Posted on 07/20/2006 9:26:09 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
A federal judge in Baltimore has overturned Maryland's so-called "Wal-Mart healthcare bill," which forced the nation's biggest retailer to provide more employee health care benefits.
Judge J. Frederick Motz said the law, which required Wal-Mart to spend 8 percent of its payroll in the state on medical benefits, or pay the difference in taxes, would have hurt the company.
Shares of Wal-Mart rose 2.5 percent in afternoon trade.
Judge Motz ruled that a 1974 federal law overruled the Maryland state law, which had been backed by labor groups.
He said it was unfair because it forced the company to handle benefits in Maryland differently than it does in other states.
The Retail Industry Leaders Association, a trade association whose members include Wal-Mart and which had challenged the law, praised the ruling.
"The decision sends a clear signal that employer health plans are governed by federal law, not a patchwork of state and local laws. It also is a clear message that similar bills under consideration in other states and municipalities violate federal law as well," Sandy Kennedy, president of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, told Reuters.
Some critics of Wal-Mart who supported the state law expressed disappointment. "This decision does not change the fact that Wal-Mart doesn't provide company health care to over half of its workers," Paul Blank, campaign director for the activist group Wake-Up Wal-Mart, told Reuters.
"The District Court's decision, unfortunately, ignores legal and public support for requiring large, profitable corporations to pay their fair share for health care," the newswire quoted Blank as saying.
The law was the first of its kind in the country. Legislators in at least 13 other states proposed similar "Pay or Play" bills in the past year, according to the National Conference of State Legislators.
This IS excellent news. The liberal socialists lose another one -- in their attempt to put the government(s) (them) in control of everything in our lives. Three cheers for American liberty, freedom and independence --- things liberals hate!!
I don't think it would be right to charge by company's profit. We already have enough reason for many corporations to move out of the country for cost savings. To set the ratio according to the pay tier of each employee is another matter, and seems more equitable to me.
I hope Mike Miller chokes on this.
Now if we could straighten out the BG&E problem before Mike sends them into bankruptcy we would be ahead of the game.
This decision will deeply sadden organized labor and Dem legislatures in other states including here in Washington state where it was pushed for this last session.
To set the ratio according to the pay tier of each employee is another matter, and seems more equitable to me.
----
The entire matter, is really only the business of Wal-Mart management. It is niether a public matter, or the government's business. What Wal-Mart decides to provide for its employees is its call. If people don't like it, they can go find another job somewhere else...whatever happened to American freedoms?? This is just a liberal government intrusion, an attack on big corporations really, so typical of the anti-American socialists running these liberal states.
With the exception of anti-trust issues, the government should STFU and get out of Wal-Marts life.
Okay, but what about the medical expenses heaped on us by those same liberals for people who either don't work or don't make enough to pay for health care?
What would you prefer, a modest stipend provided by employers, or socialized medicine? We really can't continue the medicaid as it is, with all the dumbing down of the kids and growing health care needs. The welfare-to-work message will only work if we make adjustments elsewhere. It has to be attractive vs. impossible to work. Too may single moms, not enough help in the right areas.
"The District Court's decision, unfortunately, ignores legal and public support for requiring large, profitable corporations to pay their fair share for health care," the newswire quoted Blank as saying.
I wish he would cite specifically the "legal support" for permitting government to micromanage businesses. As for "public support", that is called a "mobocracy". The Reign of Terror comes to mind.
Finally, currently, "fair share" is synonimous with institutionalized stealing. In my opinion, also Unconstitutional.
Here's the commie DU thread on this issue. It's absolutely hilarious reading--particularly the posts complaining about how one judge should not be able to overturn the will of the people:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2399549
Dump medicaid.
Doctors, where allowed to, can charge half or less for their services when they need not deal with the government. What does that tell you?
You'd rather support a gazillion bureaucrats and parasites in a "socialized health care" system"?"
Personal choices, personal consequences are the best indicators of freedom.
I cannot dispute any portion of your statements. Nor would I. Bottom line: people have been conditioned to want more for less. It's not our parents' work ethic anymore.
Okay, but what about the medical expenses heaped on us by those same liberals for people who either don't work or don't make enough to pay for health care?
------
This country is dying under the weight of socialism. Our government, drunk on our tax money, and seeing taxation as a limitless resource to take at will, is DOING NOTHING to manage the "medical industry resource" available in this country. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates the government provide for socialized medicine or any type of medicine for that matter. We have Medicare and Medicaid, two programs which were created by the government to begin the process of instilling socialism into our medical resource. It has worked. The sad part is that it remains, even today, totally unmanaged by the government -- they pay whatever the industry asks -- they don't care, since to them, taxation dollars are an infinite resource, no need to be managed on behalf of the fleeced public.
The REAL problem remains the cost of medicine. It is way out of whack, unnecessarily high, and is teetering on the edge of collapse, as confirmed by many doctor friends of mine. Each year the cost of medical insurance goes up, and benefits under those individual plans go down. And there is no end in sight. The problem is systemic to the medical industry and to the government who plays not even a mediating role in keeping the general cost of medicine within the reach of the majority of the population. Then to make matters worse, we now have levels of middle-men, the HMOs, PPOs, etc, that are sucking huge dollars out of the medical system, and for what?? Why are they even there?? How did we get along for so MANY years without them? The question answers itself.
If we had a responsible government, it would intervene to the extent to coordinate a sane approach to the supply of medical services to the majority of the public. That does not propose the TAXATION of America simply to meet the horrid cost demands of the present configuration of the medical industry -- NO!! But to at least get involved to help remove the fat, the pork, the levels of profit-sucking middle-men, and get the industry back to where it was 50 years ago.
Back then we did not have alot of the technology we have today. But then a person, if they chose, could simply walk into their doctor's office, get a cut sewn up, and walk out after paying the bill out of their pocket -- I remember my poor (financially) mother doing exactly that -- today the same scenario is virtually impossible. Nothing gets done unless you have insurance OR ARE AN ILLEGAL ALIEN.
The government/medical complex needs to be worked on -- just taxing the public to death for the sake of socialism is not the answer.
I wonder if this ruling sounds the death knell for the recent San Francisco bored of stupidvisors universal health care boondoggle?
I sure hope so...another commie scam that needs to go away.
Be afraid, be very afraid. No, not really. It is just flat hilarious.
The medical costs are outrageous across the board. Something has to be done and anyone familiar with the Canadian system knows that socialized medicine is NOT the answer. I think we understand each other on this.
----
Thanks for the confirming information. For those that can get around the emotional side of medical care, the realities are ugly. My own mother (rest her soul) spent 20 days in a hospital, NO surgery, just some basic tests and observation. The bill was close to $75,000 !!! which the government happily paid. Outrageous and it exemplifies the problem, big time. It is out of control, and it needs to be fixed. But we have a government that is more concerned about votes, than it is about managing this country for its people.
People who work at WalMart tend to be bottom-of-the-barrel. Unable to get employment anywhere else. Anything that removes them from the gene pool is a GOOD thing!
We must get over this namby-pamby bleeding heart mentality that everyone gets health care. If you are productive, have skills that an employer is willing to offer health care for, fine. If not, sorry, but you need to quit stealing the hard earned gains of successful people. Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, all these socialist programs have got to go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.