages in MDs and other health care workers in some areas. Increasing the number of regular users of health care services will add to that burden, not reduce it. It is a shifting of the allocation of healthcare providers. Many of the unisured wait until the issue is acute prior to seeking care. The cost of treatment is then significantly increased. What might have been taken care of with a $10 generic antibiotic is now an ER visit, Iv drips,etc.

Until we start addressing the various cost-multipliers, which include the effects of government regulation as well as legal costs *at all levels of the health care system* we will all see continued cost increases.

Just as an example, Americans consume something like 50% of the pharmaceuticals used on the entire planet. No matter how you cut it there's no good reason for that. In a way, this is similar to appraising, prior to on-line AVMs and BPOs. Now everyone is a valuation expert. I remember the days when drug commercials did not comprise 1/3 of commercials. While it may not be the only reason, the push marketing has created an incredible preassure on MDs. The doc visit conversation used to be. "doc, my throat hurts"...here, suck on these and call me in the morning. Now, its "doc, my stomach hurts, What about that great drug I saw on TV. We have become a nation of a pill or surgery solving the problem. Instead of loosing weight, we want lap band surgery for an instant fix. Instead of a healthier diet, we want a high blood preassure medicine or...

Defensive medicine is another problem. In the U.S. doctors commonly base their decisions on ordering tests on the idea of "why shouldn't we order it?", whereas the mentality in the Euro systems is "why should we order it?".

Rationing? We already have rationing. Whether we ration a service by cost or by government fiat makes absolutely no difference to the availability. We might as well acknowledge the reality of rationing and stop whining about it.

Government regulation at every level of the system adds to the administrative costs all up and down the line, and that doesn't even include the direct effects of the regulations themselves. One health care advocate told me that as a result of government regulation all prescription drug plans cover ED drugs like ****** whether the individual has use for it or not. Did they indicate what the additional cost was of providing ******? Again, it is a magic pill that solves the problem. Try exercising, stop drinking and eat healthy, they, maybe, you won't need ****** Everyone's cost is higher in order to subsidize those who use those drugs.

Malpractice premiums in France and the UK are about 1/10th the cost of the typical coverage costs per MD here in the U.S.. That doesn't include the effects of our tort system on the operations at all the other components in our health care system. How many lawyers and administrative staff do these companies hire or retain in order to oppose the lawyers who work on behalf of the patients? What's the effect on the increased levels of documentation and administration that are directly tied to these company's legal liabilities? A nurse at a children's hospital a few miles away, by accident, gave a baby too much medicine. The baby died. What is the value of that babies life to the parents? I am always amazed that such things don't happen more often. Maybe it is the extra documentation that keeps the numbers and deaths as low as the are.

The profit margins at the health insurance companies supposedly run in the 5% - 6% ranges, but the profit margins at the pharma companies starts at about 15% and supposedly runs as high as 30%. Whats up with that?

The time for scapegoating any one group for our current problems with health care has long passed. Blaming McDonalds or Sears for their health care policies and saying it's all the corporations' fault is just plain ignorant. They have their share of the blame, sure; but so do a lot of other players, right down to and especially including the consumers. George, I did not say that it was all the fault of corporations. I am not sure anyone else did either.

It's not "their" fault. It's "our" fault. Yes, it is our fault. However, as you indicte, there are forces who greatly benefit from dividing us and who put a lot of time, effort an money into making sure that we don't "Grow Up." And until people grow up and acknowledge this fact the various special interest groups will continue to mine the discontent of the masses for their own partisan gain.

For me, it comes down to taking responsibility for those areas that behavior can control...diet, exercise, etc. Health issues arise that are outside of our control. Usually, they are the most expensive ones.

I highly doubt that, we, as citizens, will ever have the concerted power to make the changes that are needed. We will continue down this path, nibbling at the edges of the issues. Corporations have gotten too large and the manipulation of masses has become a proven science. That combined with our own faults will keep things basically as they are.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

For me, it comes down to taking responsibility for those areas that behavior can control...diet, exercise, etc. Health issues arise that are outside of our control. Usually, they are the most expensive ones.

IMHO, this is the crux of the problem...everything gets worse from there.

The system is based on treating symptoms, not effecting cures. Effecting cures is oftentimes very inexpensive; whereas treating symptoms is often extremely expensive. I have firsthand experience with this, as do several people close to me.

There certainly times when radical intervention is necessarily. However, many "chronic" and "incurable" diseases can simply be treated and/or cured by simple diet and/or behavioral changes. The issues regarding health theoretically fixed rapidly and permanently, but realistically it won't because 1) people don't want to, they'd rather take the pill than make changes; and 2) politicians won't give up a powerful tool that can buy votes.

 

[George Hatch]

You're not seeing what I said about McD raising costs. You're fixated on the talking point of the villainy of the fast food corporations. I'm saying that *all kinds* of businesses will be raising their costs to the consumer. They'll also curtail their hiring and any expansion in recognition of the increased overhead. You can already see what happens with hiring and expansion plans when companies aren't sure about their prospects.


As for the "******" example I used, the health care advocate (whose job it is to help consumers reduce their total costs) told me that the government requirements for the one type of drug adds $1/month onto everyone's health insurance coverage costs whether they're male-over-50 or not. I think it's safe to say that multiplying that effect across the board for a whole range of heretofore "discretionary" benefits can add up after a while.

As for the incidence of accidents and malpractice - they happen elsewhere just like they happen here. Right? If so why are the malpractice premiums here 10x more? Simple answer is the difference in the legal systems elsewhere. Monetary damages are different, thressholds for actionable claims are different, even the judicial processes are different.

The prevailing expectation in the U.S. that medical care can be a no-risk proposition is foolish. I guess we can blame that on the doctor soaps on TV. We need to abandon that. Stuff happens. The X-Factor is always present We need to have a serious discussion in our society about balancing the *additional* costs of trying to dodge the X-Factor vs the *additional* benefits resulting from the extra effort. Is our current perspective about the point of diminishing returns reasonable or not?

That's another thing: which bias is more appropriate for a health care system for the masses - quantity or quality? I'd argue that wider coverage, albeit at a more basic level, is the more appropriate solution. The Haves can pay for the Cadillac coverage if they want it that badly. Yeah, I think we absolutely should embrace a two-tiered system.

If someone is a high-risk driver the auto insurance companies are not compelled to offer those people favorable rates on their coverage. However there are assigned risk pools. Maybe we need some version of that in health care. If you're one of the 5% or less of the population who are among the super-users of health care then maybe you should be handled differently than the remaining 95% of the population who consume services at a rate that's less than or equal to their premium payments.

Maybe we should have death panels rationing out care. Maybe the "value" of a 75-year old person whose economic productivity has essentially passed isn't sufficient to warrant heroic efforts in the form of high-risk procedures. Maybe the average potential of a 5-month premie born to a crack addicted mom doesn't warrant a $3mil pull-out-the-stops effort to salvage what will probably end up being a special needs person anyway.

There are actually people who believe the Euros and Japan have nationalized health care because they are more enlightened than us. That's not the reason. Simply put, their health care systems were nationalized during and in the aftermath of WWII and they never went back. Morality and social conscience had almost nothing to do with those decisions.

But if you guys do want to go emulate the Western Euros then don't stop halfway with the single payer setup. Make sure you go all the way and penalize the special interests on the OTHER side of the fence equally.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I just got notice my health care bill next month will increase 20%....after increasing 11% in May. My premium is $907 and will be $1089 in November. They also are anticipating an increase of 20% in May of 2011...which means my total annual bill will be well over $12,000....so do i have a choice? I don't think so.

Obama care is not going to be overturned. And the 1099 provisions which need changed, won't pass either. Too many people have a vested interest in adding provisions to any such bill that would be a poison pill and Obama, who might sign a 1099 reform, will not allow any significant change in the law otherwise.

 

[Green Hornet]

You're not seeing what I said about McD raising costs. You're fixated on the talking point of the villainy of the fast food corporations. I'm saying that *all kinds* of businesses will be raising their costs to the consumer. They'll also curtail their hiring and any expansion in recognition of the increased overhead. You can already see what happens with hiring and expansion plans when companies aren't sure about their prospects.


As for the "******" example I used, the health care advocate (whose job it is to help consumers reduce their total costs) told me that the government requirements for the one type of drug adds $1/month onto everyone's health insurance coverage costs whether they're male-over-50 or not. I think it's safe to say that multiplying that effect across the board for a whole range of heretofore "discretionary" benefits can add up after a while.

As for the incidence of accidents and malpractice - they happen elsewhere just like they happen here. Right? If so why are the malpractice premiums here 10x more? Simple answer is the difference in the legal systems elsewhere. Monetary damages are different, thressholds for actionable claims are different, even the judicial processes are different.

The prevailing expectation in the U.S. that medical care can be a no-risk proposition is foolish. I guess we can blame that on the doctor soaps on TV. We need to abandon that. Stuff happens. The X-Factor is always present We need to have a serious discussion in our society about balancing the *additional* costs of trying to dodge the X-Factor vs the *additional* benefits resulting from the extra effort. Is our current perspective about the point of diminishing returns reasonable or not?

That's another thing: which bias is more appropriate for a health care system for the masses - quantity or quality? I'd argue that wider coverage, albeit at a more basic level, is the more appropriate solution. The Haves can pay for the Cadillac coverage if they want it that badly. Yeah, I think we absolutely should embrace a two-tiered system.

If someone is a high-risk driver the auto insurance companies are not compelled to offer those people favorable rates on their coverage. However there are assigned risk pools. Maybe we need some version of that in health care. If you're one of the 5% or less of the population who are among the super-users of health care then maybe you should be handled differently than the remaining 95% of the population who consume services at a rate that's less than or equal to their premium payments.

Maybe we should have death panels rationing out care. Maybe the "value" of a 75-year old person whose economic productivity has essentially passed isn't sufficient to warrant heroic efforts in the form of high-risk procedures. Maybe the average potential of a 5-month premie born to a crack addicted mom doesn't warrant a $3mil pull-out-the-stops effort to salvage what will probably end up being a special needs person anyway.

There are actually people who believe the Euros and Japan have nationalized health care because they are more enlightened than us. That's not the reason. Simply put, their health care systems were nationalized during and in the aftermath of WWII and they never went back. Morality and social conscience had almost nothing to do with those decisions.

But if you guys do want to go emulate the Western Euros then don't stop halfway with the single payer setup. Make sure you go all the way and penalize the special interests on the OTHER side of the fence equally.

George,

All very good issues and worthy of discussion. I don't disagree with you on most of it. Regarding Europe and Japan and their systems...the neat part is that we do have the chance to develop a system that works, economically and ethically. The process is not always pretty.

Will all due respect, and it is significant, you must feel very strongly about this subject. In all of your prior post that I have read, you always maintain such a high level. I am suprised to see you sinking to the "you guys" and "grow up" level.

I am not sure what OTHER side of the fence special interests you are referring.

For the record, I am not anti corporations. I also do not think that corporations are the be all, end all of the world. In my opinon, there is an inherant conflict between corporations and humanity. Corps are here for a very specific reason...to make money. That is all fine and dandy. Sometimes that intersects with what is best for us as humans, often, it does not.

 

[Green Hornet]

IMHO, this is the crux of the problem...everything gets worse from there.

The system is based on treating symptoms, not effecting cures. Treating cures is oftentimes very inexpensive; whereas treating symptoms is often extremely expensive. I have firsthand experience with this, as do several people close to me.

There certainly times when radical intervention is necessarily. However, many "chronic" and "incurable" diseases can simply be treated and/or cured by simple diet and/or behavioral changes. The issues regarding health theoretically fixed rapidly and permanently, but realistically it won't because 1) people don't want to, they'd rather take the pill than make changes; and 2) politicians won't give up a powerful tool that can buy votes.

I agree 100%. And I would add that the pharms have to much money at stake. Treating symptoms is sooo much more profitable.