Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wal-Mart Fights Bill Listing Workers on Public Health Care
kare11.com ^ | 6-2-05 | Associated Press

Posted on 06/02/2005 10:06:30 PM PDT by Eternal Sea

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is fighting legislation that would let Minnesotans know how many of its workers are on public health care assistance in this state.

The Bentonville, Arkansas-based retail giant recently sent two executives to St. Paul to lobby against the bill, which the Legislature may vote on in special session this month.

"This is not health care reform," said Nate Hurst, public and government relations manager for Wal-Mart. "This is a campaign against Wal-Mart."

The legislation would create a list of companies whose workers are enrolled in MinnesotaCare and other government health care programs.

Proponents of the bill, whose chief author is Sen. Becky Lourey, DFL-Kerrick, say the public has a right to know which employers are draining the state's public health care system. They say the bill does not target Wal-Mart, but will highlight ways the state can work with companies to improve health care programs.

Last fiscal year, the state spent $270.2 million for MinnesotaCare, which provides assistance for people who don't have access to affordable insurance.

"If it's true what people say, that big multinational companies are outsourcing health care to taxpayers, then it would be good to have a handle on which ones," said Rep. Sheldon Johnson, DFL-St. Paul. "It's just information."

In other states that have compiled such lists, Wal-Mart is at or near the top among employers with workers enrolled in state medical assistance.

The state of Wisconsin reported last week that Wal-Mart employees topped the list of BadgerCare recipients, a health care program for low-income residents.

A bill there would force retailers to reimburse the state for providing the health care needs for their underpaid and underinsured employees. The bill would apply only to stores meeting certain criteria, such as stores that exceed $20 million in sales in a taxable year and allocate less than 10 percent of payroll to employees' health insurance.

Nationwide, 24 states have bills pending that would create lists of employers with large numbers of workers enrolled in public health programs, according to the National Conference of State Legislators.

Labor groups, such as the United Food and Commercial Workers union, worry that other retailers will reduce their health care benefits in order to remain competitive with Wal-Mart. They've used the lists as evidence that Wal-Mart is not providing affordable health care insurance to its employees.

Wal-Mart officials insist such rankings warp its record. As the nation's largest employer, Wal-Mart inevitably will fall at or near the top of most state rankings, the company said.

As of October, Wal-Mart employed 17,329 people in Minnesota.

"We'll be the largest on any list, just because of our size," Hurst said.

The company is also concerned about how the data are collected, Hurst said. If a state compiles a list in December, for instance, the numbers may look abnormally high because Wal-Mart employs a large amount of seasonal employees.

In a May 18 letter to state legislators, Wal-Mart said it helps lift employees off public health care by giving them jobs.

Wal-Mart estimates that 160,000 people have been taken off the list of public health care programs nationwide by accepting jobs at Wal-Mart.

"Please be assured that we do not encourage the use of public assistance, and we do not structure our plans with the idea that there will be a governmental safety net," Wal-Mart said in the letter.

(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Last Updated: 6/2/2005 7:33:11 AM


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: Minnesota; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: govwatch; healthcare; socializedmedicine; subsidies; walmart
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

1 posted on 06/02/2005 10:06:31 PM PDT by Eternal Sea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Eternal Sea
Labor groups, such as the United Food and Commercial Workers union, worry that other retailers will reduce their health care benefits in order to remain competitive with Wal-Mart. They've used the lists as evidence that Wal-Mart is not providing affordable health care insurance to its employees.

Uh, I would point out there is no law forcing Wal*Mart, or any other company for that matter, to provide health insurance for it's employees. The health insurance benefit is a perk, pure and simple.

2 posted on 06/02/2005 10:12:20 PM PDT by upchuck (If our nation be destroyed, it would be from the judiciary." ~ Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eternal Sea

Winn-Dickme is ready to drop its pensions and healthcare for all its retirees. Just like the airlines did. Where's the outrage about that? Winn-Dickme is going under and that's all there is to it.


3 posted on 06/02/2005 10:12:27 PM PDT by Ron in Acreage (It's the borders stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eternal Sea
Proponents of the bill, whose chief author is Sen. Becky Lourey, DFL-Kerrick, say the public has a right to know which employers are draining the state's public health care system.

But the public doesn't have a right to know who is accepting the State's largesse? Employers are not 'draining' anything from the State's welfare programs. I'd even hazard a guess they pay taxes to make the largesse possible. Let's see the State publish the name and address of anyone accepting government checks.

4 posted on 06/02/2005 10:12:38 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eternal Sea

Let Wal-Mart close its stores and THEN count the number of former Wal-Mart employees on welfare.


5 posted on 06/02/2005 10:14:29 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for Spec.4 Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron in Acreage
Winn-Dickme is ready to drop its pensions and healthcare for all its retirees. Just like the airlines did. Where's the outrage about that? Winn-Dickme is going under and that's all there is to it.

Anyone who thinks a company will exist into perpetuity and thereby provide benefits to retirees deserves the deal they brokered. I just think it's sad the taxpayer has to pick up the tab for these poor decisions.

6 posted on 06/02/2005 10:14:37 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

http://www.local6.com/news/4531441/detail.html

This is what the anti capitalist want.


7 posted on 06/02/2005 10:19:27 PM PDT by Ron in Acreage (It's the borders stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

You are right.

Health insurance is something that is a perk. We can buy insurance if we want, or apparently sign up for governmental insurance coverage. It is there to be taken advantage of.

I can't fault people for taking what is made available for such a purpose.


8 posted on 06/02/2005 10:26:40 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ron in Acreage
Yep. And it's the same thing that's got GM in trouble. In GM's case it serves them right for letting the union walk all over them for so many years.

I'd bet even money that, ultimately, we, the taxpayers, are gonna have to partially bail out these problems.

9 posted on 06/02/2005 10:27:47 PM PDT by upchuck (If our nation be destroyed, it would be from the judiciary." ~ Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

The Unionized grocery stores who are trying to compete with WalMart are going out of business because of "healthcare" expenses and other perks the Unions are trying to force employers to pay.

If Unions want to put good companies out of business they should keep up the campaign. WalMart should close their doors and let these people find work elsewhere. Let's see how fast they are invited back for those "low wages" they are paying.

The same people demanding these perks for these workers are the same people who probably make millions from the Unions.


10 posted on 06/02/2005 10:32:59 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

Health insurance was a perk in the 1970s. Today it's the difference between getting a serious illness treated and the risk of losing everything.


11 posted on 06/02/2005 10:34:56 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: durasell
"Health insurance was a perk in the 1970s. Today it's the difference between getting a serious illness treated and the risk of losing everything. "

It's called insurance for the very reason it is a financial burden when needed. You could get insurance then and today. It is not the employers responsibility.

12 posted on 06/02/2005 10:43:10 PM PDT by endthematrix (Thank you US armed forces, for everything you give and have given!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Having enjoyed the pleasure and endured the agony of litigating against WalMart for for the mistreatment and oppressive treatment of it employees, I am at liberty to state without equivocation that WalMart is the most dangerous threat to the American economy extant today. It is governed by a gang of self-indugent thieves who have made tons of profit by cheating their employees and lying to the American public. Their false "made in America" program was a gigantic lie and they tried to hide their explotation of asian slave laborers transported to the Marshall Islands and kept in virtual prisons in indentured servitude. And that has been one of their more minor unlawful experiences. Spending money at Walmart is contributing to the demise of middle America's economic strength.


13 posted on 06/02/2005 10:44:18 PM PDT by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: durasell
That doesn't stop it from being an optional benefit (perk).

You can work extra to buy it if necessary or use the government's insurance as a fall-back.

A car is optional as well, but we don't see it that way. Still, we don't require businesses provide transportation for everyone for "free".

Perhaps if we could see that the vast majority of our health was in our own hands, people such as yourself could feel more comfortable with the insurance situation.

Catastrophic insurance is not that expensive and would prevent "losing everything".

Insurance, I maintain, is purely a perk.
14 posted on 06/02/2005 10:45:23 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: endthematrix

....is it the state's responsibility?

I suspect you'd say no. So, given that, you would opt for a large percentage of the population to have no health insurance. This is a hugely dangerous situation, not only for those who would lose everything because of a major illness, but for the rest of us. There's a lot of nasty bugs flying around out there and I for one would like the guy preparing my salad at the local eatery to see a doctor regularly. Not to mention, I wouldn't like to see a replay of 1918.


15 posted on 06/02/2005 10:47:28 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
Wal*Mart just flat does not like unions. I'm sure you remember what happened in the Wal*Mart store in Canada where the union had finally managed to gain a foothold? Wal*Mart closed the store :)
16 posted on 06/02/2005 10:51:33 PM PDT by upchuck (If our nation be destroyed, it would be from the judiciary." ~ Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
Insurance is going to be THE issue in the next decade. Come October, when the new bankruptcy laws go into effect a lot of people are going to start losing their homes since a disproportionate amount of personal bankruptcies are health related. A lot of folks are going to be screaming like stuck pigs.
17 posted on 06/02/2005 10:54:34 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: durasell

Perhaps, but then they should have prepared by staying more healthy all along.

We need to be responsible for ourselves. Catastrophic insurance will stop the problems you describe if only people were willing to give up their HBO.


18 posted on 06/02/2005 10:56:17 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: durasell
The state has unfortunately designated themselves guarantors of health insurance. They do provide it. The responsibility of insurance is yours. You buy it...from a company. It IS affordable just as any commodity that a family needs. Some family think cable TV or fashionable shoes are necessities, and after those costs they think spending on insurance (and not getting anything tangible) is unaffordable.
19 posted on 06/02/2005 10:57:11 PM PDT by endthematrix (Thank you US armed forces, for everything you give and have given!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

LOL...glad we are on the same page. (#19)


20 posted on 06/02/2005 10:58:35 PM PDT by endthematrix (Thank you US armed forces, for everything you give and have given!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: durasell
So, given that, you would opt for a large percentage of the population to have no health insurance. This is a hugely dangerous situation, not only for those who would lose everything because of a major illness, but for the rest of us.

It's apparent from your comments and the comments of many other's that "insurance" really just means "free" health care. This is the same technique that convinced people to accept seniorfare (social security). They were too proud to accept welfare so FDR told them it was "insurance". Of course, it's never really been insurance.

So let's stop saying "insurance" and just call it what it is: government funded health care.

People without insurance aren't without access to care. My mother had no insurance, but took my brother and me to the doctor whenever we needed it.

It was probably even cheaper that way too. Why give money to an insurance company that will simply take a portion of it for themselves and give remains back to your doctor? Giving it directly to you doctor is less expensive.

And people without insurance aren't all poor.

In fact, the richer you are, the LESS likely it is that you even need insurance.

Insurance isn't there to pay for your health care. You pay that in your premiums. Insurance is there to handle the uncertainty -- not to give you affordable or cheaper care.

21 posted on 06/02/2005 11:03:42 PM PDT by mc6809e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

We'll see how it shakes out. I'm covered stem to stern, not quite "boutique medicine," but close to it. And, quite frankly, I don't know how some people afford it.


22 posted on 06/02/2005 11:04:15 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: durasell
Anyone who is ill can go to the emergency room and never have to pay a dime. They cannot refuse to see you.

There are also many charities that do nothing but take care of people who can't afford to see a doctor. Charities that pay for prescription drugs, drug companies with programs that give away free drugs for the needy, local doctors and pharmacists who volunteer at free health clinics, neighbors who volunteer with local hospices to take care of the needy, etc.

If anyone is in need of health care there are places that know how to get it done. All one needs to do is ask around their community. People are not heartless no matter what a bunch of liberal kooks say.

I know because I belong to several of those organizations and people can get help if they need it.

Since when do we need the government or unions to tell employers how they should run their businesses? Why do you think they want people to think others don't care about the needy? Maybe because they want people to think they can't make it on their own and need the government and unions to take care of them? That comes with a huge price too.
23 posted on 06/02/2005 11:07:54 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

Again, we'll see how it shakes out after October. The linking of health care and bankruptcy reform isn't obvious, but the stats are revealing.


24 posted on 06/02/2005 11:12:54 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: durasell; A. Pole; Aliska; Willie Green
I suspect you'd say no. So, given that, you would opt for a large percentage of the population to have no health insurance. This is a hugely dangerous situation, not only for those who would lose everything because of a major illness, but for the rest of us. There's a lot of nasty bugs flying around out there and I for one would like the guy preparing my salad at the local eatery to see a doctor regularly. Not to mention, I wouldn't like to see a replay of 1918.

True. The 1918 flu pandemic killed my great grandmother. When my maternal grandmother passed on in 1997, I finally got the truth from her younger cousin who she used to babysit. For years, my grandmother tiptoed around the issue saying her mother passed "because of a bad heart" or something like that. However when the scare of the 1918 flu got big in the late 1970's, 1978 IIRC, I remember she got bent out of shape all over it, now I know why.

Ping to A. Pole and Aliska and Willie Green
25 posted on 06/02/2005 11:14:22 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Lutheran, Conservative, Neo-Victorian/Edwardian, Michael Savage in '08! - DeCAFTA-nate CAFTA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

Here's a story I googled on the subject ---

The Associated Press
Updated: 7:43 a.m. ET Feb. 2, 2005
BOSTON - Costly illnesses trigger about half of all personal bankruptcies, and most of those who go bankrupt because of medical problems have health insurance, according to findings from a Harvard University study to be released Wednesday.
Researchers from Harvard’s law and medical schools said the findings underscore the inadequacy of many private insurance plans that offer worst-case catastrophic coverage, but little financial security for less severe illnesses.
“Unless you’re Bill Gates, you’re just one serious illness away from bankruptcy,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, the study’s lead author and an associate professor of medicine. “Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick.”
The study, to be published online Wednesday by the journal Health Affairs, distributed questionnaires to 1,771 bankruptcy filers in 2001 in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas. That year, there were 1.46 million personal bankruptcies in the United States.
More than 900 of those questioned underwent more detailed interviews about their financial and medical circumstances for what the authors say is the first in-depth study of medical causes of personal bankruptcies, which have risen rapidly in recent years.
Illness and medical bills were cited as the cause, at least in part, for 46.2 percent of the personal bankruptcies in the study. Himmelstein said the figure rose to 54.5 percent when three other factors were counted as medical-related triggers for bankruptcies: births, deaths and pathological gambling addiction.
The study estimates medical-caused bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans each year, counting debtors and their dependents, including 700,000 children.
Most were insured
Most of those seeking court protection from creditors had health insurance, with more than three-quarters reporting they had coverage at the start of the illness that triggered bankruptcy. The study said 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy, with illness frequently leading to the loss of both a job and insurance.
Out-of-pocket medical expenses covering co-payments, deductibles and uncovered health services averaged $13,460 for bankruptcy filers who had private insurance at the onset of illness, compared with $10,893 for those without coverage. Those who initially had private coverage but lost it during their illness faced the highest cost, an average of $18,005.
snip
Middle-class hit hard
The findings indicate medical-related bankruptcies hit middle-class families hard — 56 percent of the filers owned a home, and the same number had attended college.
“Families with coverage faced unaffordable co-payments, deductibles and bills for uncovered items like physical therapy, psychiatric care and prescription drugs,” Himmelstein said.
The study, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, did not examine how many bankruptcy filers were from dual-income families where both partners had insurance, Himmelstein said.
Jeff Morris, resident scholar at the American Bankruptcy Institute, founded by Congress in 1982 to analyze bankruptcy trends, said the Harvard findings roughly mirror those of a 1996 ABI study in which 57 percent of bankruptcy filers cited medical problems as a primary bankruptcy cause. Respondents in that study were more likely to cite three other factors as primary causes, including easy access to credit, job loss and financial mismanagement.
Morris said he was aware of no data indicating that the Harvard study, which was based on 2001 bankruptcy filings, does not accurately reflect current trends in medical-related bankruptcies.
“Medical coverage is becoming more for catastrophic loss than for intermediate expenses,” Morris said.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed


26 posted on 06/02/2005 11:15:50 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

Why would they tip toe around it? -

Here's an excellent book on the subject:

Flu : The Story Of The Great Influenza Pandemic -- by Gina Kolata;


27 posted on 06/02/2005 11:21:46 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Eternal Sea
To me, it seems like Walmart employs a lot of poor people. Aren't poor people the ones that need jobs the most?

Walmart could always pull out of Minnesota and then all of those employees could be completely dependent on the state. As it stands now, Walmart is employing a lot of the state's poorer and less educated citizens. Why does that make them evil?

If Walmart is employing illegals then that is a different story.

28 posted on 06/02/2005 11:22:17 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: durasell

It would help a great deal if the ambulance chasers would knock it off.

That's where healthcare cost are skyrocketing. Any person in the healthcare business would be stupid not to carry a huge amount of malpractice insurance which costs a fortune.

Who do you think profits from a malpractice lawsuit? It's certainly not the injured person.


29 posted on 06/02/2005 11:23:34 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e

Just an observation. It seems to me that the more that govt has involved itself in 'healthcare', the more unavailable and unafordable it has become.

Therefore, we need more govt intervention to solve the problem. yeah... right.


30 posted on 06/02/2005 11:24:47 PM PDT by Sodbuster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Eternal Sea
Let us count all the ways we can expose the myriad of ON THE CHEAP EMPLOYERS with illegals on their payrolls sucking up social benefits.

If they are after Wal-Mart for not giving cradle to grave benefits, so be it. But, what is good for the goose, goes double in spades for the traitorous ganders undermining American workers and wages by hiring illegals.
31 posted on 06/02/2005 11:26:30 PM PDT by Ursus arctos horribilis ("It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" Emiliano Zapata 1879-1919)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

I don't know anything about the malpractice issue. I do have friends who are docs and pay over $100,000 a year in insurance, which seems like a lot to me. On the other hand, if docs or hospitals screw up, they should be held liable.

I'll leave it to someone smarter than me to figure it out. There is probably a middle ground someplace, I just don't know where it is or how to get there.


32 posted on 06/02/2005 11:28:26 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: durasell
There is probably a middle ground someplace

I agree.

33 posted on 06/02/2005 11:31:02 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

Experience has taught me that not every problem has a "common sense" easy to understand solution. And some problems are so complex that the solution has to evolve incrementally in pretty much the same manner that the problem developed.

This has been real enjoyable. I have to get off to work.

Take care, all.


34 posted on 06/02/2005 11:35:21 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: durasell

Check this out...


Catastrophe in Care (Hospitals Being Crippled by Illegal Aliens; Diseases Threaten Public)

Tucson Weekly ^ | 2 June 2005 | Leo W. Banks


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1415271/posts


35 posted on 06/02/2005 11:36:04 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

[Uh, I would point out there is no law forcing Wal*Mart, or any other company for that matter, to provide health insurance for it's employees.]

That's exactly right. This attitude that corporations are somehow responsible for providing cradle to grave security, especially for workers with no skills, is ridiculous. Employment is just a trade of money for productivity, idiots. If you want a better deal, develop some skills.


36 posted on 06/02/2005 11:58:12 PM PDT by shteebo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
The Unionized grocery stores who are trying to compete with WalMart are going out of business because of "healthcare" expenses and other perks the Unions are trying to force employers to pay.

Actually, the employers don't pay anything...It's the customers that pay...The employer divides the spoils...

And in this case, Wal-Mart has found that it can keep more of the spoils and let the state (we taxpayers) foot the medical bills...

If the States reform their Medicaid practices, I can see Wal-Mart going union...

37 posted on 06/03/2005 12:30:59 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailer park!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: middie
How long ago it Wal-mart cease placing life insurance on it's employees, with the company as beneficiary?
38 posted on 06/03/2005 12:34:13 AM PDT by investigateworld ( God bless Poland for giving the world JP II & a Protestant bump for his Sainthood!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3

Since this is state funded and supplied health care, and these Dumbocrats want a Canadian style health care system, why don't they just tax their citizens more to pay for it?
Companies in Canada don't provide health care for employee's, the system is funded by the taxpayer.
Do these idiots want to drive all the business across the border?
Health care, whether in Canada or the USA is paid for by the individual, In Canada by the taxpayer, for a crappy government run system, in the USA by the individual via insurance companies, who then pay the hospital and doctor for service.
It sounds like Minnisota is already on it's way to state run welfare healthcare, just tax the people more to pay for it and force everyone to use it. Voila, Canadian health care.


39 posted on 06/03/2005 12:46:39 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3

As of October, Wal-Mart employed 17,329 people in Minnesota.

So, if each of them pays at least $1000. in state taxes (as a result of being employed) they more than pay for the entire cost of state run medicaide. Why lean on Walmart? I'm sure they pay more than a thousand a year in state taxes on their walmart wages, so ask, where does the rest of that money go?
DemocRATS are so tax greedy.


40 posted on 06/03/2005 12:55:38 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Many stores do not like unions, not just Walmart. Unions don't do anything for employees these days. They promise better wages and benifits, but in reality any small gain you make in wages is lost because of high union dues. sometimes you end up making less than you did without a union.
So walmart closed it's store in Quebec. Who's the biggest loosers? The government, because they loose a big tax revenue source, and the community. And not just walmart workers, but plumbers, electrical contractors, the paving company, local trucking, etc etc.


41 posted on 06/03/2005 1:16:26 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

Wal-Mart has been caught employing illegal aliens and has been fined for it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4605733.stm


42 posted on 06/03/2005 1:24:56 AM PDT by Eternal Sea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld

I recently spoke with a friend who works for a furniture/cabinet making factory in the town where we live. In this right to work state she works long hours for low pay & NO benefits, is made to stay for hours on 30 minutes prior notice. If you voice dissatisfaction you are GONE. And in 2005 she is making less per hour than I was making per hour in 1976.


43 posted on 06/03/2005 4:21:30 AM PDT by commonasdirt (Reading DU so you won't hafta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Eternal Sea

Are they going to list all of the state employees and public school teachers?


44 posted on 06/03/2005 4:24:37 AM PDT by linkinpunk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: durasell

"Out-of-pocket medical expenses covering co-payments, deductibles and uncovered health services averaged $13,460 for bankruptcy filers who had private insurance at the onset of illness, compared with $10,893 for those without coverage. Those who initially had private coverage but lost it during their illness faced the highest cost, an average of $18,005. "

Anyone that doesn't have at least $20k in reserve for emergancies is irresponsible and deserves to lose their home.

Everyone should have AT LEAST 6 months earnings in reserve.


45 posted on 06/03/2005 4:52:16 AM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld
It's still going on. The audacity of such a cruel act is beyond reprehensible, it should be criminal. The voracious animals running Walmart would be lined up and shot if Ole Sam Walton were still alive. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what I would do to those monsters if I could lawfully pull the trigger. And to exacerbate the shame, the great uninformed mass of the consuming public hasn't a clue that every dollar they spend at that temple of consumer horror moves closer the day when they have only a single choice for the retail purchase of necessities and the prices will be way above the good deal they think they're getting now. And, the terrible social price of destruction of the middle class retail merchant is a very high price to pay to move enormous amount of U.S. currency to China and other Asian slave wage societies and place the USA in jeopardy of facing a hostile China within the next 15 - 20 years.

The body bags will be the price we pay for today's 30cents off a case of toliet paper. This administration knows the facts and is willing to feign their non-exsistence and offer all manner of disingenuous and fallacious rationale' to justify the movement of American jobs, technology and dollars to Asia. Their horizon is no farther than the next quarterly P&L statement and corporate officers' bonuses. Yet, another example of the rampant dishonesty at large in the White House today.

What the hell were we thinking last November when we returned this gang of liars and thieves to power. Of course, that's a rhetorical question, we knew what they are and chose to close our eyes. That's exactly what we did in the 1930s when we shipped millions of tons of scrap iron to Japan that our fathers and grandfathers saw as it came back at them in the form of Jap Zeros, artillery shells, naval vessels and 500lb. bombs.

The best source of the analysis of this ticking time-bomb can be found at the National and separate services war colleges and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. Twenty-seven (+/-) years ago an Air Force Lt. Colonel colleague student at the War College did just such a study --it then being only a hypothetical question- as his dissertation. He was very perceptive and his prescience amazingly accurate.

46 posted on 06/03/2005 5:27:48 AM PDT by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: durasell
So, given that, you would opt for a large percentage of the population to have no health insurance. This is a hugely dangerous situation, not only for those who would lose everything because of a major illness, but for the rest of us. There's a lot of nasty bugs flying around out there and I for one would like the guy preparing my salad at the local eatery to see a doctor regularly.

We should not use government intervention to limit the free spread and competition among bugs. This would be the speciesism - a hate crime.

Besides, you prevent that way the natural culling of the more sickly and less fit humans. Freemarketeers will get angry!

47 posted on 06/03/2005 5:44:33 AM PDT by A. Pole (Mikolaj Rej: "A niechaj narodowie wzdy postronni znaja, Iz Polacy nie gesi, iz swoj jezyk maja.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
Walmart could always pull out of Minnesota and then all of those employees could be completely dependent on the state.

Walmart is in business of selling ready made products. The volume of sales is limited by the already existing purchasing power. If Walmart moves out the smaller stores will return, hiring people.

48 posted on 06/03/2005 5:48:38 AM PDT by A. Pole (Mikolaj Rej: "A niechaj narodowie wzdy postronni znaja, Iz Polacy nie gesi, iz swoj jezyk maja.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sodbuster
It seems to me that the more that govt has involved itself in 'healthcare', the more unavailable and unafordable it has become.

Other developed countries have some forms of national health care. And it costs them LESS, and the results (like average life expectancy) are BETTER!

49 posted on 06/03/2005 5:50:25 AM PDT by A. Pole (Mikolaj Rej: "A niechaj narodowie wzdy postronni znaja, Iz Polacy nie gesi, iz swoj jezyk maja.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Eternal Sea; A. Pole

One step closer to National Health Care.


50 posted on 06/03/2005 5:52:21 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson