Or not, and the playing field is still level. No company is **required **to provide medical insurance to its employees.
Where does the idea come from that medical insurance must be provided for by your place of employment? No other insurance is provided for by your employer-- not auto insurance, not homeowners or renters insurance, not umbrella policies, no other insurance.
I don’t think the employer should provide insurance–the government should.
Then GM, etc., could compete better against the Japanese automakers. Etc.
I think ere long Big Biz will pressure the Gov for one-payer system or something similar.
BTW, I basically agree with what the conservs (Stone Mason, heh) have been saying in this thread. Wal-Mart’s theme is cheap everything: cheap products, cheap labor, cheap buildings–with their value-add being the option to buy cheap for the masses (I shop there myself for many things. Why? It’s cheap!)–poor or not-so-poor.
A certain very low minimum of ethics law-abidingness is expected of all companies, and I think Wal-Mart meets such standards. I’m talking about respecting basic human rights–not beating your employees with a cat-o’-nine-tails, that kind of thing. Some companies’ business models will embrace better treater of and coolness toward employees (Trader Joe), and some will go for the bare minimum (Wal-Mart).
In order to get all companies to go above that minimum, you need to regulate a new minimum socialistically. A higher minimum wage and universal health care, for example.
At any rate, bravo to the righties for seeing Wal-Mart thus clearly and correctly. They probably won’t agree that the government should do the things I said above, but that’s another debate perhaps.
Then where exactly are these Wal Mart workers supposed to get the money to see a doctor from?
The majority of full-time workers can’t afford the health care plan the company offers and they obviously can’t afford private insurance.
What are they supposed to do when they get sick? Would those of you who are opposed to UHC kindly explain to me what you would do to treat them? Or would you simply prefer not to?
If this isn’t a rhetorical question, here in the US the idea came from the wage and price controls enacted during WW2 when companies had to use benefits (such as health insurance, life insurance etc, which weren’t covered by the price freezes) in order to attract and promote employees.
And I could wear earphones that emit a sharp noise every 15 seconds so I can’t concentrate and use my natural intelligence to my advantage! And strong people could wear backpacks full of bricks! That would level it even more!
The way I see it is that Walmart is reducing the taxpayers burden by providing jobs for people who would otherwise be doing nothing productive except for collecting welfare.
So the system works. Isn’t that what you wanted - government providing assistance to people who can’t do for themselves? What are you complaining about?
Where are unemployed people supposed to get health care? Someone who has a job is better off than someone who doesn’t have one.