The following appeared in a New York Times editorial:
Target has announced it will no longer provide health insurance for part-timers but will send them to the health care exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act. The change could help low-income workers who will have access to subsidized coverage. It might distress middle-income workers ineligible for a big subsidy, and it is likely to be bad news for taxpayers, who will foot the bill for the coverage Target had provided. But the biggest unanswered question is this: Will Target raise wages to make up for the loss of the company contribution? As a matter of fairness, it should.
Target is joining other companies that have cut health benefits for part-timers. Virtually all complain their health care costs are rising, and some blame health care reform. But the percentage of employers who offer health coverage for part-timers has been declining since 2007, well before the reform was enacted in 2010, and the creation of exchanges now gives them a place to send workers.
Target will not reveal how many such part-timers make up its 361,000 workforce, how much it has been paying toward their premiums, how rich or sparse its benefits are, or how much it will save by dropping this coverage. The most Target will say is that fewer than 36,000 workers are enrolled in its part-time plan.
It's impossible to say how many will flood into the exchanges by April 1, when their coverage is discontinued. Target is easing their transition by making a one-time cash payment of $500 to workers currently enrolled. Target says it will not reduce the hours of full-time workers in an effort to send more of them to the exchanges.
If a large number of companies were to drop coverage for part-timers, federal spending for health care would rise and taxes likely would rise to pay the bill.