• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

jonny5 said:
No where have I attacked you.
Click to expand...

You most assuredly have. When you tell a terminally ill person that they shouldn't have treatment under insurance they have paid for, that is an attack. You just told me to hurry up and die. My discussion with you is over.
 
jonny5 said:
Again we aren't talking about insurance, but whether surgery is affordable. If a car or house is affordable, so is a surgery.
Click to expand...

Not so. With a car you can decide to buy a cheap beater to make do, but with surgery, you either must pay for it now or die.
 
MMC said:
Walgreen Co. (WAG), the biggest U.S. drugstore chain, will move its workers into a private health insurance exchange to buy company-subsidized coverage, the latest sign of how the debate over Obamacare is accelerating a historic shift in corporate health-care coverage. Walgreen’s decision affects about 160,000 current employees and follows similar action this year by Sears Holdings Corp. (SHLD) and Darden Restaurants Inc. (DRI) As an alternative to administering a traditional health plan, all three will send their employees to an exchange run by Aon Plc.

IBM and GE recently announced similar changes in their retirees plans, which are not to be confused with UPS' decision to drop spousal coverage. CBS News reported the "big deal" announcement this morning, noting that employees may have to swallow more out-of-pocket costs due to Walgreens' cost-saving move:

What makes this particular corporate decision ironic is that Walgreens agreed to team up with HHS to promote the new law, which has now forced major benefits changes within their own company. The drug store chain is boosting a policy that has forced management to expose one of the president's core pledges as untrue,

and echoing Harry Reid's pronouncement that Obamacare is only the first step toward really fixing our still-broken healthcare system through a fully government-run single payer system. Confronted with this $2 trillion law's undeniable failures, its cheerleaders are already making the pivot to their next bad idea.....snip~

Obamacare: Walgreens Dropping Current Coverage for 160,000 Workers - Guy Benson

yes.gif
Obamacare takes another major hit. Walgreens one of the major backers. it just keeps on getting worse. Now the Obamatons are already pivoting as now they cannot deny the rising costs. Which means Obama hoping on the youth to fund his program may be in even more jeopardy than originally thought. Especially with those poor and middle class people. Knowing costs are going to keep going up on them. Sure he wasn't hoping on people who don't get sick that much.....people coming down on him from all sides now. Is that a look of worry in his eyes?
Click to expand...

Actually, Walgreens is switching to a private exchange which works kind of like the public exchange in Obamacare. Employees will be subsidized and will choose their coverage from the private exchange, but Walgreens is not dropping anybody's coverage, just the way it's provided.

My first though was the same as yours, but it turns out the facts are not what they seem at first glance. I have a feeling that didn't matter to your source.
 
MaggieD said:
I'm not sure that this isn't much ado about nothing. I'd need more information.

  • How is this different from what they're doing now?
  • How will this effect employees?
If what Walgreen's is currently doing is offering their employees "our healthcare package," a generic one-size-fits-all, then moving to a Walgreen's Exchange where employees have more options isn't necessarily a bad thing.

"Here are six companies with whom we've negotiated who will provide a buffet of insurance products from which you'll pick the one that best suits you. We will put $14,000 annually into the equivalent of a Health Savings Account to help defray the cost of your healthcare."

^^I just made that up. But I doubt it is much different than what they have now, except that all the offered plans will be AHA compliant and Walgreen's will be out of the loop in administering the plans.
Click to expand...


That's basically it. But haters gonna hate no matter what the facts are.
 
MMC said:
If employers like Walgreens expected ObamaCare to actually control costs, they wouldn’t be dumping employee coverage.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but they're not dumping employee coverage so it's not really relevant here.
 
rocket88 said:
Actually, Walgreens is switching to a private exchange which works kind of like the public exchange in Obamacare. Employees will be subsidized and will choose their coverage from the private exchange, but Walgreens is not dropping anybody's coverage, just the way it's provided.

My first though was the same as yours, but it turns out the facts are not what they seem at first glance. I have a feeling that didn't matter to your source.
Click to expand...

That may be true.....but the part about Obama stating they wouldn't have to is another thing. Also about the cost going up. Obama should have never said.....Never.
 
rocket88 said:
I have a feeling that didn't matter to your source.
Click to expand...
The OP quoted a blog which in turn quoted yet another blog. The original details have been interpreted and that interpretation has been interpreted. What we get is the OP. The OP implies (at least) something different than what was reported.
From there posters seem to have taken this 3rd generation interpretation and gone even further from the original.

iow, same ol same ol
 
MMC said:
That may be true.....but the part about Obama stating they wouldn't have to is another thing. Also about the cost going up. Obama should have never said.....Never.
Click to expand...

I think they will be able to get the same coverage. Or something cheaper which is good for everybody (and why they're doing it).
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Walgreen's doesn't have to.
:shrug:
Click to expand...

Well, they should have thought about that before saying that they were all for Partnering with Obamacare. Although I am sure they aren't to worried with being able to provide some services in their Pharmacies. It's now wondering how many that they will be able to keep open.
rolleyes.png
 
MMC said:
Well, they should have thought about that before saying that they were all for Partnering with Obamacare. Although I am sure they aren't to worried with being able to provide some services in their Pharmacies.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're on about.
MMC said:
It's now wondering how many that they will be able to keep open. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It seems Walgreen's is actually doing quite well.


With strong August same-store sales and an expected surge in earnings, the retail pharmacy giant should continue to make new highs.​

​
Before Thursday's opening bell, Walgreen (ticker: WAG) said same-store sales generated in August rose 4.8%, beating the 2.9% Wall Street estimate, as sales in both the front end and pharmacy counter areas easily topped forecasts.​

​
"This is a roughly $50 billion market capitalization company that could have a 50% earnings reset in 2016, and at 14 times forward earnings, investors aren't paying for it yet," says Raymond James & Associates analyst John Ransom.​
 
MMC said:
Well, they should have thought about that before saying that they were all for Partnering with Obamacare. Although I am sure they aren't to worried with being able to provide some services in their Pharmacies. It's now wondering how many that they will be able to keep open.
rolleyes.png
Click to expand...

This change in their employee health plans has nothing to do with Obamacare. It's a private exchange, not the government exchange. If anything, this move is increasing their employees choices as far as health plan choices go.

As far as their "partnering with Obamacare," I can't blame them for trying to milk a profit out of it. Whether or not that was a smart decision remains to be seen.
 
Maenad said:
You most assuredly have. When you tell a terminally ill person that they shouldn't have treatment under insurance they have paid for, that is an attack. You just told me to hurry up and die. My discussion with you is over.
Click to expand...

Your words, not mine.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not so. With a car you can decide to buy a cheap beater to make do, but with surgery, you either must pay for it now or die.
Click to expand...

Well if you want to play hypotheticals then most surgeries are not life threatening.
 
jonny5 said:
Well if you want to play hypotheticals then most surgeries are not life threatening.
Click to expand...

Every surgery is life threatening if for no other reason than the potential for infection.
 
Maenad said:
Every surgery is life threatening if for no other reason than the potential for infection.
Click to expand...
That's equivocation.

Technically you're right. Technically every scratch from the roses in your garden is "life threatening" when we use the definition which counts potential infections as "life threatening". But in common usage "life threatening" isn't applied to things like that.

So, yeah, equivocation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom