Gotta love Obamacare...

[The GECCO]

Linky (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/29/mcdonalds-warns-nix-hourly-employee-health-coverage-citing-new-federal-rule/)

30,000 employees (at McD's alone) who are currently paying for their own medical insurance will no longer have that option and will either be on the government tit or w/o coverage under Obama's new plan.

Granted, it sounds like their current coverage sucks, but it's dirt cheap ($14/week) and it's a lot better than nothing.

:bs:

[~Barn~]

For the sake of full disclosure, none of this has actually happened yet or is otherwise "official". The statement made by the McDonald's Rep, is (more than likely) a posturing move to get the provision looked at again, or at least positioned for further review.

In big business, it's pretty common to see announcements like this made, to essentially rock the boat, and get something "noticed". Were McDonald's to truly ink this, they would aim to have as little press coverage as possible (much less a press release!) to help stave off public outcry, and they nearly-certainly wouldn't announce that it's happening, so far in advance.

My view is that they don't truly intend to do this - but again - that they wish to have some of these specific line items, that are directly affecting them, re-reviewed and re-considered and ultimately re-written. It makes perfect sense, considering the economic pull that a company of their stature holds.

If you do click the Fox News link provided, drill-down into the link they give, citing the Wall Street Journal. It's marginally less sensationalized.

[The GECCO]

For the sake of full disclosure, none of this has actually happened yet or is otherwise "official". The statement made by the McDonald's Rep, is (more than likely) a posturing move to get the provision looked at again, or at least positioned for further review.

In big business, it's pretty common to see announcements like this made, to essentially rock the boat, and get something "noticed". Were McDonald's to truly ink this, they would aim to have as little press coverage as possible (much less a press release!) to help stave off public outcry, and they nearly-certainly wouldn't announce that it's happening, so far in advance.

My view is that they don't truly intend to do this - but again - that they wish to have some of these specific line items, that are directly affecting them, re-reviewed and re-considered and ultimately re-written. It makes perfect sense, considering the economic pull that a company of their stature holds.

If you do click the Fox News link provided, drill-down into the link they give, citing the Wall Street Journal. It's marginally less sensationalized.

All true, but doesn't negate the flaws that initiated the whole story...

[~Barn~]

All true, but doesn't negate the flaws that initiated the whole story...

Hey... I can't help it that Ralph granted you posting privileges.

=)

[The GECCO]

Touche!

[Sarge]

Fox news always makes me want to kill myself. I can't believe how rediculous they are. It's all screaming and yelling and Obama and Democrats are bad, blah blah blah.

I'm not the biggest fan of Obama, but Obamacare, as so much of you are putting it, might have just saved my sisters life.

She's 21 and just recently got diagnosed with cancer. She is married, and has a job that only provides shitty coverage if she works enoug hours, which she typically doesn't, and even then it's prohibitively expensive. It's shitty insurance.

Anyway, as of last Thursday, the first wave of Obamacare rules went into effect, INCLUDING the provision that PARENTS can add and/or keep children on their employer provided healthcare plans UNTIL THE AGE OF 26. This is true regardless of marital or dependancy status. My sister is married, but it doesn't matter. She is eligible on my mothers plan until age 26, the ONLY disqualifying factor is that she cannot be eligible for her own employer provided coverage. That is Obamacare as far as I'm concerned.

Also, it also just went into effect for those 18 and under that if they're diagnosed with anything, autism, cancer, adhd, then new insurance providers cannot deny them coverage. The pre-existing condition clause is out thanks to Obamacare, and these two things may literally save my sisters life.

So, call it what you will, but without Obamacare, my sister would be forced to either bunkrupt and disrupt the lives of the rest of the family, or die slowly with inadequate care because she couldn't afford it.

[Sarge]

All true, but doesn't negate the flaws that initiated the whole story...


In response to the original post, and going along with Barn, if you read closely you see that the "healthcare" plan isn't a real one. It's a "baby" plan that provides extremely limited benefits. As a result of Obamacare, it's just not going to meet the requirements because its not true insurance. It's more like a maintenence plan for a motorcycle, it'll cover oil changes, but if you blow your motor you're F*ed. Obamacare is just saying they're going to have to do better.

[Bueller]

people just like to whine about shit that fox news tells them is bad. I am no huge fan of his but he is still light years ahead of the lies and deception of the POS that ran this country into bankruptcy and has gotten 5000 servicemen and women killed along with an untold number of civilians, in a war we have no business in.
Maybe the should whine about actual atrocities of the last regime. If you take the money we pissed away on Iraq we could have paid for healthcare for the whole freakin country, but why would we help ourselves when we need to take care of the asshole of the world?

[Sarge]

people just like to whine about shit that fox news tells them is bad...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies


The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#cite_note-autogenerated6-42) showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."
On the July 2, 2008, edition of Fox and Friends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_and_Friends), co-hosts Brian Kilmeade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kilmeade) and Steve Doocy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Doocy) aired photos of New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times) reporter Jacques Steinberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Steinberg) and Times television editor Steven Reddicliffe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Reddicliffe) that had been crudely doctored, apparently in order to portray the journalists unflatteringly...
According to Media Matters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America), the photos depict New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg with yellowed teeth, "his nose and chin widened, and his ears made to protrude further." The other image, of Times television editor Steven Reddicliffe, had similar yellow teeth, as well as "dark circles ... under his eyes, and his hairline has been moved back."
On September 18, 2009, Fox News Channel took out full-page ads in The Washington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post), the New York Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post), and The Wall Street Journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal) with a prominent caption reading, "How did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN miss this story?" with pictures of the 9/12 protests on the Capitol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol) lawn. A still picture in the ad was in fact taken from a CNN broadcast covering the event.
Comedian Jon Stewart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart) reported on his November 10, 2009 broadcast of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Show_with_Jon_Stewart) that Fox News pundit Sean Hannity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Hannity) misrepresented video footage purportedly showing large crowds on a health-care protest orchestrated by Rep. Michele Bachmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann). Stewart showed inconsistencies in alternating shots according to the color of the sky and tree leaves, showing that spliced in the shots was footage from Glenn Beck's much larger 9/12 rally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_March_on_Washington) which had occurred two months earlier. Hannity estimated 20,000 protesters were in attendance, the Washington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post) estimated 10,000 and Luke Russert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Russert) reported that three Capital Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Hill) police officers guessed "about 4,000."[88] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#cite_note-87)[89] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#cite_note-88) Sean Hannity apologized to his viewers for the error during his November 11, 2009 broadcast.
The New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times) ran an article entitled "At Fox News, the Colonel Who Wasn't" by Jim Rutenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Rutenberg),[119] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#cite_note-118) revealing that Joseph A. Cafasso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_A._Cafasso), whom Fox had employed for four months as a Military and Counterterrorism Editor, had bogus military credentials. Cafasso makes a 15 second appearance making pronouncements about the religious biases behind the Fox News reporting in Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outfoxed:_Rupert_Murdoch%27s_War_on_Journalism).

This is even better:
The Most Biased Name in News: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

I can go on...

[rforsythe]

Yep Fox is *not* journalism if you expect it to be unbiased or, well, truthful, but Bueller's point is a good one - a lot of people still remarkably think it's all real and "the truth", and use it as a basis on what they think should change.

Hey, the world needs lemmings too...

(This was not commentary on the OP, just a general observation on the stupidity and gullibility of a large percentage of people.)

[Nick_Ninja]

Rupert Murdoch is the Debil :bat:

[Canuck]

And he owns the Wall Street Journal too.

[rforsythe]

I think any media controlled by profit interests are going to naturally gravitate towards the stories which generate the most profit.
Any media controlled by government is going to naturally gravitate towards stories which reflect the government and its actions in a positive, or societally-stabilizing way.

Unfortunately it's rare to find any media outlet that is not government-owned or controlled, which actually successfully exists in the free market and is not in it for the money. Real, truthful, unbiased news giving you the entire story rarely even exists, let alone continually produces reporting on many events over time.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter whether you're a Fox lemming or enjoy other outlets, the stories you read from them are at some level going to be directed by the motives of the entity making them. The best thing you can do is read stories from a number of outlets with dissenting viewpoints and try to piece together the actual truth, but nobody has time to do that routinely.

[Sarge]

I think any media controlled by profit interests are going to naturally gravitate towards the stories which generate the most profit.
Any media controlled by government is going to naturally gravitate towards stories which reflect the government and its actions in a positive, or societally-stabilizing way.

Unfortunately it's rare to find any media outlet that is not government-owned or controlled, which actually successfully exists in the free market and is not in it for the money. Real, truthful, unbiased news giving you the entire story rarely even exists, let alone continually produces reporting on many events over time.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter whether you're a Fox lemming or enjoy other outlets, the stories you read from them are at some level going to be directed by the motives of the entity making them. The best thing you can do is read stories from a number of outlets with dissenting viewpoints and try to piece together the actual truth, but nobody has time to do that routinely.


I agree with you 100% But as far as biased news goes, Fox takes the cake. :devil2:

[Speedwagon]

I agree with you 100% But as far as biased news goes, Fox takes the cake. :devil2:

I've heard people of Fox news blatantly say that the network leans to the right. So what is the problem? It's not like they are hiding it. They claim most other media lean left, and they lean right. Is there a problem with full disclosure? Are they not allowed to make money now?

[Sarge]

I've heard people of Fox news blatantly say that the network leans to the right. So what is the problem? It's not like they are hiding it. They claim most other media lean left, and they lean right. Is there a problem with full disclosure? Are they not allowed to make money now?


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067


Yet, at the same time, the network bristles at the slightest suggestion of a conservative tilt. In fact, wrapping itself in slogans like "Fair and balanced" and "We report, you decide," Fox argues precisely the opposite: Far from being a biased network, Fox argues, it is the only unbiased network. So far, Fox's strategy of aggressive denial has worked surprisingly well; faced with its unblinking refusal to admit any conservative tilt at all, some commentators have simply acquiesced to the network's own self-assessment. FAIR has decided to take a closer look.

[JustSomeDude]

Were McDonald's to truly ink this, they would aim to have as little press coverage as possible (much less a press release!) to help stave off public outcry...

What public outcry? Many of us are already dealing with this issue ourselves. My own employer has significantly cut back our health benefits the last 2 years, with warnings coming that this year will bring significant changes (ie, reductions), if not total elimination of health benefits.

We're all in this together - so why would McDonald's be subject to some kind of special protest by pitchfork and torches?

Everyone's getting screwed. No one to really yell at except your senators. :dunno:

Micky D's knows that they aren't the exception, and they are simply capitalizing on that fact.

[~Barn~]

Well I can't pretend to speak on behalf of all society, but I do think, that despite any personal issues or more inward facing troubles on any given American homefront, it's pretty damn hard to completely diminish our general sentiment of compassion and sympathy.

It never sits well, when American's have to hear about their fellow Americans suffering at the hands of a corporate monolith. Even if they themselves are immersed in their own suffering.

McDonald's may not go out like the raid on Dr. Frankenstein and his monster, but they'd definitely catch their fair share of hate and backlash. Don't believe me? Go ask 10 different people their opinion of Walmart and why.

[Sarge]

What public outcry? Many of us are already dealing with this issue ourselves. My own employer has significantly cut back our health benefits the last 2 years, with warnings coming that this year will bring significant changes (ie, reductions), if not total elimination of health benefits.

We're all in this together - so why would McDonald's be subject to some kind of special protest by pitchfork and torches?

Everyone's getting screwed. No one to really yell at except your senators. :dunno:

Micky D's knows that they aren't the exception, and they are simply capitalizing on that fact.


You're employer might be cutting back now, but that's exactly what this health care bill aims to prevent. As soon as it goes in to effect, your employer HAS to give you healthcare, and it has to meet certain minimum requirements. The McDonalds "maintenence plan" doesn't meet those requirements, and it's going to have to become a full healthcare plan. As soon as this law goes into effect, your employer will to have offer you a comprehensive plan. Now, if you don't like his plan, you can take the money that your employer is contributing, in the form of a voucher, and use it to put towards any private plan you might want otherwise. So, even if you DON'T take employer provided healthcare coverage, your employer STILL HAS TO PAY IN TO YOUR HEALTH CARE, regardless of where you purchase it.

People keep freaking out about this like its a socialist, commi nightmare, but few people are actually taking the time to really read it. Just a few quick pointers for the new Health Care Plan.

1. If you have cancer, YOU CAN'T BE DENIED INSURANCE, before this plan you can and likely will be.

2. Your kids can stay on your plan, EVEN IF THEY ARE MARRIED, up to the age of 26, as long as they aren't eligible for their own employer provided healthcare.

3. If you don't like your employer provided healthcare, you can go elsewhere, AND YOUR EMPLOYER STILL HAS TO PAY FOR IT, or at least pay into it.

4. The only thing even slight "socialist" about the whole thing is that it will now be a requirement that EVERYONE have health insurance. This means you still have options, and the government isn't providing the coverage. They're just going to set guidelines and limit prices. It's basically the same way car insurance works, if you want to drive, you have to be insured.

But because there is no government health insurance, you still have choices, and even if you don't pick plans provided by your employers, they still have to help you pay for outside insurance.

If you really think about it, even if you don't have insurance now, all it will take is 1 trip to the emergency room to more than balance out the cost of a health insurance plan for 3-5 YEARS.

Just imagine the peace of mind the entire country will have when everyone has insurance. You get into a car accident and the other party gets hurt, what's the point in suing for hospital fees if everyone has decent insurance?

[CaneZach]

McDonald's may not go out like the raid on Dr. Frankenstein and his monster, but they'd definitely catch their fair share of hate and backlash. Don't believe me? Go ask 10 different people their opinion of Walmart and why.

And yet where's the first place they go to shop? Wal Mart. I hate going to Wally World as much as the next guy. I hate the inconsiderate, self-absorbed mouth-breathers who crowd the aisle like it's their world and the rest of us are just visiting. I hate having to stand in line, no matter what time of day I go there. But in the end, I shop there anyway because I spend less.

Same thing will happen with McD's. People will bich and complain about their labor practices, but when they need to hit a drive-thru, they'll forget all about their complaints and order a Big Mac meal.

[Filo]

And yet where's the first place they go to shop? Wal Mart. I hate going to Wally World as much as the next guy. I hate the inconsiderate, self-absorbed mouth-breathers who crowd the aisle like it's their world and the rest of us are just visiting. I hate having to stand in line, no matter what time of day I go there. But in the end, I shop there anyway because I spend less.

Same thing will happen with McD's. People will bich and complain about their labor practices, but when they need to hit a drive-thru, they'll forget all about their complaints and order a Big Mac meal.

Speak for your self. I haven't eaten at McDs in years. I shop Wally World only when I am stuck in the middle of nowhere and it is the only thing around.

[CaneZach]

Speak for your self. I haven't eaten at McDs in years. I shop Wally World only when I am stuck in the middle of nowhere and it is the only thing around.

I haven't eaten McD's in a while either, but the sentiment of my post rings true.

[~Barn~]

Well hey... Fancy seeing this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39548132/ns/health-the_new_york_times/) today.

[LostBrit]

Unhook healthcare from employers already.

Your employer doesn't control your access to car, mc, or home insurance, why should you let them control your access to health insurance?

[MetaLord 9]

You can get health care independent of your employers any time you want

[Zach929rr]

To summarize this thread, Obamacare is shit until it actually helps someone you know.

/thread

[LostBrit]

By taking employers out of the loop it simplifies their job (very good for small business), cuts overhead, and forces the big insurers to fight for every customer which will push premiums down through higher competition.

It would be a good first step to simplifying the health care market.

Federal or state health care insurance could also be offered and would compete in the same market but would not need to be mandated.

[salsashark]

:dunno:

So who do we need to contact to get this whole "New World Order" thing off the ground anyways? Is there a toll free line or a website or something?

[~Barn~]

1-900-MIXALOT

[salsashark]

but I don't want to kick them nasty thoughts...

[LostBrit]

:dunno:

So who do we need to contact to get this whole "New World Order" thing off the ground anyways? Is there a toll free line or a website or something?

You can start by pledging to my Paypal campaign fund :up:

[~Barn~]

I can clearly not choose the glass of wine, infront of you.