Walmart Healthcare plan better than Obamacare!

[jhbball]

Just like your other buddy your own stupidity over Nationalization was just too much for one thread. After getting totally humiliated on a topic, you would think you wouldn't want to remind everyone of the other subjects you got totally humiliated on.

You get lit up in every thread. Why even bother?

 

[Phokus]

I'm starting my own healthcare company: No pre-existing conditions allowed, a 1 billion dollar deductible. Only $1 a year!

Conservatives: CHECKMATE OBAMACARE, SEE WHAT THE FREE MARKET CAN DO?

 

[jhbball]

Whereas we should listen to the lies from yours?

I thought your wife was the smartest scientist in the US? It'd be nice of some of that rubbed off on you.

 

[fskimospy]

Just like your other buddy your own stupidity over Nationalization was just too much for one thread. After getting totally humiliated on a topic, you would think you wouldn't want to remind everyone of the other subjects you got totally humiliated on.

I bring it up again because it was the most baffling display of stupidity I think I've ever seen on here. The fact that you think you came out on top there is kind of the icing on the cake.

Regardless, I noticed that even someone with as little integrity as you hasn't tried to defend the examiner here.

 

[senseamp]

Looks like Republicans have found their long awaited Obamacare "replacement." Everyone just goes to work at Walmart.

 

[sactoking]

Par for the course for Washington Exampiner. Only counting employee contribution, not full cost of the plan, including Walmart contribution. Walmart is not offering their plan to the public on same terms as their employees, so it's an apples to oranges comparison.

I'm going to try to walk a tightrope here since I do not necessarily endorse the Washington Examiner or the point they are trying to make.

That being said, this part of your post seems to me to miss a point of WE article, which is that Wal-Mart has traditionally been maligned for providing really crappy care and benefits to its employees. I get your point, that it is disingenuous for the WE to say "ACA compliant coverage costs more than Wal-Mart's offering so it follows that it is worse" since premium cost is not the only measure of "quality" or "value". On the flip side, by summarily dismissing the WE's claim, you've also overlooked the fact that the Wal-Mart plan does have an employer contribution and that employer contribution does have value (Actually, you didn't overlook it, you mentioned it then discounted it). If the contention is that an ACA compliant individual plan can't be compared to an employer-subsidized group plan because the employer subsidy has value, then Wal-Mart's offering is necessarily more valuable than it's given credit for.

In fact, this point is so often overlooked that now employer contributions must be reported on employees' form W2, to better apprise them of the value they're receiving. (A provision enacted by the ACA, no less!)

Obamacare is not meant to compete with employer plans. Large employers like Walmart are supposed to provide their employees with coverage under Obamacare employer mandate. Plus most of Walmart associates would end up on expanded Medicaid or highly subsidized exchange plans that would be cheaper than employer contribution + their premium.

Actually, the bolded part is not true. The ACA is specifically designed to "compete" with employer plans. The administration realized that group plans offered better coverage at lower prices than individual plans and designed the ACA so that almost every single individual market reform moved it closer to the group market:
Guaranteed issue
Guaranteed renewability
Limited underwriting factors
Expansion of mental health parity
Tax credits to mimic employer contributions
Incentive to move to community rating
Etc.

In fact, the group market was even encouraged to move a bit closer to the individual market as well with the provision allowing employee choice on the SHOP exchanges. The end goal is an overall insurance marketplace with as little variance as possible among the various sub-markets, which is intended to increase competition and improve consumer experience.

 

[senseamp]

I'm going to try to walk a tightrope here since I do not necessarily endorse the Washington Examiner or the point they are trying to make.

That being said, this part of your post seems to me to miss a point of WE article, which is that Wal-Mart has traditionally been maligned for providing really crappy care and benefits to its employees. I get your point, that it is disingenuous for the WE to say "ACA compliant coverage costs more than Wal-Mart's offering so it follows that it is worse" since premium cost is not the only measure of "quality" or "value". On the flip side, by summarily dismissing the WE's claim, you've also overlooked the fact that the Wal-Mart plan does have an employer contribution and that employer contribution does have value (Actually, you didn't overlook it, you mentioned it then discounted it). If the contention is that an ACA compliant individual plan can't be compared to an employer-subsidized group plan because the employer subsidy has value, then Wal-Mart's offering is necessarily more valuable than it's given credit for.

In fact, this point is so often overlooked that now employer contributions must be reported on employees' form W2, to better apprise them of the value they're receiving. (A provision enacted by the ACA, no less!)

I didn't overlook or discount it, it's a central point of my post, that WE is only reporting the employee premium, not the total cost of the Walmart plan. What it should compare it to is the COBRA rate on the Walmart plan, which is what a non-Walmart employee would have to pay for it (after leaving Walmart). Then it's apples to apples, because such an employee would be choosing between the COBRA Walmart plan and an exchange plan.

Actually, the bolded part is not true. The ACA is specifically designed to "compete" with employer plans. The administration realized that group plans offered better coverage at lower prices than individual plans and designed the ACA so that almost every single individual market reform moved it closer to the group market:
Guaranteed issue
Guaranteed renewability
Limited underwriting factors
Expansion of mental health parity
Tax credits to mimic employer contributions
Incentive to move to community rating
Etc.

In fact, the group market was even encouraged to move a bit closer to the individual market as well with the provision allowing employee choice on the SHOP exchanges. The end goal is an overall insurance marketplace with as little variance as possible among the various sub-markets, which is intended to increase competition and improve consumer experience.

True, it's meant to bring the benefits of large group plans to the private market. You could call it being "feature competitive."
But large employers themselves are required to provide health care to their employees, so it's not aimed at competing with them in the market place directly.

 

[berzerker60]

Let's imagine a world in which Walmart offered a plan that was completely free health care for all employees, no exceptions. It would beat Obamacare! So what? No one has ever said that employers could or should not offer their employees great health care options. Quite the opposite, we're mostly still relying on that archaic system. Obamacare just regulates the offerings of plans and makes them more easily available to those who don't have employee coverage that is better.

 

[umbrella39]

No shit.

In related news, Rachel Maddow Is Crazy, Too. But totally believable to a select few.

Tranlastion: You don't have shit.

 

[Matt1970]

I bring it up again because it was the most baffling display of stupidity I think I've ever seen on here. The fact that you think you came out on top there is kind of the icing on the cake.

Regardless, I noticed that even someone with as little integrity as you hasn't tried to defend the examiner here.

Really? The guy who had to write in his own version of what a definition means is the one who wins an argument over what a definition means? No matter what the debate you are repeatedly given mountains of evidence in clear English that you immediate dismiss and substitute your own opinion. The is why people repeatedly get sick of debating you.

 

[sactoking]

I didn't overlook or discount it, it's a central point of my post, that WE is only reporting the employee premium, not the total cost of the Walmart plan. What it should compare it to is the COBRA rate on the Walmart plan, which is what a non-Walmart employee would have to pay for it (after leaving Walmart). Then it's apples to apples, because such an employee would be choosing between the COBRA Walmart plan and an exchange plan.

Only if the individual in question signing up for the exchange plan wasn't APTC eligible.

 

[Matt1970]

You get lit up in every thread. Why even bother?

Quiet. Adults are talking here.

 

[WackyDan]

No shit they subsidize it, so does almost every other company since it confers tax advantages to both company and employee. That's why it's generally called an "employee benefit" and it's been a major feature of worker compensation since the FDR administration days. IMHO it was a very stupid FDR policy decision that has completely distorted the country's economy and healthcare systems ever since, but now we're stuck with it unless we completely blow things up and start over.

Add to that the cry that most Walmart employees are the "working poor", so under an Obamacare defined plan, they should be getting a subsidy from the gov't as well if on one of those plans.

 

[zephyrprime]

I read this article earlier and it is complete rubbish.

First, it only compares the employee part of the cost and the walmart plan - not the full plan price. The full plan price would no doubt be around $500+ since that is a typical group plan coverage price (at least in Minnesota). The private plan costs less but also covers less. The above is true for all employer plans in comparison to private plans.

Employer plans always cost more and provide more coverage. That's how it' always been going back to at least WW2.

Also, the Walmart plan is an obamacare plan too. ALL plans are Obamacare because ACA is now the law of the land and all health care plans have to conform to it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

OhJAVA us.

The Examiner is a publication created by the weekly standard with the explicit purpose of pushing right wing opinion.

The average Walmart yearly salary is between about $9 and $12 an hour, depending on what parameters you are using. With that in mind, does a household salary of $54k a year sound like a reasonable basis of comparison to you? Of course not. The reason they chose that salary level is because if they chose something close to what a Walmart salary really was the ACA would come out far ahead. That doesn't fit their desired narrative though.

Gullible people.

The figures were based on median family income. Your hyperbole is based on single income from 1 employee and assumes no other sources. You omitted that tidbit.

As far as "truth in advertising", remember when unions were upset about the "Cadillac" designation? Your response was I believe that there were newspaper articles. That relieved those creating the issue to get off the hook. And then the "lie of the year" award given to Obama. That wasn't awarded by the Examiner.

There's a lot of mistakes and disingenuous things being said. You're included.

 

[fskimospy]

The figures were based on median family income. Your hyperbole is based on single income from 1 employee and assumes no other sources. You omitted that tidbit.

As far as "truth in advertising", remember when unions were upset about the "Cadillac" designation? Your response was I believe that there were newspaper articles. That relieved those creating the issue to get off the hook. And then the "lie of the year" award given to Obama. That wasn't awarded by the Examiner.

There's a lot of mistakes and disingenuous things being said. You're included.

Oh, so you're attempting to argue that their piece was an even larger lie than I was trying to argue. Glad you're onboard with shitting on the Examiner.

In your case you're now comparing two types of plans with entirely different subsidy structures and ignoring the downward wage pressure that comes from Walmart's employer contribution. That's a far bigger lie than I was alleging.

If you think I was being disingenuous for attempting to apply Walmart's health plan to Walmart's employees... well... okay.

 

[Wreckem]

I'm going to try to walk a tightrope here since I do not necessarily endorse the Washington Examiner or the point they are trying to make.

That being said, this part of your post seems to me to miss a point of WE article, which is that Wal-Mart has traditionally been maligned for providing really crappy care and benefits to its employees. I get your point, that it is disingenuous for the WE to say "ACA compliant coverage costs more than Wal-Mart's offering so it follows that it is worse" since premium cost is not the only measure of "quality" or "value". On the flip side, by summarily dismissing the WE's claim, you've also overlooked the fact that the Wal-Mart plan does have an employer contribution and that employer contribution does have value (Actually, you didn't overlook it, you mentioned it then discounted it). If the contention is that an ACA compliant individual plan can't be compared to an employer-subsidized group plan because the employer subsidy has value, then Wal-Mart's offering is necessarily more valuable than it's given credit for.

In fact, this point is so often overlooked that now employer contributions must be reported on employees' form W2, to better apprise them of the value they're receiving. (A provision enacted by the ACA, no less!).




Actually, the bolded part is not true. The ACA is specifically designed to "compete" with employer plans. The administration realized that group plans offered better coverage at lower prices than individual plans and designed the ACA so that almost every single individual market reform moved it closer to the group market:
Guaranteed issue
Guaranteed renewability
Limited underwriting factors
Expansion of mental health parity
Tax credits to mimic employer contributions
Incentive to move to community rating
Etc.

In fact, the group market was even encouraged to move a bit closer to the individual market as well with the provision allowing employee choice on the SHOP exchanges. The end goal is an overall insurance marketplace with as little variance as possible among the various sub-markets, which is intended to increase competition and improve consumer experience.

It is meant to compete, however, apples to apples comparisons would be govt subsidized obamacare plans vs employer subsidized group plans. Not HEAVILY subsidized employer plans vs unsubsidized Obamacare plans.

But lets get real and clear some shit up. First off the majority of Walmarts employees are no on Walmarts group health plan. Many are on medicaid.

The average Walmart employee, who is eligible for a govt subsidy would pay less than the Walmart plan. Period. Many of Walmart's employees would be able to get a bronze plan for $0-$25 in premiums per month. Many would qualify for cost sharing as well. The problem is they are offered insurance if they work more than 24 hours a week, which means they likely aren't eligible for a subsidy.

But technically if not for that caveat in the ACA, 66% of Walmart employees would eligible for subsidies if they were single and they weren't offered/didn't qualify for Walmarts insurance. Many more would be eligible if they had families. Those who have families of 4 and make $23549 or less would be SOL unless their state expanded medicaid as they would fall in the gap where they make to much for medicaid but don't make enough for Obamacare subsidies. If they made $23450 they would be able to pay ZERO in premiums for the bottom level bronze plan(HMO)(~$10 for PPO) or ~$30 for the bottom silver plan(HMO)(~$85 for PPO). And they would be eligible for cost sharing that would cover the majority of all out of pocket expenses. Most of Walmarts employees would LIKELY be better off on obamacare plans as they'd pay less in premiums and have a substantial to a majority portion of their OOP expenses covered by cost sharing. Unfortunately, since they are offered healthcare, they cannot take advantage of this.

As for people not working for Walmart. Anyone making the level of wages that over 60% of Walmart workers make(less than $25k), they'd be eligible for subsidies(unless they fall in the gap) and cost sharing. OVERALL they would be paying substantially less than Walmart's plan for EVERYTHING(premiums and OOP expenses).

So yeah. The Washington Examiner article is hack job. The OP is an idiot. And so are most in this thread.

 

[jhbball]

Quiet. Adults are talking here.

Well played. How's that assistant night-manager at Arby's position working out for you?

 

[Matt1970]

Well played. How's that assistant night-manager at Arby's position working out for you?

I own my own business. I have to supplement my income with some work in the trades from time to time since the economy has been in the shitter, but even then I am making more than twice minimum wage. Want to try again?

 

[Moonbeam]

Just like your other buddy your own stupidity over Nationalization was just too much for one thread. After getting totally humiliated on a topic, you would think you wouldn't want to remind everyone of the other subjects you got totally humiliated on.

And there you have it. The reason conservatives can't be wrong. They feel that being wrong is humiliating. They fear that because they were humiliated as children and feel like the worst in the world. Liberals are also like that but the denial isn't so bad. Conservative pride is all about being right but for liberals the pride is in being objective regardless of what the truth is. That is why every liberal on here, Matt, sees you for the biased brain defective that you are and why your attempt to shame us doesn't work. You are the one who is shameful because you deny your shame shamefully.

 

[Vic]

Ah. . today's RNC talking point.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well played. How's that assistant night-manager at Arby's position working out for you?

Now now, there is no shame in working as a night manager at Arby's. He tried to make you feel like a child to shame you. Don't stoop to play his game. Don't forget that except as you be a little child you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Moonbeam]

Ah. . today's RNC talking point.

Like a poop scoop with a nose, the conservative brain defect needs to be fed.

 

[Matt1970]

And there you have it. The reason conservatives can't be wrong. They feel that being wrong is humiliating. They fear that because they were humiliated as children and feel like the worst in the world. Liberals are also like that but the denial isn't so bad. Conservative pride is all about being right but for liberals the pride is in being objective regardless of what the truth is. That is why every liberal on here, Matt, sees you for the biased brain defective that you are and why your attempt to shame us doesn't work. You are the one who is shameful because you deny your shame shamefully.

Oh baby, if you could only fine tune your denial detector, you would see things around here in a whole new light.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It is meant to compete, however, apples to apples comparisons would be govt subsidized obamacare plans vs employer subsidized group plans. Not HEAVILY subsidized employer plans vs unsubsidized Obamacare plans.

But lets get real and clear some shit up. First off the majority of Walmarts employees are no on Walmarts group health plan. Many are on medicaid.

The average Walmart employee, who is eligible for a govt subsidy would pay less than the Walmart plan. Period. Many of Walmart's employees would be able to get a bronze plan for $0-$25 in premiums per month. Many would qualify for cost sharing as well. The problem is they are offered insurance if they work more than 24 hours a week, which means they likely aren't eligible for a subsidy.

But technically if not for that caveat in the ACA, 66% of Walmart employees would eligible for subsidies if they were single and they weren't offered/didn't qualify for Walmarts insurance. Many more would be eligible if they had families. Those who have families of 4 and make $23549 or less would be SOL unless their state expanded medicaid as they would fall in the gap where they make to much for medicaid but don't make enough for Obamacare subsidies. If they made $23450 they would be able to pay ZERO in premiums for the bottom level bronze plan(HMO)(~$10 for PPO) or ~$30 for the bottom silver plan(HMO)(~$85 for PPO). And they would be eligible for cost sharing that would cover the majority of all out of pocket expenses. Most of Walmarts employees would LIKELY be better off on obamacare plans as they'd pay less in premiums and have a substantial to a majority portion of their OOP expenses covered by cost sharing. Unfortunately, since they are offered healthcare, they cannot take advantage of this.

As for people not working for Walmart. Anyone making the level of wages that over 60% of Walmart workers make(less than $25k), they'd be eligible for subsidies(unless they fall in the gap) and cost sharing. OVERALL they would be paying substantially less than Walmart's plan for EVERYTHING(premiums and OOP expenses).

So yeah. The Washington Examiner article is hack job. The OP is an idiot. And so are most in this thread.

You know it would have been nice if we'd conducted a through analysis of health care and put substantial effort into understanding and resolving problems with our system instead of providing hay for the parties. Man, was that not wanted.