Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-18-2013, 03:11 PM
 
20,187 posts, read 23,850,642 times
Reputation: 9283

Advertisements

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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-18-2013, 03:16 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,725,169 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2013, 03:17 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,096,009 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Congress didn't request, nor get, any sort of waiver. You've been duped.
Then why was Harry Reid defending a waiver?

Reid defends Obamacare exemption for Congress | The Daily Caller
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2013, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,725,169 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
Except for the 30 million still uninsured...
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+/-.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2013, 03:23 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,096,009 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
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..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2013, 03:24 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,968,141 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
I'm sure Walgreen employees won't mind this:

For millions, insurance will cost less than $100/month
Absolutely untrue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2013, 03:27 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,968,141 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
That is just what the individual has to outlay. The rest of the premium is subsidized by Uncle Sam.
WRong.

The rest are "privileged" to buy it with someone else's paycheck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2013, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,725,169 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2013, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,725,169 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
That would require you to admit Obamacare is a failure
I envision ACA as a stepping stone to single payer. It's likely decades away. Way too many special interests and PACs to appease.

The U.S. is the Johnny Come Lately to the national healthcare game. Germany has the oldest national system and it continues to evolve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2013, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,725,169 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
Wrong.

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:06 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top