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.
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.
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.