Re: paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"


Ed Huntress wrote:



It is a bill againt Wal-Mart, and the product of something that over 20
states have recognized: that Wal-Mart is competing with other businesses
partly by bleeding them for healthcare insurance.

How you judge this case depends upon where you start. Maryland says that the
average employer in that state (or average employer with 20 or more
employees -- something like that) spends 9% of salaries on health insurance.
Wal-Mart, most economists claim, pays something less than 5%. And then they
instruct their employees on how to collect state medicaid.

Two things happen. First, as large employers who also put fierce
cost-cutting pressure on smaller competitors, they force companies that
traditionally have made their healthcare programs part of their
attractiveness to employees, and part of their fulfillment of general
responsibility, to cut their health insurance to the bone.

That puts even more people on state medicaid, which is the second effect. In
the end, the state's taxpayers wind up footing much of the healthcare bill,
by way of increased hospitalization fees that result from caring for the
uninsured, and increased insurance and medicaid rates for everyone.

There are some pretty good anaylses of it. You may have heard that the
president of Wal-Mart has allowed that the company has fallen short of its
social responsibilities, in an interview he had with Tom Friedman -- who is,
himself, a major booster and supporter of Wal-Mart.

Concerning the matter of where you start, healthcare now costs so much that
most Wal-Mart employees can't afford the insurance to cover it. So Wal-Mart
has decided that they'll avoid the problem and keep their costs lower by
switching costs to the taxpayers. They seem to favor socialized healthcare.
<g>

If you think the traditional model of employers paying for most or all of
healthcare insurance is a good one, then Wal-Mart has shirked. Regardless,
they have driven their competitors to avoid paying for it, as well. If you
think single-payer, socialized healthcare is good, then Wal-Mart is 'way out
in front, driving us in that direction whether you like it or not.

--
Ed Huntress

My objection is that the bill applies only to companies that employ
5000 people or more.
And is , IMHO, being pushed by the Democrats as pay back to organized
labor because Walmart is non union.

The Seattle Times did an article on it with facts on companies with
more and less than 5000 employees. It showed that there were a good
many companies with 20 or more employees that did not provide any
healthcare benefits. And if the bill applied to all companies with 20
employees or more, then the playing field would be equal, many more
people would have health insurance , and the state would save money.
For example all the McDonald franchises employ about 2/3 as many people
as Walmart, and Safeway employs about half as many as Walmart. None of
these employees are covered for healthcare any better than Walmart
employees. So if the bill was written so it covered those two
additional businesses, it would double the number of employees that
received healthcare.
Think how many more would be covered if it covered all businesses down
to 20 employees. And you would probably double that amount if you
covered businesses down to 10 people.

If as claimed the average employer of 20 or more already spends 9% on
health benefits, then the bill might as well cover them too. But in
fact that figure seems to be less than factual at least in Washington
State.


Dan

.

Relevant Pages

  • NBC: Why bills targeting WalMart hurt many low wage/low skilled workers
    ... Should Wal-Mart reduce wages? ... of such bills have already been rejected in New Hampshire, Indiana, ... Others complain that 5 percent of Wal-Mart employees are on Medicaid, ... in the form of health insurance rather than cash is a particularly bad ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: NBC: Why bills targeting WalMart hurt many low wage/low skilled workers
    ... Should Wal-Mart reduce wages? ... of such bills have already been rejected in New Hampshire, Indiana, ... Others complain that 5 percent of Wal-Mart employees are on Medicaid, ... in the form of health insurance rather than cash is a particularly bad ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
    ... pending to require all businesses larger than 5000 employees to spend 9 ... It is a bill againt Wal-Mart, and the product of something that over 20 ... partly by bleeding them for healthcare insurance. ... employees -- something like that) spends 9% of salaries on health insurance. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: allowance for 9 year old
    ... There have been many reports about how they force employees ... and just over 1/2 have health insurance through Wal-Mart. ... This is because Wal-Mart has new health insurance that recently began. ... 2005 the New York Times reported a "secret" memo ...
    (misc.kids)
  • Re: Wal-Mart and Wages?
    ... >not have health insurance. ... It would be great if Wal-Mart could pay at ... >effect of raising prices. ... If the employees earn more they can buy more from Wal-Mart so ...
    (sci.econ)