Arkansas Blog

I agree that Wal-Mart's management is to be commended for listening to their critics, changing how they looked at health care costs, and making some improvements. Is there any chance they might do the same with regard to their wage scale? After all, there probably are more Wal-mart employees, even full-timers, who qualify for the government wage supplement (the Earned Income Tax Credit, which gives low-wage workers a refund even if they don't make enough to owe income tax) than qualify for Medicaid.

But, to stick to the subject, no matter how good this or that or the other employer's choices about the health insurance to be offered employees, does it make any sense to have the citizenry's health care tied to employment and the vagaries of thousands of employers' policies?

" ... does it make any sense to have the citizenry's health care tied to employment and the vagaries of thousands of employers' policies?" -- Snapback

Good question, and the answer is a resounding "NO". Healthcare is not something that should depend on ability to pay. Extra cars, boats, lake homes, X-boxes and vacations should depend on ability to pay, but not healthcare. It's called "right to life".

Governments and businesses both depend on a pool of healthy, employable workers *and* consumers. Even they should realize the counter-profitability of sickness and death.

Wal-Mart could be lauded worldwide for their positive contribution to a healthy citizenry if they refused to allow morbidly obese customers to shop at their shrines for empty minds and empty calories.

Of course, Roym. Maybe they'll team up with Hershey's and McDonalds and whoever-the-hell makes high fructose corn syrup. And throw out that bag of pork skins right now! I don't care how skinny you are!
Incidently, if the skinny Wal-Mart customer's gut is as empty as her mind because she binges and purges, I suppose it's OK to shop for empty calories?