Dante Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Bet the Union inspired drones that create and spread propaganda about Walmart will never mention this. http://washingtonexaminer.com/surprise-walmart-health-plan-is-cheaper-offers-more-coverage-than-obamacare/article/2541670 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 "JAMA found the unsubsidized premium for a nonsmoking gouple age 60 can cost $1,365 per month versus the Walmart cost of about $134 for the same couple." we'll see if they get to keep it when the employer mandate kicks in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 "JAMA found the unsubsidized premium for a nonsmoking gouple age 60 can cost $1,365 per month versus the Walmart cost of about $134 for the same couple." we'll see if they get to keep it when the employer mandate kicks in. What the !@#$ is a "gouple?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 What the !@#$ is a "gouple?" I believe it's plural for 'groupie'. they travel in herds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 "JAMA found the unsubsidized premium for a nonsmoking gouple age 60 can cost $1,365 per month versus the Walmart cost of about $134 for the same couple." we'll see if they get to keep it when the employer mandate kicks in. But they are saying they offer better plans than what Obamacare is offering. Walmart has a lot more young clerks and cashiers than greeters. I bet Obamacare will have more greeters than young people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I believe it's plural for 'groupie'. they travel in herds. You didn't really have to change it. In your defense, it was the original article that said "gouple." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Am I missing something or is the point of this article that a massive group insurance plan provided through an employer is better than an individual plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Am I missing something or is the point of this article that a massive group insurance plan provided through an employer is better than an individual plan? Well, I think there's a half-point that the exchanges were supposed to reduce the cost of individual policies by allowing large numbers of people to sign up for commonly-defined policies, causing individual policies to act like group policies. And that apparently isn't happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Well, I think there's a half-point that the exchanges were supposed to reduce the cost of individual policies by allowing large numbers of people to sign up for commonly-defined policies, causing individual policies to act like group policies. And that apparently isn't happening. That is a point? I mean creative response there Tom but that point isn't in the article is it? The article is completely nonsensical as far as I can tell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 That is a point? I mean creative response there Tom but that point isn't in the article is it? The article is completely nonsensical as far as I can tell... I thought that was Dante's point. I didn't read the article...because I don't really give a **** about WalMart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I thought that was Dante's point. I didn't read the article...because I don't really give a **** about WalMart. You're being kind. There is no point to any of this. Thread. Article. Etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 You're being kind. There is no point to any of this. Thread. Article. Etc. I'll admit to being too generous. I am never kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 You're being kind. There is no point to any of this. Thread. Article. Etc. Yes, there is a very good point. Walmart can provide cheap and value based insurance to 1.1 million employees while the ACA can't come close because it was written so poorly. Walmart has a broad base of employees while the ACA has limited its insured to those that most likely will really need insurance. Can you explain why the article is non-sensical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Yes, there is a very good point. Walmart can provide cheap and value based insurance to 1.1 million employees while the ACA can't come close because it was written so poorly. Walmart has a broad base of employees while the ACA has limited its insured to those that most likely will really need insurance. Can you explain why the article is non-sensical? yes, because in this case, walmart is effectively a single payer. they make the rules. don't like em? - tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 "But 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" These articles are always fun to read. Obamacare is not a medical plan, its not even what the actualy law is called. The largest employers in the US has a group plan that is less expensive that individual plans on ACA exchanges... wow, what a revelation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 You're being kind. There is no point to any of this. Thread. Article. Etc. I think the point is Walmart, a private for profit(heaven forbid) organization, can organize medical coverage for a great amount of people much better than a bloated, unmotivated bureaucracy can. No more than that. "But 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" These articles are always fun to read. Obamacare is not a medical plan, its not even what the actualy law is called. The largest employers in the US has a group plan that is less expensive that individual plans on ACA exchanges... wow, what a revelation. Well it seems most people can't see the obvious. Or at least don't want to believe it unless it's shown to them. yes, because in this case, walmart is effectively a single payer. they make the rules. don't like em? - tough. I would assume they can opt out if they wanted? Not sure have to re read the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 yes, because in this case, walmart is effectively a single payer. they make the rules. don't like em? - tough. Are you really this dense? Walmart has health plans that it offers its employees that are not only better than the plans offered under the ACA, but are much less expensive. How is that so? It's not because it reached the Nirvana of single payer status but because it has a broad base of employees that are signed up. The ACA as written, insures that insurers will not have a broad base but will be dealing with people that are much older and less healthy. Simply put, the ACA was so poorly written that it basically exempts the young and healthy. It perverts the long-held fundamentals of insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Tut-tut-tut! The Left will never rest until Uncle Sam pays all the bills for everyone! Forward!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Are you really this dense? Walmart has health plans that it offers its employees that are not only better than the plans offered under the ACA, but are much less expensive. How is that so? It's not because it reached the Nirvana of single payer status but because it has a broad base of employees that are signed up. The ACA as written, insures that insurers will not have a broad base but will be dealing with people that are much older and less healthy. Simply put, the ACA was so poorly written that it basically exempts the young and healthy. It perverts the long-held fundamentals of insurance. nope. walmart can and does exempt the chronically sick and disabled. so does just about every other employee sponsored plan. so who pays for their health care? or would you propose that those people not get healthcare? walmart has the best of both worlds as far as insurance: a relatively healthy population that takes the plan they offer or goes without (opting out isn't a realistic possibilty for most walmart employees). but it's a private company so defining benefits is ok, right? just as long as it's not the gov't defining benefits... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 nope. walmart can and does exempt the chronically sick and disabled. so does just about every other employee sponsored plan. so who pays for their health care? or would you propose that those people not get healthcare? walmart has the best of both worlds as far as insurance: a relatively healthy population that takes the plan they offer or goes without (opting out isn't a realistic possibilty for most walmart employees). but it's a private company so defining benefits is ok, right? just as long as it's not the gov't defining benefits... Well first of all they probably don't have a job with Walmart if they are chronically sick and I don't recall if I've ever seen anyone noticeably disabled working at one, but please show me your proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts