Comments on: Is Wal-Mart a Welfare State?

By: armaniac

armaniac — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:20:07 +0000

Seeing a union advocating so hard against the notion of government responsibility for universal standards of health is a little unseating, and a reminder that unions are generally more wedded to the immediate interests of their members than any bigger lefty ideals.

Foreign branches of the likes of GM and Ford are sending all their profits back to the US to pay for that country’s failure to provide an adequate health system. It’s a disgrace.

By: Paul Watson

Paul Watson — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:40:39 +0000

The financial problems at GM (and many other large US co’s) are much more to do with funding ex-employee’s retirements, than with current employee’s health. As I understand it, the Wal-Mart thing is solely to do with the latter. I suggest that the two are quite different issues

By: Cameron Riley

Cameron Riley — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:12:58 +0000

IIRC the employer paying for health insurance was first started on the Norfolk, Virginia dockyards by a company that built Liberty ships. They needed able bodied men, and due to the military, there was a large labor shortage. The companies competed for skilled and able bodied labor with health benefits. I personally don't think employers should be paying for health benefits. It is a barrier to entrepreneurial growth. It does not help that in recent times the cost of health to an employer has been growing in the double digits each year. The individual, or government should be carrying that burden. Another thing to note, is that the US spends massive amounts of public money on health anyway. In 2003 public funding comprised 46% of all health care costs - $772B. I recall seeing a budget amount of approx 600B for health care for the US federal, but cannot find that figure again. Either way is a tonne of money being spent.