Wal-Mart Health Care Plans are better than Obamacare Plans

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 12th, 2014

Week in Review

Government at all levels and unions hate Wal-Mart.  Because they are nonunion.  Which helps to keep their costs down.  Enabling them to offer such low prices.  And it’s those low prices that keep bringing customers through their doors.  Allowing them to make a decent profit.  So they can take care of their employees.  Including health care plans that are better than anything offered under Obamacare (see Surprise! Walmart health plan is cheaper, offers more coverage than Obamacare by RICHARD POLLOCK posted 1/7/2014 on the Washington Examiner).

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.

Unlike Obamacare, there are no income eligibility requirements. Age and gender do not alter premium rates. The company plan is the same for all of Walmart’s 1.1 million enrolled employees and their dependents, from its cashiers to its CEO.

A Journal of the American Medical Association analysis from September showed that unsubsidized Obamacare enrollees will face monthly premiums that are five to nine times higher than Walmart premiums.

JAMA found the unsubsidized premium for a nonsmoking gouple age 60 can cost $1,365 per month versus the Walmart cost of about $134 for the same couple.

The medical journal reported a 30-year-old smoker would pay up to $428 per month, in contrast to roughly $70 each month for a Walmart employee.

A family of four could pay a $962 premium, but the same Walmart family member would pay about $160.

Low premiums are not the only distinguishing feature of the Walmart plan. The retailer’s employees can use eight of the country’s most prestigious medical facilities, including the Mayo Clinic, Pennsylvania’s Geisinger Medical Center and the Cleveland Clinic.

At these institutions, which Walmart calls “Centers of Excellence,” Walmart employees and their dependents can get free heart or spinal surgery. They can also get free knee and hip replacements at four hospitals nationwide.

Many top-rated Walmart hospitals — such as the Mayo and Cleveland clinics — are left out of most Obamacare exchange plans…

Slayton said the gap between doctor availability in Chicago under the Obamacare and Walmart plans is dramatic.

“You will notice there are 9,837 doctors [under Obamacare]. But the larger network is 24,904 doctors. Huge, huge difference,” he said.

Wall-Mart can give more for less under their health care plan than the government can under Obamacare.  Which proves that the private sector is better than the public sector in doing anything.  Even health care.  So if we want quality health care for everyone then we should get rid of Obamacare and have everyone join a Wal-Mart plan.  But, of course, that won’t happen.  For Obamacare is not about quality health care for everyone.  It’s about amassing power.  Which is why governments and unions attack Wal-Mart.  And we have Obamacare.  Because this transfers money and power from the private sector to the public sector and unions.  Allowing the privileged few to live better lives than the masses.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

In the NHS all Britons are Equal only some Britons are more Equal than Others

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 23rd, 2013

Week in Review

One of the driving forces behind Obamacare was equality.  Everyone was to have equal access to quality health care.  Not just the rich.  That’s why the United States needed to move towards what the British have.  Their National Health Service (NHS) provides equality.  In Britain it doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor.  Everyone gets access to quality health care (see Ministers pledge to reduce child mortality by Press Association posted 2/18/2013 on the guardian).

A new national pledge to reduce child deaths is to be announced by the government.

The all-cause mortality rate for children aged between 0 and 14 years has moved from the average to among the worst in Europe, figures show, while more than a quarter (26%) of children’s deaths showed “identifiable failure in the child’s direct care”…

New measures include increasing data so the NHS and local authorities can obtain better information to improve the health of young people; piloting a survey to generate details of local health problems such as drug and alcohol use; and launching colour coded health maps to highlight trends for conditions such as asthma and diabetes.

The health minister, Dr Dan Poulter, said: “For too long, Britain’s childhood mortality rates have been amongst the worst in Europe when compared to similar countries.

“In particular, there is unacceptable variation across the country in the quality of care for children – for example in the treatment of long-term conditions such as asthma and diabetes.

Apparently some people are more equal than others in Britain.  With children being the least equal.  Apparently.

Now does this show Britain hates children?  No.  They don’t.  Remember the 2012 Summer Olympic Games?  In London?  Where they celebrated their NHS with lots of happy kids in hospital beds?  Britain loves their children.  It’s just that national health care is not as great as people think it is.

Britain’s aging population is producing great cost pressures on the NHS.  As it will on Obamacare.  Forcing the British to do more with less.  Just as it will force the Americans to do more with less.  And when you try to do more with less people fall through the cracks.  As these children have.  As American children will.  For one thing for certain is that the more government is involved the worse things tend to get.  Just compare renewing your driver’s license to going to the store.  Which is a more enjoyable experience?  Which provides a better value for the money.  Which has more courteous people?  Which satisfies your needs more?  The answer is the one with less government.  Going to the store.  For many people love shopping.  While no one enjoys renewing their driver’s license.

People don’t like dealing with their insurance companies.  They don’t mind seeing their doctors.  But they hate fighting the insurance companies to pay for their health care.  Now imagine your doctors and nurses becoming more like the insurance companies.  Which they will under Obamacare.  For they will all have to answer to a government bureaucrat.  And one thing for certain is the more government is involved the worse things tend to get.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Waiting Times in the UK’s National Health Service Grow Longer, some even Waiting a Year or More for Treatment

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

The advocates of national health care said that it will give all people quality health care.  While cutting costs, too.  Which was the claims made during the Obamacare debates.  Opponents said it was impossible to increase the number of people getting quality health while cutting costs at the same time.  For any national health care system would require massive new taxes and the rationing of services.  To make those limited resources spread over the greater number of people in the system.  Increasing wait times for medical treatment to unacceptable levels.  Like they are struggling with now in the UK.  As wait times have increased for the second year in a row in the National Health Service (NHS) (see David Cameron faces pressure as NHS waiting times grow by Denis Campbell posted 4/18/2012 on The Guardian).

Patients are enduring increasingly long delays before having some of the most common forms of surgery, according to official data that casts serious doubt on David Cameron’s pledge to keep NHS waiting times low.

New research by the Patients Association also shows that fewer patients are undergoing planned operations such as joint replacements, cataract removal and hernia repairs, as the NHS tries to make £20bn of efficiency savings at a time when demand for healthcare is growing.

A report from the association, based on information supplied by 93 of England’s 170 acute hospital trusts, found that waiting times for a range of elective operations rose between 2010 and 2011

The average wait before having a new knee fitted rose from 88.9 days to 99.2 days, while patients needing hernia surgery typically waited 78.3 days in 2011 compared with 70.4 the year before. The delay before the removal of gallstones increased over the same period, by 7.4 days, as did the delay before having a new hip (6.3 days longer), hysterectomy (three days) and cataract removed (2.2 days).

Smaller numbers of patients also had surgery for all these procedures over the same period, according to responses from hospitals to freedom of information requests submitted by the association. Trusts that supplied figures jointly performed a total of 18,268 fewer operations for these conditions in 2011 than in 2010, with those blighted by worsening vision, especially older people, most affected.

There is only one reason for these increases.  Their limited resources can’t treat the same amount of people as last year so they increased waiting times.  That is, they rationed these services more.  Now funding could have remained the same and the number of patients rose.  Or they cut funding while the number of patients remained the same.  Or more likely it was both.  More patients and less funding.  Because of an aging population.  And rising budget deficits (the NHS accounts for a very large part of Britain’s budget deficit).  Which is exactly what will happen under Obamacare.  Only on a greater scale.

But the health department said data from every hospital trust showed waiting times were low and stable and more patients were being treated, including for conditions in the report. The document was based on “partial” data and did not reflect the situation across England, it added.

Health secretary Andrew Lansley said: “There are fewer patients than ever waiting a long time for treatment in the NHS. The number of people waiting over a year for treatment has reduced by two-thirds since we came into office and the average time patients have to wait for treatment is at the same level as two years ago.”

Okay, so the data may be a bit skewed.  For the people waiting longer than a year for treatment has fallen by two-thirds.  Which means that one third of that group is still waiting over a year for treatment.  So that’s something to look forward to with Obamacare.  A new metric to enter our lives to remind us how good Obamacare is.  People waiting a year or more for treatment is down.  Yeah.  But the US is far more populated than the UK.  So Obamacare will treat far more patients than the NHS.  So it’s not likely that we’ll be hearing that metric reported as going down.  So we’ll probably hear something more along the lines like “though the number of people waiting over a year for treatment has increased the rate of that increase is smaller than the previous year.  Just another fact to tell you that Obamacare is taking care of you.”

Let’s face it, based on the sheer size of the US and the amount of time the British have been practicing national health care Obamacare will never be as good as the NHS.  For the size of Obamacare will make the NHS look like a walk-in clinic.  Because all the numbers are working against it.  An aging population that is living longer.  And declining birth rate that creates fewer people entering the workforce than leaving it.  You put these together and it can only mean one thing.  Massive new taxes and the rationing of services.  And all on a far greater scale than in the NHS. 

The only thing Obamacare will do is make the NHS look better.  Even with wait times of over a year.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,