Skip to comments.
Judge overturns Wal-Mart health care law
Yahoo ^
| Julky/19/2006
| Associated Press
Posted on 07/19/2006 2:12:38 PM PDT by screw boll
...The state law would have required non-governmental employers with 10,000 or more workers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or pay the difference in taxes. The measure was directly aimed at Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, which has been under attack by critics who say that its inadequate health care plans are forcing some employees to rely on state-funded plans.
TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: healthcare; judiciary; searchwalmart; walmart
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
Big win for Big Wall Mart
To: screw boll
2
posted on
07/19/2006 2:13:48 PM PDT
by
cardinal4
(America, despite the usual suspects, stands firmly with Israel..)
To: screw boll
Big win for Big Wall Mart Yeah, and a big defeat for neo-socialism.
3
posted on
07/19/2006 2:13:55 PM PDT
by
TChris
(Banning DDT wasn't about birds. It was about power.)
To: cardinal4
4
posted on
07/19/2006 2:14:41 PM PDT
by
big'ol_freeper
(..it takes some pretty serious yodeling to..filibuster from a five star ski resort in the Swiss Alps)
To: TChris
Yeah, and a big defeat for neo-socialism.Exactly.
5
posted on
07/19/2006 2:15:10 PM PDT
by
South40
(Amnesty for ILLEGALS is a slap in the face to the USBP!)
To: cardinal4
Was this in Maryland?
YES :-)
6
posted on
07/19/2006 2:15:17 PM PDT
by
a02001
To: screw boll
I hate to sound cruel and insensitive, but anyone working at WalMart and expecting to get all the perks typical of corporate America should consider working to improve themselves and getting a real job on a real career path.
7
posted on
07/19/2006 2:18:07 PM PDT
by
Kenny Bunkport
(Israel is doing the Lord’s work.)
To: big'ol_freeper
California and Massachusetts cant hold a candle to Maryland's Marxist style socialism..
8
posted on
07/19/2006 2:18:07 PM PDT
by
cardinal4
(America, despite the usual suspects, stands firmly with Israel..)
To: screw boll
It is refreshing to have a ruling that makes sense.
9
posted on
07/19/2006 2:19:49 PM PDT
by
Joe Bfstplk
(The biggest risk in life is not risking.)
To: screw boll
Big win for Big Wall Mart Yes, and a BIG WIN for the people who shop there... Way to go, Walmart.
10
posted on
07/19/2006 2:20:21 PM PDT
by
GOPJ
("...we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?" -- Newt Gingrich)
To: Kenny Bunkport
It is the other way around: because there is no pay, the workers are plying around like children in a garden...
To: Kenny Bunkport
This wasn't being pushed by employees of walmart. It was being pushed by UNIONS because walmart is NON union, based in Arkansas, and pro American, all things socialist entities like unions hate.
Go Walmart! Go Target! Go Home Depot! (Big wins for them too!)
12
posted on
07/19/2006 2:37:30 PM PDT
by
Mrs. Shawnlaw
(No NAIS! And the USDA can bugger off, too!)
To: screw boll
Big win for all types of business and a slap down on left wing socialists. Time someone got the message that Hillary care is not the law.
13
posted on
07/19/2006 2:38:33 PM PDT
by
JSteff
To: Kenny Bunkport
Walmart does provide insurance I am pretty sure for full time employees, they are or were self ensured. Last time i worked in medical billing, anyway. And like lots of places, WM is a good place to work for lots of different groups of people. Personally, i don't look down at WM employees. I might be the old lady greeting customers some day, just to get out a little bit and maybe a discount.
14
posted on
07/19/2006 2:47:09 PM PDT
by
libbylu
To: libbylu
This whole thing is about Unions (who represent union retail businesses) trying to stop Walmart from kicking their butts in our free market system. Walmart is slowly but surely putting the unions out of business.
15
posted on
07/19/2006 3:02:15 PM PDT
by
Hendrix
To: screw boll
It is sort of ironic that a court of law overturned the statute enacted by the left. That is usually the left's tactic (use the courts to overturn any law they don't like). Of course, I think the judge in this case is correct.
16
posted on
07/19/2006 3:05:02 PM PDT
by
Hendrix
To: screw boll
This ruling will hurt the Chicago council's stance against Walmart, Target and Home Depot.
17
posted on
07/19/2006 3:06:59 PM PDT
by
Mrs. Shawnlaw
(No NAIS! And the USDA can bugger off, too!)
To: Hendrix
I don't think this is judicial activism. They intentionally passed a law meant to apply to only one business in the state about a subject that affects most businesses. Strikes me as a gross violation of equal protection.
To: Mrs. Shawnlaw
We don't need city councils limiting our shopping choices. They need to go back to reducing second hand sewer gas and its impact on global warming.
To: screw boll
20
posted on
07/19/2006 3:13:37 PM PDT
by
TChad
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson