New York’s activist City Council has overridden a mayoral veto and declared Wal-Mart illegal within the city limits. I previously blogged about the Health Care Security Act here.
The bill, which applies to exactly one potential employer — Wal-Mart — requires that employees be offered union-level health benefits, notwithstanding the fact that Wal-Mart employees are, voluntarily, non-union.
Given that the City Council knew beforehand that the legislation would unquestionably keep Wal-Mart out of New York City and crafted it for that very purpose, the Act codifies three simple principles of legislative intent:
–It is better to be unemployed than employed.
–It is better to pay higher prices than lower prices.
–It is better to have less variety than more variety.
This is the unbridled democratic process (not to mention the unbridled Democrat process) in action: A willing employer and willing employees, a willing seller and willing buyers, all told to go f*ck themselves, because labor unions were able to buy enough local hack politicians.
Always Low Standards. Always.
UPDATE: Factually and logically flawed, but damn funny.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.kipesquire.net/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this-small.png)
Tweet This
5 responses so far ↓
Link Brian_Lib // Oct 12, 2005 at 4:27 pm
I agree that your argument here is sound, but the problem is that libertarians have not advanced an adequate argument on health care reform and how the entire quasi-public system, with its guaranteed HMO monopolies, is stifling competition.
Thus, the average man on the street sees this and thinks "good for New York for sticking up for people who otherwise couldn't get health care."
Incidentally, Wal-Mart is not blameless here either. The company has allegedly provided its own employees with instructions on how to collect state and federal health and welfare benefits — effectively benefitting from state support itself. I'd not be surprised if it pursued a similar tack in New York too, which means that either way, New Yorkers pay.
Link Tony // Oct 12, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Brian_Lib,
On the health care issue, consider the "free market" system. I don't know about you, but when I worked for an employer, I chose the health care plan they offered. It was easy and affordable. No big deal. I got a non-taxable benefit, my employer paid a tax-deductible benefit as incentive. Everyone won.
When I left that employer and became self-employed, health insurance was one of my first decisions. I saw the prices that I had to pay out of my own pocket, because my business is too small to get the tax benefits of an employer-sponsored plan, and I did what everyone in the free market does. I shopped around. I let competition work what little magic it could in this convoluted system to find the best coverage for the lowest price.
Now, isn't that what we should do in general? Why tie health insurance to an employer through tax incentives originally designed to benefit highly-paid, white collar workers? All talk seems to be centered around extending that system to lower paid, blue collar workers. That's dumb. It's tax policy as social manipulator. Free the tax implications from the employer binding, and we'll see competitive, free market reform. Laws like this anti-Wal-Mart law achieve the exact opposite of what its supporters allegedly want.
Link Brian_Lib // Oct 12, 2005 at 5:38 pm
The problem, of course, is we don't have a "free market system" in health care. One typically isn't free to shop for insurance that works best for him — he can choose from a small selection of suboptimal plans marketed by companies who are hampered by government regulations.
I agree that expecting the employer to pick up health insurance costs is a false economy — however, at the same time we should address the causes of high health care costs (odious regulation and limitation of competition).
Meanwhile, Wal Mart should not be coddled as an example of a free market success story. If not for the heavy subsidization of the welfare system (keeping its employees surviving) and the convoluted infrastructure use and tax policy that subsidizes the cost of trucking at the expense of civilian motorists, it would not be too successful in its present form.
Link The Eclectic Econoclast // Oct 14, 2005 at 1:28 am
Kevin Brancato notes at his Always Low Prices blog that a number of other businesses would also be hurt by the act.
http://alwayslowprices.net/
Link KipEsquire // Oct 14, 2005 at 8:27 am
The law applies to any business that sells groceries and employees at least 35 people. Since NYC supermarkets are all unionized and bodegas employ fewer than 35 people, Wal-Mart is the only intended target. Any other firms affected are mere collateral damage in the eyes of the City Council.
Leave a Comment
(Comments containing links are held for moderation.)