Wal-Mart Gets Behind Employer Mandate

Using Federal Regulations has always been a great way for large corporations to destroy smaller rivals.

Using Federal Regulations has always been a great way for large corporations to destroy smaller rivals.

Posted by: pgr88 | June 30, 2009 2:34 PM |
__________

There's always an ulterior motive with corporate giants. As if Walmart didn't have enough of the market already.

Handwriting is on the wall fr Walmart and the rest. They can either figure out how to do this themselves or they can have the federal government do it. Of course Walmart has no doubt had their actuaries studya all this and whatever they support is the best for walmart, not necessarily for employees. However, even evil corporate giants have been known to use their own self interest, greed and slef preservation instincts to back good things when they see benefits for themselves in doing so --

see Taco Bell and tomato pickers, mcdonalds and packaging, mcdonalds and growth hormones, Purdue and chicken hormones...

As politically unpopular as it may be, real solutions to America’s crisis MUST concentrate on fundamental cost reductions and modern management practices. The industry is a profit driven hodge-podge, and dysfunctional private insurance adds billions in costs while contributing zero value to actual care. Solutions must correct the underlying problems – inefficient distribution of services, poor quality control, and a profit driven industry dominated by self interest entrepreneurs and middlemen. Put another way, healthcare must once again refocus to efficiently deliver high quality medical and dental services – PERIOD. Other countries offer innovative examples to consider, and many U.S. non-profit models already point the way. We can no longer tolerate exclusive business contracts between profit center “providers” (formally called doctors and hospitals), grossly inflated pharmaceuticals, an artificially constricted supply of family practitioners, policy agendas written by campaign contributors, and revolving door regulators. Otherwise, despite more private insurance and unlimited taxpayer funding, American healthcare will continue to rank 43rd in performance, and No. 1 in cost.

Fine, as long as there is a public option. Personally, I think the burden should be lifted from business altogether, and a single payer system established that would cover all Americans. We can no longer afford a profit motive in what is since the 1935 Social Security Act a RIGHT of every American, which is to say insurance (which is not really a pooled-risk anyway anymore) companies are not needed.

A Single-Payer system can be financed by a line-item on Form 1040 (income based) plus a percentage contribution from all State, Federal, municipal and corporate pension funds (since healthcare insurance would no longer be required of them, with the balance available for other unfunded liabilities) plus a small national sales tax (so that everyone pays something, even the drug dealers! That provides a framework, to get started. It ain't that hard...

If Wal-Mart supports this plan I automatically become suspicious. The corporate giant has a poor track record when it comes to employee relations. Also I cannot help but wonder where all the money is coming from. Obama promised no new taxes of "ANY" kind would be levied on people earing less than 250k per year. But, he has already passed legislation raising the tax on cigarettes by $0.62. I have a feeling that in order to pay for his health care ambitions he will further bend this campaign pledge.

True enough pgr88. Senior Executives cannot die more than once. I'm sure some are looking for loopholes, but the point is: You can't really call Health Care "compensation" if it's not a job perk, can you ?

This is an overpaid CEO's idea of a pay cut.

I would like to see the agreement they all signed. You have got to know there was some side barring and ulterior motivation going on here. First Mall Wart resists both health care and card check and now they have had a change of heart? I seriously doubt this. There are some other factors in play here. Mall Wart has no problem declaring outrageous profits while expecting the majority of their employees to live on low wages. Then they have suddenly desire to play fairly and capitulate on health care. Mall Wart and the ilk of corporate greed have no problem reaping giant profits at the expense of everyone else, now they want to play nice? I smell a fat corporate rat! While they feel so magnanimous perhaps they will sign onto the Employee Free Choice Act too!!!

It is my understanding that Walmart already offers health insurance to its employees but it is so expensive many can't afford to take it on the wages they are paid. I don't trust Walmart one bit.

Any Walmart employees or former employees want to add to this or correct me if I am wrong?

I would like to see the agreement they all signed. You have got to know there was some side barring and ulterior motivation going on here. First Mall Wart resists both health care and card check and now they have had a change of heart? I seriously doubt this. There are some other factors in play here. Mall Wart has no problem declaring outrageous profits while expecting the majority of their employees to live on low wages. Then they have suddenly desire to play fairly and capitulate on health care. Mall Wart and the ilk of corporate greed have no problem reaping giant profits at the expense of everyone else, now they want to play nice? I smell a fat corporate rat! While they feel so magnanimous perhaps they will sign onto the Employee Free Choice Act too!!!

How does one get invited to the Town Hall Meeting in Annandale?

While I get that it would be nice to have public healthcare for all, right now it just isn't a possiblity. Not because people are not willing to make it happen, but because simply put- there aren't enough primary care doctors. You can't force the supply to weild to the demand. There are only so many. I get the overall idea of the "possiblity" that a public healthcare system would ultimately equally charge people while bringing in more patients so really: more revenue but really- costs are different for EVERYTHING all over America. Things will always be cheaper in the south. Not 100% sure that is the same with healthcare but something similiar. Having the President give a speech to a bunch of med students to change to primary care instead of speciaties isn't going to change that much. America isn't ready for a public heathcare system yet- if ever- at all. And I agree- why in the world would Walmart even careeeee about healthcare becoming public? Something to do with more perscriptions and more buisiness perhaps???

It's my understanding that Wal*Mart is self-insured, and that their policies usually have a very steep deductable that must be paid first before they start paying out. If this is the case, I can see why they would be in favor of the government insisting that employees obtain employer-based health insurance.

Is that cool breeze I feel coming from the hell?

If you increase the cost of doing business then you will help create an environment where only large companies can afford to do business. It's just like how increasing the cost of complying with Federal election regulations has made it nearly impossible to run for office outside of one of the two main parties. This is just further evidence that health care "reform" is just another corporate and political power grab. Reforms are supposed to be about increasing freedom and opportunity.

Tell them to drive carefully in Annandale tomorrow! :P

While I get that it would be nice to have public healthcare for all, right now it just isn't a possiblity. Not because people are not willing to make it happen, but because simply put- there aren't enough primary care doctors. You can't force the supply to weild to the demand. There are only so many. I get the overall idea of the "possiblity" that a public healthcare system would ultimately equally charge....
Posted by: NMR1989 | June 30, 2009 3:21 PM
-----------------------
Good points. Taking the last one first, the idea of a single payer is to eliminate the NEED for charges to the patient.

As for MDs, the "system" needs to re-engineered so that the MD is not the entry point into the system anyway, a nurse could (and should) be. They can refer you to the resources that best fit the pathway you should use: the right MD, a throat culture, a support group, etc. Also, we do need to build and open more medical school spaces, so that that we don't need to import so many from India, Pakistan, Mexico, etc. There are plenty of highly qualified American applicants turned down every year who would make fine doctors. Other ideas exist, but not much space here..

I am also feeling mighty suspicious of Wal-Mart's decision to go ahead with this. Perhaps they're going to reduce their employee's wages to offset the cost, or maybe the workers will only have to drive 50 miles to a provider instead of 96.

This turnaround seems odd. But I still won't shop there.

There is a set up here. I smell a rat.

So they'll offer health insurance coverage. Two big questions: 1) how much will it cost the employee, and 2) how much/little will the insurance cover?

My bet is it will cost a lot and will cover little.

"There is a set up here. I smell a rat."

- - - -

Here's your rat: this is anti-competitive behavior from Wal-Mart.

The idea that big corporations don't want regulations and mandates imposed on them is a lie that the left loves to tell. Big corporations don't want free markets; they want to be able to limit competition.

Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers health insurance. Other, smaller companies can't. If all employers are required to give health insurance to their workers, the ones who can't afford it will go out of business.

This is just Wal-Mart enlisting the help of the government to increase its market share. That's all it is.

#1. I work for a tiny company, 4 full-time people. Two of us are covered under our spouse's insurance, so that leaves a group of two...which means we fall into the highest rate band of BC/BS. I could hire another full-time employee for what I pay to cover 2 employees. At least at Wal-Mart the group size would be large enough to insure that the price would be more reasonable than the gouging we get.
#2. I grew up in a military family. Socialized medicine was all we knew, and it worked for us. Heck, I'd move to Canada if it wasn't so bloody cold.
#3. We need to get sensible about health care in this country. But there are so few sensible people, that may be a lost cause.

Here's your rat: this is anti-competitive behavior from Wal-Mart.

The idea that big corporations don't want regulations and mandates imposed on them is a lie that the left loves to tell. Big corporations don't want free markets; they want to be able to limit competition.

Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers health insurance. Other, smaller companies can't. If all employers are required to give health insurance to their workers, the ones who can't afford it will go out of business.

This is just Wal-Mart enlisting the help of the government to increase its market share. That's all it is.

-------------------------------------------
Thanks for the info.

If you shop at Wal-Mart you are part of the problem. Stay away.

>>>Wal-Mart...will support a requirement that all businesses provide health insurance coverage as part of sweeping health reform legislation.

The keyword missing is AFFORDABLE!
It's not enough for businesses to "provide health insurance coverage" - since many businesses that are "providing coverage" have employees that can't even afford the premiums.

I seem to remember that back in the 1950's there was an agreement with corporations saying they would provide health insurance for their employees. Union contracts included this "benefit" too.

As profiteers took over companies, businesses forgot their costly promises. As large businesses dropped coverage, insurance costs skyrocketed.

All insurance is a legal Ponsi scheme.

Businesses will provide insurance that is so horrible nobody will want it or they will not be able to use it. It will cost them next to nothing and the Feds will be appeased.

>>>>If you shop at Wal-Mart you are part of the problem. Stay away.

What?!? you mean - Americans aren't supposed to be dedicated to building up the Chinese Communist military?
;>

>>>>So they'll offer health insurance coverage. Two big questions: 1) how much will it cost the employee, and 2) how much/little will the insurance cover?

Picky, picky, picky!
Oh - and you're asking too many questions.
;>

If you would like to help pressure Congress to pass single payer health care please join our voting bloc at:
http://www.votingbloc.org/Health_Bloc.php

Every employer - no matter what size - should provide the best insurance for all its employees. It isn't fair that only the big companies employees get the cadillac version! We little guys need ours too.

Walmart will simply raise prices and let some people go to pay for the benefits. Walmart to my knowledge does not put a gun to anyones head and make them go to work there.

I was living in Albuquerqe NM a few years ago and women were pickitting Walmart for pay and benifits. One of the women wanted me to boycott the store. She was uneducated, unskilled and unhappy. If you dont like your job, leave and get a better one.

cjennings6 posted June 30, 2009 3:02 PM
"....But, he (Obama) has already passed legislation raising the tax on cigarettes by $0.62. I have a feeling that in order to pay for his health care ambitions he will further bend this campaign pledge...."

1st Congress passes taxes not POTUS.

2nd If $0.62 on a pack of cigarettes will prevent kids from starting to smoke then I'm all for it. (I do not smoke) If $0.62 causes any one to stop smoking I'm all for it. In fact make it $6.20/pack. Less smoking means fewer sick and dying people, it's money saved.

3rd There will be out of pocket costs to everyone but by having everyone covered the overall expense will be less for each person.

It is our national security to pass a health care plan that covers everyone.

Posted by: pgr88: Using Federal Regulations has always been a great way for large corporations to destroy smaller rivals.

And large corporations, setting societal policies, acting as proxy governments, has always been a great way to make sure no one gets in their way.

Walmart has a target on its` back and the unions are salivating to organize their employees nationwide.I smell a deal where Walmart backs Obama at a critical juncture in health care reform and the Obama crew ignores this giant for their support. Walmart will have to operate with FEWER employees and higher prices to make the numbers work but they may have dodged a big union organizing bullet led by the Marlboro man!

Great. So if I work at Walmart can I afford to buy a new house and support a family with 4 kids and put them through college and have two family cars. Nope.

WalMart, SEIU and Podesta in a single letter, favoring mandated coverage by employers?

As someone typed recently in these boxes:

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Sure, Walies don't mind. Just take it out of the illegal alien employees $2.37 per hour wages that they provide.

I'm shocked - Good for you Walmart!!!

blakesouthwood wrote, "Great. So if I work at Walmart can I afford to buy a new house and support a family with 4 kids and put them through college and have two family cars. Nope."

If you have a plan which would enable every full-time USA worker to "buy a new house and support a family with 4 kids and put them through college and have two family cars", please don't keep it a secret.

In the absence of such a plan, your snarkiness toward WalMart tells me more about you than it does about WalMart.

Walmart is only for this because Walmart has ulterior motives---PERIOD!
First of all, we all know the corporate giant has the WORST employee record in the nation! They just settled a long standing lawsuit over the way employees were paid- or should I say-not paid!
We also know that Walmart raised every price in the store over last years gasoline increases! The funny part, they NEVER lowered them when gasoline prices rescinded and instead have now once again raised prices with the recent gasoline increases! Yes, Walmart is once again showing their GREED!
Then again we all know Walmart is for child labor, sweat shops, etc because they go to CHINA to get their JUNK made for pennies and then come back to the states and fleece the public for JUNK that isn't fit for anything! If you buy something at Walmart it is guaranteed! That's right-GUARANTEED you will have to return the defective purchase!
BEWARE OF WALMART!!!!!!!!!!!

Shuckapeafarms wrote, "Walmart is only for this because Walmart has ulterior motives---PERIOD! First of all, we all know the corporate giant has the WORST employee record in the nation!"

As a strong advocate of labor unions, I carry no brief for WalMart. However, your charge is simply false.

Many of the grocery chains and mom and pop stores which bitterly complain to zoning commissions when a Wal-Mart thinks of moving to town refuse to hire full time workers so that they won't have to pay any benefits at all. In the little town where I live, both grocery stores use that method for holding down their labor costs.

Not to mention that WalMart's wages are *higher* than wages at either local grocery, and Wal-Mart hires mostly full-time workers, and *provides benefits*, sub-standard though they may be.

It seems to me that people who've never worked a low-wage job in their life have made WalMart into a cartoon bad guy. People who've actually labored in the salt mines know that Wal-Mart is a step up from most local retail establishments.

And I don't think anything good comes from repeating the illusions of yuppies until they become conventional wisdom.

Deep pocket payers are part of the problem. Large corporations that negotiate lower costs per treatment are part of the problem because the little guy who has no negotiating leverage must pay full rate. Workers whose health benefits are untaxed are part of the problem.

Walmart is a big part of the health care problems.

I hope Duke got Obama to guarantee that the disastrous EFCA will be killed for good.

This is pretty funny, coming from Wal-Mart, who encouraged its employees to use Medicaid to make up for the health insurance it wouldn't provide to them.

mikel7 wrote, "This is pretty funny, coming from Wal-Mart, who encouraged its employees to use Medicaid to make up for the health insurance it wouldn't provide to them."

I would be curious to know the source and date of your information.

I have a family member who took a nearly entry-level job at WalMart in 2003. They received health care benefits that weren't great, but weren't ridiculously shabby. The risk of a major medical catastrophic expense was covered, some dental and eye was optionally covered.

There was a lot of co-pay at the outset, but that's a reasonable way of holding down the cost of health insurance as best I can tell. The most important coverage is that which protects a person from major medical costs like the $12,000 bill for one week in the hospital (no surgery) which I received in 2002.

So lay some facts on me, buddy.

Given Walmart's history with its employees, who would want to be covered by such a dirt bag employer.

Take all the money they can and give you nothing.

Walmart has been undermining the US economy for decades, insisting suppliers manufacture their products in China, and to make matters worse, using tax payer dollars to open stores in every location and keep sales taxes for themselves with the help of their Republican friends rather than giving them to the states they operate in.

The most unamerican company in the US = Walmart.

morenews1, please give us a few facts to support your claim that WalMart has been "using tax payer dollars to open stores in every location and keep sales taxes for themselves with the help of their Republican friends rather than giving them to the states they operate in."

I find it odd, as a person whose main interest in economics is to support strong unions and oppose so-called "right-to-work" laws, that I keep finding myself defending WalMart against attackers who seem not to understand that its competitors are even more vicious toward workers than is WalMart.

That could be explained were it the case that these attackers claim to represent the working poor but actually represent mostly little businesses which exploit the working poor more dramatically than Wal-Mart does.

It's hard to know what's behind a screen name, so I'll leave it at that.

I run a small business. We provide health insurance for the employee, although very expensive. The employee pays for his or her family. Do we now have to pay for their families? If so, wages will have to go down or we will have to shut down

Other alternatives, hirer older people who are not of child bearing age. We have some employees that do not need health as their spouse has it elsewhere. Those would be the employees to hire, also they will be the employees to get raises.

It is either that or shut down. Then I could become an employee and have someone else pay my health care!! Now I am on to something

The ONLY way to get health care that is primarily and solely focussed on health outcomes is to remove the profit motive from it, ie a public system. In any system that has a profit margin attached, the profit will become the driving motivation. Users of the system will not get the BEST health care, they will get the THE MOST PROFITABLE health care. The two outcomes are not always the same. Also while ever there is a profit in health care, there will be an incentive for the insurers to find any means, fair or foul, to deny claims in order to maximize their profits. If for profit health care was a workable system, would we be having this debate for the last (How many?) years?
As for employers providing health coverage, there is a lot wrong with that idea.
a)It becomes a bargaining chip between employees and employer.
b)It can be done away with on an employer by employer basis, which is the old divide and conquer strategy.
c)It does nothing to address the issue of denied claims by insurers trying to maximize their profits.
d)It doesn't address the inherent waste of a for profit system where the profits aren't available money for care.
e)There is no incentive for the insurers to become more efficient as there is little or no competition in the business.

ScottFromOz wrote, "The ONLY way to get health care that is primarily and solely focussed on health outcomes is to remove the profit motive from it, ie a public system. In any system that has a profit margin attached, the profit will become the driving motivation. Users of the system will not get the BEST health care, they will get the THE MOST PROFITABLE health care."

and

kathymac1 wrote: " run a small business. We provide health insurance for the employee, although very expensive. The employee pays for his or her family. Do we now have to pay for their families? If so, wages will have to go down or we will have to shut down

"Other alternatives, hirer older people who are not of child bearing age. We have some employees that do not need health as their spouse has it elsewhere. Those would be the employees to hire, also they will be the employees to get raises."

-------------------------

I'm with Scott.

If I might speak my mind about small businesses which make some people rich....

You carp and moan about paying for expensive employee health care. How would your business be if you and your family members were the only ones working there?

You want to get rich off the labor of others, while complaining about how expensive that labor is.

You know what? The USA could do with a few less gift shops in tourist towns.

Comments should be displayed with the most recent at the top.

Walmart figured out along time ago how to avoid having to offer insurance benefits to employees. By hiring many part time workers, working them up to but not exceeding 39 hours a week. They don't have to offer part timers insurance. I work for the city and they do the very same thing. They'd rather have 6 part timers who they don't have to give benefits to then hire 3 full timers. Apparently it's a growing trend among employers.

Whoa- Really? -Would any sane and sober American trust WALMART Corp as their employer with something as important as their health? I think not?

I believe that the US model of employer based health care has outlived its usefulness to both employees and employers.

It's time to move on.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

spartan5 wrote, "Walmart figured out along time ago how to avoid having to offer insurance benefits to employees. By hiring many part time workers, working them up to but not exceeding 39 hours a week. They don't have to offer part timers insurance."

The problem with your argument is that WalMart doesn't do that. Its competitors do.

Come to the lower eastern shore. I'll show you. I'll introduce you to my partner, who worked 37 and 1/2 hours a week at the neighborhood installment of the FreshPride chain, until she got a raise, full time hours, and benefits at WalMart.

FreshPride in my town only hires full time for managers (say, "produce manager"). I'd guess this is their mode of operation elsewhere, though I don't know it for a fact.

WalMart in my neck of the woods hires mostly full time workers, and offers them a decent package of benefits, and has since at least 2003 (as you can see if you're crazy enough to scroll up and search out my previous comments in this thread).

The worst opressors of workers where I live are small businesses - and they are really, really hard on workers.

DrRickLippin, again, speaking as a person who strongly favors labor unions, "card check", and "single payer" health insurance -

but as a person who is annoyed by false attacks against WalMart -

I would trust WalMart's health insurance if it told me a physician was unreliable.

The sooner the USA gets over its worship of M.D.'s, the better our health will be.

fallsmeadjc and pgr88 are right on. This is simply large companies seeking out protection from the marketplace by cozying up to government. Think about it: if every company had to provide health care, it would just make it that much harder for the next wal-mart, google, microsoft, or starbucks to be born. These companies are using the government to give them an unfair advantage over the future entrepreneur, making his or her toils that much more likely to never bear fruit "It is the nature of the firm to seek out government protection from competition in the marketplace." (paraphrasing here!)
-Adam Smith, 1776.
Too bad none of the idiots in DC from either party probably have a clue as to what is truly going on here. When big government (which we certainly have now) and big business get in bed together, hold onto your wallet and kiss your freedoms goodbye!

As long as it's a level playing field and everyone else has to do it, it's not a disadvantage to Wal-Mart.

But as pgr88 said, Wal-Mart will have no problems implementing this, while the small independents will be snowed under with paperwork. There are financial costs involved, but there are also opportunity costs, as management of smaller stores will be spending more time on administrative stuff and less on strategic activities to counter Wal-Mart.

I'm in an industry that was hit with some idiotic regulations a year ago. We were really bummed at first, until we decided to just spend what it took to comply and crush our smaller competitors. We are now a virtual monopoly in our niche, thanks to big government. Whee!

I don't know if Wal-Mart will be as nasty as we were: We ratfinked on our competition to the regulator, and we even had the Customs department interdict their shipments at the border as not complying with regulations.

I also don't trust WalMart (or ChinaWorld, as one of my friends calls it). Will this insurance be mandated only for full-time employees? Will the deductible be affordable? Will small business competitors of WM get the same deal from the health insurance industry as WM?

WalMart employees better lobby for the public insurance option. They will need it.

I work for walmart and the walmart policy I have it something congressmen and woman would rebel if they were told they have it. Almost useless. If you have good ins now and have to switch to walmart policies your wallet will empty fast....

cjennings6 complains about a tax on cigarettes when cigarettes are a tax on everyone's health and the existing health care system.
Talk about misplaced priorities.

As the fight for a public heath care alternative continues, the drug and insurance companies will retreat and offer meaningless compromises. Each meaningless compromise will be protested more and more by them to make it appear they are making genuine concessions. When a public alternative is defeated in the senate, the Lieberman camp will point to the "great gains" made by the people.
The result will be similar to last time the Clintons pushed health care reform.
The Lieberman clique will be richer, the drug companies even richer and the insurance companies richest of all.

Will someone please explain to me why WalMart has even chimed in on this issue? Doesn't seem they have ever been very interested in any kind of benefits for their employees before.

Oh, sorry, silly me, they want to make sure that someone else (anyone else) provides this!

As for WalMart, as I understand it, they are attempting to reduce the number of full-time employees and hiring part-time employees who would not be eligible for health insurance benefits.

I agree with many of the above posts that this is simply another way for a giant retailer to squash the smaller retailer!

Lastly, look what our elected politicians did with Medicare, Social Security, even the VA Hospital system. Are they going to do the same for our current health situation too? They remind me of the Keystone Cops, chasing the right "bad guy", but they're running in circles because they aren't seeing the real problems in our current health care system.