Now, why in the world would any politican want to do something this stupid?
Maryland lawmakers yesterday approved legislation that would effectively require Wal-Mart to boost spending on health care, a direct legislative thrust against a corporate giant that is already on the defensive on many fronts nationwide.
"We're looking for responsible businesses to ante up . . . and provide adequate health care," said Sen. Thomas M. Middleton (D-Charles), the Finance Committee chairman, as the Senate approved the measure with a majority wide enough to survive an anticipated veto. A similar bill has cleared the House of Delegates, and legislators expect to reconcile their differences easily.
Lawmakers said they did not set out to single out Wal-Mart when they drafted a bill requiring organizations with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health benefits -- or put the money directly into the state's health program for the poor.
But as debate raged in the Senate yesterday, it was clear that the giant retailer, which has 15,000 workers in Maryland, was the only company that would be affected.
It's one thing to have the "not in my back yard" nut jobs crying about WalMart (while shopping there!), it's totally another thing to create a bill targeting ONE COMPANY and dictating what they have to provide, IN THE FORM OF BENEFITS to the employees!
There are no laws, until now, that requires a company to provide health care! In fact, to me, it makes no sense!
This is going to come back and bite Maryland WalMart shoppers, MANY OF WHOM ARE FINANCIALLY STRAPPED, in the ass.
Why?
Do you think WalMart is going to eat this cost? No. They are going to pass the expense on to the customers!
Or, they will do something like provide it's own health care service, which turns out to be no damn good.
Unbelievable.
The only thing you can count on a good corporation to do is generate profit. That's the whole reason. If you take away the profit motive, then what's the point?
Middleton is an idiot. Everybody knows that the best health care is government sponsored.
Posted by: Cobb at April 7, 2005 12:14 PMThe Governor has vowed to veto the legislation and the House of Delegates has one vote shy of overcoming the veto.
So instead of Wal-Mart charging 'more' for its products, all Maryland taxpayers will pick up the tab for the healthcare costs of Wal-Mart's employees.
Posted by: elg at April 7, 2005 01:09 PMSo what you're saying is that private corporations shouldn't be taxed at ALL?
No, I'm saying that the taxes "paid" by corporations are really paid by the customers of those corporations.
Look at the every day sales tax. Laws state that businesses pay x% on the amount of retail sales. They pass it straight to the consumer.
Localities, states, and the federal government can "tax" businesses all they want to tax them. They will pass the cost along and keep going.
Who do you think suffers more...the employees without health care, or the consumer who has to pay a few more dollars?
1. Companies aren't required to pay for health care.
2. Companies have to weigh the cost of doing business in an area. The costs of health care plans are rising fast and companies can't afford to keep the pace. They either cut the plans, pass the costs through, or cut out health plans entirely.
Small companies are less likely to offer it because they can't afford the health plans. And a fact that doesn't get much press is, most people work for small to midsize companies.
I interviewed at a place where they paid a lot of money but provided no health care. They expected you to buy it on your own and gave help locating it.
3. When companies leave the area or drop the medical plans, then who is hurt more?
And, if WalMart looses its edge in the state of Maryland, who will be hurt more, the people who won't be hired, the people who will get les time working at WalMart, the state which gets less tax money from WalMart, or WalMart?
It appears that WalMart is rethinking about putting a distribution center in the state of Maryland because of this action. For some reason, WalMart believes that the new law is an anti-business law.
That distribution center expects to create 1000 direct jobs.
Posted by: EBrown at April 9, 2005 02:20 PMEd, I understand how the "pass the tax to the consumer" argument works. The problem is this argument can be used against every single tax that corporations pay, ones deemed "legitimate" and ones deemed "illegitimate." In what cases is it appropriate for government to ask corporations to pay more taxes? While Michael is definitely right...health care is a resource that should NOT be left up to private entities to distribute. But right now, it is.
Finally, there are a number of reasons why state legislators in MD passed this bill. One of them being the fact that we are ALREADY paying for the fact that these workers don't have health care. I thought you knew.
In what cases is it appropriate for government to ask corporations to pay more taxes?
It's not a matter of asking for them to pay more taxes, it's a matter of:
1. Targeting only one business for the tax.
2. Dictating what a company spends on any type of benefit. The company doesn't have to pay benefits. It is a perk to get people to work at he company. Next, at what point should the government stop meddling in the benefit provision of the company? That last one, I struggle with resolving.
While Michael is definitely right...health care is a resource that should NOT be left up to private entities to distribute.
Distribute or pay for? I can bring up some good (bad) examples of government provided health care.
Finally, there are a number of reasons why state legislators in MD passed this bill. One of them being the fact that we are ALREADY paying for the fact that these workers don't have health care. I thought you knew.
1. I disagree with the premise that the workers don't have health care. They don't know how many have coverage. They don't know how many have coverage elsewhere.
2. If they are concerned about health care, why are the legislators, now, considering laws to allow illegal aliens to get drivers licences and why are some local jurisdictions like Baltimore and Montgomery County mandating that police officers don't ask the status of immigrants that they arrest? What about the health care costs associated with illegal immigrants? Maybe I've misunderstood but that seems to be a contributing factor in MLK Hospital in LA being in financial trouble.
Ed, you noted that if Wal-Mart were taxed more, it'd simply distribute those taxes to the consumer. So I'm asking in response...when is it appropriate to ask corporations to pay more taxes? Corporations are SUPPOSED to do what governments tell them to. Forty hour work weeks, child labor laws, are all attempts to regulate corporate behavior. New regulations are developed all the time.
The real question is, when should they be asked to pay more?
The Ca. point you bring up reflects the reality that states have differing cross-pressures. Does MD have to deal with the same type of immigrant issues that Ca. has to deal with?
Posted by: Lester Spence at April 10, 2005 09:43 PM
This is stupid. Why SHOULDN'T state governments ask private employers to cover costs?
"because employers will just pass costs to consumers."
So what you're saying is that private corporations shouldn't be taxed at ALL? Who do you think suffers more...the employees without health care, or the consumer who has to pay a few more dollars?
Prometheus6 has it right. There has been wayyy too much leniency given to corporations in the name of profit. The Maryland state legislature should be given a fucking medal.
Posted by: Lester Spence at April 7, 2005 11:56 AM