health insurance through largest employer in the US

health insurance through largest employer in the US (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

defiantbadgirl -> health insurance through largest employer in the US (10/31/2013 10:09:53 AM)
This is what Walmart employees and their families have to choose from for 2014. All rates I listed are for non tobacco users. The deductible on the HRA plan for employees is $2,750. For families (including partner and/or children), it's $5,500. After the deductible is met, insurance pays 80%. The annual out of pocket maximum on the HRA plan is $5,000 for employee only coverage and $10,000 for family coverage. Monthly premiums are as follows: $36.80 for a non-smoking employee, $123.80 for an employee and partner, $59 for an employee and children, $147.80 for an employee, partner, and children. The deductible on the HRA High plan is $1,750 for employees and $3,500 for families (including partner and/or children). After the deductible is met, insurance pays 80%. The annual out of pocket maximum is the same: $5,000 for employees only and $10,000 for families. Monthly premiums are: $122.60 for employee only, $310.40 for employee and partner, $172.80 for an employee and children, and $339.20 for an employee, partner, and children.

graceadieu -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (10/31/2013 10:36:29 AM)
Huh, that's actually not too bad. When I worked at CVS I had similar choices, but they were a lot more expensive. My plan had a $3,000 deductible, and I paid over $100/month for that (just for me, a non-smoker). When I went to COBRA it, they wanted ~$400/month. Seems like the ACA is working, huh?

Phydeaux -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (10/31/2013 11:34:17 AM)
What employers make available to their employees has very little to do with ACA and much more to do with the corporate attitude.

DomKen -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (10/31/2013 12:45:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux What employers make available to their employees has very little to do with ACA and much more to do with the corporate attitude. Sure. The ACA requiring large employers to do so had nothing to do with it. [8\|] Weren't you just posting bullshit about how employers were shifting people to part time to avoid the ACA?

joether -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (10/31/2013 1:00:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux What employers make available to their employees has very little to do with ACA and much more to do with the corporate attitude. Sure. The ACA requiring large employers to do so had nothing to do with it. [8\|] Weren't you just posting bullshit about how employers were shifting people to part time to avoid the ACA? YES Beside that, Phydeaux is wrong as usual. Employers who offer a health insurance plan directly (because they ARE the insurance company) must make sure their health place follows the guidelines within the ACA, UNLESS, the plan has been grandfathered before March 31, 2010. If they are an employer but not an insurance provider, any plans they offer must also be filed correctly within terms of the current laws on the books. Just the same as it was before the ACA was voted into law three years ago.

DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (10/31/2013 1:13:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux What employers make available to their employees has very little to do with ACA and much more to do with the corporate attitude. Sure. The ACA requiring large employers to do so had nothing to do with it. [8\|] Weren't you just posting bullshit about how employers were shifting people to part time to avoid the ACA? YES Beside that, Phydeaux is wrong as usual. Employers who offer a health insurance plan directly (because they ARE the insurance company) must make sure their health place follows the guidelines within the ACA, UNLESS, the plan has been grandfathered before March 31, 2010. If they are an employer but not an insurance provider, any plans they offer must also be filed correctly within terms of the current laws on the books. Just the same as it was before the ACA was voted into law three years ago. If you negotiate with an insurer every year, and re-enroll, if your original plan was considered "grandfathered," would your newly signed agreement still be grandfathered (just for sake of the question, let's assume there were zero changes within the plan and zero changes in premium)? Is a newly signed plan considered a "new" plan and, therefore, not one in place prior to March 23rd 2010?

mnottertail -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (10/31/2013 1:22:57 PM)
As you have stated in your peroration is the case. If there are no changes, there is no reason for negotiation, no reason for new contracts, heres the price now, the premiums remain the same, lower, or go up (which does not affect the grandfathering). If you sign a NEW contract, it is by definition, new.

joether -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (10/31/2013 1:57:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux What employers make available to their employees has very little to do with ACA and much more to do with the corporate attitude. Sure. The ACA requiring large employers to do so had nothing to do with it. [8\|] Weren't you just posting bullshit about how employers were shifting people to part time to avoid the ACA? YES Beside that, Phydeaux is wrong as usual. Employers who offer a health insurance plan directly (because they ARE the insurance company) must make sure their health place follows the guidelines within the ACA, UNLESS, the plan has been grandfathered before March 31, 2010. If they are an employer but not an insurance provider, any plans they offer must also be filed correctly within terms of the current laws on the books. Just the same as it was before the ACA was voted into law three years ago. If you negotiate with an insurer every year, and re-enroll, if your original plan was considered "grandfathered," would your newly signed agreement still be grandfathered (just for sake of the question, let's assume there were zero changes within the plan and zero changes in premium)? Seriously, DS, do you NOT understand what the legal term of 'grandfather' or 'grandfathered' means in US Legal Speak? It is used so often across the nation, from local towns to federal laws that I'm surprised you do not understand the basic definition of the term. If YOU (not the insurance company) re-negotiate the plan.....AFTER.....March 31, 2010, and its a new plan AFTER, March 31, 2010, the insurance company must be able to show that it complies fully with the law on the books. If the plan has been grandfathered in, your chances of 're-negotiating' it are extremely limited to the point of 'take it or leave it'. If you and the insurance company make no changes, and the plan itself is following the current laws, than there should be no problem. But that implies you, the individual, have a full understanding of the ACA. Which if put to a poll of Americans means less than 6% are able to accomplish this task. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Is a newly signed plan considered a "new" plan and, therefore, not one in place prior to March 23rd 2010? .....SIGH..... Ok....if the PLAN, has been GRANDFATHERED under the ACA, and NO CHANGES of its status being GRANDFATHERED under the ACA, its still can be used by the company. The other party does not matter in this instance. The ACA change affects things on 'seller' side, not 'buyer'.

DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (10/31/2013 2:57:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If you negotiate with an insurer every year, and re-enroll, if your original plan was considered "grandfathered," would your newly signed agreement still be grandfathered (just for sake of the question, let's assume there were zero changes within the plan and zero changes in premium)? Seriously, DS, do you NOT understand what the legal term of 'grandfather' or 'grandfathered' means in US Legal Speak? It is used so often across the nation, from local towns to federal laws that I'm surprised you do not understand the basic definition of the term. If YOU (not the insurance company) re-negotiate the plan.....AFTER.....March 31, 2010, and its a new plan AFTER, March 31, 2010, the insurance company must be able to show that it complies fully with the law on the books. If the plan has been grandfathered in, your chances of 're-negotiating' it are extremely limited to the point of 'take it or leave it'. If you and the insurance company make no changes, and the plan itself is following the current laws, than there should be no problem. But that implies you, the individual, have a full understanding of the ACA. Which if put to a poll of Americans means less than 6% are able to accomplish this task. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Is a newly signed plan considered a "new" plan and, therefore, not one in place prior to March 23rd 2010? .....SIGH..... Ok....if the PLAN, has been GRANDFATHERED under the ACA, and NO CHANGES of its status being GRANDFATHERED under the ACA, its still can be used by the company. The other party does not matter in this instance. The ACA change affects things on 'seller' side, not 'buyer'. So, rather than answering, "yes" then "no," you'd rather attempt to belittle me. Gotcha. My questions were both valid (the second a simpler restatement of the first). Instead of answering them directly, you had to go on and on. But, thank you for answering the questions. My ex is part of the negotiating side for her employer. After Obamacare was passed, there were lots of things being stated between the insurance company and her employer. Some of it did not jive with what you have stated in this thread. Since I was attempting to get some answers, I asked questions that would give me those answers. How about next time you answer the questions without going off, huh?

LookieNoNookie -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (10/31/2013 3:35:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl This is what Walmart employees and their families have to choose from for 2014. All rates I listed are for non tobacco users. The deductible on the HRA plan for employees is $2,750. For families (including partner and/or children), it's $5,500. After the deductible is met, insurance pays 80%. The annual out of pocket maximum on the HRA plan is $5,000 for employee only coverage and $10,000 for family coverage. Monthly premiums are as follows: $36.80 for a non-smoking employee, $123.80 for an employee and partner, $59 for an employee and children, $147.80 for an employee, partner, and children. The deductible on the HRA High plan is $1,750 for employees and $3,500 for families (including partner and/or children). After the deductible is met, insurance pays 80%. The annual out of pocket maximum is the same: $5,000 for employees only and $10,000 for families. Monthly premiums are: $122.60 for employee only, $310.40 for employee and partner, $172.80 for an employee and children, and $339.20 for an employee, partner, and children. Clearly these people should start smoking.

LafayetteLady -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (11/1/2013 12:18:47 AM)
What were the rates BEFORE ACA kicked in? Better? Worse? The sam quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl This is what Walmart employees and their families have to choose from for 2014. All rates I listed are for non tobacco users. The deductible on the HRA plan for employees is $2,750. For families (including partner and/or children), it's $5,500. After the deductible is met, insurance pays 80%. The annual out of pocket maximum on the HRA plan is $5,000 for employee only coverage and $10,000 for family coverage. Monthly premiums are as follows: $36.80 for a non-smoking employee, $123.80 for an employee and partner, $59 for an employee and children, $147.80 for an employee, partner, and children. The deductible on the HRA High plan is $1,750 for employees and $3,500 for families (including partner and/or children). After the deductible is met, insurance pays 80%. The annual out of pocket maximum is the same: $5,000 for employees only and $10,000 for families. Monthly premiums are: $122.60 for employee only, $310.40 for employee and partner, $172.80 for an employee and children, and $339.20 for an employee, partner, and children. e? If no insurance was offered obviously, these rates are a step up. Its easy to want to complain, but if the isn't any real difference from before or its an actual improvement, its bitching just to bitch.

Phydeaux -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (11/1/2013 12:39:03 AM)
Again. The fact that corporations have shifted millions of people into part time care to avoid health insurance, doesn't mean that walmart has. Andif the quality of the walmart care exceeds the requirements of the ACA it clearly is a function of the management of the company that elected to provide that coverage.

joether -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (11/1/2013 1:54:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, rather than answering, "yes" then "no," you'd rather attempt to belittle me. Gotcha. Why the annoyance? Your usually one of the few conservative individuals on here with a brain and knows how to use it. We disagree on things, but usually the conversations are equal 'playful jab' and viewpoint with evidence. But not understanding the concept of 'grandfathered;, DS? Seriously? I'm not going to give you a 'black or white' answer. That goes into to the conservative philosophy to much of absolutes verses the full spectrum in between both. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri My questions were both valid (the second a simpler restatement of the first). Instead of answering them directly, you had to go on and on. Ever notice that President Obama talks at length? And that it infuriates conservatives? The reason is, the man is educated....VERY...educated. That is the simple answer. But not the whole answer. The whole answer is he explains a concept. His view, with supporting view/information tied to it with a conclusion. That is how one makes a serious argument. And you have done this in the past whether you have realized it or not. The 'going on and on' part was to fully explain the answer to you. This medium of media does not allow me to observe if you understood the information, so I'll give additional thoughts to help you understand to where I am coming from. An 'yes', I do try not to write whole books.... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri But, thank you for answering the questions. The questions are often easy, its getting someone to understand the answers is much tougher. Depending on the individual on these boards, its all but impossible. I think you could list a few names of people to whom I've tried explained the information to their question without pushing the political viewpoint in the past. Perhaps I had answered a post from one of these people and came to yours. After reading it, I was just...annoyed....since I like to think your on the ball with this stuff. I understand that you like most Americans have not read the ACA. But it does worry me, that by not reading the ACA fully, your information comes from sources with a political agenda meant to undermine the trust and liberty we Americans enjoy in our daily lives. An that you would be attacking me with the questions, not realizing the information you got, came from a source trying to do just that. "Yes", there are many times I put the politics to one side, and simply try to answer the questions with the best information I have at the time. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri My ex is part of the negotiating side for her employer. After Obamacare was passed, there were lots of things being stated between the insurance company and her employer. Some of it did not jive with what you have stated in this thread. Since I was attempting to get some answers, I asked questions that would give me those answers. I'm not a lawyer. However, the ACA is written much like other laws currently on the books. The language and format are considered 'current'. It follows the same patterns of other laws pass through Congress. I read the ACA fully once back in 2010 shortly before it was voted upon. And once or twice since. Every time these kind of questions come up, I usually have a decent idea of where to find the information. After that, is to determine my audience (i.e. you or someone else), and try to explain the material the best I can. The issue with 'grandfathered' is in like freaking thirty places. And it depends on how its used that determines the concept, not when it is used (confusing, eh?). What your ex and you experienced, it one of the problems this nation has: an over abundance of misinformation. While its often joked that FOX News puts out misinformation, the truth is not far from the joking. An that has a cost not measured in dollars and cents but in something completely different yet much more important. And what is it, DS? Good question..... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How about next time you answer the questions without going off, huh? When it comes to you, I can endeavor to do better than I have in the past.

DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (11/1/2013 6:09:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri My ex is part of the negotiating side for her employer. After Obamacare was passed, there were lots of things being stated between the insurance company and her employer. Some of it did not jive with what you have stated in this thread. Since I was attempting to get some answers, I asked questions that would give me those answers. I'm not a lawyer. However, the ACA is written much like other laws currently on the books. The language and format are considered 'current'. It follows the same patterns of other laws pass through Congress. I read the ACA fully once back in 2010 shortly before it was voted upon. And once or twice since. Every time these kind of questions come up, I usually have a decent idea of where to find the information. After that, is to determine my audience (i.e. you or someone else), and try to explain the material the best I can. The issue with 'grandfathered' is in like freaking thirty places. And it depends on how its used that determines the concept, not when it is used (confusing, eh?). What your ex and you experienced, it one of the problems this nation has: an over abundance of misinformation. While its often joked that FOX News puts out misinformation, the truth is not far from the joking. An that has a cost not measured in dollars and cents but in something completely different yet much more important. And what is it, DS? Good question..... An overabundance of information? The last time I had FOX News on was ... um ... Hell, I can't tell you, but it was this year. I think it was the State of the Union address, or something like that. Unlike what many on here may insinuate, I have never been a big FOX News guy (though Megan Kelly and Kiran Chetry are/were some damn fine eye candy). The information my ex was getting was from the insurance representatives. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How about next time you answer the questions without going off, huh? When it comes to you, I can endeavor to do better than I have in the past. Thanks. I know I can ask a lot of questions. And, I also know that some people need explanations that go along with them. You do tend to put a lot of info into your posts, which I do (regardless of what it may seem) appreciate. But, there are also times when I want clarification, so I ask a question. In this case (you need to work on your mind reading, apparently [:D]), all I needed was the "yes/no" answer. I'd like to say that, in the future, I'll do better at letting people know what I'm looking for. However, I know myself better than any of you know me, and know that I'm as likely to forget to do that as I am to remember. [:D]

mnottertail -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (11/1/2013 6:14:25 AM)
Yanno, the fact that Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the US is enough, it horrifying to any real American. Oh, how the mighty has fallen.

DarkSteven -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (11/1/2013 7:20:16 AM)
The problem is that Wal Mart jobs and fast food jobs used to be for kids and students, and not folks trying to support a middle class lifestyle. When the middle class opportunities got wiped out, the middle class tried to use the crap jobs to replace good ones.

kalikshama -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (11/1/2013 7:36:35 AM)
Agreed; good point. This must be why I'm not supporting the petition to make $15 the minimum wage for McDonald's employees. I think of it as a kid/student job; not a support-the-family job. (And don't get me started about not having kids unless you can afford them.)

leonine -> RE: health insurance through largest employer in the US (11/3/2013 3:49:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama Agreed; good point. This must be why I'm not supporting the petition to make $15 the minimum wage for McDonald's employees. I think of it as a kid/student job; not a support-the-family job. (And don't get me started about not having kids unless you can afford them.) And as DS points out, that is an out of date assumption. My son has a similar problem, he's looking for an apprenticeship, and the ones he can find are paid as if they are for kids living with their parents, who just need to make enough to cover a contribution for groceries. That was then, this is now...

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02