polksalet Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 How about they get the same health benefits and disability benefits which cost the SAME percentage of their income. uh, isn't that rewarding laziness and penalizing the hard working? Does any company do that? Even when I drew a check from the government we paid the same total dolla. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 uh, isn't that rewarding laziness and penalizing the hard working? Does any company do that? Even when I drew a check from the government we paid the same total dolla. The fact you just wrote that sentence means you are dumber than the rock you climbed out from under. Are you serious? How much of the 350 per month is Wally World kicking in for your health and welfare benefits? My guess is it is 0%. That is rediculous. That is not a benefit...it is merely a waiver of pre-existing conditions. And yes, I am all for creating different segments of workers within an organizational structure. It would help quite a few of my clients out well. But yes, I stand by my statement it should be proportional costs. Anything else and you will be paying that persons health bill anyway via the emergency room or public aid. Funny how you merely brush off Skippy as if he never brought up a valid point. Wal Mart is a great company from a business standpoint....horrible to the community because it drives down average wages of EVERY town it enters. According to trickle down republican hacks....with competition comes wage increases because stores want to retain the best of the best. Not true with Wal Mart. They are interested in selling cheap goods made overseas and selling out the very country they do business in. Do I fault your wife for working there....hell no. Do I fault you for not even giving skippy the decent effort of an answer to his query.....ABSOLUTELY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 The fact you just wrote that sentence means you are dumber than the rock you climbed out from under. Are you serious? How much of the 350 per month is Wally World kicking in for your health and welfare benefits? My guess is it is 0%. That is rediculous. That is not a benefit...it is merely a waiver of pre-existing conditions. And yes, I am all for creating different segments of workers within an organizational structure. It would help quite a few of my clients out well. But yes, I stand by my statement it should be proportional costs. Anything else and you will be paying that persons health bill anyway via the emergency room or public aid. Funny how you merely brush off Skippy as if he never brought up a valid point. Wal Mart is a great company from a business standpoint....horrible to the community because it drives down average wages of EVERY town it enters. According to trickle down republican hacks....with competition comes wage increases because stores want to retain the best of the best. Not true with Wal Mart. They are interested in selling cheap goods made overseas and selling out the very country they do business in. Do I fault your wife for working there....hell no. Do I fault you for not even giving skippy the decent effort of an answer to his query.....ABSOLUTELY. yes or no, does any company you are aware of charge for healthcare based upon the salary of the worker? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Not sure, but I believe there are some DOL issues with giving different "classes" of employees different health insurance (etc) benefits. Pretty much. You can get around it somewhat but, in theory, I can't offer anything to my management that I don't offer to my other employees. I'm only now really researching benefits like insurance because I've finally been around long enough that I may need them to keep key employees, etc. However, I've learned enough to know that 1) it's pretty hard to offer insurance to one guy but not another, and 2) it's not impossible. Now, that may have more to do with actually paying for it for some people and not others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 yes or no, does any company you are aware of charge for healthcare based upon the salary of the worker? I will take that as a no. I guess that puts and end to the estrogen charged rage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 The whole insurance racket is really a ridiculous concept if you think about it. The ONLY reason I pay the same as my co-workers are because we work together. I have nothing else in common with these people...certainly not my health or well-being. Nothing. Yet I pay the same rate simply because we are employed by the same company. Tell me where any of that makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 The whole insurance racket is really a ridiculous concept if you think about it. The ONLY reason I pay the same as my co-workers are because we work together. I have nothing else in common with these people...certainly not my health or well-being. Nothing. Yet I pay the same rate simply because we are employed by the same company. Tell me where any of that makes sense. it avoids problems of adverse selection (which is the reason why health insurance costs so much more for people who have to buy it on their own) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egret Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 fwiw, I drive a 14 year old Tercel, my television is the same one I had in college in 1993, and my desktop at home would probably fetch about $200 if I sold it If I can survive (and be perfectly happy) with this stuff, then sure as hell can somebody who makes $14,000 per year. Next time we go to a Tigers game, we can ride in style in my 2003 Chevy Malibu. It has a cup holder for the driver and the passenger! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 How about they get the same health benefits and disability benefits which cost the SAME percentage of their income. Philosophically I disagree with this completely. It smacks of socialism. Of course philosophically I could probably go for it if everyone was taxed based on the SAME percentage of income, but somehow I doubt that you'd be willing to go for that. Are you arguing that all Wal-Mart should have to pay for all it's employee's health insurance, or that all companies should? I don't think you can legally make one of Wal-Mart do it, and not make every business do it. So you just put most mom and pops out of business with this. Those that are left, will probably have their more productive low wage earners work over time for an additional 40 hours, because the premium pay for the overtime equates to about the same as it will cost the company to insure a minimum wage worker. So most businesses will cut their minimum wage work force in half keeping the more productive half working twice as long, because they are more productive. So you have just made roughly 1/2 of the minimum wage workers in this country unemployed. If we are looking for universal health coverage, then it needs to be done, not through employers, but through the government. Like I said, I'm philosophically opposed to this. That being said, as a practical matter we should do it. Thanks to FDR and all of his give aways, we now have a class of people in this country who have grown up on the government tit, and unfortunately I think we are probably past the point of no return, at least of this generation. So, I can begrudgingly go along with a universal health care program provided that two things are included. The first condition to my agreeing to it would be that you could opt out of it, if you can prove you have private insurance, and get the average cost per person back in the form of a refund on your income taxes. The second would be rather than raising the income tax to pay for this, we pay for it with a national sales tax, and tag an additional sin tax on alcohol, tobacco, and fast food, as these are all known to be detrimental to your health. So if you make bad life choices, you have to pay more for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 it avoids problems of adverse selection (which is the reason why health insurance costs so much more for people who have to buy it on their own) I guess by their reasoning, they have to base it on something. God help us if you base it on actual health results instead of the color of the paper hat we wear at work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 If he made those decisions, then does he need a cell phone, cable internet, cable tv, air conditioning and a DVD player, or should that dumb ass f0ktard idiot pay for his own damn insurance? This might be the smartest thing you have ever said at the Huddle, H8, even if you didn't mean it. Most people are not willing to make these kind of sacrifices in order to pay for things like Health insurance, and instead turn to "the man" for help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Looks like we have another right to lifer rallying against letting people have access to the very instruments....which sustain life. Cable TV and A/C sustain life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Philosophically I disagree with this completely. It smacks of socialism. Of course philosophically I could probably go for it if everyone was taxed based on the SAME percentage of income, but somehow I doubt that you'd be willing to go for that. Are you arguing that all Wal-Mart should have to pay for all it's employee's health insurance, or that all companies should? I don't think you can legally make one of Wal-Mart do it, and not make every business do it. So you just put most mom and pops out of business with this. Those that are left, will probably have their more productive low wage earners work over time for an additional 40 hours, because the premium pay for the overtime equates to about the same as it will cost the company to insure a minimum wage worker. So most businesses will cut their minimum wage work force in half keeping the more productive half working twice as long, because they are more productive. So you have just made roughly 1/2 of the minimum wage workers in this country unemployed. If we are looking for universal health coverage, then it needs to be done, not through employers, but through the government. Like I said, I'm philosophically opposed to this. That being said, as a practical matter we should do it. Thanks to FDR and all of his give aways, we now have a class of people in this country who have grown up on the government tit, and unfortunately I think we are probably past the point of no return, at least of this generation. So, I can begrudgingly go along with a universal health care program provided that two things are included. The first condition to my agreeing to it would be that you could opt out of it, if you can prove you have private insurance, and get the average cost per person back in the form of a refund on your income taxes. The second would be rather than raising the income tax to pay for this, we pay for it with a national sales tax, and tag an additional sin tax on alcohol, tobacco, and fast food, as these are all known to be detrimental to your health. So if you make bad life choices, you have to pay more for them. good thoughts here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebellab Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 (edited) Philosophically I disagree with this completely. It smacks of socialism. Of course philosophically I could probably go for it if everyone was taxed based on the SAME percentage of income, but somehow I doubt that you'd be willing to go for that. Are you arguing that all Wal-Mart should have to pay for all it's employee's health insurance, or that all companies should? I don't think you can legally make one of Wal-Mart do it, and not make every business do it. So you just put most mom and pops out of business with this. Those that are left, will probably have their more productive low wage earners work over time for an additional 40 hours, because the premium pay for the overtime equates to about the same as it will cost the company to insure a minimum wage worker. So most businesses will cut their minimum wage work force in half keeping the more productive half working twice as long, because they are more productive. So you have just made roughly 1/2 of the minimum wage workers in this country unemployed. If we are looking for universal health coverage, then it needs to be done, not through employers, but through the government. Like I said, I'm philosophically opposed to this. That being said, as a practical matter we should do it. Thanks to FDR and all of his give aways, we now have a class of people in this country who have grown up on the government tit, and unfortunately I think we are probably past the point of no return, at least of this generation. So, I can begrudgingly go along with a universal health care program provided that two things are included. The first condition to my agreeing to it would be that you could opt out of it, if you can prove you have private insurance, and get the average cost per person back in the form of a refund on your income taxes. The second would be rather than raising the income tax to pay for this, we pay for it with a national sales tax, and tag an additional sin tax on alcohol, tobacco, and fast food, as these are all known to be detrimental to your health. So if you make bad life choices, you have to pay more for them. This is worded very well. Somewhere along the line someone decided that benefit packages offered to skilled or educated employees should be taken all the way down to the kid that pushes carts around the parking lot. First off, if the kid pushing carts around needs health ins then he should learn a trade such as plumbing, HVAC, or other construction or manufacturing that you don't necessarily need a college education to do just work and apprenticeship time. The reason for offering a benefit package is to attract better employees. Employer sponsored health insurance is not a right it is a benefit. I really don't understand why Wal-Mart gets such a bad rap for not paying their uneducated/unskilled employees health coverage. Why should Wal-Mart do this? There is no economical reason to pay for health coverage for someone that can be replaced in minutes. E2A: Back on topic, how is Wal-Mart going to stimulate the economy by lowering prices on things not manufactured in the US? This was pointed out above. Edited January 30, 2008 by Rebellab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 This is worded very well. Somewhere along the line someone decided that benefit packages offered to skilled or educated employees should be taken all the way down to the kid that pushes carts around the parking lot. First off, if the kid pushing carts around needs health ins then he should learn a trade such as plumbing, HVAC, or other construction or manufacturing that you don't necessarily need a college education to do just work and apprenticeship time. The reason for offering a benefit package is to attract better employees. Employer sponsored health insurance is not a right it is a benefit. I really don't understand why Wal-Mart gets such a bad rap for not paying their uneducated/unskilled employees health coverage. Why should Wal-Mart do this? There is no economical reason to pay for health coverage for someone that can be replaced in minutes. E2A: Back on topic, how is Wal-Mart going to stimulate the economy by lowering prices on things not manufactured in the US? This was pointed out above. Most of the stuff Wally is marking down is mostly from here. It is mostly food and paper and such. People hate Wally because they hate winners. You will also see the same group hating Microsoft and the man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Most of the stuff Wally is marking down is mostly from here. It is mostly food and paper and such. People hate Wally because they hate winners. You will also see the same group hating Microsoft and the man. That's a BIG brush you're wielding there polk. Please back up these statements with some facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 (edited) In my experience in working as a Product Manager for a manufacturer, when Wal-Mart hacks prices, it takes the cost down at the wholesale level, not thier profit. I would expect the same thing is happening here, and the folks who supply the products (USA made or otherwise) are being forced to lower thier wholesale prices under the threat of blackballing. This was a common practice by Wal-Mart in the 90's when I was last in manufacturing. I hate Wal-Mart because they used to have integrity. While Sam was alive, "Made in the USA" was a selling point, not a detriment. Once he died, Wal-Mart went into the crapper. Edited January 30, 2008 by cre8tiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 That's a BIG brush you're wielding there polk. Please back up these statements with some facts. on which point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 on which point? People hate Wally because they hate winners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 People hate Wally because they hate winners. This should be Exhibit A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Philosophically I disagree with this completely. It smacks of socialism. Of course philosophically I could probably go for it if everyone was taxed based on the SAME percentage of income, but somehow I doubt that you'd be willing to go for that. Are you arguing that all Wal-Mart should have to pay for all it's employee's health insurance, or that all companies should? I don't think you can legally make one of Wal-Mart do it, and not make every business do it. So you just put most mom and pops out of business with this. Those that are left, will probably have their more productive low wage earners work over time for an additional 40 hours, because the premium pay for the overtime equates to about the same as it will cost the company to insure a minimum wage worker. So most businesses will cut their minimum wage work force in half keeping the more productive half working twice as long, because they are more productive. So you have just made roughly 1/2 of the minimum wage workers in this country unemployed. If we are looking for universal health coverage, then it needs to be done, not through employers, but through the government. Like I said, I'm philosophically opposed to this. That being said, as a practical matter we should do it. Thanks to FDR and all of his give aways, we now have a class of people in this country who have grown up on the government tit, and unfortunately I think we are probably past the point of no return, at least of this generation. So, I can begrudgingly go along with a universal health care program provided that two things are included. The first condition to my agreeing to it would be that you could opt out of it, if you can prove you have private insurance, and get the average cost per person back in the form of a refund on your income taxes. The second would be rather than raising the income tax to pay for this, we pay for it with a national sales tax, and tag an additional sin tax on alcohol, tobacco, and fast food, as these are all known to be detrimental to your health. So if you make bad life choices, you have to pay more for them. that is a good post. right now our heathcare system is a public/private mess. it is the worst of both worlds, the capitalist price-gouging with the socialist bureaucracy. we'd probably be better off either allowing actual free market principles to work by undoing massive amounts of regulation, or just simply socializing the whole dam thing. unfortunately, we're a lot closer to being able to accomplish the latter than the former. so, as a pragmatic matter, it may not be such a terrible idea to go in that direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Most of the stuff Wally is marking down is mostly from here. It is mostly food and paper and such. People hate Wally because they hate winners. You will also see the same group hating Microsoft and the man. Why do you hate Linux? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckB Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 In my experience in working as a Product Manager for a manufacturer, when Wal-Mart hacks prices, it takes the cost down at the wholesale level, not thier profit. I would expect the same thing is happening here, and the folks who supply the products (USA made or otherwise) are being forced to lower thier wholesale prices under the threat of blackballing. This was a common practice by Wal-Mart in the 90's when I was last in manufacturing. I hate Wal-Mart because they used to have integrity. While Sam was alive, "Made in the USA" was a selling point, not a detriment. Once he died, Wal-Mart went into the crapper. +100000000000000000000 Everyone should have to watch "Wal Mart, The High Cost Of Low Prices". They are the Debil. Of course if they offered me a high paying job with bennies I might take it One thing I don't understand is why local gov.'s helping to pay for new stores of the largest and richest retailer in the world, when they end up coaching there underemployed on how to reep gov. bennies Wal Mart = Bad for America (but good for the Polks) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 This should be Exhibit A That is a great exhibit and helps make the point that they should indeed hire top notch people and reward with pay and with reasonable benefits to all the loyal people that got them there. Also, I would add that if Polks wife manages one of these stores then it is a travesty that they have to pay that much for thier healt benefits, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 350 a month a lot for medical? sheesh, I'd kill to only pay 350 a month, mainly since I don't get company health insurance I am on my own. Premiums just went up...again. It's me, my wife and two kids. We're now paying I believe $750 a month for coverage.... and that is all out of pocket. Decent PPO plan, reasonable deductible (I believe it is the $1000 per member, like polk has). I know most employers offer to pay x percent of the cheapest option (or for the cheapest option) for the employee, some include family too, and offer that to all employees. If you choose to utilize one of the other plans the company offers, you pay for the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.