Walmart Insurance better than ACA? Who'd thunk it?

[mirage62 0]

I'm sure that there are several here that can cut this to ribbons....

Would it be possible to have a discussion on the topic and NOT just go into the Walmart bashing mode on how they pay?

It's more the point that affordable health care is out there.

Surprise! Walmart health plan is cheaper, offers more coverage than Obamacare
By RICHARD POLLOCK | JANUARY 7, 2014 AT 5:05 AM

Topics: Watchdog Obamacare Health Care Accountability Walmart

Consumers shop at the new Walmart Neighborhood Market, opening its 34,000 square foot store in... New Obamacare health insurance enrollees may feel a pang of envy when they eye the coverage plans offered by Walmart to its employees.

For many years, the giant discount retailer has been the target of unions and liberal activists who have harshly criticized the company's health care plans, calling them “notorious for failing to provide health benefits” and "substandard.”

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.


Click here to see an infographic comparing Obamacare's health insurance premiums to Walmart'sIndependent insurance agents affiliated with the National Association of Health Underwriters and health policy experts compared the two at the request of the Examiner.

Walmart furnished employee benefit information to the Examiner. Neither Obamacare advocate Families USA nor the United Food and Commercial Workers, which backs anti-Walmart campaigns, responded to Examiner requests for comment.

Walmart offers its employees two standard plans, a Health Reimbursement Account and an alternative it calls "HRA High" that costs more out of employees' pockets but has lower deductibles. Blue Cross Blue Shield manages both plans nationally.

Also offered is a Health Savings Account plan that includes high deductibles but allows tax-free dollars to be used for coverage.


Click here to see an infographic comparing Obamacare's health access to Walmart'sFor a monthly premium as low as roughly $40, an individual who is a Walmart HRA plan enrollee can obtain full-service coverage through a Blue Cross Blue Shield preferred provider organization. A family can get coverage for about $160 per month.

Unlike Obamacare, there are no income eligibility requirements. Age and gender do not alter premium rates. The company plan is the same for all of Walmart's 1.1 million enrolled employees and their dependents, from its cashiers to its CEO.

A Journal of the American Medical Association analysis from September showed that unsubsidized Obamacare enrollees will face monthly premiums that are five to nine times higher than Walmart premiums.

JAMA found the unsubsidized premium for a nonsmoking gouple age 60 can cost $1,365 per month versus the Walmart cost of about $134 for the same couple.

The medical journal reported a 30-year-old smoker would pay up to $428 per month, in contrast to roughly $70 each month for a Walmart employee.

A family of four could pay a $962 premium, but the same Walmart family member would pay about $160.

Low premiums are not the only distinguishing feature of the Walmart plan. The retailer's employees can use eight of the country's most prestigious medical facilities, including the Mayo Clinic, Pennsylvania's Geisinger Medical Center and the Cleveland Clinic.

At these institutions, which Walmart calls "Centers of Excellence," Walmart employees and their dependents can get free heart or spinal surgery. They can also get free knee and hip replacements at four hospitals nationwide.

Many top-rated Walmart hospitals — such as the Mayo and Cleveland clinics — are left out of most Obamacare exchange plans.

But the real difference between Obamacare and Walmart can be seen in the levels of day-to-day access to doctors and hospitals.

Robert Slayton, a practicing Chicago independent insurance agent for 11 years and the former president of the Illinois State Association of Health Underwriters, described to the Examiner the differences between Walmart and Obamacare provider networks.

Slayton said the BlueChoice exchange network for President Obama's hometown has very limited hospital participation. “In downtown Chicago, the key is the number of hospitals: 28,” he said.

“Now we’re going to the national network — this is what the Walmart network would most likely be — and you have 54 hospitals. That’s a big difference,” he said.

Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, a Republican who is now a health care advocate, said Obamacare's lack of first-class hospitals is a big problem.

“It’s not just the number, but who they are. You’ll find under the Obamacare exchanges that the academic hospitals have declined to participate, along with the specialists who practice at those hospitals. The same is true of cancer hospitals,” she said.

“People who are seriously ill need to stay away from these exchange plans,” McCaughey said.

Slayton said the gap between doctor availability in Chicago under the Obamacare and Walmart plans is dramatic.

“You will notice there are 9,837 doctors [under Obamacare]. But the larger network is 24,904 doctors. Huge, huge difference,” he said.

Walmart also offers a free preventive health plan that mirrors the Obamacare plan. Its employees can take advantage of a wide range of free exams and counseling, including screenings for colorectal cancer, cervical cancer, chlamydia, diabetes, depression and special counseling for diet and obesity.

Their children can get more than 20 free preventive services, ranging including screenings for genetic disorders, autism and developmental problems to obesity, lead poisoning exposure and tuberculosis. There are also 12 free vaccinations, and free hearing and vision testing.

Walmart employees pay as little as $4 for a 30-day supply of generic drugs and only $10 for eye exams through a separate vision plan.

“It’s a lot better program than people, I think, might assume without looking, just because Walmart has gotten such a bad reputation by some of the labor groups and other groups for its general activities,” said Gail Wilensky after reviewing the retailer's plan.

Wilensky was head under President George H.W. Bush of the federal Health Care Financing Administration, the predecessor to the the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. CMS is the agency in charge of implementing a large part of the Affordable Care Act, and it oversaw the rollout of the troubled healthcare.gov website.

David Todd, an independent insurance agent based in Little Rock, Ark., also compared the health plans for the Examiner. Walmart’s corporate headquarters is in Bentonville, Ark., and the company has 58,000 workers in the state.

Todd pointed to stark differences between the government plan and Walmart: “If I buy a family plan on the exchange, it’s still $1,000 a month. And I can buy this for ... [$160] on Walmart.”

Walmart also gives cash to its employees for any health care expense. The annual payments run from $250 to $1,000 and are given at the beginning of the enrollment year in an account that can only be used for health care expenses.

Walmart individuals face a $2,750 deductible and families need to pay $5,500 under the HRA plan. Individuals pay $1,750 and families pay $3,500 deductibles under the HRA High plan.

The deductibles are high, but Obamacare deductibles are higher, going up to $6,300, according to Todd.

Todd looked at a 30-year-old woman who could qualify for the government subsidy. “The nonsubsidized premium is $205 a month for this 30-year-old. If they get a subsidy, then the premium is zero. But that person has to come up with $6,300 if something catastrophic happened,” he said.

The Walmart monthly premium for the same 30-year-old woman would be about $40. Her deductible would be $2,750, minus $250 in cash advance, for a total net deductible of $2,500.

Todd said some Obamacare exchange family plan deductibles can go as high as $12,000 before benefits kick in.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[kallend 2,027]

Not sure of the relevance of this other than firing up the choir. ACA offers coverage to those who aren't covered by their employer. If you have employer sponsored coverage meeting minimum standards then go for it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mirage62 0]

It's a simple point, if Walmart with only a "few" employees can provide better insurance than why can't the ACA provide the same?

The answer IMO is that the goverment, in general, does a shitty job in providing services other than the perhaps winning wars (or losing)

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[DanG 1]

There's no such thing as Obamacare insurance. The article makes no sense.

- Dan G

[PhreeZone 20]

There are multiple differences, the largest of those being since this is an employer plan they neglect to mention the amount that the is being covered via Wal-Mart directly. Any employer could offer a plan that has very low fees if they are willing to pick up the costs directly. The other difference is that the Government is not offering the plans directly but are having for profit companies offer plans at market rates in a common exchange, these plans are being priced with the knowledge that they will be catering to individuals that typically were not able to get insurance via other means. Those individuals are projected to have higher medical costs so the prices are reflecting this since the base pricing includes the group risk factor and profit margins that are allowed to be charged. Part of these plans are also setting pay out rates much lower so Doctors are using the Free Market and saying they do not want to work for those rates and are not accepting patients using the plans.

ACA is not a great solution, its a step, but its missing parts and focused on the wrong areas for my opinions.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[quade 4]

Here is your key phrase;

Quote

But a Washington Examiner comparison...

This means nothing. Seriously. Washington Examiner is simply a collection of bloggers. There is absolutely no vetting process to become one. Virtually anybody with any axe to grind can become one and post any story about any topic. It's entire secret to success; confirmation bias.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 803]

I would be a lot more curious to compare full time vs. part time employees at Wally World.
When you only provide bennies to a handful of employees, you tend to offer a sweet package.

[kallend 2,027]

mirage62

Apparently you are, since you bit.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

normiss

I would be a lot more curious to compare full time vs. part time employees at Wally World.
When you only provide bennies to a handful of employees, you tend to offer a sweet package.

This is the obvious question to ask - what percentage of Walmart employees can use these two plans? Based on past history, my suspicion is that it is less than 30%. But if it were available to all employees, I'd be happy for them.

[tkhayes 348]

$160/month is insurance at rates from 15-20 years ago. I really doubt that this coverage is that good or covers everything they say it does.

I would like to see the comparison policies side-by-side.

[devildog 0]

mirage62

The answer IMO is that the goverment, in general, does a shitty job in providing services other than the perhaps winning wars (or losing)

Of course they do a shitty job. Look at Amtrak. Look at the Post Office. Look at your "investment" with SS. Gov't can't compete at all for giving a better product at a lower price. It's bloated and corrupt. Anyone who thinks Obamacare will actually provide better insurance for less is delusional.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[normiss 803]

Agreed.

[mirage62 0]

Help me out. The $160 was from 15-20 years ago??? If so my bad! I didn't see that. Normiss, helpmeet out.....

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[kallend 2,027]

devildog

***
The answer IMO is that the goverment, in general, does a shitty job in providing services other than the perhaps winning wars (or losing)

Of course they do a shitty job. Look at THE ARMY. Look at THE NAVY. Look at THE MARINES. Look at your "investment" with SS.

FIFY

Actually I'm doing rather well on my SS "investment", thank you. A lot better than many stock market investors who lost their retirement savings in Bush's recession.

I also find the national parks to be well run. And the interstate highways, air traffic control, ..........

Even the Post Office delivers my mail on time.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mirage62 0]

Really John? I made back my loses plus more. The market goes up and down. I'm glad you started getting your S.S. I'm glad - for you - that that it isn't being means tested - yet.

I have no hope that when I am old enough to recieve MY S.S. that I PAID in that it will be there at the same level is was for you.

Good timing on your part - totally luck but good for you.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[kallend 2,027]

mirage62

Really John? I made back my loses plus more. .

I wasn't aware that you retired in 2009 having to cash out assets that had lost a large % of their value in the Bush recession.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

Actually I'm doing rather well on my SS "investment", thank you. A lot better than many stock market investors who lost their retirement savings in Bush's recession.

At your income levels, it's quite unlikely (read impossible) to have done well on your SS investment. Expected return is negative for SS for the highest earners (dollars in, dollars out), who subsidize the payouts to the lower earners. That said, it's a bit wrong to view it purely in the perspective of dollars in and dollars returned...the surpluses were used to subsidize deficit spending, rather than higher taxes that you and your cohorts would have been tasked with paying. And there is an insurance component to FICA payments that don't apply to a retirement account and its returns.

I can't agree with citing the post office as an example of poor operations - the ability to send a letter to anywhere in the country within 2-3 days for 25-40some (what is it now?) is one of the better run orgs out there. No doubt, they're facing troubles in the internet era - the infrastructure they built won't do well with half the volume, but there are plenty of private companies that also got killed by progress (ex: Kodak, a former Dow 30 member).

Amtrak's problems had nothing to do with being government run, but instead the reality of they are third class users of the rails.

[mirage62 0]

Nope I didn't retire in 2009, otoh if I had reach retirement in 2009 and the market has been in the dumps I'd just keep working till 2013 and made it back.

Not to mention John that protfilo didn't take a huge dump because I'm terrible conservative w my investments.

My main point to you is that I am not relying on the government anymore than you are for my retirement.

Of course the last seven years are all Bush fault. Obama has certainly worked wonders for unemployment, when will you stop blaming Bush?

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[kallend 2,027]

kelpdiver

***
Actually I'm doing rather well on my SS "investment", thank you. A lot better than many stock market investors who lost their retirement savings in Bush's recession.

At your income levels, it's quite unlikely (read impossible) to have done well on your SS investment.

NOT.

Of course, this assumes I live to standard life expectancy (which is not guaranteed).

You seem to forget the additional benefits for non-working spouses, survivor benefits, and the value of complete absence of risk, from your analysis.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

******
Actually I'm doing rather well on my SS "investment", thank you. A lot better than many stock market investors who lost their retirement savings in Bush's recession.

At your income levels, it's quite unlikely (read impossible) to have done well on your SS investment.

NOT.

Of course, this assumes I live to standard life expectancy (which is not guaranteed).

You seem to forget the additional benefits for non-working spouses, survivor benefits, and the value of complete absence of risk, from your analysis.

Hardly - it was in the same paragraph you cited. But honest citations have never been your thing.

You did forget inflation risk, btw. Much greater than the risk of the stock market underperforming for a 30 year period.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

***Really John? I made back my loses plus more. .

I wasn't aware that you retired in 2009 having to cash out assets that had lost a large % of their value in the Bush recession.

Those who retired in 2009 would have taken a small hit. You don't have to cash out all your assets, and they should have been bond heavy (at least 40%) in the first place. Take that 4% yearly withdraw. Multiple by 3 years (the market fully recovered in 2, but let's round up). Multiple by the 60% max stock allocation and the 60% loss at the worst point in May 2009. And you get a 4.3% loss in the overall.

Now those who did stupid stuff like sell all equities (Amazon) and move to cash for 2009-2013, and those who had 80-100% in equities despite being near retirement and also then sold at the bottom - they got crushed.

People point to them as reasons why government shouldn't allow/run private accounts for people, but any federal program wouldn't permit such foolish actions in the first place.

[champu 1]

kallend

complete absence of risk

Nonsense on stilts.

[chutem 0]

According to the folks at SS in 2033 the payroll tax we collect will only be enough to pay .77 of each dollar of scheduled benefits.

It appears to work well for the generation that spent all the SS "surplus" money yet will get full benefits.

http://www.ssa.gov/estimator/

[champu 1]

chutem

According to the folks at SS in 2033 the payroll tax we collect will only be enough to pay .77 of each dollar of scheduled benefits.

It appears to work well for the generation that spent all the SS "surplus" money yet will get full benefits.

http://www.ssa.gov/estimator/

Sweet! In the last four years their estimate has gotten worse by four years.

In a manner of speaking kallend was correct, this isn't risk, this is certain abject failure.

[kallend 2,027]

champu

***According to the folks at SS in 2033 the payroll tax we collect will only be enough to pay .77 of each dollar of scheduled benefits.

It appears to work well for the generation that spent all the SS "surplus" money yet will get full benefits.

http://www.ssa.gov/estimator/

Sweet! In the last four years their estimate has gotten worse by four years.

In a manner of speaking kallend was correct, this isn't risk, this is certain abject failure.

I am correct. What I wrote was "actually I'm doing rather well on my SS "investment""

And I am. I am of the generation that's benefiting.

Maybe it sucks to be you or kelpdiver.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.