I’ll Have A Latte Grande, Extra Froth

"With an X-Ray And A Side of Aspirin?"

I absolutely love a good cup of coffee. The stronger the blend and fresher the brew, all the better.

There was a time some years ago when I started every single day drinking four or five cups of coffee—with a little cream and sugar, thank you very much.

I also really, really like espresso and cappuccino and I once owned my own $300 countertop steam machine that would make four cups of espresso or two big mugs of cappuccino. I lost it when my home burned down.

I’ve since dropped my coffee habit, but today my friend Wayne is a "Starbucks Coffee" junkie.

You know what I mean by "Starbucks Coffee" junkie, don’t you?

He goes to Starbucks almost every day, pays a monthly fee to use their wireless internet connection, and he knows all of their special technical jargon to use when ordering "Decaf Komodo Dragon Blend" or an eight dollar cup of iced “whatever.”

Ordering coffee at Starbucks could be a spectator sport. One employee could stand by and act like an umpire or referee and call fouls and hand out penalties for improper use of their cryptic in-house technical jargon.

But EIGHT DOLLARS dollars for a cup of cold coffee?

None for me…thank you any way…

I guess that there is no wonder that Starbucks charges so much for their coffee when their CEO makes revelations like this:

“WASHINGTON -- Starbucks will spend more on health insurance for its employees this year than on raw materials needed to brew its coffee, Chairman Howard Schultz said Wednesday as he decried a health care crisis that could soon overwhelm U.S. businesses.”

Of course, in declaring a healthcare crisis, Chairman Schultz is failing to accept his own companies’ part of the blame in making the very business decisions that have lead to the high insurance costs in the first place.

And what is his solution?

Not lowering their own costs by limiting the number of employees who are eligible for health insurance. He wants GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN and save the day.

“Schultz, whose Seattle-based company provides health care coverage to employees who work at least 20 hours a week, said Starbucks has faced double-digit increases in insurance costs each of the last four years.

"It's completely non-sustainable," he said, even for companies such as his that "want to do the right thing."

Schultz made the comments Wednesday at a meeting with Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. and Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash. The event was one of several organized by Schultz and other executives to call attention to health insurance costs.

"I would hope congressional leaders put this at the front of their agenda," said Schultz, noting that most of the estimated 45 million uninsured Americans have jobs.

Let me tell you, there are sound business reasons that companies have historically limited eligibility for company health insurance policies, none of which involved “screwing the employee” or being Ebenezer Scrooge or anything.

It shouldn’t take a degree in economics to understand the simple fact that it costs more to insure two employees working 20 hours each week than it does to insure one employee working 40 hours per week. If the price of disposable cups or sugar or coffee beans gets too high, does Schultz call FEMA or Allan Greenspan to step in?

No, he gets on the phone to his purchasing agent and gets him to lower costs by finding new suppliers and vendors. It’s their choice as a company to provide the benefits, there isn’t a union or a state law behind their charity, and so what is this guy complaining about in the first place?

“The rising cost of health care has made that dream increasingly difficult, he said. The company expects to spend about $200 million this year for health care for its 80,000 U.S. employees - more than the total amount it spends on green coffee from Africa, Indonesia and other sites.

Starbucks has about 100,000 employees worldwide, Schultz said, including about 65 percent who work part-time. Increasingly, the company is hiring older workers, who are attracted in large part by the company's generous benefits, he said.”

Let’s see…80,000 employees…$200,000,000 cost…THAT’S AVERAGES OUT TO ONLY $2,500 PER EMPLOYEE PER YEAR—a little over $200 per month. And what about the over seas employees—are they too elligable for health insurance, or are they doomed to suffer with voodoo and witch doctors if they live in Haiti and Columbia?

Schultz then turns right around and admits that the company has benefited from their generous employee benefit program:

“Lest anyone get the idea the company is altruistic, Schultz said its benefits policy is a key reason Starbucks has low employee turnover and high productivity - facts he said were reflected in the company's increased stock price, which has more than doubled in the past five years.”

In my opinion, Starbucks purported high insurance costs are no reason for our government to start further messing around with our healthcare program. If Mr. Schultz wants to provide health insurance for the cats and dogs and “domestic partners” of every single one of his employees, and Starbucks customers are willing to pay $10 or $12 or even $20 for a humble cup of Joe…

LET THEM.

Just realize that what you are really paying over half your money for is employee X-rays and pap-smears.

Meanwhile, I’ll continue to worry about financing my own healthcare costs as I drink most of my coffee in my home, where my wireless internet connection costs $49.99 per month.

Maybe I can get the government to step in and do something about the fact that my internet costs exceed the cost of coffee beans here on St. Simons.

Make your checks payable to Virgil Rogers at...