I guess my problem here is wal-mart is just not being morally responsible. SHould a law force them to be "more" morally responsible, no, economic forces should. But whats the ecnomic force of greed? I think in instances like this the ones making those investing decision factoring in social and moral responsability are too far removed from these types of issues are not wieghted nearly as much as they should be.
Adam On 1/13/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You keep calling this wal-marts cost of doing business. It wasn't before > this law was passed. > > If we force companies to pay healthcare then we have problems. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 11:00 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: [signs of sanity] MD no longer subsidizing Walmart > > > > I'd be interested in seeing that trial. Ideally, I agree, we should not > > need medicaid at all. However, I find it interesting that people here > are > > against medicaid for octagenarians, but it's ok if we pick up part of > > walmart's cost of doing business. Hmm. Sounds to me like people have > been > > drinking the koolaid. By the way, I am not sure about this particular > > bill, but I personally think that ALL large employers should either > > provide health insurance or pay enough so people can buy their own. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:192303 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
