Wal-Mart's insurance move reveals Obamacare truth

BBC ^ | October 8, 2014 | Anthony Zurcher

[grundle]

As the 800-pound gorilla of retailers, Wal-Mart made national headlines when it announced on Tuesday that it was cutting the health benefits for its 30,000 employees who work fewer than 30 hours a week.

A company blog post put the move down to rising healthcare costs, but the 30-hour cut-off gives a clue as to the real cause - President Barack Obama's healthcare reform.

Under the Affordable Care Act, large companies are required, starting this January, to provide subsidised healthcare for every employee who works 30-hours a week or more.

As the Atlantic's David A Graham notes, many of the law's critics said the result would be that large companies cut the hours worked by their employees to fewer than 30 a week. Instead what appears to be happening is that big retailers like Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot and Walgreens are simply doing away with the health benefits of their part-time workers entirely.

The editors of the conservative Investor's Business Daily are quick to assign blame, observing that Wal-Mart also announced it was raising the amount its full-time employees pay for their healthcare packages by 19% (an additional $3.50 (£2.18) a pay period, which still keeps their rates lower than the national average for retail employees).

The Wall Street Journal's editors, also a conservative lot, say Wal-Mart's decision to "jettison" its part-time workers onto the exchanges is a rational response to the healthcare law's incentives.

It wouldn't be surprising, writes Bloomberg View's Megan McArdle, if in a few years there were no companies offering healthcare to part-time employees.

[Blue Collar Christian]

I concur. Economics 101.

“It wouldn’t be surprising...if in a few years there were no companies offering healthcare to part-time employees.”

It wouldn’t be surprising if in a few years there are no companies offering full time jobs.

I mean DUH!

[SoothingDave]

As the Atlantic's David A Graham notes, many of the law's critics said the result would be that large companies cut the hours worked by their employees to fewer than 30 a week. Instead what appears to be happening is that big retailers like Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot and Walgreens are simply doing away with the health benefits of their part-time workers entirely.

Does "instead" mean something different across the pond?

[kearnyirish2]

That’s right. In my case I have a full-time job, and part-time jobs I see offered would conflict with the scheduling (since they are no longer fixed evening or early morning hours - they want round-the-clock flexibility, probably so they can operate with minimal staff and still cover absenteeism).