You deserve a break today, because we know better
The big blogosphere news today came from this WSJ article: "McDonalds may drop health plan." And although the fast food company backed away from the story almost as soon as it broke, the lefty blogs couldn't give in to the latest evidence that Obama's claim that "if you like your insurance, you can keep it" was a big lie.
So then the rationale became: it's OK anyhow that McDonalds is dropping coverage because, well, it was a crummy plan anyway. (See here, here, here, and a bunch more at Memeorandum.)
And isn't that always the way it is with the liberal mindset? It's not enough to let McDonalds workers decide for themselves or even provide them with the right information to help them make that choice. Those stupid Americans must be forced into the "right" choices…and then they'll be "lovin' it."
Extra – Case in point from TNR criticizing the $10,000 plan: "To call that "insurance" is to distort the definition, since these policies would do very little to help people with even moderately serious medical conditions."
Really? I'm in my early forties and I guarantee I haven't used ten-grand in health insurance over the past ten years. McDonalds "mini-med" plan isn't designed for middle-age guys with heart conditions; it's designed for teenagers with acne. But then, once again, the intractable Obamacare cheerleaders like Ezra Klein can't see the logic in allowing younger Americans make their own health care choices. The Commerce Clause will hammer all nails down.
More – This just in from the WSJ: "Health plans face scrutiny amid McDonalds move." At the end, a McDonalds rep says: "We're not denying your story." Hmmm.
9 comments:
McDonalds? Could there be a worse case subject for the effects of health care coverage than a company that routinely has a annual worker turnover rate between 150% and 250%?
Also, a company whose top health insurance policy costs the average employee more than 10% of their salary is an argument for universal coverage, not against it.
"Also, a company whose top health insurance policy costs the average employee more than 10% of their salary is an argument for universal coverage, not against it."
Really? Why?
Some of the lowest-paid workers in the workforce have to pay a hefty proportion of their salary to buy into the top-tier McDonald's health plan. (McD's offers three tiers, and even the best of them provides what could be very generously called "limited coverage.")
A McDonald's employee has three choices: go without insurance, or overpay for bare bones company semi-coverage, or overoverpay for an individual policy.
Isn't that exactly my point? Workers at McD's had a choice. Now, thanks to Obamacare, that choice is gone because - unless you're willing to pay $5 for a cheeseburger - McDonalds will not offer a health care plan at all.
Maybe the teenyboppers flipping burgers felt the mini-med plan was good enough for them. Too bad that Obama felt otherwise.
McDonalds offers low prices because of government subsidies of the corn and beef industries. It is a triumph (from the perspective of McDonalds shareholders) of government intervention in the marketplace.
The 'do you want to pay $XX for [insert product made by exploited workers here]' argument is the standard liberal defense of open border policies. It's ironic to see it used here. Perhaps McDonalds is too big to fail?
Teenagers are on their parents' expensive family insurance plans. Adults who work in McDonalds are either doing so part time for extra cash or aren't able to get a decent-paying job in America's increasingly have/have-not economy.
The conservative approach would be to demand McDonalds try to get by without government assistance. The Republican approach is to try to turn everything into an example of why Obama is the worst President ever.
And yet, oddly, you can walk into a McDonald's in London or Paris, where all the employees have full medical coverage, and pay the same price for a cheeseburger as you'd pay in Tulsa or Denver or Philadelphia.
Meanwhile, here at home it's (a) no health coverage, (b) inadequate coverage or (c) exorbitant/unaffordable coverage. Stupid Obamacare, potentially ruining a great all-American choice like that.
I agree that Obama is the worst President ever. On your other point, I think it's odd to blame McDonalds for taking advantage of farm subsidies. Do they also benefit from road maintenance? Does Chilis turn down the subsidies?
In fact, Mcdonalds and Walmart have made a corporate choice to keep costs down and Americans have the choice to avail themselves of these companies goods and services. Or not.
Obama "spread the wealth around" pushed this plan on America and nearly everything the Republicans warned about has come to pass. Medical care will be great without any primary care doctors or insurance.
And take away the food subsidies, which only exist because of the lobbying power of ADM to force us to use that boondoggle ethanol. The market will adjust. It's when the government sticks their nose into the normal affairs of commerce that everything goes haywire.
Mayor, how silly. The high tax rates in Europe pay for substandard healthcare so McDonalds doesn't have to bear the expense. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
As for choice, I hate "Funky Winkerbean." But I also understand that some mentally unbalanced people may find it "funny." So I don't advocate for banning that stupid comic. I just don't read it. The Obama answer: ban "Funky Winkerbean" and compel (under the Commerce Clause) all Americans to read "Dilbert."
But now I'm arguing against my own point.
False choices make for insincere arguments and callous policy. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges."
See this taxpayer-subsidized path to a $1.25 cheeseburger here? Great road!
But that taxpayer-subsidized path to a $1.25 cheeseburger over there? That path is awful!
Post a Comment