Letters to the editor

Discounting health

Wal-Mart's edge: getting customers to pay so much more

Editor, The Times:

I work in a public-district hospital. Many of the patients and families I work with on a daily basis aren't insured. Many of them work but can't afford coverage from their employer. That means that their employers are dumping the cost of providing their care onto us, the taxpayers.

Now we've learned that it costs Washington taxpayers $12 million per year to provide health care to Wal-Mart employees.

Wal-Mart made a $10 billion profit last year. We shouldn't be giving it this handout. As a taxpayer, I am outraged that I'm paying to help Wal-Mart get a competitive edge over other employers by helping pay for its health-care benefits.

As a health-care worker, I believe that working families deserve basic, preventative care. Otherwise, they put off getting care, which leads to higher costs later on.

The system isn't working. We desperately need the Fair Share health-care bill to pass.

— Bill Hickey, Shoreline

The vested employee

Although Wal-Mart employees receive $12 million in health-care payments from Washington state, politicians and The Times err in describing these payments as subsidies ["'State subsidy to Wal-Mart employees put at $12 million," Times, Local News, Feb. 8].

Wal-Mart would be subsidized if workers received these payments on condition of being employed by Wal-Mart. But because all citizens whose incomes fall below a certain threshold are eligible for such government assistance, Wal-Mart gains no advantage from these assistance programs.

Indeed, by making unemployment less costly for people without jobs, these programs likely raise the wages that Wal-Mart must offer in order to attract workers.

— Donald J. Boudreaux, chairman, Department of Economics, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va.

Competition is fierce

Do our lawmakers, in their relentless drive to pander to their special-interest groups, ever pause to read the news? House, Labor and Commerce Committee Chairman Steve Conway, D-Tacoma, said "We're talking about an $11 million subsidy to the most profitable corporation in the country" ["State subsidies to Wal-Mart employees put at $12 million," Local News, Feb. 8].

Despite my belief that an individual (and not corporations or other taxpayers) should bear more of the health-care costs for their own health, Conway should think before he panders. Has he not seen the headlines that Exxon-Mobil recently posted a U.S. record for corporate profits, making more than $36 billion in this last fiscal year?

A politician falling over himself to please labor unions is vexing, but a politician who is quite misleading while doing it is downright infuriating.

— Chris Allison, New York, N.Y.

The price of being cheap

More than 3,100 Wal-Mart workers in 2004 received state-subsidized health coverage. I am not a fan of Wal-Mart; I never shop there, and I deplore its "race-to-the-bottom" business strategy, which abuses its foreign suppliers and American employees alike. But it is not the bad guy here. The villain is us.

Until we recognize that health care, like national defense, transportation and education, is a basic right, worthy of taxpayer funding, we will continue to see increasing numbers of us without health insurance, or even access to life-saving health care.

For those of you thinking, "I've got mine; let the others fend for themselves," think again. You, or someone close to you, is just a union-contract renewal, or a legislative vote, or a board of director's decision, or a boss's whim away from losing your health insurance.

Just as we pool our resources as a society to buy jet fighters, K-12 education and highways for all to use, we need to set aside ideological differences and self interest to make sure all of us can get basic health care and insurance.

Taxing Wal-Mart and other large corporations will not accomplish that. Everyone needs to share in the expense.

— Al Truscott, M.D., Gig Harbor

Incomplete sentence

Reiterate without limit

Regarding "Man headed to work release" [Local News, Feb. 4], King County Superior Court Judge Laura Inveen did what she was able under current law of the "standard sentencing range of three-to-nine months."

In the plea agreement, Anthony Curtis Estrada, who said he wasn't admitting to guilt, realized he'd probably be convicted if the case went to trial; his words speak volumes to me.

The factors involved in this accident wouldn't allow [sentencing] to go outside the standard, as the judge was restricted. Under certain circumstances, I feel the court should be allowed "exceptional" sentencing [leeway].

The laws seem at times to go in favor of the one who is at fault. The law is the law and I have to live with it and respect it.

I would really like the help of the public to help change these restricted sentencings and work on passing a new law that, even if pulled over for DUI, you spend time in jail for a few months before someone is hurt. It might mess up your life in "your daily life"; it may help stop some if they knew the penalty is going to be "stiff." So before you have that stiff drink or two or three, think and call a cab or a friend to come drive you home. We're grown-ups; be responsible and don't drink and drive! This accident involving a DUI has changed our lives for ever.

I pray that Mari is on the road to recovery. She didn't choose her fate. [Another person's] choice of getting behind a wheel while over the [blood-alcohol] limit did.

I am not a vengeful person, I just feel laws should be stronger. A car being driven under the influence is a weapon.

— Pauline Anderson, Mari Anderson's aunt, Duvall

Trash transfer

Management waste

Tell reader Swend Trefethen ["Yard sale: Everything must go," Northwest Voices, Feb. 6] that I, too, have had "no answer, and no action" on my problems with Waste Management. When I called to question extra charges, they couldn't tell me why [they were included] and said the driver would call to explain. No one called.

When I wrote to the national office, which receives payments, no response. When I wrote to the Kirkland office, no response.

Businesses usually respond to a written dispute, but not Waste Management. You could be waiting a long time for help!

— Sharon Sawhill, Enumclaw