You'll want to make sure to read Stefan's post today on the Wal-Mart health care data leak from Olympia. He makes some excellent points. I've got a few things to say about it, too. One being that if we're going to play around with numbers, let's do it honestly.
Read on (Mac Safari users click on date stamp to continue).
With attention focused on proposed state legislation to require public sector employers of more than 5,000 here to spend at least nine percent of their budget on health care, newly released - and improperly if not illegally leaked - state data shows that as many as 20 percent of Wal-Mart's Washington state employees are getting some form of state-subsidized health care.
This is prompting calls for Wal-Mart's scalp from some Democrats, the assertion being taxpayers are footing the bill for the company's stinginess. However, the real issues here include: a) families may put together a mix of health care plans and benefits; and more importantly, b) mandating that a private employer of a certain (larger) size pay a certain percentage of their budget for health care is an overbearingly statist approach to social and health care policy. Not to mention a genuine slippery slope.
Ironically, to liberals, government spending is great unless employees of a big chain friendly to Republicans get some of it. So Wal-Mart employees get some, as yet undetermined amount of health care funding from Washington state. Would anyone like to calculate what Wal-Mart puts into the state's economy in terms of wages, spin-off spending by employees, and especially, via sales tax revenues? If we're going to do this costs and benefits thing, let's do it for everyone, and do it right.
While we're at it, here's one more math problem for our diligent print press. Let's compare state outlays for health care to employed individuals versus the grand total (billions upon billions) in corporate tax breaks granted to companies in Washington by Democrats and Republicans in Olympia. And let's revisit and update earlier reports those corporate tax breaks provide no documentable economic benefits for the state. Then we can tape shut the mouths of all the corporate lawyers and lobbyists and write a new state budget, using some of the recovered billions for road construction, prison construction, and reservoir construction, and leaving the rest for a rainy day fund with new and stronger safeguards.
Assuming we're really interested in managing our revenues better, that is.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 24, 2006 01:49 PM | Email ThisI would like to know what they put into unemployment, L&I, B&O tax, etc. that is out of pocket and track that with the money the employees get from the State in unemployment benefits, injury claims, etc.
I think the Democrats/unions will be surprised that WalMart ain't mooching.
Posted by: swatter on January 24, 2006 02:24 PMIs it possible that close to 100% of government employees are on the State's health plan?
Does the government spend 9% of its revenue on healthcare for its employees?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 24, 2006 02:48 PMMy beef with unions is that corrupt politicians can't get these costs under control due to the union bosses.
Posted by: swatter on January 24, 2006 03:04 PM(partial excerpt)
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Texas law enforcement officers and Border Patrol agents engaged in an armed standoff with Mexican military personnel and drug smugglers just inside the United States along the Rio Grande yesterday afternoon.
According to a report in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin of Ontario, Calif., both Texas law enforcement and the FBI stated nearly 30 American agents were part of the incident.
Chief Deputy Mike Doyal of the Hudspeth County Sheriff's Department told the paper Mexican military Humvees were towing what appeared to be thousands of pounds of marijuana across the border into the United States.
Border Patrol agents called for backup after seeing that Mexican Army troops had several mounted machine guns on the ground more than 200 yards inside the U.S. border – near Neely's Crossing, about 50 miles east of El Paso.
Just what do the President and Republican party have to do with your post. Looks like Texas law inforcement and Border Patrol agents were there at the time. These are the proper authorities to handle such an event.
Don't see how this applies to Wal Mart though.
Posted by: RBW on January 24, 2006 03:49 PMWalmart workers are smart consumers just like the rest of us. They will compare costs and go with the cheapest option. The state provides the cheapest option.
And, they do it at taxpayer expense.
The state could just as easily subsidize Walmart! That would probably result in many more people being on healthcare than the state covers, and Walmart would join Boeing and major professional sports franchises sucking us dry.
Posted by: BananaLand on January 24, 2006 03:59 PMInsist on expanding socialized, government health care and then complain when it's used? Hello?
The point here isn't health care, low wages, zoning issues, big-box retailers or any of the other reasons trotted out by WalMart opponents. It's union jobs vs non-union jobs. Period. But come right out and say it? Naw. Can't have that. Let's hide behind the smoke screen under the guise of those eeeevil corporations.
Push 'em too far libs, and they'll shut down the stores. See: Canada That's looking out for the little guys, huh.
Posted by: jimg on January 24, 2006 04:50 PMBeing self employed I went shopping for health coverage for my family. The rates quoted me were sometimes twice as much as what I would pay if I worked for someone else. When I asked why that was I was told they get a "group" rate. When I suggested that I'm a member of a very large group called the human race they hung up on me.
Health costs are insane. Feeding them more by forcing employers to cover health insurance is just plain wrong. We need to take a real hard look at why the costs are so high and fix that problem first.
However flaccid the point may be, it is fueled by no small amount of chutzpah. First, before addressing a single fact we see the now familiar ruse of smearing smear the messenger: the data is "improperly if not illegally leaked."
SO WHAT? The Pentagon Papers were, too, as has been the recent NSA Spygate story. It's ironic that folks who are so fond of crowing about "the TRUTH" are so photophobic towards facts that fail to conform to their ideological script.
Second, are true conservatives not upset about private corporations suckling themselves at the teat so amply fattened by our tax dollars. If not, why not?
Most annoying is MR's lame argument about contributions Wal-Mart makes via "wages, spin-off spending...[and] sales tax revenues." Gosh, those benefits would accrue to virtually any legally sanctioned economic activity: gambling, legalized drug sales, government-regulated sex trafficking. Whether such endeavors would contribute to a healthy economy or society, however, is quite a different matter.
GOOD JOB...RIGHT ON!!!
Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on January 25, 2006 10:08 AM