Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Walgreen's move is to move the BURDEN of the premiums onto its workers which is fine because it IS a business, not a welfare company. They will cover the majority of the premiums but the REASON they are doing this is to gradually ween the employer to pick up more and more of the premiums in the future. Now, with that said, do you think Walgreen's will increase the pay for the employees to pay higher and higher premiums in the future? What I don't get is Walgreen's is required to pay for health insurance for its employees (over 50 employees)... is there some kind of loop hole by doing this?
Most of the people who cannot afford a few hundred a month in premiums will likely qualify for Medicaid.
Really depends on the state requirements for Medicaid.
No reason to have one federal law for all insurance and Medicaid, when each state can create a politically connected insurance fiefdom and impose the cost of doing so on the state tax payers.
This is the equivalent of a national company with offices in 50 states allowing each office to create substantially redundant admin functions and fill them with cronies.
Most are anticipated to be undocumented workers, commonly employed by Small Business. To a lesser extent, those who fall between the cracks of ACA and their respective state's Medicare requirements will be SOL
It is projected the number of uninsured will decline by about 28 million+/-.
Most are anticipated to be undocumented workers, commonly employed by Small Business. To a lesser extent, those who fall between the cracks of ACA and their respective state's Medicare requirements will be SOL
It is projected the number of uninsured will decline by about 28 million+/-.
Not according to the latest CBO estimates.. How do you think Obamacare is expected to have a surplus? Answer, so many will remain uninsured and pay the tax..
I don't care if someone is **** off, because I know it is impossible to please everyone. Personally I am all for profitability and competiveness. The health insurance burden is one expense which EU corporations do not have, and which might explain why some EU countried beat US in competiveness.
Despite the EU, each member rolls their own when it comes to health care. In all instances, employers and employees are required by law to make financial payments to the " sickness" fund. What one does not typically find in the EU is an HR function devoted to negotiating group insurance premiums and annual enrollment.
1). Csections for some women are NEEDED (like in the case of my sister, where here baby was getting too big for to carry longer)
2) Breech Babies
3) Choosing the date of birth (as in the case of my friend whose husband was going on deployment in the month of the birth of their first child, she chose to go C-SEC so that their CHILD could be born while he was still in the States)
4) Some women just don't want to go through the natural birth process (Having seen my sister go through that with her first baby, and all my aunts who went natural, I'll opt for C-sec in a heartbeat)
Only someone whose ignorant would suggest otherwise.
I have not heard of an insurance company popping for an elective C-section. That I have not heard of it does not mean that there may be a few insurers who do. If challenged, the MD would be required to disclose the medical necessity for the procedure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.