Wal-Mart Wins.

I'm afraid i don't know any of the details of the case (a link to an article about it would be nice...), but i will say this: My company pays for a portion of my healthcare - granted, I still have to pay for a lot of it, but they do still pay for some.

In corporate America, the benefits package you get with your employer is almost as important as your annual salary - a fact emphasized by the calculations of "total compensation" over just salary.

Without knowing the details behind the case, i can't say which way i feel is better than the other... however, i do want to say that Walmart isn't really a stepping stone, as you claim it to be. People work there when they're young and still in school, same as a lot of other places, and their employment after graduation usually has nothing at all to do with their job at Walmart. (in fact, if all you did during school was work at Walmart, it would be a hindrance to you when compared to students who had internships and work in related fields). The other group of people who work there are those who are pretty much not going anywhere with their lives - if the 30-something single mother of 3 working the checkout line could be in a better paying job, don't you think she already would? And how does working in the checkout line help you to get a better job?

So finally, i think that Walmart *should* operate like most of corporate America in terms of the benefits package... but it also probably shouldn't be forced to do so by the government.

 

Hmmm. As always, it comes down to a matter of who should bear a particular cost. In this case, who pays for the employee's health insurance, Wal-Mart or the employee? And there are rational arguments for each. If Wal-Mart pays for it, overall, it's likely to be cheaper, because of the tremendous pressure Wal-Mart could put onto an insurer to keep costs lower. If the employees pay for it, then costs will likely be higher, but then Wal-Mart isn't paying for employees who may seldom if ever use the coverage.

What do I think? I'd prefer an employee opt-in sponsored by Wal-Mart. Probably with the employee paying at least 50%, if not 100% of the cost (not counting administrative overhead that Wal-Mart would pay if they do anything). However, since it would be under a group plan, the cost would be lower than if the employee were to buy their own coverage individually.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 22 2007, 09:22 AM) [snapback]379010[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jan 22 2007, 09:51 AM) [snapback]379030[/snapback]</div>

The Baltimore Sun - Md. Wal-Mart law dealt second defeat

 

I think basic health care should be covered by the government.

 

The way Wal-Mart maintains low prices is by getting substantial tax and other concessions from towns and cities, by buying from low-cost suppliers (some using sweat shop and child labor) and by aggressively controlling costs. Some of you may remember the lawsuits that Wal-Mart lost over making employees work overtime "off the clock". They also don't provide much in the way of benefits to employees, including health insurance, the cost of which is often transferred to states.

The US health care system has evolved into offering health insurance through employment and few people have the option of buying in to insurance on their own - believe me, I know! Wal-Mart's opting out of this generally accepted business practice in order to obtain a market-place advantage doesn't impress me.

Although the recent ruling overturns one attempt to control Wal-Mart's transfer of costs, the bigger question is whether or not Wal-Mart's business model is sustainable given the level to which they are subsidised by local taxes.

Adoption of a US national health care system would remove this one burden for those unfortunate enough not to have insurance through employment or be well enough paid to buy it out of their own pocket. It would also level the playing field for other retail stores and put Wal-Mart's business practices into proper perspective.

Mike

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 22 2007, 03:48 PM) [snapback]379094[/snapback]</div>

I would trust the government with medical information before I would trust a corporation. Are you against government involvement in health care because of their alleged incompetency, or because it's a step on the slippery slope towards communism? Are you against insurance of all forms, or only health?

 

well, i've got lots of mixed feelings on the whole health insurance realm after our summer/fall of horror.

as far as wal-mart and health insurance go, i think it's reasonable for them to go to an insurer and at least bargain a good rate for their employees, even if they only are paying for 1% of each employee's premium. they've got fantastic bargaining power, given the number of people they'd be looking to insure. it would be helpful for their employees' well being and you'd think that would be sufficient motivation. [edit: and before i get hit for that comment, i know it isn't, and that profit is king, and all that...] i know small businesses and even my graduate school have a hard time securing decent premiums because the group is small.

but... i don't think the government has a place in mandating whether or not employers offer health insurance benefits.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 22 2007, 12:38 PM) [snapback]378991[/snapback]</div>

Well, the state was suing because Wal-Mart is basically offloading its healthcare costs by having its employees apply for state assistance. So instead of Wal-Mart paying for its employees' coverage, you and I do with our taxes. Obviously good for Wal-Mart's shareholders, but aggravating to the states.

 

Healthcare should be 100% free for U.S. citizens (and various appropriate classifications thereof). Our government is given the task of protecting us and our borders, why should it not encompass our personal health? The healthier/happier we are, the more productive. If we can fund Iraq/Afghanistan on an almost whim, to the tune of 96 billion +, we can fund universal healthcare. ...and it should encompass everything but cosmetic procedures.

maybe even implement some tax mechanism as to where if you're rich enough to pay 100% for your own health care, you get to deduct, dollar for dollar, from your taxes. Pay for someone ELSE'S health care, and you can deduct 2... No one should have to liquidate all their assets before the gov. starts picking up the tab...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jan 22 2007, 12:51 PM) [snapback]379030[/snapback]</div>

Well, I don't know about all foreign countries, but there are some where you have health care under the government so the manufacturer doesn't have to offer a health care plan. I also believe America is one of the few countries that not only has privatized health care, I.E. insurance but that it is a "for profit" business.

People who work should have health care. It makes monetary sense as it saves money in the long run. The problem in this country is who should pay. An employee making minimum wage cannot afford to pay the costs of an individual health care plan. Then there's medicine. Then there's why we're not allowed to buy medicine from Canada, even though it was made in the U.S. A. (And people in Canada aren't dieing from taking their meds so they must be safe.)

It's a big, complicated problem. But one thing is for sure. Health care in the U.S. is not working. Not for the working poor.

 

We Can't Make It Here Anymore

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 22 2007, 05:17 PM) [snapback]379147[/snapback]</div>

You're making ASSumptions again - at no time did I say I supported tapping my phone, reading my mail, or sending troops to Iraq.
I'm Canadian. I pay $108 per month for health insurance for a family of four. We can go to the doctor whenever we feel it's necessary, and have whatever tests, procedures, and operations they feel are warranted. No extra bill. Works for me.

 

OK, let me see if I'm reading the Neocon playbook correctly:

1) Your employer should NOT be paying for your health insurance. You should pay for it yourself.

2) There should be no minimum wage. Hey, if three bucks a week is good enough for China, it should be good enough here for menial jobs.

3) The Government should not be paying for your health insurance, either. If you can't afford it, you don't deserve it.

Why don't just shoot people for being poor? It would be a lot quicker.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Jan 22 2007, 05:57 PM) [snapback]379170[/snapback]</div>

Why shoot them when you can turn them into indentured servants through medical bill debt?