Do we need legislation to force Wal-Mart to offer benefits?

[question everything]

At first blush, yes. Many Wal-Mart employees, oops, "associates" cannot afford to purchase their own health care or health insurance and rely on Medicaid - our tax money.

But forcing Wal-Mart to offer health insurance to its employees strengthen the warped concept that our employers should provide for our health care.

If you support this, please realize that, as the one that pays the bill, your employer can demand, and receives, reports of your and your family members health activities. No, not details, only whom you visited and the cost. For example, if your city has only one physician who offers abortion and a female member of your family visited this clinic, your employer can suspect that this person had abortion.

Employers-provided health insurance came after WWII, when there were wage freezes and this was a way to circumvent this. Since then, health costs have far surpassed any cost of living measures, yet, most of us do not care, do not realize this, do not even realize the miserable reimbursements that doctors and hospitals get from the carrier and, therefore, do not demand change in the system.

Our employers should pay us, in wages, what it pays on our behalf to health carriers. Then we should go on our own to purchase an insurance. If more of us were aware of what it takes, more pressure there will be to convert to universal health care.

Most voters do not see and think beyond their immediate surroundings. Which is why Rove had to use such vivid imagery as "baby killers" and "perverts" while we use non-descriptive word as "choice" instead of "privacy."

If all voters will have to see, up close and personal, what it takes to get a good health insurance (and how quickly one can be dropped) there will be more pressure to do away with this costly system that benefits only the CEOs of the HMOs and the for profit hospitals (think the family of Frist).

Last having employer'provided health insurance should not be a factor about getting and retaining a job with a specific organization.

[MercutioATC]

1. No, we should have universal health insurance in the U.S.

Not single-payer, but something like an extention of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program to cover all Americans (which is what Howard Dean advocated).

[leftstreet]

2. Ted Kennedy has a Medicare For All plan

Not sure if it'd work, but at least he's got a plan!

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0112-37.htm

An essential part of our progressive vision is an America where no citizen of any age fears the cost of health care, and no employer refuses to create new jobs or cuts back on current jobs because of the high cost of providing health insurance.

The answer is Medicare, whose 40th birthday we will celebrate in July. I propose that as a 40th birthday gift to the American people, we expand Medicare over the next decade to cover every citizen - from birth to the end of life.

It's no secret that America is still dearly in love with Medicare. Administrative costs are low. Patients' satisfaction is high. Unlike with many private insurers, they can still choose their doctor and their hospital.

For those who prefer private insurance, we will offer comparable coverage under the same range of private insurance plans already available to Congress. I can think of nothing more cynical or hypocritical than a Member of Congress who gives a speech denouncing health care for all, then goes to his doctor for a visit paid for by the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan.

I call this approach Medicare for All, because it will free all Americans from the fear of crippling medical expenses and enable them to seek the best possible care when illness strikes.

The battle to achieve Medicare for All will not be easy. Powerful interests will strongly oppose it, because they profit immensely from the status quo. Right wing forces will unleash false attack ads ranting against socialized medicine and government-run health care.

But those attacks are a generation out of date - retreads of the failed campaign that delayed Medicare in the 1950s and 1960s. Today, we are immunized against such attacks by the obvious success of Medicare. It is long past time to extend that success to all.

[Jayhawk Lib]

3. LTE Wichita Eagle Feb 26, 2006

This is a letter to the editor that appeared in the Wichita Eagle Sunday, Feb 26, 2006. It is the 5th letter from the top.I personally do not think that Walmart is any worse employer than any other retail store.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/13962526.htm

Solid employer
In response to the Blogatorial item "No will to punish Wal-Mart" (Jan. 27 Opinion), I would recommend the editorial board consider the rest of the story. I am a Wal-Mart employee and have been since 1990, when my primary insurance job went sideways.
For many years, I worked other jobs during the day and then went to Wal-Mart. Yes, I could have made better money in the short-term in insurance work, but it was always unstable while Wal-Mart was always there. Wal-Mart was a stable source of income.
At the same time, Wal-Mart represented a valuable source of health insurance at an affordable cost when compared to available individual insurance. I often joked I could work for nothing as long as Wal-Mart provided the benefits, because of the difference in cost. That was proved when I had to have a liver transplant this year that was substantially covered by Wal-Mart's insurance program. It allowed me the chance to receive excellent health care and a renewed chance at life -- which I greatly appreciate.
Moreover, the people who make up Wal-Mart, my fellow employees, the managers and corporate employees all supplied support to me and my wife, both emotionally and financially, during my illness. We will always remember them for this support.
The main thrust is that I don't know if you can ask more from a job from any employer.
B. CHARLES MORROW
Wichita