MARYLAND TAKES SHOT AT WAL-MART
The Maryland General Assembly has approved legislation forcing Wal-Mart to pay more for its employee health care. The bill, which passed despite a veto by the governor, requires employers with more than 10,000 workers to spend at least 8% of their payroll on employee health care or else pay into a fund for the uninsured. At this time, only Wal-Mart is affected by the legislation.
What's fair for Wal-Mart should be fair for everyone. How would the small business owners in the state react if it was mandated that ALL businesses HAD to spend at least 8% of their payroll on health care? Where did we ever get the idea that health care costs should be borne by employers in the first place?
8 comments:
right now those costs are being born by taxpayers (ie, Medicaid). is that preferable? why should Wal-Mart and its stockholders get richer and the employees not even get better health care?
Profit for stockholders (ie. investors - like me) is the basis for captialist economics. If anyone wants to go down that philosophical path - then lets go.
I think Brad's point is valid. Why set the number of employees at 10,000? The reason? It targets Wal-Mart and nobody else.
The question is still valid. Why not require ALL employers, no matter how large or small, to spend 8% of payroll on health care? One of the problems is that small employers would not even be able to provide what most would consider a "basic" plan for 8% of payroll.
Some have suggested that "small" businesses be able to "pool" so that they become more attractive to insurance companies and can take advantage of "volume" purchasing.
I encourage politicians and business owners to work together to find creative solutions to what is becoming a big problem. Socialized medicine is not the answer - ask any Canadian who has been seriously ill and not able to come to the U.S. for care outside of the "system." (BTW I'm Canadian)
I'm not suggesting that socialized medicine is the answer. I'm only asking how it is that we've come to expect employers to foot the bill for health care. Where did the idea come from and is it still the most effective way to deal with it?
At the risk of sounding like I think Wal-Mart doesn't have more responsibility to their employees -- I wonder if the percentage of employees at Wal-Mart receiving healthcare benefits is really that much different from those of other small businesses. I'm just wondering. I don't know.
Hey, I think socialized medicine is the answer. Not all Canadians would even think of going to the states for medical care. For one thing we could not afford it, so you can bet that the ones who do go are mostly the wealthy.
On the health insurance issue - maybe the big buisnesses should make sure they pay their employees enough so that health insurance can be purchased by their workers. And expect it to cost you a bit more to shop at Wal Mart. Because everyone pays in some way - we pay in taxes. You guys pay in other ways - like having large segments of the population unable to afford basic health care.
not suggesting we chuck capitalism. it's not an all-or-nothing choice. like Brad, i'm wondering who should pay for healthcare. and i do think it's more important for a company to take care of its employees than it's shareholders. o r i might settle for equal treatment.
the good thing about employer-provided healthcare is that bigger employers can get good rates and packages. group buying or something to get better options for all employees sounds good to me. i liked Kerry's idea of everyone having access to Congress' package, if just for the chutzpah of it. shake 'em up a little.
i don't really think socialized medicine is the answer, either, though the economics sometimes point me there. we waste a lot of money on health care expenses in this country, though it's probably better than the alternative.
bottom line: i wish we had something better.
I agree with the bottom line. The big question is whether we can get the "owners of captial" and others to sit down and try to figure something out.
Getting back to Brad's original question, "where did the idea come from. . . ?" I haven't done any "hard" research on the question, but my instinct would lead me to begin with labor unions (these aren't "evil" organizations either). Employer paid health insurance was probably first newgotiated at the labor bargining table. Once there, it isn't hard to see why other employees would want such a benefit as well, and then add it to their "employment negotiations," whether that be union or management or other. I'm also sure that, in the beginning, employers saw this as a good way to attract "quality" employees.
In my opinion, employment based coverage makes sense. The key word being "employment." This does not mean the "unemployed" or poor do not have something to help deal with emergencies. In fact, California has a pretty good program linked to Medicaid (I'm not an expert in this field). And I know doctors who, in their PRIVATE practice, lend aid and treat the poor at no cost. As a pastor, I have the privalege of working with some of these fantastic people.
Controling costs is always the issue. The best way to control costs is through the free market system. Unfortunately when one is talking about medical care, it means that the consumer needs to be highly informed and have a good knowledge base. Purchasing medical services isn't exactly like buying a car.
BTW - Most of the "expatriot Canadians" I have met here in the United States are doctors and nurses - go figure!
I'm not sure when the obligation was put on employers but I'm pretty sure it began somewhere between the 1930s and early 1950s.
As for socialized medicine, every citizen already is bearing the cost for the uninsured. I wonder how much more or less it would cost if there were some form of insurance that was "socialized," or in which money was placed in a pool. I'm not saying that's the answer. I don't know.
What I do know is that there are millions without insurance who are suffering a financial hardship - I've been there, and I'm still paying bills.
(Glad I have insurance now)
I do think it is unfair to have legislation targeted at one company - unless its Haliburton. ;-).
Side note: I did work for Sam's Club but won't go into various thoughts I have on Wal-Mart. They did tell us at orientation that Wal-Mart's computer system was so vast and coordinated that is is the back up for the U.S. Government's should all or part of it be disabled.
Hello. Good blog you got here. I have two myself. Yeah, good work, keep it up. Happy blogging!
regards,
group health and dental plan
Post a Comment