Boohoo. They'll Have To Pay A Whole $9 A Week For Health Insurance!
Why are Los Angeles grocery store workers striking? P.J. Huffstutter writes in the Los Angeles Times:
The labor negotiations, which have grown increasingly tense, have most recently focused on healthcare funding and how to pay for benefits, according to officials from both UFCW and the employers. Both sides have been meeting regularly since a recent strike-authorization vote by union members won strong support.The labor contract that was approved in 2007 expired March 6. It had been extended day to day.
The contract covered an estimated 62,000 checkers, baggers, meat cutters and other grocery workers across the region, including those employed by Ralphs, which is owned by Kroger Co. of Cincinnati; Vons and Pavilions, owned by Safeway Inc. of Pleasanton, Calif.; and Albertsons, which is owned by SuperValu Inc. of Eden Prairie, Minn.
...Thursday's news harks back to 2003, the last time Southern California grocery workers and their employers faced a standoff over labor issues. The 141-day strike and lockout that began that fall left many union members with staggering debts. It reportedly cost the employers an estimated $2 billion and gave competitors an opportunity to step into the gap.
Now, as in 2003, one key sticking point is healthcare. What's at issue is a painfully common refrain in corporate America: medical costs are rising.
Under the latest offer from the employers, grocery workers would pay $9 a week for individual coverage and $23 a week for a family, company and union officials said.
The grocers say these premiums are necessary to help offset rising healthcare costs and augment the amount Vons, Ralphs and Albertsons are agreeing to pay into a trust fund that purchases healthcare for workers. But union officials say that what the employers have proposed to pay during negotiations on the complex deal is far short of what is necessary and would ultimately gut the trust fund. Instead, union officials say, the employers need to pay more in order for the fund to be viable long term.
$9 a week for health insurance, huh? I think one of my ancestors paid that in the late 1800s.
I am not certain why Americans seem fixated on this idea that healthcare is a service to be paid for by one's employer. It's a fairly strange and paternalistic idea... our employers will take care of us when we're sick, provide for us in our old age, etc, as if we are so many pets.
Does anyone really trust ANY employer to make good on these ideas? Do they really have your best interests at heart? (Why should they?) Why should they pick out which insurance plan is best for you and your kids, rather than you choosing your own? No, the two or three plans offered by your Master don't count... real choice implies that you should get to choose among the whole array of insurance services available on the open market. If we slash regulations, they may even be affordable.
dervish at September 17, 2011 12:49 AM
My employer just allowed me to sign on for Ins, after 90 days on the job.
For Me, Spouse and One Child, my choices were from two PPO Plans and one "Basic" Non-PPO, High Deductible plan.
I get paid Bi-weekly (ie: 26 times per year)
1st PPO $896.23 Per Paycheck
2nd PPO $698.75 Per Paycheck
3rd Non-PPO $ 271.02 Per Paycheck.
The difference between the two PPO plans is Prescription Costs and Coverage Limits.
Even living in Central California, my Mortgage payment is under $900.00 per month.
Yet a full service PPO plan is now twice as much as my mortgage?
My employer tells me that these huge increases in cost have just started in the last 2 years, since the Obamacare was passed.
Financial costs are going to push all of us who are Non-Union into O-care whether we want to or not.
Having lived with Single Payer systems, I am not happy about the coming changes.
We need healthcare reform.
This is not it.
thomas at September 17, 2011 3:46 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/17/boohoo_theyll_h.html#comment-2485875">comment from thomasWe need healthcare reform.
This is not it.
Health care reform would have been untying health care from the workplace. Here you are, starting anew with your healthcare, and at what age?
I'm 47, and I've had Kaiser (see the "Pet/PET" Scan photo above) since I was in my early 20s. It's an HMO and my rate only changes with age.
Also, health care is valuable and, and coming in as just some worker who's just stared, they have no idea whether you all have diabetes or not, right. How much do you think you should pay a year to be insured, and why?
Amy Alkon at September 17, 2011 5:26 AM
GE has just changed their health insurance plan. They used to be one you wanted to work for. Amazing plan coverage, low price. Now, according to DH's friend who still works there, you will have to spend $3500 out of pocket before the plan starts to cover anything-and then it will be a percentage, not the entire bill. GE is a huge employer. And that $3500 is about 5% of friend's gross pay.
We're glad we got out to a european employer, but I'm sure we're in for that pain soon too. Fuck Obama.
momof4 at September 17, 2011 5:32 AM
ON to the grocery store workers: they're stupid. Their job is largely unnecessary. Here in TX a good half the checkout lanes are self-checkout and self-bag. If stores in Cali were smart, they'd simply eliminate these positions.
momof4 at September 17, 2011 5:34 AM
What the grocery companies need to do is the same thing Scott Walker did. Break the back of the union.
In Wisconsin, after the unions could no longer collectively bargain for benefits, and could no longer require that everyone buy their health insurance through the union, school systems started looking elsewhere. Guess what they found?
Yep - the union had been fucking them on premiums for years. Sometimes by a factor of 10.
So by being able to get insurance at reasonable rates, they didn't have to lay off 40,000 teachers like the government originally thought.
Unions are and have always been nothing but leeches. It's time for them to be disbanded.
brian at September 17, 2011 6:20 AM
Folks may not realize it, but we already have socialized medicine, it's not some simple plan either but this obscure, confusing array of redundancy, graft, incompetence and impotence. We have Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, state programs, union programs, private health insurance, etc etc, each with their own bureaucracies, goals and agendas. We have the most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet the worst results in the developed world.
A better way may be to just scrap it all (mainly, this would be regulations), and let the market dictate rates. I fear we haven't the heart for this though, as there are too many folks in this country that believe that government is a Fairy Godmother.
Another way would be to go single-payer. We'd retain some of the insane bureaucracy, but at least we'd save on the second-guessing and denials that the current system creates. I don't like this method as much as the one above, but it would certainly be cheaper and make more sense. The current system combines the worst of all possible options.
If we went single-payer, I would propose this: Fire all the bureaucrats, and contract the system out to the Germans. They've had it since Bismarck, and have far better outcomes than we do. They pay far less for much more... we could learn from them (except politicians can't learn).
dervish at September 17, 2011 7:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/17/boohoo_theyll_h.html#comment-2486105">comment from dervishSelf-checkout machines don't require health insurance. The strikers might be mindful of that. If the strike lasts, I'd bet a bunch of them get replaced by machines. What better way to get us all used to the machines than it being the only way to buy groceries for a time?
Amy Alkon at September 17, 2011 8:33 AM
I am mystified that my local credit unions have opened new branches with full-service employees.
The dumbest thing you can do as an employer is hire somebody when you don't need to. They're a liability.
And Americans still apparently don't realize that no employer really pays for health care, even as it is tied to employment. But, it doesn't have to be.
Employers do, because they must, count health-care plans and pensions as operating costs.
Health care and pensions are now set up as actual compensation for working at many companies, but the mechanism is overly complex, partly invisible at first glance, and involves entirely too many people who are third parties. The idea at the link fixes that, but the third parties are very interested in keeping their hand in the till. That till doesn't have room for the Federal hand, too.
Radwaste at September 17, 2011 12:48 PM
am not certain why Americans seem fixated on this idea that healthcare is a service to be paid for by one's employer.
I agree that the system sucks. But the reasons that employer-sponsored health insurance is the norm is that group coverage has lower premiums (with the risk spread out and employer contributions), AND is more regulated -- meaning people are less likely to be denied coverage.
I, for example, have had a lot of trouble getting insurance in the individual market due to a recent diagnosis. I was uninsured briefly a year ago between school and finding a job, and I was turned down twice by insurers (even though all I wanted was a high-deductible plan!). Coverage in my state's high-risk pool is incredibly expensive, considering treatment for my "condition" costs little to nothing. It would cost more than what I pay now for my employer's group coverage (even though I'm subsidizing my coworkers who have type 2 diabetes and several children).
So group coverage through an employer is by best option, whether I like it or not.
sofar at September 17, 2011 3:26 PM
I use the self-checkout machines quite a bit, our local store has had them for a couple of years now. With the exception of perhaps large amounts of produce, they are faster and more efficient, and have shorter lines. They aren't nearly as fun to flirt with though.
dervish at September 17, 2011 4:08 PM
All will please note that "group coverage" can be achieved across large numbers of people without regard to employer, using the same principle as peer/peer file sharing or "cloud" storage.
The identification of a group by "employer" is not necessary.
Think of the World of Warcraft gamers. They are securely identified across many nations.
Radwaste at September 17, 2011 5:56 PM
"I am not certain why Americans seem fixated on this idea that healthcare is a service to be paid for by one's employer."
It started in WWII, with the Kaiser Shipyards. Kaiser wanted to build ships quickly, and figured that if his workforce didn't have to worry about health care, they would produce more. He charged something like a dollar a week, which his well paid workers could easily afford. It was the first time in this country that health insurance was an employment benefit, and it was a huge success.
The shipyards are gone, but Kaiser Permanente lives on.
Steve Daniels at September 17, 2011 6:28 PM
Thus the moniker "Permanente"! It's just time to disconnect these two concepts. Healthcare is a human need that exists in spite of employment, and in this highly mobile age the disruptions created by folks losing or changing insurance, or staying in jobs just for insurance, creates massive inefficiencies that we all ultimately pay for.
I work in healthcare, and the waste in terms of time, money and talent are enormous. Freed from the bureaucratic juggernaut, we could deliver a lot more for much less. I spend more time checking off boxes and filling out forms than I do treating patients.
dervish at September 17, 2011 8:31 PM
When I was a kid in Pittsburgh, Krogers used to be the biggest grocery chain. The unions pulled similar BS, now there isn't a Krogers in all of Western PA. The chain just said "See ya" and pulled up stakes.
No one is irreplaceable.
Kat at September 17, 2011 10:46 PM
I haven't had a cold for four years, ever since the local Kroger put in self-checkouts.
You avoid disease-ridden high school baggers fingering your food.
rhhardin at September 18, 2011 5:47 AM
Here in Sacramento we live in an Albertons free zone.
Used to have them, but they went out of business as a retail chain a while back. Could have been oh 2003 I guess.
papertiger at September 18, 2011 6:39 AM
@steve daniels
You're partly correct about the start of employer-paid health care being during WWII - but it wasn't so much to improve workers' ability to concentrate on the war effort. Rather, it was a way around wage controls, and it was a way to increase pay in a way that was deductible to the employer and not income to the employee. A 'win win' so to speak at the time.
CatoRenasci at September 18, 2011 6:42 AM
Having lived with Single Payer systems, I am not happy about the coming changes.
We need healthcare reform. This is not it.
You're just seeing the first stages of it. Once Obamacare drives up the prices of private companies or runs them out of business, they'll stand up and say:
"With a heavy heart, we've come to announce that the market has failed. The Government will be taking over all health care from now on."
The problem is mainly, how to handle health care for those who can't/won't afford it.
ErikZ at September 18, 2011 7:18 AM
I have no sympathy for these people. Sorry, but if you passed up other opportunities to better yourself and instead chose to work in the grocery retail business, what you make now is the best deal you're ever going to get. Why do you think Wal Mart is doing so well selling groceries? My non existent sympathy is furthered by the fact I've shopped at my local Albertson's for something like 22 years (when it was Lucky's) and none of them even know my face, let alone my name. They're too busy talking to eachother.
Eric at September 18, 2011 7:30 AM
Man! I wish I could pay only $9 per month for insurance! Well, since I have a family, only $23 per month for insurance! Instead of going on strike, I would thank my Maker for such a bounty!
I am self-employed and spend over $1,000 per month for health insurance for my my family - which includes two children. So these grocery workers get no sympathy for me, especially during these lean economic times, which are only going to get worse.
I think the idea that employers should buy health insurance for their employees is kinda weird anyway. I used to think that when I was en employee. Just another weird consequence of our ridiculous tax code.
Ralph's employees need to be thankful, not threatening to strike. Get a grip.
Cranky Greg at September 18, 2011 7:47 AM
> agree that the system sucks. But the reasons
> that employer-sponsored health insurance is
> the norm is that group coverage has lower
> premiums (with the risk spread out and
> employer contributions), AND is more
> regulated -- meaning people are less likely
> to be denied coverage.
Employer-sponsored health insurance is less expensive because it is rigged so that when you lose your job, you are unable to keep your health insurance. They do this by selling you an insurance plan that you could never and would never afford, and conceal the cost by having your employer pay the majority of it without you ever really realizing it.
Now when you lose your job, you can't possibly afford the full cost of your insurance. You might limp along on COBRA for a while, but you can't really afford it.
The overall effect of this is that people who become too sick to work are systematically chucked off the health insurance rolls. This allows insurance companies to cherry pick healthy workers, and get rid of people who are too sick to work. This is the basis on which they can charge less money than the individual market, which is largely made up of people who can't get work.
When you lose your job, your car insurance doesn't double. Neither does your homeowners insurance. You don't have to buy new auto insurance when you change jobs. You don't need to buy new homeowners insurance when you change jobs. This situation only arises with health insurance, because employment is strongly correlated with health.
The system is a scam -- designed from the bottom up to take away your insurance when you get too sick to work.
I would like to see health insurance completely divorced from employment. You should get your health insurance from the same agent that you get your auto and home insurance. Then the health insurance companies would have to honestly price their policies -- at levels that people would willingly pay without having the true cost concealed by having employers pay most of it, and you would have a better chance of keeping your insurance if you lost your job because you would be in better financial control of the situation.
jms at September 18, 2011 7:56 AM
I pay well over $100 a week, that's 100%.
I have zero sympathy for these whining crybabies.
If the grocery chains were smart, they'd let them stay on strike for as long as it takes for these idiots to wake up and realize tha some of us would take their jobs, at their pay, and be willing to actually pay 25% or so of the medical benefit cost.
Al Patterson at September 18, 2011 8:30 AM
Dr in our are decide to fly naked (remember that idea no insurance cash only))30 bucks an office visit cash only, if you need an hour fine, if you bring the kids fine it's 35 many leave more as a tip if you will, if he knows you cannot afford it leave what you can, some people swap labor or one farmer produce.
That is health care reform
My Dr is looking into it, claims he would make more than he is now with a full staff and the constant hassle with coverage and deductibles
The Egyptain at September 18, 2011 9:05 AM
Adding to what jms said, when you're too sick to work, and you can't afford private insurance, who is there to step in and help you out? Why, the lovely government.
My sister in law was too sick to work, required surgery and specialists (she had a non-cancerous tumor in part of her brain)and couldn't pay for any of it since she didn't have a job. She was, however, approved for MNCare, and thinks it's the best thing EVER, since she only has to pay $4.00 apiece for all the prescriptions she needs, and no copay for any doctor visits.
I tried to explained that the difference is made up by my paying taxes, and my paying $260 per month in premiums, with a copay for each visit and higher costs for prescriptions.
Needless to say, she is a prime example of indoctrination into government taking care of every need.
Jazzhands at September 18, 2011 9:08 AM
You're on the right track jms, divorcing health insurance from employment would go a long way towards fixing things. There's so much more there though. We have legions of bureaucrats sitting at desks, pontificating about exactly how healthcare ought to be delivered. Reams and reams of unnecessary documents and forms must be filled out for even the simplest of transactions... these add significantly to costs, and then when it's over, the internecine warfare over payment, need, coverage and denial begins, wherein insurance agents start practicing medicine by deciding that clients didn't really need this or that.
The whole thing is nuts.
dervish at September 18, 2011 9:18 AM
I refuse to use self-checkouts until they start giving me a substantial discount for doing so. Why? Because they expect a $100/hour professional to do the job of a $5/hour teenager.
Al Coholic at September 18, 2011 9:22 AM
The implementation of healthcare reform has been sub-optimal, to say the least. But when you read stories like this it's impossible to deny that healthcare reform is vitally necessary.
franko at September 18, 2011 9:42 AM
Don't forget, UFCW is fully integrated into the Cal. Dem. party labor-political complex. Our current Assembly speaker comes from this union. Don't discount the possibility of larger political positioning going on.
David at September 18, 2011 9:45 AM
so for a family of 4, $9/$23 per week would be $339 per month. My take home pay is just under $1100 per month, so this health care would cost over 30% of my income. I would have to choose between health care for my family or housing, or food. I work full time (50-60 hrs per week) and make a salary of $1500 per month. I'm grateful to be employed and to make over minimum wage, so I'm not complaining, just pointing out that "$9 and $23 a week" can be the difference between living in a small apartment or dying on the street.
Vix at September 18, 2011 10:56 AM
um isnt 23 * 4 = 96?
lujlp at September 18, 2011 12:03 PM
Vix, your math is way off. The $23 per week is for "family coverage" - the whole family, not each member - so monthly payment is $92, which is 6% of $1500 or 8% of $1100. Also, if you're working 60 hours a week for $1500/month, you're NOT making "over minimum wage". Finally, if you're having $400 taken out of $1500, you need to adjust your withholding - assuming you're the sole income earner for a family of four. NO ONE IS DYING ON THE STREET!
TexasTea at September 18, 2011 12:17 PM
Take a look at Hawaii's system. If you are a full-time employee, or close enough to it, the employer is required to provide health coverage at no cost to the employee. Additional family coverage usually costs something extra. More states could adopt this type of policy and more people would be covered by virtue of their employment... Now if we only had better doctors and hospitals...
Kukui23 at September 18, 2011 12:39 PM
Vix, your math is flawed. At $23 per week and four weeks to a month (roughly) that would be $92/month for family coverage which is an absolute bargain. I pay more than $140/week or nearly $600/month for just myself. I would jump at the chance to have a $9/week premium. Yes we are talking the difference between individual coverage and employer sponsored coverage, but recognize a good deal when its presented.
Vanessa at September 18, 2011 12:45 PM
"If you are a full-time employee, or close enough to it, the employer is required to provide health coverage at no cost to the employee."
If you believe this, you're seriously deluded!
Think about this for just ten seconds. You're an employer, and you need a full-time employee. What does it cost you?
Immediate wages, PLUS health-care coverage, PLUS unemployment insurance mandated by the state and nation, PLUS whatever pension plan you've offered.
This employee better be worth it!
At no point is health-care "free".
Radwaste at September 18, 2011 1:07 PM
I was in that stinking union 25 years ago. I worked at Thrifty Drug store - made minimum wage and HAD to join the union and pay the same dues as a grocery store worker who made 2-3X what I did. What a crooked racket - supported by their lap-dogs like Mayor Antonio "I can't do my job because I'm stuck on top of this Telemundo anchorwoman" Villaraigoso (who use to work for that union).
So PLEASE Strike - so everyone can go shop for groceries at Target, Costco and other places - and never return. Bye-bye unionized grocery work!
Californio at September 18, 2011 2:06 PM
"I'm 47, and I've had Kaiser (see the "Pet/PET" Scan photo above)..."
I do see the photo and you're not a day older than 27, goddess. You may be gorgeous, but you are lacking in credibility.
willis at September 18, 2011 2:22 PM
"Employer-sponsored health insurance is less expensive because it is rigged so that when you lose your job, you are unable to keep your health insurance. They do this by selling you an insurance plan that you could never and would never afford, and conceal the cost by having your employer pay the majority of it without you ever really realizing it."
So, they rip us off by spending so much on our health insurance that we could never make up for it if we lost our job, which is why the health insurance they buy for us is so cheap?
Stop and think about what you just said.
"We have the most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet the worst results in the developed world."
This is your basic "America sux!" lie. There are plenty of studies and reports on the internet detailing exactly how this is wrong. Just Google "america health care results".
And, by the way, the main reason health care has become so expensive is because it has become so good. Constant research and investigation has given us incredibly complex, but incredibly effective, medicines, devices, and procedures. There's a reason MRI's cost thousands of dollars - the machine costs millions, and the technicians running it went to four years of college and several years of grad school.
bobby b at September 18, 2011 3:51 PM
I'm self employed & have one of those plans with a high deductible ($5000) catastrophic insurance plans and self pay everything else from a medical expense account that I chuck money into as I can. Cheapest insurance I can get for me, but it's a good thing my wife has her own separate pension paid plan.
The best deal for the consumer would be for the health insurance industry to be completely deregulated, with the only exception being they would have to provide complete plan details to a federal agency that would be a cross between OMB and Consumer Reports. Distribution by web of course, plus monthly printed reports. Pick the plan that's best for you and your situation.
Ed Nutter at September 18, 2011 4:26 PM
"Employer-sponsored health insurance is less expensive because it is rigged so that when you lose your job, you are unable to keep your health insurance. "
Simpler explanation: Employer-sponsored health insurance is less expensive mainly because employers can deduct the premiums off of their income taxes -- something that you and I, as individuals, can't do. (Unless we meet some very specific provisions.) Fix that, and the market changes overnight. As someone posted above, I like the idea that individuals could form co-ops for buying insurance (or insuring themselves), sort of like credit unions. But there won't be a big enough market until the employer tax deduction for premiums is eliminated.
"How much do you think you should pay a year to be insured, and why?"
Of course, to really answer that question, you'd have to have a free market so that the cost of the services would be transparent. As things are currently set up, those things are unknowable, and so there is no rational way to answer the question.
Cousin Dave at September 18, 2011 7:22 PM
Cousin Dave, there are two well known health insurance co-ops in Minnesota and one in Washington (Group Health Co-op) that function fairly well. There are also tons of churches across the south that form their own "groups" thus allowing for group health insurance rates. I've also seen this done through business collectives. There are other ways around the employer sponsored group health insurance, just have to be creative and find others willing to do the same.
Vanessa at September 19, 2011 7:53 AM
Applause for this post - one of your best!
Gayle Kossin at September 28, 2011 9:06 AM
Totally agree with you #172. It is a sick and pathetic family. They have some unfathomable audacity! Now cindy is disputing the phone bill with their phone company. Since WHEN don't you get billed for a telephone call?? She is claiming the call SHOULD be on her bill, she is a riot. Which tells authorities "no such phone call took place."
It is obvious that this family is lying and covering up for casey. They know what and where the precious child is buried.
Cutie at November 30, 2011 12:35 PM
Leave a comment