Wal-Mart CEO sees 'too much politics' in proposed health bills

[seafan]

Wal-Mart CEO sees 'too much politics' in proposed health bills

By Kris Hudson
Of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Feb 26, 2006

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) Chief Executive Lee Scott on Sunday denounced as "too much politics" state bills aimed at dictating what large employers spend on health benefits for employees and called on U.S. governors to address rising health-care costs in a broader manner.
"The soaring cost of health care in America cannot be sustained over the long term by any business that offers health benefits to its employees," Scott said yesterday in a speech at the National Governors Association winter meeting in Washington, D.C. "And every day we do not work together to solve this challenge is a day that our country becomes less competitive in the global industry."

Only 46% of Wal-Mart's workers enroll in the company's health-insurance plan. Many others are covered by spouse's policies. But thousands more - nobody has a good number -have no coverage at all or rely on state Medicaid coverage. And state and local officials have been increasing grousing about the costs of providing coverage for uninsured Wal-Mart workers.
In his speech, Scott reiterated impending changes to Wal-Mart's health-care benefits that the company disclosed last week: a shortening of the wait time for part-time employees' eligibility from two years; granting eligibility for children of part-timers; and expanding a low-cost, high-deductible coverage plan from its current limited availability to half of Wal-Mart's 1.36 million U.S. employees by 2007. Wal-Mart also intends to establish in-store health clinics for customers and employees in more than 50 stores. Wal-Mart hasn't divulged when it will implement the changes.

Wal-Mart's critics, primarily union-backed activist groups, note that Wal-Mart is promising the improvements to its benefits at the same time it is shifting its workforce to a greater portion of part-timers. The retailer has acknowledged such a shift in recent months as a means of trimming labor costs and better matching its labor shifts to customers' shopping patterns, but its executives haven't quantified the shift. About 70% to 80% of Wal-Mart's U.S. workers are full-time.

Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart faces a host of potential health-care mandates in various states after Maryland legislators in January overrode Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto of a bill proposing to require large employers to spend the equivalent of 8% of their payroll on health-care benefits for employees.

snip

At least one governor praised Wal-Mart for offering high-deductible health-care accounts and health-care savings accounts for employees. Even so, Scott noted that the rate of Wal-Mart employees signing up for the pre-tax savings plans for health-care costs "is not very high." In fact, the CEO has yet to enroll in the plan himself because the federal paperwork to do so "is too complicated."

snip


Was that you, Jeb? LOL

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BA63121B9%2DDC7E%2D4B68%2D8886%2DD47E62F368FC%7D&siteid=google&keyword=

[Jayhawk Lib]

1. Letter to editor Wichita Eagle 2-26-2006

This is a letter to the editor that appeared in the Wichita Eagle Sunday, Feb 26, 2006. It is the 5th letter from the top.I personally do not think that Walmart is any worse employer than any other retail store.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/1396252...

Solid employer
In response to the Blogatorial item "No will to punish Wal-Mart" (Jan. 27 Opinion), I would recommend the editorial board consider the rest of the story. I am a Wal-Mart employee and have been since 1990, when my primary insurance job went sideways.
For many years, I worked other jobs during the day and then went to Wal-Mart. Yes, I could have made better money in the short-term in insurance work, but it was always unstable while Wal-Mart was always there. Wal-Mart was a stable source of income.
At the same time, Wal-Mart represented a valuable source of health insurance at an affordable cost when compared to available individual insurance. I often joked I could work for nothing as long as Wal-Mart provided the benefits, because of the difference in cost. That was proved when I had to have a liver transplant this year that was substantially covered by Wal-Mart's insurance program. It allowed me the chance to receive excellent health care and a renewed chance at life -- which I greatly appreciate.
Moreover, the people who make up Wal-Mart, my fellow employees, the managers and corporate employees all supplied support to me and my wife, both emotionally and financially, during my illness. We will always remember them for this support.
The main thrust is that I don't know if you can ask more from a job from any employer.
B. CHARLES MORROW
Wichita

[zoeb]

2. Maybe Wal-mart will be the company to force changes

in health care system and do something to control costs. They can't afford the expense nor do they pay enough for Commander Cuckoobananas health savings plans.

and called on U.S. governors to address rising health-care costs in a broader manner.
"The soaring cost of health care in America cannot be sustained over the long term by any business that offers health benefits to its employees,"

You gotta love it!

[Telly Savalas]

3. Health care should not be tied to employment.

It's time for America to join the 21st Century and implement a universal single-payer system just like every other Western democracy.

These Rube Goldberg machine style health care plans that "centrist" Democrats keep foisting on us just don't cut it. These proposed bills may be great for people stuck with a suck-ass Wal Mart job, but what about folks who work for small businesses? Why should they be left out in the cold?

Any health care plan Democrats propose will be attacked as being "socialist" by the Republicans, so we might as well cut the crap and actually advocate a socialist system.