Should private firms be allowed to socialize their medical costs?

obvious Child · 08-23-08, 09:25 PM

Should private firms be allowed to socialize their medical costs?

For instance:

Quote:

Close to one of every 10 Wal-Mart employees is getting health insurance paid for by Arizona taxpayers, according to figures obtained Friday from the state.

The nearly 2,700 Wal-Mart workers represent about 1.9 percent of working people who are getting benefits from the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.

Yet Another State Finds Wal-Mart Tops Medicaid Rolls

Quote:

At the same time, the nation's largest private employer, based in Bentonville, Ark., also noted that less than half of its 1.3 million workers -- 47.4 percent -- are enrolled in Wal-Mart's own health program, despite recent changes that offer broader eligibility and low-cost policies.

More than 22 percent of Wal-Mart employees get their health care through their spouse's employer, 8.7 percent are covered through government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid or the military, and nearly 10 percent go without any health insurance, based on the fall 2006 enrollment period. California-specific figures aren't available.

Most workers at Wal-Mart insured; half avoid its plan / Many get health coverage through spouse or government, but nearly 10% go without it

Wal-Mart renders huge costs savings from having taxpayers pick up the medical bills for their employees.

Should employers be allowed to do this? And if so, is there a point where they should not be?

American · 08-23-08, 09:39 PM

What do you mean by socialize?

obvious Child · 08-23-08, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

What do you mean by socialize?

Have the taxpayers pick up the bill.

rivrrat · 08-23-08, 09:45 PM

I'm not sure I understand... how does Wal Mart force their employees to go on govt healthcrap - I mean, healthcare? They offer a group plan, some choose not to use it. How is that Wal Mart's fault?

DarkWizard12 · 08-23-08, 09:50 PM

Does it matter? Its either the government or the private business. At least private buinesses are seemingly to be more efficient in that field. Hell, why do you think there is hardly anyone in labour unions anymore.

Kandahar · 08-23-08, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Wal-Mart renders huge costs savings from having taxpayers pick up the medical bills for their employees.

Should employers be allowed to do this?

Yes, in fact it should be encouraged. We need to decouple health insurance from employers. That creates an enormous economic inefficiency, because some people will stay in a job that they hate or suck at, just for the health care benefits.

obvious Child · 08-23-08, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

Yes, in fact it should be encouraged. We need to decouple health insurance from employers. That creates an enormous economic inefficiency, because some people will stay in a job that they hate or suck at, just for the health care benefits.

So it's good for the taxpayers to pay for the medical of such employees?

Kandahar · 08-23-08, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

So it's good for the taxpayers to pay for the medical of such employees?

Yes........

obvious Child · 08-23-08, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

Yes........

I take it you favor Universal Healthcare?

You're in the company of Wal-Mart.

Quote:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- In a partnership of unlikely allies, Wal-Mart's CEO, other corporate leaders and the head of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) called Wednesday for universal health care coverage for all Americans by 2012.

Wal-Mart, union*join to advocate universal health care - Feb. 7, 2007

Scucca · 08-23-08, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

I take it you favor Universal Healthcare?

Its the efficient choice. The likes of Walmart can be controlled via the likes of minimum wage provision