Members of the legislature have illegally leaked confidential reports about businesses with employees using state health assistance
Citing state and federal confidentiality rules, the state last month provided the new reports to only a handful of legislators and legislative staff members. But copies were leaked to The Seattle Times.The motivation for the leak is to justify more burdensome regulation on non-union businesses (mainly Wal-Mart). The Democrats' argument against these employers is just plain obtuse:
"It's not just Wal-Mart," [Rep. Steve Conway (D-Tacoma)] said. "A lot of low-cost employers are shifting their health-care costs to the state."Health-care costs belong to individuals not to employers. If anything, it's the inequity in the IRS code that gives preference to employers over individual purchasers of health insurance that makes coverage unaffordable to individuals. And if the Democrats effectively raise the minimum wage by mandating health coverage and put more low skill people out of work, what will they have accomplished?
More health care policy arguments later. The first order of business should be to investigate the members of the legislature and Mrs. Gregoire's1 administration who broke the law by facilitating these leaks.
--
1 Of the two candidates for Washington governor in 2004 whose vote totals were within the margin of illegal votes as determined by a trial judge2, Mrs. Gregoire is the candidate whom .most surveyed state residents believe received the smaller number of legal votes
2 There are growing indications that King County deliberately concealed evidence of hundreds of illegal votes and intentional misconduct from the court.
When democrats do it, it's good. When Republicans do it, it's bad.
When democrats do it, it's good. When Republicans do it, it's bad.
When democrats do it, it's good. When Republicans do it, it's bad.
When democrats do it, it's good. When Republicans do it, it's bad.
I'm surprised you didn't know that, Stefan.
Posted by: Hinton on January 24, 2006 12:39 PMWal-mart doesn't need Washington State. The poor and the working class need Wal-mart to survive the unfair taxes that they pay in this state.
Posted by: sgmmac on January 24, 2006 01:05 PMAs a tax-payer, I am angry that a large number of individuals that have access to medical insurance through their employeer are shifting the burden from themselves to the tax-payers.
Forcing Wal-Mart to spend an arbitrary 9% of payroll on insurance for it's employees is not the answer - this would just lead to a cut in employees and raise unemployment. Obviously there's a loophole in the state medicare-medicaid law that allows individuals that have access to healthcare through work to leech off of the public dime that needs to be addressed.
Of course, Wal-Mart isn't entirely blame-less. I do think they treat their employees badly, and that's one of the reasons why I refuse to shop there myself, but the employees aren't held in servitude - they can leave whenever they wish if they find the conditions unbearable.
Posted by: Darth Dogbert on January 24, 2006 01:06 PMBut, why the Slimes? Why not the head blogger, the shark?
Posted by: swatter on January 24, 2006 01:20 PMWhen you take a job, all you are entitled to is your pay and that working conditions are as safe to a reasonable measure. You are not entitled to any other benefits. If the company decides to not provide health care insurance, you are not obligated to work for them. If sufficient workers decide to not work for Walmart due to a lack of competetive pay, then Walmart will be forced, all on its own, to supply them in order to retain a steady labor force.
Liberals should really study business, economics, and history a bit better.
Posted by: H Moul on January 24, 2006 01:22 PMb) We need a law saying to employers that if you employ X amount of people - say 10,000 - and expect the state to provide health care for a good proportion of them, expect a higher tax bill. That's called user-pay governance, i.e. Republican governance.
c1) I hope A.G. Rob McKenna conducts an impartial investigation on all of this. Washington version of Judge Gomery anyone?
c2) Do we have an independent prosecutor statute?
Posted by: A Watchdog on January 24, 2006 01:23 PMIf you run the numbers, I bet WalMart puts in more than they take out in the different give-aways.
Posted by: swatter on January 24, 2006 01:32 PMI like your proposal. And Wal-Mart shutdown a store in Canada when they tried to force them to unionize, so they might have the guys to carry it out. http://tinyurl.com/bavmh
When states hold a gun to the head of one of our nation's greatest wealth creators and places to buy goods and afford a better life for even the least well off, the best thing to do is shrug.
I hope Wal-Mart shuts down all stores in Maryland too. It's only by demonstrating the end goal of liberal policies that most will see why they do not make sense, and are in fact destructive to the American way of life.
Liberals do not like Wal-Mart for the same reason they don't like Condi Rice. Wal-Mart does not tow the union party line, the universal health care party line, etc. and so it is the focus of liberal attacks.
This is great though, give the Democrats in Olympia more rope, they are showing that they are very good at fashioning their own nooses.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 24, 2006 01:40 PM(As an added bonus, they forced property insurance companies to play the claims of people who burn down their own house.)
Individual health insurance became gradually unaffordable and finally unavailable. The last individual insurance provider left the state years ago.
Thus THEY created the need for an expensive taxpayer-funded state-wide health care system in the first place. Now they are upset because people are using it. OF COURSE the answer is to regulate (ie. PUNISH) any remaining businesses still able to remain viable in this godforsaken place.
Posted by: 80sHairdo on January 24, 2006 01:42 PMWhat? User-pay governance, i.e. Republican governance?
When have Republicans ever as you say, "expected the state to provide health care for people?"
You've been snoozin, lettin liberals sneak up on you, and drinkin from the toilet with them again.
BTW, Mr.X might share some Alpo with ya . . .
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 24, 2006 01:46 PMNice "attmept at math" yersef Bubba. What's the source for your figures?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 24, 2006 01:50 PMI think these kind of things happen when you have 2% of your corporation's workforce taking state health benefits. I also know WalMart has offered more affordable health care plans since the data was collected.
Amused by liberals;
I said, "We need a law saying to employers that if you employ X amount of people - say 10,000 - and expect the state to provide health care for a good proportion of them, expect a higher tax bill. That's called user-pay governance, i.e. Republican governance."
Translation for your simple mind: You take more from the state taxpayers, you pay more in taxes.
Take tuition - that's a user fee for higher education.
Take ferry fares - the more you use the ferry, the more you pay in taxes.
Fares, fees - that's what I thought Republicans supported rather than general tax increases because I think we can all agree that no matter the word, when government takes money from you for a service that's a tax.
Posted by: A Watchdog on January 24, 2006 01:52 PMNumber one, nobody in this country is denied health care. All comers are taken care of and in some instances they don’t even have to pay. Nobody in the country is denied health insurance. All you have to do is pay for it. Now if it comes out of your wages before you get the check or you buy it on your own (like I do because I am self employed), you still pay for it AND it would be a lot cheaper if the state would get their grubby little paws out of it. If you CHOOSE to not have health insurance (for a huge variety of reasons) you have nobody to blame but yourself. If Wal-Mart doesn’t give you what you want as an employee, than get a job that does.
Wal-Mart has 80% of their employees signed up for health care (or insurance). That is far above the average of 60% nationwide for business generally.
It occurs to me that Wal-Mart pays to the state of Washington a huge amount of taxes (B&O is on GROSS receipts so that is quite a bit, not to mention sales tax). I suspect that some of those taxes should be used for that health care that the state says Wal-Mart is gypping the employees out of.
The end result of all of this will be that Wal-Mart will have higher prices and that will hurt only the poor and the poor retired by taking more out of their limited budgets. Precisely the folks that the liberals profess to care so much about. And it will hurt far more than then employees it is supposed to “help”. Since Wal-Mart operates on a 1or 2 percent profit (1% is the real number I believe) woth these extra costs, Wal-Mart will also hire less employees and that won’t help those of limited experience/skills who need Wal-Mart jobs.
This is simply a concerted, nation-wide effort by the unions to stick it to Wal-Mart. The AFL-CIO has pulled the strings on the Wisconsin (I think that is where it was) legislature a few weeks ago to pass this thing (but there it was 8%) and 30 other legislatures nation-wide. They wanted a payback for $$$ they’ve tossed at Democrat elections and this is it.
I also believe that if Wal-Mart takes this little puppy to the Supremes, it will be ruled unconstitutional. A little to narrow.
Hey where is Mr. X when you need a goofy opinion?
I GOT MY FACTS FROM TESTIMONY GIVEN IN FRONT OF REP. STEVE CONWAY AND HIS HOUSE COMMITTEE LOOKING INTO THIS PROPOSAL.
IT WAS CLAERLY STATED (BY COMMITTEE STAFF & THOSE OPPOSED) ON SEVERAL OCCATIONS THAT FEWER THAN 300 WAL*MART EMPLOYEES ARE IN THIS PROGRAM, MOSTLY PART-TIME SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLDS THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE ANYWAY. THIS IS PART OF THE RECORD ...GO LOOK IT UP!!!
IF YOU WOULD TAKE THE TIME TO PULL YOU HEAD OUT OF YOUR "COLLECTIVE" ASS ...YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THE 300 "WORKERS" USING YOUR NUMBERS IS 2%!!!
IF THIS LAW PASSES IN THE FORM IT'S IN 3100...MAY BE THE NUMBER OF JOBS LOST. NOT JUST AT WAL*MART BUT IN MANY OTHER WORK PLACE'S!!!
Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on January 24, 2006 02:20 PMYour comments ignore THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
You say, ”You take more from the state taxpayers, you pay more in taxes.”
Citizens do not have rights to health care or higher education, and ferry fares are not taxes they are user fees.
Should Wal-Mart be required to provide employees with college educations and ferry rides? I speculate your answer is yes.
Honestly . . . are you really that dim-witted?
Possibly you would like health care, higher education, and ferry rides to be “rights,” but . . . they are not.
No one owes acknowledgement of your liberal fantasies.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 24, 2006 02:26 PMAS STATED IN MY LAST POST 2% OF THE WAL*MART WORK FORCE IS ABOUT 300 PRSONS. UNDER TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE IT WAS STATED THAT MOST OF THESE PERSONS WERE ELIGIBLE BECAUSE THEY WERE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSEHOLD THAT ONLY HAD PART-TIME WORK NOT BECAUSE THEY WORKED FOR WAL*MART. IF THEY DIDN'T WORK AT WAL*MART WE WOULD BE SHELLING OUT EVEN MORE TAX DOLLARS!!!
I HAVE NO PROBLEM HELPING THESE PERSONS...BUT AGAIN IT GOES BACK TO PEOPLE MAKING GOOD CHOICES IN THEIR LIVES. GET A HIGH SCHOOL DEGREE, DON'T USE DRUGS, DO NOT HAVE KIDS OUT OF WED-LOCK AND YOU WILL NOT NEED THESE TYPES OF PROGRAMS!!!
Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on January 24, 2006 02:35 PMMAYBE YOU AND SPONGEBOB SHOULD DRAG YOU SORRY BUTTS DOWN TO OLYMPIA AND GET INVOLVED...THEN YOU WILL HAVE SOME CREDITABLITY BY GETTING YOUR FACT FROM THE SOURCE NOT A PORCESSOR OF TREE CARCASSES!!!
Posted by: TACOMAPHLASH on January 24, 2006 02:48 PMIf a person wants health care insurance, they have several options. One of them is to be employed by a company that pays a portion of their insurance. Another option is for the individual to purchase health insurance on their own.
Workers in this state still have a myriad of employment options. Nobody makes people work for employees that provide little or no benefits. That choice belongs to the individual worker.
Posted by: Gary on January 24, 2006 02:55 PMMaybe you should ask your state senator specifically about the times piece, I bet they don't outright refute it. I think reporterward works there, can he weigh in?
Posted by: Patrick on January 24, 2006 03:02 PMNo one can accurately assess the figures and make complete sense of them because they were prepared for a partisan purposes from information that is highly questionable. Then they were illegally released for effect by those who have everything to gain and nothing to lose by misrepresenting the facts. The numbers don't really matter, because the purpose is to establish a Government Health Care System, regardless of numbers. Numbers here are only convenient justifications masking the true intent.
Ralph Thomas, Seattle Times Olympia bureau—hardly a conservative writer—in his article entitled "More than 3,100 Wal-Mart workers got state health aid" observed that,Gov. Christine Gregoire last year requested the two new reports even though she knew her agencies would not be allowed to release the results to the public. Even though, ”Employment Security officials say they are barred from publicly releasing any data that reveal company names,” they did so anyway. But more importantly, ”the totals in the new reports — especially for numbers of employees on Medicaid — are much higher than before. . . . It's unclear why the new numbers are so much higher, but lawmakers speculated the state did a more thorough job of gathering data this time.
Nevertheless, ”Officials at the Employment Security Department declined to comment.”
What would happen if they did a more thorough job of gathering data a few more times? This is just more of the same typical dishonesty in service to an empty idea that will utterly fail—the back door establishment of Government Health Care.
They cannot establish Government Health Care through the democratic process, because a majority of citizens don’t want it, so they use oppressive regulation and manipulation of the free market to drive out more employers, and crush our economy.
As liberals continue to fu@k up our economy, they are slowly making conservatives out of liberals. I understand why Patrick defends this type of idiotic nonsense . . . too dumb to get it.
Amusing though.
JUST TALKED TO MY HOUSE REP. AND IT WAS HER UNDERSTANDING FROM STAFF THAT THE "MORE THAN 3100 THE WAL*MART WORKERS GOT STATE HEALTH AID" WAS A TOTAL NUMBER GOING BACK 5 PLUS YEARS. I HAVE SENT AN E-MAIL OUT TO REP. CONWAY & REP. KIRBY AND OTHERS ON THE COMMITTEE FOR SOME HELP TO CLEAR THIS UP!!!
Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on January 24, 2006 03:27 PMI am amused by Amused by liberals. Apparently you have no ability for critical thought.
As to,
"You say, ”You take more from the state taxpayers, you pay more in taxes.”
Citizens do not have rights to health care or higher education, and ferry fares are not taxes they are user fees.
Should Wal-Mart be required to provide employees with college educations and ferry rides? I speculate your answer is yes."
The answer is no. Also, user fees are a form of taxation, if you define taxation as the means of paying for government.
I presume you are a libertarian, Eyman lovin' loon who thinks we should privatize just about everything in sight just as much as you think I want everything in sight to be government property which is not the case.
We subsidize higher education and some health care because we as a taxpaying society have decided there is greater economic benefit in making those investments, with obvious stipulations galore, than in not. That said, I hope you can agree that there is no right to health care, no right to higher education. Those are privledges. I presume you know the difference.
Posted by: A Watchdog on January 24, 2006 03:56 PMGood points. I think they're indignant Corporate America's employees are using it.
Put differently, I think the left wingnuts in Olympia want more revenue for this program from Corporate America so they can have more revenue for other programs...
Posted by: A Watchdog on January 24, 2006 04:37 PMYou are full of liberal nonsense—junk reasoning.
You say, ”We subsidize higher education and some health care because we as a taxpaying society have decided there is greater economic benefit in making those investments, with obvious stipulations galore, than in not. That said, I hope you can agree that there is no right to health care, no right to higher education. Those are privledges [sic]. I presume you know the difference.” I said earlier that ”Citizens do not have rights to health care or higher education.” Perk up and pay attention there snoozy.
Your statement makes no sense (big surprise!). For the sake of argument with someone of your obviously limited abilities, lets focus on your reasoning.
You said, ”You take more from the state taxpayers, you pay more in taxes.”Your statement posits that “use” is the nexus of justification for taxation. And . . . as you say, it is not the ”number” of people who ”use” health care or higher education that justifies its subsidization, but the subsidized use of them by those who either cannot afford or refuse to pay for all or part of that use. Otherwise your so-called ”greater economic benefit” justification would require subsidizing all citizens’ health care or higher education—thus making them de facto universal entitlements or “rights.”
Wal Mart is not using health care and they have not taken anything from the state taxpayers. Why should Wal Mart stockholders be forced to pay anything for it! By your own rationale, the number of people Wal Mart employs is utterly irrelevant. False justifications like this are the preparations of those who are attempting to make health care a de facto right.
Ultimately Wal Mart’s stockholders will not be forced to pay because they are not the captive interest at stake. Either employees of Wal Mart will suffer from lower wages or unemployment. Neither consequence serves the greater economic benefit of society and neither is in any intellectually honest way a “user-pay governance” or Republican element of governance. You are full of crap.
It is humorous that you try this type of junk reasoning garbage, but it won’t work unless you use it with other dumb ass liberals like yourself.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 24, 2006 06:01 PMLast time I checked no one was forced to work at Wal-Mart. There are no press gangs roaming the neighborhoods, rounding up unsuspecting citizens to make them work for this evil company. However, what a lot of you residents of la la land don't seem to get is maybe Wal-Mart is willing to take a chance on people no one else is keen on hiring. Lack of work experience, spotty job history, minor legal issues...things that Wal-Mart is willing to overlook.
Forcing companies to pay a set percentage for health care is not going to make it more affordable any more than the notion of higher minimum wages will automatically guarantee higher living standards. Duh. Before Lost-my-brains-in-my-foot and others think up witty rebuttals, try reading a basic economic text first. Government meddling killed the health insurance industry in this state and federal regulations and mandates eliminated the independent gas stations if you need just a few examples of why your misguided "government is the solution" reasoning is so very flawed.
Posted by: Burdabee on January 24, 2006 06:54 PMThe problem is that we are trying to implement that policy through an incredibly inefficent and confusing hodgepodge of private and government programs. As a result, we spend far more than other developed nations on healthcare and get poorer results.
Forcing private employers to provide healthcare has benefits (getting more people covered) and drawbacks (interfering with market market forces). But this bill arises in the contect of a fundamentally flawed healthcare system. Until we seriously reform the system, this may be a small step for the better.
Posted by: Bruce on January 24, 2006 08:09 PMI think a lot of the problem is that the cost of health insurance has come out of the employers' pocket for so long many people (including a lot of my relatives) think health care should be free. Nurses and doctors don't work for free, just as I assume you don't. And the drugs and medical technology have costs attached as well. Also, to say we spend more in this country doesn't take into account the high level of health care treatments available. Paul McCartney brought his wife here for cancer treatment and he is one who could easily afford to go anywhere in the world.
So do you think employees should pay a percentage of the cost? Higher deductibles? Fewer lawyers and politicians involved? What options would you put on the table other than socialized medicine?
Posted by: Burdabee on January 24, 2006 09:14 PMThough just for the record, I do see a lot more "liberal" bashing than anything else so it's obvious to me who the bigger jackass is. Though, you both p*ss me off.
Signed By,
No Party Affiliation
P.S. I can't f*cking say p*ss either?
Posted by: Aphex on January 25, 2006 12:27 AMThen STFU and go away. Politics is messy, especially when disrupters attempt to hijack the site. Apparently this is all too intense for you.
Maybe the Flintstones are on.....
Rest assured, I spent most of my 23 years as a liberal. It wasn't until I was "mugged" by rogue trustees at Skagit Valley College and Dean Logan that I became a conservative.
Also, I believe very strongly:
a) Government-provided health care is a mistake - I again recommend "Dead Meat";
b) Those who use government services more should pay more - doubly so if they have the ability to pay and;
c) Government should provide ferries and higher education. Government's role is to provide the means for free enterprise to flourish - not get in the way. This Wal-Mart tax will get in the way. I think we can agree on that.
Unions were given free reign. Their immediate booty was the Washington State government employees. Followed by an apprecticeship program. What you are witnessing is the latest effort to take over the private sector. Nothing will stand in the way. Any and all tactics,legal or otherwise will be used. And why not. The election process that installed this corrupt administration clearly demonstrates that any and all tactics, legal or otherwise were used. Are we fools to believe that suddenly the Democrats will be honest and forthright. People, you are being foolish to think otherwise. Events routinely posted in this blog highlight the nefarious activities which clearly violate state law. So what. It is predictable that public discourse will be subject to much greater controls. We have lost the hard fight. Long live the Queen.
Posted by: snuffy on January 25, 2006 08:39 AMI agree. Thanks for the link re Dead Meat.
Anytime. And nice having somebody sharpen my arguments :-). Thanks!
Posted by: A Watchdog on January 25, 2006 12:13 PM