- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Re: Obamacare; Walmart cuts insurance benefits for 30k employees
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:17 am to Lsut81
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:17 am to Lsut81
Step 1: Have the government screw up the healthcare system.
Step 2: Blame Wal-Mart.
Step 3: Demand single-payer so that the entity which screwed healthcare up in the first place now has TOTAL control over healthcare.
IT'S FLAWLESS!
Step 2: Blame Wal-Mart.
Step 3: Demand single-payer so that the entity which screwed healthcare up in the first place now has TOTAL control over healthcare.
IT'S FLAWLESS!
0
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:22 am to SettleDown
quote:
ALL health insurance is linked to employment. Either your employer provides it for you or, you take your paycheck(from your employer) and buy some yourself.
No it's not. I pay for my premiums with interest made off investments.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:39 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
scoop is right We need and deserve single payor
Why do you hate women? Single payer health systems aver a breast cancer survival rate in 70-80% range. The US prior to ACA was 98%? Why do you want 20% more women to die?
#waronwomen
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:54 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:Well, how did you make those investments? What was the original source of $$?
No it's not. I pay for my premiums with interest made off investments.
Either you earned it, or someone gave it to you.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:01 am to mmcgrath
quote:
So they offered a plan and more workers signed up for it than they wanted. So they cancel the plan and blame it on ObamaCare.
No. They offered a plan whose cost is probably significantly higher now than what it was and whose projected costs are higher than it is now. So, like any business, it is reacting in a very rational way.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:08 am to SettleDown
quote:
Well, how did you make those investments? What was the original source of $$?
You're reaching.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:14 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:Even if they weren't putting in a dime, the ability to get a group rate is potentially a huge premium reduction to the offered employees--saving them a lot of money.
How much was Wal-Mart chipping in?
Looking at how Obamacare uses group rating in computing rates (the 300% cap, etc) and services...
it's in WM's (and every group administrator's) best interest to limit group size. Likely, that's why they are doing this more than saving premium costs.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:15 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:No. My point is, either you earn your own money to get your insurance or, someone else pays for it.
You're reaching.
I was responding to the silliness of the poster who decried "insurance" being "linked" to employment because the bottom line is, you either get insurance as a result of being employed or, someone else has to buy it for you.
In scenario 2, that's not insurance. It's welfare.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:17 am to 4LSU2
quote:
This is what happens when you have to pass a bill to determine with it entails.
This is a drop in the bucket for Walmart who is the largest employer in the US with 2,220,000 employees. The next largest employer in the US is the United States Postal Service with 490,000 employees.
30,000 is such a ridiculously small number for Walmart that i wouldn't read much into this.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:17 am to dcrews
quote:During WWII there was a freeze on wages. Henry Kaiser wanted to offer his employees health care to circumvent the wage freeze. Congress said okay, and that the value of employer provider health care was not income to the employees. Thus employers could make health insurance a part of employee compensation that was tax free to the employees. Employers jumped on this, and ever since health insurance has been tied to employment.
I've often wondered why it was. I can only surmise that it was originally intended as a job perk to attract top employees, along with matching 401k's (or even offering them), pensions, more vacation, etc....
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:20 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
SpidermanTuba
quote:If you're comparing the MA healthcare bill passed under Romney to the PPACA, your either lying or dreadfully ignorant.
Sorry, but was Romney not a Republican?
Other than some aspects of the individual mandate, they share almost nothing in common.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:25 am to udtiger
quote:Looking at the bill objectively, it appears to be crafted to exactly this. It strongly incentivizes employers to drop group coverage, yet provides almost nothin to make up the difference to employees. Further, it penalizes employers that give benefits above certain maximums.
What's funnier is that the Dems and the media will blame this on the companies, and by extension, the GOP,
It really is one f*cked up bill. Absolute trash.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:27 am to Cracking
quote:Wrong. They offered something to the part timers but would have to pull it if too many people signed up... if you believe their logic. This was with or without the ACA.
So Walmart offers what it deems appropriate for PT workers who about 1/2 sign up for. Then ACA forces WM to offer something that they can't afford/don't want to pay for. Now they cancel their benefit and funnel people to the marketplace where healthy, middle class workers pay the burden of subsidies.
As an indirect result of the ACA (or so WalMart claims), more employees signed up for insurance (don't we want this?)
Nothing in WalMart's statement said anything about the cost per employee going up, only that the ACA was somehow responsible for more employees signing up for insurance, which WalMart didn't want to support.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:27 am to Taxing Authority
This is good news. It means they will sign up for Obamacare or go on Medicaid which makes more people on government health care plans which makes single payer more and more likely.
This is good news and was part of the plan all along.
This is good news and was part of the plan all along.
This post was edited on 10/8/14 at 10:28 am
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:30 am to Hawkeye95
quote:That's because you're starting from the false premise of "we gotta do something!" In the case of medical care "doing something" ie mass subsidizing is precisely what causing the problem.
I really would like to know the republican alternative to obamacare. its pretty clear that its not working, but I haven't heard republicans say anything other than obamacare sucks.
Politcally, no one wants to hear the real solution--we need to be personally responsible for our own personal care expenses.
And that is why you aren't hearing much. Dependency, "make the other guy pay" and "here's a bunch of free isht" are much more popular.
This post was edited on 10/8/14 at 10:39 am
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:31 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:You should ask why he's hiring US workers, not British workers.
I wish it was. My English boss does not provide us insurance as he cant believe it is not government mandated.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:31 am to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
This is good news. It means they will sign up for Obamacare or go on Medicaid which makes more people on government health care plans which makes single payer more and more likely.
This is good news and was part of the plan all along.
In your malformed raisin brain this is good news. But you're a selfish douchebag who thinks that he's entitled to the fruits of my labors without contributing a thing.
I mean this sincerely, frick YOU.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:35 am to mmcgrath
quote:Just a word of caution. Do not operate a motor vehicle or heavy machinery today. You're going to be very dizzy from this spin job.
Then the ACA happened. It caused two events:
1) WalMart could no longer offer crap insurance. So the "insurance" policies had to actually become something of value, for which WalMart raised the costs.
2) In spite of the increased costs, the insurance policies became something of value enough that more employees bought it at the higher price than did when it was cheaper. WalMart didn't really want this because then it would actually have to contribute to health plans for a good chunk of employees.
In short: Employees aren't losing their crap insurance from before. They wanted real insurance which WalMart offered for a year until people actually signed up for it.
You want to consider what is driving more people to sign up on WMs plan...
This post was edited on 10/8/14 at 10:40 am
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:36 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
In your malformed raisin brain this is good news. But you're a selfish douchebag who thinks that he's entitled to the fruits of my labors without contributing a thing.
at least hes being honest. many of the obamacare supporters would be either explicitly dishonest about its effects or woefully ignorant of them.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:36 am to jcole4lsu
quote:
at least hes being honest. many of the obamacare supporters would be either explicitly dishonest about its effects or woefully ignorant of them.
That's true
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News