Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Target Corp.cuts health coverage - may actually drop all coverage

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 09:40 AM
Original message
Target Corp.cuts health coverage - may actually drop all coverage
So this is the GOP plan for "shifting some of the medical care responsibility to the employees" so as to encourage employees to take increased responsibility for their health-care spending, because this will reduce our nations health care costs.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the Target Corp. now offers its employees high deductible health plans (HDHPs) coupled with a health savings account (HSA) or a health reimbursement account (HRA). Target is also considering dropping its traditional health plan offering.Target spokeswoman Carolyn Brookter denied that the company is shifting costs to employees and said it would continue to pay the majority of employees' health costs. "We believe consumer plans allow us to continue providing competitive benefits ... while addressing the rising costs of health care benefits," she said.


The Minneapolis Star Tribune also reports that Target is also considering dropping its traditional health plan offering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. yes, it is happening more and more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
2. Another victim of Wal-Mart's race to the bottom.
You can bet they feel compelled to do this because of Wal-Mart. In addition, Wal-Mart has been one of the single biggest reasons so many small and medium mfg jobs have left America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. You want Health Insurance benifits with your job?
According to Hillary, that means you are coming out of college "starting at the top", you are "spoiled", "ungreatful", "lazy". You should work for many years before getting any health insurance. <sarsacm off> :eyes:

Seriously, this is horrible. We need universal healthcare.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2628709
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dora Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. WTH? I read that post and the article. She doesn't mention benefits.
I'm not a Rodham-Clinton supporter, but I also think your post is an unfair attack. Yeah, she made a broad-brush generalization, but I can tell you that she's not completely off-base in that generalization. I've worked in higher ed for a ten years now and I've encountered a HUGE number of students leaving school with their BS/BBA/BA and expecting a $50,000 salary right out the gate.

Admittedly, there are some that get that salary. Admittedly, they've been told that if they go to college then they'll get the good-paying jobs. Admittedly, there are many students who understand that a BA in liberal arts isn't likely to get you anything but an admission to graduate school or a post-bac teacher's certification program. ADMITTEDLY, there are scores of students who know that $50,000 is a salary they may never see in their lifetime (as I probably will never see as well, even with a graduate degree). But there are also scores of students who graduate with a sense of entitlement rather than ambition, and that's what I think HRC was trying to address. She did that gracelessly, and she should probably spank her speechwriter.

My Point Is: HRC never even mentioned benefits, so what are you bringing her up for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Did you see the "" in my post after the comment?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dora Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Gee, I guess I must be thick.
Because it sure didn't sound like sarcasm to me, despite the sarcasm tag.

Your post struck me as being in the same family of saying "Gosh that suit is ugly... JUST KIDDING!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
6. Historically (1940's and earlier)
Health insurance had three precursors:
    *Kaiser (during WW2)
      Kaiser was the first "big"plan covering lots of WW2 steel workers and shipyard workers. No deductibles or co-pays (or very minimal deductibles and co-pays), Kaiser picked up 100%.

    *Pre-WW2 "Insurance" Plans
      Originally these were what would be called "catastrophic" plans - high deductibles, high co-pays, mostly for in patient expenses. My parents had these plans in the late 1930's.

    *"Membership" Plans (Unions, fraternal and ethnic societies, churches)
      These were also "catastrophic" plans - high deductibles, high co-pays, mostly for in patient expenses. But, they did have a "need based" benefit for members who were disabled, laid off, etc.

If you play with the probabilities, statistics, actuarial tables, etc. with some combination of:
    *Self insurance for the first $2500-$3500/year,
    *Full coverage" (no deductibles, no co-pay) for everything else
seems to work if you have a job. Of course, that assume that the premiums reflect that you are "self-insuring" for the first $2500-$3000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
7. Another cut in compensation for workers = lowering wages
Pay workers the lowest wage you can and still get them in the door, then cut benefits! That translates to: we will give you XYZ as compensation for your time, skills, and efforts. THEN we are gonna take Z away from you. You are now working for only X & Y. HA HA! we just stole some or your time, skills and efforts and you can't call a cop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
9. Link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. link below
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC