• (Old) news

    The WSJ has an article out today on the fact that the PPACA is forcing McDonalds to abandon its mini-med plans for workers:

    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.

    The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers’ health plans as the law ripples through the real world.

    Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn’t loosen a requirement for “mini-med” plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans.

    Here’s the requisite “the PPACA is so darn big and complicated and no one read it and and unintedned consequences and SQUIRREL!” line:

    McDonald’s move is the latest indication of possible unintended consequences from the health overhaul.

    Read it if you like.  I enjoyed the story.  I also liked it the first time I read it.  In Politico.  In June:

    Part of the health care overhaul due to kick in this September could strip more than 1 million people of their insurance coverage, violating a key goal of President Barack Obama’s reforms.

    Under the provision, insurance companies will no longer be able to apply broad annual caps on the amount of money they pay out on health policies. Employer groups say the ban could essentially wipe out a niche insurance market that many part-time workers and retail and restaurant employees have come to rely on.

    This market’s limited-benefit plans, also called mini-med plans, are priced low because they can, among other things, restrict the number of covered doctor visits or impose a maximum on insurance payouts in a year. The plans are commonly offered by retail or restaurant companies to low-wage workers who cannot afford more expensive, comprehensive coverage.

    I could focus on the fact that these plans are cheap because they’re crappy. But I already did that, and it would be too much irony for me to reprint a story given what I’m about to say.  So go read that post if you like.  I wrote it when it was first relevant.  In June.

    It takes some guts to report on a story that is old, and pretend as if it’s new.  It also takes guts to act as if this was an “unintended consequence” when it was predicted months ago by the very same players that are being reported on today.  It might almost make one think that the WSJ has an agenda.

    I hope that the rest of the media doesn’t fall for it.  We’ll see.

    Share
    Comments closed