Posted on 04/07/2005 5:45:29 AM PDT by TXBSAFH
Wal-Mart Denounces Health Bill Retailer Says Maryland Could Lose Future Jobs
By Michael Barbaro Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 7, 2005; Page E01
ROGERS, Ark., April 6 -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. yesterday said approval of a bill that would require it to boost health care spending in Maryland could endanger its plans for growth in the state, including a new distribution center that would employ as many as 1,000.
The company questioned the motivation behind the bill, which is backed by a top competitor and its labor union.
Wal-Mart "will have to rethink its future growth in a state that is willing to pass such a bad business bill," said Nate Hurst, a government relations manager for the company. "This type of legislation, where lawmakers single out one employer, does not create a favorable environment."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
BUMP
That's kind of wacky. I could see some kind of requirement for companies of over a certain number of employees to provide a certain level of health insurance, but to just require a certain amount of money to be spent, regardless of coverage obtained is ridiculous.
This is just an attempt to increase Wal-Mart's cost, not to do anything for any Wal-Mart employees. They could just as easily require companies of 10,000 or more employees to spend a certain amount on landscaping.
If the state wants the money, to supposedly deal with the medical costs they are forced to cover when companies do not provide adequate insurance, the can create laws to increase commercial property or corporate income taxes while providing tax credits to companies providing employees with a specified level of health insurance coverage.
I can't figure it out. Just when did Americans start hating American success stories?
I hate to be harsh but general Wal-Mart employees are pretty much the bottom of the barrel as far as marketable skills go. Fast food workers have more skills. At least they know how to make burgers and tacos (making change without a computer was a skill lost long ago). If these employees don't like the benefits they get or don't get at Wal-Mart, leave and go to work somewhere else. Oh that's right, most are not qualified to do much else. One would think that somebody with absoloutely no skills would be just happy that somebody was generous enough to hire them.
What's going on here is the government trying to unionize Wal-Mart. I do not see why Wal-Mart should have to pay through the nose for people whose primary function is to incorrectly tell me where the light bulbs are located or look at me like I'm crazy when I ask how much something costs. Wal-Mart employs the otherwise unemployable. That should be enough.
"They have became too big for their britches."
Perhaps but WalMart is a bit more unique than most.
While most monopolies or biggies tend to use their clout to gouge the customer, WalMart does the opposite by driving down costs to the customer....and who's not in favor of lower prices to the customer?
Amen, I read these WalMart threads and can't believe that this is actually FR.
I disagree with your speculative conclusion. The future of business arrangements by Wal Mart in Maryland is clouded. It will be interesting to watch.
I hope you are wrong. These people need to see the consequences of their actions.
Wal Mart is already helping its employees to get medical care by paying them so little that many get eligible for Medicare. I guess this is the way of the future - American workers in order to compete with the Chinese and others will have to get the some form of national health care system.
We could also restore the indentured servitude by inducing people into debt (easy credit cards), removing the anti-usury limits on interest and closing the way out by making bankruptcy less accessible. This will secure cheap and docile labor force.
Simple solution.
Walmart lays off 5001 employees, which will give them 9,999, and moves some of their operations over the border into neighboring states.
Walmart pays its employees very modestly. This is not a complaint but a statement of fact. In costly suburban Maryland, where a very humble one-bedroom apartment costs a thousand dollars a month, Walmart is paying its employees seven or eight bucks an hour. This is not enough money for anyone to be able to purchase private health insurance, for locally a month's premium for a young single person in good shape starts at around $250 a month, or a week's pay for a Walmart employee.
So what happens? The seven-buck-an-hour Walmart employee gets sick--sicker, perhaps, because without insurance he hasn't had preventive care--and goes to a local hospital emergency room for treatment. Then he either walks away from the ER bill altogether, sticking the financially-floundering hospital for the cost of his care and jeopardizing its existence, or state Medicaid picks up his tab. Yes, the taxpayers of Maryland have to pay for the Walmart worker's health care. That's us, boys and girls! Our Maryland taxes are going to finance the health care Walmart refuses to provide.
Now, I'm a Republican, and as such I hate paying taxes. I don't think that the state should pay for a service that the private sector can provide. Why should the state's taxpayers finance the health care of a private business or a for-profit corporation like Walmart? Why should we be subsidizing one of the most profitable corporations in the world? Businesses should not be permitted to generate major expenses for a state without compensating that state in some way or relieving those costs.
LOL you make a great point. "Walmart MD, Always Low Prices, Always!". Wouldn't that piss off the Maryland legislature. Walmart is one of the few companies that could pull that off.
We'll get National Healthcare when the Corporations demand it as a way to cut THEIR costs. And Republicans will lead the charge.
Where your logic fails when you associate one's employer with the responsibility for their healthcare. That same employee would have the same health care requirements regardless of where they worked, or even if they worked. It's like blaming povery on Walmart because their employees don't make enough to eat out every day of the week.
Heck Target could be next.
More likely, they would link into an existing network--in Shanghai. Call it... WalMed.
Medicare is a federal program which requires you be of a certain age (60 or 62) to participate. Medicaid is a federal/state program for poor people. Medicaid costs can be controlled by the state through its determination of what services are reimbursable. Don't blame Wal Mart or any other employer. Blame the state of Maryland.
This reminds me of something the pastor of my church once said concerning social isues. He said, "People who are sick or whose family members are sick will go get health care, if that means the emergency room then it does." And then he speculated that people will eventually demand health care, and they will get it from their employer or the ballot box. I much prefer Wallyworld pay for it then Hillary care.
I expect this to happen within one to two years. Or at latest around 2008 election.
Walmart does what it says it's going to do. It didn't hesitate a few months ago to shut down a store in Canada when its workers unionized.
GM has already made rumblings on haveing the government finance health care as a way to lower its costs.
The state should not be in the helth care provider business at all. That is the root of the problem, end medicare, medicad then the taxpayers do not pick up the bad, and the state has no interest in what wal-mart or any our business pays it's employees.
Wal-mart is a sum sucking Chicom loving bottom feeder.
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.