Wal Mart Cuts Its Employee Health Care Plan And Raises Premiums

[red states rule]

Thank you Obamacare!!! I wonder how many of those Wal Mart workers who voted for Obama in 2008 will blame Obama or the "greedy" corporation for this?

More hope and change hitting the working folks courtesy of the Hope and Change President






Claiming that it's too expensive, Wal-Mart (http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/wal-mart) has announced it is rescinding health coverage for part-time workers and drastically raising premiums for much of its full time staff.

According to The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/business/wal-mart-cuts-some-health-care-benefits.html?_r=2&ref=health), the country's largest private employer told all of its employees working less that 24 hours a week that they will no longer qualify for insurance and anyone working up to 33 hours a week may no longer include a spouse on their plan.

Rates are expected to climb by more than 40 percent for some employees. Combined with high deductibles, employees are complaining that their health care will now eat up to 20 percent of their annual pay.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/wal-mart-guts-its-employee-health-care-plan-and-raises-premiums-2011-10#ixzz1bUfJ1sJ9

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/111019obamafailRGB20111020043405.jpg

[ConHog]

Thank you Obamacare!!! I wonder how many of those Wal Mart workers who voted for Obama in 2008 will blame Obama or the "greedy" corporation for this?

More hope and change hitting the working folks courtesy of the Hope and Change President



Wal Mart is just not the same company they were when Sam was alive. He would NEVER have allowed this to happen; and frankly RSR I'm not sure how you can blame Obamacare for it.

[fj1200]

Wal Mart is just not the same company they were when Sam was alive. He would NEVER have allowed this to happen; and frankly RSR I'm not sure how you can blame Obamacare for it.

Because the costs of HC insurance are going up in order to comply with the mandates. What could Sam do about that?

[ConHog]

Because the costs of HC insurance are going up in order to comply with the mandates. What could Sam do about that?

WM is self insured. I guarantee their costs weren't going up. Sam would have ate the difference and kept his employees covered.

[LuvRPgrl]

WM is self insured. I guarantee their costs weren't going up. Sam would have ate the difference and kept his employees covered.
The cost of healthcare is also going up.

The reason wall mart does so well is because of their low prices. They depend on volume, and have the slimmest profit margin they can maintain, hence "sam" could not afford to eat it.

[ConHog]

The cost of healthcare is also going up.

The reason wall mart does so well is because of their low prices. They depend on volume, and have the slimmest profit margin they can maintain, hence "sam" could not afford to eat it.


LOL I can assure you that Wal Mart doesn't have the slimmest profit margins they can maintain. They are doing quite well.

[DragonStryk72]

LOL I can assure you that Wal Mart doesn't have the slimmest profit margins they can maintain. They are doing quite well.

I think most companies are just hunkering down at this point. I mean, they won't come out and say that's what they're doing, cause their stocks would drop, but that's what it seems like to me. With how unstable our economy is at this point, I think that most companies, even Wal-Mart, are trying to hoard as much money as possible to sort of ride it out. When things get back to a more stable footing, I think you'll see benefits and such on the rise again.

[Psychoblues]

LOL I can assure you that Wal Mart doesn't have the slimmest profit margins they can maintain. They are doing quite well.

Here we agree totally, ch. Sam would have never allowed this to happen but even if true then how does anyone explain the CostCo example? CostCo competes very well with any discount chain out there including Sams Club and they pay their employees very well, provide very good benefits and opportunities for advancements and career considerations are as good as anyone's.

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

While PB may agree with the take that Walmart is raking in the dough. Wall Street understands the differences between perceptions and reality:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/16/walmart-profits-up-but-us_n_928030.html

[Psychoblues]

While PB may agree with the take that Walmart is raking in the dough. Wall Street understands the differences between perceptions and reality:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/16/walmart-profits-up-but-us_n_928030.html

Linking to an article that tells flat out that the profits of WalMart and Sams Club are substantially higher than expected is not helping your case, Kath. Do you read your articles?

Just kidding you, Kath!!!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Linking to an article that tells flat out that the profits of WalMart and Sams Club are substantially higher than expected is not helping your case, Kath. Do you read your articles?

Just kidding you, Kath!!!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

yeah, meaning you're lying Pb, so funny. Not.

[Psychoblues]

yeah, meaning you're lying Pb, so funny. Not.

Read your article, Kath, and tell me once more that WalMart and their sister stores Sams Club aren't making the killing that I alluded. It ain't me lying so it must be you.

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Read your article, Kath, and tell me once more that WalMart and their sister stores Sams Club aren't making the killing that I alluded. It ain't me lying so it must be you.

Psychoblues
Not in the article, indeed your lies will not back you.

[Psychoblues]

Not in the article, indeed your lies will not back you.

The very title of the article:
Wal-Mart Profits Rise, But U.S. Sales Still Slump
Excerpts from the article:

NEW YORK — Wal-Mart Stores Inc. posted a second-quarter profit increase of 5.7 percent on Tuesday and raised its outlook for the year as its results benefit from international sales growth and cost cutting........................................... ........................................

Overall, revenue, excluding Sam's Club membership fees, was up 5.5 percent to $108.6 billion. Results were buoyed by Wal-Mart's international business, which produces 26 percent of its revenue. The company's international division was up 16.2 percent........................................... ...............................

The retailer, based in Bentonville, Ark., reported net income of $3.8 billion, or $1.09 per share, in the three months ended July 31. That compares with $3.6 billion, or 97 cents per share, in the same period last year. Analysts had expected $1.08 per share on revenue of $108.08 billion........................................... ..................................

While this indicates a one cent or roughly .9% above expectations that is indeed significant. Other retailers would croon for such a number in this retail climate.

Wal-Mart said it will continue to improve results. The company said revenue at stores open at least a year at its Walmart stores in the U.S. is improving and reiterated that it expects to see growth in that measure by the year's end............................................... .................................................. ................

Wal-Mart said results are improving because U.S. customers are beginning to respond to its turnaround strategies. After consumers balked at popular brand names and other merchandise they want being missing from store shelves, the company has been restocking those items that it had scrapped in an overzealous move to clean up stores. And its returning to a philosophy of everyday low pricing instead of slashing prices temporarily on select merchandise is resonating with its financially-strapped customers......................................... .................................................. ...................

Wal-Mart shares rose $1.93, or almost 4 percent, to $51.91............................................ .................................................. .......

All of this and a lot more right there in YOUR linked to article, Kath. WalMart talks a lot about how their customer base is struggling but their business continues to boom both here and overseas and will do exponentially better as more WalMart Express stores open as planned. That's in your article as well.

Don't call me a liar, Kath. I do not lie, I mean about anything serious.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

The very title of the article:
Wal-Mart Profits Rise, But U.S. Sales Still Slump


Excerpts from the article:

NEW YORK — Wal-Mart Stores Inc. posted a second-quarter profit increase of 5.7 percent on Tuesday and raised its outlook for the year as its results benefit from international sales growth and cost cutting........................................... ........................................

Overall, revenue, excluding Sam's Club membership fees, was up 5.5 percent to $108.6 billion. Results were buoyed by Wal-Mart's international business, which produces 26 percent of its revenue. The company's international division was up 16.2 percent........................................... ...............................

The retailer, based in Bentonville, Ark., reported net income of $3.8 billion, or $1.09 per share, in the three months ended July 31. That compares with $3.6 billion, or 97 cents per share, in the same period last year. Analysts had expected $1.08 per share on revenue of $108.08 billion........................................... ..................................

While this indicates a one cent or roughly .9% above expectations that is indeed significant. Other retailers would croon for such a number in this retail climate.

Wal-Mart said it will continue to improve results. The company said revenue at stores open at least a year at its Walmart stores in the U.S. is improving and reiterated that it expects to see growth in that measure by the year's end............................................... .................................................. ................

Wal-Mart said results are improving because U.S. customers are beginning to respond to its turnaround strategies. After consumers balked at popular brand names and other merchandise they want being missing from store shelves, the company has been restocking those items that it had scrapped in an overzealous move to clean up stores. And its returning to a philosophy of everyday low pricing instead of slashing prices temporarily on select merchandise is resonating with its financially-strapped customers......................................... .................................................. ...................

Wal-Mart shares rose $1.93, or almost 4 percent, to $51.91............................................ .................................................. .......

All of this and a lot more right there in YOUR linked to article, Kath. WalMart talks a lot about how their customer base is struggling but their business continues to boom both here and overseas and will do exponentially better as more WalMart Express stores open as planned. That's in your article as well.

Don't call me a liar, Kath. I do not lie, I mean about anything serious.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues


Okay, so with another post, we're at the the same point. PB lying.

I wish it were different, but his choice.

[Psychoblues]

Okay, so with another post, we're at the the same point. PB lying.

I wish it were different, but his choice.

How do you figure, Kath? I just proved that you don't even read your own articles, expound on crap you don't know anything about, pretend to be some sort of an economic genius and I would doubt your abilities to run your own household with such demonstrated propensities to lie and accuse others of such. WalMart is doing very well, as described in the article, despite your arguments to the contrary.

What is going on here, Kath?

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Wal Mart is just not the same company they were when Sam was alive. He would NEVER have allowed this to happen; and frankly RSR I'm not sure how you can blame Obamacare for it.

CH you surprise me with this reply. It is almost like you do not know what is in Obamcare that is causing costs to skyrocket

Wall Mart is not doing anything that many companies will have to do. And no company should have to "eat" the cost since the added cost is thanks to Obama, Reid, and Pelosi

Here is a union that told its members to support Obamacare. They were spoon fed how great it was

Well, it passed, and then the members got a letter telling them there kids would no longer be covered due to the increased cost

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/11/20/union-drops-health-coverage-for-workers-children/


Here is the LONG list of tax increases and regs that are in Obamacare. Note how many of these taxes increases have already kicked in, and how many start 1/1/12

http://www.newsmax.com/GroverNorquist/obamacare-taxes/2011/01/14/id/382849

Obamacare was nothing more than a massive tax hike on business, and we are starting to see the end results.

A majority want this beast repealed, and I hope the R's win and then euthanize this piece of garbage

[Psychoblues]

CH you surprise me with this reply. It is almost like you do not know what is in Obamcare that is causing costs to skyrocket

Wall Mart is not doing anything that many companies will have to do. And no company should have to "eat" the cost since the added cost is thanks to Obama, Reid, and Pelosi

Here is a union that told its members to support Obamacare. They were spoon fed how great it was

Well, it passed, and then the members got a letter telling them there kids would no longer be covered due to the increased cost

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/11/20/union-drops-health-coverage-for-workers-children/


Here is the LONG list of tax increases and regs that are in Obamacare. Note how many of these taxes increases have already kicked in, and how many start 1/1/12

http://www.newsmax.com/GroverNorquist/obamacare-taxes/2011/01/14/id/382849

Obamacare was nothing more than a massive tax hike on business, and we are starting to see the end results.

A majority want this beast repealed, and I hope the R's win and then euthanize this piece of garbage

I will never understand your hatred of this most excellent piece of legislation. It certainly doesn't approach the universal healthcare that most lefties, especially me, advocate but it's better than anything we've ever had before. It's titled Patients Protection And Affordable Care Act of 2010. It is designed to SAVE money in the macro sense and it appears it is doing exactly that. Are you really that afraid of it's success?

Here is a better explanation of what it's all about with lots of links to verify the veracity of the research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

I will never understand your hatred of this most excellent piece of legislation. It certainly doesn't approach the universal healthcare that most lefties, especially me, advocate but it's better than anything we've ever had before. It's titled Patients Protection And Affordable Care Act of 2010. It is designed to SAVE money in the macro sense and it appears it is doing exactly that. Are you really that afraid of it's success?

Here is a better explanation of what it's all about with lots of links to verify the veracity of the research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Psychoblues

What hate PB? I am posting what is in the bill, and how unions and companies are reacting to the end results of the tax increases and added costs of doing business

A majority of voters want this bill repealed. Are they all "haters" in your book?

[fj1200]

WM is self insured. I guarantee their costs weren't going up. Sam would have ate the difference and kept his employees covered.

You'll forgive me if I don't just accept your guarantee.


The largest employer in the world attributed the decision for making the cuts to rising health care costs.
...
"The current health care system is unsustainable for everyone and, like other businesses, we've had to make choices we wish we didn't have to make," said Walmart spokesman Greg Rossiter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/wal-mart-scales-back-health-care-employees_n_1024092.html

[red states rule]

The effects of Obamacare have been felt since the bill was rammed thru by the Dems

From 2010





Remember the part in the ObamaCare pitch when they said if you like your current healthcare, it won't change (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)?

Turns out it might.

Companies are already announcing that their healthcare premium costs are going through the roof. Some are responding by firing people. Some are cutting benefits (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#). And some are presumably eating it.

But costs they are a-rising.

A few examples from the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141642402986422.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read):

Caterpillar said it would cost the company at least $100 million more in the first year alone.
Medical device maker Medtronic warned that new taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers.
Verizon (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) announced to employees that it will likely have to cut healthcare benefits to offset the new costs
So, people who like your employer-provided health insurance, get ready to pay more or get less.


Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-03-26/news/30077795_1_obamacare-healthcare-costs#ixzz1bbwIiWHU

[Psychoblues]

What hate PB? I am posting what is in the bill, and how unions and companies are reacting to the end results of the tax increases and added costs of doing business

A majority of voters want this bill repealed. Are they all "haters" in your book?

The legislation, when properly described, is overwhelmingly supported by the American population just like Medicare and Medicaid are overwhelmingly supported by the general population.

Those that oppose the "Obamacare" or Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 without knowing what it is or is about are indeed irrational haters in my book, rsr. No doubt about that.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

The legislation, when properly described, is overwhelmingly supported by the American population just like Medicare and Medicaid are overwhelmingly supported by the general population.

Those that oppose the "Obamacare" or Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 without knowing what it is or is about are indeed irrational haters in my book, rsr. No doubt about that.

Psychoblues

Overwhelmingly supported? Hmmmmmmm.........

I guess the majority of voters are just to stupid to know how good they have it as their cost for ins rises, their benefits are cut, or if their employer stops offering the coverage

BTW, here is the history of "support" for Obamacare from one dailying tracking poll PB

In your book they are just the stupid ones in the country




Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
October 14-15, 2011

<TBODY>
Date

Favor Repeal

Oppose Repeal



Oct 14-15

54%

38%



Sep 30-Oct 1 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/october_2011/51_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_57_say_law_will _drive_up_costs)

51%

39%



Sep 16-17 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/september_2011/56_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_52_say_law_is_b ad_for_the_country)

56%

36%



Sep 2-3 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/september_2011/57_favor_health_care_repeal_54_say_repeal_likely)

57%

36%



Aug 27-28 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/august_2011/voters_express_stronger_enthusiasm_for_health_care _repeal)

57%

37%



Aug 19-20 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/august_2011/55_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law2)

55%

38%



Aug 13-14 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/august_2011/54_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_46_say_repeal_l ikely)

54%

40%



Aug 5-6 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/august_2011/52_say_health_care_law_will_increase_deficit_54_fa vor_its_repeal)

54%

40%



July 30-31 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/platinum/political_tracking_crosstabs/july_2011/crosstabs_health_care_law_july_30_31_2011)

55%

39%



July 22-23 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/july_2011/57_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law)

57%

36%



July 16-17 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2011/54_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_52_say_law_will _increase_deficit)

54%

39%



July 8-9 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/july_2011/53_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law)

53%

40%



July 2 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/july_2011/53_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_as_expectation_ of_repeal_hits_new_high)

53%

39%



June 24-25 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/55_favor_health_care_repeal_just_17_say_new_law_wi ll_improve_quality_of_care)

55%

38%



June 18-19 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/june_2011/53_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_49_say_measure_ bad_for_country)

53%

42%



June 10-11 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/june_2011/54_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_46_think_repeal _likely)

54%

35%



June 4-5 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/june_2011/54_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_56_say_law_will _increase_deficit)

54%

39%



May 28-29 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/may_2011/51_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_47_say_measure_ bad_for_the_country)

51%

41%



May 21-22 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/may_2011/51_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_42_think_repeal _is_likely)

51%

43%



May 13-14 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/may_2011/55_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_53_believe_it_w ill_increase_deficit)

55%

38%



May 7 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/57_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law)

57%

36%



Apr 29-30 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/may_2011/support_for_repeal_of_health_care_law_falls_to_new _low_at_47)

47%

42%



Apr 23-24 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/april_2011/53_favor_health_care_repeal_think_law_will_increas e_deficit)

53%

40%



Apr 15-16 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/april_2011/52_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law)

52%

41%



Apr 9-10 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/51_favor_repeal_of_the_health_care_law)

51%

41%



Apr 1-2 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/54_favor_health_care_repeal_56_say_law_will_increa se_deficit)

54%

39%



Mar 26-27 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/58_now_favor_health_care_repeal)

58%

36%



Mar 18-19 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/53_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_50_say_repeal_a t_least_somewhat_likely)

53%

42%



Mar 12-13 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/62_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law)

62%

33%



Mar 4-5 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/54_favor_repeal_of_health_care_bill)

54%

39%



Feb 26-27 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/february_2011/53_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_but_voters_less _confident_in_benefits_of_repeal)

53%

39%



Feb 18-19 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/february_2011/56_favor_repeal_of_health_care_plan)

56%

40%



Feb 12-13 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/february_2011/57_of_voters_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_38_op posed)

57%

38%



Feb 4-5 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/february_2011/58_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_most_still_expe ct_costs_to_rise_and_quality_to_suffer)

58%

37%



Jan 29-30 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/february_2011/58_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_but_confidence_ in_repeal_is_down)

58%

38%



Jan 21-22 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2011/53_favor_health_care_repeal_but_voters_worry_less_ about_being_forced_to_change_coverage)

53%

43%



Jan 15-16 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2011/most_still_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_say_it_ will_increase_deficit)

55%

40%



Jan 7-8 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2011/most_still_support_repeal_of_health_care_bill_49_s ay_it_s_likely)

54%

40%



Jan 2, 2011 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2011/insured_voters_still_divided_whether_health_care_l aw_is_likely_to_make_them_change_coverage)

60%

36%


</TBODY>

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

[Psychoblues]

Overwhelmingly supported? Hmmmmmmm.........

I guess the majority of voters are just to stupid to know how good they have it as their cost for ins rises, their benefits are cut, or if their employer stops offering the coverage

BTW, here is the history of "support" for Obamacare from one dailying tracking poll PB

In your book they are just the stupid ones in the country

I have no idea as to the methodology behind that poll, rsr. The act is a good one, passed with a clear majority and will NOT be repealed in any substantial way other than being modified to make it better and more inclusive and available for all Americans and maybe even a few Mexicans. Ain't that a hoot!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

I have no idea as to the methodology behind that poll, rsr. The act is a good one, passed with a clear majority and will NOT be repealed in any substantial way other than being modified to make it better and more inclusive and available for all Americans and maybe even a few Mexicans. Ain't that a hoot!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

So a poll of 1,000 voters on a daily basis escapes your attention?

It was rammed thru after giving bribes and waivers to Dems to secure their votes PB

Show any consistant poll that shows a majority of support for Obamacare PB

BTW, Doctors do not like Obamacare either. I guess they are stupid as well - right?




ObamaCare: 46% of Primary Care Physicians Will Quit According to New England Journal of Medicine

http://scottschaefer.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/obamacare-46-of-primary-care-physicians-will-quit-according-to-new-england-journal-of-medicine/

[Psychoblues]

So a poll of 1,000 voters on a daily basis escapes your attention?

It was rammed thru after giving bribes and waivers to Dems to secure their votes PB

Show any consistant poll that shows a majority of support for Obamacare PB

BTW, Doctors do not like Obamacare either. I guess they are stupid as well - right?

It is good legislation for the country and the peoples, rsr. You are not. No surprise there.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

They gave it a snappy title; it must be true.

[red states rule]

It is good legislation for the country and the peoples, rsr. You are not. No surprise there.

Psychoblues

How is it "good" when the cost of coverage is going up, and the benefits are being reduced?

Again, you would rather ignore the what the voters are saying, and continue with the approved talking points

Do you realy think all those voters and Doctor's are to dumb to grasp how "good" Obamacare is for them?

[Psychoblues]

How is it "good" when the cost of coverage is going up, and the benefits are being reduced?

Again, you would rather ignore the what the voters are saying, and continue with the approved talking points

Do you realy think all those voters and Doctor's are to dumb to grasp how "good" Obamacare is for them?

I like it. My wife likes it. Both of our Doctors like it. Who the fuck are you to argue with that?

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

I like it. My wife likes it. Both of our Doctors like it. Who the fuck are you to argue with that?

Psychoblues

Well you, your DR, and your wife are in the minority PB

BTW, the lone Dem who ran on his YES vote in the 2010 election for Obamacare was Russ Feingold

Do I need to remind you what happened to him when the votes were counted?

[Psychoblues]

Well you, your DR, and your wife are in the minority PB

BTW, the lone Dem who ran on his YES vote in the 2010 election for Obamacare was Russ Feingold

Do I need to remind you what happened to him when the votes were counted?

Well, my wife, our Docs and I don't feel like we're in any minority insofar as this healthcare act is concerned. It is the law, don't you know, and it will remain the law for not years but decades to come. If you knew anything about how politics work you would already know that.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Well, my wife, our Docs and I don't feel like we're in any minority insofar as this healthcare act is concerned. It is the law, don't you know, and it will remain the law for not years but decades to come. If you knew anything about how politics work you would already know that.

Psychoblues

It may be the law for now, but the final determination wil be made by the USSC. In the meantime, we are paying the price for Obamacare

Wall Mart employees are not alone in reaping the "benefits" of Obamacare




Health insurance costs continue to rise as President Obama’s healthcare overhaul begins to affect Americans’ insurance premiums, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust (HRET). Leaders in health policy analysis and communication, Kaiser and HRET found (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/27/us-health-insurance-costs-climb?newsfeed=true)that annual family insurance premiums have spiked this year at a rate three times higher than in 2010, significantly outpacing wage increases and general inflation.

In a survey administered from January through May 2011, Kaiser and HRET interviewed 2,088 public and private employers asking questions about enrollment numbers, average firm and worker premium contributions, total premiums for single and family coverage, and insurance changes relating to coverage and benefits. In summary, the study concluded (http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/8226.pdf):

The average annual premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in 2011 are $5,429 for single coverage and $15,073 for family coverage. Compared to 2010, premiums for single coverage are 8% higher and premiums for family coverage are 9% higher. The 9% growth rate in family premiums for 2011 is significantly higher than the 3% growth rate in 2010. Since 2001, average premiums for family coverage have increased 113%. Average premiums for family coverage are lower for workers in small firms (3–199 workers) than for workers in large firms (200 or more workers) ($14,098 vs. $15,520). Average premiums for high deductible health plans with a savings option (HDHP/SOs) are lower than the overall average for all plan types for both single and family coverage.

"We’re probably on a more modest side … but even with a 5% increase in a premium [that our workers saw] this year, they didn’t get a 5% raise," asserted Jeff Franck, a compensation and health benefits manager at Altru Health System, a participant in the survey.

Although more and more Americans are forfeiting employer-sponsored insurance, about 150 million remained on employer-based plans in 2010. On average, employees pay 28 percent, or about $4,129, annually for employer-based family plans, which is over 130 percent more than a decade ago. Many workers are switching to high-deductible plans to save on insurance premiums.

To cope with rising premiums, many employers are moving their workers to less comprehensive plans that have higher out-of-pocket costs (higher co-pays, co-insurance, and deductibles). As a result, 31 percent of insured employees this year have at least a $1,000 deductible, up from 27 percent last year. "Without any real national discussion or debate, there’s a quiet revolution going on in what we call health insurance in this country," suggested (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/27/national/main20112506.shtml)Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Foundation. "Health insurance is becoming less and less comprehensive.… And we expect that trend to continue."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/9188-obamacare-causes-health-insurance-premiums-to-rise

[Psychoblues]

It may be the law for now, but the final determination wil be made by the USSC. In the meantime, we are paying the price for Obamacare

Wall Mart employees are not alone in reaping the "benefits" of Obamacare

WalMart is waivered as they are self insured.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

WalMart is waivered as they are self insured.

Psychoblues


Link please?

Here is what Wal Wart spends on healthcare PB




Company Contribution:
Historically, Wal-Mart’s contribution to both individual and family health care coverage has been approximately two-thirds of the total cost.

The total benefits package for a Wal-Mart associate includes, in addition to health care, programs such as company contributions to 401(K)/profit-sharing plans, associate discount cards, paid time off and life insurance. In FY 2006, Wal-Mart is projected to spend roughly $4.7 billion on associate benefits.

http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/5575.aspx

[Psychoblues]

Link please?

Here is what Wal Wart spends on healthcare PB

I think it's really great they can afford all that. This is really a great country, isnm't it?

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

I think it's really great they can afford all that. This is really a great country, isnm't it?

Psychoblues

Eh you forgot to post your link PB

Or do you have one to back up what you bellowed previously?

[LuvRPgrl]

LOL I can assure you that Wal Mart doesn't have the slimmest profit margins they can maintain. They are doing quite well.

You can assure me???

Sorry, that dont cut it, there are only a few sources that I take at face value, and you arent one of em.

I stand by my statement,

[LuvRPgrl]

the legislation, when properly described, is overwhelmingly supported by the american population just like medicare and medicaid are overwhelmingly supported by the general population.

Those that oppose the "obamacare" or patients protection and affordable care act of 2010 without knowing what it is or is about are indeed irrational haters in my book, rsr. No doubt about that.

psychoblues




.. .. .. . ..............l i a r

[ConHog]

You can assure me???

Sorry, that dont cut it, there are only a few sources that I take at face value, and you arent one of em.

I stand by my statement,



All it takes is a trip to Bentonville, Arkansas to realize that Wal Mart isn't hurting.


I don't know how this turned into a thread about the overall affect of Obamacare rather than just the subject of the OP; but they are two different subjects. Obamacare is a stupid bill . Good intentions, but typical governmental fuck up that goes way too far.

However, does anyone here doubt that Wal Mart could do with medical providers the same thing they do with their suppliers and force them to keep prices lower by threatening to do business elsewhere if this was all about it costing them too much? For instance, my doctor costs $75 an office call. Does anyone here doubt that Wal Mart could negotiate $50 per office call for its employees? Of course they could, and so and so forth on EVERY cost if they wanted to.

I think that this is a case of what another poster alluded to, WM sees an opportunity to save a little money that they can bank just in case they need it. And I don't believe Sam would have ever made the choice to put more money in the bank by taking away medical insurance from their employees.

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, so both side are willing to admit the following:

We fucked up Medicare

We fucked up Medicaid

We Fucked up Welfare

We fucked up Social Security

We fucked up Vet Benefits


Now the same group that fucked up all of these things (The US govt as a whole), wants to have full control of my health coverage?! Yeah, no thanks, I'd rather stick with what I have. Somehow I just think they'll fuck it up. don't know where I'd get that line of thinking from, but yeah.

[DragonStryk72]

All it takes is a trip to Bentonville, Arkansas to realize that Wal Mart isn't hurting.


I don't know how this turned into a thread about the overall affect of Obamacare rather than just the subject of the OP; but they are two different subjects. Obamacare is a stupid bill . Good intentions, but typical governmental fuck up that goes way too far.

However, does anyone here doubt that Wal Mart could do with medical providers the same thing they do with their suppliers and force them to keep prices lower by threatening to do business elsewhere if this was all about it costing them too much? For instance, my doctor costs $75 an office call. Does anyone here doubt that Wal Mart could negotiate $50 per office call for its employees? Of course they could, and so and so forth on EVERY cost if they wanted to.

I think that this is a case of what another poster alluded to, WM sees an opportunity to save a little money that they can bank just in case they need it. And I don't believe Sam would have ever made the choice to put more money in the bank by taking away medical insurance from their employees.

You're right, he wouldn't. I used to work for Wal-Mart, it was my first job coming out of the military, and it had one of the best overall benefits packages I've seen. A lot of workers stick with them just for the benefits, let alone that Wal-Mart is usually a leader as far as wages going.

[ConHog]

Okay, so both side are willing to admit the following:

We fucked up Medicare

We fucked up Medicaid

We Fucked up Welfare

We fucked up Social Security

We fucked up Vet Benefits


Now the same group that fucked up all of these things (The US govt as a whole), wants to have full control of my health coverage?! Yeah, no thanks, I'd rather stick with what I have. Somehow I just think they'll fuck it up. don't know where I'd get that line of thinking from, but yeah.


No kidding. Shouldn't we ask the government to run ONE single thing right, before we give them something else to run? That's certainly what I did with my kids. "Daddy, I want a puppy" , "a puppy " says I " hmmm me thinks that will mean more work for ME" , "oh no daddy, I'll take care of it all by myself" we've all been there, and what do we say " okay honey, here's a gold fish, you prove you can take care of THAT and we'll talk about a puppy" and then if the gold fish dies, we don't give them a puppy to kill to.

Sheesh

[red states rule]

All it takes is a trip to Bentonville, Arkansas to realize that Wal Mart isn't hurting.


I don't know how this turned into a thread about the overall affect of Obamacare rather than just the subject of the OP; but they are two different subjects. Obamacare is a stupid bill . Good intentions, but typical governmental fuck up that goes way too far.

However, does anyone here doubt that Wal Mart could do with medical providers the same thing they do with their suppliers and force them to keep prices lower by threatening to do business elsewhere if this was all about it costing them too much? For instance, my doctor costs $75 an office call. Does anyone here doubt that Wal Mart could negotiate $50 per office call for its employees? Of course they could, and so and so forth on EVERY cost if they wanted to.

I think that this is a case of what another poster alluded to, WM sees an opportunity to save a little money that they can bank just in case they need it. And I don't believe Sam would have ever made the choice to put more money in the bank by taking away medical insurance from their employees.


That is the same argument libs use when talking about tax increases. The rich can afford it so who cares

I always ask who are you to decide what others can afford and can't afford?

[fj1200]

I don't know how this turned into a thread about the overall affect of Obamacare rather than just the subject of the OP; but they are two different subjects. Obamacare is a stupid bill . Good intentions, but typical governmental fuck up that goes way too far.

However, does anyone here doubt that Wal Mart could do with medical providers the same thing they do with their suppliers and force them to keep prices lower by threatening to do business elsewhere if this was all about it costing them too much? For instance, my doctor costs $75 an office call. Does anyone here doubt that Wal Mart could negotiate $50 per office call for its employees? Of course they could, and so and so forth on EVERY cost if they wanted to.

Because you brought up Walmart and how it's immune to market pressures, I assure you it is not. You don't think that WM has already "forced" the cost of office visits down?

[LuvRPgrl]

All it takes is a trip to Bentonville, Arkansas to realize that Wal Mart isn't hurting.


I don't know how this turned into a thread about the overall affect of Obamacare rather than just the subject of the OP; but they are two different subjects. Obamacare is a stupid bill . Good intentions, but typical governmental fuck up that goes way too far.

However, does anyone here doubt that Wal Mart could do with medical providers the same thing they do with their suppliers and force them to keep prices lower by threatening to do business elsewhere if this was all about it costing them too much? For instance, my doctor costs $75 an office call. Does anyone here doubt that Wal Mart could negotiate $50 per office call for its employees? Of course they could, and so and so forth on EVERY cost if they wanted to.

I think that this is a case of what another poster alluded to, WM sees an opportunity to save a little money that they can bank just in case they need it. And I don't believe Sam would have ever made the choice to put more money in the bank by taking away medical insurance from their employees.

Manipulating suppliers and manipulating health insurance, and health care are two enormously different animals.

The health care industry is huge compared to suppliers for wal mart, they could easily ignore wal mart and go on their merry way, but wal mart, as the leading retailer in the world, cant be ignored by suppliers without a major hurt put on them.

[ConHog]

That is the same argument libs use when talking about tax increases. The rich can afford it so who cares

I always ask who are you to decide what others can afford and can't afford?

Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't think that WM, or anyone else for that matter, should be FORCED to do anything in regards to medical insurance for their employees. I was merely commenting that Sam wouldn't have cut the benefit if he were still alive

[red states rule]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't think that WM, or anyone else for that matter, should be FORCED to do anything in regards to medical insurance for their employees. I was merely commenting that Sam wouldn't have cut the benefit if he were still alive

Your post seemed to indicate you did. I stand corrected

Get use to strories like this CH. Thanks to Obamacare many employees will see the cost of their plans increase and benefits decrease

It all thanks to Obamacare. I listed the taxes and mandates for you to read, and you can't blame any business for trying to recover the increased cost

Noone knows what Sam would do. The government was never this intrusive when he was running the company

[ConHog]

Your post seemed to indicate you did. I stand corrected

Get use to strories like this CH. Thanks to Obamacare many employees will see the cost of their plans increase and benefits decrease

It all thanks to Obamacare. I listed the taxes and mandates for you to read, and you can't blame any business for trying to recover the increased cost

Noone knows what Sam would do. The government was never this intrusive when he was running the company

It's two different questions to me RSR.

If you ask me should the government FORCE companies to provide benefits to its employees. I answer a resounding no

But if you ask if me if what Wal Mart is doing is a decent thing to do to people. I say no. It's shitty. It's not like they are overpaying their employees, and certainly WM can afford to provide insurance

So to me, it's a sticky situation with no easy answer. You can blame Obamacare all you want, and to some extent it is responsible, BUT the undeniable fact is that in an age when their is a surplus of employees , many companies are going to take advantage of that fact and offer the lowest wages, and the least amount of benefits they possibly can, and that is NOT a result of Obamacare.

So, yes in an ideal world our government wouldn't be dictating to companies what they can and can't do in terms of employment. However, we don't live in an ideal world. And I don't think even you would advocate the government stepping completely out of the picture in terms of labor relations. Remember companies didn't voluntarily institute a 40 hour work week, or a minimum wage, nor child labor laws nor anything else of that nature.

[LuvRPgrl]

Your post seemed to indicate you did. I stand corrected

Get use to strories like this CH. Thanks to Obamacare many employees will see the cost of their plans increase and benefits decrease

It all thanks to Obamacare. I listed the taxes and mandates for you to read, and you can't blame any business for trying to recover the increased cost

Noone knows what Sam would do. The government was never this intrusive when he was running the company
DING DING DING DING DING!!! GOOD ANSWER.




It's two different questions to me RSR.

If you ask me should the government FORCE companies to provide benefits to its employees. I answer a resounding no

But if you ask if me if what Wal Mart is doing is a decent thing to do to people. I say no. It's shitty. It's not like they are overpaying their employees, and certainly WM can afford to provide insurance

So to me, it's a sticky situation with no easy answer. You can blame Obamacare all you want, and to some extent it is responsible, BUT the undeniable fact is that in an age when their is a surplus of employees , many companies are going to take advantage of that fact and offer the lowest wages, and the least amount of benefits they possibly can, and that is NOT a result of Obamacare..
It's two different questions to me RSR., ERRR CH.

Surplus employees in America are a result of obamanomics
Cutting health care is a result of obamacare





]So, yes in an ideal world our government wouldn't be dictating to companies what they can and can't do in terms of employment. However, we don't live in an ideal world. And I don't think even you would advocate the government stepping completely out of the picture in terms of labor relations. Remember companies didn't voluntarily institute a 40 hour work week, or a minimum wage, nor child labor laws nor anything else of that nature.
You seem to do this alot. Take both sides of the fence. I oppose it, I support it cuz.....
40 hour week, child labor laws, min wage should all have come about via the unions.

[ConHog]

DING DING DING DING DING!!! GOOD ANSWER.




It's two different questions to me RSR., ERRR CH.

Surplus employees in America are a result of obamanomics
Cutting health care is a result of obamacare





You seem to do this alot. Take both sides of the fence. I oppose it, I support it cuz.....
40 hour week, child labor laws, min wage should all have come about via the unions.


I take that as a compliment. Yes I do tend to see some merit in both sides of an argument. RARELY is any one side all right and one side all wrong on an issue.

[Kathianne]

I take that as a compliment. Yes I do tend to see some merit in both sides of an argument. RARELY is any one side all right and one side all wrong on an issue.

Actually when it comes to opinions based on principles, then for the one making the opinion, there is one answer. Granted there may be conditions, 'I'm against abortion, except (condition) in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the mother.'

When one's principles of what government should be, in my case: as small as feasible and at the lowest level of government to be delivered with the most efficiency and oversight by the people. Thus I'm against the Department of Education, though very pro-education.

[ConHog]

Actually when it comes to opinions based on principles, then for the one making the opinion, there is one answer. Granted there may be conditions, 'I'm against abortion, except (condition) in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the mother.'

When one's principles of what government should be, in my case: as small as feasible and at the lowest level of government to be delivered with the most efficiency and oversight by the people. Thus I'm against the Department of Education, though very pro-education.

And when I give an OPINION I stick with it, I don't for instance say "well I'm for abortion" and then turn right around and say "I'm against abortion." That would be different than me saying something like " I can see good and bad arguments for both sides" I do the latter, not the former.

And of course sometimes I even GASP, change my opinion on certain subjects dependent on the evidence presented to me.

[red states rule]

DING DING DING DING DING!!! GOOD ANSWER.




It's two different questions to me RSR., ERRR CH.

Surplus employees in America are a result of obamanomics
Cutting health care is a result of obamacare




Of cousre all of this is a direct result of Obamacare. Days after the Dems rammed it thru, companies and unions were looking at the numbers and started cutting overhead to cover the additional cost

Anyone with an IQ above room temp understands that basic fact of Economics 101