Sometimes I guess this party just doesn’t want to be in power. After watching certain wings of the Republican party explode with rage regarding the extra-legal and idiotic attempts to craft legislation solely to insert themselves inthe Schiavo marriage, you would think Democrats would take the hint. Instead, some are cheerleading this nonsense:
Maryland lawmakers yesterday approved legislation that would effectively require Wal-Mart to boost spending on health care, a direct legislative thrust against a corporate giant that is already on the defensive on many fronts nationwide.
“We’re looking for responsible businesses to ante up . . . and provide adequate health care,” said Sen. Thomas M. Middleton (D-Charles), the Finance Committee chairman, as the Senate approved the measure with a majority wide enough to survive an anticipated veto. A similar bill has cleared the House of Delegates, and legislators expect to reconcile their differences easily.
Lawmakers said they did not set out to single out Wal-Mart when they drafted a bill requiring organizations with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health benefits — or put the money directly into the state’s health program for the poor.
But as debate raged in the Senate yesterday, it was clear that the giant retailer, which has 15,000 workers in Maryland, was the only company that would be affected.
All your business are belong to us. Really, though (*wink*), they didn’t know that Wal-Mart would be the only company effected. They just pulled the number 10,000 out of the air.
Fine choice. Government control of your marriage and medical decisions, or government control of your business and economic choices. Let’s just throw all these bastards out of office. What makes it so inexplicable is that at the same time they were passing bills designed to control occupational issues, they recognize the value of individual liberty in some areas:
Other portions of the Democrats’ agenda targeted their progressive base. With the domestic partners bill, they gave unmarried partners, including gay couples, the right to make health decisions for each other.
And then reverted back to nanny state form:
The legislature set in place a host of new restrictions on teen drivers that came in response to a rash of road deaths in the Washington region over the past six months. A measure barring novice teen drivers from carrying teenage passengers who are not family members reached the governor’s desk, as did a bill prohibiting teens from using cell phones while driving during the 18-month provisional license period.
Explain.
Marco
Term limits – a simplistic solution perhaps. Maybe not a solution at all — but we need people in government who have run a business recently. Or done something within the last decade or so that will allow them to see how regular people live and work.
The Dems and GOP are both so damn out of step with reality that it really boggles the mind.
Nash
I don’t get paid enough to explain, let alone excuse, hypocrisy. If Maryland Democrats think they can win hearts by trashing big business, it will be fun to watch the implosion. Americans really really do not dislike success. Why is that so hard to see?
Nash
Which brings up another thought, John. I think it’s mostly a rhetorical hook for you to link this to disasterous moves by Republicans of late, but there is little true linkage. I’m certain you don’t truly expect Democrats to suddenly develop an ability to argue from the middle where they’ve never shown such an ability in the past. They may do it in time, but a few months, nay, years of Republican overstepping will not turn Democrats into politically savvy world-beaters overnight. They have a lot of political incompetence inertia to overcome.
DecidedFenceSitter
Because they’ve never claimed to be anything other than pro-civil rights for those on the outskirts of society, and pro-worker’s benefits?
Note, I’m highly biased because I hate Wal-Mart for a wide variety of reasons from salary, to where they buy from, to how much they donate as a percentage of profits, to how they treat their workers to, to, to.
But if having a nanny state means having Wal-Mart and those like it provide a living wage and health insurance I’m willing to make that trade. Beats the Laissez-Faire attitude of the early 1900s.
Bob Munck
You’re saying that Democrats are working against *individual* liberty because they’re going after Walmart? Are you insane? Do you realize that there’s a difference between the numbers “1” and “10,000”?
Frank
John- This is indeed the kind of thing Democrats do that I don’t like. If Republicans weren’t all about torture, invasions, no-bid contracts, massively increasing the national debt, and putting the Pharisees in charge of the justice system, it might cost the Democrats my vote.
In their defense Maryland legislators probably had noticed that Wal-Mart was costing them a lot of social services money, possibly more than they pay in taxes. I’m not endorsing their solution, but I understand it better than I would have before Bush radicalized me.
Kimmitt
The health care law is an extremely crappy proposed law to address a real problem, which is that Wal-Mart’s business model rather explicitly includes a shifting of health care costs to the State. Unfortunately, the solution, which is for Wal-Mart to be prosecuted for its illegal union-busting tactics, is not viable. Even so, this is a poor stopgap solution.
A measure barring novice teen drivers from carrying teenage passengers who are not family members reached the governor’s desk,
That’s a bit excessive, but again, studies have shown that passengers are one of the two or three massive risk factors for teens driving. Good reason, bad law.
a bill prohibiting teens from using cell phones while driving during the 18-month provisional license period.
You know as well as I do that cell phone usage in cars represents a major risk factor.
Sounds like Maryland needs to start paying its legislators more. Maybe they’ll find people with both hearts in the right place and brains in their heads.
John Cole
Kimmitt- I agree and disagree about cell phones. It is not the cell phone, per se, but the cognitive interference created by using cell phones. This is why banning cell phone usage is actually counter-productive, because people then buy hands free cell phones and think they are safe, and they are as dangerous as before- perhaps more so, as they do not recognize the danger.
DecidedFenceSitter
As a Northern Virginia Commuter, they don’t recogonize the danger now. Or rather they recogonize it, they just don’t care.
Rocky Smith
You people simply don’t need to use cell phones while driving- even if they are hands free units. Distractions are dangerous and sometimes fatal when piloting a huge chunk of metal. What did you all do before cell phones came along? Sheesh! You can’t even grocery shop without having one of the damn things in hand. Can’t you go for five minutes without yaking with your friends? I’m sick of them!
Kimmitt
then buy hands free cell phones
We haven’t seen the law; perhaps that is addressed as well.
JKC
I’m not for legislation aimed at particular corporations or individuals, either. But look at this article and you can see the states’ point of view: Medicaid costs are killing state and local budgets (especially in NY, where I live) and it must be galling to discover that a company that already gets huge tax breaks in many cases costing taxpayers additional money in Medicaid costs.
Translation: there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Those “low low prices” come at a cost.
Mikey
Explain? Okay, how’s this – Because deep, deep in their hearts is a longing for William Jennings Bryan and a good whack at those nasty plutocrats, despite the fact that it is not 1896.
Jim Anchower
For all the conservatives who thought they were losing Mr. Cole to the awful librooools, don’t worry.
Anybody that thinks Wal*Mart isn’t bad for workers, rejects data that shows teen boys die at a higher rate when they’re driving/goofing around with their buddies and thinks it out of line to allow a hospitalized person to be visited by and have decisions made for them by their intimate partner will never leave the GOP.
Remember – if you’re out of a job, sick and in need of an education – vote Republican! They will make sure gays can’t marry, your kids will be allowed to pray in school and you can own as many automatic weapons as you want.
Randolph Fritz
“Do you realize that there’s a difference between the numbers “1” and “10,000”?
It is exactly the libertarian argument that there is none. And that is why I am not a libertarian.
ppgaz
Can someone please get up the numbers that show what the legions of WalMart workers, without health coverage, are costing taxpayers in terms of public assistance?
In what model of the world is it a good idea to allow employers to shirk their responsibilities to employees, and shove those responsibilities onto taxpayers?
People who work at WalMart cannot afford anything but the most elementary medical care. Who pays, when they or their family members, get really sick and there is no insurance to defray the costs?
I’d like to see something besides worn-out Limbaughian rhetoric on topics like these, and get some comprehensive facts that frame a sensible set of policies.
Ridge
“Explain.”
I have no comment about cell phone use, but Maryland is taking steps to make sure its taxpayers, in these times of tight budgets, are not subsidizing the multibillion dollar profits of an out of state corporation.
The only question should be, do citizens of Maryland need affordable healthcare? Yes or no?
If yes, how is it paid for with the lying, free lunch “No new taxes/govt is the problem” mentality?
If no, then how will the social costs of ill, poorly paid workforces be covered?
WalMart says No, let the other suckers pay for it. Our business model is based on passing costs off to others while we reap the rewards. Our billions depend on keeping unions out, low balling wages, high worker turnover, and undercutting the local retailers.
General Motors is beginning to say Yes and building the pressure for universal health care since it can’t compete with foreign makers who are subsidized by their nation’s health care system.
See-
GM Boss Rips U.S. Healthcare System
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=7492
Japan’s health care gives Toyota edge; country picks up tab for automaker’s retirees
http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=102080
Plain fact is, some form of universal health care is necessary if the American Middle class is to survive. Now even bankruptcy due to medical bills will no longer be allowed thanks to the GOP. What do they care? Congressmen, ivory tower think tank inhabitants, columnists, and stock brokers have great health insurance. Those people at WalMart or on the line at GM should have been smart enough to get on the “conservative” gravy train in the 70’s.
While Maryland’s solution may not be the best and might not stand up in court, it at least recognizes the problem. If WalMart is registered as a corporation with the State of Maryland or has a business license
John Cole
Anybody that thinks Wal*Mart isn’t bad for workers, rejects data that shows teen boys die at a higher rate when they’re driving/goofing around with their buddies and thinks it out of line to allow a hospitalized person to be visited by and have decisions made for them by their intimate partner will never leave the GOP.
Wow. Wholly loads of misrepresenting things.
A.) I don;t think the government should be writing special legislation telling corporastions how to budget. Has nothing to do with Wal-Mart- ither than this was specially crafted for one company, which bothers me even more.
B.) I don’t reject the data about the dangers- I believe that either they should raise the driving age to 18, or butt out. I guess I just don’t think the government should be in the business of deciding WHO should be in your car. You apparently do.
C.) I don;t think it is out of line for intimate partners to have access. Did you even read my post- I attacked the GOP for getting involved in these decisions, and applaudded the Maryland Democrats for this law.
I have had some trolls, but you take the cake.
John Cole
Do you realize that there’s a difference between the numbers “1” and “10,000”?
If you don’t realize that lawmakers inserting themselves into the budgetary process of private corporations owned by private shareholders employing an all-voluntray workforce is an infringement upon individual liberty, I have nothing to say.
Personally, if I were a business owner, I would do everything in my power to provide decent wages and benefits- but I am not Walmart, and I do not feel arrogant enough to insert myself into the situation. Kimmitt is right- what Wal-Mart is doing may be wrong, but this is not the solution.
ppgaz
Mr. Cole, I respect your views, so I’m looking for a way to prod you into addressing my earlier points.
The law is used all the time to protect the general interests by specifying that people act responsibly. Why do businesses get a pass in this area ….
Why is it okay to let Walmart employees go fish when it comes to basic needs, so that you and I can buy swim trunks made in China for a dollar less than they might cost somewhere else?
I can’t understand this concept any other way than “Screw you, I’m getting mine.” Which is fine, until “screw you” turns out to mean “you, the taxpayer.”
This is a basic tenet of the liberal worldview (to which I subscribe, of course). So it’s not trivial.
John Cole
The premise of your question is flawed, so I can’t answer it.
We don;t require all businesses to spend a certain amount of money on health cvare. IN fact, not even this legislature does- they require exactly one business to spend 8% of their budget on healthcare.
Exactly one.
Randolph Fritz
“Who pays, when they or their family members, get really sick and there is no insurance to defray the costs?”
The hospitals who take charity patients and Medicaid, which handles indigent patients. The states, strapped because of the poor economy and various anti-tax ideology, provide the reason for this law. John, IIRC, a number of low-wage businesses uses Medicaid as a kind of government health insurance program; I don’t have much sympathy with that corporate policy. It’s also a very wasteful and cruel way of delivering care–emergency care is more expensive than routine care, and both are more expensive than prevention.
ppgaz
Well … a word or two to describe the flaw in my question would go a long way to convincing me.
I don’t see how the hands-off model works when the healthcare system is dysfunctional. Dysfunctional, because of the gap between those who have good insurance, like me, or have money and can afford good medical care … and those who cannot. I can’t shrug at that gap. It’s not a bleeding heart thing, it’s a practicality thing. It makes no sense.
If the country is going to blatantly and obviously lay the burden of health insurance at the feet of employers, what happens when a huge (really, huge) employer says, okay, we are going to shirk that responsbility because that’s how our business model works. We have yet another way to squeeze down prices, since our costs are lowered. We compete on price, so we win.
If our employees take it in the shorts, and the taxpayers have to pick up the tab down the road, which they will, one way or the other, well, too bad.
I don’t see how this imbalance is sustainable. And I speak from the top of the bubble on which I perch. I have swell insurance … as long as I keep my job. But there’s no guarantee of that. But the missus and I have potentially expensive health problems. In a nutshell, no job for me, I’m completely screwed. My nest egg is gone. My health may be affected. Hers too.
How would society benefit from seeing me slide into insolvency at age 60 …. and for what? Who gains, and how much?
If my employer decides to stop providing that coverage … then what? What if most of them do? These aren’t rhetorical questions, I am looking for a way to understand this.
The cost of medical care strikes me as being among the top threats to the economic future of this country, and to the economic future of me, personally.
Political boilerplate argument does not feed the bulldog.
CaseyL
A woman I know applied for a job at Wal-Mart. She said that the new employee paperwork included information about applying for food stamps and state healthcare assistance.
Ah, the wonder and glory of private enterprise!
The best part of the joke is that Republicans who applaud Wal-Mart’s low salaries are of course also hostile to funding public assistance. So Wal-Mart workers don’t earn a livable wage, don’t have employer-paid health insurance… and, when they do apply for food stamps or public health assistance, find those public services barely exist because the state can’t afford them, because nobody wants to pay the taxes that would fund them.
Do you like the joke, John? Does it make you laugh? Do you rub your hands and chuckle at the mental image of people being taken from both sides? Do you think they’re rubes who deserve what they get?
S.W. Anderson
From the Washington Post story: ” In Maryland, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) is expected to lend his support to the retailer and veto the measure, should the House and Senate reconcile small differences in the bill.
“I don’t think this is a bill the governor is inclined to support,” Ehrlich spokeswoman Shareese DeLeaver said yesterday, citing the governor’s unabashed pro-business posture. Late last year, Wal-Mart hosted an Annapolis fundraiser for Ehrlich, which DeLeaver said is irrelevant to his thinking.”
First thought: This is sooo Republican.
Second thought: Now I’ll tell one.
Third thought: Wal-Mart’s “Always Low Prices, Always” are coming at one hell of a high cost to American workers, businesses and taxpayers.
Nice setup, though, for Wal-Mart President and CEO H. Lee Scott. He received $23 million in total compensation for 2004.
Some of us refuse to believe that anyone makes a contribution to a company commensurate with that level of income
John Cole
Do you like the joke, John? Does it make you laugh? Do you rub your hands and chuckle at the mental image of people being taken from both sides? Do you think they’re rubes who deserve what they get?
I like how quickly this has turned into “John Cole- Evil Republican corporate BigWig.”
No, asshole, I don’t think it is funny that people do not have living wages. And no, I am not in favor of cutting benefits for the truly needy in society.
But I don’t think that cynical legislation targeting one specific company is good, either.
Now treat me with some respect, and pretend for a moment that we both agree there may be problems in society and differing approaches to solutions without one side necessarily being evil.
Or just go to hell and quit bothering me with your insults.
ppgaz
I’m not feeling the love here. I haven’t called anyone evil. Except maybe Tom Delay. But that’s another topic.
We live in the real world. Sure, the high employee count in the new law is “aimed” at WalMart. Why shouldn’t it be? WalMart is the biggest, uh, elephant in the tent. (The straight lines! Their employees work for peanuts! etc). The law sends a message: The biggest employers have a responsibility to the community. It’s not Maryland’s fault that this is a country where people are told, by a government that pretends to look after their interests, that it’s okay for a big rich company to let its workers forage for medical care, and maybe food, and spend millions putting Mr. Smiley Face on the tv just a-slashin’ those prices. The whole thing is a free lunch, something for nothing proposition. The business model is irresponsible.
What does this irresponsible behavior actually cost the taxpaying community?
Republicans want us to think that banning gay marriage and starting wars on false pretenses are okay things. Think outside the box. Okay, YOU start thinking outside the box. When do Republicans stop doing a bad imitation of Mr. Potter in “It’s a Wonderful Life?” I haven’t cast them in that role, they have done it themselves.
So if the Maryland law isn’t a good idea, what is? What’s the solution? What’s the Republican “approach to … solution?”
I didn’t coin the phrase “compassionate conservatism.” It’s not my fault that five years later, I have no damend idea what that means.
CaseyL
I am going to hell, and so is the rest of the country. It’s not your fault, and I did let my anger get away from me, so I apologize for the Simon LeGree bit.
I don’t notice you lambasting politicians when they ‘single out’ a large company to give it tax breaks, exemptions from employee protection laws, and exemptions from zoning laws. As is routinely done for companies like Intel, Boeing, and… Wal-Mart, oddly enough.
If Wal-Mart is deliberately using state welfare programs as an in-house benefit, it damned well ought to be forced to contribute to those programs. I’m sick of large companies extorting gimmees from the local economy and giving nothing back. Or giving worse than nothing back: Intel and Boeing have ‘rewarded’ the states that bribed them so fulsomely by shutting down and laying off thousands of people.
John Cole
I never have, and I never will, endorsed tax giveaways for large corporations. It is nothing more than corporate welfare and, as far as I am concerned, outright bribery.
If companies determine that a tax rate in a state istoo high for them to make a profit (something I reject- there are a number of profitable businesses in New York City- where the tax rate is pretty damned high) they should locate elsewhere.
Likewise, I find it almost criminal and, quite frankly, unpatriotic, that a company would use the social sfety net as an employment incentive as has been described.
But I draw the line at specific legislation targeting the budgeting practices of corporations. There has to be another way.
I used to shop at WalMart, but I dont anymore. The vast majority of my purchases are at Target and through Amazon. I suggest others do the same if they do not like Wal-Mart.
Many of you also seem to forget where I live. I have spent my entire life in West Virginia (save a few years overseas in the military), a state that is almost all Democrats. I systematically reject the notion that the way to prosperity is through one party solutions. There is no Democratic solution. There is no Republican solution. There are only solutions.
It is my experience that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans in corporate giveaways, and you don;t have to live too long in West Virginia to recognize that the excessive demands of Unions are a large part of what ended a strong labor force in coal and steel. They once were vital- they then became powerful, abusive, and greedy.
Kimmitt
Cole’s right about the inappropriateness of the law; now that we all agree that there is a problem, let’s start talking about non-stupid ways to fix it.
that the excessive demands of Unions are a large part of what ended a strong labor force in coal and steel.
I’m sorry, man, but this just doesn’t bear any connection to reality. The unions are the only things keeping even a skeleton crew of steel labor in this country, due to their protectionist lobbying. The reason we don’t make steel here is that South Koreans make it for half as much.
Coal isn’t my baliwick, but I was under the impression that we basically ran out of the low-sulfur kind, which had predictable consequences.
Unions have had their historical problems, but they aren’t responsible for the sun’s rise, the fall of the dollar, or underwear getting stinky. That’s just the world.
DecidedFenceSitter
John,
I respect you, but you still haven’t provided a solution. Ignore the fact of whether it’s a one that would be deemed a Republican, a Democrat, or a wacko, what would you do on a non-personal level?
“Likewise, I find it almost criminal and, quite frankly, unpatriotic, that a company would use the social sfety net as an employment incentive as has been described.
But I draw the line at specific legislation targeting the budgeting practices of corporations. There has to be another way.”
Well what other way is there?
Is the government supposed to just not get involved and trust the people not to do what’s in their best short term interest? I thought that laissez-faire attitude went out in 1900’s. And while I’m for a smaller, more federalized government. I’m not that extreme to want to roll back the clock.
I guess this is why I run into so many problems online debating. I’m a fierce proponent of states rights which used to throw me into the Republican camp, however, on a state level I’m for far more intervention because I feel state representatives are far more responsive to the people. (The whole Senator from New Mexico versus mine from Virginia, versus Senator from Northern VA and SW VA.)
I have friends who know and believe the negative comments, and dislike Walmart. However, they can’t afford to shop anywhere else because they are barely making it even working 3 jobs, though admittedly 2 of those are parttime, but that’s what was available and they are doing their best.
And as far as Labor Unions go. Quoting wikipedia, “The labour movement arose as an outgrowth of the disparity between the power of employers and the powerlessness of individual employees.”
And for more interesting reading on Laissez Faire off Wikipedia,
“For many, laissez-faire theories fell into disrepute because of their failure to allow governments to deal with managing the economy during and after World War I, and their alleged failure to prevent the Great Depression. However, some libertarians, such as Milton Friedman argue that by the time of the Great Depression, significant government economic regulation had already taken place in most major economies, as workers and employees in all industries organized themselves into trade unions to demand better living standards, as well as various checks and balances to the perceived “tyranny of laissez-faire”. Workers succeeded in obtaining minimum wage laws and a progressive income tax in some countries. International trade barriers were also in the policy pipeline (e.g. Smoot-Hawley Tariff in the USA). So, according to the above-mentioned libertarians, the economies that suffered from the Depression, although possibly closer to laissez-faire than any other economic models that were ever used, still did not embrace pure capitalism. Some critics of laissez-faire argue that the attainment of pure capitalism is impossible, for example since it is difficult to deal with market failures without an active role for government.”
John Cole
I don’t have one- I just don;t. I am sure there are a lot of people smarter than me that can come up with something, though.
BTW- I don’t think this necessarily means I shouldn’t be allowed to criticize bad solutions. As my grandfather always said, “I can’t lay an egg but I can tell a good one from a bad one.”
DecidedFenceSitter
I was curious. And I wanted to push the point. Occasionally the only action that you have is the distasteful one.
Plus, it was a dig at those, not you, who take pot shots at the Dems for not coming up with a plan to save social security (Which I know frankly bores you, see I did google research).
*Shrug* I don’t much like it either. But I don’t see any viable alternatives, since people won’t shop their economic long term interests (or at least what I view them as) nor will companies voluntarily give up profits to provide better benefits for their workers as a whole, unless collective bargaining is used.
So basically we’ve got an option of forcing Walmart to pay 8%, raising taxes to cover expenses which then becomes a graduated tax plan which is just as targeted, or something else that I don’t see either. And this allows for a targeted cure to the problem of health care, whereas a general tax raise could and probably would be used for something else.
CJ
I’m not trying to stir shit up here, but there seems to be a bit of rancor tied directly to the fact that only one company will be affected by the Maryland bill. What if the employee number were lowered to say, 5000? That would probably sweep up a number of defense contractors or at least some of the larger chain stores such as Target. Would that be more or less fair? Would it achieve the goal of ensuring that companies do not count on government support as part of their compensation plans?
Another solution might be to require some sort of minimum health coverage for all employers and then let them work out how to pay for it. Small businesses will scream, but the market will eventually even out and provide a solution.
One issue that I’m interested in is how can benefits in one area be increased/improved without raising costs across the board and thereby limiting the usefulness of the improvement? If we posit that our economy is a closed system and that there is only so much to go around, then it appears that any increase in one area is nothing but a ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ type of situation. If we posit that our economy is an open system and subject to growth, then there does seem to be room for increasing benefits in one area without necessarily raising all costs and thereby wiping out gains in the healthcare area.
If we are looking at the first situation, then laissez faire economics can be justified to some extent. We have to look out for ourselves and our families. But if we are not in a closed system, then why shouldn’t the government work to even out inequities in how our capitalitic system works? I’m pretty comfortable allowing the govt. to set a ‘floor’ on certain things and then letting the market figure out the most efficient way to work above the floor. We just have to figure out how to define a floor that everyone can live with.
CJ
ppgaz
Just for the record — (what record?!?) — let me say, I don’t mean to suggest that you or any particular person owes a solution as payment for making criticisms.
But I direct my rhetoric to the Republican Party in general … or whatever entity owns the trademark for responsible conservatism these days.
It seems to me that both parties can profit from spending less time picking apart their adversaries’ ideas and more time improving the quality of their own ideas.
Republicans took ownership of the crappy healthcare model in this country some 11-12 years ago. It doesn’t look seemly to me to own this big ball of crapola and then sit around throwing rocks at attempts to remediate it.
Where’s Bill Frist when you need him? Can he step far enough away from fealty to HMO and Big Pharma corporate interests to actually talk to the people in honest terms?
CJ
Hey, of course no one owes you a solution. However, its my opinion that by offering solutions in addition to criticism, we can rise above the partisan bickering a bit.
Frankly, its too easy to get upset and rail against the latest awful news out of Washington. Feels great to vent, (BTW, don’t count on Frist ever removing his nose from the nether regions of big pharma), but we need a bit more actual discourse.
CJ
Kimmitt
What if the employee number were lowered to say, 5000? That would probably sweep up a number of defense contractors or at least some of the larger chain stores such as Target. Would that be more or less fair?
More fair, though the only sensible number is between 100 and 500. More to the point, requiring a company to spend a certain percentage of its revenues on anything is insane. The problem is that Federal law prevents Maryland from passing a law which requires health coverage; this was a concession wrangled out in exchange for other health care related law. So Maryland is trying to skirt a bad Federal law by passing a bad State law.
I really don’t know the answer here; as long as the Republicans control the House, the Senate, and/or the Presidency, this is an issue which absolutely will not be addressed. I guess Maryland could try a Vermont-style program and fund it through general revenue, which would of course fall on Wal*Mart as well as other businesses in the state.
Bob
If you guys don’t mind paying for the healthcare of Walmart employees, maybe you could send a few bucks my way. The pollen is bad out here in the SF Bay Area and I’m going broke with all the antihistamines.
If you do care about paying for Walmart employees’ healthcare, then come up with a better solution. Myself, I like national health insurance, like the rest of the civilized world. I’d also like to see the end of Taft-Hartley and its legislative spawn so these international ultra-scab corporations have to compete with businesses that don’t lock illegals in their buildings overnight to do their cleaning.
Time to go check and see if my medicine from Canada is here.
Kimmitt
…anyways, I hope to have begun to answer the question posed in this post.
SilverRook2000
Most of the argument over healthcare is missing the point. Historically, we put the onus for health care on employers because during WWII, with wages and prices frozen, it was the only way companies could come with or unions could extrac t (take your pick here) to compensate workers. In 1955, the Eisenhower Administration wanted to put in universal health care (source: Peter Drucker) but it was shot down by the UAW who felt at the time that forcing employers to provide health care would in turn force or encourage people to join unions. Of course, since union membership dropped and coverage by employers was by no means universal or uniform, we ended up with the current mess where people with good insurance tend to drive up the costs of treatment for people with no insurance, who in turn end up throwing themselves on the mercy of the current programs. My proposal would require universal coverage but the dropping of all private insurance, at least by corporations. This would level the playing field but, as is the case in Canada, would create havoc with delivery. Equity in coverage has a steep price. Is it worth it? And why are corporations any more liable for the cost of health care than the individual who benefits from it since they just pass the cost on to their customers anyway?
Kimmitt
as is the case in Canada, would create havoc with delivery.
Considering that right now we spend about double per capita what Canada spends on health insurance, I think we could create a system where we spend 3/4 of our current spending levels and get really quite excellent care for ourselves.
Nash
I think we could create a system where we spend 3/4 of our current spending levels and get really quite excellent care for ourselves.
(nods in total agreement)
benton
John –
I appreciate your position that it would be better to address corporate practices that attempt to game public social welfare systems to provide competitive employment practices in a universalist manner. (We’re really talking about more than medicaid. There’s EITC, housing, free and reduced price lunch and other supports for their children in schools etc).
However, I wonder, is saying we shouldn’t single out Wal Mart in this regard is akin to saying that you don’t support efforts to create a democracy in Iraq because those efforts don’t address the situation globally.
So, I would agree that the focus on healthcare, the 8 percent requirement and the employment threshold seem arbitrary in this light. I am less troubled about it than you are, but I too would like to see a better way.