I don't know whether that's the only objectionable sentence or not, but saying that a lower court opinion "albeit prolix" "failed to engage in . . . rigorous analysis" and "trampl[ed]" on your rights is outside the bounds of normal appellate argument. The point is to criticize the decision on its merits, not to insult it.

Posted at August 10, 2005 10:54 AM in response to Wal-Mart Has Idiots for Lawyers

Thanks for the link, which is to a company-sponsored website. According to the website, Wal-Mart supplies health insurance to 568,000 of its 1.2 million associates, or 47%. Mystery solved.

Posted at August 2, 2005 1:26 PM in response to AZ Welfare for Wal-Mart

Tlee, I'm willing to believe you're trying to argue in good faith argument here, but you are really twisting the facts.

First, as Nathan pointed out, you did say that less than 14% of AZ Wal-Mart employees lacked health insurance when you wrote "14 percent of union members lacked health coverage through their own job in 2003--a rate higher than Wal-Mart in Arizona." You've got to stop denying you said that when it's like right here on the same webpage we're all looking at.

Second, your suggestion that all Wal-Mart employees who lack health insurance through their job might be receiving it from the state (a suggestion that is implicit in your challenge to my presumption to the contrary) is absurd. The Kaiser report on the uninsured that you cited finds that Medicaid covers well under half of the 38% of nonelderly people who don't have employer-based health insurance. The same report finds that 70% of the uninsured come from families with a full-time worker.

Furthermore, according to a recent Wall St. Journal article (available at http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/costco_employee_benefit
s_walmart.html) Wal-Mart's annual turnover rate is 50% which implies that much more than 10% of employees are ineligible for health insurance based on a 6-month waiting period (which I repeat is almost 4 times the national average). And that's ignoring those who are eligible but can't afford the premiums.

Finally, you yourself state that Wal-Mart "insures nearly a million people" out of 1.4 million employees, which if true would put the percent of uninsured Wal-Mart employees at about 30%.

In short, it is abundantly clear, as I wrote earlier, that "there are many Wal-Mart employees who don't get health insurance from Wal-Mart but don't qualify for Medicaid either," and any suggestion to the contrary can't be taken seriously.

And by the way, I'm curious: where'd you get the figure that Wal-Mart "insures nearly a million people"? Got a data source you'd like to share with the rest of us?

Posted at August 1, 2005 4:45 PM in response to AZ Welfare for Wal-Mart

tlee,

First, your facts.

One, where do you get the idea that less than 14% of AZ Wal-Mart employees lack health insurance? The study Nathan refers to found that 10% get their health insurance from the state. Presumably there are many Wal-Mart employees who don't get health insurance from Wal-Mart but don't qualify for Medicaid either.

Two, you imply that unionized employees are doing as bad as non-unionized employees, but that is preposterous as a general matter. According to the 2004 Kaiser Family Foundation Employee Benefits survey, 96% of unionized firms offer health insurance, compared to 61% of non-unionized firms. According to the same study, unionized firms also pay a higher percentage of their employees'premiums.

Three, as for Wal-Mart's 6-month waiting period, Kaiser reports that the average waiting period for new employees to receive health insurance is 1.6 months.

Now, your argument.

You say that health care is everybody's problem and Wal-Mart shouldn't be singled out, but the fact is Wal-Mart is both the biggest employer and the worst offender among employers of any size. Of course Wal-Mart isn't the whole problem (how could it be?) but it's the logical place to start.

Posted at August 1, 2005 9:59 AM in response to AZ Welfare for Wal-Mart

On substance, I think Roberts is about as bad as it gets. At least that's how I read his Reagan-era memos, which consistently take aggressive positions to the right of other Reagan administration lawyers. Based on those memos, on his commerce clause dissent, and on the absence of any countervailing moderate actions (as opposed to words) in his record, I would question those who argue Roberts is relatively moderate or for judicial restraint good or bad.

About the only good thing you can say about him is that he's unlikely to take truly radical positions, a la Thomas. But his outward veneer of reasonableness might make him more effective than Thomas in steering the Court to the right.

All that said, at this point I would share the "pragmatic assessment that his record just doesn't provide enough grist for a successful opposition." The only thing to do is what the Senate Democrats are doing: focus on getting more documents public and hope a smoking gun emerges.

Posted at August 1, 2005 8:24 AM in response to Roberts not Bad Enough?