The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Big Government Wal-Mart

The nation's largest retailer has joined with the Service Employees International Union and the liberal Center for American Progress to support an employer mandate. In a letter to President Obama, Wal-Mart CEO Mike Duke, along with Andy Stern of the SEIU and John Podesta of CAP, write "We are entering a critical time during which all of us who will be asked to pay for health care reform will have to make a choice on whether to support the legislation.  This choice will require employers to consider the trade off of agreeing to a coverage mandate and additional taxes versus the promise of reduced health care cost increases." The letter later said, "We are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage, but any alternative to an employer mandate should not create barriers to hiring entry level employees. We look forward to working with the Administration and Congress to develop a requirement that is both sensible and equitable."

This news isn't all that surprising. Wal-Mart has in the past supported initiatives such as raising the minimum wage, which hurt their competitors and allowed them to curry favor with their union critics. But this letter also reinforces why Obama's declaration that people can keep their insurance coverage if they like it is just hot air. Under a mandate, many employers would just pay a tax and dump their workers on to a government exchange, thus meaning a lot of people --likely in the tens of millions -- will lose their current coverage.

That said, the letter will help give President Obama and Democrats cover to push the employer mandate idea, and respond to criticism from the Chamber of Commerce, which has argued that a mandate would cost jobs and reduce salaries.

View all comments (1) | Leave a comment

hmm_contrib| 7.1.09 @ 10:49AM

many employers would just pay a tax and dump their workers on to a government exchange, thus meaning a lot of people --likely in the tens of millions -- will lose their current coverage
This seems to be the most common right-wing lie. Moving from a more expensive plan to a cheaper one is not "losing" coverage. It is getting cheaper health care somewhere else. If I compare insurance plans, and decide that a competitor can beat my current insurer's price and services, and I switch, did I "lose" coverage? No, I switched.
And since public options will exist in parallel with private insurers (remember kids, Obama's plan is not advocating for one government-run plan with no competitors; private insurance will continue to exist), those who can afford it will still be able to purhase more / better insurance. So the rich can buy super-luxury health care, but we'll be able to stop paying for the uninsured who have to dump themselves on emergency rooms ( the most expensive place to get treatment) through all of our taxes. The current system is sinply too expensive to be sustainable.

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Blog Posts by Philip Klein

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/06/30/big-government-wal-mart
ADVERTISEMENT

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Who Castrated Ann Coulter?

David Catron | 2.6.12

Justice Ginsburg Should Resign

William Tucker | 2.8.12

The Audacity of Obama's Secularism

George Neumayr | 2.7.12

Coulter Care

Peter Ferrara | 2.8.12

The Delousing of a Movement

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 2.9.12

Thank Him, Santorum!

Jay D. Homnick | 2.8.12

Let Mrs. Obama Eat Red Velvet Cake

Aaron Goldstein | 2.7.12

ADVERTISEMENT