McDonalds not lovin it: Obama Health-Care.

McDonalds not lovin it: Obama Health-Care.

by SouthernFriedInfidel | Published on October 2nd, 2010, 1:12 pm | News

Liv wrote:
mcdonalds_health_care.jpg
Worse yet, they appear to be strong-arming the administration into reform:

McDonald's Corp. has 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.

Last week, a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care. cite

So as I understand it, McDonalds insurer objects to the requirement that 80% of health insurance premiums be made to provide health care. In other words, they want less than 80% of the premiums to pay for health care, and more than 20% to go elsewhere.

2 questions here.

1) If this insurer wants more money to go to its overhead, won't it be in trouble with the federal government? I thought that this was a nation-wide requirement.

2) If McDonalds can't get proper insurance coverage for its employees from the current company, why is it not shopping for one that WILL be able to comply with the law?

A Person wrote:Have I suggested they have no rights? By all means create a straw man and burn it to the ground. American corporations are so much like Christians in America, so persecuted

They're entitled to make their claim, I am entitled to show it to be exploitative and miserly. Next those pesky employees will want Christmas day off. Health care? Bah Humbug!

Maybe you can tell me, since summy avoided the question by quibbling over a standard performance metric. You've stated you do not want government to pay for healthcare, and now you're saying that employers shouldn't either. If a highly profitable multi billion dollar company can't afford it - who can?

What should the working poor and unemployed do? Die and decrease the surplus population? Give their money to the church and pray themselves better?

Talk about creating a strawman argument.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:1) If this insurer wants more money to go to its overhead, won't it be in trouble with the federal government? I thought that this was a nation-wide requirement.

Yes. McDonalds are fighting this to support their insurer

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:2) If McDonalds can't get proper insurance coverage for its employees from the current company, why is it not shopping for one that WILL be able to comply with the law?

I agree, I would have thought that a company with McDonald's purchasing power could be dictating terms to its insurers - especially given that the insurer will be out of business if they don't become more efficient

A Person wrote: pleading that they cannot afford to provide an efficient health care plan when the reality is, that even after allowing for toilet paper in the staff washrooms and paperclips in the head office, they are rolling in money.

I am more inclined to believe them, than a socialist like you.

McDs has roughly 400,000 employees worldwide according to wiki. How much do you think it would cost to have a health plan for restaurant franchise employees at least the same plan as the corporate employees? Now, when you have the cost, how do you think it would affect the current ratio, which is a type of liquidity ratio, is approx. 1.23? or any other of their financial ratios/standings? In order to maintain liquidity, be attractive to investors, pay debts, pay dividends to investors, etc, etc., McDs must be liquid enough to absorb all kinds of financial storms and their obligations that will come along. You might want to look at the whole balance sheet instead of just cash before you get your panties in a wad. But you exemplify quite well an angry-at-the-world, you-have-more-money-than-I-do-therefore-I-vote-communist-Obama-so-he-can-take-your-profits-away-and-give-them-to-me/others/ mentality. Class envy destroys. What a loser attitude.

thesumofyourfears wrote:McDs has roughly 400,000 employees worldwide according to wiki. How much do you think it would cost to have a health plan for restaurant franchise employees at least the same plan as the corporate employees

I'll give you a bit of time to see if you can spot the glaring flaw in your argument....

A Person wrote:
thesumofyourfears wrote:McDs has roughly 400,000 employees worldwide according to wiki. How much do you think it would cost to have a health plan for restaurant franchise employees at least the same plan as the corporate employees

I'll give you a bit of time to see if you can spot the glaring flaw in your argument....

No you missed the point. Since I don't know the breakdown of how many corporate employees are on the corporate plan
http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/careers/employee_benefits.html

...given the 400k, it is probably a small percentage of this number who are corporate employees.

vs.

franchise/restaurant employees

which have a limited benefits program
http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/our_company/mcd_faq/response_to_wsj_health_care_article.html

...I just used the 400k as a rounded number to illustrate. If you used 350k to represent franchise/restaurant employees, regardless, it would still be very costly to bridge the gap between corporate employees cost of their plan VS the cost of the franchise/restaurant employees limited plan. Or to phrase it another way, what is the cost to allow franchise employees to have access to the same plan as corporate employees plan? Due to franchise laws/regs, etc, they may not be able to.

.

thesumofyourfears wrote:McDs has roughly 400,000 employees worldwide according to wiki.

Fail.

Firstly, according to McDonald's, the number of worldwide employees is around 1,500,000. Wiki is a good aggregator site, but it's always a good idea to check with the primary source since errors can go uncorrected.

2. How many McDonald's are there worldwide?
McDonald's operates over 31,000 restaurants worldwide, employing more than 1.5 million people.

However this is only an issue in the USA, since in the other countries employees get universal health care through their governments. You know, that horrific communism that affects the whole world
(insert scary 'commie' picture)

The number of affected US employees is 30,000. McDonald's can afford to pay for health care for their employees. They do pay for health care for their employees, they have no intention of dropping health care for their employees. They are trying to get the efficiency provision waived so that they can continue to offer an inefficient health care plan where less than 80% of premiums go to the employees health care.

thesumofyourfears wrote:But you exemplify quite well an angry-at-the-world, you-have-more-money-than-I-do-therefore-I-vote-communist-Obama-so-he-can-take-your-profits-away-and-give-them-to-me/others/ mentality. Class envy destroys. What a loser attitude.

Nah, I'm already in the top tax bracket, I have health care and I'm not envious of anyone. I just feel a society is healthier when it looks after all it's citizens, not just the corporate ones. I don't enjoy paying taxes, but it doesn't stop me working harder and I expect my government to provide services to and look after all of its citizens - not just the corporate ones.

A Person wrote:However this is only an issue in the USA

USA only, ok, then why did you use the financial data that includes all revenues, USA and worldwide revenue, hence, your 30% margin argument? ...unless an international accounting rule says otherwise. Not to mention you ignored other expenses and the net op margin of 20%.

The number of affected US employees is 30,000. McDonald's can afford to pay for health care for their employees.

But you seemed to be discussing all employees worldwide earlier in the discussion, at least that is what I assumed because:
A-Fraud said

30% operating margin and $22.8 billion in revenues can't afford to provide health care for its workers - so who's left?

... Now that we have settled on the correct number of employees worldwide, 1.5 mil, it further solidifies my argument that it would be very, very costly to extend the same health plan that corporate has to the franchise employees. It would result in a high risk of a low current ratio closer to 1, which is not good.

What are you prattling on about now?

McDonald's doesn't have to extend health care plans to employees outside the US. Those employees already have health care.This has only ever been an issue for about 30,000 employees in the USA.

A Person wrote:
thesumofyourfears wrote:McDs has roughly 400,000 employees worldwide according to wiki. How much do you think it would cost to have a health plan for restaurant franchise employees at least the same plan as the corporate employees

I'll give you a bit of time to see if you can spot the glaring flaw in your argument....

The point that immediately struck me is that McDonalds IS world-wide doing business, even in socialist countries. Which means that even in such awful hellholes as Great Britain, France and Germany, they can turn a profit.

Additionally, there are already some states (particularly Hawaii) that are operating health care systems similar to the new national law, and McDonalds franchises are operating in those places quite well. So if the corporate behemoth behind these stores finds it unacceptable to follow the law... they have no good reason to do so, and are just supporting insurance company greed. Why they might do that, well I invite you to take your best guess.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:The point that immediately struck me is that McDonalds IS world-wide doing business, even in socialist countries. Which means that even in such awful hellholes as Great Britain, France and Germany, they can turn a profit..

The administration has granted a waiver, allowing sub-standard plans a one year grace period

Insurers still aren't happy and want a permanent waiver on having to cover sick kids, because it's just too darned expensive and it's their own damn fault for being born wrong. Should've been aborted - oh wait that's not covered either.

Which just goes to show why a robust public option was needed.

Wonder why insurance companies that stand idly by and allow sick kids to die don't run afoul of the "right to life" crowd? Are these people only interested in some "right to be born," and after that, life becomes a cost/benefit issue?

It's the 'Mother Theresa' syndrome. Children suffering is good, because only through suffering can sinful children be brought to Jesus and Redemption.

Maye if the kids claimed to be post-natal fetuses?

I paid $25 darn dollars for my flu shot at the grocery store today.... I know that flu vaccine don't cost $25.00... It's just wrong as a broke student I have to pay out of pocket for health care, and then get gang raped for it.

Microsoft is now, not lovin it, either:

"We can confirm that Microsoft has begun to evolve its employee health care benefit," the company said in statement. "There will be no changes for the next two years, but in 2013, employees will contribute to their health care."

While clearly not on the level of McDonalds, clearly it appear capitalistic America is maneuvering to counter Obama-care. Can we please just pass "Medicare for all" now?

Liv wrote:While clearly not on the level of McDonalds, clearly it appear capitalistic America is maneuvering to counter Obama-care. Can we please just pass "Medicare for all" now?

Why this reaction was not anticipated and short circuited, I do not know. It seems that Americans have no sense of learning from past mistakes, or from others' mistakes. Of COURSE, no company will just willingly give up a penny more than necessary to help non-investors. Universal government-run health care is the only solution we should have ever considered, because it is the solution that we will have to end up using ANYWAY.

Ohio McDonald's tell it's employees to vote republican - or else no raises or benefits.

As Think Progress points out - it is illegal to pressure employees to vote for a specific candidate

If the GOP gets it's way and repeals health care reform and lowers the minimum wage those employees might regret listening.

Wow. It`s crap like this that really encourages me to finish college as fast as I can so I can get the Hell out of here!

I know of at least one company that has done well enough over the past decade to "invest in its employees," and has chosen consistently not to. I suspect there are plenty of others like it.

"WSSU e-mail called illegal"

Excerpt:
Some 6,400 staffers and students at Winston-Salem State University received e-mail exhortations Monday to take advantage of early voting and help the Democratic Party, setting off local Republicans.

After a complaint by Nathan Tabor, the chairman of the Forsyth County GOP, university officials acknowledged that the e-mail — sent from the student-affairs division — was improper.

The university cited a state law that prohibits the use of a state employee’s authority or state property to support or oppose a person or an issue in any election.

“We regret it,” said Nancy Young, the director of public relations at WSSU. “We sent out a retraction and said to disregard the earlier e-mail.”

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2010/oct/20/wssu-e-mail-called-illegal-ar-467783/

There is no telling how much illegal activity such as this that goes on at WSSU.

Heh. I love watching those courtroom drama shows where some lawyer says something objectionable, and the judge says "The jury is to disregard the statements xxx just made."

I'd love to see that happen in real life, cause I'd have to stand up and say "You honor IS aware that we all have memories, right?"