Dale Franks is right here. Responding to a Washington State Senator's cry that taxpayers should be outraged by Wal-Mart's reliance on public programs for their employees, Franks observes:
Just out of curiousity, why should taxpayers be outraged? This is after all, precisely what the Democratic party has been arguing for for decades. For a half-century, Democrats have been arguing that what America really needs is a universal health-care system, funded by taxes. Indeed, the only reason why Wal-Mart employees are eligible for Medicaid in the first place is because Democrats made a push to amend Medicaid so that the working poor could get Medicaid benefits, even though they are employed.
So, it's a little silly to be complaining that Wal-Mart employees are using Medicaid benefits when the goal of the Democratic Party is ensure that everyone gets taxpayer-funded benefits.
Yep. In fact, it's probably a helluva lot more efficient for the government to be picking up the tab. What taxpayers should be outraged by is that Wal-Mart isn't following their ethos to its logical conclusion and loudly advocating for a universal health care system. They should be angry at the hypocrisy, not the usage of federal/state health programs.
That's why I'm a bit nonplussed over reports that Wal-Mart will increase their health insurance offerings. A bunch of bargain basement plans that give a couple more employees nominal coverage while loosening the pressure for a better solution doesn't strike me as particularly celebration-worthy. It's good to see Wal-Mart groaning under the public relations pressure here, but their accelerating submissiveness needs to be channeled into service of a national resolution to this problem, not a slight betterment for no one save Wal-Mart's part-time employees.
