And now we are back to your hatred of the military.

Danny, you are as much of a broken record as Harp, and only slightly less annoying.

How is it that you can see fraud and waste and graft in everything, yet you always manage to go back to the military for your cost-savings? and this even after we have shown you numerous ways to cut the federal budget.

Again, a broken record.

Spare me your pathetic lectures, Danny. We are talking about proficts and you jump right into the military, just like when we were discussiion the Federal budget deficit and you jump IMMEDIATELY to cutting the military. This is a thread about McDonalds and insurance. Check your hatred at the door.

It isn't an either/or situation. I think businesses shoudl be able to charge whatever they want to change for their services. And if you don;t like those prices, then take your business elsewhere!

You start with “They're Greedy” and then craft your proof around your pre-defined conclusion.

Typical Liberal idiocy, Danny.

You see no difference in profit and greed, Danny. Sab was right, everything you know about business you learned from the movies.

You are wrong about profit and greed, Danny. Stop projecting your idiocy.

I'll repeat, “cost plus” includes imputed overhead costs in the cost accounting structure. It is entirely different from a margin on cost of goods sold.

Danny,

You do realize that “cost plus” includes an imputation of overhead costs, right? You do understand that it is entirely different from a 10-15% margin, don't you?

LOL.

Insurance and manufacturing are two different things entirely.

You know that right?

You can make money without gouging customers. Our current insurance system promotes gouging. This is one step to prevent that.

Family that actually owned a company doing medical billing, dealing with insurance companies on a daily basis. How about your expertise?

“Worked”. Does that imply sales, investigation, claims processing, or management?

You first. you never sent Hawkins anything about your stunning success record as a small business owner.

JohnHawkins@RIghtwingnews.Com

Yes Danny the button at the top right under the banner that says email.

Medical billers, man. You know, those people that actually answer the online ads saying, “You, too, can work from the privacy of your own home!” Not all of them deal with insurance companies, either, a lot of them deal exclusively with medicade/medicare. You know, that shark that cruises around with parasitic fish hanging from its underbelly? It's a safe bet that this family of medical billers aren't exactly the shark in this situation.

flagged for strawman.

Well yeah, actually.

Companies want to make money. To do so they need employees. To get employees they must pay them.

Therefore if you create the right conditions companies will use excess capital to invest in expanding and hiring more employees.

Net results: CEOs get more money, more people are employeed, tax revenues go up, the economy expands, etc.

Trick is to create the right conditions. And chaos surrounding labor costs (tinkering with health insurance and ambiguity as towards tax policy) is not the right condition for economic growth.

“Guess they should be cutting those expenses, overhead, and administrative costs. Sounds like a lot of waste to me, probably good amounts of overlap, and maybe some fraud.”

And with your stunning small business expertise, you can dictate what an acceptable profit margin is for a billion dollar insurance company.

Sure thing, moby. How about some proof that this insurer excessively denies claims for a profit. You've been claiming that with no proof. And any articles you cite will be looked thru to see how much of your canned speeches are cut and paste jobs with no citation. You have already been proven that you will plagarize at the drop of a hat.

Nixon has been a cancer patient for the last year. Nixon has had no issues with his health insurance.

Next question moby.

ANYONE can get the health insurance I have, Danny. All they have to do is to do what I am doing…

PAY FOR IT!

Every month usually at least 2-3 times, and their still easier to deal with than govt.

The first paragraph was sarcasm, based upon the comments of this board related to government spending, which is held as more wasteful than this company, and should be cutting spending to meet the demands of the citizens. However, when the citizens demand that same level of efficiency of a company, the company would just rather not comply.

If they weren't so interested in denying and delaying claims, they wouldn't have as much overhead.

You're not that dumb, are you? Trust me, marginal claims far outweigh the cost of all adjustment.

So you want the insurance company to subsidize McDonals health plan, by taking money from its overhead, paying it's own employees, taxes, and operating expenses?

Really Danny, think before typing.

So the insurance companies should subsidize a private companines healthcare plan.

Perhaps the insurance company should fire some workers and reduce their unprofitable plans.

Again Danny, that 15% is not a net profit figure. Of course as you lied about being a business owner, Nixon suspected you knew nothing of how to run a business.

Well, let's see… The government forces me to give it money. Businesses do not force me. Oh, sure, they try to convince me to give them more money for their product, but at no point does a gun enter the picture. Try not giving the government what they consider their money and see how long it takes before someone with a gun shows up at your doorstep.

As for government provided “services” (read larger administrative overhead for horribly provided service), the government doesn't HAVE to provide these “services.” Not only that, we don't want the government trying to. But no, the politicians make big promises on services they can never hope to provide so dumbasses like you can be convinced that you don't have to worry about anything in life and vote for them. It's a vicious cycle of irresponsibility on your part and impossible promises on the government's part. You're a child who refuses to grow up demanding that the government replace your parents for the rest of your life. You're pathetic.

Show me where I called for banning. Jesus, you can't even keep separate in your head who you're talking to! Whether or not you contribute more or less to society has little bearing on the fact that you support a government takeover of what should be our personal responsibility over our personal lives, as well as the government implementation of a jumbled set of laws that pretty much forces large companies to abandon medical plans. That strikes me as someone who doesn't want to be in charge of his own life, but rather punt that responsibility on to government officials. Hence, replacing your parents as your caregiver. It's easy enough logic that leads to that conclusion, but somehow it escapes you. You simply write it off as me being immature. That is called “irony.”

It is a shiner. It is a mugshot. It is not me. You would have to either mentally handicapped or deliberately obtuse to think that someone would use their own mugshot.

If govt got out of the business of healthcare/insurance we wouldn't be in this mess dumbass.

No we'd be where about 60 years ago, costs reasonable, little issue with available services, and still great access to care. Look back at what care was like before Medicare, before Ted Kenneddy's HMO intervention, before employer mandated insurance, before HIPPA.

Strawman again.

If he owns a business, how in the hell does he manage to post here at all hours of the day and night?

Guess instead of trying to prevent the legislation they should have informed lawmakers of their overhead requirements, and set up a “fair” rate structure. Because we're all about people paying their fair share. And cutting expenses to make sure we conform to the revenue allocated by that “fair” share.

But you can judge progressive tax structures as unfair, and you're qualified to judge it as unfair to 300 million private citizens?

Yeah, maybe I should have added a /sarcasm tag to make it more apparent so you didn't take the bait so easily.

Yes I can because not all taxpayers are treated equally, you know one of those rights we have: Equal protection under the law?

They should re-evaluate their overhead and expenses such that they can provide premiums with only 15% fee. With less revenue, they still need to provide the same level of service, so they better cut elsewhere.

Nah. They should drop the line of coverage and redeploy their capital elsewhere. That's what any intelligent shareholder would demand they do.

There was no need for new premium spend requirements. So your trying to fix a non problem and makeing a real one in the process.

Healthcare coverage is a necessity? Really?

I guess the next step is to call it a RIGHT and demand that it be provided for you free of charge. Oh, wait… some on your side are already making that argument!

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does NOT translate into a right to have healthcare coverage. There is not such thing as a right that someome else is obligated to provide to you. You want healthcare coverage, then get a job and pay for it!

Republican policies? Who's in charge NOW Danny? Who has been in charge of Congress for the last 3+ years? If you can't even offer that the Dems are as responsible for this mess, then you are too stupid to even be commenting here.

PATHETIC, Danny.

You blame Republicans for the current economic woes, and McDonald's for their response to HelathCare, yet you can't even muster a token word against your beloved Democrats, who are in charge and are causing this mess

I'm done with you, troll. Time to start flagging your stupidity!

I blame the insurer, since they choose profits over providing a service.

Their service IS their profit, Danny. I thought you were a business owner. What else have you lied about?

You missed a very important component of this argument, Danny, and I think you did it on purpose.

This insurance company had a relationship with McDonalds for some time, providing a service. It was a win-win for the company and McDonalds. Now, an outside entity, the government, has stepped in and changed the rules of the game, which has caused this relationship to sour. Not McDonalds fault, or the fault of the insurance company, but the fault of an interfering government.

But you don't care about any o that, so long as you can say GREED and laugh about it!

Shame Reagan had a Democratic Congress, the Cold War, The Jimmah Carter failed Experiment (21% prime rate, malaise). Bush inherited the recession that started under Clinton , a 1.5 trillion dollar hit from 9-11, and did spend excessively even with the tax reveues being record as a result of his tax cuts.

Since January 2007 the left has controlled the budget.

Nope, thats what happens when you don't have fiscal conservatives in Office to stand up to the excessive spending. That situation will be rectified in about 32 days or so.

Republican does not automatically equal a conservative Vega.

Well, all people with common sense realize that for the past few years we have not had a conservtive GOP in the House and Senate. It stands to reason that electing more conservative GOP members will result in the GOP going more fiscally conservative.

What part of COTUS is that in? And since when is health insurance required to guarantee you right to life? The right to life, is the right to NOT have your life taken by another without due process of the law, nothing more nothing less.

They're dropping it because the COST of wvaluating if the plan can be managed with less fee rolled in is greater than the possible profit, Dan.

Companies don't really care how “hard” something is, if it's profitable. You're posting doublespeak.

You also have to cite other people's material when you use it, as you were busted stealing others words and using them as your own.

I'm glad you're here not to tell us what's going on in corporate boardrooms and meeting rooms across the country. I'm sure you didn't garner any knowledge at all before coming to this discussion, other than watching “Wall Street 2″ and “The Office”.

Why'd you post again other than to troll?

You're going to be sending warnings to the government that someone is going to stop insuring you? Because that is what McDonald's did.

Or do you mean, you're looking at eliminating health care plans because Obamacare requires you to provide the same coverage to all employees, not just higher ups?

“3 years of profit better than no years of profit.”

Not necessarily. There are plenty of instances in my business where I'll pass up on a potentially profitable opportunity because the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. Let's take a look here:

Per the article, there are 30,000 people insured under this plan, who are paying premiums of either $14 or $32 per week. Let's average those together and call it $23 per week (which is probably on the high side because most low wage workers are going to opt for the $14 per week premium)

At $23 per week, the insurer's profit potential maxes out around $3.22 based on the 85/15 rule for largers plans. So the MOST you cold hope to make insuring 30,000 people is $96,600 per week, $386,400 per month, $4.6 Million per year.

So the company has (at most) the potential of around $4.6 Million per year in profit to justify keeping this plan. That sounds like a lot, but an insurance company can easily drop $5 million in expenses on just 10 or 20 traditionally insured people in any given year. Plus we have no idea how much manpower is needd to administer the 30,000 people under this plan, or how much cash is being generated by it now (if the current profit margin is 22%, for instance, we're talking about $7.2 million in revenue, or a difference of $2.6 million after the regulation) . We do know, per the article, that it requires more manpower to administer this plan than their traditional plans because of the high rate of turnover at McDonalds. So if it is possible for the company to redeploy existing manpower across their traditional insurance lines and increase THAT end of the business (where each customer offers a much higher profit potential in real dollars and lower administrative costs), then this would be a no brainer… you drop the mini-meds. And even if the difference is close to break-even, you have to consider the fact that these plans are dead in 4 years, and all-else-being-equal would you be better off focusing resources on longer term payoffs?

“They're dropping it because dropping it is easier than evaluating if the plan can be managed with less fee rolled in.”

Wow, what a stunning display of ignorance about insurance companies. You really think they wouldn't invest the 2 or 3 days of data-gathering and calculation involved to make an informed decision about the cost-benefits of this plan?

“Finding a way to make money with less revenue is the hard path that is always the last path taken.”

Well, let's just say there can be a fine line between the 'hard' path and the 'stupid' path. Expending resources on a diminishing revenue stream that will soon be illegal is stupid if those same resources can be allocated to more profitable ends that enjoy a longer shelf life. If politicians expected the insurance companies to ignore this, then the problems that arise from this naivite is the fault of the politicians.

“The idea behind this legislation was that insurance companies would accept lower profit to maintain insurance.”

And I'm sure many will when it makes sense, but holy shit what a ridiculously naive expectation to BASE A LAW ON.

“The idea that coverage would be dropped may or may not have been thought of by people backing the law. ”

In which case we should all agree the stupidity of the legislators undoubtedly does more harm to the country than the greed of the insurance companies. This is a great argument for the futility of 'comprehensive reform bill' of any stripe. Most segments of the economy and even the broader culture are much too complicated for non-specialized politicians to comprehend enough to even make informed decisions about, much less regulate.

“Best we can hope for is companies to stop valuing profit above all else…“

And there you have it folks. Hatred of Capitalism from a “business owner”.

I think we are done with you, Danny.

The idea behind this legislation was that insurance companies would accept lower profit to maintain insurance.

No offense, but do you realize just how phenomenally silly that notion is? Businesses devote their capital to it's most profitable risk-adjusted use. That's just basic economics. Making a particular use of capital (insurance) both less profitable and riskier will necessarily reduce the amount of capital devoted to that use. Again, that is just basic economics.

Troll or not, you're certainly helping us all understand just how phenomenally stupid the supporters of Obamacare were.

Crafting 1000+ page bills and politicians not reading them is one of the biggest threats to our country. Too much back scratching in politics rather than actual understanding of the impacts of laws they pass.

I've never argued that health insurance doesn't provide a valuable role. I've argued that it may not be the best path forward for our country, especially in its current implementation. It needs reform now. We need everyone insured, so the cost of uninsured's isn't rolled into everyone's cost and ERs aren't turned into a GP waiting room. Is single payer better than nationalized or large pool? No one really knows. But the current state specific limited option insurance setup is worse than all of those.

I said they're greedy. It's a function of capitalism, they're there to make profits. It would be nice if a company chose 0.5% profit over eliminating coverage and 1.5% profit in other divisions. However, that doesn't happen, and that's why laws like this even get suggested in the first place, to try and make our country better. We've been over this before that this implementation wasn't great, but maybe the insurance companies will take notice now and work with lawmakers to get a good implementation.

The coverage hasn't even been dropped yet, but it's already decidedly negative? For all you know, next week another insurer could come in saying they're providing the insurance for all of McDonald's for $3 cheaper. Is it still decidedly negative at that point? Especially given the number of people that now have insurance that previously didn't?

That's like the economists in 2005 that DID predict that economy would keep rolling. At the end of the day, we will then evaluate its impact.

Companies are in business to provide a service and hopefully make money, 6% profit is NOT greed, Danny it's a bare minimum. Just enough to be worth investing as a shareholder, just enough to be reinvest those profits in company infrastructure or hire more staff.

Seriously you want to dictate how much a company gets to make, are Castro? What business is it of yours? They deny fewer claims than govt, they provide excellent coverage for the dollar, and the do the job you pay them to do. Forcing them to accept your vision of acceptable profit is dictatorial. There is less morality in that than letting them make a 6% profit.

You're a socialist Danny. That's not a good thing, you're only marginally better than Stalin and Mao.

You voted for Obama. That's what you got.

So you have just proven you did not actually read the story, because it says

“Steven Larsen, the HHS official who received McDonald's email memo, said the department doesn't want employers to drop coverage over the law. The agency says it has already given the carrier for McDonald's and others the chance to seek exemption from new annual limits on benefit payouts.”

So they have a possibility of receiving an exemption, yet

“The government is waiting for the association of state insurance commissioners to draft recommendations. The head of the association's health-insurance committee, Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, said she doesn't think these types of mini-med plans deserve an exemption.”

So one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.

And, what part of “could” is clearly not understood? The WSJ article is exactly 100% correct, based on the filings.

The only person saying so is you. My post did not say that, nor did the WSJ story it was based on.

If the goal was to keep people on their insurance plans, Democrats wouldn't have passed this legislation, which will force companies to drop their coverage.

From Think Progress:

The law allows companies to apply for exemptions from the MLR requirements — which are still being drafted — and HHS “says it has already given the carrier for McDonald’s and others the chance to seek exemption from new annual limits on benefit payouts.” “This story is wrong,” HHS spokeswoman Jessica Santillo told Pulse. “The new law provides significant flexibility to maintain coverage for workers. Additionally, this story is premature as guidance on the new medical loss ratio rules has not even been issued. The Administration is working closely with businesses like McDonald’s that are committed to providing health benefits to protect health coverage for their employees.”

Indeed, insurance commissioners met with President Obama last week to request that certain plans in the individual market be allowed several years to comply with the MLR standard and at least two states Maine and Iowa, have also “asked for a waiver from the rules until 2014 to give health insurers more time to adapt.” Exempting mini-med plans in order to protect the (limited) benefits of some 30,000 employees may make sense, particularly since these policies will probably end by 2014. Then, workers could enroll in more comprehensive health coverage through the Exchanges since mini-med plans would not meet the actuarial value of creditable coverage.