Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, the difference is curable, young, and productive members of our country are being denied life saving medical treatment according to ability to pay.
Curable, young, productive people don't typically own large corporations, employing thousands and driving the economy. The worker bees are there to keep things going for the queen. No queen, no hive, the worker bees are out of work. I'd be happier with the way the Russians eliminated their Bourgeoisie class, it was a lot quicker.
Good grief. For about the 10th time...the story as reported in the WSJ is true. The same story reported in NPR.
McDonalds' has contacted HHS to inquire about a waiver..a waiver that would be neccessary for them to feasibly continue providing their limited healthcare. No-where in the WSJ did it say that they WERE dropping their plans..just that they MAY. And that they were looking at all options available to be able to continue providing coverage.
Good grief. For about the 10th time...the story as reported in the WSJ is true. The same story reported in NPR.
McDonalds' has contacted HHS to inquire about a waiver..a waiver that would be neccessary for them to feasibly continue providing their limited healthcare. No-where in the WSJ did it say that they WERE dropping their plans..just that they MAY. And that they were looking at all options available to be able to continue providing coverage.
The thread title is wrong, not the WSJ.
Good grief! For about the 10th time, the WSJ story is misleading, if not outright wrong. From the FOX story that the OP linked:
However, the White House and McDonald’s pushed back against the Journal story.
McDonald's has received a waiver for the lifetime caps. They want another waiver for the requirement that 80% of premiums be spent on benefits. How outrageous, to expect that premiums be spent on benefits, instead of investments.
Good grief! For about the 10th time, the WSJ story is misleading, if not outright wrong. From the FOX story that the OP linked:
However, the White House and McDonald’s pushed back against the Journal story.
McDonald's has received a waiver for the lifetime caps. They want another waiver for the requirement that 80% of premiums be spent on benefits. How outrageous, to expect that premiums be spent on benefits, instead of investments.
Update: Steve Russell, Senior Vice President and Chief People Officer at McDonald's USA released a statement last night that says, in part:
Media reports stating that we plan to drop health care coverage for our employees are completely false...McDonald's is committed to providing competitive pay and benefits, and the strongest employment opportunities possible.
It should be noted that McDonald's lifetime caps start at $2000, the price of one ER visit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
