Richard Pollock:
New Obamacare health insurance enrollees may feel a pang of envy when they eye the coverage plans offered by Walmart to its employees.
For many years, the giant discount retailer has been the target of unions and liberal activists who have harshly criticized the company’s health care plans, calling them “notorious for failing to provide health benefits” and “substandard.”
But a Washington Examiner comparison of the two health insurance programs found that Walmart’s plan is more affordable and provides significantly better access to high-quality medical care than Obamacare.
Independent insurance agents affiliated with the National Association of Health Underwriters and health policy experts compared the two at the request of the Examiner.
Walmart furnished employee benefit information to the Examiner. Neither Obamacare advocate Families USA nor the United Food and Commercial Workers, which backs anti-Walmart campaigns, responded to Examiner requests for comment.
Walmart offers its employees two standard plans, a Health Reimbursement Account and an alternative it calls “HRA High” that costs more out of employees’ pockets but has lower deductibles. Blue Cross Blue Shield manages both plans nationally.
Also offered is a Health Savings Account plan that includes high deductibles but allows tax-free dollars to be used for coverage.
For a monthly premium as low as roughly $40, an individual who is a Walmart HRA plan enrollee can obtain full-service coverage through a Blue Cross Blue Shield preferred provider organization. A family can get coverage for about $160 per month.
Now this is irony!
Here’s a link to the entire article, at the Washington Examiner.
Mr. Pollock is making no real comparison at all.
“Obamacare” isn’t any particular healthcare plan. Hundreds of private healthcare plans meet the Affordable Care Act’s minimum standards and are available for consideration on the online Health Insurance Marketplace. They cover a wide range of prices. They offer a wide range of coverage options.
Any real comparison would list detailed specifics of the Walmart plan alongside the detailed specifics of one or more of the alternative marketplace plans. Instead, our lovely Walmart apple is being compared with nothing at all. We’re then assured that it’s clearly better and cheaper than that other, unspecified thing.
A quick search turned up this information concerning Walmart’s employee plan, current as of 2011:
My guess is that an annual $4,400 deductible would be a rather significant portion of the average Walmart employee’s total take-home pay for a year; that having to pay that much out of pocket would probably become a multi-year financial disaster. The plan is probably a real bargain—provided you don’t have the sort of health expenses most people are trying to guard themselves against when they buy health insurance.
Surprise, surprise….. Greggie’s link goes to a website created by the UFCW (United Food and Commercial Workers) Union. But hey, their just trying to help out all those mistreated Wal-Mart workers, right? Ummm, maybe not.
UFCW has (as of 2102) 1,272,313 members all across the nation. Union dues to rank and file members run about $16.00 a month. All so they can represent Wal-Mart employees making $8.50/hr. and more. Great, huh?
Not so fast. UFCW big wigs make really good money with the International President picking up a total package in 2012 of $351,903.00 (salary of $297,941.00 plus bonuses and benefits perks). And the number of UFCW officers that make over $100,000/yr are just too many to count.
http://www.unionfacts.com/employees/United_Food_%26_Commercial_Workers
All in all, the union itself has 564 employees, 236 that make $75,000/year, or more. And all those employees want to keep their tony salaries, and that’s pretty hard to do when the union has lost over 100,000 due paying members in the last ten years. Multiply 100,000 by the average monthly dues of $16.00 and we’re talking about a loss of 19 million dollars a year that is no longer being funneled into the union coffers.
Hell, yes, the UFCW wants to unionize the Wal-Mart employees because they represent a new cash crop for union big wigs that make way too much money to begin with.
I have to laugh at how people like Greggie will rail on corporate CEOs and complain about how much money they make (unless those CEOs are leftists like Jeffrey Immelt of GE) but are absolutely silent about how much money union big wigs skim off the top.
@retire05, #3:
You seem to be attempting to extend the ad hominem fallacy to organizations. Doing so is as bogus as the article is itself. The source of information doesn’t matter, so long as the information that’s being providing is accurate.
The topic here isn’t unions, “Obamacare” isn’t any one specific healthcare plan, and there’s no such thing as a one item comparison. Walmart’s insurance is cheaper and better than what, exactly?
@Greg:
I have to overcome the gobsmacking deceit of your post. The article clearly shows the differences between the obamacare monthly premiums and deductibles, as well as listing the significantly smaller hospital participation in obamacare exchange access with the same parameters of the walmart plans. Yet you list walmart data from 2011 – when obamacare wasn’t in effect – and laughably claim the Examiner piece isn’t making an accurate comparison?
We aren’t that stupid, Greg.
@Pete< #5:
It’s Mr. Pollock’s article that’s deceitful, for the reasons stated in post #2. The article is ridiculous.
Speaking of deceit.
If you like your plan you can keep your plan. PERIOD.
If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
@Greg:
You stridently insist that the data presented is “ridiculous” only because you do not like what it shows about the complete failure of the leftist obamacare scam.
Under obamacare people are losing their insurance, their doctors, and are mandated to purchase coverage they do not want nor need (i.e. maternity care for 50 year old men) that is much more expensive than what they paid before….all the exact opposite of what the liar-in-chief and the rest of his leftist cabal claimed repeatedly would be the effect of this socialist shibboleth. And as we conservatives have been warning all along, The New Republic admitted in the last week that obamacare was designed not to provide affordable health care, but to usher in the complete socialist takeover of US medicine.
Prohibition was an amendment was overturned. Obamacare must be repealed.
If obamacare was going to be so good for the economy and business, why did Obama illegally by executive fiat simply change passed law without proper legislative authorization when he delayed the employer mandate until after the 2014 elections? The only reason is that Obama knows the disasterous effect obamacare implementation would have, and he fears the electoral backlash. If the marxist in the Oval Office really believed his scheme would work and improve the economy, it makes zero sense to have delayed the linchpin of his signature political endeavor.
Obamacare delenda est.
@Greg
Sorry, Greg, I call bovine excrement. To your credit, you link to the article, *BUT* then proceed to ignore the actual content of that article…
I counted several references to specific people or organizations who did the exact comparison you claim wasn’t done. For example:
Or maybe what you’re saying is that the folks responsible for selling ACA-compliant policies are not qualified to evaluate those policies?
Umm, you mean something like this?
Or $1,980 per year in increased premiums under the ACA. Or maybe you meant this:
Except you didn’t need to ‘guess’, once again the Examiner actually *HAD* done the evaluation…I’m guessing (slight pun intended) perhaps you just didn’t like the answer?
Sooo…using ‘detailed specifics’ for a 30 year old woman, the ACA-compliant plan results in a $3,800 higher deductible cost than the Walmart plan…which, as you say, is “a rather significant portion of the average Walmart employee’s total take-home pay” although, I’m sure not in the context you meant.
Even if the employee in question ‘saved’ the $40/month Walmart premium in favor of a ‘subsidized’ ACA plan, the math says $2,980 ($480 premiums + $2,500 deductible) on the Walmart plan vs. $6,300 ($0 premium +$6,300 deductible) on a comparable ACA-compliant plan would make her net out-of-pocket for the year $3,320 *higher* under the ACA.
The ‘multi-year financial disaster’ to which you refer appears to be more likely *with* the ACA…
Jay, very strong effort but alas, when dealing with Greg or the abominable troll This One, such clear cut use of honest facts falls on the impenetrability of their ignorant worship of collectivism.
@Pete
Understood. The point is not to change the trolls minds, but to make sure any casual readers are aware of the flaws in the resident socialist’s ‘logic’ (using the term loosely) and don’t accept their views as having any basis in fact.
@Pete, #8:
No, I’m insisting it’s totally ridiculous because no verifiable data is being presented at all. Pollock hasn’t even bothered to name the Healthcare Insurance Marketplace plan he’s supposedly comparing the Walmart employee plan with, has he? Any reasonable person would expect to be provided with at least that most minimal bit of information before believing some real comparison has taken place.
@Jay, #9:
I saw that also, and asked myself the obvious question: Which two plans are they talking about? Walmart’s employee plan, and. . . Hmm. That critical detail is missing.
And exactly who or what are independent insurance agents affiliated with the National Association of Health Underwriters? The phrase evokes a aura of serious expertise, but all it actually means is that the writer talked to a couple of unnamed health insurance salesmen. Such people are commonly affiliated with the National Association of Health Underwriters simply because they sell insurance for a living. You can become affiliated by paying a membership fee.
So, the bottom line: We’ve got an assertion from Mr. Pollock that unnamed persons having uncertain qualifications have compared an unnamed healthcare plan with the one being offered by Walmart to its own employees.
Some people might suggest that I’m that fixating on irrelevant, trivial details. I would counter that I’m simply requiring a minimum amount of supporting evidence before I’ll accept that what the writer has said is true. Pollock has provided none.
@Greg
Not exactly missing, just requiring detailed reading…the graphic detailing the comparison was footnoted “Obamacare premiums are estimates from the Journal of the American Medical Assoc., based on the CBO projection of the nationwide second lowest cost Silver premium. Silver plans cover on average 70% of enrollees’ total costs. Walmart premiums were obtained from the ‘Walmart 2014 Annual Enrollment Guide’ ” and compared plans for a 30 year old smoker and two 60 year old nonsmokers.
Or is that still not specific enough for you? Also note that to compare benefits to Walmart’s plan they had to use a mid-tier Silver plan, not one of the bottom tier Bronze plans…*and* you glossed over the portion of the article where the Walmart plan allowed access to more doctors (24,904 vs. 9,837) and more hospitals (54 vs. 28) in the Chicago area.
The reason you discounted the expertise of the JAMA was…?
And I seem to recall you were more than happy to rely on the CBO cost analysis during the proposal stages of the ACA, are you saying the CBO projections have suddenly become less reliable?
Obviously there is a difference between reading and understanding…
A person who ‘simply’ sells insurance for a living should by definition have somewhat of an understanding of insurance plans and be at least nominally capable of comparing said plans or they wouldn’t be making a living at it for long…and therefore be more qualified (at least compared to a layperson who makes ‘guesses’) at conducting said comparison for the newspaper?
‘Unnamed’ you say? Are you *sure* you read the article? A quick skim found four specific names *and* their affiliations/qualifications:
Heh. ‘requiring a minimum amount of supporting evidence’ – A standard I’m sure we can rely on you to apply to any future links you and/or This One provide… /sarc
I know you had a fairly low minimum standard regarding supporting evidence during the Lois Lerner/IRS threads.
Choosing to ignore the evidence does not mean Pollock didn’t provide it.
@Jay, #14:
Allow me to repeat the question: What evidence? If Mr. Pollock would name the specific plans he’s basing his comparisons on, there might be some. “An Obamacare plan” isn’t specific. It’s deliberately vague.
I’m not impressed by the article’s “Infographic” information link comparisons. Again, they’re deliberately misleading. We’ve got the Obamacare vs. Walmart Premium Comparison, and the Obamacare vs. Walmart Health Access Comparison.
Apparently the reader is first supposed compare premiums without any thought for varying ranges of covered services and deductibles, and then make a similar blind comparison of how many doctors and hospitals accept each plan without wondering what might account for the difference—for example, the Walmart plan might impose no ceiling on what a doctor or hospital is allowed to charge a patient for any particular service, while approved plans will do so. That difference would show up in the real world when the patient’s insurance statement reveals the amount that “you owe the provider.”
These charts convey a misleading impression, but they’re not actually making truly meaningful comparisons. Something half the price may truly be cheaper, but to focus only on that in the absence of other details may conceal the important fact that the cheaper item isn’t worth as much, or may in fact be hardly worth a damn—an expression that describes the worth of this article, if the reader is hoping for truthful information.
Having access to 54 hospitals sounds better than 28, doesn’t it? Shall we conclude that this means the Walmart plan will cover as much of your hospital bill in one of those 54 hospitals as an approved Marketplace Plan will cover at one of the 28? Go ahead and make that assumption. And then hope you don’t have to test its validity with a serious accident or injury that puts you in a hospital for 3 or 4 weeks.
Sure they can. They’re unusually expensive service providers. Shall we assume that the Walmart plan will cover a significant portion of the costs there, simply because the providers accept that insurance?
The most likely reason many Obamacare plans don’t cover them is that the providers won’t accept restrictions on how much they can charge for particular services. The Walmart plan imposes no ceilings on providers. That doesn’t mean the plan will pay what you are billed.
The problem with all of the article’s comparisons is what is being left out and going unsaid. The reason information it is left out is because including it would expose the absurdity of the “comparisons.” Pollock’s leaders are being treated rather shabbily, in my opinion. He’s not actually trying to inform them. He’s trying to persuade them, for political reasons. Reliance on his information isn’t necessarily in a reader’s best interest.
FOX News is promoting the same bogus Walmart/Obamacare “comparisons” today, keeping to an outline in its televised “news” segment that is virtually identical to the one used in Pollock’s article. They apparently have little concern about being too obvious.
@Greg:FOX News is virtually identical to Pollock’s article.
But not as virtually identical as these news readers:
http://teamcoco.com/video/conan-highlight-media-reacts-admit-it
Now, the Pollock article states:
In comparison:
Walmart also gives cash to its employees for any health care expense. The annual payments run from $250 to $1,000 and are given at the beginning of the enrollment year in an account that can only be used for health care expenses.
Walmart individuals face a $2,750 deductible and families need to pay $5,500 under the HRA plan. Individuals pay $1,750 and families pay $3,500 deductibles under the HRA High plan.
The Walmart deductibles are high, but Obamacare deductibles are higher, going up to $6,300 or another $2,800 a year!
Some Obamacare exchange family plan deductibles can go as high as $12,000 before benefits kick in.
that was why the lady who thought she had ObamaCare but had no card left the hospital without the X-ray she thought she needed. EVEN if her ObamaCare coverage was valid, the entire cost of the X-ray was inside her deductible! When she realized that, she had 2nd thoughts about getting the X-ray and left without it being done.