Check out the pro/con debate on today’s opinion pages about whether Kansas should make Wal-Mart provide health care benefits of at least 8 percent of its total payroll, as a Maryland law requires. Rep. Geraldine Flaharty, D-Wichita, who is backing this legislation, argues that it’s not fair that Wal-Mart off-loads its health-care costs on taxpayers. “Wal-Mart has about 20,000 employees in Kansas, and these employees have about 3,000 children covered by HealthWave,” she wrote. “On average, each child covered costs state and federal taxpayers $1,368.” But Lewis Ebert, president of the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, responds that more mandates aren’t the answer to rising health care costs. “Singling out even one large employer for government mandates, as this legislation would, is simply bad public policy and patently unfair,” he wrote.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- sursum on Open thread 11/23
42 Comments
NO! I mean a big screaming NO!
YES! I mean a big screaming YES!
Hee, sorry Joe :)
Really, 8% isn’t going to cripple Wal-Mart.
Can’t let the camel’s nose get under the tent.
Not again!
It’s another way for big brother to punish business it doesn’t like. The word “fair” should be substituted with, “Waaa”.
“It is not the employers responsibility to provide health insurance to its employees”, then statement is true.Sometimes we forget that each companies set their own benefits package, in a sense it is how they compete with other employers for the best workers. What is troubling is the move to cut cost by cutting benefits to workers. We have come to be depended upon these benefits to live and prosper and the truth is Wal-mart would not go under by paying more in wages and benefits. Setting a lid on such spending for them is not a matter of surviving but of making even larger profits.
Wal-mart is not alone in not providing adequate health insurance or benefits, no one seems to be going after Mc Donalds or any other employers. Though they provide even worse benefits to employees, yet are growing in their place in the job market. I let out a sad chuckle every time I read or hear that the unemployment rate has gone down. To the government, a employee that looses their job at Boeing making eighteen dollars an hour and get a job at Wal-mart making seven dollars an hour. Now has a equal job, they are not longer unemployed and now is not longer eligible for unemployment assistance. Though both jobs are far from equal, all that has been accomplished is that they are now eligible for public assistance.
With Wal-mart and other employers taking on the role of being the employer of the masses, from the such of Boeing, Cessna and the large manufacturers. In the past, there was a funnel down flow, the large manufacturers paid and provided great benefits. In turn these benefits and wages flowed down toward Wal-mart and smaller employers. But the tread is now moving to the less willing employers taking on the role of the larger employers. Thus making a down turn in the economy, less capital for everyone else and effecting ever aspect of life. Including public assistance rolls, as employees now have less to live on but live in an economy that has not reflected that down turn.
Let me get this straight. The state has enacted laws that provide health coverage for ‘the needy’. Now they are complaining that the government has to pay for it?
Common sense says that Wal-Mart is not the only employer that encourages employees to take advantage of benefits offered by the state. However once the state is successful in forcing the large employers to pay directly for health insurance then it is only a matter of time before all employers are forced to do the same.
They shouldn’t single out Wal-Mart, they should either make all employers provide a minimim percentage for health care benefits or just revamp the whole health care system in sucha way where people are the focus rather than drug companies and insurance companies.
There is a lot to not like about WalMart, but it seems to me that these type of legislative actions avoid dealing with the real problem, i.e. the high cost of medication and medical care in this country. Might we not be better of addressing these latter issues?
With all the Illegals living in the state…WalMart would be perfect
should have been “better off”
and RLewis, I am not getting your point.
“Singling out even one large employer for government mandates, as this legislation would, is simply bad public policy and patently unfair,” he wrote.
It’s “unfair,” oh boo hoo . . .
Apparently what is “fair” is for the biggest, richest corporation in the world to force the state to pay for your employees’ health care.
A perfect example of “socializing costs and privatizing profits” that corporate America does so well these days.
Does the Eagle have a position on the issue, or are they scared of offending one of their largest advertisers? :-)
Proudlib, “socializing costs and privatizing profits” sounds like what used to be called the “tragedy of the commons” as detailed in the book “Can Man Survive?”.
The tragedy of the commons is the story of a common village pasture, where the rule is that everyone gets to put two animals in the green, and sell them later for their own profit. Works great, right?
But if someone cheats, and puts in four animals, all the profits go to them, and all the cost of overgrazing is shared by all the other villagers. Big business today has a habit of using the “tragedy of the commons” to spread out their costs while retaining all the profits.
I am not against big business. I just want them to play by the same rules the rest of us are forced to obey. I dont think Walmart closed small businesses. I think lots of small businesses paid no attention to what their customers wanted, what they would pay, and how much customers would reward good service. That is what killed mom and pop stores.
There is a great book called “Up Against the Walmarts” that has a road map for how small biz can compete with big box stores. Our local hardware store, 30 miles from the nearest walmart, thrives by using those ideas. People will drive here for the service, even if the prices are a little higher.
Health Care is not a right, nor is it a requirement for employement. It is considered a benefit. Companies provide health insurrance to retain employees.
Wal-Mart provides one of the best low-cost health insurance programs for a retailer. The only draw back is that Wal-Mart also has a lot of part-time employees, and they don’t qualify for health insurance or have to wait for 2 years under Wal-marts plan.
Is it Wal-Mart’s fault that people are using the Health Wave system or is it the person who is using it fault?
The thoughless liberals on here blame the corporations. It is the people. They made the choice to be a part time employee at Wal-Mart. They made the choice to be in their position. They made their own choices for anything, and it has nothing to do with Wal-Mart. Don’t force Wal-Mart to pay for people who they don’t employ. It’s riduclous and it is anti-business and socialist.
Look People! It is SO easy to not live in desperate poverty in America. If you are in poverty then it is your fault and not that of corporations.
Get an education, stay employeed, and don’t get pregnant as a teenager or as a single mother. Stay away from drugs.
That’s it! If you follow those things you will not live in desperate poverty in America. So simple!
I agree, ksgrl. Welcome back!
“If you are in poverty then it is your fault”
That’s about the most clueless thing I ever heard. More “blame the victim”.
Welcome back, Ksfarmgrrl. We missed you.
XXX Then you kindly tell me why people are in poverty?
Lack of opportunity? Lack of Unions? Lack of health care? Corporate exploitation? The wealthy not getting taxes enough?
You tell me?
“Don’t force Wal-Mart to pay for people who they don’t employ. It’s riduclous and it is anti-business and socialist.”
Joe, where the hell did that come from? Who is asking Walmart to pay for people they dont employ? I think some here want Walmart to pay for the people they DO employ. When they send their workers to the state for health care, WE ALL PAY FOR PEOPLE WE DONT EMPLOY!!!
Gee Joe, my mom followed your advise about how to live a good life, and she still was living below the poverty level in retirement. I guess it is her fault, damned communist welfare slacker, etc. She should have planned ahead and worked at walmart instead of farming.
LOL, maybe Joe, with his razor sharp mind, thinks “desperate” poverty is different from “regular” poverty. Gosh Joe, even jesus said the poor will always be among you.
I accept the fact that there will always be poor people. That is a given.
And I’m all about helping the poor. But at what expense? We can never “equalize” society in the form of wealth. So forcing the redestribution of income, in the United States, eqated to the TRILLIONS of dollars since the Great Society program started, yet we still have poor people and they are still demanding more.
Help the poor when we can. Everybody is for that, but when they demand more… I’m sorry. Beggers can’t be choosers and demanding more.
When I said Wal-Mart pays for people they don’t employ, is because in Maryland, they have to give up an additional 8% to the State Health program. Just because they hire many workers and some happen to be using the state health program.
It was the United Food Union that forced this law on Wal-Mart, because they wanted to use the law to destory their competition, and that’s wrong.
Wal-mart is a ruthless competitor, but they are not evil. They employee more people in the US than any other employer with the exception of government.
But most people who are poor, is because of choice. Granted there are individuals that cannot help themselves, such as children, elderly, mentally ill or handicap. And we do all we can to help them.
But the 50 year old layed off Boeing worker who doesn’t have a high school diploma and is a drunk and 2 pack a day smoker, will complain that he is poor because there isn’t a job for him that he can make $60,000 a year, and working at McDonalds is beneth him. You think I have sympathy for him? Do you think his situation is his own?
Or is it Wal-Mart’s fault and the wealthy people in our country?
Joe, I am not advocating “forcing the redestribution of income”. That is a pat conservative phrase that just doesnt apply here.
I am talking about people paying their fair share. About walmart being as responsible for their employees as other businesses are. Do you think Walmart pays its fair share when sending people to the government is their prefered health care plan?
Do you enjoy paying the health benefits for their workers out of your tax dollars? Arent you the one who hates paying new or more taxes? Do you think the tax paying public should continue subsidize walmart employees?
Or do you think that government assistance should be reserved for those who are least fortunate, as you pointed out?
You cant have it both ways joe. And BTW, your “its the unions fault” is getting as old as the “clinton did it too” line. Why would the unions care if the workers are getting health care provided by the government? :)
Actually Wal-Mart does have a health care plan and in the case of Maryland, more than 80% of its employees had health insurance through Wal-Mart, which has one of the lowest employee contribution health care programs in the US. The other 20% that didn’t have health insurrance is because they were Part-time employees.
That is a BIG difference. So no! They don’t FORCE people to go on the government plan. They have their own and its a decent plan. You have to remember that Wal-mart does employ part-time workers and also seasonal part-timers as well. And people who choose to be part-time, is because they want to.
They either are looking to make a few extra bucks and not looking to put in a 40 hour work week. There a many millions of workers who only work part-time and many do it by choice.
So why attack Wal-Mart and FORCE them to pay more into the system because of this?
Ok Joe, dont be like Ray and take this personally, but I want to know where you got this:
The other 20% that didn’t have health insurrance is because they were Part-time employees.
Are you quoting an article or research or something?
Also! It is because the Unions are the ones that lobbied for the Maryland Law. They do it because they want to attack companies that are non-union, because of job security.
Forcing Wal-mart to pay more, will make Wal-Mart increase their prices, which will in hopes keep the competition between Wal-Mart and the Union Super Markets much better.
They could care less about the poor person shopping at Wal-Mart.
I’ll give you a source. And I will make sure it is a reputable source.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020901918.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301861.html
Washington Post good enough for ya?
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/walmart/health_insurance_program.php
Again! Wal-Mart is not the crisis. That is a liberal propaganda mill that is basically looking for socalism and anti-corporations.
The crisis in Health Care is the cost. Cost continue to sky rocket. Why? Greedy doctors? More people are sick? Government health programs? Rampet fraud? Greedy Pharma companies?
It sure isn’t Wal-Mart. If anything. Wal-Mart has done more the help the working poor than any government program we have ever came up with.
Nice try Joe. I asked you to back up this comment you made:
The other 20% that didn’t have health insurrance is because they were Part-time employees.
Yes, I do accept the WaPo, even though you didnt when I used it before. You have done an admirable job of showing us once again that unions are evil. We already know how you feel about unions.
Now, wanna back up your original 80 and 20 percent statements? Or do you wanna admit you made that up?
Joe says:”The crisis in Health Care is the cost. Cost continue to sky rocket. Why? Greedy doctors? More people are sick? Government health programs? Rampet fraud? Greedy Pharma companies?”
Joe,You’re right in the first sentence, but I’m not sure about your reasons for this problem. In a recent Washington Post article/blog (I can find it if you want) it said that in some regions of the country 50% of medical procedures done are not “medically necessary” – which seems unbelievable to me given the existence of managed care.
Let me find the relevant blog and post a link to it. This is a more complex subject than your paragraph above would suggest.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701920.html
This guy Pearlstein seems to have done some research on the subject and mentions at least places to look for more info.
I was just asking the question. I don’t think they are the reasons for sky rocket health care cost.
The only thing that increases cost in a capitalist society is demand. The demand for health care is huge, so naturally cost go up.
Joe,You’re right.
Demand is high because medicine has some good products these days. Medicine and pharmaceutical companies develop better products when there is a financial incentive to do so. Hence, we need to retain that feature; I think any way.
If you read the WashPost blog (link above), it is amazing how many people want a single payer solution. I think such a thing would spread the services to a wider group, but the quality would go down and the incentives for innovation would be reduced.
Pearlstein (author of the above blog/discussion) advocates finding a middle road – going with competition to lower costs and retaining innovation incentives. I would like to see that delicate balance struck, too — but think it would have to be worked out by someone a lot smarter than any one I know.
Why don’t we just get rid of business all together? We can just have the government and the poor people supply jobs.
Is that what you really want?
Wal-Mart would not have become successful if so many people did not want lower prices and this includes you Union folks that drive foreign cars and shop at Wal-Mart.
If the Wal-Mart employees were unhappy they would work elsewhere
Why don’t we call it a draw, and let everyone take care of their own healthcare? In this way, everyone could get the healthcare they want, not what their employer or the government says they are going to get.
wilson,I think that in a lot of places, people financing their own health care is the situation we have. Even with Unions back east who are not paying more for insurance are doing so by taking less to no increase in wages. They are paying more for health care — everybody is.
Two things that could be done to help with run away costs:1) have outcome based protocols to guide end of life care (this could help reduce unhelpful heroic measures that can be very expensive); 2) make your wishes known for the type of palliative care you want to have – make a living will.
When I was younger, I used to think that I would always be more important than money, but I don’t see it that way now. This would be especially true if very expensive end of life care resulted in me having no quality of life — I would rather my kids get the money. These are tough decisions for families to make — make your wishes known — it will help your family.
Wal Mart workers should unionize nationwide. It is the only way to make corporate dicks take notice.
Kansas is a follower state on laws whether good, bad or otherwise. I doubt there has been an original thought in Kansas since Eisenhower was here.
The politicians sure do not know what they are doing, and the court system of this state is a hoot. They could not follow a law if they were told how the law was read and what it meant.
If you want to complain about Wal-Mart do it with your pocket book/wallet. Otherwise stop complaining.
Rep. Geraldine Flaharty action is stupid. If she is really worried about what the taxpayer has gets socked with then she needs to look at the real KanTaxus and the burden the citizens are shouldering with mismanagement at the state level. How many times in the last eight years has KEPERS been bailed out because of “bad stock markets”? No one ever made up my losses due to market fluctuations. There are a lot of other areas the spending could be reduced such as the AG’s office, KDOC, Judicial system, and Transportation. Ms Flaharty needs to nose around in her own back yard before she looks in other peoples back yard for stink. She may just fine some there.
I do not shop at Wal Mart.I would rather die than work at Walmart.
Someone suggested upthread that “part time empoyee choose to be part time” Oh in a case or two that might be true. But I’ve worked retail where insurance…..bad as the coverage was… available for FULL TIME empoloyees. Now what that meant and means is if management likes ya and you suckup enough, you get full time.
My solution to Wal mart is anti trust legislation for starters and heavy tarrifs on foreign produced goods.
….. promote the general welfare….that’s fromthe preamble to the Constitution
……..life, liberty and e pursuit of happiness…from te Declaration of Independence…
Now clearly the ideals of the founders as stated above are consistent with nationally provided health care. Certainly no one could argue that letting the sick suffer and die is in the direction of these high ideals. And when one remembers the health care those founders knew……where a Dr would accept apples, eggs, or a chicken for payment for services…..because healing was the primary concern, then the mandate for government involvement to reform at least the “business” that health care has become, if not to assume it as a basic right is given further credence.
Now I know that SOME of the winners of life’s lottery among us are against this idea. But is the incoinvenience of having to wait a few minutes in the waiting room to see a Dr. really something they are willing to fight for? And if so…..they should say so and loudly and honestly.
The United States is the only Western industrialized nation that does not guarantee its citizens medical care. That’s shameful. The arguement that the United States has the best of all health care mattters little unless you are of the mind that health is a prveledge of the priveledged.
used to be called the “tragedy of the commons” as detailed in the book “Can Man Survive?”.
Was that book used in a college class by the same name?
Yes it was DD! One of the best classes I ever took.
I didn’t ever take that class, but I recall many others saying the same thing.
In the early 1980s, I was helping the Vice President of Academic Affairs at FHSU write a book. I remember that he and the other “higher ups” were really proud of that class and the folks who taught it.
They had every right to be very proud of that class. My high school biology teacher had taken it, and it profoundly influenced his teaching of environmental science. I took it for an easy science course, and got the lessons of a lifetime.