Turning something of your own party's creation into a "wedge issue" that benefits you rather than your opponents, that is.
Apparently Republicans think they can do that with "Common Core," a set of controversial education standards created by the Republican-dominated (29 states to 21 for the Democrats) National Governors Association.
The linked New York Times article implies that the Republicans' Common Core project suddenly became "bad" when US president Barack Obama decided he liked it.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised -- they did the same thing with ObamaCare, the key feature of which (the "individual mandate" was proposed by Republican president Richard Nixon in 1973, proposed again by Republican congressman Newt Gingrich in 1993, and implemented in Massachusetts by Republican governor Mitt Romney in 2007, but then somehow magically became the worst thing evah when the Democrats actually got it done nationally.
Of course I oppose both Common Core and ObamaCare because I support separation of school and state and separation of health care and state, preferably via abolition of the state. But it would be nice if the Republicans could find bad ideas to oppose without having to invent those ideas in the first place.
Showing posts with label ObamaCare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ObamaCare. Show all posts
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Monday, February 13, 2012
"Dark Ages Misogyny" ... Really?
What's got Charles Johnson (the wrong-headed Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, not the right-headed anarchist Rad Geek) so worked up?
What's all this "permit" and "deny" stuff?
An employer doesn't (or at least shouldn't) have to offer health insurance as a job benefit at all (he or she may choose to do so, including as part of some contract negotiation or whatever, of course).
And if an employer does offer health insurance as a job benefit, excluding this or that item from said offering isn't "denying" anyone anything, nor should any "permission" to exclude anything, nor any excuse for excluding anything, be required. As long as he's not lying about what it is he's offering, I'm free to take it, leave it, or try to negotiate something different.
There's no "right" to force someone else pay for or deliver whatever health care you might happen to want, and there never will be, no matter how many times Johnson clicks his heels and shouts "war on women's rights! ... [W]ar on contraception!"
The whole "religious exemption" thing is just a distraction. I suspect that's where you'll find most objections to covering contraception in particular, for the simple reason that most employers and insurers would rather pay for contraception, vasectomies, tubal ligations, etc. than pay for pre-natal care and delivery of a baby, then cover that baby's health care expenses as well. But the general principle extends far beyond religious objections.
Maybe my employer finds out that he or she can save $10 per employee per month by offering us policies that exclude sports injuries. Unless we have a contract specifying otherwise, why should he be mandatorily out $10 extra a month so that I can play rugby or ride bulls on the weekend?
Or maybe I've had myself snipped and my significant other has had her tubes tied. Why should we not be able to buy a policy that doesn't cover (at an extra premium cost) a bunch of services we're never going to need?
Hey, maybe ... no, not just maybe ... the details of what health insurance we buy (or don't buy), or negotiate (or not) with our employers, are none of Barack Obama's and Kathleen Sebelius's business.
Now the GOP Wants to Permit Any Employer to Deny Contraception Coverage
What's all this "permit" and "deny" stuff?
An employer doesn't (or at least shouldn't) have to offer health insurance as a job benefit at all (he or she may choose to do so, including as part of some contract negotiation or whatever, of course).
And if an employer does offer health insurance as a job benefit, excluding this or that item from said offering isn't "denying" anyone anything, nor should any "permission" to exclude anything, nor any excuse for excluding anything, be required. As long as he's not lying about what it is he's offering, I'm free to take it, leave it, or try to negotiate something different.
There's no "right" to force someone else pay for or deliver whatever health care you might happen to want, and there never will be, no matter how many times Johnson clicks his heels and shouts "war on women's rights! ... [W]ar on contraception!"
The whole "religious exemption" thing is just a distraction. I suspect that's where you'll find most objections to covering contraception in particular, for the simple reason that most employers and insurers would rather pay for contraception, vasectomies, tubal ligations, etc. than pay for pre-natal care and delivery of a baby, then cover that baby's health care expenses as well. But the general principle extends far beyond religious objections.
Maybe my employer finds out that he or she can save $10 per employee per month by offering us policies that exclude sports injuries. Unless we have a contract specifying otherwise, why should he be mandatorily out $10 extra a month so that I can play rugby or ride bulls on the weekend?
Or maybe I've had myself snipped and my significant other has had her tubes tied. Why should we not be able to buy a policy that doesn't cover (at an extra premium cost) a bunch of services we're never going to need?
Hey, maybe ... no, not just maybe ... the details of what health insurance we buy (or don't buy), or negotiate (or not) with our employers, are none of Barack Obama's and Kathleen Sebelius's business.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Don't repeal/litigate, nullify/interpose!
Well, they've gone and screwed it up -- 14 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against ObamaCare.
If the states really want to beat ObamaCare, litigation isn't the way to go about it. Nullification/interposition is.
In litigation, the parties accept that the courts have jurisdiction over this or that issue, and walk away with whatever the courts give them. The Supreme Court of the United States, (including its "conservative" members in cases like Raich v. Gonzales) has already ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause can mean pretty much anything Congress wants it to mean. Litigating ObamaCare is a dead-end road.
In nullification, the state governments say "we've determined -- for ourselves, we don't need any of you black-robed ninnies to do it for us -- that this piece of legislation is unconstitutional on its face, and we're not going to stand for it, at least within our own borders. Injunction? You can shove your injunction up your ass. If you attempt to come here to enforce it, our National Guard will do the shoving for you. Complimentary. No charge."
It's time for a good old-fashioned constitutional crisis. Look where avoiding such crises has gotten us.
If the states really want to beat ObamaCare, litigation isn't the way to go about it. Nullification/interposition is.
In litigation, the parties accept that the courts have jurisdiction over this or that issue, and walk away with whatever the courts give them. The Supreme Court of the United States, (including its "conservative" members in cases like Raich v. Gonzales) has already ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause can mean pretty much anything Congress wants it to mean. Litigating ObamaCare is a dead-end road.
In nullification, the state governments say "we've determined -- for ourselves, we don't need any of you black-robed ninnies to do it for us -- that this piece of legislation is unconstitutional on its face, and we're not going to stand for it, at least within our own borders. Injunction? You can shove your injunction up your ass. If you attempt to come here to enforce it, our National Guard will do the shoving for you. Complimentary. No charge."
It's time for a good old-fashioned constitutional crisis. Look where avoiding such crises has gotten us.
Monday, March 22, 2010
RomneyCare Junior, if they can keep it
US Senator Claire McCaskill, talking about ObamaCare last week before its passage in the US House of Representatives yesterday:
That's about the size of it. ObamaCare will be as snug a bug in the "safety net" rug by 2020 as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid already are.
David Frum gets it right for once as well:
Yes, Republicans will piss and moan about ObamaCare -- which, never forget, is just a crib of MassCare, a/k/a RomneyCare; Republican pols would have largely supported if it hadn't been Democrats pushing it -- this year and in 2012, as they attempt to take back Congress and the White House.
By 2014-16, they'll be ignoring it.
By 2025, the GOP's conservative faction will be hinting that it was their idea in the first place, eulogizing Barack Obama for fulfilling the legacy of Ronald Reagan in pushing it through, and pledging to defend it (as a Uniquely American Institution®, no doubt) to the death. The GOP's "libertarian" faction will be proposing some kind of complicated voucher or credit system to make it more "efficient."
There's one "if" in play: All this is likely true if the US government as we know it survives until the dates mentioned. The idea that it might not isn't as unlikely as it probably sounds, but I doubt ObamaCare will be the particular straw that breaks that camel's back.
Contra the Republican Pundit Army (Peckerwood Populist Battalion), there's nothing especially novel about ObamaCare. It's not a dramatic departure from the longstanding bi-partisan policy trend of expanding the welfare/warfare state at huge expense and in fuck-silly manner. In fact, it's pretty much business as usual (see Medicare Part D -- or the Wars on Everyone and Everything We Can Think Of -- for example).
It's not going to be popular by November; it's not going to be popular by November of 2012. It'll be popular 10 years from now.
That's about the size of it. ObamaCare will be as snug a bug in the "safety net" rug by 2020 as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid already are.
David Frum gets it right for once as well:
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there -- would President Obama sign such a repeal?
Yes, Republicans will piss and moan about ObamaCare -- which, never forget, is just a crib of MassCare, a/k/a RomneyCare; Republican pols would have largely supported if it hadn't been Democrats pushing it -- this year and in 2012, as they attempt to take back Congress and the White House.
By 2014-16, they'll be ignoring it.
By 2025, the GOP's conservative faction will be hinting that it was their idea in the first place, eulogizing Barack Obama for fulfilling the legacy of Ronald Reagan in pushing it through, and pledging to defend it (as a Uniquely American Institution®, no doubt) to the death. The GOP's "libertarian" faction will be proposing some kind of complicated voucher or credit system to make it more "efficient."
There's one "if" in play: All this is likely true if the US government as we know it survives until the dates mentioned. The idea that it might not isn't as unlikely as it probably sounds, but I doubt ObamaCare will be the particular straw that breaks that camel's back.
Contra the Republican Pundit Army (Peckerwood Populist Battalion), there's nothing especially novel about ObamaCare. It's not a dramatic departure from the longstanding bi-partisan policy trend of expanding the welfare/warfare state at huge expense and in fuck-silly manner. In fact, it's pretty much business as usual (see Medicare Part D -- or the Wars on Everyone and Everything We Can Think Of -- for example).
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Game Day in Taxachusetts
It's about 4am in Massachusetts right now. The polls open at 7am and close at 8pm (unless the rules have changed since November).
Prediction #1
Scott Brown wins the election by 4-7%. Maybe more, but I think that's a reasonable projection.
All three candidates will be working their Get Out The Vote operations to the very last minute, but Brown and Kennedy have the advantage.
It's winter weather with snow and rain in the forecast. Democratic voters are already demoralized. Maybe they'll brave the cold and wind and sludge to vote, maybe they'll stay inside where it's nice and warm.
Brown voters are energized -- not for any particularly good reason, but hey, people in India get killed in senseless religious stampedes all the time, don't they?
Most Kennedy voters are ideological voters. They never expected their candidate to win. Although they're doing their best to make that happen, they'll vote come hell or high water to have their dissenting voices heard, to send their message, to register their preference in the face of the knowledge that that preference will not be realized ... this time.
Scientific Wild Ass Guess: Brown 49%, Coakley 46%, Kennedy 5%.
But I could be very wrong.
Prediction #2
There will be controversy.
Prediction #1
Scott Brown wins the election by 4-7%. Maybe more, but I think that's a reasonable projection.
All three candidates will be working their Get Out The Vote operations to the very last minute, but Brown and Kennedy have the advantage.
It's winter weather with snow and rain in the forecast. Democratic voters are already demoralized. Maybe they'll brave the cold and wind and sludge to vote, maybe they'll stay inside where it's nice and warm.
Brown voters are energized -- not for any particularly good reason, but hey, people in India get killed in senseless religious stampedes all the time, don't they?
Most Kennedy voters are ideological voters. They never expected their candidate to win. Although they're doing their best to make that happen, they'll vote come hell or high water to have their dissenting voices heard, to send their message, to register their preference in the face of the knowledge that that preference will not be realized ... this time.
Scientific Wild Ass Guess: Brown 49%, Coakley 46%, Kennedy 5%.
But I could be very wrong.
Prediction #2
There will be controversy.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Howard Dean is right
Via the Associated Press:
That's the long and short of it. While I think that either the "public option" or the "Medicare buy-in" would make it even worse, and Dean thinks one or the other would make it better, as is the Senate "ObamaCare" bill is corporate welfare and nothing but corporate welfare -- a gunpoint demand that everyone write checks to the insurance companies, on pain of fine or jail.
Truth in advertising standards require that the politicians stop referring to this thing as the "Affordable Health Care for America Act." It's not affordable, it has no significant connection to health care, and it's an assault on, not a deed "for," America. Arthur Silber offered up a far more accurate and appropriate label for it last month, even before the "public option" and then the "Medicare buy-in" went away: The Fuck You Act.
"You will be forced to buy insurance. If you don't, you'll pay a fine," said [former Democratic National Committee chair Howard] Dean, a physician. "It's an insurance company bailout."
That's the long and short of it. While I think that either the "public option" or the "Medicare buy-in" would make it even worse, and Dean thinks one or the other would make it better, as is the Senate "ObamaCare" bill is corporate welfare and nothing but corporate welfare -- a gunpoint demand that everyone write checks to the insurance companies, on pain of fine or jail.
Truth in advertising standards require that the politicians stop referring to this thing as the "Affordable Health Care for America Act." It's not affordable, it has no significant connection to health care, and it's an assault on, not a deed "for," America. Arthur Silber offered up a far more accurate and appropriate label for it last month, even before the "public option" and then the "Medicare buy-in" went away: The Fuck You Act.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Explaining the latest version of ObamaCare
Simply put, it's like this: If you're a member of Generation X or Y or whatever the hell they're calling the various post-Boomer generations these days, you are to be boiled in hot water until you're nice and tender and your meat and bones have separated.
The insurance companies receive the meat ("individual mandate").
The Boomers get the bones ("Medicare buy-in").
Beautifully efficient as cannibalism schemes go, don't you think?
Unlike the previously considered "public option" -- which might have had loopholes through which a clever youngster could have navigated his or her wallet to some semblance of safety -- the "Medicare buy-in" automatically gets the older, higher-risk types out of the insurance companies' way while pushing the younger, lower-risk population right into their gaping maws with the "individual mandate." Lower risks! Higher profits!
And watch for ObamaCare's approval ratings to jump way up since that older, higher-risk group -- the over-55 set, which almost certainly constitutes an absolute majority of voters -- gets its health care subsidized by the younger, lower-risk group, too (through the payroll tax system, which is already tried, tested and and as escape-proof as anything the government's ever come up with ... just wait, it won't be long before the younger group's "insurance premiums" get folded into that scheme as well).
Efim Georgievich Evdokimov was a piker.
The insurance companies receive the meat ("individual mandate").
The Boomers get the bones ("Medicare buy-in").
Beautifully efficient as cannibalism schemes go, don't you think?
Unlike the previously considered "public option" -- which might have had loopholes through which a clever youngster could have navigated his or her wallet to some semblance of safety -- the "Medicare buy-in" automatically gets the older, higher-risk types out of the insurance companies' way while pushing the younger, lower-risk population right into their gaping maws with the "individual mandate." Lower risks! Higher profits!
And watch for ObamaCare's approval ratings to jump way up since that older, higher-risk group -- the over-55 set, which almost certainly constitutes an absolute majority of voters -- gets its health care subsidized by the younger, lower-risk group, too (through the payroll tax system, which is already tried, tested and and as escape-proof as anything the government's ever come up with ... just wait, it won't be long before the younger group's "insurance premiums" get folded into that scheme as well).
Efim Georgievich Evdokimov was a piker.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
What individuals should do
[Note: This is part of an informal "what X should do" series about ObamaCare; I've previously posted on "what President Obama should do" and "what the insurance companies should do"]
To quote Nancy Reagan, "just say no".
Specifically, just say no to this:
To forestall immediate descent into partisan Obama bashing, a brief digression: Obama cribbed the "individual mandate" described above from "conservative" Republican Mitt Romney, who signed it into law as governor of Massachusetts and then bragged about / defended it (rather than vetoing it as he did eight other provisions of the law, including an "employer mandate" similar to the one described above) in 2006. So please ... don't try to turn this into a "left/right" thing.
The insurance companies are drooling over this, of course, and their water carriers in Congress from both major parties will support it (while quietly gutting the "unicorns and ice cream for everyone" restrictions on pre-existing condition refusal, payment caps, etc.) if they can get away with supporting it.
So, the first thing to do is let your congresscritter know that (s)he can't get away with supporting it.
The second thing? Obey little, resist much.
It just so happens that I am, at this particular moment, insured. And while I'm glad, at this particular moment, to be insured (I have dental coverage, and that coverage is saving me about $1200 on the mass extraction/denture procedure I'm getting ready for -- for those who have been following the saga, I got the molds made last week and should get the teeth yanked some time in the two to four weeks), I've lived a good part of my life without insurance.
If the proposal described in President Obama's speech is passed and signed into law, I'll be returning to uninsured status ASAP -- and giving anyone who comes calling to collect a fine a close-up look at my middle finger when I hold out my hands for them to put the cuffs on.
Anyone who's in a position to do likewise, should.
To quote Nancy Reagan, "just say no".
Specifically, just say no to this:
[U]nder my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise -- likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can't afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we can't have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.
To forestall immediate descent into partisan Obama bashing, a brief digression: Obama cribbed the "individual mandate" described above from "conservative" Republican Mitt Romney, who signed it into law as governor of Massachusetts and then bragged about / defended it (rather than vetoing it as he did eight other provisions of the law, including an "employer mandate" similar to the one described above) in 2006. So please ... don't try to turn this into a "left/right" thing.
The insurance companies are drooling over this, of course, and their water carriers in Congress from both major parties will support it (while quietly gutting the "unicorns and ice cream for everyone" restrictions on pre-existing condition refusal, payment caps, etc.) if they can get away with supporting it.
So, the first thing to do is let your congresscritter know that (s)he can't get away with supporting it.
The second thing? Obey little, resist much.
It just so happens that I am, at this particular moment, insured. And while I'm glad, at this particular moment, to be insured (I have dental coverage, and that coverage is saving me about $1200 on the mass extraction/denture procedure I'm getting ready for -- for those who have been following the saga, I got the molds made last week and should get the teeth yanked some time in the two to four weeks), I've lived a good part of my life without insurance.
If the proposal described in President Obama's speech is passed and signed into law, I'll be returning to uninsured status ASAP -- and giving anyone who comes calling to collect a fine a close-up look at my middle finger when I hold out my hands for them to put the cuffs on.
Anyone who's in a position to do likewise, should.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Cannibal Care
From my latest at the Center for a Stateless Society:
ObamaCare in brief: Government feeds you to the insurance companies, while simultaneously feeding the insurance companies to you. The state takes home a doggie bag.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
What the insurance companies should do
On Tuesday, I told you what I think President Obama should do if he wants his health care plan passed by Congress. While I certainly can't claim to have his ear, his speech last night was at least a close approximation of what I envisioned in that post.
Don't be surprised when we hear tomorrow or the next day that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are cracking the whip to get every last Democratic vote in line behind Obamacare with the "public option." I'd bet money that the advice he got privately from Rahm Emanuel and his other close advisors was very similar to my public version.
Just like HillaryCare in 1993, ObamaCare in 2009 is a make-or-break deal. He has to gamble big.
If he wins, he won't just get his health care package. He'll run the table through next November's mid-terms, ticking items off his agenda as a disciplined Democratic congressional majority rolls over GOP opposition to get those items done -- and the Democrats will likely maintain their majorities and their momentum all the way into 2012.
If he loses, he won't just be losing on health care. He'll continue to fumble along with a fractious Democratic majority that accomplishes nothing significant through the mid-terms. The Democrats might very well lose their majority in one or both houses of Congress in 2010, and if the GOP puts up a decent presidential candidate in 2012 he might even be a one-term president.
Those are the stakes for Obama.
Here are the stakes for the insurance industry:
In my last post on ObamaCare, I put myself in the shoes of the President of the United States. Now I'm going to put myself in the shoes of the president of an insurance company. If I found myself in that position, I'd be getting my ducks in a row right now -- calling emergency board meetings, working out details with the company's officers, etc. I'd be ready to move the instant it became obvious that this bill was going to pass, and this is what my move would look like:
- I'd inform the company's policyholders that the company is going out of business at the end of the next billing cycle, that their policies will be canceled effective that date, and that they'll need to find coverage elsewhere;
- I'd inform the company's workers that their employment is drawing to an end; and
- I'd inform stockholders that the company's assets are to be liquidated through arranged profitable sale where possible and auction where necessary, and that after the company's debts are settled and liabilities zeroed out, each stockholder will receive a final dividend per share from any remaining monies.
I might or might not send a note to President Obama, Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi. If I did, it would be short and to the point:
The above is the only honest, reasonable, or even sane response to this nonsense. Unfortunately, I doubt there's a single insurance company president/CEO in the country with the balls to do it -- and I'd bet money that even if there is, his company's board will depose him before he can get within a mile of implementing it.
Instead, the insurance companies will just put their lobbyists to work finding ways to get over as part of the new system. They'll put the screws to us, screaming all the while that it's Obama putting the screws to them from one side of their mouths and telling their secretaries "make one check out to 'Democratic National Committee' and the other to 'Obama 2012'" from the other side. That's how they roll.
Don't be surprised when we hear tomorrow or the next day that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are cracking the whip to get every last Democratic vote in line behind Obamacare with the "public option." I'd bet money that the advice he got privately from Rahm Emanuel and his other close advisors was very similar to my public version.
Just like HillaryCare in 1993, ObamaCare in 2009 is a make-or-break deal. He has to gamble big.
If he wins, he won't just get his health care package. He'll run the table through next November's mid-terms, ticking items off his agenda as a disciplined Democratic congressional majority rolls over GOP opposition to get those items done -- and the Democrats will likely maintain their majorities and their momentum all the way into 2012.
If he loses, he won't just be losing on health care. He'll continue to fumble along with a fractious Democratic majority that accomplishes nothing significant through the mid-terms. The Democrats might very well lose their majority in one or both houses of Congress in 2010, and if the GOP puts up a decent presidential candidate in 2012 he might even be a one-term president.
Those are the stakes for Obama.
Here are the stakes for the insurance industry:
Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. ... it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most. ... They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. ... We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses .... And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care ...
In my last post on ObamaCare, I put myself in the shoes of the President of the United States. Now I'm going to put myself in the shoes of the president of an insurance company. If I found myself in that position, I'd be getting my ducks in a row right now -- calling emergency board meetings, working out details with the company's officers, etc. I'd be ready to move the instant it became obvious that this bill was going to pass, and this is what my move would look like:
- I'd inform the company's policyholders that the company is going out of business at the end of the next billing cycle, that their policies will be canceled effective that date, and that they'll need to find coverage elsewhere;
- I'd inform the company's workers that their employment is drawing to an end; and
- I'd inform stockholders that the company's assets are to be liquidated through arranged profitable sale where possible and auction where necessary, and that after the company's debts are settled and liabilities zeroed out, each stockholder will receive a final dividend per share from any remaining monies.
I might or might not send a note to President Obama, Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi. If I did, it would be short and to the point:
Find some other business to run, asshole -- this one's no longer available.
The above is the only honest, reasonable, or even sane response to this nonsense. Unfortunately, I doubt there's a single insurance company president/CEO in the country with the balls to do it -- and I'd bet money that even if there is, his company's board will depose him before he can get within a mile of implementing it.
Instead, the insurance companies will just put their lobbyists to work finding ways to get over as part of the new system. They'll put the screws to us, screaming all the while that it's Obama putting the screws to them from one side of their mouths and telling their secretaries "make one check out to 'Democratic National Committee' and the other to 'Obama 2012'" from the other side. That's how they roll.
Friday, July 03, 2009
It's the economy (of scale), stupid!
Megan McArdle:
You can say that again, sister!
(h/t -- Little Miss Attila)
Not rocket science, folks.
First, Wal-Mart is legendary for manipulating hours so as to keep most of its employees below the threshold for most benefits. The company will likely only be on board with a "national health care" plan so long as that plan maintains a distinction between "full-time" and and "part-time" employees which allows it to avoid most of the burden of the mandate entirely.
Secondly, to the extent that it does fall under the mandate, Wal-Mart is the biggest employer on Earth. It will get the best group rate on the planet, or it will "self-insure" to the bare minimum requirement of the mandate.
Every company has to pass its operating costs on to the consumer as part of the price of the product. Wal-Mart is positioned to keep the increase in operating costs represented by ObamaCare to a minimum. Its prices will go up, but they won't go up as dramatically as other stores' prices will. It will retain, perhaps even enhance, its competitive advantage on price.
Startups generally are not big enough at birth to maintain the kind of "human resources management" overhead required to either administer all these mandates or shuffle operations around to avoid them. ObamaCare is like putting up a big "DON'T BOTHER -- JUST BUY WAL-MART STOCK INSTEAD" sign in the path of would-be new entrants into the retail business sector.
Wal-Mart is playing this masterfully: Cutting the legs from beneath its existing competitors, aborting its would-be competitors in the womb ... and getting cookies and milk for "corporate social responsibility" in the process!
Nothing new under the sun, of course -- from anti-trust to utilities to you name it, "big business" has always been the moving force behind the "progressive" initiatives supposedly intended to bring it to its knees. Big Government and Big Business are symbiotes.
I find it hard to believe that none of the liberal commentators breathlessly celebrating Wal-Mart's "capitulation" on national health care have even entertained the most parsimonious explanation: that Wal-Mart is in favor of this because it raises the barriers to entry in the retail market, and hammers Wal-Mart's competition.
You can say that again, sister!
I find it hard to believe that none of the liberal commentators breathlessly celebrating Wal-Mart's "capitulation" on national health care have even entertained the most parsimonious explanation: that Wal-Mart is in favor of this because it raises the barriers to entry in the retail market, and hammers Wal-Mart's competition.
(h/t -- Little Miss Attila)
Not rocket science, folks.
First, Wal-Mart is legendary for manipulating hours so as to keep most of its employees below the threshold for most benefits. The company will likely only be on board with a "national health care" plan so long as that plan maintains a distinction between "full-time" and and "part-time" employees which allows it to avoid most of the burden of the mandate entirely.
Secondly, to the extent that it does fall under the mandate, Wal-Mart is the biggest employer on Earth. It will get the best group rate on the planet, or it will "self-insure" to the bare minimum requirement of the mandate.
Every company has to pass its operating costs on to the consumer as part of the price of the product. Wal-Mart is positioned to keep the increase in operating costs represented by ObamaCare to a minimum. Its prices will go up, but they won't go up as dramatically as other stores' prices will. It will retain, perhaps even enhance, its competitive advantage on price.
Startups generally are not big enough at birth to maintain the kind of "human resources management" overhead required to either administer all these mandates or shuffle operations around to avoid them. ObamaCare is like putting up a big "DON'T BOTHER -- JUST BUY WAL-MART STOCK INSTEAD" sign in the path of would-be new entrants into the retail business sector.
Wal-Mart is playing this masterfully: Cutting the legs from beneath its existing competitors, aborting its would-be competitors in the womb ... and getting cookies and milk for "corporate social responsibility" in the process!
Nothing new under the sun, of course -- from anti-trust to utilities to you name it, "big business" has always been the moving force behind the "progressive" initiatives supposedly intended to bring it to its knees. Big Government and Big Business are symbiotes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)