Wal-Mart

For Christmas, my wife and I gave ourselves a Wii. More about that later, but one of the benefits of the Wii is the ability to stream Netflix to our aging, non-HD, non-digital, non-flat screen TV. So, we also reactivated our Netflix account and watched some movies. I've had some documentaries on my list for a while, so I watched "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices"

Most of you who know me probably are surprised that I would even watch this movie. The trailers at the end give credit to Moveon.org, ACLU, ACORN and AFL-CIO along with a lot of others. Not exactly my top 4 BFF's. But I wanted to see what the anti-Wal-Mart movement is all about.

I initially thought the documentary was well done, however one error blew that away. In showing some newsclips, the video showed a story about a crime committed in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Taylors, SC. The newscaster was from one of the major towns close to Taylors and she accurately pronounced the town name. However, the caption super-imposed on the story said "Taylor, SC". Now a missing "s" might not be noticeable to those outside the upstate, but it stood out to me. My father was born near Taylors and I bought my first car in that area. My sister lives in that zip code and my daughter's in-laws are either in Taylors or Greer depending on the way the wind blows. My advice to Wal-Mart haters is to at least get the names of the towns right, it's important to some people.

The beginning of the video focused on towns laying down the red carpet for Wal-Mart. Later it talked about subsidies, in the form of towns paying for infrastructure: access roads, sewer, water, etc. It also talked about the small family businesses that were run out of business by Wal-Mart. I have to agree with this mantra to a certain extent. Towns and counties need to be very careful when enticing big business into the area. We've had some dispute about bringing a Bass-Pro shop to the area and I don't believe we should do it by giving away tax breaks we don't give to small businesses. The opposite side of this coin is the tax breaks we gave to big manufacturers (notably BMW and Boeing) that bring jobs and other business to the state. If a competitor to these big manufacturers wants to come to SC, we should give them the same tax breaks.

The video gave some stories that seemed to conflict with each other. For example, they would talk about the shortage of workers, forcing people to work longer hours and work on days off. Then they talked about how Wal-Mart doesn't let workers get enough hours and threatening them with replacement.

One part of the story focused on security in Wal-Mart parking lots. It was suggested that Wal-Mart have security patrols ride through the parking lot regularly. I don't know of any store that does this. I've been to malls in several cities, Costco stores, and grocery stores that have parking lots that could also be dangerous: no patrols. When there are patrols, the frequency is so low as to easily be missed. I don't see how this reduces parking-lot crime.

It was pointed out that Wal-Mart has cameras, but it was suggested that these were for anti-union activities. Maybe being anti-union has benefits? The Wal-Marts close to us do have cameras, and SC is far from a union hot-bed (although some manufacturing plants are unionized - a story for another day). One "security expert" said the cameras at Wal-Mart do nothing for security unless someone is watching them, however he completely ignored the deterrent effect. Also, even if someone was watching the camera, I don't believe they could stop a crime in process.

One part of the video focused on the discrimination that it claims is prevalent at Wal-Mart. When I complained about some problems at the local Wal-Mart, I was called back by a manager who was an African-American female. I guess Wal-Mart isn't as discriminatory in the south.


Most of the video focused on the way workers were treated: low pay and low/no benefits. I'm a believer in an employees right to work. If an employee doesn't like his job or feels he deserves more pay and/or benefits, he should get another job. If he doesn't have a degree that would allow him to get a better job, he should go back to school.

One aspect I found interesting was the claim that Wal-Mart encourages workers to seek out government assistance in the form of WIC and medicaid. By paying low-wages and offering no benefits, they are relying on government "subsidies" the video declares. Seems like a simple solution would be for the government to stop these subsidies and force Wal-Mart employees to look for other employment. This same argument would apply to subsidies for infrastructure mentioned above. But this flies in the face of more medicaid, Obamacare and more welfare. Maybe this is one inconsistency Michael Moore doesn't see.

The movie ended with a redeeming quality. It told communities how to fight Wal-Mart. Two communities were noted: Chandler, Az and Inglewood, Ca. These communities didn't want Wal-Mart to come in, so they had community meetings to educate residents. The processes they used were (mostly) above board and legal. The video shots did show one minister mis-quoting the Bible, but most shots seemed very clear. I'm all for communities voicing their issues this way, but I'm opposed to legislating a business out of business the way some anti-Wal-Mart'ers would do.

I did note the list of cities/towns where the video-maker claims Wal-Mart has been stopped. One interesting town listed was Belmont, NC. However, Belmont was also featured in the portion of the video on Wal-Mart's lack of environmental care. Seems that maybe Wal-Mart was not completely stopped. I also noted other cities that were listed that I believe have Wal-Marts (I'll check on these later). Cities determined to stop Wal-Mart need to realize that Wal-Mart may build 5 miles outside city and the area will still have the same problems, with none of the benefits.

Overall, the video was interesting and educational. I'm glad I watched it.  I think it requires an open mind when viewing and don't recommend it to everyone. I don't think Wal-Mart is a bad as they are made out to be and will post my personal views on Wal-Mart tomorrow. But for today, I think I'm going to watch another documentary...

No one should go broke....

I've been planning this post for a while, and then I just heard a comment on the radio from President Obama. He said that "no one should go broke, because they happen to get sick in this country." This is based on his pitch for health care. I thought, that the same thing applies in this situation.

My post focuses on a young couple, the Holts,  who were following the American dream. They bought a house and were raising their family. Unfortunately, their dream became a nightmare. Their children developed breathing problems to the point that their middle child was forced to take the heaviest dose of steroids a toddler could take. Mom developed migraines, dad - kidney problems. Almost five years after they bought the home, they found the source of the problems - methamphetamine. The previous occupant of the home had been dragged out of the attic by police and busted for making meth.

Meth fumes can permeate the drywall, carpet, insulation and air ducts and in this case, caused the Holts' illnesses. Cleanup of their home will cost about $30,000. The article where I found all of this information (here) detailed two other situations that were similar. Two other families' lives wrecked. To paraphrase the president - "No one should go broke in pursuit of the American dream."

Now the Holts clearly are not at fault in their situation (based on the story anyway), but who is at fault and who will pay for the cleanup? Clearly the previous occupant is at fault, but he's in jail and can't pay for the cleanup. It's not clear if they had a home inspection that should have shown the problem, but after five years, you would begin to wonder about limits of liability and statutes of limitations. They probably have a mortgage, they could walk away and leave the bank holding the meth house. But then why should the bank lose their investment? Home owner's insurance doesn't cover meth lab clean-up.

It's clear to me this is a problem and no one should go broke. The Holts have reached out to their community and the community is helping some, but new hospital visits and sporadic donations have limited their financial recovery. So, where do they go from here?

I'm afraid I don't have an answer, but I do know something that isn't the answer. I know this isn't a federal problem. The state has a mandate (through Medicaid) to provide medical assistance to the needy. The bank who holds the mortgage took some risk when they loaned the Holts money for the house, they should step up to some of the responsibility. But the majority of the burden will (and should) fall on the Holts, who through no fault of their own, made a very bad choice in homes.

As compassionate Christians, we should reach out to help people like the Holts. No one should go broke. But that doesn't mean the federal government should step in. The meth house clean-up or to health care.

Count the cost

I started to name this post "How much is that doggy in the window," but decided that most people wouldn't get the point (that phrase is from a VERY old song - older than me).

One of my favorite Bible verses is Luke 14:28. Roughly it says you should "Count the Cost" before building a house. You need to know the cost of the house before you start, otherwise you'll run out of money partway through. Of course in today's world, you wouldn't run out, you'd just run down to the bank and take out a mortgage or you'd whip out your credit card.

It occurs to me that there are times when you don't count the cost. If you're in an accident, you don't shop around for the cheapest ambulance service, you call 911 and take the first one that gets there. After the bill comes, you figure out how to pay. If you have a heart attack, you don't ask the doctor ahead of time "How much is this going to cost?" or "do I have enough money in the bank?" If your roof is leaking, you may call around for the best price/service, but you will go ahead and get it fixed, regardless how much it costs (or at least you should).

Certainly you should have money saved up to cover these kinds of cost, but that's not the subject of this post (maybe a follow-up). My question is, what situations merit this type behavior? Maybe you need a new high-def TV, but not sure whether or not you can afford it. Ok, that's probably an extreme example, but suppose your car is failing. You need a car to get to work. And because of the kids, it has to be a safe car. Do you count the cost or just go out and buy a 2010 BMW. Those cars are safe and reliable.

So my question to you is, when do you count the cost and when do you just go out and do something? This could apply to items like cars, medical treatments, etc. and it could also apply to government.

Health care - who needs it?

I was probably 23 before I even thought about health care issues. I can't remember every going to a doctor as a kid, I know I had to have a physical before college. I also know I got my shots, some from the health department. I have a vivid memory of the polio shot, a lot of us were lined up in what might have been an old school (circa 1965). I went to the infirmary at school one time while in college, it was a waste of my time and the doctors' (a story for another day).

After graduating college at the ripe old age of 22, I got married. I had health coverage on my job and my wife had coverage on her job. About a year later, we decided it was time to start planning for a family, but planning didn't include insurance. When our daughter was born, we found that we had to pay her part of the hospital bill ourselves (I think it was around $2,000 -- I still have the bill somewhere).

It turns out a lot of people don't think about insurance until they start having families. And a lot of people don't want to sign up for insurance even if they think about it.

To me, that's freedom of choice. Certainly the bills are higher today than they were in 1983 when my first was born, but if a person decides to pay their own way, they should be allowed.

It concerns me that in one of the drafts of the new health care bills, people will be FORCED to have some form of insurance. They will no longer have the option to choose to pay their own way. Some Americans are all about freedom of choice, as long as you choose their way of dealing with problems.

HIPAA gone wild - part 2

Last month I posted an entry called "HIPAA Gone Wild". I described the pain when I tried to find something out from a health provider for my wife. They refused to tell me anything, even though I'd filled out the HIPAA forms and have a full Power of Attorney for her.

Later, she called and they helped her with the information over the phone, no real identification, just a female voice. It could have been the neighbor next door for all they know.

Yesterday, we received a bill from a medical provider. I looked at it and recalled paying it months ago. Sure enough, I found the cancelled check and asked my wife to call them (knowing they wouldn't tell me anything).

They looked and saw that the payment was posted back in March. So why did I get a bill (that doesn't show the posted payment)? No one knows.

Now shouldn't they 1) post the payments and 2) process the correct bills and 3) ensure that when my wife calls, she is who she says she is? Where's HIPAA now?