Mr. Pro and Mr. Con Talk About Wal-Mart
(Because I think it's fun, I'm going to have another fake conversation here. This time, the topic will be "Wal-Mart," specifically the bill that just passed in Maryland that requires companies with over 10,000 employees in that state to spend no less than 8% of their payroll on employee health care costs. Since Wal-Mart is the only company this law currently applies to, the bill has been dubbed the "Wal-Mart Bill." Go to it, fellows...)
Pro: I'm for the Wal-Mart Bill (WMB), mostly because I hate shopping at Wal-Mart. It's so dirty, and it's crawling with...anyway, for purposes of this debate, I'm going to say that if Wal-Mart wants to sell their underpriced imported goods at so many stores and employ 17,000 Marylanders, they must be made our b____, health-care-wise. Health care is such a grave expense for most people, and we don't want socialized medicine, so let Wal-Mart pay for it. If Wal-Mart is going to create poor people by employing them, they need to pay for the health care of those poor people.
Con: Leave Wal-Mart alone. Sure, they employ creepy people to stare at you as you leave, and they treat their employees like crap, and all their products are made in hellish sweatshops, and they want to rule the world. Who doesn't do that? If Sears & Joe Buck would have thought of the idea instead of Sam Walton, you bet they would have done it. It's not Wal-Mart's fault, it's transportation's fault. You see, if we couldn't travel to China and have access to all those poor communist people, Wal-Mart couldn't exist. Blame boats, and blame Chairman Mao.
Pro: Um, it's Roebuck, stupid. And that's all well and good, but people still need health care, and we need a better system for that. Our unions have failed. In many ways, the system has failed.
Con: But this is the first step towards socialized medicine, you Rodham. First, it's Wal-Mart paying their "fair share." Then, next thing you know, we're all waiting in line with diseased people for 2 hours to see a dirty doctor at a free clinic, and nobody can get a lung transplant. Is that what you want?
Pro: Look, don't slippery slope me. What do you propose we do, then, about this Wal-Mart and its lies?
Con: First of all, I would do nothing. Let nature take its course. Survival of the fittest. Then, when America is one big Wal-Mart with some churches inside it, we can make them pay 8% of their payroll costs for everyone's health care.
Pro: So your point is they're not big enough.
Con: Exactly.
Pro: That's stupid, and I'm leaving.
Con: But we haven't settled anything yet! Maryland's passed this law, and we don't know what it all means!
Pro: What is means is this: If you're going to try to turn your good business idea into a destructive monoploy, don't be surprised if everyone hates you. Just ask Bill Gates.
Con: But he was Time's "Man of the Year."
Pro: ...Along with Bono and his wife...
Con: Good point. Must have been a slow year.
Pro: I'm for the Wal-Mart Bill (WMB), mostly because I hate shopping at Wal-Mart. It's so dirty, and it's crawling with...anyway, for purposes of this debate, I'm going to say that if Wal-Mart wants to sell their underpriced imported goods at so many stores and employ 17,000 Marylanders, they must be made our b____, health-care-wise. Health care is such a grave expense for most people, and we don't want socialized medicine, so let Wal-Mart pay for it. If Wal-Mart is going to create poor people by employing them, they need to pay for the health care of those poor people.
Con: Leave Wal-Mart alone. Sure, they employ creepy people to stare at you as you leave, and they treat their employees like crap, and all their products are made in hellish sweatshops, and they want to rule the world. Who doesn't do that? If Sears & Joe Buck would have thought of the idea instead of Sam Walton, you bet they would have done it. It's not Wal-Mart's fault, it's transportation's fault. You see, if we couldn't travel to China and have access to all those poor communist people, Wal-Mart couldn't exist. Blame boats, and blame Chairman Mao.
Pro: Um, it's Roebuck, stupid. And that's all well and good, but people still need health care, and we need a better system for that. Our unions have failed. In many ways, the system has failed.
Con: But this is the first step towards socialized medicine, you Rodham. First, it's Wal-Mart paying their "fair share." Then, next thing you know, we're all waiting in line with diseased people for 2 hours to see a dirty doctor at a free clinic, and nobody can get a lung transplant. Is that what you want?
Pro: Look, don't slippery slope me. What do you propose we do, then, about this Wal-Mart and its lies?
Con: First of all, I would do nothing. Let nature take its course. Survival of the fittest. Then, when America is one big Wal-Mart with some churches inside it, we can make them pay 8% of their payroll costs for everyone's health care.
Pro: So your point is they're not big enough.
Con: Exactly.
Pro: That's stupid, and I'm leaving.
Con: But we haven't settled anything yet! Maryland's passed this law, and we don't know what it all means!
Pro: What is means is this: If you're going to try to turn your good business idea into a destructive monoploy, don't be surprised if everyone hates you. Just ask Bill Gates.
Con: But he was Time's "Man of the Year."
Pro: ...Along with Bono and his wife...
Con: Good point. Must have been a slow year.
posted by Mike Pape @ 6:41 AM
2 Comments:
At 10:35 AM,
Anonymous said…
It's great to see Maryland work to improve health care for employee's as companies such as Walmart would be required to provide no less than 8% of their payroll for employee health care. This law will be a pro as it will help many with health insurance coverage since we are in a major crisis with over 45 million which lack coverage.
At 8:53 PM,
Mike Pape said…
I think your ideas are intriguing, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Post a Comment
<< Home