Not exactly. As Trader Joe's did in September when it took a similar step, Target is suggesting that most of the affected workers will do better under the exchange system than they were with company-sponsored insurance. Target is probably right.
We say "probably" because the Minneapolis retail giant refused our request for data that would help nail down the pluses and minuses. We asked for the average wage of part-time employees affected by the change in policy; the number of part-timers; their average hours per week; and the benefits and premiums they were eligible for up to now. (The new policy takes effect April 1.) Target said none of that information is public.
Target also said workers averaging more than 32 hours a week would remain eligible for its company-sponsored health plan. That's curious, because the ACA requires big employers to provide coverage for full-time employees, who are defined as those working 30 hours a week or more. Target refused to clarify the discrepancy, though it's proper to note that the employer mandate doesn't kick in until next year.
[,,,]
What's happening under the surface, of course, is that these companies are shifting some of their own employee benefit costs to the taxpayers, who are providing the applicable subsidies.
But that's not a bug in the Affordable Care Act; it's a feature. Its goal was to get more people covered, in part by spreading the cost society-wide. And that's what's likely to happen. The cost of employee healthcare for part-time workers was on the long road to unaffordability long before enactment of the law.
[,,,]
The missing piece of the puzzle, still, is what the companies do with the money they save. If they use at least some of it to pay their workers better, that's a net gain for everyone. If they merely shovel it out to top management and shareholders, then they've gotten something for nothing, and acted shamefully.
Is Target right to send its part-timers to Obamacare? Probably. - latimes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment