Healthcare Deadbeats
Tom Oliphant in the Globe.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy came up with an idea the other day that could nudge the debate over the country's worsening health insurance crisis both nationally and in Massachusetts.Read the rest here then share your thoughts.
Why not have the states publish lists of large employers (50 workers or more) who have full-time people receiving publicly financed healthcare like Medicaid and the program that helps insure children of the less well-off? Fifteen states already do so.
...
The legislation -- Kennedy's co-conspirators are Democrats, Senator John Corzine of New Jersey and Representative Anthony Weiner of New York -- is aimed at monsters like Wal-Mart, infamous for its luscious benefits for company big shots and nonexistent coverage for ordinary employees, whose insurance is then left to taxpayers. The most common estimate is that more than 600,000 Wal-Mart employees, nearly half of its workforce, have to use public safety-net programs.
What Wal-Mart doesn't do, out of profits that total $10 billion or so, costs taxpayers more than $200 million to provide -- including $61 million in Florida and some $3 million in Massachusetts. In 12 states Wal-Mart is the largest employer with workers on Medicaid and other assistance programs. The fact remains, however, that half the uninsured in Massachusetts and in many other states work at outfits with fewer than 25 employees.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 7/07/2005
25 comments
25 Comments:
Teddy Kennedy a creature that continuously fascinates simply by existing. It's nobodies business if Wal-Mart doesn't offer health insurance to its lower wage employees? As you may have noticed... that stuff's expensive. If people who don't make very much money, for whatever reason, choose not to buy healthcare or cannot afford it... that is not Wal-Mart's fault. Why don't we publish how many of these people on Medicare have more than one car, cable television, internet access and cell phones?
Ahhh.. I hate to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man, but here goes.
Senor, can you tell me why you think that Wal-Mart providing insurance for their millions of employees would cost the same as if you walked into an insurance agency and bought it for yourself?
Are you really saying that with profits in the 10s of billions that Wal-Mart can't provide a minimum of health care benefits for it's employees? Are you saying that they can't be expected to pay a living wage so perhaps employees could at least afford a minimal policy?
Are you actually happy that YOU and other taxpayers are required to pay more than $200 MILLION in taxpayer financed health care to Wal-Mart workers while the Walton family pockets BILLIONS in profits?
You're for government provided health care for the largest employer in the country? What are you, some sort of Commie-pinko Socialist?
What do corporations have to do to you before you realize they're making the country an ugly and much worse place for you and your offspring? Do they have to take away your beer? What? Take away your guns buried in your back yard?
What will it take to get you to wake up, take the blinkers off, pull your head out of the Limbaugh induced fog it's in, and realize that you should be concerned even if you're not able to recognize the effects these issues have on you directly?
Oh, and Senor, Dave has said he'd like to be a guest poster, though at first he wanted you to hold his hand. He later manfully said he'd do it by himself, though so far, he's not gathered the fortitude to send me anything or contact me.
But I just wanted to extend the same invitation to you that I have to Dave and other posters and allow you a post of your own if you wish.
Get in touch.
For the sake of full disclosure, my wife just had a baby. Yes... yes... of course it is a hate-filled spawn that will grow to be evil and stupid like me. I have even set up a 529 plan so I can use tax-preferred dollars to send him to hate-school. So, I would love to post, but my consistency will be limited.
Also, I am not happy that Wal-Mart doesn't pay for people's health insurance... I just don't think it owes anyone health insurance. These people take the job knowing what they get. I can't go into my bosses office tomorrow and indignantly demand some extra ten dollar bills in my office every morning.
Certainly, Wal-Mart can afford to pay for health insurance, why do you believe that means it HAS to? Can you afford to buy me lunch once a week? If so, why don't you? Are you one of those evil country-uglying entities yourself?
Why would you start your response with some stupid "battle of wits with unarmed man" comments and then expect a reasonable discussion. Is this your definition of pummeling Dave and myself? You should be proud of yourself.
I would be proud, if it required much effort. But sadly, it's not too tough.
But seriously, congratulations on your new addition! I'm sure the child will find out what it's like to be raised in the strict dad, no pity mode and won't be allowed to go "soft". Hell, they might be expected to change their own diapers soon. (just kidding)
All kidding aside, best wishes on this blessed event.
But you have an annoying problem where you get the personal and government policy all mixed up together. You seem to judge every government action as if it's an individual and whether it makes sense on that basis. (Which would mean of course that you're livid about Bush and the Republicans spending us into deficits that are so large they're incomprehensible. After all, a family has to live within it's means, right?)
It's your manner of thinking that produced the age of the robber barrons. It's your way of thinking that allows completely unfettered capitalism to reign supreme without any government checks to mitigate the often disasterous effects it brings.
I assume you're against bank regulation? I suppose you think that corporations should grow until they squash all competition, like Wal-mart, and have the size and financial clout to literally dictate to the entire country how things work?
I can't believe that you actually suggest that workers should be subject to the dicates of mega-corporations alone with no government help.
I hope you have no problem with America becoming a banana republic with people working 12 hours a day for substinance wages.
Because under your beliefs, that's exactly what will happen.
You believe that huge employers like Wal-Mart and others should be able to pay the minimum amount possible to capitalize on unskilled workers desperation to survive? What's to keep them from lowering the wage to say, a buck and hour? Oh yeah... government regulation. (And I'm sure you're against the minimum wage too, right?)
Your views would result in Americans crowding around to get temporary low wage jobs and fighting for them, much like imigrant laborers do now.
Do you really think that wages and benefits should be allowed to sink as far down as corporations want them? Do you really think wages would ever reach a point where people would simply refuse to work for them? Not when the number of poor and struggling people and families are exploding due to Republican (and Democratic) policies.
Unrestrained capitalism is NOT a good system. Our country realized that regulation and control was vital to stave off it's devastating effects on workers over a hundred years ago.
Why do you want to go back to the days of sweatshops and child labor?
And what makes you think it would never happen without regulation and control?
I know you may be unfamiliar with it, but this issue also involves morality. It gets to the point where exploiting workers and forcing them to become wards of the state in order to amass obscene and excessive profits is immoral.
You obviously don't believe capitalism or the market can ever result in immoral results.
It gets down to what sort of society do you want for this country. One where there is a permanent underclass ridden with drugs crime and all the ills of poverty, or one where the very people and companies that have capitalized on the labor of people and this country (including corporate welfare) to earn enormous profit should be required to give something back for the betterment of the government they've enjoyed and the labor which provides their profit.
And by the way, hell yes I'd buy you a sandwich if you were broke or hungry. I'd probably buy you one even if you weren't. Why shouldn't I?
(and I'd especially buy you one if I could afford a million sandwiches and not even feel it, and if you'd been a part of helping me make that money.)
Explain again what Ted "I once killed a woman" Kennedy has done for healthcare.
Just answer the question.
Right to be healthy? How the hell do you enforce such a right? Can I sue the government if I get cancer? "Your honors, the constitution clearly states that I have the right to be healthy. As you can see by this biopsy... I am not. I need justice!!"
The PURSUIT of happiness!! Not a guarantee of happiness. You may want to paint me as someone who would be happy to see people dying on the street, but that isn't accurate. I am not arguing that their are no issues with healthcare. I am arguing that government should not be in the business of forcing a private company to pay for health insurance.
Anyway, the weekend is coming up, so I will drink me some beers and argue further. Be back shortly.
Arrrrreeeeeebbbbaaaa!!!!!!
Diehard needs help over here too!
In your mind it seems, diehard, that the only two options are to believe government should solve a problem, or to not care that a problem exists.
I just don't want to pay for the healthcare of those who choose to be non-producers. And you still haven't answered the question about Teddy "the Swimmer" Kennedy.
Too general. Be more specific,
Senator Kennedy was primarily responsible for creating the HMO's... in an effort to streamline and cut the cost of medical care. So, maybe we should give someone else a chance, since you seem to admit that he failed miserably.
What, exactly, is it that Kennedy is proposing that will streamline and cut redtape? I haven't heard anything like that from him, unless you are referring to his dream of a single payer system, which would be the antithesis of reduce government involvement.
And, you want to talk about power, Senator Kennedy craves power almost as much as he does single-malt. You seem willing to give such knuckleheads carte blanche for decision making because their lust for power is somehow more just and good than a corporation's lust for profit. In a given country, the same people should never have all the guns and all the money. The government's got all the guns, I'm just as happy to let corporate American keep all the money. It beats the alternative.
What kind of abuse is being heaped upon people by these insurance companies anyway? I have a pretty meager Health Alliance plan, and I have never had a single problem with them, through three pregnancies, two miscarriages and endless ear, sinus and strep infections they have done just fine.
I dig the typo in an earlier post, "SENATOR BADASS"... I like that. Samuel L. Jackson could play me in Mr. Badass goes to Washington. I would put the BUST in filiBUSTer when I filibuster a move on my cardboard in the streets of DC. Ah wiggity wack and a reeeba!
Do you really think that the federal government is the source for a solution to the paperwork problem?
I am not be a smart-ass here, and I don't care what the bill numbers are, but what in a nutshell does Kennedy propose doing to reduce paperwork? I'm just not sure it possible... insurance contracts are nothing but paper.
I don't think that the gun control issue is too polarized, but I do think that there is some problem with the way people view the second amendment. The Gun-Control lobby always frames the argument as, "you don't need a machine gun to hunt or defend your home from a burgler." The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting and very little to do with protecting your home from other private citizens. Its purpose to keep the people armed so they can protect themselves from the government. I respect the police and the military, but in a situation where there is an power grab on the federal level that overshoots the limits of the constitution, I would like to be armed. Right now, I am do not own a gun, nor would I with three small children in the house. But, wouldn't you agree that, if everyone's paranoid fantasies about Bush and his right-wing religious fanatic followers are right, having an armed populace would come in pretty handy?
Hey Dave... congrats on working in a reference to Chappaquiddick, (though you no doubt couldn't spell that so just worded it differently using only 5 letter words or less.)
I don't think that's fair though. That's why I never bring up the fact that Laura "Pickles" Bush rammed her car into her boyfriend's Jeep and killed him, and then was never charged with manslaughter.
Hell, there's even an account of it on Free Republic, the most raving lunatic right wing site in existence.
The unemployment rate is 5%, find a different job. If I think my job doesn't pay enough or offer good enough benefits, guess what? I'll find a different job.
diehard is in over her head
apples and oranges dope, and you know it
I put up with shitty benefits from some of my jobs... no benefits from others. I was one of the millions of uninsured for about five years in my youth. I am not bashing anyone, but if I am upset with the shittiness of my life, I don't automatically turn to the government for a solution. I would hope any of my kin would do the same.
So, dope, are you saying that it is okay that Kennedy got drunk and got in an accident that killed a woman, because Laura Bush got in an accident that killed a man? Or were both wrong? Or was one okay and the other not? You didn't seem real reluctant to bring it up, you know, with the links and all.
Laura Bush hasn't been elected to any office that I know of, so a traffic accident is of little consequence either way. Kennedy's walking away from the accident shows some insight into his character. Now, maybe his character has strengthened since then. My opposition to Kennedy has nothing to do with his part in a woman dying... it has to do with him being a power-hungry buffoon. One of the times he championed the cause of health care was pushing the Patient's Bill of Rights. One of those rights was the right to sue your employer in a malpractice case... since they determined the group of doctors from which you would choose. The slobbering drunk bastard would have gotten my health insurance dropped if he would have passed that catastrophe. My boss would be an idiot to put himself on the line like that.
Yeah.
You couldn't do Kennedy's job for one day without coming off like a "slobbering drunk", even if you were stone sober.
Kennedy has more character in his toe than Bush will ever have in his entire under-achieving, spoiled brat life.
Sorry, I can't even dignify such ignorance on your part. If you want to insist on believing the fairy tales you've been spoon fed by el Rushbo, go ahead.
But the fact remains that Kennedy has been demonized far beyond recognition for sins that look like child's play compared to the leaders of your party. (By the way, you see any Bush family members being killed in action in service to the country, no matter how far back you look?)
I only brought up Laura's vehicular homicide in response to your dragging out that tired, moth-eaten BS about Kennedy.
You missed my sarcasm about hating to bring it up. Not my fault. I was glad to be given an excuse to bring it up.
But you say Kennedy has bad "character", but how has that shown in his long service to the country? Is it health care for everyone that gets you so mad at him? What is it that he's done to you that has gotten you so personally hateful of him?
Anything specific that he's done as a legislator that you can think of that really drives you nuts?
Or is it as I suspect, that you've just been propagandized to within an inch of the breaking point?
Post a Comment
<< Home