JG excerpt:Thanks to the generosity of Wal-Mart, the YMCA of Northern Rock County much like the Badgercare health program of Wisconsin will be able to offer financial assistance to keep the programs affordable to all the underprivileged, even Wal-mart employees. Well, isn’t that nice of Wal-Mart? They could give that amount to 500 YMCA’s every year in Wisconsin and still make out in health care costs.
(Nov. 28, 2006) The YMCA of Northern Rock County was recently presented with a check for $5,000 from Wal-Mart. The grant from Wal-Mart will assist the YMCA in achieving its goals and advancing its mission.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Generous Wal-Mart Cares for Badgers
The biggest employer of BadgerCare recipients was Wal-Mart, which had 809 of its employees and 443 of employee dependents enrolled in the state program in April. Providing health care for those 1,252 people costs Wisconsin about $2.7 million a year; Wal-Mart turned a profit of $10.3 billion in 2004. Of course, Wal-Marts ability to pawn off its employee responsibilities are well documented and old news but consider this:
44 comments:
So 809 of Wal-Mart's 26,000 employees are in BadgerCare? I fail to see how this is news or a scandal that a large company has 3% of their employees on a low-income insurance plan. Rounding out the top 10 employers on the list are Aurora (a huge health care group), Menards, McDonald's, Manpower, Lands' End, KMart, Walgreen, APAC, and Target. What percentage of each of their employees are on BadgerCare? I am willing to bet it is a larger percentage.
They probably have more employees on badgercare but, that doesn't matter what matters is wal-mart does and liberals don't like wal-mart.
What matters is that you don't seem to care that your paying for it.
Nobody has a problem with a company that posts $10 billion in annual profits but still requires your tax dollars to pay for the health benefits they refuse to? Why didn't you say so, you want to be taxed and taxed by the wealthiest of the wealthy, I should have known.
I wasn't necessarily defending Wal-Mart, just showing that there are others on the list that should also be criticized and are probably bigger offenders...percentage wise. There is no need to single them out, and by doing so, you are showing a bias that actually becomes the story and message instead of the pointing out the abuse.
That is a cop-out to side-step the issues. Bias is great excuse to use against those who present an opinion and stand by their principles. There is a need to single out Wal-Mart when they are fairly alone at the very top in this game. Start repairing the problem there first for the biggest gain, then others will fall in line.
So if I had 700 employees and told them "Tough nuts, I am not providing health care insurance, go use BadgerCare," I am a better employer and citizen with 100% use than Wal-Mart with their 3% use?
No. But I believe if we could put a man on the moon, our legislators should be able to come up with a formula on this to close loop-holes in order to prevent companies from taking advantage of the system. Fewer recipients, smaller government, lower taxes. It’s a win-win situation. I'm not sure of Wisconsin state law on whether or not companies are compelled to provide health benefits for full-timers.
My only suggestion as a starting point would be that employees of publicly(stocks) held firms would not be eligible for Badgercare on the premise if they(companies) are doing well enough to pay dividends, they are doing well enough to take care of their most valuable asset – their employees.
Your suggestion would put a huge dent in the economy and the small businesses that are the backbone of this economy. They couldn't compete with the publicly held businesses would get all the employees and would leave the small business owner with oneone wanting to work for them.
But what if you are wrong? You are viewing the Badgercare system as a burden to small business, when it is not. Right now, the big firms have all the leverage, if taking care of their employees with benefits they can afford to pay means more people want to work for them, that's not necessarily bad. It will have a good ripple effect throughout the economy. I can't see how welfare to the wealthy, whether an individual or a corporation is a good thing.
It would do more harm then good. Small bussiness is the engine that runs this economy. I don't see how punishing small employers is ever a "good" thing.
Forcing BIG profitable business to be more responsible to their employees will hurt small business? Get real.
Yes it would. My point if a big "pofitable" business under Louis theory would be required to provide and pay for health benefits for it's employees. Where do you think employee's are going to apply for jobs? Are they going to go to the big "profitable" corporations or will they apply to the small business that is unable to give the same benefits to their employees as the big "profitable" business. How is that NOT going to hurt them. If you want to bash my point then come upo with some substance to back your point. Don't just say "get real". That just makes you look silly.
Wal-Mart can hire only x amount of workers no matter how good the benefits are. The smaller businesses and start-ups would "maybe" have Badgercare available as the equalizer and only if they meet the requirements. I would rather have employers compete "up" for employees, than down. Again, leaving things the way they are will slowly degrade benefits and increase taxes. The core at my reasoning is stop wealthy corporations from capitalizing on the good will of the taxpayers when they can afford otherwise.
You don't get it. You need to have children to even qualify for badgercare. So, the small businesses would only be able to hire people that would qualify for badgercare. These people would be parents of children and then the business would have to pay them under the wage limiitations to qualify for badgercare. Loius your just a stupid liberasl who thinks the government should take care of you. Step upo to the plate and actually do something for yourself and quit releying on the government to wipe your sally ass. Actually make something of yourself and quite whinning.
I'm the one who believes wealthy corporations should take care of their own employees, yep that's me - a liberal. I would like to see the system change to lift all boats, even yours if you have one, stupid me, I should know better.
Louis, you are too nice. The stupid ass-wipe at 3:40 thinks its okay for the our taxes to wipe the sally asses of wealthy corporations like Wal-Mart.
I just can’t figure how taking the employees of big business and publicly held companies off the Badgercare eligibility roles will hurt start-ups and small business compete for employees as 3:40 implies, regardless of the trash-talk. When just the opposite appears to be true. If the legislature can stop big business from health-care dumping onto the state, then the state can eventually strike out the children eligibility requirement for the rest. I hope this is where the governor is headed, it’s the best solution. Cheap talk is just that – its cheap.
The start-ups would be hurt along with the mom and pop type busineesses. First of all the big profitable corporations that are owned by stockholders would be able to give their employees paid health insurance and a better wage. The small guy wouldn't be able to hire quality employees because he is unable to offer the same type of health benefits. The samll guy would have to keep his wages below the limit to let his employees get state aid. You don't think that's going to hurt start-ups? I'm out looking for a job and I go to company "A" they offer me a startung wage of $9 and hour with 100% paid health insurance after 90 days with a raise to $9.75 after my probation period is up. They also offer a weeks paid vacation after 6 months of employment and 3% wage increases every year afetr your first year of employment based on performance. The I go to company "B" which is a company that has 10 employees which is a good company which makes a good product. But, they can't offer the 100% employee health benefits that company "A" can offer. The starting wage for company "B" is $12.00 an hour with a 10 cent raide after 90 days. The healthcare package they offer is a typical 80/20 package that has a deductible of $1500 per family member per year. The cost to enroll is $45.00 a week. $180 a month. Where do you think I'm going to go for employment? Sure company "A" has a lower starting wage but, it's way better insurance and if you stay employed with the company you will be up to the pay rate of company "B' in a short time.
If Wal-Mart paid the $10 bucks an hour with full health benefits PT or full, the No HELP WANTED sign would be permanently attached to their doors. They would lose employees only through death. At this point, the money the state saved by not funding the benefits of wealthy corporations could create a solid core of revenue enabling a program like Badgercare to drop its child requirements and raise its income limit. Throw in 50/50, 73/30 or 80/20 co-pays to adjust for other income gaps, the BadgerCare program could expand into a universal health care program that would be the envy of the nation. People have to work somewhere, not all companies are created equal. It is a hell of a lot better than what is going on now. The idea that small businesses are finding workers strictly because government is funding health benefits of large wealthy corporations is preposterous, and may very well be at the heart of our health-care benefits crisis.
And how would you fund the badgercare program? I know tax the "wealthy" corporations. Punish the corporations for being able to make money. Punish the thousands of stockholders and people enrolled in their employers 401K programs.
..........Or keep doing what we are doing and punish the taxpayers and others who work for small start-ups that cannot afford health benefits. If taking government subsidies away from wealthy corporations would punish their stockholders, maybe they invested in the wrong business. Maybe they should be investing in government. Some tough choices must be made here, its no wonder why nobody wants to take the first step.
Universal healthcare would hurt the healthcare enviroment. We would be depending on the government for our healthcare. I don't know about you but, I don't think that is the way to go. We have the best healthcare in the world. Why would you want to make it subpar for a few million uninsured people? Have you been to the DMV lately? That's the government for you. I don't want that in my healthcare. To rely on the government. There is nothing wrong with the healthcare system now. Except it is getting more expensive. HSA are wheree it's at.
By universal healthcare, they don't mean government run hospitals, they mean both state and federally funded co-payment based on your income. The healthcare itself is private.
Right the government won't run the hospitals. They will just fund the hospitals. That really isn't going to be a good thing. They will have the say in what doctors you can see. What they will and will not pay for. It sounds good from the outside but, once you look at it deeper it really isn't that good.
To comment 1:30 your right. Just take a look at badgercare. I know a few people that were using badgercare while they were between jobs and had qualified for badgercare. They were told which doctors they could see. Some doctor's wouldn't accept badgercare. Most dental offices don't accept badgercare patients because the state only pays for .65 on the dollar that the dental practice charges. They loose money.
Or the people could just go without healthcare. Lets just keep doing what we're doing. It work's so well.
Do you really want the government involved in your health and well being? It's amazing to me that people would actually want the government involved more in their lives.
I want government to stay the hell out of my mail, off my phone and out of my house, but if the only way to cut my $7,000 yearly health insurance premiums is through government intervention, by all means - come on down!!
You will be paying for it somewhere else. It's not going to be "free". It could very well cost you more than the $7,000 you are paying now.
You want them out of your mail? Good luck with that one. Do you want your mail delivered? You wouldn't have to worry about them tapping your phone unless your calling suspected terrorists or a drug dealer. To think that the government will be good at managing your healthcare is not real bright thinking. Have you been to the DMV lately? That's the government at work for you. Our healthcare system is the envy of the world why screw it up with social medicine?
That dipshit will be paying $7,000 more in taxes. IT AIN'T FREE BUDDY!!!
Thats why democrats are so fucking stupid. They expect the government to take care of their lazy asses. They can't think for theirselves. That post saying he can save $7,000 on his insurance premimiums is a dumbshit. Do you actually think they won't raise taxes somplace else? Think before you speak pal. Otherwise you just make yourself look like the idiot it appears you are.
Before being so rude maybe you should actually read what he said. And I quote "if the only way to cut my $7,000 yearly health insurance premiums". He is saying they already are $7000, not going to save $7000. Now who's the idiot? Is that the Republican way, to read a statement and change it around to fit how you want it to?
Iy seems you are just as stupid as the 7,000 dumbshit. It isn't going to cut any of your health insurance premiums. So, you think all of a sudden the health insurance fairy is going to pick up some of his health insurance premium? Come on your a fool.
It's just plain silly to even think that universal health care is going to help the situation. It will ruin the healthcare we recieve now. Why do Canadians come here for healthcare if theirs is so good? They are on waiting lists to have procedures done sometimes many months.
You are confusing the means to pay with the actual care. Could it be that Canadians come here because their universal healthcare system allows them that option.
They get something Americans don't even get, affordable healthcare and pharmaceuticals.
If you believe some of the comments here, someone might be mistaken and think America doesn't have a healthcare crisis.
How would we pay for this? How would you keep the level of care that we recieve today? How can the government not screw up the healthcare industy? The government would be in charge of making the payments to the hospitals and doctors, There would be a backlog and we the patients would be the ones who suffer.
The only thing I fear is that universal healthcare would be so successful it would build up a surplus fund that Congress would drain to pay for more wars. You're right on that point, government would probably screw it up like they did Social Security.
To the 4:23PM and 5:07pm (I'm assuming the same person). Let me get this straight, your calling this other guy a dipshit because you can't read or understand his post? LOL!!
Socialism isn't the answer.
Universal healthcare won't work. It doesn't work whereevr it's tried. In Canada the people have to wait months for a simple procedure.In Cuba Castro went to a Mexican doctor to get treatment for his illness. If his health system is so good why did he need to go to Mexico to find a doctor?
A lot of people have a problem when somebody suggests good affordable "universal" healthcare for all. It's communism, socialism, fascism, marxism or liberalism. Whatever it is, plenty seem more threatened by it than the statement "healthcare for no one."
The problem isn't the quailty of healthcare is affordability. If we can somehow look at what is driving up the costs of healthcare we can look to control the cost. To put the government in charge of something so personal like my healthcare is scary. The government already tells me what child boosterseat to use. They already tell me where I can smoke a cigarette, Now in California the government wants to tell people how to raise their children. If we have socialized medicine the government will tell you which doctor to see what medicationss you can have. It wouldn't be as rosey as you think it would be.
Post a Comment