Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Work For Wal-Mart? You May Need Welfare

By Maria Luisa Tucker, AlterNet. Posted June 27, 2005.


Thousands of low-wage Wal-Mart workers are on public assistance. Many state lawmakers say it's time the megastore was forced to provide affordable employee health insurance.
Advertisement

When Susan Mediger-Paul went into labor in 1995 and gave birth prematurely to her third child, she knew the health insurance provided by her employer would not cover the cost. Nor would it pay for the birth of her fourth and fifth child later on, in 1998 and 1999. She said she relied on Minnesota Care, the state's public assistance healthcare, to pay for the multiple hospitalizations of her children, two of whom suffered from asthma.

Mediger-Paul seems an unlikely candidate for public assistance healthcare. She held a good-paying job as an accountant at Wal-Mart, the infamously profitable company and the largest private sector employer in the nation.

So why was Mediger-Paul on the dole?

Because "Wal-Mart's health insurance was awful!" she says. Mediger-Paul opted out of the company health plan, she says, to pay into the state healthcare system. "I had two preemies and they both had asthma--there was no way I would have made it on Wal-Mart's insurance." With cheap premiums but large deductibles and gaps in care, she says the Wal-Mart insurance wouldn't even have covered her kids' vaccinations.

Mediger-Paul is in good company as she complains about the inadequacy of Wal-Mart's healthcare. This week, in an attempt to hold large employers accountable for their worker's healthcare costs, Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Ma.), Jon Corzine (D-NJ) and Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) introduced the Health Care Accountability Act. Originally authored by the union-backed Wake-Up Wal-Mart campaign, the legislation would require states to publicly report the number of employees that companies have on taxpayer-funded public health care. These annual reports would include the state's cost of providing healthcare to those workers.

"We deserve to know the truth about the high cost of Wal-Mart's greed," says Paul Blank, the campaign director for Wake-Up Wal-Mart.

Mediger-Paul's home state of Minnesota has been debating similar legislation, which is set to pass by the end of the month. Additionally, 23 other state legislatures have recently debated or passed these so-called "Wal-Mart bills." Some states have moved even further, considering "pay or play" legislation that would force large employers to either commit a certain percent of payroll costs to employee healthcare, or pay into the state healthcare system.

The idea, say supporters of the legislation, is to stop subsidizing corporate profits with public healthcare money.

The Wal-Mart bills have been sponsored by a number of state lawmakers interested in universal healthcare, but labor organizers have honed in specifically and vocally on Wal-Mart. The legislation has stirred up a vitriolic fight between a labor movement trying to stay relevant in a service and retail economy and Wal-Mart, a profiteering giant that relies on cheap labor and would rather shut a store down than see it unionized. At the core of the debate is a difference in opinion over what is considered adequate, and who is ultimately responsible for the healthcare needs of low-wage workers.

"I believe every worker should have healthcare provided by the employer. It should be a right," says Bernie Hesse, director of organizing for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 789 in Minnesota. He also believes that part of the way to get there is to create a public education campaign against Wal-Mart, exposing "what a shitty place it is and how bad they treat people."

Nate Hurst, Wal-Mart's public and government relations manager, says Wal-Mart is living up to its responsibility, emphasizing that his company does provide health insurance that has saved lives. As for any snags in affordability or coverage, he implies that the whole healthcare system is at fault. "We certainly believe it's long past time for meaningful reform for our healthcare in this country, but these bills do not address these concerns, nor do they even ensure that one more person comes off the list of America's uninsured."


Digg!

Maria Luisa Tucker is a freelance journalist based in New York. Her work has appeared in the Santa Fe Reporter, Phoenix New Times, and Austin Monthly magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The beginning of this story bugs me.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jun 27, 2005 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mrs. Paul's part in this story is not very good. You would think a responsible adult would refrain from having so many children if they could not afford to take care of them. Is Minnesota a third world country where contraception is not available? Is she so short sighted that she can not see that she can not afford them? Is she so ignorant that she does not have any knowledge of contraception? She has definitely played a part in her problems.

I find her actions almost as appalling as Wal Mart's practices. I do not have children and one the main reasons is because I can not afford to provide a child with a decent life.

It is good to see that through legislation Wal Marts low prices may be shown how they are deferred to us all in other ways. Are their prices really that low when we pay through taxation via medical subsidies and tax incentives for them to build new stores?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wal-Mart in NH
Posted by: arlete27 on Jun 27, 2005 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) In NH the second largest employer of those workers on public assistance was the State of NH!
2) Perhaps with the shortage of social security, we ought to be encouraging people to have children and helping them raise productive workers!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wal-Mart in NH Posted by: mrsmagoo
» RE: Wal-Mart in NH Posted by: mazur
» RE: Wal-Mart in NH Posted by: Wacre
» RE: Wal-Mart in NH Posted by: wobuzhidao
PARLIAMENT OF WHORES
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 27, 2005 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Many state lawmakers say it's time the megastore was forced to provide affordable employee health insurance."

Talk is cheap. And so is Congress.

That will be the day when this parliament of whores enacts a piece of legislation that helps ordinary citizens at the expense of a major corporation. (No offense intended to prostitutes who actually perform a valuable service for willing customers in exchange for a living income.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: PARLIAMENT OF WHORES Posted by: Quilpole
xenacat
Posted by: xenacat on Jun 27, 2005 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do agree - having five kids when you can't afford medical care is completely irresponsible and weakens the crebility of the information presented. That is unfortunate. There are plenty of other stories that illustrate utter immorality of Wal-Mart's corporate enslavement much better then this one. It would be wonderful if journalists would find a less hackneyed hook then the motherhood lead. It is a real turn off that leaves singles, seniors, men and just about everyone else out in the cold.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: xenacat Posted by: eggnog2464
» RE: xenacat Posted by: goosepillows
and the pot flows over
Posted by: morningstar777 on Jun 27, 2005 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can already see that walmart is preparing for all this to hit the fan. I remember an Article in the AZ republic that stated that walmart was going to get fancier items in their store to cater to the higher class.
One thing that I have respected about Walmart is their ability to know that not everyone can afford the higher priced Items at the malls. Basically, it has catered to the lower class for quite awhile. For every cause, there is an effect.
But, why stop at attacking Walmart?
Is McDonalds next on the agenda?How about Dominoes or Burger King?
their Benefits packages stink there, as well.
Maybe the real culprit is the medical insurance offered in the first place.
There is sooo much money rolling around in the medical field, it would make your head spin.
I completely support our former president Clinton who tried to provide Healthcare to everyone. This would have never been an issue, if it had passed.
And, with our healthcare below Canadas, maybe they have a point?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: and the pot flows over Posted by: Bradley86
Let's Get a Single Payer System
Posted by: pulsatrix on Jun 27, 2005 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree wholeheartedly with the previous comment. Apparently this women couldn't deal with contraception. However, I completely disagree with this statement:

"I believe every worker should have healthcare provided by the employer. It should be a right," says Bernie Hesse, director of organizing for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 789 in Minnesota.

When will we get over this notion and institute a rational, single-payer system, one where we don't depend on unreliable employers to provide health care?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sandi
Posted by: sandifehr on Jun 27, 2005 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you have two preemies and they have problems, what in the world are you doing having more children, two are sufficient. You should have saved your money for birth control , the only responsible person is you, protect yourself, have a BRAIN not CHILDREN, I am sick of paying for everyones problems, You are stupid and Wal-mart is rich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sandi Posted by: astraea
» RE: sandi Posted by: dan
» RE: sandi Posted by: ahfu2
» RE: sandi Posted by: goosepillows
Insuring children
Posted by: anewport on Jun 27, 2005 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I agree having five children when you can't afford to provide them medical care is not a wise choice. However, perhaps the woman is Catholic or of another denomination that doesn't believe in birth control. Maybe the costs of insuring children with asthma is prohibtive even through her spouses insurance.
Most insurance plans will charge extra to cover pre-exisitong conditions or exclude treating the pre-exisitng condition. Insurance plans like covering single healthy adults who only go to the doctor once a year or less. These customers create a nice profit for the company. Everyone else is a drain on profits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Insurance Industry is to blame as well
Posted by: dan10opa on Jun 27, 2005 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I detest Wal-Mart and consider it corporate communism, no one ever wants to blame the insurance industry. Aren't they the ones always raising rates, refusting to pay for the services they are paid to provide for, always changing laws via their powerful lobbying network to suit their profits and societal trends.
I think insurance companies are nothing more than legal orgnaized crime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You exemplify my argument Posted by: dan10opa
What do people expect?
Posted by: StacyM on Jun 27, 2005 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have a "culture of life" that tells you that a fertilized egg is a life; so technically, using the birth control pill or abortion is equivalent to murder. You have pharmacists across the nation denying women their birth control prescriptions, and no one seems to care. You have many rural areas where women do not have much access to reproductive options, and now with the state protecting these pharmacist gods, they have pretty much zero access. You have a president that wants to strike sex education from all schools in favor of "abstinence education."

Then you turn around and attack some woman because she is a product of the culture of life's ideal lifestyle?

And yes, we do owe these workers something; we owe it to them to make Wal-Mart give them a decent standard of living. Because I'm willing to bet almost everyone that has commented has shopped at Wal-Mart or one of it's ilk for the "Low Prices", and in doing so, feeding a beast that was anti-union and anti-American from the start. We should of never given them a cent. The day we learned about their union-busting we should have been boycotting the store and protesting it's anti-American work ethics. We should of raised more of a ruckus when small town independently owned stores had to close because they had no chance to compete due to Wal-Mart's importation of cheap goods from China. But we didn't, because those DVDs were damn cheap, weren't they? Even now, what are we focusing on in this story? The integrity of the woman, not Wal-Mart.

Why are people so adamant to protect things that are destroying our country under the banner of “capitalism”? Trust me, Wal-Mart will be fine if they give their workers a living wage – they have more than enough money to go around. We are not asking small-business owner USA to give up his supper to help his employees here, we are asking a corporate giant to do one of the most basic human decencies – be nice and share before you buy that 300th bathroom with the professional masseuse always on duty. And no one stood up and held their feet to the fire on this, we ran away whimpering with our tails between our legs at the first shouts of “Anti-capitalism!” and let Wal-Mart and it’s ilk ravage our country.

In closing, we all helped make this monster into what it is; we are all accountable for the people they hurt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What do people expect? Posted by: bhboddy
The Worst of a Large Breed
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jun 27, 2005 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wal-Mart also uses many other tactics to grow and profit at the taxpayer's expense. Many, if not most or all, Wal-Mart stores are built with bonds that are issued by the local community and guaranteed by the Feds. Take a look around a community that Wal-Mart has been in for a long time and you will see abandoned former locations. Economic Development Funds that were intended to generate living wage jobs are largely used by chain stores that operate on a model similar to Wal-Mart.

What a deal.
You get to pay for it to be built.
You get to assume the debt service.
They destroy your local stores with predatory pricing.
They sell merchandise from countries with no OSHA or EPA.
They contribute VERY LITTLE to the local community.
They cost shift their insurance onto the Medicaid system. They pay No Property taxes as a tenant.
They staff with mostly part-time workers, insuring a large turn-over-- keeping their labor costs low.

They move every decade or so into new stores built by you, the taxpayer, starting the cycle over again.

Many competitors have had to follow the model or follow the long list of companies listed as Wal-Mart roadkill. What ever happened to anti-trust laws?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dennis1361
Posted by: dennis1361 on Jun 27, 2005 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iwill only address two issues:
#1 I am an insurance broker and have been for 40 years. The insurance program at Walmart is a fraud and intended to discriminate against whole groups of people.For example defining part time as less than 35 hrs a week. Most reputable insurance contracts use 20 hours. Keep in mind it is Wal mart that is dictating the terms of coverage not the insurance carriers. The company is a disgrace and if I sold health insurance coverage similar to Wal marts I would have my license revoked for fraud.
#2 In the State of California we subsidize Wal Mart by providing $86,000,000 worth of benefits a year to their employees. We should tax Wal Mart directly for those benefits
Wal Mart represents everything that is wrong with this country. Wal Mart's corporate greed is breath taking

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Answer: Stop Shopping and Working at Wal-Mart
Posted by: jyoung on Jun 27, 2005 10:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Many state lawmakers say it's time the megastore was forced to provide affordable employee health insurance."

I feel that it's well PAST the time for people to stop shopping at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart (WM) has scaled so large, that it can do whatever it wishes, and it most likely has the law on its side too. Demand is the only thing that will cripple WM as a supplier, people need to wise up and in spirit of a recent frontline episode Stop 'shopping themselves into unemployment'.

"..."I believe every worker should have healthcare provided by the employer. It should be a right," says Bernie Hesse..."

I work for myself, and you know what, the insurance I can afford to purchase privately borders on pathetic. Wal-Mart is the coal mine of the present. Meager labor, meager pay, and economic insecurity is the new black lung. Would a better benefits plan have fixed the basic flaw for such labor of days past? WM is greedy, that's the point, and that's why it is the envy of the corporate world. Not everyone has an employer, this kind of thinking is short sighted and would be better served by contemplating either universal health coverage provided by the government, or a redesign of the way private insurance is offered by actually SEVERING it from employers - as people job hop so frequently in today's economy.

WM will never truly morph into a benevolent corporate citizen and employer. So, if a WM is coming to your town, petition to stop it. If it gets built, don't shop there. If WM is your only job option, then move. I and many people I know have made the tough decision and moved away from families to different parts of the country to hack out a living. Wake up folks, stop whining, and start paying that extra $1 to shop at a different store and don't expect WM to shift from a shareholder profiteer to a welfare state. You say it's not that simple, but sometimes it actually is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WaL Mart, Health Insurance and Knowing When to Stop
Posted by: larraine on Jun 27, 2005 11:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, Wal Mart should be offering a decent health insurance policy to ALL of its employees. Having said that, Ms. Overpopulation needs to head to her doctor and learn about birth control. If she knew she can't afford that many kids, why keep on with it? It's not as if there aren't plenty of kids that need to be adopted. Reminds me of a story I read in the Washington Post years ago about a woman who was on welfare and didn't want to have to go go to work because she said she liked having children. I'll bet she did. I don't have a lot of patience with women who can't seem to stop reproducing. I wish the author had used a better example. There are plenty of people who need health care to take care of their families' health care needs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Culture of Corporate Life
Posted by: wobuzhidao on Jun 27, 2005 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that the opening of the article left it open to critical comments. I too was put off by hearing about 4th and 5th children. Better, if using the example, would have been to EXPLODE another Wal-Martism.

There are many Wal-Marts these days that not only REFUSE to fill contraceptive prescriptions BACKED BY WAL-MART but actually confiscate the prescriptions so the woman can't go to another pharmacy (that Wal-Mart has run out of town) to get it filled. However, Wal-Mart does fill Viagra prescriptions (directly opposed to birth control), and sell condoms AT RETAIL. Seems it is indeed a MALE culture at Wal-Mart. Women & Children LAST.

Wal-Mart's meager health care that percentage-wise costs so much to use also doesn't cover birth control. I would bet IF it ever had pharmacy coverage it would only cover Wal-Mart pharmacies.

I suppose, if you can't afford the health care coverage at Wal-Mart you likely can't afford the contraceptives either and sure can't afford the abortion that is so EVIL. Let alone the doctor visits. Choice is way more than abortion.

Alternet Story on Wal-Mart & Birth Control
Wal-Mart's Wicked Ways

Google it to see more and sign petitions
Petition

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Culture of Corporate Life Posted by: faultroy
» RE: Culture of Corporate Life Posted by: wobuzhidao
» Don't take MY word for it... Posted by: wobuzhidao
No form of contraception is 100% effective!!
Posted by: verdanteye@yahoo.com on Jun 27, 2005 12:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People, no form of contraception is 100% effective. I'm surprised at the number of people who focused on that relatively unimportant side issue rather than the "meat" of the article--I think Denis the insurance agent made some great points.
If this woman had had decent insurance in the first place, she wouldn't have had to rely on public assistance, THAT'S the point. Spouting off self-righteously about how many children she had, and how much "better" you are than her is quite silly and pointless, since you really know absolutely nothing about her other than the few facts mentioned in the article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Culture of CORPORATE Life Continued...
Posted by: wobuzhidao on Jun 27, 2005 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In other related news... Pharmacists in Colorado have filed a class-action law-suit against Wal-Mart for forcing them to do the hours of paperwork at home OFF THE CLOCK.

Wal-Mart's Current Litigations

Meanwhile, Wal-Mart takes out Life Insurance on its employees PAYABLE TO WAL-MART:

"Between 1994 and 2000, the company received $30.7 million from life-insurance policies that the company had taken out on 380 Wal-Mart employees. Earning between $65,000 and $80,000 for every staff member, and upwards of $100,000 for the managers, Wal-Mart was taken to court by the families of the dead employees. Wal-Mart settled out of court for $10.4 million."

WOW! Wal-Mart STILL made more than 20 MILLION on its DEAD employees. Not the dead employees' families but WAL-MART!

Wal-Mart's Culture of Control

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FRONTLINE: Is Wal-Mart Good for America
Posted by: wobuzhidao on Jun 27, 2005 1:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jon Lehman worked for Wal-Mart for 17 years, managing six stores in four different states before he left the company in 2001 to work for a union trying to organize Wal-Mart employees.
FRONTLINE: Is Wal-Mart Good for America

... One of the arguments made in Southern California against bringing in Wal-Mart stores is that they will dump an unfair burden on the public services of the local community, whether it's Inglewood or Los Angeles or wherever. And I just want to ask you, as a Wal-Mart manager who managed several stores in four different states, did you, in fact, counsel your employees to take advantage of public assistance because Wal-Mart wasn't providing adequate care for its employees?

I had a Rolodex on my desk, and I still have the Rolodex; I took it home with me. But it's full of business cards of social service outfits in the local city that I was running a store: indigent health care organizations that provided indigent health care, soup kitchens, everything, the United Way -- all these people that I had lined up that I would call in the event that an associate came into my office and said, "I can't afford to take my child to the doctor," "I can't afford groceries," or "I'm getting kicked out of my house," or whatever. And I would actually call these places. Many times, I would take the worker down to the United Way in my truck. They didn't know what to do. I'd take them down, help them make [an] application and get some help, you know.

So you actively encouraged and involved Wal-Mart employees, as a Wal-Mart manager, in using public assistance for programs and benefits that Wal-Mart itself didn't offer?

Yes, sir. Sure, I did it all the time. And I thought I was doing a good thing at the time. Now when I look back, I think, "Wow, that's incredibly poor that the company doesn't care enough about its workers to pay them a living wage and to help them with their medical costs, to pay for their medical expenses and things like that." ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We must start taking responsibilty for ourselves
Posted by: handyrae on Jun 27, 2005 1:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please! I'm a a proud liberal, but I agree that Ms Mediger-Paul and her partner is as much at fault as Wal-Mart, if not more so. I doubt Wal-Mart had any part in the conception of any of her 5 children.

As a feminist, I am constantly agast and offended by how many of my fellow women seem to think pregnancy is something that just happens to them or they feel that they are the wronged party in an unintended pregnancy. A women is ultimately responsibilty for her reproductive life because it is she that will ultimately have to make what may be very soul-searching choices that could effect the rest of her life. Sadly, the man can walk away, the woman can't. It may not be fair, it may not be right, but it is the way the world works.

All this leads up to my saying simply, if you can't afford to care for a baby don't have one--or five as the case may be. Be responsible not only to yourself by also to any children that you already have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Weirdest line of commentary I've seen on ALternet
Posted by: Danielhh on Jun 27, 2005 3:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow! All this anger about someone having 5 kids instead of anything intelligent to say about health insurance or Walmart. I'm trying to decide what it means.

The point, as someone else tried to emphasize, is that Walmart, makes the choice to have more than 2 kids very hard becuase of its labor practises. You might also lament that this country doesn't have free health insurance for all instead of ranting about some woman who has made a different chioce than you would. Nowhere does the article suggest that the family is in anysort of dire straits, just that a bit of reasonable health insurance would go a huge distance to making that families life more comfortable. People have jumped ot conclusions to attack this woman. The only info we have is the lady has 5 kids, 2 preemies w/asthma (don't know what order the 2nd premie came in) and uses state health insurance because Walmarts sucks. Feminist: are all women who want many children societally brain-washed baby makers?

Why are there no calls that the state health insurance cover everyone like in Canada and Europe (note that in Canada this type of program was started in one province and was adopted nationally because of its success and affordablility- it can start in the US with one state too). Why no anger that this is hardly affordable largely because it is illegal to negotiate bulk buying prices for medications. This law has to be the one of the most harmful to the public, corporate purchased law that exists in America. It means that the US pays much more per person for health care for its citizens than Canada does and they get much less for that money. So Walmart employees are being neglected on all sides with a government which is working against them in almost all respects. Those Democrats who are trying to get more health care money out of Walmart are hypocrites if they don't also work against the Pharmaceutical companies who are sucking profit specifically out of Americans ill health with laws to aid that.

So much more to be said about Walmart and the sad state of the US health care system as a whole and half the responders are more worried about bitcihng about a lady having five kids.
If she loves her children, they'll be fine, and it seems to me that a few people in these commentaries could have used a little more love or a few more siblings to beat on them to get out their selfish opinions anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Executive Healthcare Plans
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Jun 27, 2005 5:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With such a poor healthcare plan for its workers, you have to wonder what gold plated healthcare plan Wallmart has for it's executives. I am sure that the Walton family has the best healthcare plan their billions can buy. Someone should look into the healthcare plan for executives and let the world see them for what they truly are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

where would they be now?
Posted by: sbc_prod on Jun 27, 2005 8:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to start by quoting the above article:

They are quick to remind the public that Wal-Mart will create 100,000 jobs this year, and that 160,000 people who didn't have health insurance previously now have it through their coverage. "The question to ask is 'where would they be without Wal-Mart?' We help insure over 900,000 Americans [which includes employees' dependents]. If all of a sudden we stopped doing that, where would we be?" asks Hurst.

I would like to venture a guess that we would probably be where we were before walmart. Perhaps some of the employees would own several of the small businesses that are now non-existant because of walmart. Maybe some of the other employees would be their employees. Maybe they would pay them decent wages and provide benefits. Quite possibly we would pay slightly higher prices for products - but does it really matter? You're paying the money now in taxes to subsidize the healthcare. Better the workers with higher wages pocket the money and funnel it back into the economy than it get funneled into walmarts pockets...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

About Children
Posted by: Luisa on Jun 27, 2005 9:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am the author of this piece and I was surprised to see the negative responses about Mediger-Paul's choice to have a big family. First, let me dispel some of the stereotypes that are floating around. Mediger-Paul is married and is not poor. As was stated in the article, she had a good-paying job as an accountant; She was not among the majority of Wal-Mart employees making less than $10/hour. Secondly, her story was simply an example of the inadequacy of Wal-Mart's health insurance, which was the issue at hand. I didn't mention issues of contraception or overpopulation because they weren't relevant. Lastly, I just want to point out that Mediger-Paul actually paid a premium for the health insurance her children received through the state system (which I did mention, though perhaps not prominently enough). The point I tried to make in this article was that the structure is faulty. The pawns in the system, whether they are low- or upper-income people, with children or without, are not the ones creating that structural weakness. Like Mediger-Paul, they simply point out the problem. Anyone, wealthy or not, could easily go bankrupt due to hospitalization that their insurance refuses to cover. It's not just poverty-stricken, single moms that are hurt by the lack of affordable, employer-provided health insurance-- in-tact, middle-income families need affordable, comprehensive health insurance, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: About Children Posted by: wobuzhidao
» RE: About Children Posted by: wobuzhidao
pursah
Posted by: pursah on Jun 29, 2005 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the lady having kids she cannot afford. Yes, Walmart doesn't beleive in birth control. Too many people means cheap labor, Walmart's lifeblood both in the USA and overseas.

Walmart and the Bushites do not believe in recreational sex. The only reason to have sex is to produce more soldiers for the empire. We are in an "endless war", you know. They can't keep reclyling forever the 50-year-olds now fighting it.

If this lady produces more soldiers, she is a hero. Send her a cheap Chinese-made American flag.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: pursah Posted by: alimor24
Leave the poor woman alone...
Posted by: antiapathy on Jul 3, 2005 12:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I stopped reading the comments halfway down the line, so I doubt anyone will actually read this, but here goes:

Why is everyone attacking the poor woman from the beginning of the story? This isn't China, people are entitled to have as many kids as they want. She obviously felt she could afford to feed and shelter five kids, so I don't see how it was irresponsible for her to have them. I don't think she wanted them to be premature or to develop asthma, so lay off the poor mother.

As for the rest of the article and comments, I agree that our nation needs a national healthcare plan. I personally believe that health care is a basic human right, and that the profit-driven nature of the current system is antithetical to the provision of that right. Also, walmart's anti-union stance is just one example of it's leadership role in the race to the bottom that is the american retail service economy. But until the majority of consumers realize that shopping there is harmful for the community we are stuck in this tragedy of the commons situation where everyone only does what they perceive is in their best financial interest, no matter what the consequences to the overall economy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A limey's take on it
Posted by: Quilpole on Jul 4, 2005 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a transplanted limey, I wince each time the special interest groups badmouth my previous home's healthcare system. I grew up 23 years under the British National Health Service (until the late 70's), and I have very little bad to say about it. You got sick, you were taken care of ... period. Okay, if you wanted a nose job for reasons of vanity, you were probably going to have to wait a year (of course, you'd still get it for free). As for all this nonsense about the high taxes needed to pay for such a system ... I pay considerably more in income taxes in the US than any of my family EVER paid in the UK under these programs (when you take into account federal, state, city, FICA, MED and so on).

Of course, Thatcher spent considerable energy in the 80's in dismantling the system, so I'm not sure I'd want to live under it now.

My point is, these types of system are not only possible, but very desirable for the entire population. The stresses accompanying unemployment are considerably eased with the knowledge that the family's healthcare is still under control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wal-Mart has no excuse
Posted by: BlueStateBitch on Jul 4, 2005 12:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Richest Americans:

1. Gates, William H III
2. Buffett, Warren Edward
3. Allen, Paul Gardner
4. Walton, Helen R
5. Walton, S Robson
6. Walton, John T
7. Walton, Jim C
8. Walton, Alice L

Case closed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wal-Mart has no excuse Posted by: goosepillows
unfair
Posted by: lindalee on Jul 5, 2005 7:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So this woman was not supposed to have babies because Walmart's health insurance was terrible? Why not just force her to get sterilized?
She is not irresponsible....she simply wants to care for her children. Walmart is evil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The simple solution to the abusive practices and policies of Wal*Mart? ....... UNION.
Posted by: redstorm on Aug 7, 2005 8:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Be it the UCFW, Teamsters or whomever ~ the solution is to help the employees become unionized. The fact that they are not "allowed" to even speak with union representatives is even more abhorrant than the measely wages they are paid and the obscene benefits they are given.... or rather, the lack thereof.
Thus, anyone reading this post who works for Wal*Mart, or anyone who cares about someone who works there ~ contact the UCFW, Wake-Up Wal*Mart or my personal favorite, the United Brotherhood of Teamsters, and offer to help them help make the money-grubbing employee-bashing trolls offer fair salaries, benefits and freedom to join a union to their employees!!!!!!!!

cyndy rich
Atkinson, NC

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just applied at walmart
Posted by: tbaggs on Jan 9, 2007 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My family needs health insurance as my husbands employer is a small business and its very expensive. So we thought I would get a job at Wal-Mart since they are such a large corporation thinking our insurance costs would be lower, And they may be I have not been hired yet. I just applied yesterday what I found interesting in this story is that I had to answer a 65 question questionier and 9 of the questions asked if I was on any form of public assistance i.e. medicaid,food stamps, AFDC, or if any immediate family members were receiving any form of assistance.. Or if we had been on assisitance in the last eighteen months. Thankfully we do not need assistance just medical insurance like the rest of the working class public. I hope I find that the medical insurance available through Wal-Mart is better than what I'm reading here. I spoke to an associate there yesterday she said she pays $50.00 a month for herself and has a $500.00 deductible she was pregnant. she has 1 child on public assistance insurance. What is worse anyway Wal-Mart not offering decent insurance premiums and coverages? Or the former hispanic woman I worked with (she has a green card) everytime her parents get sick she heads out to Mexico and brings them back to the USA to get there treatment or surgery in the emergency room or at the free clinic. she did this all the time, Her mom had her gall bladder out last year in the USA for free! After a doctor in Mexico diagnosed her. This woman told me everyone she knows does this, Just call your family member with a green card they'll bring you here go to the free clinic or E.R. get care go back to Mexico. My co workers husband owns his own business (construction) and they make great money between them new cars house etc.. But she gets public assistawnce for her medical and her childrens coverage she doesnt tell them about his work... she said we never tell his work I said thats fraud she said OH NO because he not paying taxes and no body knows because we only take cash money for our jobs... (if that don't piss you off nothing will) I have a grown child her and her spouse can not afford to pay the premiums at there jobs and do not have health insurance at all. They make to much money for the free clinic and therefore no insurance when they get sick its suffer or go further into debt. they ca not buy a house because they have medical debt unpaid on there credit files. (they are trying to fix that by making payments but after having emergency surgery its a large bill) Then I also became aware from my co-worker that if you are a hispanic first time home buyer there are "special" goverment programs that allow you to get 100% no down payment financing on a new home... AND since you do not have a social security number that belongs to you your credit is good theya re buying homes every were. I had my daughter call one of the mortgage comapnies offering these first time loans no program for her shes WHITE. Whats up with the USA not taking care of its citizens first.. I've just about had enough with the USA and I was born here and my fathers father was born here everyone else immigrants. But those sons of the immigrants they fought in World War II and Vietnam for our freedom. They learned to speak ENGLISH. Yesterday I applied for a clerical job at a local hospital and was told I HAD TO BE Bi-LINGUAL "speak spanish" (I'm not bi-lingual) So I told them to &^%$ off... I said there thats english for I was born in America.. and its commonly known as trash talk hows taht for a second language.. I'm DONE have a great day in the good ol USA... I'm still proud to be an American

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]