See:
Undercover at Wal-Mart

To be sure, I don't believe that a health insurance mandate is the socially-optimal outcome, just as I don't believe that socialized medicine is the optimal outcome. But it's possible that private interests don't coincide with public interests. In fact, private interests are the only reason that anybody would suggest an insurance mandate or a socialized medicine scheme in the first place.

Certainly an interesting change of heart.

I'm certain that little ire will be directed at the government for enabling such action.

A bit off topic, but 'begs the question' is not synonymous with 'raises the question.' It means to assume the conclusion of an argument in its premises.

Of course they do! Walmart's CEO is required by contract and required by law to act in the best interests of shareholders.

Not in the best interests of employees.

Not in the best interests of the American public.

Not in the best interests of competitors.

In the best interests of shareholders.

As long as lobbying is legal under the laws of our land – Congress would never turn off that spigot – the CEO of Walmart must pursue lobbying which will maximize shareholders value.

Its widespread misuse has effectively changed its meaning. I know it's a flammable topic, but you ain't going to win.

According to Walmart, 92% of all its workers have some form of health insurance. About 50% are covered by Walmart's group plans. The rest are covered by other sources, such as spouse's group plans or Medicare.

In 2007 Walmart's full time employees were not eligible for its group plans until after 6 months of work. Parttime employees had to wait 12 months.

If my information is not out-of-date, then the cashier you spoke with would not yet be in a Walmart group plan.

Over 80% of Safeway's employees belong to a union which represents them. As I understand it, benefits are negotiated by the local unions. In Southern California, UFCW Local 324 has negotiated a 6 month waiting period for new employees' health insurance coverage.

UFCW Locals 400 and 27 cover Safeway employees in the DC and Maryland area. Like Walmart non-union employees, those Safeway union employees also face a waiting period for health insurance benefits. I don't know the details.

And guess what? Something always happens!

And when it does, we have two choices as a society. We can tell this person "Tough luck-hope you don't die!", or we can do what we are currently doing, and that is to allow her to visit an emergency room even though she can't afford it. In which case society just pays her bills anyway. This, of course, is a terribly inefficient way of treating people.

There is no free market in health care. No one I know, including the most hard-core libertarians around, are comfortable with what this entails. Nor should they be.

We currently have a socialized system. It's extremely inefficient, partly because we pretend it's a free-market system.

I agree that there is no earthly reason for employers to be providing health care. But that's only because having employers involved just makes it less efficient. An efficient public option is what's needed.

And before you guys all start calling me a liberal, I've been reading Reason Magazine since I was about 8 years old.

I'm not opposed to a public option either as long as two conditions are met: 1) one can truly opt out 2) the funding can NEVER use general taxpayer funding, money confiscated from opt outers, or EVER have any sort of implicite or explicite backing/subsidization of the taxpayer; in other words, this pig will only be funded by those who voluntarily particpate in such an insurance scheme. PERIOD.

I have an aunt that worked for them for decades, and from what she says, it's a great place to work, and they tend to promote from within overwhelmingly.

As for health care, I'm upper management at a large manufacturing firm, and I'm one of the unwashed masses without health insurance. But I opted out of it.

I'm in my thirties, my wife and kids are in perfect health, and we have no family history of health problems. And since we don't have any bad habits or dangerous hobbies, I did the math, and it's cheaper to pay out of pocket for the few things we do need from time to time.

Salary and vacation time are the only things that really get my attention in an offer.

But see, you're exactly the person who should have insurance. The whole concept of insurance is to insure against something horrific happening (ie a car crash). You get a bunch of similarly healthy people, you all pitch in a little bit, and the one or two of you that gets nailed by a drunk driver doesn't have to worry about paying an astronomical hospital bill.

I don't understand why people who are old, fat, and diseased are angry that their insurance is so expensive. The only reason they have insurance at all is because the insurance companies have been forced to provide them coverage, which means the entire scheme is no longer insurance, in the true sense of the word, but theft.

"Of course people prefer different mixes of insurance. In fact, some of them choose not to have any at all, even though they have absolutely no savings at all in case something happens." //Isn't this called personal choice? And, isn't personal choice connected foot, knee, thigh, hip, shoulder, and head to personal responsibility?//

"And guess what? Something always happens!"//Yep, and this is nature's way of culling the gene pool. Foolish animals die sooner than wise animals.//

"And when it does, we have two choices as a society."//What is the mechanism that converts an individual choice into a burden for society? You say "society" has two choices, why. Why does society override the choice of the individual, which was to expose himself to death if certain things happened? When they happened he or those with whom he has personal relationships with can take care of him, why should "society" be burdened with his health care. Pine box and potters field is sufficient to address this concern.

"We can tell this person "Tough luck-hope you don't die!"//exactly..

"or we can do what we are currently doing, and that is to allow her to visit an emergency room even though she can't afford it." //Emergency rooms and health care facitlities in general are not staffed with volunteers, they are fee for service, they will remain fee for service even under a socialist plan, only with the socialist plan those who want to train and work for the fee will dwindle and soon there won't be quality health care that can be bought at any price. You'll have to be an insider to get access to that kind of health care.//

"In which case society just pays her bills anyway. This, of course, is a terribly inefficient way of treating people."//Arrgh, see above comments.//

"There is no free market in health care. No one I know, including the most hard-core libertarians around, are comfortable with what this entails. Nor should they be."//What do you propose as a solution, Peter?//

We currently have a socialized system. It's extremely inefficient, partly because we pretend it's a free-market system.//The efficient system is cash for treatment, payable upon service. No insurance, no government interference, only total cash exchanges. We don't walk into a grocery store, select items, and then fill out food insurance forms, why should we walk into a healthcare facitlity and not expect to pay as we did when we bought groceries?//

"I agree that there is no earthly reason for employers to be providing health care. But that's only because having employers involved just makes it less efficient."//Really, this is the only reason? Personal responsibility doesn't figure into your thinking at all? Why should an employer be forced to pay for your health care?//

"An efficient public option is what's needed."//See my comments about cash. It is the best public option going. You got cash, you can pay for treatment. You no gotta da cash, you no getta da treatment. People die, foolish people die sooner; it is no different than the Wildebeast on the Serengeti plains, foolish animal do foolish things, end up dead and gone; natures scheme of things, ya know.//

"And before you guys all start calling me a liberal, I've been reading Reason Magazine since I was about 8 years old."//Good on ya. But, I read Karl Marx at age 8, does that make me a communist? BTW, how long ago was your age 8?//

But, hey Peter, I am no libertarian so I can't speak to that. I am also a subscriber to Reason and have been for 18 years. Can't say I always agree with them, sometimes they lean to much towards believing that government has a legitimacy that I just can not accept.

But, my health care plan works real simple. You take care of you and yours, I'll take care of me and mine; and, neither of us will burden the other with any cost, not even for the pine box and the plot in potter's field. Any heartache and sadness that comes with that stark reality will be absorbed and overcome; or it won't, in which case the one who can't handlie it will also get a pine box and a plot in potter's field. Nature really did know what she was doing.

On a company plan, I'm lumped in with the fat, lazy, sedentary people, and so I subsidize their poor choices with a good chunk of my salary.

When I said I did the math I wasn't kidding. The eye opener was when I taught for a couple of years at a small, private high school. They didn't offer insurance, and so I paid for routine visits to the pediatrician, the normal stuff for my wife, and I had one sports related injury (7 xrays and some vicodin). I could step back at the end of that time period and see that I was saving money as compared to the average price I paid at most employers.

Look up what the chances are on a normal, healthy person with no crazy habits or hobbies having an astronomical health care need. If I was into playing those kinds of odds, I'd be buying lotto tickets every week. (Which I don't – the simple man's 401K, the Lottery ticket.)

You will never be able to opt out of the system. You are in a system now. When push comes to shove, you will get medical treatment in this country. I pay for that. And i'm ok with that.

But don't kid yourself into thinking that you can opt out.

Incidentally, if you are one the people with employer provided care, then I'm am already subsidizing that because it's tax deductible.

I'll try to summarize your argument. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

If you can't pay for health care, you should die.

According to you diagram, personal choice is connected foot, knee, thigh, hip, shoulder, and head to personal responsibility.

People who get life-threatening illnesses get them because they are foolish.

Personal choice and responsibility are the most important thing, even if you're dead.

Grocery stores are analogous to health care systems.

Foolish people are like Wildebeast on the Serengheti, and they should just die.

If people are sick and don't want to die, they should rely on their friends and family to pay for them. If they are foolish enough not to have friends and family, they should die.

You can only pay for health care with cash. If you only have a credit card, you should refrain from using it and just go ahead and die.

Reason Magazine is too pro-government for you.

People who needlessly lose their friends and family because they don't have enough cash for treatment will either get over it, or they should just die too.

The proper method of burial for foolish people and their foolishly grieving friends is a pine box in a potters field.

Did I miss anything?