Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Target To No Longer Offer Health Coverage To Part Time Employees...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


It isn't like we couldn't see it coming. In fact expect more down the line. It is absolutely no secret that for ObamaCare (ACA) to work will require a huge pool of younger healthier individuals to participate in the Government's Heath Insurance, er Healthcare Plan. How long will it be before businesses decide to just pass it all off the the government? It's anybody's guess, but I'm betting single payer sooner rather than late.

THE HILL - Target Corp. announced on Tuesday it would no longer offer healthcare coverage to its part-time employees.

In a blog post on the company’s website, Jodee Kozlak, the executive vice president of human resources, framed it as a positive development for part-time employees of the company.

“The Health Insurance Marketplaces provides new options for healthcare coverage that we believe our part-time members may prefer,” she wrote. “In fact, by offering them insurance, we could actually disqualify many of them from being eligible for newly available subsidies that could reduce their overall health insurance expense.”

Kozlak added that at present, fewer than 10 percent of part-time employees that are eligible have actually enrolled in the company’s healthcare plan.

“Our decision to discontinue this benefit comes after careful consideration of the impact to our stores’ part-time team members and to Target, the new options available for our part-time team, and the historically low number of team members who elected to enroll in the part-time plan,” Kozlak continued.

The company’s new policy goes into effect on April 1, 2014. Consumers have until mid-March to sign up for ObamaCare to be eligible for coverage this year.

Target said it has a transition program in place to “minimize any disruption and reduce confusion” for those who will no longer be eligible for the company’s healthcare plan.

The company will provide a $500 cash payment to employees losing coverage, as well as access to a benefits consultant.

Target stressed the company would not be reducing hours for any employees.

Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said employers have been dropping coverage for years, and that under the Affordable Care Act, employees have will have an alternative when that happens.

"Since the Affordable Care Act became law, health care costs have been slowing and premiums are increasing by the lowest rates in years," she said in a statement. "Employers have been dropping coverage for more than a decade, long preceding the Affordable Care Act. But now, unlike before, employees have the option of shopping in the Marketplace for quality, affordable coverage, where they may be able to qualify for a tax credit to help pay for the cost."

Still, the announcement could reignite criticism over President Obama’s pledge that if you like your plan, you can keep it.

Many conservatives have warned that a wave of plan cancellations by private employers would be the next shoe to drop on the healthcare law./blockquote>

Via: Memeorandum

45 comments:

  1. The trend has been for businesses to look at healthcare provision costs for some time (in 1964 my
    company provided total coverage at no cost to me) However, costs were reasonable at that time.
    It seems Target recognizes that it can address this cost burden without guilt, since employees will
    be able to access the ACA. Is that not good for Target and good for its employees? Single payer-
    almost all countries have it and it does eliminate the tangle of paperwork where physicians deal with
    numerous insurers. As for your bet on sooner or later, hard to say; much depends on how well or
    how awful it works out. (I hope Target's healthcare systems set up works better than their credit card
    set up)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes companies have been assessing costs, which have been going up and up.

    It may or may not be good BB Idaho, the nation and its people will just have to wait and see how it shakes out.

    Our system was not broken before the ACA, but in ways it was limping. I'm thinking the ACA will bring it to its knees. Maybe that is inevitable before it can be fixed.

    Hoping for the best expecting the worst. Won't be too disappointed that way if it doesn't work out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Single Payer = Insurance provided by the people, for the people. Democracy in action. And without the disgustingly excessive profits demanded by the Plutocrats who run the current system (a system designed to scam as much money from the people while providing as little health care as possible). I'm with Jerry in voting for sooner.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And the sound of goose-steps from the above comment stamped "Wed Jan 22, 09:14:00 PM EST" is deafening. Yes, only when the government has all the power, will the people truly be free.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, dmarks, single payer healthcare is totalitarian nationalism. :I

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  6. Let them compete. The government offers a plan and private insurance companies offer plans. Let the people choose. Right now, if you are under 65, you only have private plans to choose from. I vote for more freedom of choice, not less.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As I'm sure you know, Critter, the private sector can not compete against the public sector, or even just a private national nonprofit, in the health insurance sector, which is why we do not have a "public option." The private sector can not produce a profitable system of real and actual health insurance for all Americans, and therefore is more expense for any American who partakes in it. It is an example of human necessity that can only be handled by society itself.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. You are right, though, Jersey: This human necessity can only be handled by society, not government.

      Delete
    3. Dennis frequently writes in code... for those who may be confused by this, I have decoded the 2 previous comments of Dennis below...

      Dennis Decoded 1: And the sound of Democracy Endorsing from the above comment stamped "Wed Jan 22, 09:14:00 PM EST" is deafening (and I hate it). Yes, only when the plutocrats have all the power, will the people truly be enslaved (which I strongly desire).

      Dennis Decoded 2: You are right, though, Jersey: This human necessity can only be handled by the plutocrats for great profit, not the people.

      Delete
    4. We're so fortunate to have the whiz decoder (no doubt paid by some organization of progressive thought) present to englightened all us folks who just don't get it like the elitist statist Mr. Sanders.

      Thanks for you burp Mr. Sanders.

      Delete
    5. dmarks is a Big Daddy State conservative, with a weird PC streak mixed in...

      JMJ

      Delete
    6. And quite a belch it was. Burp Sanders, master of strawmen, frequently does rewrite others' statements...or in this case, make up both the opponent and opposing arguments.

      Delete
    7. No big daddy state conservative here... PC streak? Perhaps from when I called you on your nasty immigrant bashing,Jersey.

      Delete
    8. I'm for "defanging" third-party payers (government AND private insurers) as much as humanly possible and having the consumer make the decisions directly (through either mandated health savings accounts or subsidies to the poor). It is the only way to decrease cost (without the government and private insurers rationing services) and increase the quality of services. Yes, there will ultimately be a need for insurance but it will take the form of what insurance was initially intended for; actual emergencies.

      Delete
    9. While I tend to agree with you Will you do know this is never going to happen in our lifetimes, right?

      Delete
    10. Thought about this a little more, when Jersey said... "...with a weird PC streak mixed in..."

      This might have arisen when I pointed out your repeated use of the term "fa**ot" to refer to gay people. This is actually nothing to do with PC, and everything to do with a rather disparaging term. The people who murdered Matthew Shepard said things like this during the attack: "How do you like this, faggot?" and "Kill that faggot.". That is the kind of company someone gets into when they think it is fine to hate on gay people with this kind of crap.

      PC? That's getting bent out of shape over calling illegal aliens illegal aliens, and using meaningless crap like "undocumented workers". That's something you do.... that's your weird PC streak, not mine. Or the semantic somersaults where someone thinks that "people of color" is different from "colored". You have done that also, Jersey. Torture of the language.

      Delete
    11. Will said: "having the consumer make the decisions directly"

      That is 'we the people': when the people make these decisions directly. Letting the rulers take over our personal lives and make these decisions for us is the wrong way to go.

      "and increase the quality of services."

      Will, glad you mention that. That seems to be furthest from the mind of those who want "single payer"... it seems their main goal is to maximize central authority.

      Delete
  8. dmarks, I assume you meant " shoot and kill you" for not doing business wit it (federal government) rhetorically?

    Our federal government does have a proper place in our affairs as delineated in The Constition of the United States of America.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I deleted the content due to word salad typos. Anyway, it is not rhetorical. People do face violence if they refuse to pay taxes/fees, resist arrest, etc.

    The federal govt does have a place. I don't think it includes running everything. And its Constitutionally granted ability to use violence and coercion against citizens is another good reason why its power must be limited, held in check...as the Constitution recognizes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "violence and coercion' concept vs constitutional rights is
      not new . violence and coercion have been both violent and coercive, say compared to having to have
      health insurance.

      Delete
    2. Proves my point...if the cops come after you for this new "crime" of not buying an expensive service that you don't need....

      Delete
    3. To each their own. I worry far more about Wells Fargo.

      Delete
  10. Is is reasonable to think that as society grows in numbers and complexity the government would (and perhaps ought to) grow as well in some ways? I don't have the answer and it is likely no one person does. Unfortunately the advocates of differing views are unable to come together today and resolve the issue for the times we live in.

    Too little government won't work and too much government won't work on America either. I believe the least government that is reasonably possible is best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN: Government should grow as the population grows, right? Which isn't to endorse the progressives' desire for skyrocketing govt-sector growth way out of proportion to the population... agree?

      Delete
    2. The perception about government size is a bit misleading.

      Delete
    3. Me - "Is is reasonable to think that as society grows in numbers and complexity the government would (and perhaps ought to) grow as well in some ways? "

      I am a constitutionalist dmarks. I believe the founders were ingenious in the crafting of the U.S. Constitution.

      The principles of the Constitution need not change over time, however, the complexity of our society, its size, its requirements, and the demands placed on government by the people require adaptation to the changing parameters due to the changing times.

      Almost as soon as the ink had dried on the Constitution people began placing thinking about ways to interpret the constitution to suit their own needs, and wants. Fortunately the framers were intelligent and talented enough to create a document that served as a framework and guideline for our republic. Given the founders placed the power of the purse in the elected representatives hands it is reasonable to think (at least to me anyway) they fully intended for the people to be heard.

      Given the intellect of our founders It is unlikely their intent was that the Constitution remain a monolithic stone, impervious to the winds of change. In fact the amendment process as well as the republican form of government they set up was designed to effect adaptation to our government desired by the people. With the Constitution serving as a Framework and Guideline. As much as I, you, or Mr. Sanders, and maybe (O0CT(O)PUS would personally prefer otherwise if this republic is to survive another 200 years COMPROMISE between opposing views will have to once again become the norm rather than the exception.

      If I have offended anyone by my comments in the preceding paragraph my apology, however, it is my position, it has always been my position, it will remain my position, and if someone or anyone doesn't like that there is more than one way to look at and judge an issue so be it.

      Delete
    4. You term yourself Rational with justification.

      Delete
    5. He does do a good job trying to live up to the promise of that moniker.

      Delete
  11. You should worry less about vague arbitrary size, and more about what specifically it should or shouldn't do.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. The size of the bureacratic class matters less than their abuse of power...

      Delete
  12. dmarks, "Exactly. The size of the bureacratic class matters less than their abuse of power..."

    Perhaps if our electorate were to, let us say just for shits and grins, become more educated, actually care enough about their own interests to vote, and turned out to vote in the say 85% plus range things might e different.

    Not holding my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dennis complains about "straw men" but then moves on to imagined "immigrant bashing" from Jersey... oh, the irony! I do recall what comment Dennis refers to, and how he characterizes it is complete bullpucky. But his mischaracterizations are OK, while my correct characterizations are "straw men".

    And, there is "no doubt" that I'm being paid for my straw men... according to RN. Since RN is never wrong, perhaps he can send me some money via Paypal? No one else is paying me, so SOMEONE has to send me money for RN to be right. And, since no one else is going to do it... What about $200, RN? My email is in my profile.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Since RN is never wrong..."

    Well, no Mr. Sanders. Apparently you have me confused with someone else.

    But it does seem YOU are one of those individuals that perhaps thought YOU were wrong once only to find out YOU were mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The concepts of who, what, where, when, and why so often do escape the grasp of Mr. Burp Sanders, RN.

      Delete
  15. Will: ...having the consumer make the decisions directly (through either mandated health savings accounts or subsidies to the poor).

    And price controls? They are why the costs for medical procedures in Singapore are so low. That, and the fact that the government owns a majority of the hospitals (when you look at available beds) Socialism and not Competition is behind the success of the Singapore system.

    Dennis: That is 'we the people': when the people make these decisions directly. Letting the rulers take over our personal lives and make these decisions for us is the wrong way to go.

    Baloney. What you're talking about is "me the individual" "making decisions" to do what the plutocrats tell them. When "We the People" (via our elected officials) make no decision then the decision is made by the plutocrats. Groups of people have power. Individuals do NOT have enough power to make policy for an entire nation. They only gain that power when they voice their opinion through government (the group the represents THE PEOPLE). Dennis opposes this (and says the decisions should be made by virtually powerless individuals) because he wants the plutocrats making the decisions. It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is this simple Mr. Sanders...

      1) Ultimately the individual has control of their life, actions, activities.

      2) Decisions individuala make have consequences, either intended , unintended, or both.

      3) Individuals are responsible for and accountable for the decisions they make. Whether they be informed or uninformed.

      4) Oligarchs and Plutocrats make decisions of individuals only if individuals in society allow them to.

      5) The government in the USA has become an Oligarchy on its way to becoming a Plutocracy.

      6) Progressives are fine with the state controlling our lives, so are consevatives. As long as the control matrix is of their design and controlled by their ideology.

      7) Libertarians (the real bonafide libertarians) are advocates of individualism and thus individuals controlling their own lives with government involvement limited to that required to maintain a civil society.

      This debate will continue long after we are gone. Note that things are cyclical.

      Cheerio Mr. Sanders, life is short.

      Delete
    2. Libertarians are under the delusion that individuals acting individually have power. It's what the plutocrats want you to believe. This is why Libertarianism vilifies "the state"... it is the only institution that can keep the plutocrats in check (and it represents THE PEOPLE who the plutocrats want to force into serfdom). Libertarians are OK with the plutocrats controlling their lives (and they welcome the slavery this represents)... although they've been fooled into thinking slavery is "freedom" and "individual liberty". Libertarianism is the surest and most direct route to oligarchy/plutocracy, but some still argue passionately that we can win by surrendering.

      Delete
    3. Mr. Sanders, you are indeed welcome to your conspiratorial bullshit beliefs. Certainly if you can convince others of your ilk and mindset you are right in this you will have a following. Should that happen you will no doubt feel validated and proud. Rightfully so.

      Now, I must inform you, your conspiratorial bullshit beliefs are not considered as having any merit in this forum. You may continue posting your vomit here but be advised it, being vomit, will not be responded to by this INDIVIDUAL in the future. Others may respond as they like should the choose to respond at all.

      Delete
  16. RN: yeah, i DID read all that. I didn't find anything that was true about libertarians or their philosophy.

    I will correct his statement "and says the decisions should be made by virtually powerless individuals".

    He used his pet name "Dennis" for me. Which is not offensive. But rest assured, when he is using his pet names such as "Dennis" or "Lester", he is in full a**hole mode.

    No, I believe these personal decisions should be made by individuals who are quite powerful, due to their rights being protected by the Constitution's "Bill of Rights" or any similar or related framework. Because I oppose a strong state, it means that I oppose the necessary consequence of a strong state: the weak/powerless individual.

    "...although they've been fooled into thinking slavery is "freedom" and "individual liberty""

    Dervish Sanders would do well to read George Orwell's 1984, which he appears to be quoting from, perhaps unwittingly. It was Orwell's commentary on the abuse of a strong, probably socialistic (according to Orwell) state. The belief that "freedom is slavery" is one that is forced by the state that Dervish Sanders thinks it is wrong to vilify. And anyone who believes that the way to stop plutocrats (identified by Dervish Sanders as small businesses, school boards, doctors) is with a strong state is an extremely gullible "bootlicker": the exact type of person who is first in line saying "Yes SIR!" when stuff really went bad in Mao's China.... 1990s Serbia... Lenin's Russia, or mid 20th century Germany.

    Anyway, when it comes to the choice between vilifying the state, and vilifying the individual (as Dervish Sanders has done above), I clearly make the first choice.

    ReplyDelete
  17. ...read George Orwell's 1984... It was Orwell's commentary on the abuse of a strong, probably socialistic (according to Orwell) state.

    George Orwell was a outspoken supporter of democratic socialism.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hello all there in this dusty place.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.