

Walmart is hiring only temps at many stores - sinnerswing
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lauraheller/2013/06/14/obamacare-is-turning-walmart-workers-into-temps/

======
run4yourlives
Linking basic* health care to employment as a default is ridiculously stupid.
There is no real relation between a person's health and their job.

You can either view basic health care as a benefit to society as a whole, like
a highway or a fire truck, and socialize it, or you can view it as a product
for sale.

Viewing it as a benefit of a particular employment is not logical. This is
like trying to mandate that your employer pay for your car insurance... there
is no connection of mutual benefit.

Basic health care needs to be connected to the individual, while "extended
health care" (or additional options, etc) can certainly be offered as a
benefit. The employer _does_ have an interest in you getting back to work
faster, being in better health than the average, reducing the stress of your
medical issue, etc, etc.

Interestingly enough, a socialized (single payer/universal, etc.) system of
basic health care with privatized add on's and extras is _basically the way
every civilized society on the planet operates except the USA_.

*You can define "basic" differently, but for my argument I mean a level of care that ensures a respectable level of heath is maintained... usually it is simply seeing health care as a human "right" and therefore not subject to withholding by the state or other actors.

~~~
bargl
You say that it isn't logical, but logic isn't your argument it's an argument
of basic human rights (which I tend to agree with you on).

To play the devils advocate, linking health care to your job means that
productive citizens are being taken care of. This fosters a "survival of the
fittest" situation.

That isn't really how it plays out, but I think that's the allure to many of
us Americans. I've spoken with others who who believe that you must work to
earn certain things, such as health care. It is often toted that people who
are obese, smoke, do drugs, and participate in other health risks are more
likely to be on government aid than those who "earn" it. They use this fear of
being taken advantage of to fuel a desire a knee-jerk reaction to health care.

Yet there are valid concerns. Especially with the migration of such an
entrenched system.

If the US government is going to take on Health Care that money needs to come
from funds already in the budget. The US government is poised on the edge of
failure, the only thing keeping us going is a mass _faith_ in the ability of
the government to pay back it's loans, and thus receive more.

Also this points to a bigger break in the system. US Agencies (I can't speak
to foreign agencies) incentivise the spending of your _whole_ budget. If you
don't spend it all then obviously you don't need it all. This creates a mad
spending rush at the end of the fiscal year and an atmosphere where you have
not only the _right_ but the obligation to spend your budget.

I think a lot of people are intimidated by the concept of introducing another
burden to the US budget when we are already incentivising the wrong thing.

I think if we could cut back the budget in other areas, this would make it
possible to introduce a true health program.

I'm only touching on a few reasons why this isn't being done immediately. I do
think that our defense budget is outlandish and could be put directly towards
health care, but that is a huge transition in the work force. That is soldiers
to medicare specialists. That sort of transition will take time.

~~~
sentenza
To me, as a European, your summary of the US-perspective on health care
explains a lot. Over here, universal health care is supported by public
opinion, mostly because it is seen as a question of ethics (with a healthy
dose of "it could happen to me" hedging).

The consensus here is that society has to take care of the sick, independently
of the circumstances of their life. It is important to note that I wrote
society, not state. The state is seen as the agent through which society
effects this, not the principal actor. The fact that it is seen as a question
of ethics and a part of "we the society" probably also explains the rather
vitriolic contributions that some of my European compatriots provide in
discussions on the US health care situation (even though it is probably none
of our business).

~~~
ElongatedTowel
But health care is linked to employment in most parts of Europe as well.
Unemployment benefits allow you to pay for it but if you those run out or you
don't take benefit of them for some reason (say you live on the street) you're
out of luck.

Hell, even if you have a job you might have to pay for health care yourself
due to certain circumstances and if you're in monetary trouble you might not
be able to do so.

Not to forget that freelancing or self-employment might bring you to the point
were beeing unemployed is more beneficial to you because you have to pay for
everything yourself with much higher rates.

~~~
sentenza
Many details of the implementation are different in the individual states of
the EU, since the health sector has so far not been harmonized. My experience
is from Germany, where there exists a mixed system in which you are not
allowed to have no health insurance. If you are self-employed or earn enough,
you can switch to a private insurance company.

You brought up one very important thing when you wrote about monetary trouble
and self-employment. Because even a mandatory insurance scheme as the one in
Germany has holes in it. I recently learned that, if you are self-employed,
have private health care and run into financial trouble, you can end up in a
state of "inactive health insurance", where you still have basic health
insurance, but you always have to go to the emergency ward at the hospital. So
far, a few ten thousand people are affected by this (out of 80 Million), but
it is a de facto hole in the system.

However, when I point this latter situation out to people around here they
usually become quite enraged. In a way, this reinforces my point about the
perception of health care as an ethics issue.

~~~
ElongatedTowel
> where there exists a mixed system in which you are not allowed to have no
> health insurance

True. If you don't have one you have to pay a fine. Which is troubling if you
couldn't pay for it in the first place. I have that problem at the moment. I
guess it's mostly my fault for not taking every help I could get. So far I
haven't gotten any troubling mail, but I'm sure I'll be in trouble once I have
to get back into it.

Everyone around me feels uneasy about this. I didn't have the need to go to
the doctor in a very long time, but I can relate.

------
quux
They were doing this long before Obama even ran for president. I remember
first hearing about this in the early 2000's

~~~
smackfu
Yeah, Walmart is infamous for restricting people to part-time hours so they
don't have to provide benefits.

But of course this is a Forbes blog, and who knows what the political slant of
the blogger is.

~~~
nawitus
A working solution is to make the government provide the benefits, which is
what Scandinavian countries tend to do.

------
buddylw
Yet another example where perverse incentives lead to unintended effects.

The problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't address the primary problem:
health insurance is tied to employment.

Until we get past that we are going to have a broken system where the customer
is not the customer. The insurance company and then your employers are the
customer.

~~~
don_draper
I think you got it wrong. The exchanges may be a first step in separating
healthcare from employers. If I can buy into an exchange there is less risk
for me. The risk is spread throughout the exchange. As a want-a-be
entrepreneur I think the current system stinks

~~~
jpadkins
It might be a step, but the obvious first step is remove the laws that make
employer based insurance so much more attractive. Specifically the huge tax
advantage, and group insurance laws. The whole ACA is a really complicated
partial fix to the employer - healthcare problem.

------
Shivetya
Which conveniently hides the fact that many state and local governments are
cutting hours to do the same business is doing. Wal Mart gets called out
because of past activities amongst major unions to denigrate them because of
their anti-union stance. The idea being, get the biggest retailer and the rest
fall into line.

However they merely reflect what many other type of employers do, they just
are more noticeable because of their size.

------
jcomis
Walmart is turning walmart workers into temps, not Obamacare. What an awful
title from Forbes.

~~~
masklinn
Technically not Forbes though, a forbes.com blogger.

I don't get why they keep running the thing though, it's systematically
garbage, are the hits so much more important than the forbes brand?

~~~
cantankerous
I think it's some kind of give and take. More hits for Forbes and you can
piggyback off their name. I'm kinda vexed by the entire thing. I hear people
say they've been mentioned "by Forbes" or that "they're in Forbes", but really
they're on this blog site. It seems dishonest somehow, but I'm not sure how or
if that's the right label. I think Forbes is really risking their online brand
with this stuff. It's not always super clear what's a blog and what's a Forbes
writer.

------
lucisferre
Pretty sure Walmart is doing that.

~~~
masklinn
And was doing it long before obamacare.

------
grecy
Why on earth would anyone think tying healthcare to your employer is a good
idea?

Surely care should be available to all - if you are the CEO of a fortune 500,
a temp at Walmart or even unemployed.

~~~
sp332
Who pays for it?

~~~
grecy
The same people that pay for other essential basic services like roads,
firetrucks, police, elementary schools, judges, etc. etc. etc. - i.e. everyone
through taxes.

~~~
sp332
If I pull a fire alarm when there's no fire, I get fined. If I speed on the
highway or run a tollbooth without paying, I get fined. If I decide not to go
to elementary school, I get fined.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truancy#United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truancy#United_States)
Who decides what health care I have access to, and what health care I'm
required to take (vaccines, vitamins, exercise, etc)?

~~~
run4yourlives
Have you lived outside of the US at all? Perhaps in a country with universal
health care?

I only ask because anyone who has knows that in a vast majority of examples,
the simple act of guaranteeing basic care has nothing at all to do with the
questions you raise, in the same way that not paying to use the interstate has
nothing to do with you being able to drive to your friend's house for free.

~~~
sp332
Grecy didn't say any of that. I'm responding to two comments: 1. "Surely care
should be available to all" and 2. "everyone through taxes".

~~~
run4yourlives
Yes, but given that variants of this system are in place all over the world,
your questions have already been answered a hundred times over, should you
choose to look for the answers.

~~~
sp332
Yeah there are a lot of different ones. I'm asking for grecy's opinion. Anyway
if you want my "answer", I think we shouldn't do it. Tyranny can be much more
efficient than democracy but that doesn't mean it's reliable. Same with
socialized healthcare. Corruption is too easy and too damaging to gamble with.

~~~
run4yourlives
If you want my answer, I think your opinion is ignorant and ignores basic fact
in favour of ideology for ideology's sake. Unless of course you also support
disbanding the entire US Armed Forces (you know, those guys with guns and
stuff that can literally destroy anything that we've socialized?), your stance
is hypocritical.

You are the epitome of the exact thing that you fear, and you don't even seem
to realize it.

~~~
sp332
edited: If I were doing ideology for ideology's sake, I would support
disbanding the whole US armed forces. But in capitulation to "fact" I only
support getting rid of most of it. I'm not in favor of the military-
industrial-congressional complex.

edit2: what does the military have to do with socialism, anyway?

~~~
run4yourlives
>what does the military have to do with socialism, anyway?

How, exactly do you pay for a military?

How, exactly do you pay for universal healthcare?

Why is the implementation of one okie-dokie and the other the "path to
tyranny"?

~~~
sp332
I'm OK with a military being strictly limited by laws to prevent abuse. Not so
much with healthcare.

------
vannevar
The title is completely unsupported by the content of the article, which
presents no evidence that Obamacare is prompting the practice of hiring part-
time workers. In fact, it clearly states that Walmart supported Obamacare
because it fit with their part-time worker strategy, _which was already in
place._ The article also states

"The recovering economy could also help force Walmart, and other like-minded
employers, to back off this policy and hire full-time workers with benefits."

------
GamingGollum
Actually, there are a lot of companies being forced into this, not just Wal-
Mart. Most full-time jon vacancies are being simply deleted or relegated to
two part-time employees because of the mandate in this legislation.

There's nothing political about the truth. To not recognize (or admit) the
connection between the two is serious head-in-the-sand syndrome.

