The chief executive of Wal-Mart has criticised US business for not taking a lead in the debate on the future of US healthcare ahead of the presidential elections in November.
Lee Scott said in a Financial Times interview that he was “not particularly encouraged” by the public debate on the issues.
“I think business has been absent in this debate on healthcare. I’m not sure why,” he said.
“I think government is going to be engaged after this election regardless of who wins, and I think business should be more involved in the discussion. I think it has long-term ramifications for our global competitiveness.”
Mr Scott said Wal-Mart, which has more than 1.3m US employees, had not taken “a firm stand” on what a national healthcare system might look like.
I really hope that Wal-Mart stays out of the health care debate. Both my wife and my sister have worked for Wal-Mart, in different states. To say the health insurance they offer sucks would be putting it extremely mildly. Fortunately, both of them just were working for Wal-Mart temporarily while in college and both have excellent coverage through their current employers. But I really feel for those who depend on the crappy benefits they get from Wal-Mart for all their health care expenses.
I thought that Wal Mart is probably FOR a universal health care system. More businesses are realizing that the current system of arrangements is too expensive for them. Wal Mart won’t pay for it themselves. But instead of a company paying $6000 per person for health care, it might be $3000 per person if it’s made universal.
The amazing thing is that we could have universal health care without adding an extra dime to the system. But instead of the money going to insurance companies, it becomes a more direct transfer.
Apparently, Wal-Mart recently reaped a whole load of negative publicity for attempting to sue an employee who had the temerity to use the corporate “health-care” benefit. Wal-Mart has since withdrawn the lawsuit, but you can at least get a sense of Wal-Mart’s approach to employer-provided health insurance. The system we have now is the end result of corporate America’s lobbying. Giving them even more influence will only guarantee that it gets worse.
John,
If you think that government payment for healthcare would be more efficient, I ask you to speak to any doctor who takes payment for Medicare or Medicaid. Both program do not pay enough to meet a doctor’s expenses for normal visits. Government run insurance will lead to rationing of expensive care and a reduction in the development of life saving medicines.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Too rich for immediate comment.
Except to remind Brother Snyder [#4] that Wal-Mart’s most famous response to employee health care concerns has been to encourage its employees to apply for Medicaid.
Mr Snyder,
You mention rationing of health care in a government-funded insurance program. I’m not an expert on this; so I can’t say whether or not that would happen and, if so, how much. What I can say is that rationing is already happening, except that it’s a rationing system based on ability to pay. Those who can afford generous insurance benefits or are rich enough to pay out of pocket get excellent care; those don’t have such access often are one serious illness or accident away from losing everything. For quite a number of people, the choice between paying for health care or paying for food is a real one indeed.
Phil,
I could ask a doctor. Or I could ask a patient, who wouldn’t get good care otherwise (and if they went to an emergency room, when does the emergency room get paid?).
Currently, expensive care is already rationed.
Medicare and medicaid seem to be run in different ways. From what I hear, Medicare seems to be useful (at least for my elderly parishioners).
You also use this word “government run” insurance as if it is a bogeyman. One reason it can’t be so generous is because insurance companies basically get healthy people, while ensuring the poor and the elderly get paid for by the government. The system is rigged.
I would also examine the economics of medicine more sharply. the expenses doctors have are not always related to medicare, but to malpractice insurance. Perhaps a universla health care system would have the unintended consequence of reducing such insurance – as people would more freely be able to choose their doctors and choose the good doctors merely over the available ones.
[blockquote]Perhaps a universla health care system would have the unintended consequence of reducing such insurance – as people would more freely be able to choose their doctors and choose the good doctors merely over the available ones.[/blockquote]
Two misconceptions of John’s:
The first is that only “bad doctors” get sued. I found this interesting article on the internet, [url=http://www.aahs.org/healthinfo/vital/index.php?id=16136 ]here[/url]. In particular there is the following interesting quote:
[blockquote]MYTH: Only bad doctors are sued. Good doctors have no cause for concern.
About one in five physicians is sued each year. Few of us believe that a majority of doctors are incompetent, yet over time, a majority of doctors will be sued at least once.[/blockquote]
Again, a majority of doctors will be sued in their practice lifetime. However you define “badness” of a doctor, it should be the tail of the bell curve. It should not include the middle hump. Do “bad” doctors get sued more? Maybe a little. But dumb luck is a huge factor. It is a pachinko machine with much randomness in the system.
Second, it seems shocking to me that John actually believes that universal health care will lead to increased choice. Where does this come from?
Robroy, it’s pretty simple. That’s how universal health care is, in fact, practiced in several countries. It’s the imagination of conservatives that it would be otherwise.
By making care universal, the pool of wealth is broader than any independent insurance company. They may negotiate prices, perhaps, but people can still choose their doctors.