Current Observations Home Current Observations Home Current Observations Home

Building The Foundation For Socialized Medicine

Friday, January 13, 2006

Mark, over at South Puget Sound Libertarian, put up a post about an effort in Maryland to force Wal-Mart to provide medical coverage for it's employees or face a penalty tax. The Associated Press reports:
Maryland's Senate voted Thursday to enact a first-in-the-nation requirement that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spend more on employee health care despite the governor's veto of the legislation. The measure, touted as a money-saver for Medicaid, now goes to the House for a vote.
At least 30 state legislatures are considering similar bills.
The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 30-17 to overturn a veto of the so-called Wal-Mart bill last summer by Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich. The measure now heads to the House, where the prospects of a three-fifths vote required to overturn vetoes was less certain, though Democrats control that chamber as well.
Supporters of the bill said Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, the world's biggest retailer, unfairly costs taxpayers money by spending less than 8 percent of payroll on health care. The bill requires all companies with more than 10,000 employees to spend that much or give the state the difference. Currently, only Wal-Mart would meet the criteria in Maryland.
Mark concludes his post by pointing out that this bill flies in the face of people's or business's ability to contract for labor. He states:

Collectivism trumps contract rights again. It is considered "unfair" for a business and its employees to agree on a health care benefit if that agreement might result in employees taking advantage of the government's collectivist Medicaid program. No one forces people to work for Wal-Mart and the company provides thousands of jobs in Maryland. If Wal-Mart says, "Screw you", to the Maryland government and leaves town, as it should, then Maryland taxpayers will be on the hook for unemployment payments to thousands of people and Medicaid will be out even more. Maybe the Maryland legislature will pass a law that prevents Wal-Mart from going out of business. After all, it seems that Maryland regards Wal-Mart as an economic slave of the State.

The Governor wisely vetoed the bill and it may yet fail in the Maryland House, but I doubt it. The PC idea of "fairness" will have caused yet more economic destruction.

The US seems bound to become the "better" or "more" US, i.e., the USSR (OK, bad joke).

I'm in total agreement with what Mark says, and would like to add the following:

I predict that we will see a concerted effort to get this model passed in at least 60% of the states before the next presidential election. If they can do this, it will become the foundation for a new socialized medicine platform (a.k.a. Medical Insurance) that the Democrats will campaign on. The people behind this are using the same tactics that were used to bring us those wonderful socialist programs of Unemployment Insurance, Old Age Insurance, Disability Insurance, etc.

Here's how I see it going down: As the Social Engineers (SE's) look out on the great savanna of businesses looking for their next prey, they see the great Wal-Mart beast plodding along minding it's own business (pun intended). The SE's create a campaign whereby they propose legislation that levies a tax against very large companies for their "fair share" of what the public (foolishly) perceives should be their responsibility to society to cover the costs of their employee's medical coverage. No one has enough brains to question whether or not it's even the responsibility of Wal-Mart to provide medical coverage to its employees. Medical coverage is a benefit provided by businesses to attract employees, nothing more. The state has no authority to penalize Wal-Mart for not providing its employees with medical coverage of any kind because Wal-Mart is under no obligation to provide its employees with medical coverage.

Hypothetically speaking, this would be like the State demanding that my employer put food on my table because I'm not able to afford all my groceries and am in need of government's assistance in the form of food stamps, the cost being covered by taxpayers. If my employer would only pay me enough, the SE's argue, I wouldn't need to go to the State for food assistance. The SE's believe that my employer is indirectly responsible for my needing financial assistance and therefore should be monetarily penalized for my inability to feed my family or myself. It never occurred to these geniuses that I might need to find a higher paying job: one that fits better with my needs.

See if this rings a bell: We'll only tax the top one percent of the population with this new income tax. Only the very wealthy will have to pay into it. Besides, it's their fair share. They owe it to society.

Compare the language used to sell the American public on the income tax scheme with the language of this model. Only businesses with over 10,000 employees (currently only Wal-Mart) are subject to the tax. But what must be considered is that once the State has been given the power to tax, at one percent or one hundred percent, there is nothing stopping them from changing the amount of the tax or who it covers. If we give them the power to tax very large companies, then they must also have the power to tax very small companies, too. It's up to their discretion as to the size of business they will levy this tax upon, and at what rate.

If you doubt my words, then allow me to ask you two questions:
1. What percentage of the population is subject to the income tax, and at what rate?
2. Is it more or less than what it was when originally enacted?

This program will put into place all the authority necessary to legislate into existence a socialist medical program. With enough individual States implementing this program (I'm guessing around 60%), the federal government will have it's mandate to step in with federal minimum standards/regulations that the states will have to follow. The federal government will eventually implement their version in those states not having their own local versions, claiming that it has a "compelling interest" in those states to provide it's citizens with medical coverage. The State programs will, over time, be assimilated into the federal program and will be covered by the federal Health and Human Services umbrella. In about three years, you'll be looking at your pay stub wondering what the deduction for "HICA" is: the Health Insurance Contribution Act.

Three final predictions that depend on the first coming true:
1. All taxes collected will be paid into the general fund and will be spent on anything and everything as soon as it hits the books.
2. People will still not be able to afford nor receive medical coverage.
3. The overall quality of medical care will suffer because of government's intrusion into the medical field.

It's a sure bet: socialized medicine is coming!


Blogger Mark said...

Hypothetically speaking, this would be like the State demanding that my employer put food on my table because I'm not able to afford all my groceries and am in need of government's assistance in the form of food stamps, the cost being covered by taxpayers.

Exactly right.

12:22 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger |



Who Links