Critics of the health care reform act passed under President Obama have generally gone one of two ways: either saying that the reforms don’t go far enough and should have obliterated profit-centric insurance companies entirely, or contending that due to the law, companies will be “forced” to pass rising costs on to workers or otherwise compensate by trimming workforces or benefit levels.

It seems Wal-Mart is feeding the latter group’s grumblings, despite an original assertion the mega-retailer favored health care reforms. The company has announced a shift in coverage burden to its notoriously poorly-paid workforce, as well as some cuts to coverage for employees who work fewer hours. Wal-Mart has come in for criticism in the past for passing its insurance costs on to taxpayers with a workforce eligible for and often reliant on programs like Medicaid, but it doesn’t seem this factored into the decision of one of the largest employers in the US.

Spokesman for Wal-Mart Greg Rossiter told the New York Times:

“Over the last few years, we’ve seen our health care rates increase and it’s probably not a surprise that this year will be no different. We made the difficult decision to raise rates that will affect our associates’ medical costs. The decisions made were not easy, but they strike a balance between managing costs and providing quality care and coverage.”

While it seems the problem can’t be tackled until Americans face the fact that a for-profit healthcare system has become unaffordable for a growing number of Americans, many still believe that moves to reform health care and make access more affordable are a step in the wrong direction. However, it seems that Wal-Mart’s decision to drop some employees- part-timers at over 30 hours per week- may be changed by law when the reforms go into effect in 2014.

Health Care Benefits Cost Being Passed On to Employees By Wal-Mart is a post from: The Inquisitr

One of the most commonly bemoaned aspects of the American health care system by advocates of a single payer plan- that Americans on average pay far more for a far less comprehensive standard of care- is how doctors are mired in the costs and labor of dealing with health insurance companies, a new study finds.

Unlike their Canadian peers, American docs spend a significant amount of money and time on health plans- resources that could be allocated to providing care, not to mention upping their margins- at $82,975 in the US per per physician, versus $22,205 for Canadian docs. The study, published in the August issue of Health Affairs, also finds that American doctors spend nearly three and a half hours per week directly interacting with health plans, versus 2.2 hours a week for physicians in Canada.

For nurses and medical assistants in the US, that number skyrockets to over 20 hours a week, compared to 2.6 hours per nurse or medical assistant in Canada. Inefficiencies could be rooted out, the study says, by managing more information via electronic means than paper, phone or fax.

Would you like to see America convert to single payer health care plans, or do you prefer the private health insurance system?

Health Insurers Drive American Doctors’ Costs Up Nearly 4X, Study Says is a post from: The Inquisitr

Children with public insurance like Medicaid are far less likely to receive urgent dental care than their counterparts with private insurance such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, recent “undercover” research has found in Illinois.

The study, published in Pediatrics, had six research assistants call 85 dental practices in Illinois. The researchers posed as the mothers of a non-existant 10-year-old child with an urgent injury to a front tooth. If not treated, the hypothetical problem carried risk of infection, cosmetic concerns, pain and other serious considerations.

Half the dental practices called were enrolled in Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Plan (CHIP). Overall, 36.5% of children enrolled in CHIP or Medicaid were able to get an emergency appointment, versus 95.4% of privately insured kids. Only 7% of the 36.5% of publicly insured kids were on Medicaid.

Even among Medicaid-enrolled dentists, only 68% of the “moms” were able to secure appointments for their children, versus 100% of the moms who purported to have private insurance. One of the study’s co-authors had this to say about the discouraging numbers:

“That’s a huge difference,” said study co-author Dr. Karin Rhodes, director of the division of emergency care policy research at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Social Policy and Practice. “This gives irrefutable numbers. I think there’s a real disparity between oral health and traditional medical care in this country.”

Rhodes noted that in the study, money talked:

“I think many dentists shy away from emergency care because they have to follow up” when they know they may not be equitably reimbursed, Rhodes said. “I also found it disturbing a lot of dentists who turned down patients … said they were willing to see the child if the mother would pay cash.”

Researchers say that without better funding for public programs, the disparity will persist.

Dentists far less likely to accept kids on Medicaid, group finds is a post from: The Inquisitr

Whole Foods is supposedly a great company to be employed with.

Unless you’re a big fat fatty, in which case Whole Foods would like to remind you that you’re less valuable to them than your thin co-workers. While Whole Foods offers a 30% discount to workers who are skinny- with a BMI below a certain number- if you’ve got junk in the trunk, the rate of your discount plummets 10% to a paltry 20%.

Who are the marketing whizzes behind this divisive and cruel policy? Why it’s none other than CEO John Mackey, who, when not fighting health care reform, is busy astroturfing it up on internet forums. Mackey helpfully gets down and douchey to his staff, in a letter:

Mr Mackey said the company hoped the programme would be “empowering and fun for team members who enjoy a challenge”, and that the company was not taking anything away from workers who chose not to participate.

“These new higher discounts are incentives to encourage our team members to be healthier and to lower our healthcare costs,” he said. “We believe this is a win-win programme that will help both our team members and our shareholders.”

Being as limited food budgets are known to increase obesity rates, this strategy is retarded. However, as no one working in retail can afford to shop at Whole Foods, I think the discount thing isn’t going to affect Whole Foods employees one way or the other, so it kind of cancels out except for being totally judgmental and insulting. It is unclear whether staff will be further incentivized by having co-workers chant “boom, boom, boom” under their breath as fat employees walk by or having POS terminals pop up helpful messages like, “do you really need a whole pound of organic cocoa nubs? Well, if you think so…” during staff purchases.

Whole Foods blatantly discriminates against staff “of size” is a post from: The Inquisitr

A 33 year-old morbidly obese man with no health coverage was returned untreated to a recliner in his home in March after a knee injury.

Daniel Webb became unable to walk or leave his home after the injury, for which he was unable to receive treatment. Webb’s wife Ada tried to no avail to obtain disability and medical coverage for her husband, who remained in the chair for nearly nine months, covered in sores and human excrement. Webb was removed from the home by EMS workers who had to cut a hole in Webb’s trailer to move his body. He died of cardiac arrest within hours of removal from the chair.

EMS workers have said that Webb weighed between 800-900 lbs, but his wife Ada puts the figure closer to 500 lbs. Ada Webb met her husband on MySpace, and Daniel Webb died on what would have been their second anniversary. While she told press it was the worst anniversary she could imagine, Daniel’s was far better because he was with Jesus. The clip below shows Ada Webb talking to a reporter about the difficulties the Webb family faced in treating Daniel.

[Source]

Uninsured Daniel Webb sent to La-z-boy to die is a post from: The Inquisitr

This doesn’t come as much of a shock really, but health insurance companies in Britain, Canada and the U.S. have invested at least $4.4 billion in tobacco companies.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has confirmed that at least $4.4 billion in health insurance company funds are invested in companies whose subsidiaries produce tobacco in the form of cigarettes, cigars and chewing tobacco.

According to the study, US insurer Prudential Financial has $US264.3 million dollars invested among three US tobacco companies, including Reynolds America and Philip Morris.

Canadian insurer Sun Life Financial, which sells life, disability and health insurance, has a stock portfolio with more than one billion dollars in two tobacco companies, including $US890 million in Philip Morris.

Tobacco is the leading cause of lung cancer as well as a major risk factor for heart attack, stroke, pulmonary disease and other types of cancer. According to the World Health Organisation, it is a contributing factor in 5.4 million deaths a year.

So, all you non-smokers out there, how do you feel about your health insurance premiums being invested in companies that produce products that are slowly killing you?

[Source: News.com.au]

Health Insurance Companies have $4.4 Billion Invested in Tobacco Production is a post from: The Inquisitr

That wacky mob PETA, fresh from “flouring” Lindsay Lohan in Paris has sent a letter to BlueCross BlueShield health insurance company in Vermont on behalf of their 2 million members asking that health insurance premiums be raised for meat eaters and reduced for vegetarians.

They state that meat eating is linked to some of America’s “deadliest diseases” and that agreeing to this request will result in the company saving money,  which we all know PETA cares about.

PETA argues that a a cut in insurance premiums would give people an “incentive” to do without meat and that will make them healthier.  The letter also warns of the danger of E coli outbreak.  I would be more worried about catching the outbreak of smug, superiority that normally accompanies being a vegetarian and PETA member.  

BlueCross BlueShield said that discrimination on the grounds of eating preferences was illegal in every state. They obviously didn’t feel the need to add the bit about how they couldn’t give a crap about what PETA thinks anyway.

Via ecosalon

PETA says meat eaters should pay more insurance is a post from: The Inquisitr