The difference is obvious and quite simple to understand - it's
Wal-Mart's RESPONSIBILITY to keep their lights on - not to provide
health care for it's employees.
If subsidizing health care costs for their employees (which is a
stretch) bothers you, how could you possibly feel about the welfare
system in this country? My god - we're subsidizing XBOX 360s, Nikes,
and god-knows-what else for alot of people that simply decide not to
work. Where's the outrage and multiple posts about that?
p.
David Brodbeck wrote:
paul wrote:
the type that feels big business should coddle and spoonfeed people,
rather than maximize earnings...
The point isn't that I think Wal Mart should "coddle and spoonfeed"
people. It's that we're directly subsidizing their high profits with
our tax dollars, by paying a cost (health insurance) that Wal-Mart
refuses to.
It's exactly as if Wal-Mart decided to stop paying their electric bill,
and expected us all to pay to keep the lights on for them. Why is this
so hard to understand?
Now, you can argue that employers shouldn't be the ones providing health
care, and you might have a point. But that's the way our system
currently works. If your employer doesn't do it for you, you either do
without or fall back on public assistance, because individual health
insurance is extremely expensive for most people. This is going to have
to change at some point, because the system is breaking down, but it's
not clear to me what should be done about it.
