Why WALMART supports Odumbocare.....

Wal-Mart will drop health coverage for some part-timers as of Jan. 1

Follows similar moves by competitors


A man pushes a shopping cart outside of a Walmart store that boarded its entrance and closed early in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, Thursday, Aug. 7, 2014, as the area prepares for Hurricane Iselle. Hurricane Iselle is expected to arrive on the ... more >


By Tom Howell Jr. - The Washington Times - Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Wal-Mart announced Tuesday it will no longer provide health insurance to some of its part-time workers as of Jan. 1, following in the footsteps of other big retailers who dropped coverage, citing rising costs and new options outside of the workplace.
The change will affect roughly 30,000 workers who work less than 30 hours per week, or 2 percent of its total U.S. workforce and 5 percent of its part-time contingent, the company said.
Ads by Adblade


Stop Faxing With Paper!
Send and receive faxes via email, your web browser or the eFax mobile app.
eFax


Most Military Might
These are the 20 toughest military units on earth: Where does your nation rank?
Rant Political


Lindsey Vonn is Busted
Tiger Woods’ Girlfriend Lindsey Vonn Caught Cheating!
Radar Online



Wal-Mart had required workers to put in at least 30 hours to qualify for health benefits after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, but there were previously eligible associates who were still covered.
“Like every company, Wal-Mart continues to face rising health care costs,” the company said in a blog post. “This year, the expenses were significant and led us to make some tough decisions as we begin our annual enrollment.”
The company stressed that its health benefits remain competitive, covering 75 percent of an employee’s premiums, and that the decision came after retailers like Target, Home Depot, Walgreens and Trader Joe’s announced similar changes.
“The health care landscape today is changing,” company spokesman Randy Hargrove said, noting there are additional insurance options, for instance, on the state exchanges set up by Obamacare.


Wal-Mart employees’ premiums are rising in 2015, for instance its most popular plan will increase by $3.50 to $21.90 per pay period, or “still half the average premium other retail employees pay, the company said in its blog post.
About 1.2 million employees are covered by the company’s health plan, and Obamacare’s individual mandate now requires most Americans to hold coverage or pay a fine, a motivator that could drive up Wal-Mart’s costs.
“It led people to become more aware of the need for health care coverage,” Mr. Hargrove said of the law.






Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3FU52YMqt
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

I thought odumbocare was suppose to help the low wagers who worked for EVIL corporations like Walmart.......now Walmart can blame government for making them drop healthcare coverage.......now these low wagers will have to pay more for medical coverage and out of pocket!!!!!!!

Thanks odumbo!!!!! Keep voting "D" you gullible dimwits!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

I thought odumbocare was suppose to help the low wagers who worked for EVIL corporations like Walmart...... Originally Posted by LowRider69

It does. Now they qualify for Medicaid .. aka National Health Care Coverage.

It does. Now they qualify for Medicaid .. aka National Health Care Coverage. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You only qualify for the expanded Medicaid if you are a family of 4 and make less than $24,000 and the state that you live in excepted the expanded Medicaid. Half of the states did not. Most of these workers would probably qualify for a subsidy on a private plan. A couple would have to make an average of less that $12,000 each to qualify for the expanded State Medicaid. Study up LexusLover.

I thought odumbocare was suppose to help the low wagers who worked for EVIL corporations like Walmart.......now Walmart can blame government for making them drop healthcare coverage.......now these low wagers will have to pay more for medical coverage and out of pocket!!!!!!!

Thanks odumbo!!!!! Keep voting "D" you gullible dimwits!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Originally Posted by LowRider69

You thought wrong Moron. The purpose of the ACA is to increase the amount of people who are covered. In the old system people who worked for small companies that did not offer health insurance or people who were self employed and who had pre-existing conditions were denied the opportunity to purchase health insurance in the individual market. If you worked for a large company like AT&T, General Electric or IBM, nothing changed in how you get your health insurance. You still get it where you work. All of the policies have the 10 minimum benefits, whether you get your health insurance at work or on the government exchanges.

You thought wrong Moron. The purpose of the ACA is to increase the amount of people who are covered. In the old system people who worked for small companies that did not offer health insurance or people who were self employed and who had pre-existing conditions were denied the opportunity to purchase health insurance in the individual market. If you worked for a large company like AT&T, General Electric or IBM, nothing changed in how you get your health insurance. You still get it where you work. All of the policies have the 10 minimum benefits, whether you get your health insurance at work or on the government exchanges. Originally Posted by flghtr65

You are a astro-turfing liar!... http://benefitrevolution.blogspot.com/

HHS Document Reveals That Possibly as Few as 2.3 Million (Not 8 Million) Enrolled in Obamacare

As we posted a few days ago, the federal government has no clue if Obamacare has increased or decreased the number of uninsured. Two of the bureaucracy's central planning agencies had come up with different answers as to the number of uninsured in America. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that 3.8 million fewer Americans were uninsured while the Census Bureau (using a larger and more statistically reliable sample) reported that 1.3 million more were uninsured.

It is, therefore, no surprise that very few people trust the Administration's claim that 8 million enrolled in Obamacare. Based on my research, taking into account normal enrollee non-payment attrition and extrapolating from insurer estimates, I projected that number to be closer to 5.5 million. Well, it looks like I may have been too generous - far too generous.

HHS just released a report on the reduction in uncompensated care for hospitals under PPACA. And that report makes some very intriguing claims. This is from the bottom of page 1 of the just released Health and Human Services issue brief on the Impact of Insurance Expansion on Hospital Uncompensated Care Costs in 2014:




For purposes of this post, I'll set aside the fact that we have now had three different federal agencies publish three different uninsured estimates in the last month:

The Census Bureau (probably the most accurate due to larger sample size) projected that 1.3 million more Americans are now uninsured;
The CDC claims that 3.8 million fewer Americans are uninsured; while
HHS claims that 10.3 million fewer Americans are uninsured.

Even if we take HHS at its word and accept that 10.3 million fewer Americans are uninsured. This latest report illustrates another eye-opening fact. Of those 10.3 million more Americans with coverage, we also see HHS's declaration that 8 million of those went into Medicaid (not Obamacare).

That leaves only 2.3 million more people who likely enrolled in Obamacare. Medicaid is the lowest grade of medical coverage one can have in the United States. It is so bad that a recent study found that having it was worse than having no coverage at all. The study on Oregon’s Medicaid program by Baicker and colleagues in the NEJM in 2013 (and, more recently, Avik Roy’s short treatise “How Medicaid Fails the Poor”) found that Medicaid enrollees fared no better in terms of health outcomes than those without insurance.

Now, certainly there is another segment of people who lost their individual or employer plans and were dumped into Obamacare. Those people would have shown up as insured prior to and during 2014. But it hardly seems fair to count them as Obamacare success stories. These are the people who couldn't keep their plan despite the President's promises and are now saddled with provider networks that are 25 to 50 percent smaller than the ones they would have had on an employer or individual plan.

Jack and Joe covered this story on today's Armstrong and Getty Show. Here is the audio from that segment.

You thought wrong Moron. The purpose of the ACA is to increase the amount of people who are covered. In the old system people who worked for small companies that did not offer health insurance or people who were self employed and who had pre-existing conditions were denied the opportunity to purchase health insurance in the individual market. If you worked for a large company like AT&T, General Electric or IBM, nothing changed in how you get your health insurance. You still get it where you work. All of the policies have the 10 minimum benefits, whether you get your health insurance at work or on the government exchanges. Originally Posted by flghtr65

How does that Kool Aid taste?

Anyone can go out on their own and try to find health insurance. Some people will do better by finding a group (Blue Cross) and some people have pre-existing conditions that will make it hard if not impossible. So why didn't Obama go after those people exclusively? If he really wanted to help then it would have cost billions less to just deal with those who can't get insurance and not make people who already have to it to lose it.

As for those 10 benefits; I'm 55, male, and single. Why would I have to pay for reproductive services?

You are a astro-turfing liar!... http://benefitrevolution.blogspot.com/

HHS Document Reveals That Possibly as Few as 2.3 Million (Not 8 Million) Enrolled in Obamacare

As we posted a few days ago, the federal government has no clue if Obamacare has increased or decreased the number of uninsured. Two of the bureaucracy's central planning agencies had come up with different answers as to the number of uninsured in America. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that 3.8 million fewer Americans were uninsured while the Census Bureau (using a larger and more statistically reliable sample) reported that 1.3 million more were uninsured.

It is, therefore, no surprise that very few people trust the Administration's claim that 8 million enrolled in Obamacare. Based on my research, taking into account normal enrollee non-payment attrition and extrapolating from insurer estimates, I projected that number to be closer to 5.5 million. Well, it looks like I may have been too generous - far too generous.

HHS just released a report on the reduction in uncompensated care for hospitals under PPACA. And that report makes some very intriguing claims. This is from the bottom of page 1 of the just released Health and Human Services issue brief on the Impact of Insurance Expansion on Hospital Uncompensated Care Costs in 2014:




For purposes of this post, I'll set aside the fact that we have now had three different federal agencies publish three different uninsured estimates in the last month:

The Census Bureau (probably the most accurate due to larger sample size) projected that 1.3 million more Americans are now uninsured;
The CDC claims that 3.8 million fewer Americans are uninsured; while
HHS claims that 10.3 million fewer Americans are uninsured.

Even if we take HHS at its word and accept that 10.3 million fewer Americans are uninsured. This latest report illustrates another eye-opening fact. Of those 10.3 million more Americans with coverage, we also see HHS's declaration that 8 million of those went into Medicaid (not Obamacare).

That leaves only 2.3 million more people who likely enrolled in Obamacare. Medicaid is the lowest grade of medical coverage one can have in the United States. It is so bad that a recent study found that having it was worse than having no coverage at all. The study on Oregon’s Medicaid program by Baicker and colleagues in the NEJM in 2013 (and, more recently, Avik Roy’s short treatise “How Medicaid Fails the Poor”) found that Medicaid enrollees fared no better in terms of health outcomes than those without insurance.

Now, certainly there is another segment of people who lost their individual or employer plans and were dumped into Obamacare. Those people would have shown up as insured prior to and during 2014. But it hardly seems fair to count them as Obamacare success stories. These are the people who couldn't keep their plan despite the President's promises and are now saddled with provider networks that are 25 to 50 percent smaller than the ones they would have had on an employer or individual plan.

Jack and Joe covered this story on today's Armstrong and Getty Show. Here is the audio from that segment.


Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

You astro-turfing moron, you don't even understand what you post. Let's say their numbers are right. I said the ACA increases the amount of people who are insured. Your post says 10.3 million more people are INSURED. The breakdown is 2.3 million got a private plan and 8 million got the expanded Medicaid. Getting the expanded Medicaid means you are a family of 4 that makes less than $24,000. Can you understand that idiot? I didn't lie more people are covered. The 2.3 million who qualified for a private plan is better than zero. From your post.


Even if we take HHS at its word and accept that 10.3 million fewer Americans are uninsured. This latest report illustrates another eye-opening fact. Of those 10.3 million more Americans with coverage, we also see HHS's declaration that 8 million of those went into Medicaid

Anyone can go out on their own and try to find health insurance. Some people will do better by finding a group (Blue Cross) and some people have pre-existing conditions that will make it hard if not impossible. So why didn't Obama go after those people exclusively? If he really wanted to help then it would have cost billions less to just deal with those who can't get insurance and not make people who already have to it to lose it.

As for those 10 benefits; I'm 55, male, and single. Why would I have to pay for reproductive services? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Here are the answers to your questions JD.

1. The ACA deals with the uninsured in the individual market. The grandfather rules regarding the old policies (that did not have the 10 minimum benefits) would have allowed policyholders to keep those policies one more year. The health insurance companies chose to not follow the grandfather rules and cancelled them. The health insurance companies did not want to maintain two types of policies in there system, so they cancelled the old policies. This was what about 5 million cancellations out of 80 million policies.

2. The inferior policies are to go away because if you got really sick the insured would ultimately end up in bankruptcy court. There were too many bankruptcies on the books due to the inferior policies.

3. The policies were standardized with the 10 minimum benefits to improve the preventive coverage. Things like Chest X-Ray, Cat Scan, NMR (nuclear magnetic reasonance) red blood cell count, white blood cell count, platelets, glucose(blood sugar), triglycerides (fat), potassium, sodium, cardiac enzymes , liver enzymes, prostate exam for men, mamagrams for woman are covered with your premium.

4. I agree with you that if you are age 55 and single you would not want to pay the rider for the reproductive services, unless you accidently got someone pregnant while single. The more people paying for the benefit the lower the cost. An improvement to the law would be to lower the number of benefits to 9.

You astro-turfing moron, you don't even understand what you post. Let's say their numbers are right. I said the ACA increases the amount of people who are insured. Your post says 10.3 million more people are INSURED. The breakdown is 2.3 million got a private plan and 8 million got the expanded Medicaid. Getting the expanded Medicaid means you are a family of 4 that makes less than $24,000. Can you understand that idiot? I didn't lie more people are covered. The 2.3 million who qualified for a private plan is better than zero. From your post.


Even if we take HHS at its word and accept that 10.3 million fewer Americans are uninsured. This latest report illustrates another eye-opening fact. Of those 10.3 million more Americans with coverage, we also see HHS's declaration that 8 million of those went into Medicaid Originally Posted by flghtr65

Flighty lying astro-turfer just don't get it...


The Census Bureau (probably the most accurate due to larger sample size) projected that 1.3 million more Americans are now uninsured;

flighty the astro-turfer says over and over...

Flighty lying astro-turfer just don't get it...


The Census Bureau (probably the most accurate due to larger sample size) projected that 1.3 million more Americans are now uninsured; Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

What is the text in the title of your post Moron?

HHS Document Reveals That Possibly as Few as 2.3 Million (Not 8 Million) Enrolled in Obamacare

Your post has three different projections by three different organizations. You took the smallest projection moron.

By the way 1.3 million is still an increase. Don't forget Romeycare and Part D had rollout problems too.

What is the text in the title of your post Moron?

HHS Document Reveals That Possibly as Few as 2.3 Million (Not 8 Million) Enrolled in Obamacare

Your post has three different projections by three different organizations. You took the smallest projection moron.

By the way 1.3 million is still an increase. Don't forget Romeycare and Part D had rollout problems too. Originally Posted by flghtr65

What part of 1.3 million MORE UNINSURED... Do you NOT understand? flighty the lying astro-turfer...


"The Census Bureau (probably the most accurate due to larger sample size) projected that 1.3 million more Americans are now uninsured";

What part of 1.3 million MORE UNINSURED... Do you NOT understand? flighty the lying astro-turfer...
Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Astro-turf Moron, you took the lowest projection. What do you not understand? I took the middle one which is 2.3 million fewer. They are all estimates you idiot. The CDC and HHS can count just as well as the census bureau.

The CDC claims that 3.8 million fewer Americans are uninsured; while
HHS claims that 10.3 million fewer Americans are uninsured.

Even if we take HHS at its word and accept that 10.3 million fewer Americans are uninsured. This latest report illustrates another eye-opening fact. Of those 10.3 million more Americans with coverage, we also see HHS's declaration that 8 million of those went into Medicaid (not Obamacare).

Expanded Medicaid is a part of the law Moron. It's insurance, it's not as good as a private plan. A doctor or hospital would rather see that you have at least the Medicaid coverage than have nothing.

Astro-turf Moron, you took the lowest projection. What do you not understand? I took the middle one which is 2.3 million fewer. They are all estimates you idiot. The CDC and HHS can count just as well as the census bureau.

The CDC claims that 3.8 million fewer Americans are uninsured; while
HHS claims that 10.3 million fewer Americans are uninsured.

Even if we take HHS at its word and accept that 10.3 million fewer Americans are uninsured. This latest report illustrates another eye-opening fact. Of those 10.3 million more Americans with coverage, we also see HHS's declaration that 8 million of those went into Medicaid (not Obamacare).

Expanded Medicaid is a part of the law Moron. It's insurance, it's not as good as a private plan. A doctor or hospital would rather see that you have at least the Medicaid coverage than have nothing. Originally Posted by flghtr65

"The Census Bureau (probably the most accurate due to larger sample size) projected that 1.3 million more Americans are now uninsured";

Astro-turf on flighty the liar... wait till the first of the year... oh shit!