Results 1 to 6 of 6
#1 DUmmie bitches that Walmart is putting workers on government health care12-10-2012, 06:18 AMHiPointDem (9,124 posts)
Walmart Takes Advantage of Health “Reform” It Championed
On September 9 and 11, 2009, I noted a dangerous aspect of the Senate health insurance reform plan (which I called MaxTax, after Max Baucus) that would ultimately become ObamaCare: it would give Walmart and all other low-wage employers an incentive to keep its employees in poverty.
It was the only way to get them health insurance for free...In other words, the one way–just about the only way–a large employer can dodge responsibility for paying something for its employees is if its employees happen to qualify for Medicaid. Under MaxTax, Medicaid eligibility will be determined by one thing: whether a person makes less than 133% of the poverty rate. And who has the most control over how much a particular person makes? Their employer!
So if Wal-Mart wanted to avoid paying anything for its employees under MaxTax, it could simply make sure that none of them made more than $14,403 a year (they’d have to do this by ensuring their employees worked fewer than 40 hours a week, since this works out to be slightly less than minimum wage). Or, a single mom with two kids could make $24,352–a whopping $11.71 an hour, working full time. That’s more than the average Wal-Mart employee made last year. So long as Wal-Mart made sure its employees applied for Medicaid (something it already does in states where its employees are eligible), it would pay nothing. Nada, zip. Nothing.
Saturday, HuffPo mapped out what I, too, have been watching. Walmart is making the changes necessary to prepare to do this–charge you and I for health insurance for its employees (actually, more of its employees, as it already uses this approach where it can), all premised on the legal poverty Walmart imposes on its workers–by kicking precisely those employees who will qualify for Medicaid off Walmart insurance.
Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, plans to begin denying health insurance to newly hired employees who work fewer than 30 hours a week, according to a copy of the company’s policy obtained by The Huffington Post.
Under the policy, slated to take effect in January, Walmart also reserves the right to eliminate health care coverage for certain workers if their average workweek dips below 30 hours — something that happens with regularity and at the direction of company managers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021954533In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.
In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
12-10-2012, 12:00 PM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
It has been estimated that the price tag for having ALL of Walmart's employees on their executive health plan would necessitate Walmart increasing prices 1%. I spend about $100 a week at Walmart. One dollar isn't going to kill me, or anyone else.
The American taxpayer currently pays for the health insurance for 4,443,000 federal and military employees and their dependents.
12-10-2012, 12:29 PM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
Things got so bad that Maryland passed a law in 2006 that pretty much targeted Wal-Mart to demand that it spend 8% of payroll on health benefits or pay the difference to Medicaid. Yes, Wal-Mart might have had to raise its prices a bit to cover that. But doesn't it make more sense for those who choose to shop at Wal-Mart to foot the bill, than for everyone, including those who don't, to have to pay for its employees' health care?
Lawmakers said they did not set out to single out Wal-Mart when they drafted a bill requiring organizations with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health benefits -- or put the money directly into the state's health program for the poor.
OK, so Maryland calculated that 8% was a reasonable figure to provide health insurance or compensate the state for Walmart employees on Medicaid.
Of course, labor expense isn't the whole the price paid at Walmart, which is a good thing since you can never find any labor there when you need it.
8% or 4% or 1%, what difference does it make if it's across the board? Ramen noodles goes from 16¢ to 18¢. Big whoop.
WAL-MART Costs Taxpayers $1,557,000,000,00 to Support its Employees
"The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year - about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
$36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
$42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
$125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
$100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
$108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
$9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
The total figure is based on the average $420,750 per-store figure, multiplied by 3700 (the approximate number of stores currently in the United States).
Source: Rep. George Miller / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, "Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart", February 16, 2004.
12-10-2012, 12:46 PM--Odysseus
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
12-10-2012, 01:08 PM
In 2012, I had a policy that covered parts A, B and D, added extra benefits for Vision and had Dental. (Granted the dental plan sucked pond water but it was better than nothing). Cost: about 95.00 a month paid to Medicare and another 46.00 a month for the extras on the Medicare Advantage policy.
In 2013, I still get A, B, and D covered. Minimal Vision and NO DENTAL available! Not even as a stand alone policy. Also we got notice that instead of paying 95.00 a month, we will be paying 145.00 a month which OFFSETS Part D.
So I switched companies AGAIN cause I did find ONE company that allows a stand alone Dental policy. Unfortunately since my husband is also on Medicare, he's in the same boat.
Add to that, the list of doctors taking Medicare is shrinking FAST. My Bariatric Surgeon has stopped taking it on new patients. My Oral surgeon doesn't take it any longer. Even tho he is attached to a teaching hospital. And finding a dentist that took Medicare was real fun and games (NOT). It's like the minute you turn old enough to get Medicare, you no longer need dental care.
What *I* want to see is for the President AND Congress to get the EXACT same plan those of us on Medicare get!
LizThey that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|