The WSJ reports this story in a way that feels subtly biased to me, referring to such cuts as "unintended consequences of the health overhaul," as opposed to, say, a demonstration of misplaced corporate priorities. It also doesn't talk about how these costs compare to McDonalds' profits. Still, the report is thorough, and it helps illustrate the changes unfolding in the economy.

This story requires readers to read between the lines. If one does so, what emerges is that McDonald's may not be willing to provide health insurance for their employees if they can't make a substantial profit on the venture. All the new rule requires is that 80-85% of premium revenue be spent on medical care, which leaves a healthy 15-20% margin to cover administrative costs and profit. If an ancillary problem is, as the article states, "relatively low spending on claims," then the solution is even simpler-- reduce premiums. The article does not explore the possibility that McDonald's threat to drop its health insurance for 30,000 employees may be based more on greed than economic necessity.

Usually, I shy away from reading about insurance policies because they're too long and confusing. Heck, the health care reform bill is thousands of pages in its entirety! But as a former employee of McDonald's, I'm very interested in these recent discussions. So, I read the article and I'm happy to say I didn't have to do much head scratching at all. All the information was laid out clearly. The charticle was very well done and the side notes about workers without coverage was a nice attribute as well.

This news story is excellent journalism. It documents yet another problem with the new health care law, providing considerable factual detail, and explaining why the problem arose and how widespread it will be. Big, nationwide problems like this are surfacing every week, increasing the likelihood that the entire contradictory 2000-page law will be repealed. One missing point: the lobbyist who got this provision into the law is not identified.

I think that this is good journalism becasue the author did the research and gathered all the information necessary to write a good article. He presented the facts to the public in an unbiased way and I was able understand this story better.