Posted on 09/29/2010 6:55:58 PM PDT by macquire
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
And because of bogus malpractice suits, malpractice insurance premiums on average are about 1/3 of the practice’s gross income. Of course the lefties here in Minnestoopid “reason” that if malpractice premiums are so high, it must be that the doctor screwed up.
Yep, if there were no mal-practice insurance, doctors that screwed up would have their license revoked.
I know all that. But the malpractice insurance (the deep pocket) has nothing to do with the medical insurance provider. The providers don’t sue the doctors and hospitals - the patients sue as individuals. That has nothing to do with their coverage provider. The coverage provider is not involved in the relationship between the patient and the doctor and/or hospital. When someone sues for malpractice, they’re suing under tort law for personal and sometimes punitive damages based on injury to their person. The goal is to get money, but the basis and content of the suit - the tort — is not about money. It’s about damage to their person. The monetary value placed on that is secondary to and predicated on the damage. It isn’t the subject/heart of the suit itself.
Apples and oranges. There’s no relationship between the two (malpractice insurer and medical coverage carrier).
Actually it does have a lot to do with it. Doctors have to increase their prices to cover the cost of malpratice insurance. They also have to run tons of tests they normally wouldn’t need to do just to cover themselves. So, yes, it does increase the costs.
Everything I’ve read marks WWII as the point of large companies paying lots of benefits to attract workers, in spite of wage freeze going on during the war. In the early 50’s my dad had coverage for the entire family thru GE, as well as vacation, stock incentive plan, paid life insurance plan, etc.
Health insurance premiums paid by an individual used to be deductible on fed taxes - they were lumped in with other medical costs - sensible. As I recall, it was the Regan era simplification that eliminated that deduction.
First child born in 1976, we paid $5.00 for the periodic 15 minute “well-baby doctor visit”. Even hospitalizations were typically a few hundred dollars a day. Wages were maybe 1/5th of what they are now - so lots of this are due to the rubber yardstick of the incredibly shrinking $. But still, everything seemed more affordable then.
Not so! Medical insurance coverage insures the patient against the medical costs of malpractice, with indemnity agreements. Settlement is based on projected medical costs of the insured's injury. But, the malpractice attorney usually negotiates a fractional repayment of those costs to settle with insurance company for the benefit of the plaintiff. So, malpractice costs go up, and insurance costs go up. Been there, done that.
The medical insurance carrier has nothing to do with pain and suffering damages and punitive damages.
The subject that I was addressing with the other poster was bogus malpractice claims, not legitimate claims wherein the patient actually needs ongoing care resulting from botched medical treatment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.