Wallmart bails on Affordable Care Act


Pioneer Founding member
Businesses were also telling legislators that this was not Affordable. A majority of the people in the country did not support it, but we got it anyway.

I don't blame businesses for opting out. Where does it say in our Constitution that businesses must provide health care for employees? This is a perk that businesses offered, not something that was required of them. Employees have the freedom not to work at companies that don't offer benefits that they desire. The paperwork alone to handle this for companies is enormous. Even small companies are being bombarded with new rules for filing paperwork and information on employees. The added costs are too burdensome. The precedent was set for opting out by allowing unions and Congress itself to not have to be in the plan. You can hardly blame businesses that may already be struggling in this economy to not want to have the uncertainty of ObamaCare hanging around their necks like a noose. Even those that appear to be doing well, must constantly keep control of their costs. This plan is one of uncertainty.

Many doctors are not happy with it either. Even veterinarians are complaining that the additional costs involved will have to be passed on to pet owners as many medications and devices they use are taxed in the plan.

I read in my local paper yesterday, that my state officials aren't happy that dental coverage isn't included and they want state exchanges to have to carry dental insurance. Where does it end? The cost is going to be too high for not just businesses, but individuals as well. My own premium since this "Affordable" act passed has increased $900 per month, the deductible was raised as were the co-pays.

Businesses aren't the only ones grumbling.

Here are a few comments from a discussion by doctors on ObamaCare:

There is almost no lack of access to healthcare in the US. We also have some of the best healthcare in the world. What this bill is about is who has to pay for the healthcare, who will be covered when the government runs the system and what will happen when all of the rules, regulations etc. are in place. For most medical professionals, insurance is either the largest expense or one of the largest expenses for their practice. What would have helped reduce this is tort reform, but that won't happen as long as most of the people in our government are lawyers. If you want to see government run healthcare, just go to a VA clinic or hospital in a busy city. It is NOT pretty. There is so much waste in government, most of the dollars that will be spent will be on waste, fraud and bureaucracy. That won't leave much for quality healthcare for anyone but the rich. Sort of like the UK, where everyone has healthcare, but the wealthy go to high priced individual practitioners outside the government system.


The ACA is essentially an expansion of the current Medicaid plan. Most patients don't understand the limitations of this plan. It's being presented as an all-inclusive healthcare plan, but in reality it's a lot like receiving a large, nicely wrapped present..but when you take the time to open it, you realize that there's almost NOTHING inside! The benefits that are included are VERY limited. The plan may cover more people, but the choices of covered treatments will be limited; and those treatments that are covered are paid at a rate below that which doctors and hospitals can afford. The lawmakers that approved the ACA have no idea what the actual cost of healthcare is! Doctor's salaries are not the only variable in the cost of health care. There are also administrative costs, facility fees, lab fees, and medical devices (to name a few). I predict that we will see many doctors and hospitals simply refusing to accept these patients or to perform covered treatments due to their inablility provide treatment and still make a modest profit.


just in case you've fallen for the fairy tale that we can add 30 million people to the health care system without any rise in costs or rationing... this is what happens in the real world! "Sick children and even disabled newborn babies, are reportedly being discharged from NHS hospitals in England only to die slowly at home or in hospices in an unfathomable manner. The innocent children are being put on controversial “death pathways,” once only thought to have involved elderly and terminally ill adult patients. The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), an organization that facilitates end-of-life treatment, is behind the inhumane program. The Daily Mail has learned the process of “withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies.” In other words, patients — young and old — are slowly starved and dehydrated to death. One doctor, acting as a whistle blower, admitted to starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital in a leading medical journal. The doctor describes it as a 10-day process, during which the baby becomes “smaller and shrunken.”


New member
Here's an article that came out today. Since a lot of people on here have pre existing conditions I thought it was of interest. $63 may not seem like much but it adds up as this article points out.

WASHINGTON -- Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are, too. It's a new, $63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers.

Employee benefits lawyer Chantel Sheaks calls it a "sleeper issue" with significant financial consequences, particularly for large employers.

"Especially at a time when we are facing economic uncertainty, (companies will) be hit with a multi-million dollar assessment without getting anything back for it," said Sheaks, a principal at Buck Consultants, a Xerox subsidiary.

Based on figures provided in the regulation, employer and individual health plans covering an estimated 190 million Americans could owe the per-person fee.

The Obama administration says it is a temporary assessment levied for three years starting in 2014, designed to raise $25 billion. It starts at $63 and then declines.

Most of the money will go into a fund administered by the Health and Human Services Department. It will be used to cushion health insurance companies from the initial hard-to-predict costs of covering uninsured people with medical problems. Under the law, insurers will be forbidden from turning away the sick as of Jan. 1, 2014.

The program "is intended to help millions of Americans purchase affordable health insurance, reduce unreimbursed usage of hospital and other medical facilities by the uninsured and thereby lower medical expenses and premiums for all," the Obama administration says in the regulation. An accompanying media fact sheet issued Nov. 30 referred to "contributions" without detailing the total cost and scope of the program.

Of the total pot, $5 billion will go directly to the U.S. Treasury, apparently to offset the cost of shoring up employer-sponsored coverage for early retirees.

The $25 billion fee is part of a bigger package of taxes and fees to finance Obama's expansion of coverage to the uninsured. It all comes to about $700 billion over 10 years, and includes higher Medicare taxes effective this Jan. 1 on individuals making more than $200,000 per year or couples making more than $250,000. People above those threshold amounts also face an additional 3.8 percent tax on their investment income.

But the insurance fee had been overlooked as employers focused on other costs in the law, including fines for medium and large firms that don't provide coverage.

"This kind of came out of the blue and was a surprisingly large amount," said Gretchen Young, senior vice president for health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, a group that represents large employers on benefits issues.

Word started getting out in the spring, said Young, but hard cost estimates surfaced only recently with the new regulation. It set the per capita rate at $5.25 per month, which works out to $63 a year.

America's Health Insurance Plans, the major industry trade group for health insurers, says the fund is an important program that will help stabilize the market and mitigate cost increases for consumers as the changes in Obama's law take effect.

But employers already offering coverage to their workers don't see why they have to pony up for the stabilization fund, which mainly helps the individual insurance market. The redistribution puts the biggest companies on the hook for tens of millions of dollars.

"It just adds on to everything else that is expected to increase health care costs," said economist Paul Fronstin of the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute.

The fee will be assessed on all "major medical" insurance plans, including those provided by employers and those purchased individually by consumers. Large employers will owe the fee directly. That's because major companies usually pay upfront for most of the health care costs of their employees. It may not be apparent to workers, but the insurance company they deal with is basically an agent administering the plan for their employer.

The fee will total $12 billion in 2014, $8 billion in 2015 and $5 billion in 2016. That means the per-head assessment would be smaller each year, around $40 in 2015 instead of $63.

It will phase out completely in 2017 – unless Congress, with lawmakers searching everywhere for revenue to reduce federal deficits – decides to extend it.



Pioneer Founding member
I'm a small business owner and our premiums have gone up $150 per month per employee and we have to comply with all sorts of work and endless paperwork. It is so complicated that Blue Cross has 4 pages of FAQs and those are just the questions.

This was a ruse to force us to pay for illegals who fill our ERs and don't pay.

Wait until you see the new taxes we are all going to pay over the next 5 years so others can be here illegally and get free care.


I think Margaret Thatcher said it best, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

JC the Fox

New member
Winners and Losers

LLL6521 - I had forgotten that quote (I'll blame that on old age and COPD), but it is so very true.

Jeannine - Losers? Wow, the PC police are on their way, and, Boy, are they Pyst.