Obamacare: Walgreens Dropping Current Coverage for 160,000 Workers.....

Simon W. Moon · Sep 19, 2013

sawyerloggingon said:
What you are missing is they are being forced out of their current insurance plan due to rising cost that Obama care was supposed to stop.

So Walgreen's is going to start paying for a plan which is even more expensive than the plan Walgreen's is paying for currently?
Are you sure about that?
In my anecdotal experience, companies often take measures, like switching insurance providers, in efforts to save money.
Perhaps Walgreen's determined that it could better control costs by sending the employee's there and that is why Walgreen's chose to do it this way. Perhaps Walgreen's did not decide to spend extra money when they did not have to.
Just bringing up the possibility.

The piece linked to in the OP takes another blog as it's source. And that blog takes this piece as its source
Walgreen Joins in Exodus of Workers to Private Exchanges - Bloomberg

sawyerloggingon said:
What you are missing is Obama promised you could keep your insurance on his plan. What you are missing is this is exactly what "crazy right wingers" predicted would happen.

I see no reason to think that Walgreen's has been denied the opportunity to keep their current insurance provider.
The comments from Walgreen's seem to say as much.
I suspect that Obama never said that Obamacare would keep the company you work for from switching insurance providers.

sawyerloggingon · Sep 19, 2013

Simon W. Moon said:
So Walgreen's is going to start paying for a plan which is even more expensive than the plan Walgreen's is paying for currently?
Are you sure about that?
In my anecdotal experience, companies often take measures, like switching insurance providers, in efforts to save money.
Perhaps Walgreen's determined that it could better control costs by sending the employee's there and that is why Walgreen's chose to do it this way. Perhaps Walgreen's did not decide to spend extra money when they did not have to.
Just bringing up the possibility.

The piece linked to in the OP takes another blog as it's source. And that blog takes this piece as its source
Walgreen Joins in Exodus of Workers to Private Exchanges - Bloomberg

I see no reason to think that Walgreen's has been denied the opportunity to keep their current insurance provider.
The comments from Walgreen's seem to say as much.
I suspect that Obama never said that Obamacare would keep the company you work for from switching insurance providers.

This is EXACTLY what people against Obama care said would happen and is a direct result of Obama care.

JumpinJack · Sep 19, 2013

I voted for Obama. I am proud that he got the ACA passed, although it didn't turn out to be what I hoped for. Still, no one before him....ever...was able to pass health care reform. Something had to be done.

If the Republicans don't like it, all they have to do is pass their own health care reform. Problem is, they don't have a problem with the industry as it was. With millions not being able to afford health care coverage (the only industrial country that fails its citizens in that way). Health care isn't a free market. It isn't a consumer item. You either get health care, or you die. The system as it was meant that the wealthy and those employed by companies providing health care coverage (which comes out of their paychecks directly or indirectly) were the ones who got to live. If you weren't one of them, and if you weren't poor enough for Medicaid, or had the bad luck to live in an area where no doctors would take Medicaid patients, you died because you didn't have enough money.

Democratic Party plan vs. Republican Party plan. When one offers NO plan, they lose credibility in criticizing the party that had the cajones to pass a plan.

As for me...The ACA does, and will be continuing to, get health care to millions who didn't have it before. Any way you look at it, that's a great thing. Unless you are concerned only for yourself.

Many Republicans are misinformed about the ACA. One said recently that she knows someone who won't be able to get insurance any more on the market because the ACA will prevent him from doing so because he has a pre-existing illness. The opposite is true. Her friend can't get insurance NOW because of that. It's the ACA that fixes that.

The Walgreens plan doesn't sound much different than what I have currently. My employer "subsidizes" my health care. It pays most of my premium, I pay the rest. My employer gives me a choice of three plans from the same company. For Walgreens, it will still be the plan administrator, giving a subsidy. The employees will have many choices from a certain exchange, from different ins. companies. It all depends on the subsidy amount. Also, Walgreens gives its employees access to a medical clinic for a $5 copay, AND phamaceutical benefits. AND...many of Walgreens' employees didn't qualify for coverage (part-timers) at all. Under the ACA, those employees will be able to get a subsidy from the government to pay for health ins. premiums.

It's really not that different, seems to me. Sounds like Walgreens' employees have a good deal....now.

iguanaman · Sep 19, 2013

MMC said:
I don't know about you missing the there that must be there.....but I doubt that it can disputed that the costs will have doubled by 2038. Moreover what do you think the Perception is when Obama stated that no one will take away their health care. That People will be able to keep their healthcare. Do you think he and the left can now spin it some sort of another way? Since this wasn't true.

Elmendorf also said that CBO's estimate in May that the government will run a $642 billion deficit this year is proving a little too optimistic. CBO Director Doug Elmendorf said that slightly weaker revenues than expected will likely push that figure higher but that the final deficit tally for the 2013 budget year ending Sept. 30 will still register below $700 billion.

Elmendorf made his remarks as the agency released an updated study of the government's long-term budget ills. It says that federal health care and retirement programs threaten to overwhelm the federal budget and harm the economy in coming decades unless Washington finds the political will to restrain their inexorable growth. The long-term pressures promise to quickly reverse recent improvements in the deficit.

Tuesday's Congressional Budget Office report says that government spending on health care and Social Security would double relative to the size of the economy in 25 years and that spending on other programs like defense, transportation and education would decline to its smallest level by the same measure since the Great Depression.

The share of federal spending devoted to health care would rise from 4.6 percent of gross domestic product today to 8 percent in 2038; spending on Social Security would rise as well, as the number of people receiving benefits rises to more than 100 million in 25 years, compared with 57 million people taking benefits now.....snip~

New study warns of US long-term debt problems

It will be cheaper and better to buy from the exchanges because there is REAL competition there. The AHC act will allow more employers to keep their employees coverage rather that drop it completely as has been the trend for the last 15 years.

Why the sudden fear on the eve of the exchanges becoming operational? Afraid that people will like what they see?. Keeping your policy is one thing.... paying less for better coverage is another. Which would you pick?

iguanaman · Sep 19, 2013

sawyerloggingon said:
This is EXACTLY what people against Obama care said would happen and is a direct result of Obama care.

Those employees will get better coverage for less money on the exchanges. Is that what "they" said...really?

sawyerloggingon · Sep 19, 2013

iguanaman said:
Those employees will get better coverage for less money on the exchanges. Is that what "they" said...really?

What they said was companies would dump their private insurance plans for Obama care or Medicare and that is exactly what is happening.

sangha · Sep 20, 2013

sawyerloggingon said:
What they said was companies would dump their private insurance plans for Obama care or Medicare and that is exactly what is happening.

No, that is not what was said.They said that people like your parents would not be able to keep the insurance they have, even if they wanted to

The truth is, your parents can keep the insurance they have. They will just have to pay for it.

There's no free lunch. Give up the entitlement complex that makes you think your parents have a right to free health insurance

sawyerloggingon · Sep 20, 2013

sangha said:
No, that is not what was said.They said that people like your parents would not be able to keep the insurance they have, even if they wanted to

The truth is, your parents can keep the insurance they have. They will just have to pay for it.

There's no free lunch. Give up the entitlement complex that makes you think your parents have a right to free health insurance

The truth is IBM forced them onto Medicare just like the anti obamacare people said would happen. They lost their so called Cadillac insurance and their doctors which "crazy right wingers" said would happen too.

Simon W. Moon · Sep 20, 2013

sawyerloggingon said:
This is EXACTLY what people against Obama care said would happen and is a direct result of Obama care.

Employers switched their employees' health insurance providers before Obama was even born. "Michael Polzin, a spokesman for Deerfield, Illinois-based Walgreen, denied that his company’s move was driven by the Affordable Care Act’s 2010 passage and provisions..."

Walgreen's and I are both missing the part which connects "Walgreen's is switching health insurance providers" with "Obamacare is teh evil".

Even if the switch was made for the reasons you have said, ( as opposed to the reasons which Walgreen's has said ), Walgreen's employees will still have coverage. Walgreen employees have a greater choice of plans. Walgreen's is still contributing the same amount toward the employees insurance.

Where I am supposed to direct my recreational outrage here?
Am I supposed to be outraged that Walgreen's has decided to change insurance providers?
Am I supposed to be outraged that Walgreen's employees will be able to choose from more plans than previously?
Am I supposed to be outraged that Walgreen's is going to keep paying for their employees' insurance?
:shrug:

Who is being hurt here and how are they being hurt?

sawyerloggingon · Sep 20, 2013

Simon W. Moon said:
Employers switched their employees' health insurance providers before Obama was even born. "Michael Polzin, a spokesman for Deerfield, Illinois-based Walgreen, denied that his company’s move was driven by the Affordable Care Act’s 2010 passage and provisions..."

Walgreen's and I are both missing the part which connects "Walgreen's is switching health insurance providers" with "Obamacare is teh evil".

Even if the switch was made for the reasons you have said, ( as opposed to the reasons which Walgreen's has said ), Walgreen's employees will still have coverage. Walgreen employees have a greater choice of plans. Walgreen's is still contributing the same amount toward the employees insurance.

Where I am supposed to direct my recreational outrage here?
Am I supposed to be outraged that Walgreen's has decided to change insurance providers?
Am I supposed to be outraged that Walgreen's employees will be able to choose from more plans than previously?
Am I supposed to be outraged that Walgreen's is going to keep paying for their employees' insurance?
:shrug:

Who is being hurt here and how are they being hurt?[/QUOTE]

People like my parents are being hurt, they have lost their doctors and their "Cadillac insurance" has been taken away and replaced with Medicare.

Renae · Sep 20, 2013

jonny5 said:
At which point wont the govt just force them to see patients?

Slavery, brought to you by Obama.

jonny5 · Sep 20, 2013

Maenad said:
Actually, no the point is not made. I am on a life sustaining med that costs $100K/year. Even before I retired, I couldn't have paid for it because taxes took 40% of my 6 figure pay. I didn't have an extra $100K/year just lying around. That's the problem. Not all care, and not all medicine costs the same.

Ok, then you cant have a 100k car every year. Why should you get 100k med treatment every year? if you cant afford it, you cant afford it.

Simon W. Moon · Sep 20, 2013

sawyerloggingon said:
People like my parents are being hurt, they have lost their doctors and their "Cadillac insurance" has been taken away and replaced with Medicare.

They work at Walgreen's?
Or are we on to a new topic?

sawyerloggingon · Sep 20, 2013

Simon W. Moon said:
They work at Walgreen's?
Or are we on to a new topic?

They worked at IBM, it's all the same subject.

sangha · Sep 20, 2013

sawyerloggingon said:
The truth is IBM forced them onto Medicare just like the anti obamacare people said would happen. They lost their so called Cadillac insurance and their doctors which "crazy right wingers" said would happen too.

That is a lie

Your parents can buy whatever insurance they choose to pay for. They are not required to go on Medicare.

Simon W. Moon · Sep 20, 2013

sawyerloggingon said:
They worked at IBM, it's all the same subject.

I think that IBM's decision had it's own thread, iirc.
:shrug:

sangha said:
Your parents can buy whatever insurance they choose to pay for. They are not required to go on Medicare.

IBM to transfer U.S. retirees to healthcare exchanges next year | Reuters

IBM plans to move U.S. retirees off its company-sponsored health plan and shift them into new private insurance exchanges as a way of lowering costs for retirees.

IBM had selected Extend Health, which is owned by Towers Watson & Co, to provide retirees with new health options for medical, prescription drug, dental and vision coverage, the company said in a statement on Friday.

Sawyer,

Afaict, a private exchange is something different than medicare.
Again I don't think that anyone ever said that employers were not allowed to switch their insurance providers or plans. But I maybe wrong.
Perhaps you could provide a quite in context where Obama said something similar to that and we can suss it out.

Maenad · Sep 20, 2013

House votes to keep government open, defund ObamaCare | Fox News

House just voted to keep government open, defund Obamacare.

Maenad · Sep 20, 2013

jonny5 said:
Ok, then you cant have a 100k car every year. Why should you get 100k med treatment every year? if you cant afford it, you cant afford it.

I should get treatment because I have insurance, a product I pay for, that pays for it. And if you want to try to tow that hard line, you can't afford to own ANY car in most states because to not have insurance on it would at the very least, cost you your license and at the most, cost you all your assets. Insurance is a product by which the risk for a peril is spread around among a large group of people so that when one person encounters that peril, he will not face bankruptcy. Under your analogy your doctor can't afford to practice because he can't afford his malpractice insurance. I mean, that's their ongoing pity party about how they can't afford the malpractice insurance. IMO, they need to stop malpracticing. And if they can't afford the insurance, they couldn't afford to pay a claim out of pocket. But people buy their hollow sob story. And yes, I had insurance, but I was never sued for malpractice. So the company made money on me that it paid out on someone else.

jonny5 · Sep 20, 2013

Maenad said:
I should get treatment because I have insurance, a product I pay for, that pays for it. And if you want to try to tow that hard line, you can't afford to own ANY car in most states because to not have insurance on it would at the very least, cost you your license and at the most, cost you all your assets. Insurance is a product by which the risk for a peril is spread around among a large group of people so that when one person encounters that peril, he will not face bankruptcy. Under your analogy your doctor can't afford to practice because he can't afford his malpractice insurance. I mean, that's their ongoing pity party about how they can't afford the malpractice insurance. IMO, they need to stop malpracticing. And if they can't afford the insurance, they couldn't afford to pay a claim out of pocket. But people buy their hollow sob story. And yes, I had insurance, but I was never sued for malpractice. So the company made money on me that it paid out on someone else.

We aren't talking about insurance. We're talking about expensive surgeries.

Maenad · Sep 20, 2013

jonny5 said:
We aren't talking about insurance. We're talking about expensive surgeries.

We are also talking about cars. And you can't afford one. So walk.

BTW: You are in this thread: Obamacare: Walgreens Dropping Current Coverage for 160,000 Workers.....

That is the name of the thread. Coverage = insurance. So we ARE talking about insurance.

jonny5 · Sep 20, 2013

Maenad said:
We are also talking about cars. And you can't afford one. So walk.

BTW: You are in this thread: Obamacare: Walgreens Dropping Current Coverage for 160,000 Workers.....

That is the name of the thread. Coverage = insurance. So we ARE talking about insurance.

I can afford a card, and a surgery that costs as much as a car.

YOU said:
No one can afford them but the super wealthy. Sure, you might be able to pay for routine visits and colds, but one surgery can run thousands of dollars just for the doctor.

WE were discussing how you said no one can afford the cost of a surgery.

Maenad · Sep 20, 2013

jonny5 said:
I can afford a card, and a surgery that costs as much as a car.

WE were discussing how you said no one can afford the cost of a surgery.

Until you have a wreck. THEN you can't afford the lawsuit!

Actually I was discussing the topic. You decided to attack me.

ttwtt78640 · Sep 20, 2013

jonny5 said:
Then the point is made. If people can buy a 20k car every decade (not to mention tons of other stuff) then they can afford surgery. People simply choose not to save money, budget, or prepare.

Saving money is a good idea yet does not eliminate the need for medical insurance. The best of both worlds is a catastrophic medical insurance policy (CMIP) and a medical savings account (MSA). As the MSA balance increases/decreases then adjust the deductable for the CMIP accordingly.

jonny5 · Sep 20, 2013

Maenad said:
Until you have a wreck. THEN you can't afford the lawsuit!

Actually I was discussing the topic. You decided to attack me.

No where have I attacked you.

jonny5 · Sep 20, 2013

ttwtt78640 said:
Saving money is a good idea yet does not eliminate the need for medical insurance. The best of both worlds is a catastrophic medical insurance policy (CMIP) and a medical savings account (MSA). As the MSA balance increases/decreases then adjust the deductable for the CMIP accordingly.

Again we aren't talking about insurance, but whether surgery is affordable. If a car or house is affordable, so is a surgery.

Obamacare: Walgreens Dropping Current Coverage for 160,000 Workers.....

Simon W. Moon

sawyerloggingon

JumpinJack

iguanaman

iguanaman

sawyerloggingon

sangha

sawyerloggingon

Simon W. Moon

sawyerloggingon

Renae

jonny5

Simon W. Moon

sawyerloggingon

sangha

Simon W. Moon

Maenad

Sayonara!

Maenad

Sayonara!

jonny5

Maenad

Sayonara!

jonny5

Maenad

Sayonara!

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

jonny5

jonny5

Obamacare: Walgreens Dropping Current Coverage for 160,000 Workers.....

Sayonara!

Sayonara!

Sayonara!

Sayonara!

Sometimes wrong

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency