In a computer worm, possible Biblical clue (NYT)Proposition 112 (AZR)
AZ job training funds revived (AZR)
McDonald’s may drop health plan (WSJ)
Christian bookstore name called offensive (Kittanning Paper)
Complaint filed over politics in church (CP)
Obama discusses his faith (CP)
Obama “a Christian by choice” (Fox News)
Toy makers seek new safety rule exemptions (NYT)
Saying no to “I do” with economy in mind (NYT)
Prop 111 (AZR)
Park51 stakeholder considers different site (CP)
One third of “extinct” animals turn up again (Daily Mail)
Taxing the rich (John Stossel)
Why Obama’s Israel diplomacy is flailing (Richard Cohen)
Advertising on school walls? (Fox News)
The real income inequality scandal (VDare)
USSC will post audio of every argument weekly (AP)
Sec. Educ. promises to make kids green (CNS News)
Colbert reminded us immig. is moral issue (CP)
Colbert to Congress (Grist)
Fisher-Price recalls 10 million toys (LAT)
Environmentalist: too few people will be problem (CNS News)
Science Czar confronted on redistribution, runs (CNS News)
Congress avoids Colbert (Politico)
Activists release minks (AZR)
1 in 5 gay men has HIV (Reuters)
2 comments:
Did not hear the part of Thursday show about McDonalds & health insurance but caught your comment on Friday about "casualty of ObamaCare"…
A couple of points – first, I'd say even reading the WSJ article, it's not really a bad thing this coverage is being discontinued — $728 annual for a cap of $2,000 in benefits or ~$1600 for a cap of $10K — that's not health care in any sense, as just about any affliction or illness would leave the sick in dire straights, as well as minus the premiums which would comprise a significant chunk of the relatively low wage paid.
But, worse, the WSJ article does no real reporting and entirely channels the McDonalds corporate perspective. See this Columbia Journalism Review article for further detail:
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_journal_misleads_on_mcdona.php
The massive corporation argues to HHS that it would be “prohibitive” to meet the new threshold for its workers. That’s baloney. So let’s look at it from the non-McDonald’s-investors’ perspective.
The law says 85 percent of premiums must go toward health care. Let’s say McDonald’s decided to pay more out of its pocket and needed to give, say, 10 percent, to reach that requirement. The low-ball health plan’s premiums are $727 a year. The somewhat better ones costs $1,264 and $1,680 respectively. Let’s say for the sake of a back-of-the-napkin calculation that each of those plans has one-third of McDonald’s insured workers.
A 10 percent hike would cost about $3.7 million to meet the requirements for all 30,000 workers on the plan. McDonald’s Corporation made $4.6 billion last year. “Prohibitive,” huh? That’s 0.008 0.08 percent of its 2009 income.
Or to put it another way, McDonald’s could pay all of those 30,000 extremely low-paid workers’ premiums for them—on the top plan—and only spend $50.4 million a year. That’s about 1.1 percent of its 2009 earnings.
But it’s front page news that they might have to switch their health plan because it’s too expensive.
Did not hear the part of Thursday show about McDonalds & health insurance but caught your comment on Friday about "casualty of ObamaCare"…
A couple of points – first, I'd say even reading the WSJ article, it's not really a bad thing this coverage is being discontinued — $728 annual for a cap of $2,000 in benefits or ~$1600 for a cap of $10K — that's not health care in any sense, as just about any affliction or illness would leave the sick in dire straights, as well as minus the premiums which would comprise a significant chunk of the relatively low wage paid.
But, worse, the WSJ article does no real reporting and entirely channels the McDonalds corporate perspective. See this Columbia Journalism Review article for further detail:
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_journal_misleads_on_mcdona.php
Post a Comment