Md. forces Wal-Mart to spend more on health

[Metron]

[Sarcasm]
Exactly Vic... those corporate lobbyists yearn for the "good old days" of the Depression, prior to WWII.
[/Sarcasm]

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Metron
Yes, and he probably missed this comment of mine:

Yes, and as companies exert more and more pressure on workers by increasing uncompensated overtime and by decreasing benefits and merit increases that don't keep up with inflation while increasing top executive compensation packages...

Just add to that Zebo's hypothesis that companies could eliminate unemployment insurance and the 8% of payroll that they pay for Social Security! Just think of the corporate profits... the beautiful consolidated balance sheets.

Quit giving the corporate lobbyists ideas!

They have all the ideas they need, it's obviously the worker who is clueless and settles for a low margins on thier labor since they got nothing relative. It's a democratic tug of war for "orginal distribution" which is why i have no problem when workers win some or owners win some but I can at least see that taxing the whole nation (medicare) for walmarts problems is not the way to go.

 

[GT1999]

Good. While I don't like the technicalities of this, Walmart could lose a few million to make everyone happier.

 

[Marthisdil]

Originally posted by: Zalez
This could be the start of a retail empire crumbling to the ground

Or they can give the proverbial finger to MD and just close all their stores there, and when telling the employees, be sure to tell them "You're all laid off due to your state being stupid"

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Vic
Think your grandfather's day. That's how old "basic healthcare" is. The entire healthcare industry as we know it today was created during WWII.

Awesome. Life expectancies up to 60 years. No more freaking blue hairs on the roads. I cannot wait.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Metron
[Sarcasm]
Exactly Vic... those corporate lobbyists yearn for the "good old days" of the Depression, prior to WWII.
[/Sarcasm]

Please don't be a fool. Modern medicine did not exist prior to WWII and the discovery of antibiotics.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Vic
Think your grandfather's day. That's how old "basic healthcare" is. The entire healthcare industry as we know it today was created during WWII.

Awesome. Life expectancies up to 60 years. No more freaking blue hairs on the roads. I cannot wait.

Ah yes... straw men... :roll:

 

[Marthisdil]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

More likely they'd cut down to under 10K, I doubt they'd pull out completely.

I'm not necessarily a Walmart fan but I do love that they don't take sh!t from anybody. You want to unionize your store? Fine, you don't have a store.

Capitalism at its best.

:thumbsup:

Viper GTS

Really? You think that's capitalism "at its best?" I don't have a problem with it, but calling it capitalism "at its best" is an insult to capitalism.

Why? All unions do is make the cost of the goods and services increase.

I'm happy that the New York transit workers got borked when they went on strike, illegally. Fined 3 days pay each for each day on strike, and their union fined $1mill a day. It's awesome.

 

[Metron]

Originally posted by: Zebo
... but I can at least see that taxing the whole nation (medicare) for walmarts problems is not the way to go.

We may be in agreement then.

Precisely why Walmart should pony up equitable benefits, rather than cause a worker's revolt leading to socialized health care IMO.

My point is that Walmart easily has the economic muscle to provide the benefits, they are just too cheap to do the right thing. They are abusing their position as the nation's largest retailer (just as they do with their suppliers and local governments), in an attempt to eliminate health care as a standard of full time employment for US workers. If they want to try to shift the status quo, they should be wary of the consequences.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Not really they don't even sell same products as walmart. That's a grocery store chain. Competitors to walmart would be department stores like sears and K-mart. Wal-mart will be only retailer effected by this law.

The law applies to all companies with more than 10,000 employees. Somehow we got from that to all retailers with more than 10,000 employees, then from there to all competitors of Walmart with more than 10,000 employees.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Vic
Think your grandfather's day. That's how old "basic healthcare" is. The entire healthcare industry as we know it today was created during WWII.

Awesome. Life expectancies up to 60 years. No more freaking blue hairs on the roads. I cannot wait.

Ah yes... straw men... :roll:

You need to read what a straw man argument is Vic. Life expectancies HAVE dramatically increased in the past 60+ years. That's a fact. Dont reference the "golden age" if you dont want to deal with it.

I still want to drive my car but never change the oil or pay a mechanic, until it breaks down in the middle of rush hour traffic and the state has to come deal with it. It'll be the wal mart car ownership model. FTW.

 

[Metron]

Originally posted by: Marthisdil

Originally posted by: Zalez
This could be the start of a retail empire crumbling to the ground

Or they can give the proverbial finger to MD and just close all their stores there, and when telling the employees, be sure to tell them "You're all laid off due to your state being stupid"

Walmart should give the US the finger, and just close completely.

My preferable option would be for Walmart to no longer exist... might help our balance of trade with China.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Vic
Think your grandfather's day. That's how old "basic healthcare" is. The entire healthcare industry as we know it today was created during WWII.

Awesome. Life expectancies up to 60 years. No more freaking blue hairs on the roads. I cannot wait.

Ah yes... straw men... :roll:

You need to read what a straw man argument is Vic. Life expectancies HAVE dramatically increased in the past 60+ years. That's a fact. Dont reference the "golden age" if you dont want to deal with it.

I still want to drive my car but never change the oil or pay a mechanic, until it breaks down in the middle of rush hour traffic and the state has to come deal with it. It'll be the wal mart car ownership model. FTW.

And that increase in life expectancies has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with increases in medical science and standard of living, which was my argument. I did not reference a "golden age," so I don't have to deal with anything. You referenced that a lack of socialized medicine was a return to the dark ages, I showed where you were wrong, and you expounded it by implying that a lack of socialism meant "no more blue hairs on the road." I'd say you're the fscking dumbass who should read up on what a straw man is, okay?

edit: Using your analogy, the state chooses to pay for Wal-Mart's car maintenance. If the state were not paying, then Wal-Mart would be forced to pay for their employees in order to retain their employment in the marketplace. What we have is a battle of corruptions. I really don't see how this can be that hard to see.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Marthisdil

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

More likely they'd cut down to under 10K, I doubt they'd pull out completely.

I'm not necessarily a Walmart fan but I do love that they don't take sh!t from anybody. You want to unionize your store? Fine, you don't have a store.

Capitalism at its best.

:thumbsup:

Viper GTS

Really? You think that's capitalism "at its best?" I don't have a problem with it, but calling it capitalism "at its best" is an insult to capitalism.

Why? All unions do is make the cost of the goods and services increase.

I'm happy that the New York transit workers got borked when they went on strike, illegally. Fined 3 days pay each for each day on strike, and their union fined $1mill a day. It's awesome.

You're missing my point. If you were debating someone about the virtues of capitalism and they asked you what's so great about capitalism, would you list among its best "features"
- Laying off 7,000 employees out of spite toward the government
- Closing a store and firing all of its employees

I don't think so. This "capitalism at its best" phrase is overused here, usually because people don't stop and think about the words they're writing. I see it most often in reference to "scalping" Xboxes - opportunism at its best? Perhaps. Capitalism at its best? Not so much.

Capitalism at its best - a robust economy, high employment rates, lots of durable goods produced.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Vic
You referenced that a lack of socialized medicine was a return to the dark ages, I showed where you were wrong, and you expounded it by implying that a lack of socialism meant "no more blue hairs on the road."

I said we need socialized medicine? Reeeally? Links? Quotes?

And here I thought I'd spent all afternoon disucssing how healthcare plans are a cost of doing business for retailers with large workforces. Stupid me.

I'd say you're the fscking dumbass who should read up on what a straw man is, okay?

Making up an easily defeatable argument that I didn't make in order to spew some partisan idealogy is the very epitome of the straw man fallacy. Now who's the dumbass Vic?

(dont answer, you cannot save face here)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Vic
You referenced that a lack of socialized medicine was a return to the dark ages, I showed where you were wrong, and you expounded it by implying that a lack of socialism meant "no more blue hairs on the road."

I said we need socialized medicine? Reeeally? Links? Quotes?

And here I thought I'd spent all afternoon disucssing how healthcare plans are a cost of doing business for retailers with large workforces. Stupid me.

I'd say you're the fscking dumbass who should read up on what a straw man is, okay?

Making up an easily defeatable argument that I didn't make in order to spew some partisan idealogy is the very epitome of the straw man fallacy. Now who's the dumbass Vic?

(dont answer, you cannot save face here)

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Zebo
If you eliminated medicare no subsidy would take place right and thus tax payers would be free of thier obligations. Bet you never followed that "logical conclusion" have you?

I cant wait to see what a nation whose blue collar backbone is uninsured, and therefore has no real access to basic healthcare looks like. I'm thinking provincial europe, during the dark ages. Plague, famine, all that. Should rock. Bring it on. As long as I have a stack of gold to sit on, I fear nothing. NOTHING.

 

[TheAdvocate]

sigh, you didnt take my advice and now you've just made yourself look worse. It's ok. I'm not petty. Just let it go and we can get the discussion back on track.

You see, I have this car, and in order to drive it, I have to put oil & gas in it, and have a mechanic look at it from time to time....

 

[Metron]

Vic, you're trying to say that comprehensive health care has only existed as a benefit for US workers since the WWII era. You're also inferring that benefit could/should be changed, which is coincidentally what the Walmart lobbyists would prefer.

We disagree.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
sigh, you didnt take my advice and now you've just made yourself look worse. It's ok. I'm not petty. Just let it go and we can get the discussion back on track.

You see, I have this car, and in order to drive it, I have to put oil & gas in it, and have a mechanic look at it from time to time....

No, I have not made myself look worse. You got completely owned and you know it, which is why you want to change the discussion back.

You see, I have this car, and the state pays for my maintenance, and now they want to stop paying for my maintenance while they continue paying for my neighbor's maintenance...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Metron
Vic, you're trying to say that comprehensive health care has only existed as a benefit for US workers since the WWII era. You're also inferring that benefit could/should be changed.

We disagree.

No, you are inferring that it should be changed. Not I. How often in this thread have you called for socialized medicine, only to finally back down from that in this last page? Are you trying to say that socialized medicine is not a change?

 

[TheAdvocate]

It is a very sound business decision for a company with a large workforce (comprising the or a principle expense of business) to invest in things such as health plans and wellness plans (to encourage its workforce, through incentives, to be healthier). It lessens absenteeism, turnover, and creates a more productive work environment where daily health concerns arent at the focusof an empoyee's mind for the day.

Meanwhile, it is reprehensible, straight corporate welfare, to attempt ro pass the cost of maintaining a dependable workforce onto the taxpapyers simply because you have forced out a great deal of your competition.

End of discussion, since no one can discuss whether or not the law, as worded, is effectual or a possible ticking collateral bomb, which is what I wanted to discuss.

 

[TheAdvocate]

still waiting for one post where I advocated socialized medicine Vic.

I'll save you the suspense, I haven't done so a single time.

But good luck on your "ownership" hunt Vic. And good luck with calling other posters "fvcking dumbass" when they blow holes through your rhetoric. Seems to be working for you, or not.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
still waiting for one post where I advocated socialized medicine Vic.

I'll save you the suspense, I haven't done so a single time.

But good luck on your "ownership" hunt Vic. And good luck with calling other posters "fvcking dumbass" when they blow holes through your rhetoric. Seems to be working for you, or not.

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Zebo
If you eliminated medicare no subsidy would take place right and thus tax payers would be free of thier obligations. Bet you never followed that "logical conclusion" have you?

I cant wait to see what a nation whose blue collar backbone is uninsured, and therefore has no real access to basic healthcare looks like. I'm thinking provincial europe, during the dark ages. Plague, famine, all that. Should rock. Bring it on. As long as I have a stack of gold to sit on, I fear nothing. NOTHING.

If I have to actually explain the logical fallacies here, then you're even more stupid than I thought. Essentially you made a classic dmcowen674 post.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Youve devolved into a series of personal attacks over a farce post that I made, which is still inherently true.

Whats even more telling is that you missed the point. No one wants to deal with issue so thats what's left.

 

[Metron]

TheAdvocate, I concur.

Vic, I'm saying Walmart should face the music and pay their fair share. They can't expect $1 million government subsidies to build new superstores, as well as government subsidized health care for their employees (since they currently direct their employees to sign up for MedicAid, Welfare, and WIC). Walmart wants any free hand out the taxpayers are stupid enough to allow them to have, and I believe we should not allow Walmart to get away with this outrage(and Maryland's legislature obviously feels the same way).

Barring that... if corporations are going to continue to rape and pillage workers benefits, then by all means I am for socialized health care.

Corporations would rather go back to a feudal system where the CEO is King, and workers are mere vassals to be subjegated. Funny how we don't see that in modern nations, but instead it's evolved in the corporate culture, huh?