Fair Share for Health Care Act

This is the most important bill for the taxpayers of Albany County who are still unaware that cuts from the Bush Administration is causing the County to pitch in more to help our residents without medical insurance.

I'm so amazed at the amount of people who still think their property taxes provide medical insurance to able bodied people who would rather play card games in the park while they are working! They see a few disabled folks in the park during business hours and think all their hard earned tax dollars keep going to those few unfortunate souls. I find most people are not aware that Medicaid recipients work in jobs that do not offer benefits. My favorite is "why do they stay in those jobs?" as if they can easily be hired with full healthcare elsewhere but somehow choose to be screwed! Still a new concept to some folks...not being hired with benefits. Just wait...a few more years of Bushanomics and they too will be on that 3 month waiting list for Medicaid.

I have had these same debates with republican co-workers.

We got into a debate about some state that was trying to pass legislation requiring Wal-Mart to give health care benefits. He had the usual arguments that "Why should the company have to change its very successful business model? People chose to work there, and if they don't like it they can just leave, Go elsewhere." Then he proceeded to rail against unions and the transit workers in NYC going on strike. He felt they didn't deserve raises because they are lazy. It seems he had, on more than one occasion, seen a transit worker sleeping on the job. Mind you, this is a man who is a blue color type that earns an ungodly amount of money. I was accused of being a socialist while he was a capitalist. Well I felt his arguments were not capitalist at all, just egocentric.

Here is how I responded "…I don't really disagree for the most part in the theory behind your argument. Now that slavery is gone people do have the right to go "elsewhere". It is just a little too one sided for my taste. Capitalism is about competition in the market place correct? I just don't see why you support businesses getting a pass from having to negotiate with the states in the name of Capitalism. The same argument that you made about the workers "just leaving" if they don't like what is being offered can apply to those big businesses that don't want to reimburse the states.

You have to see the government as a business. They provide services that have to be paid for, just like any other business does. They are a business that is also not exempt from having to negotiate contracts with workers (police & fire etc) like any other business does. Why do you think so many succesessful politiocians are businessmen. If you look at it honestly your argument seems self defeating.

The government is a very necessary business, that has been demonized, for some very good reasons I admit; just like people are trying to demonize Wal-Mart, for many of the very same reasons. The point is the government controls markets that other businesses want to have access to, Capitalism right? In true capitalist fashion, shouldn't they be allowed to negotiate with those businesses to come up with what best benefits their own business and their owns customers the constituents? We hire them to broker deals for us. We vote for them like investors can vote for board members. The business they are running has A LOT of overhead, like many businesses do. So they would like to cut costs. As a Republican I would think you could appreciate that.

They have to pay welfare and food stamps to the workers at some of these companies like Wal-Mart. Those workers also happen to be some of their customers. That money has to come from some place you know. So as an expense it is on the table as a negotiable reimbursable expense. And if you simply say, well we shouldn't give benefits to those workers so that they will be motivated to go "elsewhere" then you have no Wal-Mart because you don't have any workers to man it. Your argument defeats itself again. So I suppose the states feel "if those companies don't like it they can go else where"; your same argument now from a two sided perspective. So those states with better pricing tend to attract more business. That sounds fair and capitalist to me. If states find the benefit of having a Wal-Mart out weighs the costs, then they might pay to play. It could also be that once some states negotiate their market price to include reimbursements from Wal-Mart that other states might want to get the same deal. That is competitive driven pricing, and therfore Capitalism.

Of course Wal-Mart could always hire illegal immigrants, which I know you don't support, but after all the imigrants have used your advice. They didn't like the working conditions at home so they moved "elsewhere", and as far as the unions are concerned, they are a business as well. A group of investors got together and formed a business that provides a service that they get paid for, and therefore they are a business like any other business. And like a business they are trying to negotiate their price. The only way they have any leverage is by uniting into a union. Remember Norma Rae? But this still seems very democratic and capitalistic to me. Why should some people be allowed to form a business and not others. Yes the business models are different for all of these companies. So why should the business model of Wal-Mart be sacrosanct and not the others. The CEOs of these companies, like Wal-Mart, negotiate huge contracts to run the company. Contracts where they get paid millions of dollars with bonuses, stock options, and all kinds of benefits health and otherwise, I might add. It would seem a little elitist to say that some big wig in the company has a right to negotiate the terms of his contract while telling the workers on the bottom that they can't be allowed to negotiate theirs. Such a person would seem to be saying I have more value to this company than you do. Individually he probably does, but we know collectively he doesn't. He has no business without workers; hence the unions.

Of course a lot of the businesses do go "elsewhere". Look at all of the outsourcing to India. Finally, the companies have leverage in negotiating with the workers, but alas we are back where we started. Workers having to choose between no job or one that pays third world wages with no health benefits. I suppose they could move "elsewhere"... India perhaps!