Posted on 11/03/2005 5:33:03 AM PST by TaxRelief
...A leaked memo last week from Walmart's executive vice president for benefits, Susan Chambers, suggested that the next move in cost-cutting at the nation's largest private employer would be to "dissuade unhealthy people from coming to work at Walmart."
...You should think about this, because if you believe your company isn't harboring similar thoughts, you are living in a dream world. As a spokesperson for Walmart said after the memo was leaked, "Every business in America... [is] having conversations in their boardrooms just like ours."
(Excerpt) Read more at fairfieldweekly.com ...
Why would any employer want to hire people who are prone to sickness or injury?
And let's not forget women. They suck up a whole helluva lot of healthcare costs all thru their reproductive years.
I'm sure some of the old farts have bypassed tickers.
Yea, but I think the 5th amendment protects the employer and his property. If he wishes to hire based on a person's weight, tobacco use, apparent medical condition, or any other reason, he should be perfectly within his right.
After all, there is no "right to a job" in this country. Yet.
Ah, the only way it could get more socialist than the heavily exploited shell game that it already is.
I agree with your second sentence, but is there a need to use that "h" word you used in the first?
--if you haven't been to a Walmart lately, they are one of the few employers who does hire people over 45 and in fact get slandered by the unions by presumably avoiding insurance costs by hiring those on Medicare--
I would expect any company doing business with the public to do whatever it could to keep sick people away from customers, and each other.
Be careful as there are a number of other reasons that have already been legislated against. Just look at the statements on most employment applications and thinking about the protected classes vs. health care. Businesses that try to hire healthy need to be very careful lest they find themselves in a pot of discrimination suits.
The problem rests with the insurance companies, not the employers. An easy way for employers to get around this is to work with the insurance companies and offer benefits to those who a qualified by the insurance company. Those who don't meet the insurance company's "health standard" can still work for the employer, but are not eligible for the benefit or pay a higher rate. This way the employer stays out of the discrimination mess. Health insurance is a benefit, not a right.
A simple changing of the language used would do the trick. Instead of stating the company has health benefits. They would simply state Health benefits are available to those who qualify.
I recently had out patient surgery (Hernia repair) In and out in less than 4 hours and most of that time was spent waiting. The bill just from the hospital was $11,289. That did not include the docs fees or radiology and other tests.
I am fully insured but realize that one way or another I pay in the long run.
I have a B/P prescription filled every month, my wife has B/P, hormone and allergy prescription. Insurance pays more than $300 per month for those.
I don't have any answers but something has to give.
Healthcare?
>>>What about homofaggots, whose healthcare costs far outstrip every other know classification. >>>
What evidence do you have to support this? Or is this just justification to support your obvious anger issues?
...is there a need to use that "h" word you used in the first?
Really. You should use the term butt buddy. It is more descriptive. AIDS patients also receive SSI...
"* Medicaid is the single most important program serving people with HIV. Seven of ten dollars spent on AIDS care come from Medicaid [Medi-Cal in California]. Medicaid provide health care to more than 90% of children living with HIV and roughly half of adults with AIDS.
" *The average cost of care for a person with a disability in Medicaid is approximately $8,000/year. Without protease inhibitors or other new drugs, the average cost of care for a persons with AIDS exceeds $20,000/year in many locations. - AIDS.ORG
My wife is in Wal-Mart management and I am a Wal-Mart supporter but I can't help but notice over the years at all the W/M stores I have been around that there seems to be an awfully lot of homosexuals there and my wife has assured me that my observation is correct. I am not bothered by what the queers do in the privacy of there bed rooms but they are for sure a high risk health group.
Wal-Mart, like every other company can't discriminate in their hiring based on someones sexual choices.
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.