Colorado Joins Fair Share Health Care Movement

I posted something about Wal-Mart today on my blog if you are interested

http://edwardcopeland.blogspot.com/2006/02/attention-wal-mart-shoppers.html

The liberal way to run a business - see GM & Ford.

This union sponsored anti-Wal-Mart site wants to make Wal-Mart into a GM or Ford.

But one has to wonder why companies like General Motors and Ford are going under.  Is Chrysler soon to follow suit?  Giving in to union demands has perhaps fatally wounded these former giants of the auto industry.  “Living wages,” health care benefits laced in gold, fat pension plans, and “job security”....  you name it, GM and Ford sold their souls to the unions.

check out this article about fake jobs:

Jobs bank programs—12,000 paid not to work

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm

While some of you may be asking yourself, “How can I get that kind of job?” I say it’s a disgusting premise folks!

Whatever happened to the adage, ‘An honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work?’

$31 an hour to play cards and do crossword puzzles?  ‘Gimme a break!

Sickofspin: what does GM and Ford have to do with Colorado’s proposed new law?  Nothing!  It’s just a distraction.  But if you insist .... GM and Ford have a disadvantage in the world market.  They provide health insurance for their workers (like all responsible American businesses), while their competitors in other countries do not provide health insurance for their workers.  (Other countries have single-payer health systems, funded through the government.) Ford and GM’s CEOs also made a bad decision in producing large gas-guzzling cars and SUV’s at a time when the price of gasoline more than doubled and American consumers wanted cars with better gas mileage.  As always, when upper level management mades a bad decision, the workers suffer.

The subject of this site is the proposed Colorado law.  To quote from the article:  “(The law) will stop large, profitable corporations from freeloading off communities and shifting their employees’ health care insurance costs onto workers, taxpayers and smaller businesses."” Yes!  What started in Maryland is spreading throughout America.  For the American private health insurance system to work, all businesses need to participate; no freeloading allowed.

Man! You guys at WMW sure love beating a dead horse...Oh! That’s right...I forgot unions had nothing else to talk about...my mistake.

“A bill that would force large Colorado employers to pay 11 percent of wages toward health care costs was introduced in the legislature Wednesday.”

These amounts keep getting more and more ridiculous. Eight percent was bad enough!

“Although naming no names, this week’s House Bill 1316 is widely thought to target Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, which employs 25,380 in Colorado.”

Oh, really? I had no clue.

“The bill would require firms with 3,500 or more workers to spend at least 11 percent of payroll on health care or hand over the difference to Medicaid, the state and federal program for the poor and disabled.”

Total bull shit! Are they meaning to imply that ALL smaller firms comply with this figure? Is there some reason they ought to be exempt? Obviously I’m missing something. Somebody, please enlighten me.

“All government agencies are exempt.”

Why is that?

“Critics contend that Wal-Mart’s health benefits force hundreds of thousands of workers and children onto Medicaid.”

Yes. We all know that Wal-Mart’s benefits are priced astronomically and their employees can’t afford them on minimum wage. Furthermore, management has a habit of coercing associates to sign up for Medicaid by threatening them at gunpoint.

“Either we talk about providing health care for everyone in this country,” Solano said, “or we bring everybody to the table to talk about being responsible to the community they locate in.”

So we move to socialized health care or we talk about being responsible? How is this open to discussion? This is a bill being considered by a state legislature. This has nothing to do with bringing EVERYBODY to the table.

“Supporter AFL-CIO says such legislation evens the playing field between Wal-Mart and union shops such as King Soopers and Safeway, which are losing market share to the retail giant.”

If you ask me, this is wonderful evidence that labor unions are harmful to companies.

“On Tuesday, the Retail Industry Leaders Association filed two federal lawsuits against Maryland. The first argued that the Fair Share Health Care Act was illegal under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The second argues that state and local governments are not allowed to mandate levels of health care coverage by private companies. Both lawsuits ask federal judges to grant injunctions to prevent enforcement of the laws.”

Finally...Something worth reading. Both suits are correct. It’s only a matter of time before that travesty of a law is struck down. What will you guys be saying then?

Fair Share Heathcare Legislation has been struck down/defeated/killed in more states than it has passed in.  Just wanted everyone that reads this to know that little tidbit of info....

Thanks.
-Michael

Maryland’s legislation won’t pass the smell test in court.

What was that you were saying about “beating a dead horse” Someone in USA?  How many times do we have to listen to people like Sickofspin say: “Unions are bad!  Bad unions!

Yeah...Michael D, you might be right in the short-term, Fair Share Healthcare is a tough fight in other states.  I would imagine that they like my home state, has a Republican controlled legislature.  WOW....what a surprise!  Republicans are pro-Big Business.  I wouldn’t start crowing too loudly Michael D...this is far from over and many states haven’t introduced Fair Share yet.

i do not understand you people who call this idea of fair healthcare liberal. 

Why do so many of you on here have an issue with people forcing business to be responsible for its workers?

The same bunch of you who aregue against forcing large companies pay more of its workers health care tab are the ones who are also against Universal Healthcare? 

Americans need affordable healthcare.

There are 4o million or so who dont even have insurance and there are millions more who do have insurance who still can’t afford a doctor. 

If you are against legislating that walmart be forced to pay more of the healthcare tab, then back campaigns that create Universal Healthcare for all americans so we dont have to force big companies to do it.

or is it that you dont give a damn if millions of americans can’t go to the doctor just as long as you can....

lets be practical...the healthcare system is BROKEN if you are middle income or poor.  We need solutions, this is life and death! 

Dont’ debate, lets take action to save lives.

For God Sake’s stand up and do something.

Molly
Bentonville, ARkansas

Also you stupid people who cite free markets are on my last nerve.

How can you call walmart practices free market? 

They ship our jobs to cheap foreign labor markets with non-democratic governments. 

Walmart practices economic explotation no matter where they go, in america or in china.

Free markets left unchecked do not work, because of Greed.  Thats why we are a country of laws and government.  Right now free markets are reaking havoc on the low skilled labor sector of our society.

Thats why government has minimum wage and labor laws to protect the workers in this sector from being explotied too badly by greedy corporations. 

I do accept that greed is a natural part of captialism, but that is why we are a country of laws, that keeps the greedy in check.

Wake up you free market dumb asses

Molly,
Arkansas.

Molly: completely agree :0). 

WalMart is subsidized by government; its competitors are not.  (Part of the government subsidy is having the government pay WalMart’s health insurance costs for its workers.) Is it really capitalism if the government subsidizes one company and does not subsidize the other companies?  Also .... If government is subsidizing a company, doesn’t that give the government a say in that company’s decisions?  Better, pure capitalism is to have the government to stop subsidizing private businesses, and that includes the cost of health insurance.

Sickofspin in The Heartland of America IS a lawyer too!

YAHOOOOOOOO My new home state is taking on crap-mart for health care . This is great news i sure cant wait ti move there in a few months to help stop them for doing anything in the state Of Colorado we dont need them there to eat up my taxes

Sickofspin...is your legal knowledge better than that of the Attorney General of MD who found that this legislation is legal?

Molly:

Whoever you are… You go girl!  You get it!

Bob in Hazlet, NJ:

I don’t think you gave Sickofspin all the credit he claims for himself!  Not only is he a “lawyer,” he’s also a “judge,"one-man jury,” “an economist,” “a CEO,” “an elected representative” and a “successful business owner.”

Sick of Spin,

Do I have to remind you that Maryland Attorney General Joseph Curran has already ruled that the Fair Share Health Care law doesn’t violate federal law.

Here’s the letter:

http://64.62.135.175/images/uploads/curranERISA.pdf

Jeb That sure looks like you are RIGHT and Sikooo is WRONGO

1-0 for Anti-wal-mart vs wal-mart loves

so lets here you sicko try to make this sounds wrong

Regarding Maryland’s legislation, of COURSE the state attorney general is going to say it passes muster.  He was asked to consult on it and he’s FOR it!  So what does a good lawyer do?  He finds a way to justify.

I’ll just wait for the challenge by Wal-Mart and for the courts to decide.

Why do you liberals expect employers to hand you health care on a silver platter?

Why is your health care their obligation and not yours?

You people have no sense of individual responsibility.  You want your cake and eat it too.  You want your $31/hr job, gold plated health care, and a job itself that isn’t very demanding.

Pathetic.

the government and unions are not protecting low skill labor jobs.  They are killing them in the US.  They are passing laws raising wages making it impossible for Americans to be competitive with other countries.  Unions make it too expensive for companies to turn a profit.

Health care is affordable (especially at Wal-Mart.) It never has been nor should it ever be the responsibility of a company to insure its employees.  This is just a benefit that encourages highly skilled employees to work for them.  Health care is and should remain the responsibility of each individual.  I am not responsible for your health care insurance, car insurance, life insurance, home insurance, retirement, mortgage, car payment, utilities, ......

Companies are only responsible for paying their employees a wage that their labor warrants.  Nobody has ever started a company just to provide work for others.  They take the risk of starting a company to make a profit for themselves.  To do this they must hire employees and pay them fair wages determined by the employer and employee (NOT THE GOVERNMENT OR UNIONS.) I get so sick of hearing you WMW crying about how much money the Walton family has.  Sam Walton earned that money and his family deserves the right to have it and spend it how they want.  Nobody other than a Walton should be concerned with how they spend their money.

If Maryland AG Joseph Curran found Fair Share violated federal law, I doubt he would risk his credibilty for politics sake....

Fair Share is a win for taxpayers and Wal-Mart workers. Wal-Mart can’t freeload off taxpayers and workers are given better benefits.

Molly-

I do support universal health care so long as a reasonable method can be devised to implement it…

Also, you might want to see if your local college is offering an economics course. It should be clear to everyone reading your posts that you have no clue what you are talking about. For example, you cite minimum wage. In most markets, the equilibrium wage exceeds minimum wage. These markets are unaffected by it (ie eliminating minimum wage would not change wages). If minimum wage exceeds the market determined price, the increase results in unemployment...not good.

DeeDee-

It’s good to see that this post is not identical to a previous one. Sadly, it, too, proves that you are either an idiot or a liar. You said, “WalMart is subsidized by government; its competitors are not.” Who are you trying to fool? K-Mart and Target appear on those lists as well.

Chester and Jeb-

Let’s put aside the comments of the biased attorney general. Clearly, if a law passes, enough presumably educated individuals think it is legal to make it so. Are you denying that a court has ever struck down a law? If you are, you need to pull your heads out of your asses. From this, we can see that people (lawyers, politicians, etc) back laws that end up going nowhere. Now consider this law. If you are objective, you should determine that this law is a violation of ERISA. It will not hold up in federal court.

TXChristopher-

Since it appears you can do little else than foolishly run your mouth and count, why don’t you tell me what the score is now?

Hey Big T In Texas,

Read the story from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, pointing out state taxes have risen by 41% over the last 10 years because Medicaid costs are skyrocketing - thanks in part to over half of Wal-Mart’s workforce on state healthcare rolls.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113940384065168291.html?mod=economy_lead_story_lsc

Fair Share Health Care laws give relief to taxpayers.

Jeb-

How exactly do the workers and taxpayers win?

I laugh every time I hear “Wal-Mart is freeloading off taxpayers”.  That has got to be one of (if not the) dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Your states and mine encourage people to take advantage of state programs such as health coverage.  I hear radio comercials explaining just who is eligable.

Who is eligable is the biggest problem.  People making more money than my brother (who pays for his own health insurance) are eligable.  People at Wal-Mart are not paying the LOW cost of having WM health coverage because they can get it for free from the government.

Wrong Big T

To qualify for the low premiums, full-time Wal-Mart workers must work at the company for one year. For new workers - earning poverty wages - the premiums are too expensive. So many workers - encouraged by Wal-Mart management - enroll in state healthcare programs.

Jeb,

you cant site one example of management encouraging employees to enroll in state healthcare programs. 

I have heard the ads on the radio soliciting enrollment.

Define poverty wages.  I cant wait to hear your response.  I do know that the lowest paid employee could budget the lowest premium if they wanted.  The problem is they would have to sacrifice something like cable tv and they are not willing to do that so they make the easy decision to enroll in state healthcare for free.

a solution to healthcare would be for every company to drop healthcare for its employees and pay them the difference in their salaries.  Make each inidvidual responsible for getting and paying for their own healthcare coverage.  This would force insurance companies to lower their premiums or go out of business.

I was in the office doing schedules when I saw it. It was addressed to the store manager...an email. I knew I shouldn’t snoop, but I couldn’t help myself; I was compelled to take a look.

I read it once and I couldn’t believe my eyes. “It can’t be,” I screamed and read the document again.

My eyes had not deceived me. The horrible news was true. Bentonville had told the manager exactly what to do:

“...it is in our best interests to direct our associates to Medicaid programs. Store management should assist with any questions or concerns. Fill out the paperwork for them if necessary. Any associate who opts to pay their own way is to be terminated on the spot. We don’t want any associates that believe in personal accountability. They should be ready, willing, and able to live off the system...”

I sat in disbelief. Would my company do such a thing? How could you do this to me Wal-Mart?

...I awoke in a sweat and shot up in my bed. Had it all been true? As I came to my senses I remembered that some idiot had posted some idiocy on Wal-Mart Watch similar to what I had dreamt. Perhaps not visiting the site so late at night would keep my nightmares at bay.

Big T-

A market based solution...interesting. That sounds like something Sickofspin also advocates. That could work. I, for one, would like to hear more about it.

Big T in USA:  The difference with health insurance is that when Americans need health care, they receive health care.  Period.  Regardless of ability to pay or the status of their health insurance.  So, if a WalMart employee is without health insurance, and that employee has a heart attack, or develops diabetes, or whatever, that employee will receive health care.  Americans who are unsuccessful in obtaining adequate health insurance will have their health costs paid for by the taxpayer.  That does not happen with life insurance, auto insurance, etc, etc.  Therefore, the rules are different when it comes to health insurance than when it comes to other insurance.

Someone in USA: “I do support universal health care so long as a reasonable method can be devised to implement it… “

Wow!  There’s hope for you yet!

I also think you would agree that the current system of relying on employers to be the providers of health insurance is not working.  And, if you think about it, you’ll realize that whenever an employer (like WalMart) opts out of the health insurance system, it makes the health care system in America worse.

Big T in Texas:  “a solution to healthcare would be for every company to drop healthcare for its employees and pay them the difference in their salaries.  Make each inidvidual responsible for getting and paying for their own healthcare coverage.  This would force insurance companies to lower their premiums or go out of business. “

Good idea .... however, keep in mind that roughly 90% of Americans make up 10% of the health care spending, while 10% of Americans make up the 90% of health care spending.  Health insurance companies would have a very strong financial incentive to keep that 10% of Americans off their plans by any means available, fair or foul.  They do it now .... try buying health insurance on the individual market if you have asthma, diabetes, epilepsy, an imperfect heart, an imperfect kidney, are over age 50, etc., etc.  Can’t be done.  The costs associated with those diseases run in the tens of thousands of dollars per year, mroe than the median income for Americans.  What do those 10% of Americans do?  Keep in mind that America will provide medical treatment for those people; we are a civilized nation, after all.

DeeDee,

I agree that we should find ways to make sure everyone gets health coverage.  However, we have to make people responsible for their own coverage.  You are complaining that it isn’t fair for Tax payers to pay for this but you have no problem with forcing employers to pay for it. 

Insurance companies are out to make a profit, not make our lives easier.  They are going to charge us whatever their studies show they can get from us.  If corporations are subsidizing healthcare cost then insurance companies know they can charge higher premiums.  If suddenly group plans disappeared then insurance companies would have to treat healthcare the same as auto/life/home insurance. 

Another reason why healthcare cost so much is because of frivolous law suits.  If people didn’t treat malpractice suits like a lottery then healthcare would be much cheaper.

Outstanding post Big T.

Big T:

You are beginning to get to the “heart of the matter.” Of course greedy insurance companies are out to squeeze every dime of profit from whomever they can.

As many of us have said before...this is a complex issue...it’s not as simple as saying “Wal-Mart pay your fair share.”

I ask you this however...who do you think stands a better chance of standing up to the insurance companies...Wal-Mart or an individual? I would think with Wal-Mart’s “expertise” at squeezing vendors...they ought to be able to do the same to insurers. This is why healthcare must be tackled by companies as well as the government.  This is not to say it should be a completely “free ride.” Individuals should be expected to contribute.

Someone:

Perhaps if you didn’t visit this blog at all, it would keep all of OUR nightmares away!

Big T in Texas-
First off, while I do not completely agree with you, I would like to thank you for a productive post.  I do agree that healthcare should lay on the shoulders of the individual. 

Without forcing these individuals into coverage they would not seek insurance.  Very similar to home and auto most states require you to maintain at least minimal coverage on your home and auto.  Without these laws they would opt to spend the money on useless consumer goods purchased from WalMart or Target. 

While a few of us would choose to make the investment in our health, it is my belief that most Americans are too ignorant to provide for themselves.  That is why there is social security, Maybe like social security health care should be government controlled?
Lets keep the ideas rolling in!!
Good job identifying the real problem Big T

TXChristopher in TEXAS Soon to be in Denver Colorado-
Jeb in Pittsburgh, PA-
It is people like you that give this country a bad name, don’t you people realize this is a game the politicians are playing and they are simply using you as pawns to win votes.  Do you think the unions thought of this healthcare strategy all on their own?  Do you think in order to gain control, maybe an ex-director of the WalMart board implanted this idea? 
It is true that healthcare needs an overhaul, and it is also true that there is not a simple solution.  The people who can claim defeat against the healthcare crisis will be the one voted into office.  These “fairshare health care” is just a disguise of success.  These are people who are desperate to get into office, the sad thing is while the debate of whether it is right, the real problem only gets worse.  It is up to the government to solve our healthcare issues not Walmart. 
Just as Big T did lets address the real issue and maybe we can all solve real problems.

Strident:

You should have quit while you were ahead!  You were beginning to make sense when you said: “It is true that healthcare needs an overhaul, and it is also true that there is not a simple solution.” This problem will only be solved if government, all businesses, and individuals pull together.  But as someone else suggested, the problem is in “the system” itself.  As long as greedy corporations and capitalists like Lee Scott and Ken Lay have their obsession with higher and higher profits every year, we can only expect set-backs in the fight for healthcare reform.

I sense the ground is beginning to loosen up a little beneath your feet.  You seen to differ from those TOTAL WACKOS like Sickofspin who keep endlessly posting that healthcare is “an individidual responsibility” like auto insurance or home insurance.  You also said, “ It is up to the government to solve our healthcare issues,” but then you take away the credibility of that by adding, “not Walmart.”

As far as your description of “pawns who are being used,” I think that applies to most of the 1.2 million “associates” that Wal-Mart employs.  I challenge you to provide some concrete evidence that it was an “ex-director of Wal-Mart” that implanted the idea of healthcare reform in the minds of the people at Walmartwatch.com

Screwed,

Companies providing health insurance started as an added benefit.  Now it has grown into a responsibility of the company to provide all employees with fantastic insurance. 
Some companies provide housing for employees to attract them to relocate to new areas.  If this plays the course as health insurance I can see in the future people like you claiming that it is the employers responsibility to provide adequate housing for all full time employees.

Where will it stop????

Big T has given perhaps the best solution to the problem that capitalism has to offer. His perspective is valid in that respect. However, I disagree with this conclusion. I think it’s time I argued the point from my true perspective…

1) Is the system flawed? You bet it is. Anyone can see that, and it is something on which we all agree. Everyone should have access to healthcare (and education, but that’s a separate, albeit similar, issue.) Note: No matter what we do, we need to eliminate those frivolous law suits that plague the health industry.

2) Big T’s solution: Pull government and employers out of the health insurance business and make it a personal responsibility in both fact and name. The difference in salary would be given to workers who would use it to purchase health insurance as they do life and auto insurance. It would follow that insurance companies would be forced to cater to a market of individuals, resulting in affordable rates. That sounds fairly solid.

Now you ask, “Someone, if it’s solid, why do you differ with Big T?” Allow me to explain:

A) How much money should be paid to obtain insurance? Some companies offer none at all; will they alter their pay rate? If the government were to set this amount, then we have the same problem we do now. States are legislating benefits, just under a different guise. If this is market determined, will wages rise significantly, or even at all in some cases? I don’t think so. Some of this will be offset by the changes to the insurance market, but will it be enough?

B) Let’s say we work out part A and the people have enough money to purchase this. Will they? I would predict that most of those presently without insurance would not. We see it now. Many workers can afford healthcare now, but decide to get other things instead. The increased wages will likely be applied toward other needs or wants. Then we have a bunch of people spending more money and still crying for the government to provide healthcare. How would you propose we fix that? We could turn them away for their own ignorance, but that is inhumane. We could make it a law that you must have health insurance. Okay...People will violate this law, just like they do with liability insurance on their cars. What then? Arrest them? Let them die? I can’t see a valid solution.

C) There are other valid concerns here, but nothing as pressing as A and B. If those two difficulties can be worked out, everything will fall into place.

3) WMW solution (what it seems Screwed, DeeDee, and others argue): I always oppose this argument from my capitalistic perspective. I honestly feel that you have to look at it that way. I think my examination of Big T’s stance clearly illustrates capitalism’s inherent flaw. Unfortunately, this solution is harmful to businesses. The arguments against this are thoroughly documented on this site from myself, Michael D, Strident/Cooper, Big T, Sickofspin, and others. Fair Share Health Care is not the answer. That leaves…

4) Government: I believe, at my core, that securing healthcare ought to be an individual responsibility. However, I am enough of a realist to conclude that most people do not naturally behave in the best interests of themselves or others. That is why we have government to begin with. Thus, as a practical matter, solving this problem will ultimately fall on the shoulders of the state. I would love to see the advent of socialized medicine in the states. If only I had all the answers...then I could suggest a way to make this work…

Well, enough of that. Big T and Sickofspin, feel free to point out flaws in my analysis of your proposal. However, do not point out that I left the question unanswered. I doubt any of the WMWer’s have any fresh points on our ongoing argument. Finally, if anyone has a comment on my proposed, but unfinished socialistic suggestion, please make it. While I believe it is the best solution in theory, I can only think of criticisms of the methods I know to implement it.

Big T:

Right asway you have to take it to the point of being ridiculous.  You would never find me or I double too many others arguing that “housing” is a right.  Neither is paid personal time off, or 3-4 weeks of paid vacation.  These are clearly BENEFITS.

Geeze...I feel like a broken record.  Healthcare UNLIKE auto insurance or home insurance is a BASIC RIGHT!

Now, if you care to “debate” with Someone that’s your prerogative.  I think someone is very similar to Sickofspin in that they both are in love with the sound of their keyboards.  Someone needs to get his ass out of school and into the “Real World” and stop giving us lectures like we are all his students in Business 101.

Oh yeah...Someone, this might be hard for you to accept, but I don’t think one person that reads this blog asked the question: “Someone, if it’s solid, why do you differ with Big T?” WE DON’T CARE WHO YOU DIFFER WITH OR WHY!  You are so full of yourself!  I bet you have a mirror in every room in your house.

Actually, Screwed, I am in love with the sound of my own keyboard, but I don’t really care for mirrors.

Honestly, I didn’t expect anyone to say that...just felt like typing it. This site has been very good practice for writing papers.

Regarding my comments...You ought to be happy to know I’m not just some brainwashed Wal-Mart associate. You also ought to thank me for coming up with questions for Big T and Sickofspin...Would you prefer that I agreed with them, or does the fact that my views are not a carbon copy of someone else’s make me harder to debate? I would imagine that I am probably one of the more open-minded posters on this site. Certainly moreso than you. I extended you the opportunity to engage me meaningfully by dropping the capitalist pretense, and you don’t know what to do. You truly astound me. Is it so hard to for you to accept that someone, what, 20 years your junior, can’t present a valid and logical position? I was under the impression that this site was designed to explore the problems and find solutions, but it looks like you just want a giant b*tchfest.

But, it’s cool. This site is fun either way. It gives me a chance to work on my less serious writing.

...can* present a valid…

And, yes, I am full of myself. Thanks for noticing.

Someone, I think you have this blog site confused with www.writers.com

Personally I would like to see across the board regulation of the health services industry (includind not only hospitals and doctors but insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, dental, nursing homes etc.) and also for that matter of the energy services industry. The reason for this is because these institutions and their rising costs threaten the livelihoods of just about every american that have the misfortune to be born to die of something or other sooner or later. The main problem with that (I know some are going to jump up and say that’s socialism--so that is an automatic disqualification) is the very corrupt and bureaucratic federal govt. would take it upon itself to do the regulating. The best you could hope for from them is incompetence. The fact is though that now the federal has no control over this situation and its officials are paid off by the above mentioned concerns and the states more and more are assuming the responsibility of who gets what and who is going to pay for it. These bills may seem bad to those supporters of WM (a company that knows how to peddle its influence at all levels of govt.) but what to do with this company making billions in profit who have no compunction about leaving its own out in the cold for someone else to take care of? Well the alternative to me is a National Health Care system.

larry in elmira:

You raised some compelling arguments and I think you have a much broader view of the complex nature of not only reforming our healthcare system, but perhaps our “system” of government itself!

When you get people like George W. Bush defending Exxon’s obscene profits of $10.7 billion (last quarter), while the rest of us watch the prices go up and down (mostly up) at the gas pumps, it’s time to start looking at things a little differently.  Last April, Congress passed along $8 billion dollars in subsidies to the “big boys” in the energy business.  I think you are RIGHT ON in your assessment larry!

Empoyers provide insurance for 3 reasons.  1) it lowers the employee turnover, 2) they can deduct it out of their taxes at a better rate than employee wages, and 3) most insurance companies won’t cover individuals with a premium/deductable combination they can afford.  That’s why they don’t just compensate the employees with the premiums and drop insurance.  The only reason these companies don’t pay for the insurance entirely is that if they pay for all of the insurance for anybody, then they have to pay for it for every employee.  If they only pay part, then employees can “opt-out” of their part and the employer doesn’t have to pay their share.

The best way I could see to fix this problem is to extend a better tax cut for those companies that finance 100% of the health insurance costs.  This would also require that the tax cut for shared coverage to be reduced or eliminated.

Big T in Texas seems to not understand how health insurance works.  He obviously has never had to get his own health insurance, or if he has, he has no idea about what went on in the underwriting process before he got approved.

I am self-employed and have what is called “individual health insurance.” Being young and healthy, individual health insurance is a good option to me.  However, that’s only because I don’t really use it.  Should I need it, my premiums would skyrocket because I don’t have guarunteed coverage.  This is really what the private sector offers.  It works for people like me, but no one would agree that this is a real solution.

Long term, I need to find my way onto a “group health insurance” plan.  With this kind of plan, my health insurance would be based on my membership in a group, i.e., perhaps I work for an employer like Wal-Mart.  This way, my good ealth is not a precondition to having health insurance. 

The group plan that Wal-Mart offers their employees is substantially better than no plan at all, since many of the older and/or more ill employees effectively can’t get individual insurance at any price. 

So, Big T’s idea of killing group health insurance is clearly a non-starter.  The private sector, aka individual health insurance only insures people who probably won’t need it.  People who clearly will need it will not get covered at all, except by the option of last-resort, that is, by working themselves down to poverty so they can get on Medicare, which, by the way is what this whole issue is about.

Medical Savings Accounts is just another “go nowhere” idea that will die with the presidency of George W. Bush.  Ignoring this is precisely the right thing to do, Tim!

DeeDee, again, you state,"The difference with health insurance is that when Americans need health care, they receive health care.  Period.  Regardless of ability to pay or the status of their health insurance.”

BS.  What do you base this on????