It probably would, in the US. But thats one of the only places it would. It wouldn't if you had a decent health system.

The danger is that they'll run into false diagnosis legal trouble. It is inevitable that the low quality services they'll offer in order to keep a low price will result in injury or death. But for the average person the risks would be negligible, and cheap health care is something a great many people down there need access to, so it will certainly take off.

I can see where it would work unless you were a Wal-Mart employee. Then they'd deny you service

I never said Walmart gives a shit about what you pay for healthcare. Their goal is to make a profit. The way Walmart has historically made a profit is by attracting a high volume of consumers by offering below average prices on many of their products. So, it is probable that it would take the same approach to healthcare that it does for everything else- attempt to undercut its competition by offering a lower price. 

I have news for you, odds are the doctor in the emergency room doesn't truly care about you. If you die, he or she might be upset that they were unable to help you, but they will go on living their lives and probably won't remember your name next week. I don't really give a shit if my doctor cares about me, I simply want them to care about doing their job as best they can. Give me Dr. House over any doctor who is going to give me a load of crap trying to make me believe they care personally about me. 

Why should healthcare be "free"? And you accuse me of living in a utopia. Nothing is free without slave labor, it is simply a question of who pays for it. If healthcare should be free, what about food? Shelter? Clothing? Cars? Tv's? Why or why not? Where do you draw the line? 

Completely separate issue. I am 100% against eminent domain, even when used by the government for a school and when it is used by a private company, it is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed with me because of all those fucking big government judges that have no respect for the Constitution. But that has no relation to whether or not Walmart offering medical services is a positive thing.

Then don't go to Walmart, no one will force you to. For those who don't share your blind hatred, Walmart might be able to provide them essential services at a lower price than their other options. I think that would be a positive thing for many people who are on a tight budget and need these types of services. 

Ok, correction accepted, you don't just have blind hatred towards Walmart but most every other corporation in existence except those owned by Warren Buffett. Who cares if you like them? No one is going to force you to get medical care through Walmart or CVS or anywhere else. You can go to whatever doctor you want, anywhere you want, at least until the government says you can't. 

I'm sure there is some MD out there who shares your far left ideology, I'm not going to stop you from rewarding that person with your business if you so choose. Meanwhile, Walmart and CVS can provide people of modest means medical care at a lower cost. That is good. You go to the medical facility you want, everyone else goes to the medical facility they want, where is your problem with that?

And as demonstrated by BOA the customer holds the ultimate power. The fact is a lot of people like to shop at Walmart. You don't. That is fine, those who like it will go there, those who don't go elsewhere. How is that "rigged"?

Why? Should everything else be universal too? 

What is Walmart doing other than expanding your options? If anything it is an anti-monopoly force in the medical industry as it is increasing the number of competitors. Monopoly means exclusive possession or control of the supply of a commodity or service. Where is the monopoly? And it what world does increasing the number of providers increase the likelihood of a monopoly? 

I don't know what makes you a lefty but you are one. No sense in denying it. 

Show me one instance where I challenged anyone's right to free speech or where I argued against an open market. I think on both of those issues I have been extremely consistent. It would be nice if you addressed what I'm saying for once instead of making shit up about what I supposedly said. 

The death panels are fake in the sense that people with money will always be able to pay a doctor to treat them. I'm not really worried about me, if worse comes to wrose I pay cash and get the best treatment available. When I was in the military, the government simply decided that my condition was too expensive to treat and refused to pay, I was tossed out of the military with no job, no health insurance. I can easily envision that anyone who relies on government to pay for their healthcare could run into a similar problem of their own. If you rely on others for charity you put yourself at their mercy and the governments capacity for mercy extends only as far as your vote. It is already happening with medicare where the government has substantially cut its payments to providers and some are starting to refuse to treat medicare patients. 

And why can't medical care be treated as similar to all of those? Allow the free market to work and offer charity solely to those who absolutely need it. There is a certain percentage of people who will need charity because of mistakes and a certain percentage who are simply incapable of taking care of themselves. The current debate over medical care is not talking about what to do with those people, for the most part they already qualify for medicaid. Most of the uninsured we talk about are people who could afford it, but choose not to be. Which is a legitimate choice. 

There are two very good reasons to be uninsured. First if you have a lot of accessibility to cash. Insurance is by definition more expensive than your expected average costs, so if you can afford to pay for any emergency with cash, skipping insurance will statistically be a better option. The second is if you have no assets. Insurance solely protects you on the financial side. If you owe a gigantic medical bill but have no cash and no assets you can simply declare bankruptcy and go on with your life. If you have assets, you risk losing them so you should have insurance to protect them. I think that is where the whole health care debate goes off track, health insurance is solely about the financial aspects. No American goes without healthcare, if you need vital services you can get them, the services you get without money are not as good as those you get with money, but the food you get at the food shelf doesn't include crab cakes and caviar either. 

That looks like a private charity right? I am a gigantic supporter of private charities. I wish more were around and I really fear that the government has a suppressing affect on private charity. All the money that is spent on political campaigns (Obama is expecting $1 billion this year) would be far better spent on private charities. I used to raise money for republican candidates, and I am sorry- I was a young stupid idealist. It was a significant waste of time on my part and a waste of money for all the people who's arms I twisted. I think that by far the best way to truly help those who need a hand is through private charities. Government is simply inefficient and most of the money will find its way into the pockets of people who don't need it instead of those who do. If you want to help local people who can't afford medical care, cut a check to the people themselves. The more middle-men in the way, the less money gets to those who really need/deserve it.

And back to the OP, I don't see how Walmart entering the field does anything other than make medical care more affordable for more people. No doubt, Walmart will offer the services at a significantly reduced price from your average doctor. Now I wouldn't trust Walmart with any serious medical issues as low quality generally goes along with low price, but for basic services I can see it as a convenient and cheap option. 

The difference is the significant costs associated with healthcare compared to all the others.  

What I didn't cover is my belief that through better education we can help drive those costs down.  I believe we must have affordable healthcare, that right now at this moment it could get subsidized with taxes on the 10%.  But that a significant contribution to education could drive health care costs down and over time that could tip the balance in how those programs are paid for.   

Actually I thought it was local government but it might be charity.

Probably why you support RRS.

Agreed.

I agree with that as well.  I do think health care costs need to come down.  I think businesses should be heavily rewarded for bringing part timers on just to give them access to group health insurance and benefits.  We need to change our thinking.  I work with 5 other part timers that all get 30 hours and one of those guys sucks.  He should be fired and we would have 4 full timers with benefits, but the company would never do that to avoid helping on benefits.