I'm flabbergasted as to why any business would be against healthcare reform. Healthcare remains one of the highest personnel cost items, why wouldn't businesses want to see costs contained?

Maybe now WalMart will give their employees enough hours to qualify for their health plan.

I think this actually sets health-care reform back. The present system of putting the burden on business isn't working. What Wal*Mart is advocating is more (much more) of the same. The net result will be continued sky-rocketing health insurance costs while benefits and actual coverage shrink dramatically.

In the end, as employers try to keep costs under control, we'll wind up with a situation where everyone is "insured," but the insurance has astronomical deductibles and huge restrictions on what's covered. People will have slips of paper that say they're insured, but for all practical purposes they will have no insurance.

Why are people so surprised at this? In February of 2007 Walmart's CEO, SEIU's president, and a host of other major business and union leaders announced a coalition with one objective: affordable national health care.

The reasons for Walmart's participation haven't changed.

Any mandate, for employers or for workers, to BUY health insurance is unacceptable UNLESS there is a public option. A mandate that REQUIRES business and actual humans to buy insurance but only provides private insurance in the mix IS federally mandated profits for private health insurance companies.

UNACCEPTABLE. I will violate ANY law that mandates that I underwrite the mansions and mistresses of insurance company execs. NO NO NO. I want a PUBLIC not-for-profit option or I WILL violate any mandate law. NO FEDERALLY MANDATED AND PROTECTED PROFITS FOR INSURANCE COMPANIES!

Perhaps Wal Mart is only thinking of itself, and figures that the current system is actually hurting its bottom line? They couldn't care less about the profits the insurers make, as those profits would eat into Wal Mart's bottom line.

The other factor could be how Wal Mart figures they have the most to win every time consumers have ten or fifteen dollars more per month, which they can then spend on cheap Wal Mart goods.

Wal-Mart has a monopsony in many areas already. As the largest employer in the country they likely see an opportunity to gain one in the health insurance market and simultaneously push competitors out of the marketplace.

Given their attempts to enter banking, what are the chances that Wal*Mart is simply going to enter this field too? They'd start with an enormous captive market -- their employees.

Beijing, er, Bentonville moves in mysterious ways.

WalMart is very good at negotiating with suppliers, and this skill combined with their size gives them advantages in the marketplace. They've also been very good at using these advantages to dominate their local competition and drive them out of business. A mandate that your competitors have to buy a service (like health care) that you will be able to buy cheaper (volume!) is not necessarily public philanthropy, though it may be a public good.
See, greed works!

Blue Girl has it right. All things being equal, the added burden of healthcare coverage for employees will help Walmart drive smaller competitors out of business.

I know that it isn't on the table, but the reason that I support a single-payer system like Medicare is that is takes the healthcare burden off of business. That would be a real boost to the economy by making businesses that compete in the global market more competitive. It would help small businesses stay in business and it would increase entrapreneurship as leaving a job to start a business would not entail losing paid employer paid health insurance.

This should put some pressure on Lincoln and Pryor to play along with healthcare financing reform.

Sigh. It's hard not to be cynical about Wal-Mart. However, indisputably, taking out a potentially big opponent is a good thing.

For a long time, I am convinced, Wal-Mart thought that health care reform was bad for it because its competitors who did try to do the right thing (Costco) could never be cost-competitive with Wal-Mart, which gave Wal-Mart a clear edge.

Now, however, Wal-Mart gets publicly slammed for employment practices that are more or less the norm for most of its competitors, large or small.

Wal-Mart may have simply realized that the race to the bottom in health care coverage had reached its limits as a strategic business opportunity.

It also bears repeating that, whatever, the reason, if GM and Chrysler had been as supportive of health care reform as objective business conditions clearly suggested they should have been, maybe they wouldn't be bankrupt right now.

Finally, I disagree that Wal-Mart's endorsement of an employer mandate is necessarily bad -- maybe it now moves the discussion to those that really oppose such a mandate to suggest an alternative model of universal coverage that does not involve a mandate. More debate on this issue is an advantage to proponents of reform because it opens up discussion on the other possibilities. Those employers who really don't want to be responsible for buying insurance can now advocate a public plan as the convenient alternative.

Walmart's greed is beautiful in its purity, untainted by political philosophy.

Really, we're surprised that a company with billions of dollars of cashflow might decide to support a policy that thousands of much smaller competitors might find to be prohibitively expensive?

I'm sure that it's never occurred to anyone at Wal*Mart that this sort of policy might be enough to, say, finish off Sears/K-Mart. Or to drive smaller grocery stores out of the market.

I keep expecting that at some point, people will start to realize that every new regulation/program merely creates new opportunities for corporate rent-seeking. But I'm sure that no one will remember any of this three years from now when when the Story Of The Day is liberal-blog outrage over Wal*Mart's record-breaking quarterly profits.

Moses Malone was asked if he thought a new contract paid him too much money. He replied, "Boss says it's cool, it's cool".

So the W*M Senators Lincoln and Pryor can say the same - "Boss says it's cool, it's cool".

P.S. For those who think Wal-Mart has an advantage in negotiating with health care providers, think again. The dynamic in most communities isn't just concentration of payers -- it's concentration of providers. All the focus on insurers and insurer profits overlook this fact -- at the end of the day, its providers who are going to be the linchpin of cost control, and many are probably as panicked as insurers, but are quite happy to let insurers get the mud flung at them. Seriously, if a hospital is the only hospital in town, it has no compelling incentive to give Wal-Mart a better deal than anyone else, and Wal-Mart, I am sure, has found this out the hard way. I suspect that's another reason why it has taken this step.

ANYTHING that makes "THE CHAMBER" and it's pompous fool of a president Randal whatever LIVID, I'll be for...and now I can feel better about my WAL-MART shopping given that it is almost the ONLY SHOW in the area where we live! FOLKS you MUST become educated about the benefits of a public option (at the least) a single-payer being most beneficial...because ANYONE out there that doesn't know that any concessions being "mouthed" (but don't hold your breath until they occur) by the insurance companies are driven by their FEAR of anything like a public option that will pull their insurers away is just the FOOL that they are hoping you are!

The article and comments are missing the story.

I was at a medical conference recently and these facts were made clear.

Walmart is self insured, it does not negotiate with insurance companies because it is the insurance company and now it is making it clear that it wants to stay that way.

The word is as a provider they also act with the worst practices of the industry. This is what they
want to maintain.

The system is broken and must be fixed as a whole.
We can't allow neo-monopolies to screw it up.

If Wal Mart gets into the business of providing health care, which they are already doing through in store clinics staffed by nurse practitioners, they will become the economic drivers of the health care system. They will become the de facto national health service. And if hospitals are worried about being strong armed by the federal government over rates, they're really going to love the take it or leave it offer they'll get from Bentonville.

Dancer:
It's Tom Donohue. I don't know where you get Randal.

I find it impossible to believe that Wal-Mart would actually do the right thing for its own sake. Two options that are more likely:

1. They see reform as inevitable and want to engage the process to steer it for their own benefit.

2. They believe that they can afford an insurance mandate, but it will place a more difficult burden on their competitors, giving Wal-Mart an advantage.

Other commenters have presented other plausible options. It's certainly a development that could be useful, but reform advocates shouldn't be lulled into thinking that Wal-Mart is on anyone's side but their own.

Lets take the ball and run with it.

If Walmart can compete with a public option let it do so. Say what you want, their four dollar generic drug plan has made those drugs more affordable for millions.

Do I trust WalMart? No I don't, but let them compete along with the others who say private is better and let that competition provide the free market solution.

Welcome Walmart aboard, then watch them closely.

Art Hackett has beaten me to the point: Walmart wants to be your health care insurer, your health care provider (through in store clinics), drive the competition out, and tap into those big pharma and hospital profits.

But it will be a better system than the one that's in place.

What the Chamber of Commerce should be livid about is how WalMart destroyed small retail over the past 20 years. They shouldn't be shocked that they have no sway over WalMart now.

BlueGirl, Jim7, and AK Liberal are on the ball. This is a bad-faith move on the part of the largest employer in the US to eliminate competition. Wal-Mart simply uses creative scheduling to minimize hours and prevent their employees from being on their health plan.

Additionally, this is a ridiculous notion anyway. Why should a CEO or board of directors get to decide what health insurance is right for me? They didn't pick my car insurance or my homeowner's insurance. Ultimately, this creates a market where insurance companies package their product for their real customers: business owners. I'm sure they all have their employees interests at heart, especially those who answer to shareholders.

The only mandate should be that employers need to GTFO of the insurance game. Boo on the SEIU and the Center for American Progress for giving the thumbs up to more of the same corporate rule.

I dont think employer (or any) mandates are a good idea. First off it's extremely unfair to small businesses (and some convoluted subsidy doesnt make it any better, id much prefer better policy and less subsidy then this whole subsidy for every counter argument junk). But more importantly one of the main factors driving up health care costs is the fact that employers dont care what the coverage is like (as long as it's coverage) and employees dont see or feel the full brunt of costs. we've created a system of costs without market pressure and captive markets.

all employer mandates due is continue the trend that our only value as individuals is as consumers/employees.it's a bad philosophical trend but in this instance it is disastrous for small businesses (the linchpin of innovation).

Walmart isn't stupid. They know their bottom line will look a lot better if they can transfer their health care costs from their pocketbook to the taxpayers' pocketbook.

Also, health care was a big reason why Walmart was feeling pressure to allow a unionized workforce. Again, this works in their favor by tanking the fangs out of the pro-union supporters; they'll already have their health care.

This is a smart move on Walmart's part. They are going to get into the health care business and are positioning themselves to be major providers. Probably not a good development if this makes getting real reform more politically difficult.

It might seem this is huge, but it isn't the way it first appears.

Yes, it's WM suggesting something. But, they're suggesting the government should require ALL companies (or perhaps only large ones) to do something. Who's speaking for the other large companies?

Perhaps this is to give some cover to Lincoln & Pryor and other Blue Dogs...I don't know.

Another interesting part of their statement was that 'if' the mandate isn't used, then they wanted gov't to protect them against over-reaching law which might inhibit them from hiring new entry-level employees.

Does that mean if they get the mandate they might just hire a bunch of people to get the economy going? Mayyyybe. Who knows.

Do they have some real concerns about how the new reform law might affect their in-house insurance vis a vie new employees with outside insurance?

Aaaah, it would cut into their in-house insurance pool of employees if a lot of them got their own reasonably-priced insurance *before* getting their entry-level WM job.

Yes, that could hurt them -- and that also likely would apply to other large companies which insure ALL of their employees.

This is something to consider. It's important.

Vewy6l

Good afternoon. You don't have to cook fancy or complicated masterpieces - just good food from fresh ingredients. Help me! Need information about: Chicago cubs shower curtain. I found only this - shower Curtain with horses print. Old shower curtain liners especially patterned ones make wonderful window films, which can soften light entering a room as well as block out curious eyes. Your photo on a shower curtain boing boing. Thanks for the help :confused:, Delicia from Iceland.