A couple of thoughts on Walmart’s decision to stop offering employer sponsored health insurance for part time workers effective 1/1/15.
- This is an obvious money saving move for Walmart as it gets them off the hook for some premiums.
- For part time workers who live in Medicaid expansion states and make approximately average Walmart wages this is an unmitigated big win. Sarah Kliff at Vox explains:
A small minority of part-time workers are currently offered health benefits at their company. ADP Research Institute estimated in 2013 that about 15 percent of part-timers had the chance to buy into their company plan. And, perhaps even more interesting, only about half of those who had the opportunity actually bought the coverage…
Obamacare has introduced a new and big drawback to the employer insurance. Namely, anybody who gets access to affordable coverage at work is barred from getting subsidies through the new exchanges. This is even true for people who don’t buy insurance at work; just the act of getting offered employer coverage blocks individuals from using getting financial help.That financial help can be a big deal for those with lower incomes. Think of the 36-year-old Walmart employee here in Washington, D.C. who works 29 hours per week at the company’s average wage of $12.73 per hour. She earns just about $19,000 annually if she works every week of the year.
If Walmart doesn’t offer her insurance, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s subsidy calculator shows that she qualifies for a $1,751 subsidy from the federal government to help buy coverage on the exchange. With that financial help, she can buy insurance for as little as an $7 per month…. Walmart’s plan, meanwhile, is way more expensive. The average premium there works out to $111 per month.
You have to do some adjusting for plan characteristics as the basic Walmart plan is most likely not a Bronze plan, so like to like premium comparisons will be adjusted up a bit. But like for like in plan characteristics will have Exchange eligible individuals significantly better off in most states. And for Walmart part timers with near average Walmart wages but larger families, they become Medicaid eligible which is no premium in most states and low premium in the waiver states.
- Walmart workers who earn less than 100% FPL in non-expansion states are fucked as they lost their employer sponsored healthcare and can not get on Medicaid expansion and can not get subsidies on Exchange. If they were already buying Walmart health insurance, they are probably sick, so they probably would have been looking to get Gold or Platinum coverage on Exchange which is now incredibly unaffordable. Fuck you Chief Justice Roberts et al.
- Walmart’s full time workers should see their risk pool get significantly healthier and thus cheaper. The part timers who were taking up Walmart ESI were probably sicker on average as that is the only case when a employee contribution towards premiums of $1,500
5,000or more per year would make sense is if they knew they were going to have big claims due to general ill health, age, or chronic conditions. The Exchanges and Medicaid act as a defacto high risk pool for Walmart now. - Exchange subsidies go up but people are less tied to their employers for insurance — this is how the future will be, so we should see this type of logic happen at almost all large, low wage employers in the next two or three years.
Villago Delenda Est
We still need something to be done about the parasites that are the Walton family.
Bill Arnold
Does it work this way in practice? Do you really have to prove that you’re making more than the FPL, or can you lie about your income like people did on loan applications during the real estate bubble run-up prior to the great recession?
(Not excusing Roberts et al here.)
Richard Mayhew
@Bill Arnold: You’re supposed to providea a good faith estimate of your annual income. The IRS then reconciles that estimate with its tax records (W-2s, 1099s etc) and depending on how much of a gap, they can clawback a significant chunk of the premium tax credit subsidies (up to a limit).
Depending on prosecutrial discretion to avoid a fraud/embezzlement charge is iffy if the variance is outside of “good faith”/10% without clear explanation, but yes, someone could create $5,000 in income to get a penny above the subsidiy eligibility line and then take the hit the following year on paying back some but not all of the subsidies.
Violet
I may be in a situation in the near future where I have to get health insurance not through an employer. I am in a state that did not take the Medicaid expansion. Can you elaborate on the “incredibly unaffordable”? Is that everywhere or just in non-Medicaid-expansion states?
deep
LOL, now just wait for the GOP to take the Senate and repeal the ACA, then the Walmart will be so happy that they’re saving taxes AND the cost of insurance! Win win!
Remember folks, vote GOP! They’ve got
Walmart’syour best interests at heart.muddy
These are delightful numbers:
Richard Mayhew
@Violet: The “incredibly” unaffordable part is based on someone making say 90% of Federal Poverty Line or roughly $10,000/year and ineligible for subsidies.
Most gold plans for a 40 year old non-smoker have a base price of ~$300/month, or an annual price of $3,600/year or greater. For someone who is under the subsidy eligiblity line, these premiums are a third or more of their annual income.
For someone who makes a penny more than the subsidy eligiblity line of 100% FPL, the out of pocket premium cost is $20 to $40/month, or 2% to 5% of income which is plausible.
If you anticipate making above poverty line, insurance will be very affordable. In a non-expansion state, the insurance can’t be subsidized so expect to pay a lot for anything decent.
Roger Moore
@deep:
It’s not even clear that they have Walmart’s best interests at heart. They clearly have the Waltons’ desires at heart, but it’s not obvious that their idea of what’s good for the company is really in its long-term interest. They strike me as being like a child who wants candy for dinner or an adult who puts their European vacation on their credit card. Yeah, it’s a lot of fun in the short term, but it’s not good for them over the long haul.
Barbara
Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled anytime someone gets health coverage. But this is yet another example of all of us are subsidizing Wal-Mart. Add it on to the list, along with the food stamps we provide because they don’t pay a living wage, the tax breaks we give them for “economic development,” etc. http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/
I’d never even heard of Wal-Mart until they showed up in a Cincinnati suburb back sometime in the 90s. My friend’s mother, the retired file clerk, wanted us to drive her out there so she could see it — I guess for the novelty factor. Now they are a force shaping our world.
Violet
@Richard Mayhew: Thank you. Could you tell me how it works if a household experiences a dramatic income shift? Let’s say someone has a good job, health insurance by employer, and decides to leave it to pursue something that won’t produce an income immediately. So they kind of go from high earner to nothing.
I have the impression–maybe wrongly–that if they were to go on the exchange during their high earning/insured period they wouldn’t be able to get a good idea of how the insurance situation would work. Is that true?
Also, if they get a plan and then the income changes, can they revisit the exchange to ask about subsidies or whatever? Does anything change?
Is it possible to get health insurance outside of the open enrollment period if an employment situation changes? How does that work?
Richard Mayhew
@Violet: I’m not sure — talk to a navigator for advice.
Violet
@deep: Yes, and along those lines, I’m SURE that Walmart is increasing the wages of all its workers to offset this reduction in benefits, which is actually income. Uh huh.
Bobby B.
My local Walmart in Oregon is like a transient camp,which reminds me of “Soylent Green” (Charlton Heston picking his way through sleeping bodies). Still plenty of spendy white pickup trucks in the lot. The future?
Violet
@Richard Mayhew: THanks. That’s probably the best thing. I’ll pass that along.
Roger Moore
@Violet:
Some of that depends on the exchange. Here in California, you can browse the exchanges without entering any real personal information, so it would be possible to get a picture of what your options would look like if you had a dramatic life change. I don’t know if that’s available everywhere, but it should be.
Change in employment is one of the major life changes that qualifies you to enroll outside the normal open enrollment period. Others would include a birth or death of a family member or a change in marital status. AFAIK, you would go to the exchange and explain that you had undergone a change that would qualify you to enroll outside of open enrollment. I don’t know if that would be easier on the web or with a person, but Richard’s suggestion of talking to a navigator is a good one.
Elizabelle
OT: RIP, (Thomas) Eric Duncan, Ebola victim who fled here for a better life — or at least, a chance at one. He may have been infected when he came to the assistance of a 19-year old pregnant neighbor, whose own life ended shortly after he assisted her in and out of a vehicle.
I realize Mr. Duncan lied to be allowed on the plane out of Liberia. Still, his was a compelling human story, and his presence here will have strengthened our country, in the long run.
I am glad to hear of a thriving community of African emigres in Dallas.
stinger
@Violet: Hi, Violet! Mostly lurker, just glad to see you commenting here again!
Elizabelle
To continue highjacking Richard’s excellent WalMart thread:
I think the Spanish health authorities should quarantine the Ebola-afflicted nurse’s mixed breed pooch, Excalibur, rather than euthanizing it.
We don’t know if dogs can be a reservoir for Ebola virus. Isn’t this a tailor-made setup for examining that?
Two birds with one stone.
Betty Cracker
Here are my Walmart thoughts: Safely evacuate all Walmart locations, recover reusable goods, dynamite the buildings and salt the earth where they stood. Then confiscate 99.99% of the Walmart heirs’ ill-gotten gains and divide the pile among their former wage slaves and the mom-and-pop shops they deliberately ruined in their quest for retail domination.
SatanicPanic
@Barbara: I get the criticism there, but I also kind of don’t care. I mean, so government is paying Walmart to employ people, oh well, at least they have jobs. I know I’m being a bit glib, but really, I don’t have any ideological problem with that. Now I wish we could make it so that those workers were paid more and the Walton family were profiting less, but that’s possibly a different subject.
Elizabelle
NPR story about the Ebola-exposed Spanish dog:
Violet
@stinger: Thank you. I posted yesterday–first day I really felt up to it. Everyone’s kind words have meant so much to me.
@Roger Moore: Thank you for the info. I will pass along the navigator suggestion. That’s probably the best thing. It’s a brave new world, this health insurance exchange. For people who have had employer health insurance it’s hard to know where to start. So foreign.
I look forward to the day when everyone gets their health insurance not via employer. The sooner the employment-health insurance connection is broken the better. So long as health insurance is available and affordable, of course.
Elizabelle
@Betty Cracker:
I’m good with your plan.
“Average Americans” (ie. the unthinking) will be astonished at how a salted and destroyed WalMart lot results in increased smaller stores and services throughout their communities.
With money being spread AROUND and throughout the community (via rent, services, smaller supply chain, local taxes) rather than being airlifted to the Walton family vault.
pseudonymous in nc
@Barbara:
Yep. I think it’s time to serve the idle Walton spawn the bill for several decades of unpaid externalities. Fuckers will still be mighty rich once that’s settled.
Violet
@Barbara:
I think a more effective framing is that we are not subsidizing Wal-Mart, we are subsidizing the Walton heirs’ fortunes and fancy lifestyles. That’s what we’re all propping up. Make it personal about how we’re all contributing to them being ultra-rich. That makes the whole thing seem worse.
Subsidizing a company is bad. Subsidizing rich people is personal.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Elizabelle: Is your post some kind of sick joke? What is so compelling about “lying asshole infected with lethal communicable disease decides to lie about it, go to another country, and expose others to it”?
Elizabelle
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
My guess is that Mr. Duncan hoped (against logic, perhaps) that he had not been infected. And, he may well have flown here knowing he might be infected, but hoping American medical facilities could give him a better chance.
His presence stepped up US efforts to identify and prepare for the disease. While it’s sad Ebola has come to our shores, there is nothing like its actual presence to motivate better preparation.
Further, enough with the “US can handle any Ebola case” myth. Mr. Duncan may have been treated inadequately at his first hospital visit, allowing the disease to gain strength. American citizens do not have universal healthcare, never mind a visitor who just landed.
Betty Cracker
@Elizabelle:
The folks in Spain think they can save the dog. They don’t think they can do dick to save Ebola victims in Africa. Maybe it’s as simple as that.
JoyfulA
@Roger Moore: WalMart, like eBay, had a great opportunity when the Great Recession hit to benefit from their reputation for cheapness. Both chose that time to switch their target to the middle and upper-middle classes, and both have lost their grip.
I had to go to WalMart last week because it’s the only store that carries one item I crave. I thought I’d pick up my favorite cheap shampoo while I was there. Wegman’s, our fancy supermarket, carries it at 79 cents, but WalMart doesn’t, and its cheapest shampoo is >$2. Wegman’s has a beautiful store, better-paid staff, and local produce, so why is it cheaper, too? (I will have to ask if employees get health insurance.)
The Raven on the Hill
“Walmart workers who earn less than 100% FPL…” Don’t you mean “between 100 and 138% FPL?
Or am I missing something?
Richard Mayhew
@The Raven on the Hill: Someone who earns 101%FPL are subsidy qualified even in a non-expansion state. They’ll come out in pretty good shape. In an expansion state 100% FPL to 138% FPL goes on Medicaid, in non-Expansion, they go on Exchange for cost-sharing assistance Silver. Slightly worse off than their Expansion state co-workers, but still significantly better off than they are currently.
Someone under 100% FPL in an Expansion state goes on Medicaid.
Someone under 100% FPL in a non-Expansion state is fucked.
catclub
@Elizabelle:
except the most likely way to find out it IS a reservoir is if someone else catches Ebola from the dog.
Not the most desirable result.
Roger Moore
@Betty Cracker:
The problem with this is that Walmart has been so successful at driving the competition out of business that it would leave a lot of communities without anywhere to shop. A better plan would be to keep the poor defenseless buildings, subdivide them into reasonably sized shops, and let locals set up businesses to replace the Walmart.
Goblue72
Did I miss some development in the exchange subsidy lawsuits? Did our side lose recently? I’ve been out of country until recently in Socialistland (France) & blissfully ignoring U.S. politics.
Also too – I wish the French would invade us and bring us what they got. I could stand for some socialism rammed down my throat. We really are getting screwed by the 1%.
SatanicPanic
@Roger Moore: maybe we should evacuate the Walmart towns while we’re at it.
Helmut Monotreme
What if we turned Wal Marts into factories to build the goods right here in the US that they have to import from somewhere where labor costs a buck a day? Then nobody would have to evacuate anywhere. Except maybe for the Walton family from their mansions, which is a negative externality for them, which I believe society could easily absorb.
Barbara
@Violet: Well, to be fair, Walmart isn’t the only big box retailer we’re subsidizing — for one example, Bass Pro and Cabela’s are famous for getting local governments to give them all sorts of financing via bonds, plus tax breaks and the like — and for another example, we are also providing food stamps, Medicaid, etc., to lots of fast food workers, who like Walmart workers, don’t make a living wage.
But I agree, there is something especially odious about the Waltons. And I find it especially galling that they are using the money they are essentially stealing from me to support all sorts of things I’m against (they are particularly active in the school deform movement).
beth
@Barbara: It has driven me crazy these past few weeks to see the local food bank pushing for people to go to Walmart’s site and vote for a $60,000 donation to the food bank – they actually made it a competition among food banks all over the country and whichever top five (I think) got the most votes got a donation. I’m so tempted to post on the food banks page asking them just how many of their patrons who have to resort to getting food from the food bank work at Walmart? I would bet a lot of them. The gall of the Waltons is unbelievable.
Violet
@Barbara: You have to start somewhere and Wal Mart is the elephant in the room. They fall and the others will follow.
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
Just because our bloghost used to be a republican, and can, at times, be a contrarian asshole, that does not make this a homestead fo contrarian assholes.
Your play is getting old, man.
Barbara
@beth: Another example of satire and parody being dead, I’d say.