Wal-Mart's Socialist Agenda: Vive la Healthcare Revolucion!
Don't look now, but that socialist next to you just might be a Wal-Mart executive. Maybe even its CEO!
I know it's hard to believe these price-choppin', patriotic Americans who buy as much as possible in China--so they know what communism is all about--might be going soft and pinko on us, but that's what happens when a bunch of state governments realize that many of your company's workers (and their children) can't get your company's healthcare because of those darn plan restrictions (2-year waits for part-timers, etc.). What makes these state government officials see red, of course, is that many of your company's workers and families end up on on state Medicaid rolls--with healthcare being subsidized by all the other employees and employers in the state. Pretty soon these state officials get so mad that they start threatening to pass laws that might make you contribute a minimum amount for each worker.
These so-called "fair share" laws have struck Wal-Mart as so UnFair and UnAmerican that today its CEO sort of, in a sideways manner, began to agitate for national healthcare reform, or maybe even national health insurance. Perhaps. Kind of.
You decide:
Said Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott today to the National Governors Association: "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. 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."
And to the same governors: "Are you right to want to make sure that the kids of working families have health coverage -- even if it's Medicaid? You bet you are. So, let's commit ? to working together to solve these problems."
I don't know about you, but that sounds like a call for health reform or even national health insurance to me. And what could be more bleeding heart liberal--hell, downright pinko--than that?
Look for more CEOs to call for the same thing, as paying for healthcare becomes an increasingly difficult competitive burden for U.S. companies in a global market.
Just a thought: Is there any chance Wal-Mart could buy its healthcare in China, then offer it to everyone at an everyday low price?
If you're faced with a state that is trying to pass laws that affect only your company it is only natural that you would change the discussion by having them pass laws that affect every company.
That way you aren't at a competitive disadvantage.
It isn't being pinko, its making sure your competitor's costs are forced to rise as much as yours do.
Or at least that you have allies to fight the state.
One of the problems related to this is that the continuous improvement movement has not hit healthcare in the force it has hit other industries. Anyone who has waited an hour to get an x-ray, and then had to schlep films to a doctor--two days later because it was the first open appointment--knows this. The government can't solve this problem--just as the government had no role in adoption of lean manufacturing at U.S. companies. But Brandt's point is well taken--executives loathe government involvement, unless it directly benefits them.
The true issue of modern America is quite an amazing one from my perspective. Here we live and work and prosper beyond the wildest imaginings of two generations past, while at the same time have so forgotten our past as to condemn the furture to living a third world existence. Very few if any of us reading and commenting on Industry Week had ancestors that arrived here with more then the clothes on their back, brains in their head, and the backbone to do something with it. True; greed, and the need to feed the family drove this country to become what it is today, But we have evolved as a nation from the "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" of our founding fathers to one that races to the bottom in order to wring every last penny from those least likely to afford the basic necessities and minor indulgences we all take for granted.
Why does Wal Mart work so hard and in my opinion so well to keep reducing the prices of the products they sell? To me it a commendable practice, one of great corporate social responsibility. In order to keep reducing the income and benifits to their employees and the communities they operate in they must keep their prices at a level employees an afford in order to return their paychecks back to the company. George Pullman and all the Farm Owners who hire illeagal immigrants that end up owing more money for rent, and subsistance back to the farm would be proud.
Where can Wal Mart employees and the folks that are displaced from their jobs when a new superstore buy the goods they need at a price they can afford? Why at the benevolent new employer in town!
Here! Here! for Wal Mart leading the way in corporate social responsibility providing for those less financially fortunate.
But just who is responsible for creating those less fortunate people?
RE: ?Wal-Mart's Socialist Agenda: Vive la Healthcare evolution?
While Health care cost and that whole institution/industry are out of control and something needs to be done; it's never cheaper/better to let "the government" do anything!
The private sector needs to step up to the plate. Maybe "private co-ops" are in order? One of the main problems with this issue is the notion that Healthcare is a "Hands off" institution with all the redundancies of a government institution.
What's needed is a cooperative effort between all three pieces of the pie; those who pay, those who insure and the Providers. Maybe the Government could sponsor this kind of effort but never run it.
[quote=dileskdo]RE: ?Wal-Mart's Socialist Agenda: Vive la Healthcare evolution?
...if it was a perfect world, I'd prefer to keep the gov't out of the health care biz -- but the world ain't perfect and our businesses are competing with other nations, today, right now, that aren't saddled with a predominately "business-supported" health care system. It doesn't look too likely that any of these emerging markets are going to follow the US privately insured market either.
I say it's way past time to get a comprehensive national health care plan on the books -- and I'm surprised I haven't heard more CEOs step up to the microphone and say so. Probably because media mavens are quick to slap a moniker like "socialist" on the suggestion and these predominately Republican-type executives can't sleep at night with a label like that affiliated to their name. But the fact remains that our health insurance system makes the companies that fuel our economy less competitive on world markets. We have to change that.
We can orchestrate it in such a way as to encourage private enterprise to set up a parallel universe of private services, if they find profit and value in it. It may force health care providers to get a lot of the muda out of their processes and become more efficient. We do have a history of private enterprise competing with gov't agencies in this country -- and generally, the market benefits. It's how we got a postal system in his nation which, frankly, works pretty well --and yet still produced companies like UPS and FedEx. And while many of us (myself included) complain about the education system in this nation, the fact remains that the children in this nation have the opportunity to an education --- you can't say that about health care. (And there are plenty of private schools and universities you can send your kids too that compete with the public schools if you really hate the system your kids are in and are willing to sacrifice and scrimp to send them there.)
Maybe this is an oversimplified analogy; but it is naive to think we can continue to force American businesses to pick up the tab for health care in this nation and then expect them to compete on a global playing field with other companies that have no such cost disadvantage. I've voted republican in every election since I turned 18 a million years ago or so -- I'm no socialist....but national health care is just one of those bandwagons we are going to have start leading soon.