Q & A On Health Care

From the LA Times:

Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, has become one of the most outspoken and unconventional proponents of healthcare changes to guarantee coverage for all while reining in costs.

His pursuit of that goal has led him into unusual alliances with corporate and political leaders, including Wal-Mart Chief Executive H. Lee Scott Jr. ...Stern was interviewed in his Washington office.

You’ve said the employer-based health insurance system is dead. But it still covers 60% of Americans, so what do you mean by that?

“There’s a big context. Our country and the world are living through the most transformative economic revolution in history. As we move from a national to a global economy, and from manufacturing to finance and services, [it’s] not a one-job-in-a-lifetime economy anymore. Twenty-five percent of the American workforce will be contingent by 2012 — they’ll have no full-time employer.

“It seems impossible to imagine how you can have an employer-based healthcare system with the incredible creative destruction and change in the nature of work in our economy. It’s not an ideological issue; it’s really just a practical, real-life, 21st-century issue.”

The last attempt at national healthcare reform was in the 1990s, and it fell apart. What’s different this time around that makes you optimistic?

“In 1993, it was seen more as a moral issue in our country: Is healthcare a right or a privilege? I think now it’s become an economic issue: Can America be the only industrialized nation to put the price of healthcare on the cost of our products, when our competitors don’t? And I think the answer is: That’s a crazy economic plan.

“American business leaders — they’re global business leaders — run companies that exist in multiple countries. Many of those countries have a universal healthcare system. And [American companies] don’t seem to find that the world is going to cave in [in those countries]. They can compete just fine. In fact, it’s a lower cost and more predictable in the other countries.”

So is the United States going to wind up with a government-run system like Canada’s, a single-payer system?

“That’s unlikely. I don’t think Americans have a great trust of government in general. I think things like Katrina and Walter Reed don’t make people feel comfortable that government’s going to solve their problems. I think single-payer would be the most efficient system, but I think Americans want to have an American solution, not a Canadian solution.”

If the employer-based system of health insurance is not sustainable, what’s going to replace it?

“I don’t think … it’s going to happen all at one time. It’s going to be a series of phases.

“We are seeing some plans that are talking about some of the possibilities. You have Sen. Ron Wyden [D-Ore.] taking the federal employee health plan, and his premise is: Why shouldn’t every American have the same health plan as his member of Congress? We have states showing that given more flexibility and some more federal resources, that they can assemble a healthcare plan.”

Is there a future for the health insurance industry?

“I think there will be, but it’s got to play a different role, and it’s got to add more value to the system. There’s too much administrative cost, too much advertising, too much money that’s not spent at the bedside. Insurance companies are going to have to find new ways to deal with prevention and chronic disease management, not just processing claims.”

California, Illinois and other states are debating healthcare reform, and Massachusetts is trying to put a plan into place. Why isn’t there more action in Washington?

“The natural course of events in Washington is not to find common ground, but to position yourself.

“I think the pieces are in front of us; the question is where the leadership is right now.

“The federal government is like a locomotive. They start really slow because it takes a lot to get the first wheels turning. Then it builds up momentum. I feel like at the federal level, they are starting to think that maybe the wheels should turn.”

  • Click here to learn more about Better Health Care Together.

Posted by Russ Fagaly on Monday, March 12, 2007

Click Here for a Printer-Friendly Version

COMMENTS

If the federal government’s wheels move to slowly on universal health care Andy Stern could always ask his good friend, Lee Scott, to turn loose Wal-Mart’s legions of Washington D.C. lobbyists to grease Congress’ wheels.

After all, their skills have been honed by killing modest legislative health care reforms in states like Maryland.

How many ways can you spell duped?

John Nunes in san ramon, ca
Monday, March 12 at 09:19 PM

Actually in Maryland it wasn’t legislation that was killed.  The liberal Democratic party passed the legislation, it was vetoed by the Republican Govenor, then veto overridden by the legislature.  But the problem was the state legislature overstepped their legal bounds in trying to pass a law and it was accordingly shot down by the courts.  Just keep the facts straight

Mark in
Monday, March 12 at 10:43 PM

When Wal-Mart’s high priced lobbying efforts didn’t work to overturn the modest heath care legislation enacted by the Maryland legislature, they turned to the courts with their high priced attorneys and their pimping group, the Retail Industry Leaders Association.

Wal-Mart had a hand every step of the way in “killing” the legislation, or “shot down” as Mark likes to call it. By the way a court not courts “shot down” the legislation which is still on appeal. Just keeps the facts straight.

John Nunes in san ramon ca
Tuesday, March 13 at 08:10 AM

I Only Know of One Way…

John Nunes… I only know one way to spell “duped"-- W-A-L-M-A-R-T.

Again… I raise the issue I raised once before… if you check out some of the Wal-Mart trucks rolling down the road, you will see some that say: “Wal-Mart-- Always Low Prices..Always.” This is basically a true statement and is pretty much in synch with what a Wal-Mart store receipt says.

However, you also will see a good number of trucks that still say: “Wal-Mart-- We Sell For Less-- Always.” This statement is sometimes true at best, but in many cases is a bold-faced lie.  Wal-Mart was caught in this lie a long time ago.  This is why they changed their store receipts which used to say: “Always the Lowest Price--Always.”

Too bad the average ignorant shoppers out there are still being “duped” by Wal-Mart into believing this.

ScrewedbyWal-Mart in Anytown, America
Tuesday, March 13 at 11:44 AM

Hey I’m glad ScrewedbyWal-Mart things Walmart doesn’t always sell at the lowest prices.  At least the arguement can go out the window that Walmart puts other companies out of business by offering lower prices.  So the mom and pop stores should have no problem competing.

I’m also glad to hear that Walmart somehow can “buy” their way into the courts by hiring lawyers to defend their position.  But wait did they also “buy off” the judge or did they just do what everyone else does in representing their interests in the court only to have a JUDGE rule.

By the way John you are WRONG AGAIN!!!!!!!  Not only did the law get shot down by the original courts BUT also by the Appeals court in Jan 07’.  You really need to do your homework before posting something blatently false you idot!!

Mark in
Tuesday, March 13 at 12:04 PM

ARE YOU RELATED TO “BOB-IN,” MARK?

Unfortunately you’ve picked up a little trick that “Bob-in” likes to employ, “Mark-in.” Could you possible be the same person?

You like to “put words” in other people’s mouths too, I see.  Where did I ever say that that small mom and pop stores have no trouble competing with Wal-Mart?  Always taking things to the extreme and spinning them to make your point huh?

Just because I said, that Wal-Mart does not ALWAYS have the lowest prices.... this does not translate into: “Mom and pop stores will have no trouble competing.” Nice try!

ScrewedbyWal-Mart in Anytown, America
Tuesday, March 13 at 02:34 PM

At least the arguement can go out the window that Walmart puts other companies out of business by offering lower prices.

Unless you look at Wal-Mart’s long and questionable history of predatory pricing:

In September, Wal-Mart was hit with three separate charges of predatory pricing. Government officials in Wisconsin and Germany accused the retailer of pricing goods below cost with an intent to drive competitors out of the market. In Oklahoma, Wal-Mart faces a private lawsuit alleging similar illegal pricing practices.

Ken V in Texas
Tuesday, March 13 at 03:26 PM

“We Sell For Less-Always” does not say that Wal-Mart sells for less than all their competitors. Perhaps they mean they sell for less than average prices or less than what the price used to be.

In fact, Wal-Mart generally does sell for less. If you bring in a newspaper ad or circular advertising, say, Colgate Total Toothpaste, 7.8 oz. tube for $1.89, Wal-Mart will post a copy of that ad above their Colgate Total toothpaste and will beat the price. They might charge $1.84. Store managers have leeway to do this and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten toothpaste, deodorant, razors, soap, etc. cheaper than normal due to someone bringing an ad in.

EllisW in
Wednesday, March 14 at 07:20 AM

Ellis,

In our local Wal-Mart, they have copies of competitor ads, posted in the entrances and at each checkout stand.  If you ask for the ad price, it will be given to you and some of the cashiers evn know some of the prices by memory and will give it to you without asking.

Bob in
Wednesday, March 14 at 10:01 AM

These posts drive me crazy for I still haven’t arrived at an answer to a question I posed many, many years ago.

I asked a store manager Who is Less?  He didn’t know.  I told him it was some big wheel and I believe his last name is
Always.  He was still puzzled.

I then said it is posted on every WM, we sell for for less,
Always!!.  Then he got it.

Using the same analogy, I also told him since all the employees “sell for Less, Always” then they must also
“work for Less, Always”!!!

All have a blessed day.

knowledgeable in
Wednesday, March 14 at 03:30 PM

In fact, Wal-Mart generally does sell for less.

The operative word there is “generally”. Ellis’s
“facts” require plenty of wiggle room.

Wal-Mart does sell many “magnet items” for less but if a wide array of items are compared (market basket), Wal-Mart can be as high as 4% above competitors.

The practice of “comping” ads disappears when the competition does.

Ken V in Texas
Thursday, March 15 at 06:31 AM

Ken V,

“Wal-Mart does sell many “magnet items” for less”

Any store that doesn’t, isn’t a very ‘good’ business.

“Wal-Mart can be as high as 4% above competitors.”

Are you saying that Competitors CAN compete with Wal-Mart?  I thought they ran everyone out of business, with prices others couldn’t match!!!

“The practice of “comping” ads disappears when the competition does.”

What a profound statement, imagine not ‘comping’ something that doesn’t exist!!  But the competition doesn’t have to worry about that, after all Wal-Mart is 4% higher on most prices, right?

What I don’t understand though, is why 43% of American people continue to shop at Wal-Mart, when they can get better quality at a lower price, at another store, one that treats it’s employees good!!!  Can you explain this?

Bob in
Thursday, March 15 at 11:58 PM

What I don’t understand though, is why 43% of American people continue to shop at Wal-Mart...

Unlike the other 57%, they haven’t gotten the word....yet.

And that’s what the anti Wal-Mart Movement is all about...spreading the word about the Beast of Bentonville!

Ken V in Texas
Friday, March 16 at 05:40 AM

“American business leaders — they’re global business leaders — run companies that exist in multiple countries. Many of those countries have a universal healthcare system. And [American companies] don’t seem to find that the world is going to cave in [in those countries]. They can compete just fine. In fact, it’s a lower cost and more predictable in the other countries.”
Andy Stern- From the LA Times

“There are government assistance programs out there that are so lucrative it’s hard to be competitive, and it’s expensive to be competitive,”
-- A galling statement from Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott
[St. Louis Post Dispatch, 04/06/05]

WalMart- Dumping our ‘associates’ onto the states for health care was a profitable business move. The taxpayer suckers don’t mind picking up the bill for the Bentonville ‘love of money’ slobs. Just don’t tell anybody about WalMart’s convenient uses of subsidies, they might call it socialism.

SanDiegoView in
Friday, March 16 at 06:08 AM

Commenting is not available in this content entry.

Comment Policy

WalmartWatch.com reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to remove or refuse to post blog comments.