Wal-Mart and health insurance

Ezra has a great post on the logic of Walmart-directed outrage.  Responding to this:

Just out of curiousity, why should taxpayers be outraged? This is after all, precisely what the Democratic party has been arguing for for decades. For a half-century, Democrats have been arguing that what America really needs is a universal health-care system, funded by taxes. Indeed, the only reason why Wal-Mart employees are eligible for Medicaid in the first place is because Democrats made a push to amend Medicaid so that the working poor could get Medicaid benefits, even though they are employed.

So, it's a little silly to be complaining that Wal-Mart employees are using Medicaid benefits when the goal of the Democratic Party is ensure that everyone gets taxpayer-funded benefits.

Ezra writes:

Yep. In fact, it's probably a helluva lot more efficient for the government to be picking up the tab. What taxpayers should be outraged by is that Wal-Mart isn't following their ethos to its logical conclusion and loudly advocating for a universal health care system. They should be angry at the hypocrisy, not the usage of federal/state health programs.

Bingo.  What's bad here is that people can work full time and still be unable to afford health insurance.  It's not that Wal-Mart isn't spending enough on health insurance; they don't spend enough on wages.  Higher wages, more than anything, would make a huge difference.  Piddling over whether Wal-Mart spends 7% or 9% on health insurance is pointless.