Fair Share Bill Passes Kentucky House Banking And Insurance Committee

“Companies that fail to make the required payment would face a $250,000 fine.”

See, that is what is wrong with the legislation.  What’s $250,000 to WalMart?  They’d rather pay that than furnish decent healthcare to its employees any day of the week.  All this does is makes the lawmakers look good with no REAL penalty to WalMart when it really gets down to it. 

Fine the bastards a quarter of a million every hour with interest and you might get their attention.

Sicko:

So what you seem to be acknowledging is that Wal-Mart will take their usual and customary cheap approach to things and “just pay the fines” instead of doing the RIGHT THING?  These issues have nothing to do with “enforceability” and EVERYTHING to do with how Wal-Mart will approach this.  Based on WM’s previous performance in other areas, I think we all know what will happen...we don’t need your “EXPERTISE” commentary to point that out to us!

Oh by the way...you haven’t convinced anyone that I’m aware of, that healthcare is a BENEFIT and an INDIVIDUAL responsibility.  Also--your “spin” on the words in the DOI that have been “discussed” here is even more pitiful than Someone in USA’s.  As much as you keep “challenging” others to present “facts” all you keep offering us is your same old tired rhetoric and OPINION!

Wal Mart should pay at least 50% of employee and family healthcare.  They should also pay 50% of a 401K plan.  All department stores should do so.  It’s only fair. 

JIM

Whether or not Kentucky’s lawmakers are leaving an out for WM there is at least recognition of a problem and one of the major culprits behind it. One would think that $250,000 fine or not if the problem continues it will be revisited later on. The federal govt. is dropping more and more of the social services burden on state and local communities--if they cannot handle the burden--like so many these days--they’re going to have to target those like WM who want to walk away with huge profits but wash their hands of any problems that come with them.

Srewedby, one issue that I have always thought whenever you bring up your points is the side of fairness.  If you were TRULY concerned about the people impacted versus being pissd at Wal-Mart, you would acknowledge that this type of law, to be effective, needs to be across the entire playing field.  But, because you mostly care about whining about Wal-Mart, you will now say that the laws need to start at the top with the largest company, right?  You know as well as I do, that if this law were being applied to “ScrewedbyMart, you would feel differently.

This is a little off topic, but it flows naturally out of the dialogue already present in this blog:

Hypothetically speaking, let’s say I granted that there would be no economic detriments associated with full unionization of retail, fast food, and other unskilled jobs. Then let’s assume the result is that everyone flipping hamburgers at McDonald’s and cashiering at Wal-Mart is working 32 hours a week at $15.00/hr with full benefits. It’s the perfect little utopia you guys seem to envision. This will never happen, but let’s say it did.

Then, what’s the point? Why am I busting my butt in college when a degree doesn’t get me anywhere? Why didn’t I just go and screw around with every chick I met in high school? Why didn’t I just do whatever I wanted without regard to the consequences? Where is the motivation to succeed? If I am guaranteed a “middle class lifestyle” representative of the “American dream” by just being born, why should I do anything with my life?

You guys desire nothing more than socialism. There are only two ways I can think of for a socialistic economic system to work. One way is when the population is extremely small. That won’t work in the U.S. The other is to pair it with an authoritarian state that forces people to achieve. I can already hear DeeDee’s keyboard as she’s typing about how I’m a Nazi and 1930’s Germany designated people as “useless eaters” and how could I even suggest that and so on. It is a FACT that when people are given handouts, they come to expect it as a “right” and refuse to work for it. It’s just like all of the people living on Medicaid and food stamps today who are content to live off the system. Only a totalitarian government can force people to go against this fundamental part of their human nature.

Ahhh...at last we get to the root of Someone in USA’s problem.  He gives us a clue when he says: “Why didn’t I just go and screw around with every chick I met in high school?” I wonder is this is Sickos problem as well?  You are probably too pimply-faced geeks who are in love with your computers.  If only we could get you two laid!

Screwed didn’t address a single one of my points…

Somehow I’m not surprised.

The natural follow-on to “health care is a privilege, not a right” is this:  if someone is unsuccessful in obtaining health insurance, and lacks private funds to pay health care bills, and that someone has a health emergency, then just let him die.  If you are not willing to let him die, and somehow the health care bills need to be paid, then: who pays the bills?  America is not going to let people die when treatments exist for their condition(s).  That is actually another way of saying that health care is a right of all American citizens .... not a privelege to be earned by individual workers.

Health care is different from all other goods and services produced in society.  For example, if a person has insulin-dependent diabetes, then that person needs insulin or else that person will die.  That is not the case when it comes to automobiles or 401K plans or four-bedroom 2-bath houses in the suburbs.  Health care is different, so the rules regarding health care have to be different.  Who pays when a low-income individual has a health emergency or has an expensive but treatable chronic ailment (like diabetes)?  That is the question that needs to be solved.  Personally, I think its crazy for America to have decided that “the employer pays” is the solution to the health care funding problem, but so be it, that is the reality of the situation in America today.  I personally would be open to other solutions that cover all Americans with adequate health insurance.  But we have to deal with the reality of the situation today, and the reality of the situation in America today is that the employer pays.  Therefore, WalMart needs to pay its fair share.  Maryland has started the ball rolling; and now other states (including Kentucky) is passing similiar bills.

DeeDee in Atlanta:

You get it!  I think you presented your case well!  Unfortunately, People like Someone and Sicko WILL NEVER get it, because that would require they have some concept of what a “moral obligation is.” As they have both stated ad nauseum...WM isn’t “required” to do anything as far as paying for better health coverage for its workers.

How many times have we had to see Sicko post:  “healthcare is an individual responsibitly?” Some of the other wackos who think like these two are going so far as to compare the forcing of Wal-Mart to do what it doesn’t want to do, to things like “forcing 7 Elevens to stock 3 packs of Ho-Hos” or “forcing Wal-Mart to stock a certain flavor of ice cream.”

With “brilliant” minds like these at work DeeDee, I think you are just wasting your time trying to make your case.  Sicko and Someone live in their delusional little worlds that they’ve created and manipulated through their Ultra-Conservative Anarcho Capitalistic mindset.  The reality is this:  people like you and I are at 180 degree polar opposites with the views of people like Sicko and Someone...but in this case opposites DO NOT ATTRACT!  It is futile to try to engage them...they will NEVER submit or concede to any points you make. I don’t think they really read or pay very close attention to the postings of others either.  They are more concerned with framing their responses.  They’re right....because they say so!  Just ignore them as best you can.  Keep up the good fight!

Someone in USA-
Michael D. in Connecticut-
This is just a thought, what do you think about a federal bill that would require a compnay with more than 1.2 million employees pay a minimum of 10% on payroll.  Included in that bill it would allow the company to set up physical and mental screenings and if you did not pass you did not work there.  It would also allow the company to regulate unhealthy activites such as smoking and excessive drinking of alcohol.  It would also alow the company to conduct bi-yearly tests in order to be sure that once hired these employees did not violate the company’s health code.  If they were to fail they would have three months to retest and pass or be terminated.
Just a thought.

Has anyone else noticed that Wal-Mart Watch has pulled all of Sickofspin’s posts?

I guess Wal-Mart Watch is intolerant of someone who exposes flaws in WM argument. 

So much for allowing a viewing audience to read opposing views and make up their own minds huh?

Here’s an idea.  Let’s make laws so onerous that Walmart simply can’t afford to remain open.  Then all of their employees will be freed from the bondages of Walmart and seek employment with better pay and benefits.  While they are looking, the State can provide them with an income and full health benefits.

That will really teach Walmart a lesson without harming the employees who will no longer be employed.

At the end of the day Walmart will just add whatever costs are imposed by the State 10% tax onto consumers by increasing prices.  Now, if that results in them becoming uncompetitive and going out business then you have the same result.  What an achievement that would be ~ dictatorship of the proletariate!

DeeDee....you often state that healthcare is guaranteed in America.  Is that so?  If I just show up at a Doctor’s office with no money or insurance, I will automatically be treated?  No questions asked?  My wife is an OB-Gyn nurse, and her office turns away patients regularly becuase they do not have money or insurance....now, I understand that a hospital can’t turn you away, but a Doc’s office certainly can.  Also, a hospital has no requirement to provide “maintenance medication” like insulin or glocophage.  So what does a diabetic do if they have no cash or insurance?  I feel that this shoots a hole in your “healthcare as a right” argument....

Also, so far Maryland has passed so-called “fair-share health care” legislation.  I have been reporting back to this site all those that have not passed the legislation.  ADD ANOTHER TO THE LIST!!!  According to the Associated press, “The New Hampsire House soundly rejected a bill Wednesday that would make the state’s largest employers spend 8% of their payroll on health insurance.”

And you WMW people think that it has a chance....wishful thinking.  So far, since Maryland passed the bill, NOBODY ELSE has.  I know, I know...Michael D.....just wait.  Well, I am waiting, and in the meantime, I will report all those that fail to pass.

Just what i expected....no replies to my last post....

And the list keeps growing....

There will be no fair-share healthcare in Washington anytime soon....another bill defeated. I think that the “score” is now 10 to 1, with only Maryland passing the legislation and 10 other states rejecting it.

To all you Wal-Mart lovers, including the one that is the cheap attorney. Look at what happened to your favorite company. Looks like they lost another lawsuit. Oh well, your stock is going to fall again from the negative publicity.

“Wal-Mart ordered to carry ‘morning-after’ pill
Lawsuit filed over Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy ruling that chain must carry drug.”

Eric in Connecticut -

The law says that pharmacies are to carry “commonly prescribed medications,” which is in no way the same as “community needs.” Massachusetts chickened out by not wanting to get involved in the argument of “commonly prescribed,” as they KNOW that Plan B is not commonly prescribed.  The following was posted on this site in a previous thread:

“After contacting Barr Pharmacueticals they have had had only 576 requests as of 02/08/2006 for the drug in the state of Massachusetts. “

Hardly a “commonly prescribed medication,” eh??  If I show up with a prescription for some strange medication that is not very common, I would be happy enough that the pharmacist directed me to a pharmacy that had the drug in stock.  I would not go back and SUE the pharmacy that didn’t have it, because after all, I needed the medication and I got it.  This deal in Massachusetts was a big set-up to sue Wal-Mart, as evidenced and reported by the Dr. that was in the lawsuit.

Wal-Mart will comply with the order, and it will only be a matter of time before W/m will be in the headlines for carrying this pill and dispensing an abortion pill.  We’ll wait and see…

>>There will be no fair-share healthcare in Washington anytime soon....another bill defeated. I think that the “score” is now 10 to 1, with only Maryland passing the legislation and 10 other states rejecting it. <<

I’m curious, Michael D. Which 10 states are in your list?

Randy in Maryland

Randy, I’ll get the state list posted here shortly…