<p>Trader Joe’s did this several months ago.</p>
<p>Regarding Moody’s: does this downgrade trigger stock sell offs by the big institutional investors? None of the articles said what this could mean.</p>
<p>Target dropped health insurance for part-time workers with the effect that the workers would in most cases be able to get coverage on the exchanges with subsidies, which they (and their families) would not be eligible for if Target offered them insurance. </p>
<p>One of the big defects in the law is the rule that if your employer offers insurance that is affordable to you personally then neither you nor your family are eligible for exchange subsidies. </p>
<p>I suspect that for the vast majority of Target’s part-time workers, they might find the exchange offerings w/subsidies (or Medicaid) to be a much better deal.</p>
<p>"One of the big defects in the law is the rule that if your employer offers insurance that is affordable to you personally then neither you nor your family are eligible for exchange subsidies. "</p>
<p>I do wonder about it when I read about some posters’ personal situations. I don’t know if it is because the law automatically assumes that everyone in the family is covered by employer with a discount? It is hard on the families where family members are expected to pay in full by the employer but they are not allowed to apply for subsidy because one parent is covered.</p>
<p>Agreed, Texas. I suspect it will evolve, as will some other points. Because it has to. Imo.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is not defect of the law. The law was not clear on how to define the dependent coverage affordability, so IRS issued a clarification rule, just like it issued other rulings connected to this law (HRA, FSA, EAP, small employer credit, etc.)</p>
<p>“I suspect that for the vast majority of Target’s part-time workers, they might find the exchange offerings w/subsidies (or Medicaid) to be a much better deal.”</p>
<p>I am not so sure about this. Generally speaking, group insurance at a large employer like Target is far superior to the exchange plans with high deductibles and limited networks and formularies. If you’re a part-time worker with a chronic condition, you are probably going to miss the low deductible plan you had with Target. Also, the spouse or family of the part-time worker may be partially subsidized by Target, so the exchange plans may not be a better deal.</p>
<p>It’s part of the plan and it may be cheaper for some in terms of premiums. But yes, they will not like the new, big deductibles. Chances Target subsidized part-timers families are slim to none. </p>
<p>Also, many of these workers are the type that turn down employer insurance because they would prefer the extra cash.</p>
<p>Partt time Target workers with families won’t have large deductibles. They will have small, subsidized deductibles or they’ll qualify for Medicaid.</p>
<p>Who knows CF? They are not primary income earners. They are largely kids and housewives. So, it really depends.</p>
<p>Only 10% of Target’s part-time employees have the employer-sponsored insurance. But the fact that it is offered prevents the other 90% from being eligible for subsidies on the exchange. The subsidies mean that they will be able to get affordable insurance, or if they’re the household breadwinner, they may be eligible for Medicaid. So they won’t have to choose between desperately needed income and decent insurance, which was one of the major goals of ACA.</p>
<p>DH finally got his card yesterday, exactly one month after Anthem received his application from CoveredCA.</p>
<p>Are you sure that the Target part-timers are not primary income earners? Around here, people don’t usually have one part-time job. They have two, and wish that one of them were fulltime.</p>
<p>I have a feeling Target and other companies with low wage employees will be increasing their part-time workforce while reducing the number of full-time employees in the future. Why not; it makes sense for them. What incentive do they have to hire full-time workers when it would be much less expensive for them to rely upon part-time workers.</p>
<p>It’s been like that in retail for a very long time.
A lot of places actually.
Microsoft et al hires " contractors" instead of employees so they don’t have to pay benefits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is just not true for people earning a part time wage even at two jobs. If they are between 133 and 200% of the poverty level, their subsidized deductible on the exchange can be as low as $300 for the year with an OOP max of 1400 for an individual, 600/2800 for a family. Premiums as low as $75/mo. Single.</p>
<p>Neither Target, nor my own company, can touch that. Trust me, I’ve been through the analysis.</p>
<p>The companies that are dropping PT coverage entirely are actually making a humane move, whether they mean to or not 
If they would divert the differential to raise minimum wage, it would be a win-win.</p>
<p>I agree is makes sense for everyone. It’s part of the plan. It’s designed to make sense and get more people onto the exchange. It’s not a coincidence.</p>
<p>
Well, the lawmakers have the great fed benefits with subsidized dependent coverage, so they assume everyone is the same? Civil servants should be paying more for dependent coverage (less taxpayer burden).</p>
<p>I am 
today.</p>
<p>In addition, Cardinal Fang has a great screen name.</p>
<p>Do tell, dstark</p>
<p>I expect GP to post why I am :). ;)</p>
<p>(Nothing to do with the bet).</p>