A Washington Examiner comparison of the two health insurance programs found that Walmart's plan is more affordable and provides significantly better access to high-quality medical care than Obamacare.
A Journal of the American Medical Association analysis from September showed that unsubsidized Obamacare enrollees will face monthly premiums that are five to nine times higher than Walmart premiums.
JAMA found the unsubsidized premium for a nonsmoking gouple (sic) age 60 can cost $1,365 per month versus the Walmart cost of about $134 for the same couple.
The medical journal reported a 30-year-old smoker would pay up to $428 per month, in contrast to roughly $70 each month for a Walmart employee. A family of four could pay a $962 premium, but the same Walmart family member would pay about $160.Sidebar: The AMA actively supported the passage of the Affordable Care Act, largely because there is big money in it for the AMA.
Worse yet, the AMA has become an arm—sometimes a strong-arm –of the government. Under the balanced budget act, there is a fixed pot of money for physician reimbursement. In this fixed pot scenario, if internists, for example, are to be paid more for their patient care, someone else—general surgeons say—must be paid less. Needless to say, everyone wants a seat at the table when the government money is doled out, and who is more knowledgeable to be in charge than…you guessed it– the AMA. Theoretically, all specialty areas of medicine have representation in this process, however, that is not always the case. According to the AMA rules, if a specialty society doesn’t maintain a certain level of AMA membership among its members it loses its seat on the bargaining committee. In other words, the AMA says, “Belong to us or you won’t get paid.”
Back to the Walmart health insurance plan, and the findings of the JAMA study
Unlike Obamacare, there are no income eligibility requirements. Age and gender do not alter premium rates. The company plan is the same for all of Walmart's 1.1 million enrolled employees and their dependents, from its cashiers to its CEO.The AMA is located in Chicago, President Obama's home city. AMA researchers compared the availability of physicians and hospitals in Chicago under Obamacare and the under Walmart plan.
Slayton said the BlueChoice exchange network for President Obama's hometown has very limited hospital participation. “In downtown Chicago, the key is the number of hospitals: 28,” he said. “Now we’re going to the national network — this is what the Walmart network would most likely be — and you have 54 hospitals. That’s a big difference,” he said.
“You will notice there are 9,837 doctors [under Obamacare]. But the larger network is 24,904 doctors. Huge, huge difference,” he said.One of the big selling points of the Obamacare plan is that it provides many more included services than private health plans. That is one of the big reasons why Obamacare was created in the first place.
Walmart also offers a free preventive health plan that mirrors the Obamacare plan. Its employees can take advantage of a wide range of free exams and counseling, including screenings for colorectal cancer, cervical cancer, chlamydia, diabetes, depression and special counseling for diet and obesity.
Their children can get more than 20 free preventive services, ranging including screenings for genetic disorders, autism and developmental problems to obesity, lead poisoning exposure and tuberculosis. There are also 12 free vaccinations, and free hearing and vision testing.
Low premiums are not the only distinguishing feature of the Walmart plan. The retailer's employees can use eight of the country's most prestigious medical facilities, including the Mayo Clinic, Pennsylvania's Geisinger Medical Center and the Cleveland Clinic. At these institutions, which Walmart calls "Centers of Excellence," Walmart employees and their dependents can get free heart or spinal surgery. They can also get free knee and hip replacements at four hospitals nationwide.There's much more to the story. Be sure to read the complete article in the Washington Examiner. It made me wonder if it wouldn't have been better if the government had outsourced its healthcare plan to Walmart. At the least, Obamacare would have been managed better.
117 comments:
I'm confused, as usual, about Obamacare. Is the idea with Walmart, because they pay such low wages, they offer good coverage cheaply...just like companies used to offer health insurance in lieu of more wages?
...because they pay such low wages...
What is their wage scale? Do you know? And how doe it compare to, say, Kohl's or Target?
No idea, but I've always assumed they're pretty low, and they don't like to hire full-time.
Maybe Walmart wants to provide their employees good health care at the lowest possible cost.
Maybe that's just not the objective of Obamacare.
Here's Walmart's information about wages.
Start ant entry level wages and work up to six figures. Not bad.
My guess is that Walmart manages to do this low cost because that's what they do. The Government isn't really in that line of work.
They're pretty big in the graft, and fuck up business.
No kidding. The government rarely considers costs, unless they are cutting benefits for the military.
Really though, is there any realistic reason why an Obamacare health plan premium should cost five or eight time more than a Walmart plan that offers better coverage and lower deductibles?
It sure would be nice if our government would work to get the best value for the insurance plan it forces on its citizens, wouldn't it?
Leaving aside the fact that the ACA's goal is not just improved quality but increased coverage for those without employer-sponsored insurance, I'd have to agree with Deborah. It's hard to justify anything about Walmart's labor practices if you want to find one thing about it to laud. Average wages there are $13/hr when compared to Costco's $22/hr - while the latter smashes them in stock price as well. This is common knowledge - so if you need the cites, I'm sure they'd not be hard to find - and I'm assuming the comparison is made because that must be its niche or comparator in terms of market share, unlike Kohls or Target.
Providing a "six figure" upper bracket target is meaningless. Any crappy company is going to offer at least that much at top positions. Is their top management bloated with available positions to give away or something? Comparing average wages/compensation is the only sensible way to go about it.
"Really though, is there any realistic reason why an Obamacare health plan premium should cost five or eight time more than a Walmart plan that offers better coverage and lower deductibles?".
Well, first off, it's right there in the name.
Comparing average wages/compensation is the only sensible way to go about it.
Then put up your own posting on that topic. The topic here is comparing the costs of the Obamacare and Walmart health insurance plans.
It sure would be nice if our government would work to get the best value for the insurance plan it forces on its citizens, wouldn't it?
Um, yeah. Hello? It's called Medicare or the Federal Employee Health Plan, and worked so well and efficiently that Republicans screamed bloody murder when Obama et al offered to expand that to everyone with a public "option", aka Medicare for All - as they were afraid that it would outcompete private insurance - as it does.
This invalidates their core conviction: That markets never fail that that the government can never be recognized as outperforming a private industry. So their objection was nakedly political.
See Haz, Ritmo just explained why it cost 8 times as much. Those employees at Walmart are really slaves, so who the hell would want to have that plan? They much prefer the crappy Obamacare deal, which surely must also come with a shiney new $22/hr job. It's all included somewhere in the million pages of law and regulations. You just haven't read it yet.
I could put up a post on that common knowledge, Haz - but I was merely responding to your slapping down Deborah with false/unnecessary skepticism when she happens to be correct.
Leaving aside the fact that the ACA's goal is not just improved quality but increased coverage for those without employer-sponsored insurance..
Not true. If that was the goal of Obamacare, then the most effective way of covering the uninsured would have been to allow them access to Medicare until they have an employer-based plan.
The goal of Obamacare is to take over the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries as step on in a single-payer system.
Yeah, Bags, it's ol' one-note again heaping talking point praise on all things progressive.
I'm just saying deb probably has a point, Bag - as much as that bothers you. You can look at what a company provides as insurance as a separate issue from its sweatshop labor conditions and compensation or as something related to it (either way, its a "labor cost"), but using one of those things as a way to justify Walmart's other well documented abuse and pisspoor labor standards isn't logical and won't go very far politically.
Ritmo, share with us your experience as an Obamacare enrollee.
Not true. If that was the goal of Obamacare, then the most effective way of covering the uninsured would have been to allow them access to Medicare until they have an employer-based plan.
No spit. That's what I said had you bothered to read more than the first couple words. It was offered but couldn't succeed politically against the Teahadists, so they went another route.
Walmart's other well documented abuse and pisspoor labor standards...
Please provide a citation for that statement. Which standards, and how were they violated? At which locations? And verified by what government agencies?
Does OFA provide you with insurance, even? All that Soros money should cover it.
$113/month - cheaper than my employer offers. Very good coverage, too - better, in fact than they allowed.
What's yours - as long as personal anecdotes are the only allowable evidence tonight?
You know who also provides better insurance than Obamacare? Koch industries.
Not abuses of federal law, just common decency.
What do you have against Costco - a great and successful competitor to Walmart? I mean, other than the fact that they succeed outstandingly in the market and aren't owned by old-wealth trust-funders?
Progressive goals usually are the best drivers of all things praiseworthy in history. What Costco does is akin to how Henry Ford revolutionized industry - by offering his employees very high (revolutionarily high, in fact) compensation. Not only was that great for them, but he realized that doing so would help drive their demand for his own product, and the success of his own company.
Republicans are stuck in a logic loop today that prevents them from realizing this.
You supply-siders should try looking into something called "demand" every once in a while. It's where our economy's stalled right now.
Not abuses of federal law, just common decency
Translation: "I cannot find a citation to back up what I said because it was just stuff I made up."
What do you have against Costco - a great and successful competitor to Walmart?
Translation: "I'm not making headway here so I'll try to move the conversation off of Walmart and onto Costco."
Progressive goals usually are the best drivers of all things praiseworthy in history
Translation: "I went to public schools and really dig Che, Fidel, Mao, Pol Pot and Hugo Chavez for their awesome contribution to world history."
It was a good enough objection for deb, Michael. If you considered her point a diversion, then you should have "slapped" her down for being off-topic, not by pretending that she didn't have the common evidence to back up what she was getting at.
I'm sorry to hear that you are so sheltered to fail to recognize either well-known public sentiment of Walmart or common decency. Perhaps you will learn more about those things through books, but Bag discourages that.
The logic loop is closed! Good night.
"using one of those things as a way to justify Walmart's other well documented abuse and pisspoor labor standards isn't logical and won't go very far politically."
It goes a lot further than trying to justify the clusterfuck of Obamacare by attacking Walmart who obviously is competent at what they try to do, and who gets their money, customers and employees voluntarily rather than by force of law.
It was a good enough objection for deb, Michael
I respect Deborah and know that you are not her proxy.
I'm sorry to hear that you are so sheltered to fail to recognize either well-known public sentiment of Walmart or common decency
Translation: I've got nothing. I'm out of here.
So you learned that Hitler and your other right-wing nationalist heroes were great contributors to world history through private schools?
I mentioned no politicians prior to your inserting them, just Henry Ford. Apparently you hate labor so much that you can't even debate that point, but just pretend he's a mass-murdering politician and call it a night.
It's about all the thinking you'll do, so you might as well ask CPAC and Heritage for their letters and your contribution and stop pretending that you had any points of your own to make.
I respect Deborah and know that you are not her proxy.
Translation: You respect her willingness to be smacked down by your non-rebuttal when Ritmo refuses to let the same point go unchallenged! So disrespectful!
"I'm sorry to hear that you are so sheltered to fail to recognize either well-known public sentiment of Walmart or common decency"
Translation: I've got nothing. I'm out of here.
No. Translation: You've got nothing. And I'm out of any place where people refuse to think. Unless I'm bored enough to care to stick around long enough to make fun of them. ;-)
Go ahead and knock yourself out. Apologies for making you feel inferior with your Walmart/Chinese sweatshop-level standards of argumentation and basic thought.
So you learned that Hitler and your other right-wing nationalist heroes were great contributors to world history through private schools?
Sorry, that won't fly old boy. The Nazi name was an abbreviation for National Socialist Workers' Party.
You may perhaps believe that socialists are right wingers, but the rest of the world believes otherwise.
Hey Ritmo.....neener neener neener.
You see, people actually choose to work for Walmart. Lefties don't like you deciding stuff for yourself. You aren't competent like they are at healthcare.gov.
They really should choose our jobs for us, then we wouldn't get laid off, or downsized, and of course we would never get fired. They don't even have a form for that.
Sorry, that won't fly old boy. The Nazi name was an abbreviation for National Socialist Workers' Party.
Which proves nothing other than the fact that politicians can even lie about their name, their party, what they call themselves. The Nazis were as nationalist as right-wing nationalists get. Racistly nationalist, and quite unprecedentedly ambitious in that. And how a mass-murderer who calls himself "progressive" gets you to believe that murder is the point of human progress is beyond me to understand. It just shows that you believe politicians more than I do or would. Especially if they're infamously mass-murdering ones.
At some point you're just going to have to convince us that the Code of Hammurabi and Bill of Rights were retrograde declarations.
You see, people actually choose to work for Walmart. Lefties don't like you deciding stuff for yourself. You aren't competent like they are at healthcare.gov.
They really should choose our jobs for us, then we wouldn't get laid off, or downsized, and of course we would never get fired. They don't even have a form for that.
This has to be quoted in full just to show how silly a hold it leaves in the mind of the author. The point is not one of individual choice but one of what sorts of choices are available or commonplace.
Barriers to entry, much? These conservatives tell me they hate Malthus, but you seem to be a fan of artificially induced scarcity in the job market.
The Nazis were as nationalist as right-wing nationalists get.
Do the delusions usually happen during the first week of the month?
All I know about the situation is that WalMart employees should be able to keep their better coverage if they want to or else somebody will have to face down the Liar King. And I think that most people, including Duck Dynasty fans, would agree with me.
RITMO, your comparison of WM and COSTO is spurious because WM is a retail operation dealing in lots of small items stocked by a large staff while COSTO is a bulk whole-sale operation with FAR fewer workers needed. Additionally COSTCO's real-estate costs are cheaper as it can afford to locate in cheaper (by comparison) more out-of-the-way places compared to WM as most of its shoppers frequent it only monthly. A better comparison would be to use SAM's Club vs COSTO for a true side-by-side comparison. Try harder, RITMO..
So Ritmo, did you actually read the linked article from the Washington Examiner?
The article says that the premium for Obamacare is five to nine times more than the premium for a Walmart health plan that has lower deductibles, included free heart and hip surgery and gives the insured access to a better network of doctors and hospitals.
You didn't read that, did you? Or maybe you did which is why you persist in changing the topic.
I have some experience with people with Medicare and Medicaid and how they are treated by health care professionals.
Basically like pariahs. They really get the short end of the stick. So increasing those programs seem like the wrong way to go.
I guess some of us philosophically would prefer that people get health care from private sources without the government making health care choices for you. What plan you can choose. What doctors you can see. If you want mental health coverage or contraception. Some people want the government to have all that control.
Obamacare is a move to vastly increase government control over health care. How has that worked out so far? What makes you think that with people like Obama and Sebilius in charge it will get any better?
Get government out of the business of the control of our bodies. We demand control of our own bodies.
Where have I heard that one before?
The Nazis were as nationalist as right-wing nationalists get. Racistly nationalist, and quite unprecedentedly ambitious in that. And how a mass-murderer who calls himself "progressive" gets you to believe that murder is the point of human progress is beyond me to understand. It just shows that you believe politicians more than I do or would. Especially if they're infamously mass-murdering ones.
Third-rate Hitler is bronzed and relaxed -- ready for his come back, now safely behind Mao and Stalin regarding sheer numbers of murders.
Wait wait, is Ritmo arguing that msgrs. gold and silver are right wingers too?
Michael - if you want to get back onto a point you'll allow to be discussed rationally, I'll even agree that I can see costs going up in the interim, with all this disruption and the lack of enrollees in a short period. (Over time and much improved enrollment, the costs will continue going down as they have over the last four years, and probably more precipitously).
So I understand that the ACA does have and will have a less-than-perfect implementation, and that we'll see disruptions that might parallel and even surpass all the disruptions to livelihood that conservative partisans never cared about in the first place. You don't need the Washington Examiner to tell me that.
But the issue always comes down to what their long-term solution is going to be, and on that, we get crickets. So we can obsess about constantly moving targets and changing scenarios and individual anecdotes (now suddenly important!) all you want us to - the only thing I care about is how it affects the big picture and the long-term. Why shouldn't I?
If I had to go on the Obamacare plan I would have lost my heart surgeon who kept me alive. I pay for my own insurance and I am very lucky that I can do so. But many other people were forced to lose their doctors because of the direct action of Barack Obama.
I would impeach him for that alone.
@Haz-man/
Perhaps Ritmo's meds have run out? Early onset of dementia is tough to deal with what with all the mental confusion and all..
@Haz-man/
Perhaps Ritmo's meds have run out? Early onset of dementia is tough to deal with what with all the mental confusion and all..
The salient point is that Ritmo trusts Obama to do the right thing.
Most of us do not.
Has he proven worthy of your trust?
"If you want to keep your health plan you can keep your health plan."
"If you want to keep your doctors you can keep your doctors."
Who would put their faith in a proven liar of such a degree that it is almost beyond belief?
Hey Chickie - I just spent a few days northwest of Deutschland (can you guess where?) and I have to say that I came back with a huge fascination for Dutch.
So many interesting consonants and vowels, so similar to a basic, older form of English (talk about Anglo-Saxon appreciation!) and just about the most liberal-to-libertarian society you'll get. With 4 & 1/2 centuries of kick-ass trade, tolerance and toking to boot.
Alas, I have witnessed the perfect society. And oliebollen. Yum.
Perhaps Ritmo's meds have run out? Early onset of dementia is tough to deal with what with all the mental confusion and all..
Lol. Perfect comment to double-post.
Most of us have always despised Obama and thought he would be a disaster for this country.
His signal achievement has proven that case.
The pain and destruction has just begun. When corporate plans start to be cancelled like the individual plans there will be Hell to pay.
Who would put their faith in a proven liar of such a degree that it is almost beyond belief?
Yep.
Up next: "If you like the money you earned, you can keep the money you earned, period."
Also I would like to say something. Although I vehemently disagree with my brother Ritmo I respect his right to express his opinion. Let's not make it personal if we can and argue and joke and insult each other in a jocular manner.
This is not TOP after all.
I hope all of you douchebags and nudnicks agree.
the costs will continue going down as they have over the last four years, and probably more precipitously).
What world do you live in? Health care costs have skyrocketed. You're not an employer, are you?
Alright, dinner time, I have to sign off.
Good night everyone.
It's not blind trust, just more trust than I should have for people who tell me I'll be screwed either way because that's just the way things should be and somehow, that makes America great. (And BTW, please contribute to my campaign. The government I work for should do nothing but I sure do appreciate having lots of money for being a part of it).
People lost their plans and doctors before this, and this won't prevent that from happening. Obama's point was one of less disruption than one where people assumed the government would be ordering them around and restricting their choice as much as a typical HMO does.
Wait a minute.
I lost control of my space bar.
I have to call my doctor.
Thank God I don't have Obamacare.
Chicken-man/
Ritmo must have very low critical reading skilz, demonstrated by thinking the NAZIs right-wing, missing, as he does, the word socialist in Hitler's "National SOCIALIST German Workers Party."
R & B said ...
Rhythm and Balls said...
Um, yeah. Hello? It's called Medicare or the Federal Employee Health Plan, and worked so well and efficiently that Republicans screamed bloody murder when Obama et al offered to expand that to everyone with a public "option", aka Medicare [single payer] for All ...
I am a little surprised that you outright made this leap without taking a breath...
1.) Medicare and the FEHBP are not in the least similar. To conflate them as such is mendacious in the extreme. I've have written here and elsewhere repeatedly about the FEHBP and I gather you do not have a clue how it works. I do & I am in it. I have prepared portions of multiple executive Branch budgets accounting for FEHBP costs and benefits. They are NOT single payer.
2. Please give me the citation where Obama offered to use the FEHBP in place of the PPACA? I must have missed it...mainly because it was proposed by candidate John Kerry in 2004, not Obama.
3. The FEHBP is the antithesis of "single payer"...it is solely a schedule of insurance companies bidding for coverage policies that meet specific criteria, and it is based upon a system that has worked flawlessly for over 5 decades.
I quit the AMA about 5 years ago because they are socialist fucks to the core.
I wrote a critique of the JAMA article prompting single payer and the reviewer rejecting it was the JAMA editor and an author on the single payer paper.
I called to object (obvious conflict of interest) and requested another reviewer. Next day I got a phone call and it was the editor. She was yelling at me. I thought she was a crazy patient at first. "Do you know who I am???!!
Employers aren't the only party who pay bills, Michael, even for health care:
America continued to curb its spending on health care for the fourth year in a row.
In a country where it's not just employers who are taxed, its important to look at aggregate data.
Ritmo must have very low critical reading skilz, demonstrated by thinking the NAZIs right-wing, missing, as he does, the word socialist in Hitler's "National SOCIALIST German Workers Party."
It's not reading that I'm incapable of, just trusting Nazis to tell the truth. That's something you're apparently better at.
The Nazis needed all the support they could get. This was the 1930s. Who didn't pretend to be a socialist? Was Henry Ford a socialist? Were his practices socialist? Do politicians always tell the unvarnished truth? Does the "Tea Party" have anything to do with tea?
You seem to be very gullible. Branding is important. Being anti-worker in 1930s Germany was less feasible than you seem to think it should be in 2014 America. Or everywhere, apparently.
Ritmo: did you eat any patajes? Dutch "french fries" are to die for -- especially the ones you get in the winkels in Amsterdam.
Medicare and the FEHBP are not in the least similar.
Maybe they aren't and I trust that you know more about this Ari (and BTW, thanks for being a lot less rude about it than certain others here), but both proposals were made - i.e. both to expand Medicare for All or to have population-wide access to the same care that senators get. Not necessarily by Obama but by standing congressional reps and many other interested parties at the time.
I think you are incorrect in that supposition Ritmo.
HMO's did drop doctors. But many more doctors who did business with HMO"S will not do business with the new plans under Obamacare.
The degree of disruption is unprecedented. Disastrous. Horrible. Really bad. Cocky. Pee Pee. Bad.
@Ritmo: You can just cut the Hitler crap already. Leading left wing intellectuals like Ta-nehisi Coates have recently discovered that Hitler's enemies were far worse.
We should leave the 20th century in the 20th century. Our man in D.C. more greatly admires the third world and wants to hasten our joining it.
Ch. - I definitely got the fries with the mayonnaise but they were straight fries. Their brats/sausages were also really good. The latter (along with olie) were being served in a really cool public square with an ice skating rink alongside. And the roads were really cool, along with the canals. It was pretty interesting to see brick roads blending into pedestrian traffic with rails built in.
We tried to hit some well recommended Indonesian restaurants but missed the ones we really wanted. Nevertheless, I knew with a few days more I could get something scrumptious and not too expensive beyond street food. Even though I was pretty happy with that, too.
Obama lied more about his healthcare than the Nazi's lied about almost anything. You see he needed support so he left out stuff like how he wanted nuns to pay for birth control and how everyone would lose their doctors.
Oh and one more thing. If I were a Jew I would not put my faith in Obama. Just sayn'
The thing with economics is it's not a one-way street, though. Both providers and patients have way more power to shape health care once they're given a chance to actually get into the same system. Barriers to entry are almost always bad - for patients as well as for professionals.
Although I'll admit it was personally impressive to see Obama have the balls to order mandatory contraceptive access (which is not always given for contraceptive purposes anyway but for basic gyne care in many cases), I did think it went a step too far. Apparently, one of his "liberal" Supreme Court nominees agrees, and stayed that provision. Should I mention religion? I don't see a need to. I'm not Catholic and saw the merit of both arguments (although giving a bit more credence and sympathy to an organization to be exempted from that) but again a supposed "liberal" justice, for whatever reason, in the highest court, said no. There you have it.
R & B ... can you tell me just who proposed applying the FEHBP to everyone at 2008 or later? I don't think it was taken up by anyone after John Kerry in 2004. Until now...
...Rep Daryl Issa sponsored, bi-literally, HR 3319 in October 2013 to apply the FEHBP to the population at large.
I have posted the bill itself several times right here...with a brief comment on how to expand said coverage. It is a working system, with mechanisms for payment collections and disbursement. It presents approximately 230 separate plans for applicants to select from, annually.
Damn... I know I am boring and wordy, but this has been covered repeatedly...and long before Rep Issa took up the idea.
Well, I know they hate it when I get wordy so I do try every now and then to practice conciseness, but I can guarantee Bernie Sanders raised it. But he's an avowed socialist with few openly ideological allies so what do I know. And again, you'll have to forgive my ignorance on not knowing who proposed expanding FEHBP and who proposed expanding senatorial plans.
My only take-away at the time was that there was too much smack-down for at least one to proceed, but the debate record from that time should be replete with what was "smacked down". It's interesting that these are now getting more air/interest given how "public" they're seen to be and how restrictive and somehow "anti-market" cons are finding the ACA to be.
R & B....Bernie Sanders was and is the advocate for expanding single payer Medicare for all. He's a very unlikely advocate for a open market plan like FEHBP. I can find no citation saying otherwise. The Senatorial and House of Representatives plans are all FEHBP...until now, at least.
I think it was Joe Lieberman who was for expanding FEHBP.
Megan McArdle has written several good pieces on Walmart and its labor practices, like this one, in which she says this:
"...it’s no accident that the high-wage favorites cited by activists tend to serve the affluent; lower income households can’t afford to pay extra for top-notch service. If it really matters to you whether you pay 50 cents a loaf less for generic bread, you’re not going to go to the specialty store where the organic produce is super-cheap and the clerk gave a cookie to your kid. Every time I write about Wal-Mart (or McDonald's, or [insert store here]), several people will e-mail, or tweet, or come into the comments to say they’d be happy to pay 25 percent more for their Big Mac or their Wal-Mart goods if it means that the workers are well paid. I have taken to asking them how often they go to Wal-Mart or McDonald's. So far, no one has reported going as often as once a week; the modal answer is a sudden disappearance from the conversation. If I had to guess, I’d estimate that most of the people making such statements go to Wal-Mart or McDonald's only on road trips."
Love that bit about the modal answer being "a sudden disappearance from the conversation."
Big money flowing from our pockets to democrat donors. Wow. What a surprise?
ACA isn't now and never was about health care, health insurance, expanding coverage or bending the fucking cost curve.
It was about power, taking over 1/6th of the economy. They're socialists, and total societal control is their only goal.
They don't give a shit if any of the stupid morons who voted for them get a single doctor's visit out of this.they get their cut first. If there's anything left, you might get some health care.
Pogo I didn't even know you were sick.
Sorry pal.
Heh.
Sick of it all. Near despair. Angry at the stupid lefties and crony capitalists and gubmint teat suckers and hate America firsters.
Pogo was a good guy from long ago.
And now he's dead.
Nothing I can do about it.
Not to mention the Ritmo and Bull permanent Obama handjob, whom I cannot read more than the first few words without scrolling down saying STFU.
And then there's law perfesser stooges splooging Jughead McDithers into the WhiteHouse, and now lightly critiquing him gently gently gently so no one can cry racist.
Fuck.
Well I think that lady is all about America Fisters. So to speak.
Well I think that lady is all about America Fisters. So to speak.
One can check comparative pay (they call it "salary" incorrectly, I believe) of Target and Wal-Mart over at Glassdoor.
There is very little difference. If any.
Rit -- the comparison with COSTCO, as has been pointed out, is an ignorant -- or to be kind, disengenupous -- comparison.
I did see elsewhere that Wal-Mart offers insurance to PT employees over 24 hrs/week. Plans vary from $17+ to $59+ bi-weekly. (Single non-smoking.)
Wal-Mart pays for preventive care but workers must pay deductibles of at least $1,750 before Wal-Mart covers 80 percent of the cost of other care such as doctor visits and diagnostic tests, according to Reuters. Walmart has provided coverage for part-time employees since 1996.
It appears the deductibles in Obamacare are truly frightening compared to the Wal-Mart plan.
All of this is a stupid discussion anyway. Where are the protest against Target?
Target is where the cool elite buy their stuff, not that crappy redneck Wal-Mart. Their stores are nicer looking and have Starbucks inside.
See how juvenile the left is?
Target paid the lefty Danegeld.
Walmart paid it only recently, so they're still Goldstein and hated for two minutes daily. Plus it's tradition.
Where did R&B go?
I hope you guys didn't silence him.
R&B - Here's the thing. There's a flaw in the Washington Examiner article that inures to your point of view. I knew it was there when I first read the article, and I wanted to see if anyone here who supports Obamacare would catch it.
You didn't. You were so eager to mix it up by writing your talking points that you didn't read the article and think about some of the details.
The flaw is that the article compares the employee portion of the Walmart premium with the full Obamacare premium. Adjust for that difference and the numbers get closer.
For example:
The medical journal reported a 30-year-old smoker would pay up to $428 per month, in contrast to roughly $70 each month for a Walmart employee
Assume the Walmart employee pays 20% of the premium. $70/.2 = $350 for the full premium. Still less than the $428 for Obamacare, but a lot closer than the article leads you to believe.
Try another example:
A family of four could pay a $962 premium, but the same Walmart family member would pay about $160.
Same assumption $160/.2 = $800. And $800 is a lot closer to the Obamacare premium.
Sure, there are huge differences in deductibles and co-pays, and in physician and hospital networks. Had you acknowledged those differences and hoped that they would be quickly resolved, the only point of contention would have been the premium differences, gross cost to gross cost.
You're a smart guy, engaging, even. Your comments would be much more valuable if you took a few minutes to actually read the article, think about what it means, then form your response.
Jumping in with the usual talking points, trying to divert the conversation, bringing in Hitler, etc. is not a winning strategy.
I am always so annoyed when lefties bring up COSTCO as their end all be all for "benevolent" retailers.
Perhaps Wal-mart could be COSTCO too if they convinced people to pay them $60 a year just for the pleasure of walking in their door.
Most people on a budget cannot spare $60 for a COSTCO membership. In actuality, there are only a few items that are cheaper at COSTCO than Walmart: Electronics, flour, spices, butter, nuts, potatoes, onions, lettuce. But people are convinced it's cheaper because they haven't done the math.
I've done the math. I put the membership money in the entertainment portion of the ledger, not the grocery portion.
And actually, we just switched to Sam's because it's cheaper than COSTCO with a better selection of the food staples we buy.
Great examples, Michael. Data is good and I'll run through those with the care you rightfully ask for them to be treated with. I'll never be anyone to say ACA is perfect or going to perfectly improve things from the start (and does anyone know any non-conservative who does, BTW? - the first thing Obama said after it was passed was that the idealists making up his own party's many critics of ACA don't understand the incremental nature of successful progress).
That being said, how standard is a 20% employee contribution to premiums? (Not a challenge, just a request for info that I don't know and that you seem to know more about. Thanks).
Good question. The range of employee contributions is 15% to 50%, but for most large corporations it is 20%.
"The slowdown actually began several years prior to Obamacare, during the Bush administration. Health spending growth came in at 9.7 percent in 2002, and started declining the year after. Spending growth then took a nosedive between 2007 and 2009, dropping from 6.3 percent to 3.8 percent. Notably, that was before Obamacare was passed, but coinciding with the recession. Health spending growth has hovered at basically the same level since.
So the trend started years before Obamacare, and the biggest effect coincided with the recession—not the passage of the law. The president’s health law arrived on the scene late, after the major changes had already taken place—but the White House wants credit anyway."
http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/07/no-obamacare-doesnt-deserve-credit-for-s
Walmart offers products at the lowest costs available on the market. Costco does not. They are a relatively high priced outlet, especially considering the bulk unit nature of most items. In effect -,surprise - there is no free lunch. They pay higher wages by charging more, (including membership) and offering less selection and service at the point of purchase. Walmart is the company that most serves the poor through more affordable products, variety, and employment.
The amount of clout an employer has should be expected to vary greatly depending on numbers. If Walmart does have some exponentially greater number of employees compared to Costco as Verge claims, than you can negotiate a much better rate. At least, that's how it applies to small vs. big businesses generally, and why it was always so hard for smaller businesses to insure the same employees that larger businesses had no problem with, so I don't see why you wouldn't assume that the largest employer on the planet (or however it ranks) gets the best rates of all.
And ironically, that's the same logic that would apply to the ACA itself: Larger pool of insured, lower prices (once they're finally signed up).
A few points...
There was an article a few years back in Target's hometown paper the Star Tribune that stated that Target actually pays LESS than Wal-Mart.
Getting people in Medicare/Medicade does not save money. A study done in Oregon where they compared previously uninsured people who got into Medicare/Medicade via a lottery versus those who did not get in found that those who were now covered actually went to the emergency room MORE often than those who did not get covered. Thus, the notion that getting people insured will reduce costs associated with emergency care (and in general) is false.
Tea Party people did not force Obama to alter the ACA. The Democrats had complete control to implement whatever they wanted and THEY DID. AS you know, not a single Republican supported it not voted for it. This notion that Republicans are some how to blame for the plans craptacular nature is disingenuous at best.
Henry Ford did not pay more based on the magnanimous notion that his workers should be able to afford his product. He did so because he needed to reduce high employee turnover. The reduced turnover led to higher productivity. Had higher wages NOT had that impact, he would not have continued them. Would Wal-Mart get higher productivity if they paid more? Maybe. Do they need higher productivity at the entry level? I don't know. But I am guessing Wal-Mart knows.
Ritmo, you attribute the decline in health care spending increases to the ACA but the article you linked clearly states that it is the economy bringing those numbers down and not the ACA.
Also, not all people working at Costco are Costco employees. It is a nice way to keep your average pay high while actually paying people less.
Matt - if you want to nitpick you could at least get your own notes in accurate order. That includes the fact that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof supermajority for months, which ended by the December vote with the death of Ted Kennedy in July, soon resulting in Republican encroachment onto a functional Senate with Scott Brown's special election shortly thereafter.
Ritmo - ACA passed without ANY Republicans voting for it. The Democrats could have put into that bill WHATEVER they wanted as they did not need any support from the Republicans.
There is nothing nitpicky about that. It is just the truth.
Also, it's disingenuous to skew the emergency care phenomenon with "one" study (by whom?) The point is that Bush encouraged ER visits and considered that free care, which it is - subsidized by those of us who actually pay into the system already. Subsidies minus premium payments are only a cost-saving measure in the minds of people incapable of understanding math or economics.
Bush thought an ER visit could substitute for primary or comprehensive care. It doesn't, no matter how many more visits someone who pays insurance will supposedly make. It's pretty astonishing to see what sort of weird ideas the opposition will keep musing with in an attempt to kill universal care, though.
Gee Matt, it's almost like you don't understand that some Democrats run in districts competitive with Republicans and Teahadists, as if they were gerrymandered to be completely uncompetitive or something.
Hmmm. Why would you think that?
Olympia Snowe was an early helpful vote who flip-flopped back and I don't know or care who the "independents" were. Why are you so invested in the past anyway? With all the emphasis on a dynamic present, I'm wondering if it adds up to a fear of what universal, satisfactory coverage will do for Republican platforms against health care in the very near future. Hmmm…
Come on, man. Have a productive conversation.
Good night, Matt.
Good night, everyone.
Here is a link to an article regarding the study...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/01/02/new-oregon-data-expanding-medicaid-increases-usage-of-emergency-rooms-undermining-central-rationale-for-obamacare/
Did Bush say that? I have never heard that. Have a link?
The ER phenomenon observed in the study is rather simple to understand. If people think they may have to pay for it (uninsured) they are less likely to use it then if the think it will be paid for by someone else in part or in whole (insured). Uninsured may wait to go to the hospital until things get really bad but the insured will go there for issues that do not require emergency care.
I'm sorry this is an answer you don't like but it is SCIENCE! No?
Ritmo, YOU blamed the Tea Party for the content of the ACA. YOU were the one "invested in the past".
This was the Democrats chance to get a law they had been trying to pass for at least twenty years. They compromised it because they were worried about re-election? Seems it wasn't that important to them in the first place then.
Bush stuck by his actions in the Middle East even when popular opinion turned against our involvement there. Doing what he believed was the right thing to do was more important than re-election. If Democrats lack the same fortitude, I do not understand why you attack Republicans for it.
"Come on, man. Have a productive conversation."
You could try having a civil conversation!
Ritmo,
You stated, "It [Medicare for the uninsured] was offered but couldn't succeed politically against the Teahadists, so they went another route."
I pointed out that Democrats passed the ACA with zero Republican support. The "Teahadists" were incapable of stopping them politically. You pivoted to the Democrats’ fear of losing future elections. At the time the ACA passed, it was already unpopular. Are you suggesting that Democrats really wanted to implement a program that would have been even LESS popular than what they passed!? Keep in mind that the issues that are getting headlines now were known issues at the time of the passing of the bill. You know, like the “you can keep it” lie. So, what you are suggesting is that the real plan would have had an even larger negative impact on people!? You and the Democrats should be thanking the “teahadists” then!
THESE NEXT TWO PARAGRAPHS ARE VERY IMPORTANT – PLEASE READ THEM.
When Cruz filibustered last fall, Obama had a great opportunity to avoid all (well, most) of this debacle. He could have agreed to delay the individual mandate for a year showing that he was moderate and willing to compromise. That would have also allowed him to dodge the website snafu and the increasing negative opinion of him from all of the people losing insurance. If the insurance companies turned around and said that delaying at that point messed everything up, Obama would now have the Republicans to blame! “Well, if the Republicans had agreed to go along with the law as implemented then none of this would be happening,” Obama could say.
So, why didn’t he? Either he did not know that the website was garbage and millions of people would lose their plans (incompetence) OR he knew that there were major problems brewing but so loathed Cruz and the “teahadists” that he just would not compromise at all even though it was in his best interest (self-destructive partisan). So, which is it? Is Obama incompetent or partisan to the point of self-destruction? (‘Both’ is a valid answer.)
SHOP Marketplace: There are some policies which include maternity reward for ladies. Any one don’t have any desire. diffrent maternity offers are just additional profit which is important for females. As for any correct speech mark its important to provide accurate information.
And, as always sachin kashyap states Rit Mo's point better and more succinctly that the commie stooge ever could.
Lydia said...
I think it was Joe Lieberman who was for expanding FEHBP.
In reference to R & B's discussion with me...that I did not think of as a "gotcha" moment. There is a lot of misunderstand about how FEHBP works, as shown by Lieberman's casual reference to it.
Almost. But not quite :) Lieberman proposed what he called Medi-Choice, which was a single payer plan....morte like Medicare for all. His 2006 off hand reference to FEHBP merely illustrated that Joe Lieberman did not understand how the FEHBP works. No surprise, many federal employees and Congress critters and staff don't either. How they can receive annual notices of "open season" with a dozen or more plainly private sector health insurance plans available, is beyond me. I suspect most Congress persons and "Feds" just pick one the first year and leave it that way subsequently.
A feature of FEHBP is that it offers both standard medical & hospitalization plans as well as preventative network designated plans...e.g. HMO's. Whatever plan you elect the federal government will only pay a fixed percentage (in my case about 70% of my premium) and you pay the rest....if you elect a more expensive plan the additional cost is primarily on you. The HMO options are restrictive but uniformaly less expensive. I've been on an FEHBP HMO plan for years and it is perfect for me in my locale. Saved my life twice in fact, by pro-active prevetnative care coupled with the highest technology.
The actual suggestion that FEHBP be expanded to cover anyone, employees and employers who chose to participate, was by John Kerry in his 2004 candidacy. I don't know how serious Kerry was at that time. It was a liberal-progressive proposal that made sense, however the party leadership did not take it up seriously. Strange that they did not becasue the FEHBP system is 50+ years old and already has a working database and contrascting mechanism that suports at least a dozen or more insurance carrier options in each region, 230 or so nationa wide. It is also effectively portable.
Just in case anyone stops by here again...here is a Google Search that will bring up several sites, pro & con, on the subject of the FEHBP as universal care. The National Review citation lists a history of who proposed what when...
A number of candidates and elected officials have called for opening the FEHBP to all adults over the past two decades, and most of them have been Democrats. Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) proposed using the FEHBP as a foundation for universal coverage in 1999, Bill Bradley campaigned on allowing all adults to enroll in the FEHBP in 2000, John Kerry proposed a closely related idea in 2004 (as did Wesley Clark and Howard Dean), Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI) introduced the American Health Benefits Program Act of 2009, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) floated the idea during her last campaign. Former Sen. William Roth (R-DE) is one of relatively few Republicans to have called for opening the FEHBP to the uninsured, having introduced a bill to do so in 1994....
...and of course add in today's HR 3319 by Daryl Issa. Not exactly the guy you'd suppose would support old liberal ideas...but there you go.
I will try hard not to revisit this unilaterally....e.g. induce the vapors among the commentariat due to redundancy. :-)
I am fairly sure R&B is aware I was commenting and arguing in good faith. I'd hope most readers would see that, too.
@Aridog - Thank you.
Yes, thank you for all that information, Aridog.
That was very interesting and informative Aridog.
But I don't think you understand the internet. Don't confuse us with facts.
That's not how we do it. Just sayn'
So Ari, (and thanks for clarifying) was a feature of FEHBP an ability to choose a plan offered in any geographic U.S. region? That would be helpful because health insurance is constrained by limits of geography and an ability to pick the best plan for you anywhere in the U.S. would have been an awesome advantage and privilege that most Americans don't have.
Rhythm and Balls said...
So Ari, ... was a feature of FEHBP an ability to choose a plan offered in any geographic U.S. region?
Yes...more or less, which is why I said it was *effectively* portable. The way it works is you select coverage from a carrier in your region. If you relocate you are permitted to select a new carrier & plan, in advance of your move if you wish, at any time during the year, not just during the open season. There is no period of loss of coverage per se. Sometimes the carrier & plan you have is also offered in other regions, in that case the transition is seamless. The FEHBP recognizes each state's insurance oversight jurisdiction.
Another feature is that carriers are permitted to make arrangements with other carriers in other regions to honor each other's plans. This makes travel for longer periods easier and without the necessity to get authorization if you happen to need care in an emergency.
Given my time in the military and as a "Fed" I am convinced the idea to expand FEBHP was just too sensible and simple for the navel gazers to contemplate. Also, it did not create any new "turf" with political distinctions.
Not enough opportunity for graft and corruption. Or the usurpation of power.
Post a Comment