Ok, well i guess they sell things cheap - Page 5

hsmith · 10-03-2006, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I highly doubt that.

You do realize health care is the most highly regulated industry in the country, do you not?

You do see how costs have been rising throughout the years? it isn't lawsuits, it isn't malpractice, it is regulation that prohibits competition. and that is it.

ballz2wallz · 10-03-2006, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

You do realize health care is the most highly regulated industry in the country, do you not?

Yup, that's the truth. And it's also the industry most riddled with problems. Coincidence?

hsmith · 10-03-2006, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yup, that's the truth. And it's also the industry most riddled with problems. Coincidence?

Of course not!

WickedLou9 · 10-03-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

You do realize health care is the most highly regulated industry in the country, do you not?

You do see how costs have been rising throughout the years? it isn't lawsuits, it isn't malpractice, it is regulation that prohibits competition. and that is it.

regulation may be a contributing factor to the high cost of medical care and medical insurance but it is by no means is it the only reason.

ballz2wallz · 10-03-2006, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

regulation may be a contributing factor to the high cost of medical care and medical insurance but it is by no means is it the only reason.

Extensive regulation very well could be the sole problem with the industry. You regulate the doctors, you regulate the insurance companies, you regulate every aspect of it, and it tries to balance itself out (naturally) and causes great problems, thus increasing the costs and causing most of the problems.

Scrum · 10-03-2006, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

It isn't their fault bleeding heart democrats want to give out free helath care to the poor. It is a smart business move.

And who's fault is it if they just don't pay?

Scrum · 10-03-2006, 04:27 PM

Again, it's more Walmarts responsibility to their employees heathcare than it is yours and mine.

ballz2wallz · 10-03-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Again, it's more Walmarts responsibility to their employees heathcare than it is yours and mine.

No, it's more the individual's responsibility to their own healthcare than it is anybody else's. Walmart is just as responsible as you or I...meaning, not at all.

Scrum · 10-03-2006, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

No, it's more the individual's responsibility to their own healthcare than it is anybody else's. Walmart is just as responsible as you or I...meaning, not at all.

So I am as equally responsible for a Walmart employees heathcare as Walmart is? We are talking about a situation where somebody else is going to end up paying for their care

Are you even reading what you are typing?

It's like saying I'm just as responsible for taking out your wife, buying her dinner and driving her home so you can fuck her.

7960 · 10-03-2006, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So I am as equally responsible for a Walmart employees heathcare as Walmart is?

Are you even reading what you are typing?

It's like saying I'm just as responsible for taking out your wife, buying her dinner and driving her home so you can fuck her.

wow, lack of reading comprehension.......

Originally Posted by b2w

meaning, not at all...

Your example has nothing to do with this and is pretty stupid. He said walmart is not responsible for providing healthcare.

If they want to try to force walmart to provide insurance then employees could unionize, organize a boycott, workers could stop showing up to work, etc, but walmart does not *have* to provide insurance. And they won't, until/unless they're forced to.

Diesel66 · 10-03-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

By the same token, when can I be rich enough to decide that everyone else should have to pay for my employees healthcare?

How many retail companies pay healthcare for the majority of their employees ?

kinggovernor · 10-03-2006, 05:17 PM

if you are pissed about walmart employees using public healthcare then get rid of healthcare or make the limits even lower

Scrum · 10-03-2006, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

wow, lack of reading comprehension.......

Your example has nothing to do with this and is pretty stupid. He said walmart is not responsible for providing healthcare.

He said I was as responsible as Walmart.

Thanks for jumping in with an opinion I don't care about though.

Originally Posted by 7960

If they want to try to force walmart to provide insurance then employees could unionize, organize a boycott, workers could stop showing up to work, etc, but walmart does not *have* to provide insurance. And they won't, until/unless they're forced to.

That's fine. In the meantime we will just continue to provie healthcare to these people so Walmarts shareholders are happy.

You guys tout Walmart as the pinnacle of capitalism, when they force universal healthcare and a form of socialism on the rest of us by not providing for their employees.

Scrum · 10-03-2006, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

How many retail companies pay healthcare for the majority of their employees ?

Not many I wouold imagine.

Must be nice to lean on the public to care for your employees so you don't have to pay for it.

KatKanPlay · 10-03-2006, 08:14 PM

If more companies adopted Walmarts policies, we will be a 2 class system in no time.

kinggovernor · 10-03-2006, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

If more companies adopted Walmarts policies, we will be a 2 class system in no time.

they already have and have always have had that policy. Jobs under 10 bucks an hour don't rate health care

Kytro · 10-03-2006, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Just because what they are doing or have done is legal doesn't mean that it's the morally correct thing to do, or the socially responsible thing to do. Profit does not justify everything under the sun you know. Just because doing a thing means you will turn a higher profit does not make it right.

I agree, but remeber companies have obligations to shareholders. The only obligation to society they have is to follow the law.

So you can:

1) Change the law
or
2) Make it more profitable to be socially responsible

Kytro · 10-03-2006, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Actually yes, they are morally obligated to give as they are able to. You may not agree with me but that is my belief.

Corporations are amoral.

thomez · 10-03-2006, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

if you are pissed about walmart employees using public healthcare then get rid of healthcare or make the limits even lower

omg people will die in the streets!

kinggovernor · 10-03-2006, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

omg people will die in the streets!

I really don't get this, lots of people that are "working poor" use government services; isn't that the idea of them. We don't want to punish those who take low paying jobs by providing better services if you stay home and there isn't a company that is going to provide comprehensive health care to low wage workers, there is no profit in it. So what would people really like to happen