Wal-Mart Supports Health Care Employer Mandate
(AP)
"We are for shared responsibility," Wal-Mart Chief Executive Mike Duke said in a letter sent to President Obama on Tuesday. "Not every business can make the same contribution, but everyone must make some contribution."
The letter was also signed by Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, and John Podesta, chief executive of the liberal group the Center for American Progress, who served as the head of Mr. Obama's presidential transition team.
An employer mandate - also referred to as "pay or play" - would require employers to either provide "meaningful" coverage for their workers or contribute to a public fund to cover the uninsured. There is debate over whether a mandate would help reduce the costs the government will take on to ensure universal access to health care or simply more deeply entrench the United States in an employer-based health care system.
"The idea is everybody pays in a little bit more to make it work better for everybody else," Peter Harbage, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told CBSNews.com.
Many in the business community, however, contend the proposal would make it harder for employers to maintain a payroll with decent wages as well as the required benefits. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes the employer mandate.
Wal-Mart was long notorious for its clashes with organized labor, although the store joined with the SEIU two years ago to call for universal, affordable health care in the United States by 2012. After recent improvements to its health care benefits, about 52 percent of Wal-Mart's 1.4 million U.S. employees now receive company-provided insurance, the Wall Street Journal reported.
In the letter, the company says its support for the mandate hinges on "the strongest possible commitment to rein in health care costs." The letter points to the cost-control mechanism put forward by the Bipartisan Policy Center, which would implement pre-specified targets for spending growth and enact a "trigger" to automatically enforce reductions.
"We are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage, but any alternative to an employer mandate should not create barriers to hiring entry level employees," the letter also says.
Some proposals in Congress would require employers to pay for Medicaid for new workers.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 56 Comments1) Obama will not "ruin" AIG; AIG ruined AIG & Obama bailed them out with your moola
2) for all your conservatives who still believe in capitalism and competition: where were you when autocratic, socialistic/communist China was (and is now) buying up all our factories and decent paying jobs with the blessings of your pals in Congress who, with their Democrat pals, passed WTO, NAFTA etc.? Call it what you will; conservatives can no longer rely on a strong military since our min wage, parttime, no benefit, poverty level WalMart jobs can no longer support a government, let along the Pentagon (which continues outsourcing its needs for weapons and materiel.) Sorry - since Republicans began enabling American companies to outsource in the name of freedom, surprise! - we can no longer afford freedom nor a military to protect it!
3) Don't look now but the stock, housing, banking, textile, auto, electronics and many other industries have long since died in America. Not only are we unable to afford private health insurance, we can no longer afford public health care either...soooooooooo the only solution is: BRING BACK TARIFFS ON IMPORTS FROM COUNTRIES WHO PAY SLAVE LABOR WAGES, HAVE NO DEMOCRACY OR FREEDOM AND WHO ARE USING THE HARD CURRENCY (AND INDUSTRIES WE EXPORTED TO THEM) TO REBUILD AND MODERNIZE THEIR MILITARY STRENGTH.....OF COURSE THIS WILL CAUSE BOTH LIBERALS AND REPUBLICANS TO YELL "PROTECTIONISM" BUT WHY THE H_ _ _ DO THEY THINK WE SENT THEM TO WASHINGTON FOR? TO SELL US OUT AS THEY MAKE MILLIONS ON THE INTERNATIONAL EXPLOITATION OF LABOR AT THE EXPENSE OF FREEDOM. NOT COOL FOR A GOVERNMENT "OF, BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE," UNLESS YOU THINK CORPORATIONS WITH NO ALLEGIANCE TO AMERICA ARE "PEOPLE"....
Universal insurance coverage is coming. That is a fact of life. As a small business owner, I can accept a current proposal that provides for me to pay up to 8% of my payroll for employee health care. Reasons? I believe in cash flow planning. If I have a definite amount that I know I will have to pay, I can make provision for that in my planning and my business operations.
I do not care what political labels some yoyo gives a plan. Whether it be labeled socialism, capatilisim or some other ism. The only true test of the health plan that emerges is, "Does it work?" If it does, let's go with it. If it does not, junk it.
All these comments are typical of liberals looking for something for nothing. They think just because they can call them selves Americans they deserve something paid for by other hard working Americans.
=================
Your assumption is that democrats don't work. Only republicans pay taxes you seem to feel. Do you realize how arrogant your statement is? Maybe because your a mouthpiece for Fox News it does'nt matter?
A few short months ago, I thought it could not get any worse than Bush. Now I know better. This Marxist dictator and his Pelosi minions need to be stopped!
Back in the old days, that used to be called a trust. Which is illegal, by the way.
=======================
And most in the business community get neither decent wages or required benefits now. So it strikes me as odd that those objecting would make such a statement.
A few weeks ago, while on vacation to Texas, I spoke about health care to my friends who own businesses and learned about their adamant resistance to implement it. When I confronted them and asked why they opposed the Obama Adminstration's health plan, they answered very simply, "We haven't been paying our taxes as a business and it kills us to start paying our fair share at the same time when profits have eroded to almost nothing".
What that has told me is that some who scream the loudest may not be playing by the rules in the first place....and most don't want to accept blame for their choices or problems it causes for others downstream.
Walmart used to be an employer that didn't hire many full time employees, or give benefits to many, but they have transformed theirself into a different kind of employer. Now, they are an ICON of civic patriots.
Full Speed Ahead with the National Health Care !!!!
Especially in small towns Wal-Mart swallows its competition whole leaving people little choice in who they are going to work for. And with no competition for jobs, Wal-Mart holds even greater power over the people that work for them and even the community as a whole.
Up-against the Wal-Mart is the Hugo Chavez of the big box discount stores.
------------------------
Ummmmmmmm....just guessing here, but I'm thinking Wal-Mart plans to pick OPTION B!!!!
Did you know Hillary Clinton used to be on the Board of Wal-Mart?
Yah, what's your solution, more FREE TRADE????
Citizens in this country should have health care simply because they are CITIZENS, not because they or their employers were forced by the government to buy health care.
The remedy is as simple as looking at what the rest of the OECD is doing: single-payer. With private insurance as an option.
I am not saying that our system is better, or worse, but we need to actually spend a little time figuring out a solution instead of shotgun healthcare for all. Hospitals & doctors charge a lot because of the cost of their own insurance and the fact that most people do not pay their bills in a timely manner. Insurance usually pays quicker and they get better rates because of the time factor and the larger groups they are covering. Insurance companies also make a profit to stay in business and expand, but that is usually regulated by the government as well. Insurance companies usually have to reach a certain percent of claims for the money paid in for the coverage or they will need to refund the premiums.
Drug costs are also part of the problem. Here in the U.S. we pay the lions share of drug cost for R&D where that cost is not passed on to other countries. That is why some senators went to Canada to get prescriptions for their states medicaid patients.
I believe the system is broken, but part of that has to do with government intervention as well. If social security, medicare and medicaid are all going bankrupt under government control now, why would we hand them the rest of it without at least looking at possible long-term issues. At what point do our paychecks just get direct deposited to the government coffers and we all pick up our foodstamp & housing rations. I know that sounds far fetched, but these programs were initially started as a temporary help to unemployed workers and now we are talking every person here whether legally or not.
Let's say we tripled the Medicare portion of FICA. A self-employed person making $200K/yr currently pays $4464 per year. If this was tripled, I'd be out of pocket another $8928/yr. Which is less than my current health insurance premium.
Very few people make that much, though. The median self-employed in the US makes $47,000/yr. Medicare currently costs this person $1049/yr. Tripled, that comes to an extra $2098/yr. Private industry won't sell you a policy for that, unless you're young, have no family, and have never been sick.
As for that R and D by the pharmaceutical companies, much of that is actually already paid for by the US government, which subsidizes university research that the pharmas later cherry pick to develop drugs.
Also, you listen to too much Rush. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are NOT going broke. Do a little research of your own sometime. Possibly running out of money in 20 years is not a crisis. Any privately owned business would laugh at such an assumption.
You can not expect to have great coverage for everything and everyone without a cost being associated with it. Maybe some won't have to pay as much, but does that mean the cost isn't there? If you continue the trend of lower government revenue and higher expenses and then take on healthcare as well, we will either have to raise taxes or the system goes bankrupt. Right now we are raising the expense side while revenue is dipping. Sure we can borrow, but just like any business will tell you, you can't borrow your way out of debt.
I am not saying people should not be able to get healthcare and again I believe the current system is broken. I just think there are better ways of handling it than a shotgun vote on a bill no one has read. And before you deny that it could happen look at recent history. Our government wastes billions of dollars each year and rarely handles anything more efficient than a private business would.
Compare the post office to a private company. They raise the stamp rate quite frequently regardless of what competition might do. You may say that doesn't matter because I can choose whether I buy stamps or not, but when the post office loses money each year they do not downsize and reduce their employment or benefit levels. Instead they can get money from the federal government. In a private business you don't have a golden goose to cover your losses at the end of the year so you either need to increase revenue or lower expenses.
Your expecting the government to increase overall cost on currently lower revenue and expecting it to only impact you a little. The problem is you no longer have control of another part and move closer to total control. Maybe the impact is low at first, but what happens if the cost goes up, then up some more. At what point does the government either charge you through the nose or take away your options.
Just like Lincoln said, the government that provides you with everything can take everything away from you. (paraphrase)
The United States Postal Service has been a private company since the late 70's. We were sold on this because "private enterprise is always more efficient". Where they used to raise rates every 4-6 years (when they actually were part of the government), they now raise rates every year.
Do you really believe that UnitedHealthGroup's 30% overhead is more efficient than Medicare's 3% overhead?
People complain about a lack of healthcare, but out of the 47 million without healthcare how many of them CHOSE to not buy into any? I know that the ones who hurt the most in the healthcare market are the small businesses that get toasted trying to provide healthcare to a handful of employees. Larger businesses usually had healthcare options for their employees. I have worked for 20 years now and a lot of my positions have been entry level. I have only had one job where healthcare was not offered. Most of them I had to share in the cost, but it is available. The only job without healthcare was when I worked as a bus-boy part-time. Even jobs that paid minimum wage usually had some healthcare options available.
Most people would rather stand back and complain to Uncle Sam than do a little work to better their own situation.
Many, many employers ARE NOT offering health insurance as an option to new employees anymore, because it is so cost prohibitive, and so many people are out of work, people are willing to take a job with "just a paycheck", instead of a job with "a paycheck AND benefits".
By the end of 2010, it's estimated that only 40% of employed people, will have employer sponsored health insurance coverage.
I'm not saying you're lying, but it's obvious that you haven't looked for a job within the last 2 - 3 years.
Years ago, I was an electrical engineer. I worked for 2 small manufacturers in the amusements business for about 10 years. Neither offered any benefits at all, past a paid vacation every year (which, at one company, was 1 week per year, 2 weeks at the other).
These weren't exactly entry level jobs, either (they don't let beginners design video monitors).
At least under private insure you can pay for the coverage you want, if you want a plan that will pay for experimental drugs if you get sick you have an option to buy it. Under the TOTUS's plan we will be forced into a plan that has no options it will be what some politician thinks you need not what you feel you need.
Where the hell do you get YOUR insurance?!?!
I've NEVER had any options like that, in any health insurance plans, sponsored by any of my employers!!
I can pick my doctor, but he needs to be on the insurance companies list. Otherwise, no coverage.
My insurance company can (and does) dictate to my doctor what medicines he can prescribe. They can mandate generic drugs, even when the generics are not exactly the same, are not as effective, and employ inferior delivery systems.
My policy will pay for 4 chiropractic visits a month, unless a doctor prescribes more. My neurologist prescribed 6 visits a month, but the insurance company won't pay for the extra 2 visits per month. apparently, they can pick and choose which contractual provisions to honor, and which ones they can ignore.
I have debilitating pain from a strained nerve in my neck. I have to limit my hours worked as a result (even more painful when you're self-employed like I am). The problem could be solved with a simple (but expensive) surgical procedure. But the insurance company has decided that this would be an "elective procedure". They'd much rather pay for opioid drugs that I could get addicted to than the procedure to solve the problem. Why is it that the procedure is considered "elective", but the other treatments for the same problem are not?
Insurance is one of the only industries that actually employs people (usually 2 departments--legal and claims) to weasel their way out of their contractual obligations. If I did the same thing in my business (financial planning), I could be sent to prison.
For the privilege of being treated this way, I get to pay $10,000 per year, plus a $5000 deductible (plus another $5000 deductible for my wife).
My father is on Medicare, and he has far more freedom than I do in his health care choices. Medicare (the government you anarchists--oops, I mean Republicans/conservatives so hate and distrust) does not dictate to his doctors what treatments to use or medicines to prescribe. Plus, they would pay for the surgery that my insurance company won't pay for.
Insurance is like police and fire protection. It is something that the government does well, and at a far lower cost than what private industry charges.
Let me know where you can find a prepaid post retirement health insurance plan (they do exist) that would cost the average person less than $1500/yr.
My father would pay far less out of pocket than I would for his medical expenses. He's pretty healthy. I have epilepsy and Parkinson's disease. If I had to pay (retail prices) out of pocket, my prescriptions alone would be about $1500/mo.
Amazing how many Americans are deathly afraid of paying a little more tax when we are already paying the lowest taxes in the developed world (and don't get righteous with me, my income tax alone comes to more than the median income). A little less selfishness and teabagging, and we could actually live in a first world country again!
People complain about a lack of healthcare, but out of the 47 million without healthcare how many of them CHOSE to not buy into any? I know that the ones who hurt the most in the healthcare market are the small businesses that get toasted trying to provide healthcare to a handful of employees. Larger businesses usually had healthcare options for their employees. I have worked for 20 years now and a lot of my positions have been entry level. I have only had one job where healthcare was not offered. Most of them I had to share in the cost, but it is available. The only job without healthcare was when I worked as a bus-boy part-time. Even jobs that paid minimum wage usually had some healthcare options available.
Most people would rather stand back and complain to Uncle Sam than do a little work to better their own situation.
That may be the case for you and where you live, but that is a gross and inaccurate exageration as an example of what its like nationwide.
I imagine in the course of your, pull yourself up by your bootstraps philosophy, you have neglected to take note of the current state of unemployment and shortage of jobs available, with or without benefits.
You are out of touch and I dare say, deliberately and arrogantly so.
Maybe I am out of touch a little. I thought this country was the one where people around the globe came to for the opportunity to succeed. The constitution said everyone had the right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. It didn't guarantee happiness or healthcare.
My circumstances are not so different from a very large segment of this country. We don't all have the luxury of not taking a job without insurance. There are hundreds of people right behind us that certainly will. I spent a year unemployed and now I have a part time job with a good company. They offer medical to part timers if you can afford the premium. It could take me up to 2 years to become full-time. I will stay because it is a good company and is strong (not unaffected). I will hang tough and start over because it may offer me a more stable future. I am one of over 100 people that went in as a temp for 90 days. 10 of us were hired permanent. The majority of the other temps tried very hard too. Am I more qualified, better at the job, better looking, faster, funnier, do the customers like me better? Or was I just a little bit luckier?
We recently had a firefighter position open 2 counties away in a small town. The line was over 750 people and it began 2 days prior to the doors opening for the applicants. This for 1 position. I understand where you're coming from, but I think you perception is a bit skewed and it belittles many people who fight against all odds and don't always win the prize or even make it.
Wal-Mart is the very last place I will look if I need something.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 56 Comments