If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC) Obvious Wal-Mart cuts some of their health plans. They had a health plan? I thought their policy on employee health was "Die. You are easily replaced"   (cnbc.com) divider line 47
More: Obvious, Wal-Mart, WMT, health insurance  
•       •       •

673 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 Oct 2011 at 11:20 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
 
ArkAngel [TotalFark]
2011-10-21 10:13:29 AM
Most places where I worked part-time did have health care plans available, but the premiums were so expensive that it would have taken my whole paycheck almost every month.
 
RexTalionis [TotalFark]
2011-10-21 11:06:47 AM
When I worked for Wal-Mart, they require you to work just enough so that you only accumulate 38 or 39 hours a week, thus not qualifying you for full-time status (and thus, benefits).

I got yelled at for clocking out late because I was busy.
 
RexTalionis [TotalFark]
2011-10-21 11:13:40 AM
RexTalionis: When I worked for Wal-Mart, they require you to work just enough so that you only accumulate 38 or 39 hours a week, thus not qualifying you for full-time status (and thus, benefits).

I got yelled at for clocking out late because I was busy.

Of course, they also didn't want to pay me over-time, either, so that's at least part of the reason. One week, I accumulated so many hours, they just told me to go home for the day.
 
danvon
2011-10-21 11:30:57 AM
I thought Wal-Mart's health plan was Medicaid. I do remember seeing something a while back that they encouraged their employees to seek out that assistance.
 
rtaylor92
2011-10-21 11:31:57 AM
My premiums have gone up by close to 20% for the 5th year in a row and as an added a bonus, this year it went from a zero deductible plan to a $2000 dedictoble. So yeah, a 2000% increase in my deductible....and I have to pay more for that...improvement.
 
AcneVulgaris
2011-10-21 11:36:19 AM
They take out a life insurance policy on you before the send you out to die in the parking lot, then repackage you as vienna sausage.
 
Cheesus
2011-10-21 11:36:35 AM
rtaylor92: My premiums have gone up by close to 20% for the 5th year in a row and as an added a bonus, this year it went from a zero deductible plan to a $2000 dedictoble. So yeah, a 2000% increase in my deductible....and I have to pay more for that...improvement.

Hate to tell you this, but it's a lot worse than you think.
 
Another Government Employee
2011-10-21 11:37:36 AM
In fairness, the minimum number of hours to be eligible is close to industry standard.

The real test is to see how many employees they keep under the 24 hour average to keep them ineligible.
 
lelio
2011-10-21 11:40:01 AM
I like how they charge more for smokers (they should) and tell of the evils of smoking ... yet still sell the product.
 
cheap_thoughts [TotalFark]
2011-10-21 11:41:08 AM
AcneVulgaris: They take out a life insurance policy on you before the send you out to die in the parking lot, then repackage you as vienna sausage.

Most companies do that actually.
 
BalugaJoe
2011-10-21 11:43:44 AM
Everyone at Walmat is obese... that is why they get sick.
 
roddack
2011-10-21 11:44:21 AM
Cheesus: rtaylor92: My premiums have gone up by close to 20% for the 5th year in a row and as an added a bonus, this year it went from a zero deductible plan to a $2000 deductible. So yeah, a 2000% increase in my deductible....and I have to pay more for that...improvement.

It isn't a 2000% increase since any percentage increase to the value of 0 still results in a value of 0
 
jankyboy
2011-10-21 11:51:46 AM
danvon: I thought Wal-Mart's health plan was Medicaid. I do remember seeing something a while back that they encouraged their employees to seek out that assistance.

I think it was back around 2005 (if I recall from Walmart: The High Cost of Low Prices)... the U.S. taxpayers subsidized Walmart's "health plan" to the tune of $1.27B per year.
 
tricycleracer
2011-10-21 11:53:39 AM
Health insurance cuts into their "dead peasant" insurance revenues.
 
poisonedpawn78
2011-10-21 11:59:55 AM
roddack: Cheesus: rtaylor92: My premiums have gone up by close to 20% for the 5th year in a row and as an added a bonus, this year it went from a zero deductible plan to a $2000 deductible. So yeah, a 2000% increase in my deductible....and I have to pay more for that...improvement.

It isn't a 2000% increase since any percentage increase to the value of 0 still results in a value of 0

Your answer is mostly incorrect. If you bothered to take a math class you would know that you could easily approximate the value by shifting the number slightly when an undefined result occurs.

You can easily see that (2000-0)/0 is undefined however if you were to move the zero slightly to (2000-0.^A)/0.^A you start to go from undefined to massively large numbers. Which means the CORRECT answer is not zero but infinity.
 
SDRR
2011-10-21 12:14:07 PM
cheap_thoughts: AcneVulgaris: They take out a life insurance policy on you before the send you out to die in the parking lot, then repackage you as vienna sausage.

Most companies do that actually.

Damn, remind me to stop eating Vienna sausages!
 
BolloxReader
2011-10-21 12:19:45 PM
The increases in deductibles and reduction of payments into HSAs are the real story here. Every time I pick up a Benefits Selling Magazine it's talking about how to push HSAs and why a $10,000 deductible should be standard. The industry wants to cover engineers, not low-income types. Soon, low-income types won't have anywhere to go but the government for coverage.
 
rtaylor92
2011-10-21 12:39:31 PM
poisonedpawn78: roddack: Cheesus: rtaylor92: My premiums have gone up by close to 20% for the 5th year in a row and as an added a bonus, this year it went from a zero deductible plan to a $2000 deductible. So yeah, a 2000% increase in my deductible....and I have to pay more for that...improvement.

It isn't a 2000% increase since any percentage increase to the value of 0 still results in a value of 0

Your answer is mostly incorrect. If you bothered to take a math class you would know that you could easily approximate the value by shifting the number slightly when an undefined result occurs.

You can easily see that (2000-0)/0 is undefined however if you were to move the zero slightly to (2000-0.^A)/0.^A you start to go from undefined to massively large numbers. Which means the CORRECT answer is not zero but infinity.

so let's say my deductible was $1 and now it's $2000. What is the % increase? I'm not good at math.
 
ha-ha-guy
2011-10-21 12:40:29 PM
This likely comes off as trolling, but oh well:

At some level I think places like Wal Mart only hiring half time is good. It lets them keep prices down on things like groceries and the like since they don't have to pass health care expenses on to the consumer. A lot of jobs at WM and such can be done by teenagers (on their parents health plans) and the spouse that works part time. Health insurance for the family can come from the full time spouse. The spouse that works part time and does child care the rest of the time can take a WM job.

The issue of course comes from WM making people clock out at 38 hours to avoid showing up as full time, which is just complete horseshiat and should result WM in being fined repeatedly and heavily.

I'd think the solution is:
-Track hours over a multiple month period. If the individual exceeds say 28 hours a week on average over X weeks, they're considered FTE and you need to come up with benefits for 2X weeks. Punishes companies for flirting with the limit.

-If the individual has no spouse or guardian they can derive health insurance from, require WM to offer some kind of assistance for obtaining it. Lack of such a person cannot be asked during hiring or used as a reason to fire someone of course.
 
Fizpez
2011-10-21 12:42:19 PM
There actually is a limit to how high premiums can go - at some point it simply becomes more economical to buy a hospital/staff and every bit of equipment in it than pay some third party - I think we might be getting close.
 
jbuist [TotalFark]
2011-10-21 12:45:13 PM
rtaylor92: so let's say my deductible was $1 and now it's $2000. What is the % increase? I'm not good at math.

200,000%
 
The Homer Tax
2011-10-21 12:50:02 PM
BolloxReader: The increases in deductibles and reduction of payments into HSAs are the real story here. Every time I pick up a Benefits Selling Magazine it's talking about how to push HSAs and why a $10,000 deductible should be standard. The industry wants to cover engineers, not low-income types. Soon, low-income types won't have anywhere to go but the government for coverage.

I had a friend who had a high-deuctable HSA plan, and extolled the vitrues of it right up until the point where he actually had to use a hospital and drained the whole thing in like a day.

His response was "Well, I guess I can't get sick for another 5 years or so."
 
Fark_Guy_Rob
2011-10-21 12:53:09 PM
ha-ha-guy: This likely comes off as trolling, but oh well:

At some level I think places like Wal Mart only hiring half time is good. It lets them keep prices down on things like groceries and the like since they don't have to pass health care expenses on to the consumer. A lot of jobs at WM and such can be done by teenagers (on their parents health plans) and the spouse that works part time. Health insurance for the family can come from the full time spouse. The spouse that works part time and does child care the rest of the time can take a WM job.

The issue of course comes from WM making people clock out at 38 hours to avoid showing up as full time, which is just complete horseshiat and should result WM in being fined repeatedly and heavily.

I'd think the solution is:
-Track hours over a multiple month period. If the individual exceeds say 28 hours a week on average over X weeks, they're considered FTE and you need to come up with benefits for 2X weeks. Punishes companies for flirting with the limit.

-If the individual has no spouse or guardian they can derive health insurance from, require WM to offer some kind of assistance for obtaining it. Lack of such a person cannot be asked during hiring or used as a reason to fire someone of course.

So, full time would be > 28 hours a week instead of 40?
 
BolloxReader
2011-10-21 12:59:33 PM
ha-ha-guy: This likely comes off as trolling, but oh well:

At some level I think places like Wal Mart only hiring half time is good. It lets them keep prices down on things like groceries and the like since they don't have to pass health care expenses on to the consumer. A lot of jobs at WM and such can be done by teenagers (on their parents health plans) and the spouse that works part time. Health insurance for the family can come from the full time spouse. The spouse that works part time and does child care the rest of the time can take a WM job.

Around my area, WalMart requires all applicants to have round-the-clock availability. They won't hire schoolkids, and I don't think I've seen any employees there under 18.

The issue of course comes from WM making people clock out at 38 hours to avoid showing up as full time, which is just complete horseshiat and should result WM in being fined repeatedly and heavily.

I'd think the solution is:
-Track hours over a multiple month period. If the individual exceeds say 28 hours a week on average over X weeks, they're considered FTE and you need to come up with benefits for 2X weeks. Punishes companies for flirting with the limit.

-If the individual has no spouse or guardian they can derive health insurance from, require WM to offer some kind of assistance for obtaining it. Lack of such a person cannot be asked during hiring or used as a reason to fire someone of course.

This last bit is what the health care reform bill is designed to accomplish-- help with premiums based on income, starting in 2014.
 
lohphat [TotalFark]
2011-10-21 01:00:49 PM
Simple. Go to the ER when you need basic medical care.

At some point the system implodes due to the accounting shinnanigans and we start over.
 
Kuroshin [TotalFark]
2011-10-21 01:00:54 PM
"Wal-Mart cuts some of their health plans. They had a health plan? I thought their policy on employee health was "Die. You are easily replaced" "...and we're itching to cash in that life insurance policy we took out on you.""

FTFY
 
BolloxReader
2011-10-21 01:13:55 PM
The Homer Tax: BolloxReader: The increases in deductibles and reduction of payments into HSAs are the real story here. Every time I pick up a Benefits Selling Magazine it's talking about how to push HSAs and why a $10,000 deductible should be standard. The industry wants to cover engineers, not low-income types. Soon, low-income types won't have anywhere to go but the government for coverage.

I had a friend who had a high-deuctable HSA plan, and extolled the vitrues of it right up until the point where he actually had to use a hospital and drained the whole thing in like a day.

His response was "Well, I guess I can't get sick for another 5 years or so."

If it's in the same benefit year he should be good but yeah it can take a bit to build up the account again depending on income and employer contributions. I don't actually sell group benefits but I keep up on the trends as much as possible. I know in the individual market I have a very good high deductible HSA with an inexpensive option that gives a cash benefit for hospitalizations. It's cheaper than lowering the deductible. HSAs have their uses, but you have to know your tolerance for risk and have ways to cover the high deductibles. At the core they are catastrophic-only plans. Most people most years will not have anything catastrophic happen to them and HSAs are fine so long as they can contribute to the account regularly.

They are better than some of the rubbish plans that used to be sold as "comprehensive." One of my clients was left with a $40K bill because of the internal limits on a crappy lowball policy he purchased over the phone from elsewhere.
 
summersa74
2011-10-21 01:20:13 PM
lelio: I like how they charge more for smokers (they should) and tell of the evils of smoking ... yet still sell the product.

Around here, they sell it $3 or $4 per pack above the area average, yet smokeless is at or even below area average.
 
danvon
2011-10-21 01:21:30 PM
jankyboy: I think it was back around 2005 (if I recall from Walmart: The High Cost of Low Prices)... the U.S. taxpayers subsidized Walmart's "health plan" to the tune of $1.27B per year.

Thanks. I knew I read about it somewhere.
 
Another Government Employee
2011-10-21 01:31:00 PM
ha-ha-guy: This likely comes off as trolling, but oh well:

At some level I think places like Wal Mart only hiring half time is good. It lets them keep prices down on things like groceries and the like since they don't have to pass health care expenses on to the consumer. A lot of jobs at WM and such can be done by teenagers (on their parents health plans) and the spouse that works part time. Health insurance for the family can come from the full time spouse. The spouse that works part time and does child care the rest of the time can take a WM job.

The issue of course comes from WM making people clock out at 38 hours to avoid showing up as full time, which is just complete horseshiat and should result WM in being fined repeatedly and heavily.

I'd think the solution is:
-Track hours over a multiple month period. If the individual exceeds say 28 hours a week on average over X weeks, they're considered FTE and you need to come up with benefits for 2X weeks. Punishes companies for flirting with the limit.

-If the individual has no spouse or guardian they can derive health insurance from, require WM to offer some kind of assistance for obtaining it. Lack of such a person cannot be asked during hiring or used as a reason to fire someone of course.

That is how it is done for benefits eligiblity. Every plan year the list is produced who is over and under.
 
cefm
2011-10-21 01:36:41 PM
Plus they have life insurance taken out on all their employees - so yeah - "Die, you are easily replaced and your death adds more value to the company than your life ever did"
 
CalvinMorallis
2011-10-21 01:42:08 PM
ha-ha-guy: This likely comes off as trolling, but oh well:

At some level I think places like Wal Mart only hiring half time is good. It lets them keep prices down on things like groceries and the like since they don't have to pass health care expenses on to the consumer. A lot of jobs at WM and such can be done by teenagers (on their parents health plans) and the spouse that works part time. Health insurance for the family can come from the full time spouse. The spouse that works part time and does child care the rest of the time can take a WM job.

The issue of course comes from WM making people clock out at 38 hours to avoid showing up as full time, which is just complete horseshiat and should result WM in being fined repeatedly and heavily.

I'd think the solution is:
-Track hours over a multiple month period. If the individual exceeds say 28 hours a week on average over X weeks, they're considered FTE and you need to come up with benefits for 2X weeks. Punishes companies for flirting with the limit.

-If the individual has no spouse or guardian they can derive health insurance from, require WM to offer some kind of assistance for obtaining it. Lack of such a person cannot be asked during hiring or used as a reason to fire someone of course.

There was a report a couple of years ago that showed that if Wal-Mart paid their employees a living wage and offered affordable health benefits, and passed off EVERY BIT of the extra cost to consumers, the average Wal-Mart shopper would spend something like an extra 10 bucks a year.
 
rtaylor92
2011-10-21 02:08:11 PM
jbuist: rtaylor92: so let's say my deductible was $1 and now it's $2000. What is the % increase? I'm not good at math.

200,000%

oof
 
SisterMaryElephant
2011-10-21 02:52:28 PM
The Homer Tax: BolloxReader: The increases in deductibles and reduction of payments into HSAs are the real story here. Every time I pick up a Benefits Selling Magazine it's talking about how to push HSAs and why a $10,000 deductible should be standard. The industry wants to cover engineers, not low-income types. Soon, low-income types won't have anywhere to go but the government for coverage.

I had a friend who had a high-deuctable HSA plan, and extolled the vitrues of it right up until the point where he actually had to use a hospital and drained the whole thing in like a day.

His response was "Well, I guess I can't get sick for another 5 years or so."

Well then your friend was a farking idiot who didn't understand how these plans work. You can't "drain the thing in a day" unless you've ensured that you only keep 1 year of a deductible in your HSA.

My deductible is $2,900 (i think). I go into the hospital, I pay $2,900. After hitting my deductible, I get 100% coverage. I try to keep 3+ years of deductible in my HSA at all times. That way, deductible is covered. So are incidental things that may not be covered under my plan, or things that may not be covered in full (charges over usual & customary that the hospital won't write down, which is extrememly unusual). AND, I get to use my HSA to cover all of my prescriptions, my dental co-pays, my eyeglasses and other medical and health related shiat.

My health care plan is 100% employER paid, since i choose the lower-cost-to-them high deductible plan. They also put a paltry amount directly into my HSA each month. Once I built up the balance of my HSA, I lowered my contribution to about $200/month. However, I can put more monies in my HSA whenever I want.

Basically, at this point, I can get really sick once or twice a year for the next few years, and I'll still be OK.

And I'm uninsurable on an individual plan! (heart attack prior to 40).
 
CalvinMorallis
2011-10-21 02:57:28 PM
SisterMaryElephant: And I'm uninsurable on an individual plan! (heart attack prior to 40).

Not anymore, you aren't.
 
jake3988
2011-10-21 03:01:22 PM
RexTalionis 2011-10-21 11:06:47 AM When I worked for Wal-Mart, they require you to work just enough so that you only accumulate 38 or 39 hours a week, thus not qualifying you for full-time status (and thus, benefits). I got yelled at for clocking out late because I was busy.
================================================================

This is not alone to Wal-Mart, but definitely scumbaggy.

There's also the fact that the law says you don't have to give the benefits for a full-timer for 90 days. So at 89 days, they fire you, and then rehire you. At another 89 days, repeat.
 
Ishidan
2011-10-21 03:09:57 PM
poisonedpawn78:
You can easily see that (2000-0)/0 is undefined however if you were to move the zero slightly to (2000-0.^A)/0.^A you start to go from undefined to massively large numbers. Which means the CORRECT answer is not zero but infinity OH SHI--.
 
KarmicDisaster
2011-10-21 03:35:31 PM
The Walmart plan is that you get 5 minutes in the hair gel/condom aisle to pick out a cure.
 
TheShavingofOccam123 [TotalFark]
2011-10-21 06:36:54 PM
poisonedpawn78: roddack: Cheesus: rtaylor92: My premiums have gone up by close to 20% for the 5th year in a row and as an added a bonus, this year it went from a zero deductible plan to a $2000 deductible. So yeah, a 2000% increase in my deductible....and I have to pay more for that...improvement.

It isn't a 2000% increase since any percentage increase to the value of 0 still results in a value of 0

Your answer is mostly incorrect. If you bothered to take a math class you would know that you could easily approximate the value by shifting the number slightly when an undefined result occurs.

You can easily see that (2000-0)/0 is undefined however if you were to move the zero slightly to (2000-0.^A)/0.^A you start to go from undefined to massively large numbers. Which means the CORRECT answer is not zero but infinity.

I forget the name of the function. We used to have one that went from 0 to 1 then back to 0. Then there was the function that went from 0 to either a finite number or to infinity then back to 0. Not pulse, not instant, not binary, not point...

i2.photobucket.com
 
The_Philosopher_King
2011-10-21 09:07:31 PM
jake3988: RexTalionis 2011-10-21 11:06:47 AM When I worked for Wal-Mart, they require you to work just enough so that you only accumulate 38 or 39 hours a week, thus not qualifying you for full-time status (and thus, benefits). I got yelled at for clocking out late because I was busy.
================================================================
This is not alone to Wal-Mart, but definitely scumbaggy.
There's also the fact that the law says you don't have to give the benefits for a full-timer for 90 days. So at 89 days, they fire you, and then rehire you. At another 89 days, repeat.

Retailers are all getting that way. My wife works at another large retailer, who shall remain nameless (they have a target in their logo), she hired in at full time. She works doing displays. In the last year they cut her hours below the minimum for benefits so she is going to lose them soon. So not only will she lose benefits but her pay was cut by some 30%. She is looking for a new job. But too many years in retail seem to be a resume stain.
 
Another Government Employee
2011-10-21 09:44:14 PM
The_Philosopher_King: jake3988: RexTalionis 2011-10-21 11:06:47 AM When I worked for Wal-Mart, they require you to work just enough so that you only accumulate 38 or 39 hours a week, thus not qualifying you for full-time status (and thus, benefits). I got yelled at for clocking out late because I was busy.
================================================================
This is not alone to Wal-Mart, but definitely scumbaggy.
There's also the fact that the law says you don't have to give the benefits for a full-timer for 90 days. So at 89 days, they fire you, and then rehire you. At another 89 days, repeat.

Retailers are all getting that way. My wife works at another large retailer, who shall remain nameless (they have a target in their logo), she hired in at full time. She works doing displays. In the last year they cut her hours below the minimum for benefits so she is going to lose them soon. So not only will she lose benefits but her pay was cut by some 30%. She is looking for a new job. But too many years in retail seem to be a resume stain.

And her replacement comes in at minimum wage.
 
Fark Me To Tears [TotalFark]
2011-10-22 01:46:54 AM
rtaylor92: My premiums have gone up by close to 20% for the 5th year in a row and as an added a bonus, this year it went from a zero deductible plan to a $2000 dedictoble. So yeah, a 2000% increase in my deductible....and I have to pay more for that...improvement.

I'm thinking that you might need to use that insurance right about now. Your math indicates you may have had a stroke.
 
Huck And Molly Ziegler
2011-10-22 03:41:18 AM
It's cheaper per item to buy 1,000,000 stethoscopes, 1,000,000 bedpans, 1,000,000 splints, 1,000,000 bottles of miracle drug and the services of 1,000,000 nurses than it is to buy 1,000 of those, per item.

So, let a government agency or national non-profit handle health care cost coverage. We pay for the little things, but "the agency" pays for the things that could BANKRUPT individuals. I'm tired of being screwed by capitalists in the health insurance business.

Can we not agree the United States would be a better place if a poor family didn't have to set out a donation jar at the corner convenience store in order to pay for the operation their 5-year-old needs??
 
lohphat [TotalFark]
2011-10-22 04:39:13 AM
Huck And Molly Ziegler: Can we not agree the United States would be a better place if a poor family didn't have to set out a donation jar at the corner convenience store in order to pay for the operation their 5-year-old needs??

B-b-b-but the churches and community will take care of them!

/derp

Wrong. The larger the pool, the lower the costs. Go back to preventing marketing restricted products (prescription drugs) to the pubic, their efficacy should speak for itself so that the institutional buyer and provider will provide the market; patents protect "profits" but without all the marketing BS overhead. This is why pharma costs have largely skyrocketed -- overhead.

Healthcare is not a consumer product for the most part -- the consumer doesn't have the time to shop services when they're urgently needed. They just need to be there at at a minimal set quality level insured by the FDA and AMA.

No one is advocating the UK NHS system where all the providers are government employees. The Canadian, or French, or German, or Swiss, or Japanese systems where non-profit groups compete for customers under a central single-payer system is the most cost effective per capita. We pay more for less and have more uninsured consuming ER resources for basic needs -- it's insane.

People should not have to fear losing their job or house if injured or sick, and society should not have to pay for expensive treatments for acute or chronic disease which could have been avoided with early access to cheaper preventative care.

All this is documented, but the mouth-breathing derp brigade swallows anything the GOP/Fox tells them while the current system neglects and/or dry rapes them.

Even EU or Canadian conservatives can't fathom the level of derp and outright lies the US right-wing is slinging over this to protect their political careers and campaign funding sources vs the well-being of the average American citizen.
 
blindy the pirate
2011-10-22 06:17:23 AM
Fark_Guy_Rob: ha-ha-guy: This likely comes off as trolling, but oh well:

At some level I think places like Wal Mart only hiring half time is good. It lets them keep prices down on things like groceries and the like since they don't have to pass health care expenses on to the consumer. A lot of jobs at WM and such can be done by teenagers (on their parents health plans) and the spouse that works part time. Health insurance for the family can come from the full time spouse. The spouse that works part time and does child care the rest of the time can take a WM job.

The issue of course comes from WM making people clock out at 38 hours to avoid showing up as full time, which is just complete horseshiat and should result WM in being fined repeatedly and heavily.

I'd think the solution is:
-Track hours over a multiple month period. If the individual exceeds say 28 hours a week on average over X weeks, they're considered FTE and you need to come up with benefits for 2X weeks. Punishes companies for flirting with the limit.

-If the individual has no spouse or guardian they can derive health insurance from, require WM to offer some kind of assistance for obtaining it. Lack of such a person cannot be asked during hiring or used as a reason to fire someone of course.

So, full time would be > 28 hours a week instead of 40?

Full time health benefits being forced to kick in at a lower number like 28 hours a week would help stop companies like Walmart from skirting the law by scheduling a 39 hour week. Of course they can still do it with a 27 hour work week, but it makes it significantly harder to do. It would be nice to have giant companies care about their employees, but it doesn't.
 
mechgreg
2011-10-24 01:45:36 PM
lohphat: No one is advocating the UK NHS system where all the providers are government employees. The Canadian, or French, or German, or Swiss, or Japanese systems where non-profit groups compete for customers under a central single-payer system is the most cost effective per capita. We pay more for less and have more uninsured consuming ER resources for basic needs -- it's insane.

That's not quite how the Canadian system works. Hospitals in Canada are either run by non-profit groups or by local government agencies. Those hospitals are paid for by the government. If you are a doctor who doesn't work in a hospital, you can open up your own practice or clinic. If a patient comes to your clinic instead of you billing them or their insurance provider, the doctor bills the provincial government at rates agreed upon for whatever kind of care you receive. Those clinics are obviously for profit, but say if the Dr. just gives someone a physical, they can only bill the government the agreed upon amout for a physical.

It seems like a better system since it gives everyone easy access to care. I mean in the US univeral health care means you can go to the ER if you are having a heart attack and they can spend tens of thousands of dollars treating you and if you die before you are released you don't have to pay for it and the government is on the hook for it. By comparison in Canada if you area say over 50 you can get regular check-ups and preventative care so that if you are at risk for a heart attack the doctor can spend maybe 100's of dollars making sure you don't have one.
 
ChickenMcBastard
2011-10-24 04:19:50 PM
My company (national parcel deliver service) has a similar change for next year. Even full time employees can now no longer get employee+spouse coverage. We now have to spring for employee+family, which also includes a roughly 68% increase in the paycheck deduction. My wife works full time and is eligible for her own benefits but the healthcare plan her company (a national retailer) provides does not have her gastroenterologist in network. Having only 60% medical coverage and a $1,500 deductible is not an option for someone with Crohn's.

This will be two years in a row I take home less than I did the year before.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
From the Fark Shop:
More from the Fark Shop »