It will be a win for some, a loss for others.

Richard Mayhew at B-J:

- 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. [...]

- Walmart workers who earn less than 100% FPL [federal poverty level] 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 [employer-sponsored insurance] were probably sicker on average as that is the only case when a employee contribution towards premiums of $5,000 or 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.

It's a crazy system, but some of the part-time people will be better off (unfortunately, depending on what state they live in). If all states had expanded Medicaid eligibility, then it would a win for a lot more people.

As Richard points out, as it stands now, it will get more common. If we had sensible policies*, all companies would phase out their ESIs over time and instead give employees a lump-sum benefit (as part of their compensation package) to use as a subsidy to purchase insurance that meets their needs on the Exchange. I believe some companies are doing that. Walmart, of course, just throws their employees to the curb.

:-(

Cheers,
Scott.
(* - Yes, single-payer would be even better in principle. We're not going to get that anytime soon.)

Post #395,365 by Another Scott 10/9/14 7:52:48 AM Reply	It will be a win for some, a loss for others. Richard Mayhew at B-J: - 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. [...] - Walmart workers who earn less than 100% FPL [federal poverty level] 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 [employer-sponsored insurance] were probably sicker on average as that is the only case when a employee contribution towards premiums of $5,000 or 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. It's a crazy system, but some of the part-time people will be better off (unfortunately, depending on what state they live in). If all states had expanded Medicaid eligibility, then it would a win for a lot more people. As Richard points out, as it stands now, it will get more common. If we had sensible policies, all companies would phase out their ESIs over time and instead give employees a lump-sum benefit (as part of their compensation package) to use as a subsidy to purchase insurance that meets their needs on the Exchange. I believe some companies are doing that. Walmart, of course, just throws their employees to the curb. :-( Cheers, Scott. ( - Yes, single-payer would be even better in principle. We're not going to get that anytime soon.)
Post #395,369 by mmoffitt 10/9/14 10:58:59 AM Reply	Re: "*". You're right. Not when toadies like Bam-Bam can pass as Progressives.
Post #395,372 by Another Scott 10/9/14 12:20:21 PM Reply	Who would have gotten it through Congress? Hmmm? Vlad Putin wasn't on the ballot. ;-) Cheers, Scott. (Who hopes we're not going to go through the long history of the PPACA fight yet again...)
Post #395,373 by mmoffitt 10/9/14 1:34:18 PM Reply	Neither was TR nor LBJ. The corporate plutocrats completely own the federal government. Neither of those two could possibly mount a serious campaign today, let alone win one.
Post #395,377 by rcareaga 10/9/14 2:01:26 PM Reply	Rinse and repeat The lesser of two evils is less evil. The lesser of two evils is less evil. You can try the greater of two evils in hopes of "heightening the contradictions," but that hasn't worked well in living memory. cordially,
Post #395,383 by mmoffitt 10/9/14 4:22:42 PM Reply	FIFY. The lesser of two evils is still evil. The lesser of two evils is still evil. ;0)
Post #395,384 by boxley 10/9/14 4:54:58 PM Reply	nonono The lesser of two evils is still evil but a bumbling evil which causes more problems that a greater evil with better execution Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep

Welcome to IWETHEY!