What is Digg?140 Comments
- absolutelytrue, on 07/07/2009, -6/+42Surprise! Money talks, ***** walks.
- inactive, on 07/07/2009, -16/+49You mean businesses don't like having to support healthcare plans for their employees?
I wonder why EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION has universal healthcare provided by the government instead of by private companies... - MathieuB, on 07/07/2009, -6/+32Doesn't surprise me at all. It's all about business.
- STBAT25, on 07/07/2009, -22/+45It sucks to make a deal with the devil (Wal-mart) but if that's what it takes to get affordable heath care for average people then I'm willing to welcome them aboard.
- inactive, on 07/07/2009, -14/+34Big Government and Big Business go hand in hand while the taxpayers get fleeced.
- Hillsfar, on 07/07/2009, -3/+23A huge fraction of Walmart employees already are on public assistance and public medical care. So it's not anything new to Walmart.
Also, making health care cost a government plan puts more money into Wal-Mart's bottom line. - pingpants, on 07/07/2009, -4/+22buddying up with big-pharma : good for shareholders
- chourobin, on 07/08/2009, -2/+15Surprise! why should they give a ***** about any other interests? its not a charity, its a business.
- BeShirtHappy, on 07/07/2009, -2/+14Wal-Mart equals slick marketing?!
- Benno, on 07/08/2009, -1/+11It's difficult to compare other nations to the US because of two factors: they spend a lot less on their military and complex systems simply don't scale on a nice 1:1 ratio. If we stop playing world police UH would be more feasible.
The really important difference is SCALE. If the EU took over the role of health care from individual member countries I don't think they be as successful. - Presbyterian, on 07/08/2009, -4/+13You could just take the cash and choose your own health care plan.
- ZenMojo, on 07/08/2009, -5/+14How is this a nail in small business? Small business gets more healthcare support and Wal-Mart has a higher obligation to support healthcare for its employees. This is a PR move for Wal-Mart to get ahead of the game, not a handout or a deal benefitting them.
- Homerr, on 07/07/2009, -11/+19It's idiotic that businesses have to pay for administering health insurance for their employees, the government should be doing this and let businesses worry about making money.
- Rizoh, on 07/07/2009, -4/+12It's all about the Benjamins, baby.
- quademire87, on 07/08/2009, -3/+11if people would just quit relying on the government for everything we could curb these issues, but somewhere in the past century, americans for some reason, began to believe our government needs to take care of us when we're down. We as americans need to pick ourselves up by our own bootstraps
- spartan777, on 07/08/2009, -1/+9It proves who Obama's plan is for- business. The ONLY difference between democrats and republicans is that they support slightly different groups of businesses and the wealthy, but they both shine the shoes of the rich, and only them. Neither server the interests of the working class.
- twomeyw23334, on 07/08/2009, -0/+7Thanks for the advice, I'm going to get a real good look at the three I drive by on the way to work tomorrow.
- appleofdischord, on 07/08/2009, -1/+8Sure, if you don't have a pre-existing condition that makes that impossible. *grumble*
- inactive, on 07/08/2009, -10/+16This is what we Republicans have been predicting all along. Obama has promised that, "you can still use your own health insurance, and you can still choose your doctor." But he absolutely can not guarantee that, because with the government plan undercutting all of the health insurers, all the employers are going to stop providing their employees with health insurance. All that will mean is more people using the government system, thereby raising costs, with the honest taxpayer footing the bill. This needs to be stopped.
- WhiteHatTrick, on 07/08/2009, -4/+10You want the same government that sold us off to giant corporations and banks to dictate our health and well being? I personally don't want my body and mind exploited for profit and managed by corrupt, mafie-esque thieves and murderers.
- flip2trip, on 07/08/2009, -0/+6Oh BS, they're putting Walgreens up on every corner.
- Maynza, on 07/08/2009, -0/+6Dear god no?
- draive, on 07/08/2009, -3/+9Pretty sweet that the govt. will now be in control of our health care, I mean come-on they have such a great track record with the public school system, medicaid-medicare and social security.
Ahh well, the rich people will pay for it. After all, taking over half of what they make is such a great incentive for them to make more. - twomeyw23334, on 07/08/2009, -1/+7That's a little too good. It's hard to see if it's sarcasm or if you're a genuine loony.
- Presbyterian, on 07/08/2009, -2/+8Haha.You think all the other businesses are angels?.Think again...
- twomeyw23334, on 07/08/2009, -3/+9Know what would be really cool, if PEOPLE SUPPORTED THEMSELVES when it came to health care costs. Then there could be real competition and an actual choice of plans.
The HMO Act destroyed our health care system and has given way to skyrocketing costs
http://freedomkeys.com/medigraph3.jpg
It's time to get rid of it.
Suggesting government can supply something cheaper and better than a free market is asinine. And before anyone responds with a "but they don't need to make profits" remark... EXACTLY, when there is no need to be fiscally responsible, when there is no threat of competition, you get deficits and ***** service and little to no innovation. Speaking of innovation, EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION freeloads off American innovation. Why don't all you statists just come together and start your own non-profit health insurance company?..... because you all know your systems don't work without force, the violent force of government. They're all ponzi schemes which don't fail simply because a gun is held to everyone's head as they are forced to participate. - NiftyG, on 07/08/2009, -4/+9The insurance companies are lobbying hard against reform, and for a good reason. They like the system as it is because they make good money.
What surprises me is that there aren't more companies like Wal-Mart lobbying for reform. If the government assumes most health care costs, then these companies won't have to pay it, and it should improve their bottom line. - quademire87, on 07/08/2009, -4/+9just great, america's discount superstore getting fingers deep in healthcare. I dunno where people are working where they're not getting benefits, hell, McDonald's even has a killer benefits package. If ya need benefits, find a job that has em, plain and simple. I've worked for some pretty shoddy businesses that still offered healthcare at least
- jwhitman89, on 07/07/2009, -11/+16I'm a U.S. citizen and an employee of a company that DOES provide health insurance. Frankly, I'd rather have the cash.
- FlyNebraska, on 07/08/2009, -1/+6What??!! The next thing I know you'll be telling me is that we're the only ones using imperial units for measurement!!!
- inactive, on 07/08/2009, -0/+5Oh noes! not Walgreens!
- twomeyw23334, on 07/08/2009, -1/+6Ok, now it's clear to me. So.... since not eating or drinking would cause the loss of my life, the government should pay for my food and drink too! I think I'm becoming a statist!
- twomeyw23334, on 07/08/2009, -1/+5"Take a look at British stem cell research. Go ahead and google it, I'll wait."
Are you trying to imply that British doing some research debunks my claim that America leads the world in medical innovation? That's just retarded. How about googling "leads the world in medical innovation" Go ahead, I'll wait, or actually, here...
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=leads+the+world ...
"Bottom line is, unless you have a suggestion of what we should do, you have nothing to add to the conversation. The current system is not sustainable at its current pace."
I've already stated my suggestion. Get rid of the HMO Act policy, allow a free market where individuals can choose plans offered by the free market (like car insurance, e.g. you don't need to get new car insurance every time you get a new job, the government doesn't mandate you car insurance covers your CD player getting stolen and a million other god damn things, you can do the research and make your own decisions). Trying to imply the current system is "free market" makes you either a liar or ignorant. It's not. It's the most regulated industry in the country for God's sake. There is a reason why elective health services (laser eye surgery, cosmetic surgery) have decreased in cost while all other care has skyrocketed at a much faster pace then inflation. Free markets works. You agree, sometimes, apparently, but offer no reason why it doesn't work in health care.
Separating our employers from our health services (killing the HMO Act) would TRULY level the playing field between large and small companies, so if that's what you want you should support it. Though, instead of thinking logical and coming to a decision I'm sure you have a preconceived opinion (we need government run care) and will instead try to find data or arguments to support it. - roddack, on 07/08/2009, -2/+6"No, federalist's think this country was founded on negative liberties. Anarchist/Libertarians also believe this mistake."
are you really trying to imply that this country was founded on the notion that people must provide you with a service against there will? What you are advocating is not a right but enslavement of another individual to provide you with the fruits of their labor that you have no claim over except for the threat of violence.
You see negative rights are the only true rights because they place no obligation on anyone else. If you think a right means that other must provide it for you then what you have is not a right but instead a want.
The idea of a free society is to let the people to be free and well Hayek put it better than I could when he said “Above all, however, we must recognize that we may be free and yet miserable. Liberty does not mean all good things or the absence of all evils. It is true that to be free may mean freedom to starve, to make costly mistakes, or to run mortal risks.” - Friedrich von Hayek - obeythefist, on 07/08/2009, -3/+7Go live in Africa. I hear there's lots of freedom there.
- twomeyw23334, on 07/08/2009, -2/+6That's idiotic. Should they pay for my car insurance too? Why are people so blinded to the obvious answer, free markets and individual consumers.
- gethane, on 07/08/2009, -0/+4I always wondered why your first sentence isn't pointed out more often. If they are making such great money, and they surely must be to keep fighting so hard, then why must they raise premiums, again, and again, and again.
- obeythefist, on 07/08/2009, -0/+4Yes, but they were in the news recently for doing their best to keep as many of their "associates" below the full time and benefits mark. 4 x 30 hour employees = 3 x 40 hour employees minus the cost of paying benefits.
- whatthefu, on 07/07/2009, -4/+8That's how capitalism works.
- twomeyw23334, on 07/08/2009, -3/+6You sound like one of those people who hated Ford for putting the small mom and pop car companies out of business, the ones who hand made cars only the super rich could afford.
- flip2trip, on 07/08/2009, -1/+4Gotta love "huge" fractions.
- inactive, on 07/08/2009, -0/+3Heavens above! Where will you buy your clothes and wine?
- WhiteHatTrick, on 07/08/2009, -0/+3American federal government is now just a proxy for those giant corporations. So this is effectively the same people making those decisions, but they don't have to take responsibility for them because they've laid it on the government.(thats a bad thing) and I'm not buying your false dilemma. I want to dictate my health and well being! Not a corporation and not the government! You do this by keeping the government out of it and forcing corporations to compete to provide the best service thus do the most business thus make the most money.
- emecks, on 07/07/2009, -2/+5***** with legs is a recurring nightmare of mine actually...
- Super6, on 07/08/2009, -1/+4Not a surprise, here's what would happen:
1. They no longer need to provide healthcare, they save thousands per employee by not paying it
2. They don't give employees a pay increase since our messed-up system embeds healthcare earnings and attaches it to employers
3. Your taxes go up because the money Wal-Mart was paying toward your insurance now comes from the government
4. ??????
5. Profit for Wal-Mart and decreased spending power for you
I'm a big supporter of HSA's, stop embedding healthcare and just pay employees all they earn, they can then choose to put it in an HSA or not to. With the HSA money they can then spend it where ever they want on whatever they want (medically). It encourages people shopping around and making smart medical decisions independent of anyone but themself and their doctor. No more insurance company or government in the way. - twomeyw23334, on 07/08/2009, -4/+7That would imply personal responsibility. Some, if not many people simply don't like or want freedom. Better to have big government take care of anything. Problem is, they don't give the rest of us a choice to participate (as we generally are the ones providing funding).
- Presbyterian, on 07/08/2009, -0/+3Did it ever occur to you there's a reason they drive 40-minutes to wal-mart instead of buying from small businesses?.
- DudeInAustin, on 07/08/2009, -2/+5Stop the presses: a major company decides they like to get subsidies from the taxpayers! Wow! What news! Next we we will hear that supermodels like to snort blow or some other truly amazing piece of information.
Hello! Of course Walmart wants to shift their costs to the rest of us! Of course they also want to impose costs upon their competitors with "pay or play". This is not news nor is it really something you should be cheering.
Folks, hate to break it to ya, but Uncle Sam cannot pay for the health care programs he already has now. Just for grins, look up the unfunded liabilities for Medicare and the financial outlook for Medicaid. We are talking tends of trillions of red ink here. Also, hate to burst another bubble for ya, but there are not enough "rich" in the entire nation to cover that red ink.
I am stimply amazed that the FACT that the existing programs are sinking in a sea of unfunded liabilities WITH NO END IN SIGHT gets left out of these discussions. Before I will trust the government with more, it seems prudent for them to fix what they have already.
The good news: soon everyone will get to be "rich" as everyone will see their taxes go up to pay for this stuff. The ones facing the biggest stiffing will be our kids and grandkids. Think about it when you tuck them in tonight... - MacBookForMe, on 07/07/2009, -0/+3Walmart health plans? Must be cheap!
- charlie6969, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2FTA: "Wal-Mart's support gets it accused of trying put smaller competitors out of business since they couldn't afford to offer coverage. But the mandate DOESN'T REQUIRE SMALL BUSINESSES TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE."
-
Show 51 - 100 of 144 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 