This entry was posted on Friday, October 20, 2006 at 5:24 am and is filed under Maryland.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
11 Responses to “Democrats revive Wal-Mart health care issue”
There is no legal way to “get is right” unless you want the legislature running businesses – I think that is called socialism.
Oh yes – and tax paying Wal-Mart employees (as well as other retail and entry-level jobs) should not use our health care and other services, but the Dems don’t have a problem with giving state benefits to illegal aliens, who for the most part do not pay taxes. They also use our health care system and we pick up the tabs. They also voted to allow illegal aliens to get in-state tuition, something that US citizens from other states don’t even get!
(Also – don’t get me wrong, I am not anit-immigrant – keep in mind that my husband and his whole family are immigrants. I live with immigration issues everyday.)
Not one of my opponents ever owned a business. I think they have a little too much chutzpuh to think they can run Wal Mart or any other business.
Ralph, I do want to know what people have to say. There are times I am wrong and only realize it by listening carefully. Old Abe, as you may know studied grammar on his own, and it paid off, but that was part of his genius. If the rest of us just wrote honestly and from our heart, it would be a better world.
Ralph, I don’t know how Corkran would vote, but I do know I like 57’s, rock and roll, and Coke Cola. Have a good weekend.
The problem with healthcare is does not have its genesis with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is simply externalizing the costs of health care to the taxpayers, like any smart (and selfish) business would do. The problem, therefore, is the system that rewards this behavior. I think Alan Kittleman brought up a good point about the upward pressure put on healthcare costs due to the fear of lawsuits and unwillingness of the legislature to enact tort reform. That sounds like something a Libertarian would say, and I mean that as a compliment.
Shane Pendergrass said yesterday in our session with the Times editors that the cost of lawsuits had no bearing whatsoever on the cost of malpractice insurance. Of course, I have to defer to her expertise in healthcare, which she always tells us, when she said that HMO costs are as expensive or more so than all the other insurance premium available. (Actually, I did NOT defer to her on that one!)
She either is totally out of touch or she will say anything to try to get the upper hand…
Shane was smart enough not to say it on the televised League of Women’s Voters forum, but she was in rare form there as well. It would be worth your while to watch the rebroadcast, starting at various times on Oct. 29th.
As for the Times, it will be interesting to see how they handle the endorsements. I recieved their endorsement in 2002.
I never even got contacted by the Sun for an endorsement interview, so if any endorsements come out of that one, it won’t be based on any discussions with me…
There is nothing new under the sun, and Kittleman’s point about upward pressure on healthcare costs due to fear of lawsuits and unwillgness of the legislature to enact tort reform, has been around for decades. I was in the healthcare industry as far back as the 1970’s, and there was great concern then of lawsuits and the impact on health insurance cost. What would be new is the legislature responding, and performing in a manner that would reduce the lawsuit awards.