Jump to content

Wal-Mart.


ClueTwo

Recommended Posts

Wal-Mart to stop harassing help

 

The United Food and Commercial Workers union stated that the decision conveyed the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart that it could not transgress workers' fundamental rights without facing the music.

 

The company earlier this month aired its idea to close the Jonquiere, Quebec, store this spring but Wednesday the province's labor minister appointed a conciliator to preside over negotiations for a first contract at the outlet. The store was the first Wal-Mart outlet in North America where employees won union certification.

 

 

 

 

 

The United Food and Commercial Workers union is trying to organize workers at more than a dozen of Wal-Mart's 235 stores in Canada.

 

 

 

The union represents workers at a Wal-Mart store in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, southeast of Montreal and has asked the Quebec government to certify a union at another outlet in Brossard, a Montreal suburb.

 

 

 

Wal-Mart, which has resisted efforts to organize workers at its stores, recently embarked on a publicity and marketing blitz to counter critics of its labor practices in Canada and the United States.

 

 

 

Tire shop workers at a Wal-Mart supercenter in Loveland, Colo., voted against forming a union on Friday.

 

Source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

fuck those greedy anti-worker unionbashing scumbags....

i hope bill walton chokes on his fucking money....

bush and conglomerates like walmart are systematically removing all workers rights, period. its not just the blue collar anymore either... you better wake the fuck up america, because its alot easier to lose yourr rights than gain them...

those guys in colorado voted no because they are either

a. uneducated and mislead about unions and or labor rights

b. they are scared of retaliation from there employer

 

and yes if you know what your doing its rather easy and worthwhile to rack from walmart....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understood in my youth, why a portion of humanity would oppose a workers union. I then remembered by pal jurgis. Long live the proleteriat.

 

THE RULES FOR ENTERING PARADISE HAVE CHANGED. Carnegie and Walton will share an eternal place with lucifer. Regardless of their bullshit charity work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

last month a Wal mart in Québec got their union ( the first in n.America i think). Its weird, because 1 week afters that, the good Wal Mart bosses announced the closing of this store ( for starnge reasons like they were doing no profits and shit...), but everyone know its bullshit.

 

Since then theres an anti wal mart here in Quebec (where 40 to 45% of the workers in the provinced are in a union), everywhere in the medias, even in the goverment who called for boycott.

It made a big scandal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I'm watching Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Wages. It has a strong message that I have yet to here a rebut too that was significant. It might not be a true documentary, but it doesn't hide its position...anyway, heres a recent bit of news:

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201608.html

 

 

Wal-Mart Workers Win Wage Suit

Retailer Forced Overtime Without Pay, Jury Finds

 

By Amy Joyce

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, October 13, 2006; Page D02

 

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. violated Pennsylvania labor laws by forcing hourly employees to work through breaks and beyond their shifts without overtime pay, a jury decided yesterday.

 

Lawyers for the employees said the decision could result in $62 million or more in damages.

 

The lawsuit, brought by two employees on behalf of almost 187,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees, claimed that the company made workers in Pennsylvania miss more than 33 million rest breaks from 1998 to 2001. At least 57 other wage-and-hour cases have been filed across the United States against the world's largest retailer, and many of them are awaiting class-action certification, according to company filings.

 

"I think this proves that Wal-Mart's sweatshop mind-set persists," said Chris Kofinis, a spokesman with WakeUp Wal-Mart, a United Food and Commercial Workers Union-backed group. "There is some point where Wal-Mart will have to listen and it's got to treat its workers with respect and fairness."

 

Michael Donovan, a lawyer for the employees, would not comment until damages are awarded. He expects that to happen today. In court, the lawyers argued that the company denied breaks to cut labor costs and increase productivity.

 

"We take matters very seriously when associates say they have been mistreated in any way. However, because the jury is still in deliberation, it would not be appropriate to comment on the matter until a final decision has been made," said Sarah Clark, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart.

 

Neal Manne, Wal-Mart's attorney, argued that the company properly paid its employees and that the lead plaintiffs were among a small group of disgruntled workers, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer's coverage of the trial.

 

Company officials said records appeared to show that workers who did not have breaks did so because they chose not to, or did not sign out, according to news reports.

 

The company has been trying repair its image after critics cast negative light on the company, claiming it pays poverty wages and offers few benefits.

 

The case is one of several class-action wage-and-hour suits against the company to go to trial. In December, a jury awarded $172 million to about 116,000 current and former Wal-Mart and Sam's Club workers in California who claimed that they were illegally denied lunch breaks. Wal-Mart is appealing the verdict.

 

In 2002, a federal jury in Oregon found that Wal-Mart employees were forced to work off the clock and awarded back pay to 83 workers. In 2004, Wal-Mart settled a similar lunch break case in Colorado for $50 million.

 

One of the pending cases, which accuses the company of paying men more than women nationally, is the largest private employer civil rights class action in history. Wal-Mart has asked an appeals court to overturn the class-action status of the case.

 

The Pennsylvania case is larger than the California case in that it covers more employees and involves off-the-clock work, missed rest breaks and missed meal breaks. The jury in the six-week trial in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia found in favor of Wal-Mart on the missed-meal claim.

 

Employees said they were pressured by managers to cut meals short and skip breaks. Two cashiers said they were locked in the store after it closed to restock merchandise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.catawbariverkeeper.org/wal-mart

 

This was mentioned in the movie, but the proceeding of these were won by the states but not updated on the site...

 

In 2001, the Justice Department & the EPA brought enforcement action against Wal-Mart for Clean Water Act violations at 17 locations in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma & Massachusetts. Wal-Mart was fined $1 million in civil penalties as a result of this case.

 

The State of Connecticut & the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection have also taken legal action against Wal-Mart for water quality violations. Richard J. Blumenthal, the Connecticut Attorney General prosecuting the water quality violations at Wal-Mart stores across Connecticut issued a statement saying,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i bid farewell to walmart.

actually, unions probably wont destroy one of the greatest stores on the planet, like they destroyed GM, Ford, and all the rest. atleast i hope im right. meaning as walmart is the greatest aid to the poor on this whole planet.

 

 

Here's an article that refutes the claim that Walmart is good for the poor.

 

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0106miller.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

collectivism kills.

 

here is an article that takes on these rediculous claims and actually comes up with a new economic 'law' if you will.

woods law:

"whenever the private sector introduces an innovation that makes the poor better off than they would have been without it, or that offers benefits or terms that no one else is prepared to offer them, someone — in the name of helping the poor — will call for curbing or abolishing it."

 

http://www.mises.org/story/2279

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angelof....

 

Wal-mart is often subsidized one way or another by local governments under the guise of stores bringing economic growth. Likewise, thousands of employees and their families receive state assistance because while they work full time, yet they do not make enough to (nor does Wal-mart provide) afford health insurance or other essential services. Wal-Mart won't support its employees families health - would you have taxes remain and used for children without medical coverage OR would you support Wal-Mart providing health care as it's provided by other big box companies throughout the country? Even ODB was for the children - are you? Perhaps you're just for loop hole subsidies...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is not the states obligation or walmarts obligation to provide health insurance. both involve coercion. would you like it if the government decided one day that forfeit your car and house so it can be given to the 'poor?'

instead of crying about how much walmart employees are getting paid, how about giving them a high five for employing wheel chair bound people who cant hardly talk, to hand out stickers. how about bringing a decent store to areas that are economically bad off providing an ass load of jobs and providing low priced goods?

 

if you are going to make a case for insurance for lifes necessities... why dont you start pushing for food insurance or water insurance. after all people need that to survive, and they might not get it, and the state should provide it, right? hell, why not subsidize food? eveyrone needs it. its essential.

shit, no one has food insurance.

you pay for your burger for lunch, you should pay for your healthcare.

 

want to help the poor with health insurance, get hte government out. if the govt was not involved in health insurance, competition would be king and there would be a walmart of medicine that provides cheap medical service.

if the govt was out of hte medical insurance field, 80% of people could afford the doctors bills, and private insurance, usually for major problems would be a fraction of the cost it is today. this would help EVERYONE.

 

when you have 'free' anything... it will be abused. if the government gave out free milk to live, because babies need it, what would happen? kids would be using it in water guns. its the same with health insurance if it is free, alot of people are all of a sudden going to be come 'sick.' which will ruin service for people who really need it.

 

and yes im for 'aid to the poor' and 'children.' it is not benevolence to take other peoples property at gun point to give to someone. so i am totally against it. im for private charity, low prices and low to no taxes. that is aid to the american people. want to help the poor even more? quit outlawing thier jobs through minimum wage, quit supporting unions whose sole purpose is the exclude people from jobs henceforth raising the wages of the priviledged union members, and instead of giving the poor a bucket of welfare, and no incentive to produce or get ahead, rather to stay in the handout system, the free market answer is to give the poor a ladder. they can then rung by rung, climb thier way out of the hole they are in. and before you start talking about bed ridden, mentally retarded or otherwise incapacitated individuals who cant work, private charity and community aid, and family will take care of this just fine.

 

statistics show that the poor in rich countries are oustandingly richer than the poor in non free and non prosperous countries. the poor people in the US, have cars, color tv and cable, cellphones, etc. the poor in soviet russia, didnt have food. the poor in the US with low skills can work at mcdonalds, or WALMART and be able to afford a car, and a decent apartment or house. in russia you would of needed to be upper middle class to afford a car and small apartment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whether or not a government has a responsibility to care for the health of its [taxpaying] citizens

is simply a matter of opinon

not fact.

 

i myself have witnessed walmart's transgressions in small communities in vermont and new hampshire because i guy i used to date lived there,

things are hardly ever as cut and dry as saying "they are fucked" or "they are not responsible"

walmart did not help those communities, and in fact the communtities tried to fight to keep them from expanding.

 

also, if you think 'competition' in health care will help it, hahaha look whathappened to phone bills, cable bills, and utility costs post de-regulation.

 

it's not free, it's a service provided by oour taxes: the government will look out for the physical and financial well being of it's citizens, because many of them are too stupid to do it for themselves, or too greedy to do it for others.

 

the poor in the us do ok, for sure. i am not sure if this is capitalism's fault or just the fact that our democracy worked well for so long, and social programs were not forgotten when there were some desperate people in our midst (great depression for example)

 

honestly, i should stay out of crossfire.

thank you and goodnight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"also, if you think 'competition' in health care will help it, hahaha look whathappened to phone bills, cable bills, and utility costs post de-regulation.

"

 

the problem was created by government, not by a market. the traditional scenario was the government decided no one needs competition in these fields, so lets monopolize it. lets control it and regulate it. lets freeze it. then when the regulations expire, lets blame evil capitalists because they are 'gouging' consumers.

you can thank government for creating more problems than it fixes. if competition would of been allowed, instead of granting controls and monopoly to certain business, the shock wouldnt of been as bad as the bge increase, for example. every where there is a price control, there is a shortage.

 

if i had some more time, i would respond properly, but you disappointed me on this one symbols. not in teh reply, but in the quality of the argument. usually you have one hell of an argument, even though i most likely disagree.

 

im telling you, my goal is to not make you take my side, but to understand it. why are you a good candidate? because you totally understand imperial adventures and thier bad side. you know the wrongs of foreign intervention. you are half way there. i started the opposite. i thought foreign adventures were alright. you may not believe or choose not to hear the case, or discredit it, but the same applies to domestic interventionism as it does to foreign interventionism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh of course i understand where you are coming from

especially as a lifelong resident of this city, where i get to see citizens bilking the goodwill of the government on a regular basis, and i've watched the deregulation mess.

 

i'm not sure the monopoly was created by government, because many of those businesses are traditionally difficult to start and maintain. we have had plenty of scandals in the energy sector recently.

i'm no economist, but i just don't think it's not as simple as say, selling goods. people always want to look out for their bottom line, and because these services have become so necessary for the maintenance of society, they can charge whatever they want for them. as you see, gas does not seem to be falling below $2.

we'll see if it does. but natural gas prices have gone up a good deal as well, and there are more than a few providers out there, plenty since deregulation, and the prices have only gone up.

 

i simply don't trust people and the corporations they run to not start a veritable mafia of price control

i don't think there is going to be one company that decides to undercut the fuck out of their own profits to beat the competition.

 

but you're dissapointed right? i am too. i'm still hoping for the meteor that annhilates the planet.

 

i am likely always going to be halfway to your opinion, because i'm more of a centrist. i am ok with changing my opinions, i don't think they define me.

i came around a bit on guns. but i still don't think people need 50cals. and years ago i changed my mind and decided i was against the death penalty. but i'll always be a one issue voter on abortion rights, and stem cell research, i still like social welfare programs in government, federal funding of education and research etc, and i will for the foreseeable future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"'m no economist, but i just don't think it's not as simple as say, selling goods. people always want to look out for their bottom line, and because these services have become so necessary for the maintenance of society, they can charge whatever they want for them. as you see, gas does not seem to be falling below $2.

we'll see if it does. but natural gas prices have gone up a good deal as well, and there are more than a few providers out there, plenty since deregulation, and the prices have only gone up.

 

i simply don't trust people and the corporations they run to not start a veritable mafia of price control

i don't think there is going to be one company that decides to undercut the fuck out of their own profits to beat the competition."

 

i know im arguing with a special case, because you dont have a car, so i cant use the car and gas example, of simply not using a car because you dont need to survive and there fore wouldnt be subjected to high gas prices... so i must find another way to explain it.

 

lets look at electricity or phone service. obviously, one does not need electricity to survive. to maintain a modern lifestyle, you do. but for survival, you dont need it. it is simply not true to say that companies can charge what they want for something because people need it. it is just a touch of populist angst coming out, most people have it. its no big deal. in the economy, if you dont benefit from something, you wont buy it. if i sell you 5 cans of paint for 20 bucks, and you complete the transaction, you do so because you value the 20 cans of paint more than your 5 bucks.

 

the same is true for electricity. if power companies charged 9000 times more for electricity, people simply would do with out it. therefore the exchange of dollars for electricity is beneficial for both parties involved.

 

the most basic market factor is supply and demand. in the gas business, the price is very dependent on supply and demand, mainly because we have such a limited supply and any disruptions in supply or rapid increases in demand send the prices crazy. there are alot more elements, such as the criminal cartel that is OPEC, etc. the problem is, if gasoline was put under a price control, we would immediately have long lines at the pump. there would be shortages, not a scarcity, but shortages. it would take an hour to get gas, and gas stations would be shut down or work short hours. this is because there is no incentive to make a profit off of gas that is controlled. if the government were to give away gas for 'free' then we would waste alot more than we need. socialism cant calculate, which is why prices are needed.

 

the same is true for health care, if it is free, long lines abound. shitty service would be frequent. long waits would be the norm, as proven in canada, with sometimes 13 week waits for people with heart problems. in america, you get instant treatment, but you pay more. which would you rather have for your mother? instant service, or a 3 month wait?

 

"but natural gas prices have gone up a good deal as well, and there are more than a few providers out there, plenty since deregulation, and the prices have only gone up"

 

naturally, if one source of heating fuel is going up, the rest go up. this is similar to a house and trailer on the real estate markets, trailers might be cheaper, but they will still go up in value when houses go up. the problem is the market was capped in our area for so long because of our wonderful state assembly, and totally ruined the business climate in the state. of course there are other factors... inflation, being one.

 

more on prices.. in a free market, when we had a gold standard in the 19th century, prices FELL dramatically until the central bank was created. the same is true about the electronics sectors today... prices are falling and it is a very unregulated area, and is competitive in world markets. areas where the government is highly involved, the prices are close to 50% higher than CPI! shit is rediculous. it is not because of lack of regulation, but because of too much.

 

one way to reduce gas prices, immediately, would be to cut taxes. the price would drop from $2 to almost $1.60 immediately. and what do we get for these taxes? pot hole infested roads and public sector workers who eat bean sandwiches all day.

 

prices are needed to calculate. for instance when prices went up in post hurricane N.O., it is a signal that there is a shortage and more supplies need to sent down. if hotel prices go up, it is not out of hatred, it is out of humanity. for instance, if a hotel price doubled after katrina, it would allow more people who needed a hotel to get a room, and let the people who didnt need one, (think people who could stay with relatives, or have another house, etc) to think twice about it. it also helps eliminate people getting 5 rooms, one for each family member. it would force a family to all fit into one room, therefore having more rooms for people who need them to have a place to stay. this is why gouging laws are economic suicide. if you have a house, and you want to sell it. you paid 100K for it 1995, and its worth 440K now. are you gonna sell it for 104K so as not to 'gouge' anyone? i would hope not. the same is true with any commodity. if a gas station gets 2000 gallons at 1.00 a gallon, and doesnt pump it for a week, and the price suddenly spikes up to 3.00 a gallon. if you sell your gas for 1.05, you will be dry in an hour, and be out of business.

 

adam smith once said....

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"

 

sorry for the unorganized ramble.

 

by the way... that is a good signature symbols, i heard it was a fake quote for a long time, but i checked up on it.

its real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

our health care system is shit though really

you will learn that unfortunate fact if you ever get really sick.

that is one of those things we have repeated in this country so many times people believe it

but really, no, i would NOT say we have the best health care in the world.

especially when you ask my coworkers, people who have actually been able to compare it by living in different countries.

and my poor ma, who has been relying on a sytem that has fucked her for the past twenty years. i swear these people have made her sicker. and yes, she often has to wait for weeks on end for an appointment or an MRI.

i remember when robbie had to go for an 'urgent' follow up and his appointment couldn't be made any sooner than three weeks away.

i've sat in an ER with a bleeding head for hours myself.

health care here is also crazy fucking expensive, even with plenty of competition

as well as scientific research

companies hardly have a monopoly on shit, and we can get them to cut prices based on what a competitor charges, but it is still a bit gouged.

 

 

also, some people do need electricity to survive.

remember all those nursing home victims of katrina?

anyone on any kind of health support system literally needs it for survival

and if our society stopped operating with electricity, things would get INSANE in an inner city like baltimore. lights out on millions causes chaos. so yeah, i think they can charge whatever they want. to me it seems obvious based on their profit margins, the lining if their executive pockets, and the sorry state of electricity infrastructure in the us

 

i'll stop because you make some good points there.

but we are just coming from two different places of mistrust.

i trust the individual even less than i trust the government (although i wouldn't say i trust either)

i think it's probably the opposite with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"so yeah, i think they can charge whatever they want. to me it seems obvious based on their profit margins, the lining if their executive pockets, and the sorry state of electricity infrastructure in the us'

 

allow me to pull a walter block on you... ( he is a loon ball austrian economist that i listen too alot... i think i posted one of his articles on the abortion 'compromise' a while back.)

 

anyway.... i would argue, that the electricity companies cant charge whatever they want, for several other reasons. you make a very good point about nursing homes. alright, they do need electricity. but what is stopping them from getting those huge industrial generators and producing thier own power? that is a hell of a threat to a power company.

 

they also cant charge whatever they want, simply from the fact of competition. it is the nature of capitalismt to lower prices, not raise them. which is why the predatory pricing scams in the early 20th century are myths. the biggest so called 'monopoly' back in the day, Standard Oil, cut oil prices at unimaginable rates. they also took the 'muck' that was left over and put it to 300 more uses. in a market, you want to try to lower the price, to get more customers. if you start to price yourself out of the market you are banking on gullible consumers, with this practice you cant make money for long.

 

of course, i guess you could come up with a conspiracy, and say that all the power companies got together, said, we are gonna fuck the consumer, and charge super high prices. they could have some sort of hit team that went out and kill entreprenuers that tried to lower prices. but soon enough, someone would come in and under cut them all, and put them out of business.

 

there is an example of a bromean (sp??, some kind of chemical, i forget what it does) salesman from the 20th century. he was making a killing selling bromean. he decided to go to europe to sell his product. he got over there, and the bromean cartel in europe, told him to stop, it was thier territory. the guy said no. so they got mad, and thought, well, we are gonna beat his price in america of 30cents, and sell ours at a loss, at 15cents a gallon to put this guy out of business, because the american was undercutting them in germany. so how did the american beat the germans? he had all his buyers in america, buy bromean for .15 agallon from the germans in america, he took this to europe, sold it for .25 cents a gallon, beating the germans .35 a gallon in germany. he ended up smashing the hell out of the germans, and they ended up coming to an agreement. the american could sell all in europe, but just not germany.

 

this is why i dont buy into the whole argument of corporations set thier own prices. because in a free market, with lack of government coercion AND priviledges granted by government to businesses, you must compete to survive. you wont survive trying to raise prices.

 

but back to the original argument, your right, i mistrust the government way more than i mistrust individuals. but not really in the sense, that i sense you are coming from. i think everyone should be able to do what they want, as long as they dont violate my life, liberty or property, which is where the only JUST laws come into play. protection of life, liberty and property. i guess i simply just dont want the same people who run the MVA, running my health care, or my food supply. it seems like sure set up for a soviet style take over and impoverishment of the citizens.

 

"health care here is also crazy fucking expensive, even with plenty of competition"

 

healthcare sucks in this country. i cannot argue with that... but it is because of government involvement, and there is definately not enough competition. my mom visited the doctor the other day, and she is closing down her practice of 20 years because she cant pay the overhead that the state is trying to nail her with. hmo's, medicare, medicaid, and on down the line, in the long run, is a bad thing for america. a free market medicine approach would allow faster patient treatment, better service, and prices that most people can manage, with possibly insurance for catastrophe, which would be a fraction of the cost of today's.

 

check it:

 

Free Market Medicine

 

 

 

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

 

 

 

Last week the congressional Joint Economic committee on which I serve held a hearing featuring two courageous medical doctors. I had the pleasure of meeting with one of the witnesses, Dr. Robert Berry, who opened a low-cost health clinic in rural Tennessee. His clinic does not accept insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, which allows Dr. Berry to treat patients without interference from third-party government bureaucrats or HMO administrators. In other words, Dr. Berry practices medicine as most doctors did 40 years ago, when patients paid cash for ordinary services and had inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious injuries or illnesses. As a result, Dr. Berry and his patients decide for themselves what treatment is appropriate.

 

 

 

Freed from HMO and government bureaucracy, Dr. Berry can focus on medicine rather than billing. Operating on a cash basis lowers his overhead considerably, allowing him to charge much lower prices than other doctors. He often charges just $35 for routine maladies, which is not much more than one’s insurance co-pay in other offices. His affordable prices enable low-income patients to see him before minor problems become serious, and unlike most doctors, Dr. Berry sees patients the same day on a walk-in basis. Yet beyond his low prices and quick appointments, Dr. Berry provides patients with excellent medical care.

 

 

 

While many liberals talk endlessly about medical care for the poor, Dr. Berry actually helps uninsured people every day. His patients are largely low-income working people, who cannot afford health insurance but don’t necessarily qualify for state assistance. Some of his uninsured patients have been forced to visit hospital emergency rooms for non-emergency treatment because no doctor would see them. Others disliked the long waits and inferior treatment they endured at government clinics. For many of his patients, Dr. Berry’s clinic has been a godsend.

 

 

 

Dr. Berry’s experience illustrates the benefits of eliminating the middleman in health care. For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

 

 

 

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

 

 

 

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. In fact, one very prominent Senator now attacking HMOs is on record in the 1970s lauding them. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer.

 

 

 

We can hardly expect more government to cure our current health care woes. As with all goods and services, medical care is best delivered by the free market, with competition and financial incentives keeping costs down. When patients spend their own money for health care, they have a direct incentive to negotiate lower costs with their doctor. When government controls health care, all cost incentives are lost. Dr. Berry and others like him may one day be seen as consumer heroes who challenged the third-party health care system and resisted the trend toward socialized medicine in America.

 

 

 

May 5, 2004

 

 

Diagnosing Our Health Care Woes

 

 

 

by Ron Paul

by Ron Paul

 

 

No one disputes the diagnosis: American health care is in lousy shape. As a practicing physician for more than 30 years, I find the pervasiveness of managed care very troubling.

 

 

 

The problems with our health care system are not the result of too little government intervention, but rather too much. Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, rising costs and red tape do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health care market.

 

 

 

It’s time to rethink the whole system of HMOs and managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism rakes off profits and worsens the quality of care. But HMOs did not arise in the free market; they are creatures of government interference in health care dating to the 1970s. These non-market institutions have gained control over medical care through collusion between organized medicine, politicians, and drug companies, in an effort to move America toward “free” universal health care.

 

 

 

One big problem arises from the 1974 ERISA law, which grants tax benefits to employers for providing health care, while not allowing similar incentives for individuals. This results in the illogical coupling between employment and health insurance. As such, government removed the market incentive for health insurance companies to cater to the actual health-care consumer. As a greater amount of government and corporate money has been used to pay medical bills, costs have risen artificially out of the range of most individuals.

 

 

 

Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Patients are better served by having options and choices, not new federal bureaucracies and limitations on legal remedies. Such choices and options will arrive only when we unravel the HMO web rooted in old laws, and change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all healthcare costs from their taxes, as employers can.

 

 

 

As government bureaucracy continues to give preferences and protections to HMOs and trial lawyers, it will be the patients who lose, despite the glowing rhetoric from the special interests in Washington. Patients will pay ever rising prices and receive declining care while doctors continue to leave the profession in droves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

September 26, 2006

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wal mart is awesome.

If you dont want to work there, then dont. If you dont want to shop there, then dont.

 

All I know is that a million motherfuckers try to take as much of my paychecks as they possibly can, so I Wal Mart wants to sell me shit for cheaper than everywhere else then thats where im going to buy my goods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wal Mart has a sexist health insurance policy that doesnt cover mamagrams, pap smears, or birth control.

 

And on that shit about waiting 3 months to see a doctor in canada, whatever, I tried to make an appointment to see a dermatologist, they said it would be a six month wait.

Fuck Wal Mart, I'd rather be unionized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...