Who profits most from Medicaid? Employers like Walmart and Amazon, many of whose workers rely on the program
Here's who we haven't been hearing enough about, however: 'Able-bodied' American corporations that have taken advantage of Medicaid, food stamps and other safety net programs for years to get out of paying their workers a living wage by sticking the taxpayers with the expense. These are hidden subsidies.
The beneficiaries of what can properly be defined as corporate welfare include some of America's biggest employers, such as Walmart, McDonald's and Amazon. All three consistently land at or near the top of lists of major corporations with significant shares of their workers collecting public assistance.
McDonald's in 2013 even established a 'McResource Line' that offered advice to employees about how to access Medicaid and food stamps, among other suggestions. (The company shut it down late that year out of embarrassment and critics' 'inappropriate commentary.')
These corporations are enormously profitable. Last year Walmart earned $19.4 billion on sales of $681 billion, McDonald's earned $8.2 billion on sales of $26 billion, and Amazon earned $59 billion on sales of $638 billion.
Yet millions of their workers, including many employed full time, have to rely on public assistance, as the Government Accountability Office reported in 2020. If the Republican Congress pursues its campaign to strip access to government programs away from more Americans, more of those workers will be trapped in a poverty spiral.
These hidden subsidies haven't garnered much attention since the pandemic emergency, during which government relief programs expanded access to Medicaid and other such programs to a wider swath of the American workforce. But they should be front and center in the current debate over the GOP budget proposals.
That's because the GOP program involves drastic cuts to the safety net: The Senate GOP proposal would cut Medicaid by as much as $863 billion over 10 years, and pare $186 billion from the federal share of food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
The savings would be steered to wealthy Americans and corporations, which already benefited immensely from tax cuts enacted by Republicans in 2017, during President Trump's first term.
Wall Street has been cheering the GOP's efforts to preserve those tax cuts — that's one reason that the stock market, as measured by the Standard & Poor's 500 index, has been notching all-time records. Not everyone on Wall Street, though.
'It's one thing to say, 'We're against socialism,' but it can't be socialized capitalism for the corporations and no safety net for individuals,' says the New York wealth manager Barry Ritholtz, the author of 'Bailout Nation,' a 2010 book about the causes and aftermath of the Great Recession, and who labeled McDonald's and Walmart 'welfare queens' back in 2013. (His latest book, 'How Not to Invest,' is an invaluable guide to avoiding the common market pitfalls confronting the small investor.)
'If you're a publicly trade private company, you've got to figure out a way to pay your employees a living wage without relying on the taxpayer to subsidize your labor costs,' Ritholtz told me when I called to ask him for an update. 'If you're the biggest beneficiary of food assistance, you are not truly an independent private company; you're a ward of the state.'
Data on the percentage of workers at big companies receiving food stamps or Medicaid are spotty. The broadest up-to-date statistics were published by the Government Accountability Office in October 2020, at the behest of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
The GAO documented that 48% of adult Medicaid enrollees and 51% of SNAP recipients worked at least 35 hours per week for at least 50 weeks in 2018 — in other words, at or close to full time. The majority of those workers were employed by private businesses, mostly in the restaurant and hotel industries, supermarkets and department stores. Well more than half worked for big employers, defined as those with 100 workers or more.
Among the six states that submitted detailed statistics on Medicaid to the GAO and nine states that provided SNAP figures, more than 1.3 million workers employed by the states' top 25 employers were on Medicaid or SNAP or both, suggesting that the national figures were significantly higher. In some of those states, the GAO found, workers at those companies accounted for nearly 20% of the total enrollments of Medicaid and SNAP.
More recent figures have come from Nevada, which issues an annual report of the state's cost of Medicaid services for workers at businesses with 50 or more employees. The most recent report, issued in January and covering 2024, found that more than 380,000 workers and their dependents were enrolled in Medicaid, a slight increase over the previous year. The state's cost came to more than $1.1 billion.
Amazon, with 18,093 workers and dependents on Medicaid last year, was the leading employer in this category, a position it has held since 2020. Walmart was top on the Nevada list from 2017 through 2019 and has ranked second to Amazon since then.
Amazon says it's unfair to ascribe the enrollment of its employees in public assistance programs to its pay practices. 'Despite competitive pay and great benefits, employees at large companies may still be on public benefits depending on household factors and government policies,' it told me by email. 'Household factors that can determine eligibility include: household size, special needs and disability, medical care of dependents (children and elderly), immigration status, asset ownership, and cost of living.'
Walmart and McDonald's both cited benefits they offer employees as counterweights to financial pressures.
'On top of hourly pay, McDonald's offers incentives in its company owned restaurants like paid time off, 401K and financial counseling services, and training and education programs — and many franchisees do the same,' the company told me by email.
Walmart said, also by email, 'Our goal is to support every associate, including those joining us while receiving public assistance, as they work toward a better future.'
All three companies have taken steps in recent years to increase minimum wages for their workforces.
Walmart announced in 2023 that it would increase the average minimum wage for its employees to more than $17.50 per hour, up from $17. In 2018, Amazon established a $15 minimum wage nationwide (but a couple of years ahead of an increase to $15 enacted in California), up from a median $13.68. McDonald's in 2021 announced an increase in its minimum pay for crews at its company-owned stores to as much as $17.
Opponents of minimum-wage increases maintain that those workers are typically teenagers working their first jobs. That's wrong. About 19% are 16 to 19 years old, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But 26% are 25 to 34, 13% are 35 to 44, and 13.5% are 45 to 64. Nor should it be overlooked that in 19 states, especially in the Southeast, the minimum wage is only $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum. That rate hasn't been increased since 2009.
These statistics point to several uncomfortable realities about U.S. economic policies. First, they underline how all the hand-wringing from Republicans about lazy layabouts collecting Medicaid and food stamps instead of working is balderdash.
That's been evident for years. Census figures show that of adult Medicaid recipients, 64% work full or part time. Of the rest, 12% are caring for home or family, 10% are ill or disabled, 6% are in school and 4% are retired. Of the remaining 4%, half can't find work and the conditions of the other half are undetermined.
Medicaid experts agreed that the only way to cut the program's costs is to throw enrollees off. The GOP budget bill would do precisely that through cuts that would leave 7.8 million enrollees without health coverage. Some big employers might improve their low-income workers' access to health insurance to take up some of the slack, but to turn a famous quote from Damon Runyon upside down, that's not the way to bet.
Another point underscored by the millions of American workers who still need government assistance to obtain healthcare and food relief is the explosive increase in economic inequality in the U.S. Since the 1970s, the ratio of corporate CEO pay to the compensation of their companies' median employee has soared.
In 1970, chief executives on average made about 20 times as much as their median workers. The ratio peaked in 2000 at 390 to 1, fell during the pandemic and since then has moved back to about 290 to 1.
At Walmart, McDonald's and Amazon, the ratio is much higher. At Walmart, it was 930 to 1 in 2024, according to a disclosure in the company's most recent proxy statement, and at McDonald's it was 1,014 to 1. Both figures reflect the run-up in CEO pay and the firms' reliance on low-wage workers; the McDonald's figure may be conservative, because so many workers behind its counters are employed by franchisees, the pay scales of which aren't reflected in the corporate accounting.
Amazon may be another special case. It stated that the 2024 compensation of its CEO, Andy Jassy, was only about $1.6 million and therefore the ratio of his pay to the median Amazon employee was only 43 to 1. That's curious: It's absurd to think that the CEO of one of America's biggest and most successful corporations was paid only $1.6 million last year.
As it turns out, Amazon, unlike other big companies, chose not to count the stock options vested for Jassy last year — worth about $21.75 million — as part of his compensation.
Amazon told me by email that it complied with the Securities and Exchange Commission regulations governing the CEO pay ratio disclosures. But it also acknowledged the compensation actually paid to Jassy last year, including the value of restricted shares that vested during the year, was $92.4 million — a figure that would make the ratio of his pay to that of the median full-time U.S. Amazon employee ($47,990) not 43 to 1 but 1,925 to 1.
Can there be any more damning condemnation of the American way of doing business than the hidden labor subsidies bestowed on our largest corporations?
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan justified his attack on welfare by spinning yarns about a mythical welfare queen who drove to pick up her relief check in a Cadillac. America's elite corporations have outdone her, by a wide margin — and they're not creatures of myth.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump is right to shrink our government. Even if I worry about how he'll do it.
The U.S. government has reached a level of bloat that needs to be dealt with. Trump is right to take that challenge head-on. The Trump administration received a huge win from the Supreme Court on July 14, allowing the government to proceed with its plan to fire more than 1,300 employees of the Department of Education. These staffing cuts come in addition to the State Department's recent layoffs of a similar size. I have been a critic of many of the government efficiency measures proposed by the Trump administration, not because I oppose shrinking government, but rather because they have been unlikely to succeed in achieving that goal. Many opponents of the Republican plan to downsize government don't come from my perspective. Many oppose the slashing of current government programs because the result is seen as unfair to government employees. But it is not immoral for the government to cut jobs for the sake of efficiency. Pursuing efficiency at the expense of existing jobs is a proper goal, even if how President Donald Trump is chasing that efficiency needs to be examined. Layoffs are hard, but that's no reason for government to stay bloated Fired State Department workers made a show out of their job loss this week, staging a sort of ceremony in the lobby as people packed up their desks. Teary federal employees made for great publicity for Democrats opposed to Trump's plans. Many believe that the human toll of these layoffs is a sufficient reason not to implement them at all. That view is significantly mistaken, and one of the reasons government bloat has reached its current level. Layoffs are difficult, but good companies do them all the time. While the common maxim that 'government should be run like a business' is often a ridiculous one, the attitude toward laying off workers in bloated departments ought to be the same among Americans as among managers at a Fortune 500 company. Opinion: Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? Well you're wrong. When it comes to publicly traded companies, nobody disputes the right of a company to fire its employees for the sake of efficiency. In fact, it is their obligation. Even the charge that corporate layoffs are driven by greed tends to favor the layoffs when it comes to the government. Where a corporation may lay off workers in pursuit of maximizing profits, the government doing the same thing serves to decrease expenditures compared to revenue, which means lower budget deficits. I understand why the robotic calculation of reducing people's employment to a cost-benefit analysis is off-putting to some, but it's the sort of thing that is necessary when our federal workforce is far larger than it was ever intended to be. Cutting excessive positions is a sign of good governance. Again, I understand that being out of work sucks and that layoffs produce hard times for these employees and their families. I have plenty of sympathy for individuals going through tough times because of all this. The administration should take care not to callously celebrate shoving people out of their jobs, a caveat they are horribly failing at. Critics should focus on the 'how' of Trump's layoffs All of this is good in theory, but as with most things, the Trump administration has done little to earn the benefit of the doubt on the matter. Their approach looks more like pulling wires out of a machine on a whim than it does a butcher trimming fat precisely. The administration has already had to walk back many of the firings that took place under Elon Musk's DOGE initiative, signaling that they had gone too far in some instances. Your Turn: Musk caused US long-term damage. A citizen should never have this much power. | Opinion Forum There is plenty of opposition that can be raised regarding the "how" of the push to slash government bloat. However, this is not the sentiment that is sometimes being shared. Many are arguing that it is a mistake, or even immoral, for the Trump administration to perform layoffs, even if they do genuinely lead to cutting government waste. If the government is genuinely slashing necessary employees, then by all means, that position ought to be refilled. Layoffs go too far all the time, and those companies rehire for positions as needed. However, it is all the more likely that the federal government can do without many of these jobs, and if not, then the administration has already shown an indication that it will refill vital roles. Government is not a jobs program; it is meant to do a select number of things with the smallest intrusion into our lives possible. Those who oppose Trump's actions with regard to federal layoffs should focus on critiquing how he is going about these cuts, rather than arguing against the cuts themselves. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Boston Globe
18 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
One big disaster for Massachusetts health care
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up One major impact of the bill they'll need to contend with is the new administrative barriers, like work requirements, it created for enrollees in MassHealth, the state Medicaid program for low-income residents. Advertisement While the vast majority of Medicaid recipients are already working or would qualify for an exemption, states with work requirements typically State officials should work with community organizations, health care providers, and consumer advocates like Health Care for All on a public education and assistance campaign that informs MassHealth enrollees of the new requirements and helps them fill out paperwork. Advertisement The bill will also require states to redetermine enrollees' eligibility for MassHealth twice a year instead of annually. To satisfy that requirement, the state should also work on establishing automated systems that let information be verified through data-matching, so the state uses information it collects through other state agencies (like unemployment insurance filings) to confirm eligibility for MassHealth. The good news is state officials While the goal should be keeping people insured, some residents will lose insurance for paperwork reasons, or because they can no longer afford it, or because they lose eligibility. For example, many immigrants who have legal status in the US but not permanent residency (like refugees or asylum seekers) will no longer be eligible for Medicaid or for subsidies from Massachusetts' Health Connector. It's also still unknown whether Congress will extend Of course, people without insurance will still get sick, and they are likely to land in hospital emergency rooms. Massachusetts' Health Safety Net fund, which helps hospitals pay for uncompensated care, is The financial hits to Medicaid will come from several policy changes included in the bill. The biggest ones are restrictions on the extent to which the state can rely on provider taxes and state-directed payments, which are complicated methods by which the state uses state money (including fees collected from hospitals and providers) to draw federal Medicaid matching money, then distributes that money back to health care providers (hospitals, nursing homes, and community health centers). Advertisement There are no easy answers as the Legislature and governor decide how to respond. Lawmakers will likely face pressure to raise new revenues through taxes or dip into the state's $8.1 billion rainy day fund to avoid major cuts to MassHealth benefits or eligibility. But the magnitude of the cuts will make it impossible for the state to backfill the entire amount. At the same time, ripples from the Medicaid cuts will affect the entire health care system. The organization There will likely be targeted areas where the state will want to replace federal with state money — for example, if money is need to avoid the shuttering of essential services, like a rural hospital's emergency room or the sole regional facility for labor and delivery. There may need to be cuts to MassHealth benefits, and enrollees will be forced to pay new federally required copays for many services. Some rates paid to providers may be cut. Advertisement Massachusetts also needs to negotiate a new waiver with federal Medicaid officials by the end of 2027, which sets the parameters around how MassHealth is structured and what services the federal government will cover. Massachusetts Congressman Jake Auchincloss suggested, in an interview with the editorial board, that the state could seek to negotiate more state flexibility and autonomy in running its own program — for example, to make enrollment easier, to experiment with pilot programs, do more with alternative payment systems, or get paid for investments that save Medicare money, like community-based care for seniors. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the state convened state policy experts and stakeholders to respond to the crisis. The Healey administration should consider reviving that model today. In a time of scarcity, it's tempting for each segment of the industry to protect its turf. It would be far better to put state policy makers in a room with representatives of hospitals, community health centers, insurers, nursing homes, drug companies, patient advocates, and other health system stakeholders so they can collaborate and chart a path forward that's in the best interest of the Commonwealth's residents. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
MAHA diners are fueling a bone marrow boom in D.C.
Marrow is hot. Tallow is trending. Bone luges are back. D.C.'s "clean eating" MAHA diners are taking nose-to-tail to the next level. Why it matters: Trump's first term was all about well steak and fast food — largely divorced from local dining — but MAHA's unprocessed obsession is popularizing whole-animal trends and driving sales on odd-bits. Zoom in: At Capitol Hill's haute MAGA hangout Butterworth's, chef Bart Hutchins blows through some 500 beef bones a week for best-selling roasted marrow. It's Steve Bannon's go-to order, Hutchins tells Axios. VIPs like Marco Rubio get it compliments of the kitchen. Nigel Farage and other Brit Breitbart journos are eating it up, too. Patrons like a Port bone luge to "soak up the beefy, fatty flavor," Hutchins says. What they're saying: "Before, the audience for offal was Berkeley hippie types who knew about Alice Waters. Now it's right-wing staffers," Hutchins says. "I tell my staff, we're a success if we sell more head cheese than cheeseburgers — and that's happening naturally here." Hutchins has long pushed offal on reluctant diners. Now, bones mean bank. "It's buzzy. If you describe something with 'collagen,' it's poised to move for a certain economic class." The big picture: Chefs' whole-animal focus — more sustainable and economical — is compounded by wellness obsessives touting the health and beauty benefits of bone broth and " sipping collagen." Add in RFK Jr.'s war on seed oils and ultra-processed foods and you have diners going nose-to-tail, fat-to-bone. Between the lines: Blue Duck Tavern 's roasted bone marrow began as a W. Bush-era obsession. Today, "We can never take it off [menu]. People come in just for that," food and beverage director Jean-Claude Plihon tells Axios. The West End restaurant sells around 5,500 marrow dishes annually — roughly 210 pounds of bones a week. Like with other old-is-new-again crazes, traditionalists are caught off guard. "I had no idea, but I'm glad everyone is into it," Hai Le, the butcher turned chef behind Bloomingdale's new PhoXotic, tells Axios. Le brews intensely flavored bone broths and packs bowls with tendon, shank and marrow. "I have people coming in asking for pho broth as a daily dose for their skin." Meanwhile, beef tallow is becoming even more popular — an unlikely combination of beauty trend and right-wing fad touted by MAHA influencers as the anti-seed oil. "I didn't carry it two years ago, and now we're flying through cases," a rep for Baltimore wholesaler Fells Point Meat tells Axios. Naturally, tallow is the frying fuel of choice for Georgetown's new club Executive Branch, co-founded by Donald Trump Jr. The intrigue: The only frozen tallow fry in the U.S. market is Rockville-based Jesse & Ben's. Co-founder Jesse Konig took the popular fries from fast-casual Swizzler in Navy Yard, reengineering them for shoppers with avo oil or grass-fed tallow. They've blown up in a year, and now: Stock them in 1,500 Whole Foods nationwide. Use 15,000 pounds of tallow per month. Run 24-hour production to keep up with demand. What they're saying: "The movement toward less processed foods is a big part of it," says Konig of the success. "It's top of mind in the culture right now."
