Mandated Health Care For Retail Employees

[Taro T]

There are companies who do this now.  At these companies all employees HAVE to join the health insurance plan UNLESS they can demonstrate alternative coverage to the company.  Lots of companies do this now without any federal bureacracy. 

 

Possibly another way to get more companies to cover all employees would be to eliminate the federal tax deduction for employee health benefits UNLESS the company offers benefits to all employees.  This would make more companies "volunteer" to cover all employees.

464086[/snapback]

Might work. More likely though, it would cause the companies to only provide insurance to top executives as the added cost of insuring the "masses" would exceed the value of the deduction for the employees they were currently providing insurance.

 

Dave.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

There are companies who do this now.  At these companies all employees HAVE to join the health insurance plan UNLESS they can demonstrate alternative coverage to the company.  Lots of companies do this now without any federal bureacracy. 

 

Possibly another way to get more companies to cover all employees would be to eliminate the federal tax deduction for employee health benefits UNLESS the company offers benefits to all employees.  This would make more companies "volunteer" to cover all employees.

464086[/snapback]

 

VABills' idea was less about the insurance and more about the federal program to deny care to the uninsured, though. That's what I find silly.

[VABills]

VABills' idea was less about the insurance and more about the federal program to deny care to the uninsured, though.  That's what I find silly.

464350[/snapback]

No mine was a federal registry, not program to maintain a list of people who opted out of health insurance. If you have your little card from your spouse then no need to check the registry. If you don't and you're on the registry, then pay in advance for services or service denied.

 

Hell why don't we have a federal mealplan program. You pay to eat in advance. Otherwise no service.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Hell why don't we have a federal mealplan program.  You pay to eat in advance.  Otherwise no service.

464364[/snapback]

 

I hope that was a sarcastic suggestion made to point out the lunacy of your health care idea. Because otherwise you've completely lost it.

[Mickey]

My only comment is that Socialism sucks. This is socialism.

 

Wegmans, for example, creates a great environment for employees WITHOUT unions and WITHOUT government-mandated health care.

463820[/snapback]

It is at least theoretically possible that the reason they do so is the threat that if they did not provide such an environment, their employees would unionize. I am no labor relations expert nor have I much experience in management as I usually outsource to legal sweatshops in Micronesia so I admit that I am speculating.

[VABills]

I hope that was a sarcastic suggestion made to point out the lunacy of your health care idea.  Because otherwise you've completely lost it.

464419[/snapback]

It was sarcasm. But I like my idea, so !@#$ off.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I understand both your point and your question. Keep in mind that I make no claim to have all the answers to this issue, I was just hoping to discuss and get the opinions of others.

 

There are books written about how unfair to workers Wal-Mart is said to be. They are said to operate on the very fringes of legality when it comes to discrimination, using illegal aliens, punishing workers who want to unionize, etc.

They have been known to order workers to change their days off in lieu of receiving overtime pay. They closed a store in Canada for voting to unionize. In Suffolk County, they lost a 10 million dollar discrimination suit.

I think we both are aware of their reputation.

 

Generally, I frown on government intervention wrt private business. Right now, we are paying for Wal-Mart employee health with tax dollars. If the change is made, Wal-Mart WILL pass along the increased costs to shoppers, no doubt.

I don't patronize Wal-Mart, so I might take less of a hit. 

 

Truthfully, I think that it is the job of organized labor to attack Wal-Mart, not that of the government. I don't see why they don't simply call for a national boycott, with informational picket lines.

Andy Stern of SEIU says he wants to devote more funds to organizing workers. He was joined by Hoffa Jr. of the Teamsters, and 2 other large international unions.

I guess we will soon know how serious they are.

In the meantime, it IS nice to see Wal-Mart getting some heat. 

457629[/snapback]

 

 

Very nice post Bill.

 

I brought this up about a year ago. There was the Tennessee story where Wal-Mart actually encouraged their workers to apply for state aid.

[KD in CA]

There are books written about how unfair to workers Wal-Mart is said to be. They are said to operate on the very fringes of legality when it comes to discrimination, using illegal aliens, punishing workers who want to unionize, etc.

They have been known to order workers to change their days off in lieu of receiving overtime pay. They closed a store in Canada for voting to unionize. In Suffolk County, they lost a 10 million dollar discrimination suit.

I think we both are aware of their reputation.

 

 

Big deal. Just because some union rabble rouser thinks Wal Mart is the root of all evil (and wrote a book full of inuendo and lies) doesn't make it so. Is it a crime to have a no union policy for your business? Is it a crime to close a store in Canada if you believe that is in the best interests of your company? I suspect this paragraph is meant to show how awful Wal Mart is....but I've yet to see the evidence.

 

If Wal Mart is breaking laws, they should be prosecuted. Otherwise, trying to force them to allow unions is as un-American as it gets.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Big deal.  Just because some union rabble rouser thinks Wal Mart is the root of all evil (and wrote a book full of inuendo and lies) doesn't make it so.  Is it a crime to have a no union policy for your business?  Is it a crime to close a store in Canada if you believe that is in the best interests of your company?  I suspect this paragraph is meant to show how awful Wal Mart is....but I've yet to see the evidence.

 

If Wal Mart is breaking laws, they should be prosecuted.  Otherwise, trying to force them to allow unions is as un-American as it gets.

465813[/snapback]

 

So true... Outside of government, one can do anything they like that doesn't violate the law.

 

Doing what they are doing doesn't make it illegal. What Wal-Mart is doing is the most American thing possible.

 

Does it make it right? In their eyes it does. They are protecting their self-interests first and foremost.

 

The fact they don't see the tragedy they are creating shouldn't be that distrubing.

 

Quite a tragedy because it is affecting what is financially common to a lot of people.

[KD in CA]

So true... Outside of government, one can do anything they like that doesn't violate the law.

 

Doing what they are doing doesn't make it illegal.  What Wal-Mart is doing is the most American thing possible.

 

Does it make it right?  In their eyes it does.  They are protecting their self-interests first and foremost.

 

The fact they don't see the tragedy they are creating shouldn't be that distrubing.

 

Quite a tragedy because it is affecting what is financially common to a lot of people.

467668[/snapback]

 

 

Creating a tragedy? Give me just a small break please.

 

I thought Wal Mart was bad because it drove all the Mom and Pop stores out of business? How many Mom and Pop stores offer their employees paid medical benefits? Not many.

 

I consider Wal Mart to be a pioneer. Hopefully ALL employers will follow their example. Employers should not have anything to do with medical insurance. Unless you are a coal miner, where exactly is the connection between one's employer and one's health? Why don't we just let people buy their health insurance directly from the insurance companies, just like we do with every other form of insurance?

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Creating a tragedy?  Give me just a small break please.  

 

Why don't we just let people buy their health insurance directly from the insurance companies, just like we do with every other form of insurance?

467863[/snapback]

 

Several reasons:

 

1. If the employees buy insurance directly they lose the benefit of group rates.

 

2. Insurance companies would love to deal individually since they could pick and choose who to cover or base their rates on family history, etc. Who would write a new policy for someone with diabetes, high blood pressure, or heart disease? Or if they do, the rates will be higher for these people.

 

3. Most individual policies limit coverage for pre-existing conditions. Group policies don't.

 

4. If you give people the option to pay themselves, you will see even more people choose to go without insurance.

 

Your proposal would definitely benefit companies that currently cover employees as well as benefit insurers who would be able to reject high risk people. The only individuals that may see a benefit are those in perfect health who may get a better rate. Most individuals would be worse off.

 

Lastly, it would put an even larger burden on hospitals and Medicaid due to the increased number of people who can't afford, choose not to purchase, or are rejected for insurance.

[KD in CA]

1.  If the employees buy insurance directly they lose the benefit of group rates. 

 

Which is why I said that everyone should buy insurance directly. Obviously, "group rates" are only relative and in fact tend to benefit just the kinds of people you lefties are dying to punish. I'm about to join a company full of young, rich, white guys. Our group rate will be fantastic. If everyone was part of one big 'group', those of us with more employment options wouldn't have an advantage.

 

2.  Insurance companies would love to deal individually since they could pick and choose who to cover or base their rates on family history, etc.  Who would write a new policy for someone with diabetes, high blood pressure, or heart disease?  Or if they do, the rates will be higher for these people.

 

This is where the government legislation can actually do some good. Insurance companies wouldn't be allowed to cherry pick. There are all sorts of ways this could be accomplished.

 

3.  Most individual policies limit coverage for pre-existing conditions.  Group policies don't. 

 

Geez, you really have trouble thinking outside the box. If the system were changed to an individual basis, there could easily be a law passed to take care of the pre-existing condition problem.

 

4.  If you give people the option to pay themselves, you will see even more people choose to go without insurance.

 

And that's the best one of all....it's THEIR CHOICE, and they will have to live with it. That means that if they don't have insurance, they pay the doctor themselves.

 

And yes, unless you are bleeding or unconscious, don't bother coming to the emergency room because you will be turned away.

 

Gee...imagine a country full of people that actually relied on themselves for their well being rather than the government.

[KRC]

Gee...imagine a country full of people that actually relied on themselves for their well being rather than the government. 

467988[/snapback]

 

Blasphemy!!

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Which is why I said that everyone should buy insurance directly.  Obviously, "group rates" are only relative and in fact tend to benefit just the kinds of people you lefties are dying to punish.  I'm about to join a company full of young, rich, white guys.   Our group rate will be fantastic.   If everyone was part of one big 'group', those of us with more employment options wouldn't have an advantage.

This is where the government legislation can actually do some good.  Insurance companies wouldn't be allowed to cherry pick.  There are all sorts of ways this could be accomplished.

Geez, you really have trouble thinking outside the box.  If the system were changed to an individual basis, there could easily be a law passed to take care of the pre-existing condition problem.

And that's the best one of all....it's THEIR CHOICE, and they will have to live with it.  That means that if they don't have insurance, they pay the doctor themselves. 

 

And yes, unless you are bleeding or unconscious, don't bother coming to the emergency room because you will be turned away.

 

Gee...imagine a country full of people that actually relied on themselves for their well being rather than the government.  

467988[/snapback]

 

Well, you're talking about a lot more government intervention which will put you at odds with your "rightie" friends.

 

So, you're saying that the government should force insurance companies to charge the same group rate to all. I assume that the government would have to review this rate and monitor premium increases and profits generated under these established rates.

 

Also, the government under your scenario would have to monitor the insurance companies to ensure that they cover all pre-existing conditions. And also to make sure that one company does not cherry pick the good risks. Maybe create a federal bureau of insurance bureacracy to handle this one.

 

Lastly, you use the tough love approach to those who can't afford insurance or choose not to participate although you feel that we can still burden the hospitals and Medicaid with those who are bleeding or unconscious.

 

So in the end, you have created a new Federal bureacracy to regulate and monitor this industry, made all individuals responsible for purchasing insurance out of their own pockets, and told the uninsured that they can die in the streets.

 

Sounds like a good plan.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Blasphemy!!

468029[/snapback]

 

Shifting the responsibility for health care from company-provided to individual responsibility will create more governmental involvement than we have now.

 

Also, I just noticed that your presidential platform is devoid of any mention of health care or Medicaid or Medicare reform. Weren't these issues worthy of your consideration?

[KRC]

Shifting the responsibility for health care from company-provided to individual responsibility will create more governmental involvement than we have now.

 

Actually, if it is done right, no. I believe in privitazation. Let charities take care of the poor. Reduce the tax burden on the people from the ineffective, bloated bureaucracy that is the government. It is a proven fact that when you reduce taxes, people save more and contribute more to charities. Charities are FAR more efficient with money than the government ever will be. Let charities take care of the people who cannot or will not take care of themselves. Let everyone else determine who they want to use for insurance.

 

Also, I just noticed that your presidential platform is devoid of any mention of health care or Medicaid or Medicare reform.  Weren't these issues worthy of your consideration?

468061[/snapback]

 

There was an overall philosophy I wanted to instill. This philosopy was valid over a wide range of issues, like Social Security, Healthcare, etc. It is impossible to address every issue in a campaign. You promote a philosophy, so that people know how you will address ALL issues as they arise.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Creating a tragedy?  Give me just a small break please. 

 

I thought Wal Mart was bad because it drove all the Mom and Pop stores out of business?  How many Mom and Pop stores offer their employees paid medical benefits?  Not many.

 

I consider Wal Mart to be a pioneer.  Hopefully ALL employers will follow their example.  Employers should not have anything to do with medical insurance.  Unless you are a coal miner, where exactly is the connection between one's employer and one's health?  Why don't we just let people buy their health insurance directly from the insurance companies, just like we do with every other form of insurance?

467863[/snapback]

 

It is just a matter of time.

 

Most of us are at least one generation removed from when times were like that.

 

If the clock has to be turned back 75 years or so... So be it.

 

We need to take a step back.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Actually, if it is done right, no. I believe in privitazation. Let charities take care of the poor. Reduce the tax burden on the people from the ineffective, bloated bureaucracy that is the government. It is a proven fact that when you reduce taxes, people save more and contribute more to charities. Charities are FAR more efficient with money than the government ever will be. Let charities take care of the people who cannot or will not take care of themselves. Let everyone else determine who they want to use for insurance.

There was an overall philosophy I wanted to instill. This philosopy was valid over a wide range of issues, like Social Security, Healthcare, etc. It is impossible to address every issue in a campaign. You promote a philosophy, so that people know how you will address ALL issues as they arise.

468074[/snapback]

 

And that is why so much was better way back when pre-New Deal...

 

Education, health, occupational safety, etc... were so much better.

 

Once again, IMO, as a nation we tend to forget where we came from.

 

My parents had it hard growing up during the depression. Our nation full of smart arses seem to forget that.

 

[KD in CA]

Well, you're talking about a lot more government intervention which will put you at odds with your "rightie" friends.

 

More involvement than having local politicians passing laws forcing certain companies to offer certain insurance to certain individuals? That's pretty hard to imagine.

 

 

So, you're saying that the government should force insurance companies to charge the same group rate to all.  Well, you're talking about a lot more government intervention which will put you at I assume that the government would have to review this rate and monitor premium increases and profits generated under these established rates.

 

Yeah, because the principles of free enterprise, competition and supply/demand would cease to exist in regards to this industry.

 

Obviously there would be debate about what would and wouldn't be allowed for consideration when insurance companies set their rates.

 

Monitor profits??? A lefty's wet dream.

 

 

Also, the government under your scenario would have to monitor the insurance companies to ensure that they cover all pre-existing conditions.  And also to make sure that one company does not cherry pick the good risks.  Maybe create a federal bureau of insurance bureaucracy to handle this one.

 

Yeah, cause it would be really hard to have a standardized application process that limited facts about pre-existing conditions, making it impractical to cherry pick. And of course, there is no possible way a company who tried to get around that would ever be caught.

 

 

Lastly, you use the tough love approach to those who can't afford insurance or choose not to participate although you feel that we can still burden the hospitals and Medicaid with those who are bleeding or unconscious.

 

How exactly is this any more of a burden than it is today with tens of millions not having insurance?

 

So in the end, you have created a new Federal bureaucracy to regulate and monitor this industry, made all individuals responsible for purchasing insurance out of their own pockets, and told the uninsured that they can die in the streets.

 

Ah, yet another marco economics major. I forgot that the billions saved by companies would all go into the CEO's bonus and not be reinvested into the economy in the form of more jobs, increased spending and higher pay rates.

[KRC]

And that is why so much was better way back when pre-New Deal...  

 

Education, health, occupational safety, etc... were so much better.

 

Once again, IMO, as a nation we tend to forget where we came from.

 

My parents had it hard growing up during the depression.  Our nation full of smart arses seem to forget that.

 

 

468102[/snapback]

 

Exploding deficits, regulation to the point of stifling advances, government dependency, etc. Yup. Things are much better now.