# New MD law forces Wal-Mart to provide health coverage - Fair or not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2006, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823 "2006-01-13T15:26:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/1 "2006-01-13T15:26:23Z")
I’m in Maryland, and while I’m not a Wal-Mart cheerleader, to target them simply because they employ over 10.000 workers seems a bit discriminatory. Is this law fair and reasonable? Is the point about the state’s picking up some Wal-Mart workers health care costs any more valid for Wal-Mart than it is for a host of other employers of minimum and lower wage part time and hourly workers? Is Wal-Mart really getting free ride at the expense of the taxpayers? [Md. forces Wal-Mart to spend more on health](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10827217/) > [@](#): > > ANNAPOLIS, Md. - Maryland legislators voted Thursday to enact a first-in-the-nation requirement that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spend more on employee health care. The measure, touted as a money-saver for the state-supported Medicaid program, takes effect despite the governor’s veto of the bill. > > Labor unions have said they are seeking similar legislation this year in at least 30 other states. Supporters say the retailing giant unfairly takes advantage of taxpayer-funded health care plans because some workers can’t afford Wal-Mart’s health insurance. > > “The taxpayers are giving a health-care subsidy to the largest retailer on earth,” argued Democratic Delegate Kumar Barve. The House and Senate, both controlled by Democrats, both notched the three-fifths margins needed to override a veto last May by Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich. > > The bill requires companies with more than 10,000 Maryland employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health care or pay the difference into the state’s Medicaid fund. Of the state’s large employers, only Wal-Mart spends less than 8 percent on health care. > > The company employs about 17,000 Marylanders at more than 40 Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores, and about 1.3 million people nationwide. > > Claims of ‘a slippery slope’ > Critics of the legislation called it a dangerous precedent that ultimately would cost Maryland jobs. > > A Wal-Mart executive called the bill a poorly worded mandate for a single company. Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mia Masten said Thursday that the bill “could be the beginning of a slippery slope.” > > “We believe everyone should have access to affordable health insurance, although this legislation does nothing to accomplish that,” said Masten, who said the retailer may partially pull out of Maryland because of the bill. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/2 "2006-01-13T15:37:40Z")
Fair according to the law or fair according to Human fairness, a sense of what is right and wrong? Fair in the law is not for me to answer, my WAG is; no it is not fair by normal business law but lets hear from some Professionals on this one. Fair by human standards, yes, everyone should have basic health care coverage, but shouldn’t we as a nation provide the health care and not create legislation that singles out one company. I think it is reprehensible that a company as large and profitable as Wal-Marts won’t provide health care to all its full time employees, but it seems to me that they have a right to be scumbags if they choose. Morally of course I think they are in the wrong but again the USA is in the wrong. One of the best Pro-Small business and working class actions we could have in this country would be to enact laws to provide basic health care for all citizens. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/3 "2006-01-13T16:11:42Z")
I’ve been working in Baltimore for the past couple of weeks and have heard and read a lot about this during that time. The political ads have been particularly painful to hear. I’m a pretty strong free-market fan, so I’m generally against this sort of mandate, especially one that appears to have been designed to target one company. Two large unionized grocery chains have been active in support of this and have spent lobbying and campaign money on it. Walmart claims that they provide affordable health insurance for their full-time employees, which I believe is true, but their business model involves a huge number of part-time folks. The law of unintended consequences looms over this law, IMO. The majority of Maryland’s counties border other states. Is it hard to envision strategic store and warehouse relocations to evade this law? Walmart employs 17,000 people in Maryland. Many of these are part-time. Some say Walmart prefers part-time people because it doesn’t have to offer benefits to them. While that undoubtedly is part of the reason for this preference, I think it also stems from the nature of retail staffing, peak hours, etc. One way of evading this law would be to fill the required staffing hours almost entirely with full-time positions. This could create a bunch of full-time jobs, get Walmart below the 10,000 threshold, and eliminate a bunch of part-time jobs. I think that many people think of part-time jobs as less desirable than full-time ones, but that’s not the case for everyone. I don’t know whether pushing Walmart into shifting to more full-time employees is a net gain for Maryland. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/4 "2006-01-13T16:14:18Z")
I’m not a big fan. If you’re so worried about this issue, maybe it’s time to seriously look at universal health care and even the playing field that way. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/5 "2006-01-13T16:17:23Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > Fa > I think it is reprehensible that a company as large and profitable as Wal-Marts won’t provide health care to all its full time employees, but it seems to me that they have a right to be scumbags if they choose. > Morally of course I think they are in the wrong but again the USA is in the wrong. One of the best Pro-Small business and working class actions we could have in this country would be to enact laws to provide basic health care for all citizens. > > Jim To some extent their “profitability” (and continued existence) is because they control costs across the board and are a highly efficient company and retail distribution engine. Is the fact that they pay less than 8% of payroll into health care due to overall corporate efficiency (including health care expenses) or the act they they are niggardly misers letting the state carry their hourly workers?. Does the fact that you are of a certain size as an employer impute a more rigorous moral and social duty to your employees relative to smaller companies? ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/6 "2006-01-13T16:20:12Z")
Since Wal-Mart’s actions were ultimately effecting MD in the form of medical bills getting covered by the state instead of private insurance, I don’t have much of a problem with them addressing it. I won’t be suprised if Wal-Mart soon has 9,999 employees in MD though. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/7 "2006-01-13T16:33:29Z")
**NurseCarmen** - The cost to Maryland’s Medicaid program is one of the issues that has been driving me a little crazy during the couple of weeks I’ve been in Maryland. The Anti-Walmart faction claims or implies that every Walmart employee who does not have medical insurance through Walmart is therefore uninsured. This claim can’t possibly be true. It would mean that there’s no one at Walmart part-time who has coverage from another job, or from their spouse’s job, or from their parents. I’m sure that there are Walmart employees who add to the Medicaid load. There are part-time, non-union employees of the two grocery chains who do the same thing. This issue has been a major point in the anti-Walmart argument, and I have yet to see any attempt to quantify it. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/8 "2006-01-13T16:37:24Z")
As I understand it, the law specifically addresses Wal-Mart. Is it legal (or proper) to write a law affecting only one employer? ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/9 "2006-01-13T16:38:21Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > I think it is reprehensible that a company as large and profitable as Wal-Marts won’t provide health care to all its full time employees **Jim** , or as I’d prefer to call you, **What Exit?** , I don’t have a cite for this, but I’ve been hearing on the radio that Walmart does offer health insurance to all of its full-time employees. The issue is the large proportion of their employees who are part-time. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/10 "2006-01-13T16:42:03Z")
> [@Dewey Finn](#): > > As I understand it, the law specifically addresses Wal-Mart. Is it legal (or proper) to write a law affecting only one employer? Dewey, the bill does not name Walmart. It is simply written with specifications that only match Walmart. There’s a charming old political term for this. > [@](#): > > The legislation is what those around Annapolis call a “red-headed Eskimo.” They are bills so specifically designed that they aid just one person, business or interest with unique qualifications - such as being an Inuit with red locks. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/11 "2006-01-13T16:51:32Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > **Jim** , or as I’d prefer to call you, **What Exit?** , I don’t have a cite for this, but I’ve been hearing on the radio that Walmart does offer health insurance to all of its full-time employees. The issue is the large proportion of their employees who are part-time. Well that is why I carefully stated Full-Time. 😉 The Law seems wrong to me. Now very wrong. I do not like many of Wal-Marts Employee practices but it does not seem fair on any level to ask them to do more than provide health care for Full-Timers. Of course I really believe in a UHS, so I guess I put the blame elsewhere to begin with. Jim ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/12 "2006-01-13T16:59:52Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > Since Wal-Mart’s actions were ultimately effecting MD in the form of medical bills getting covered by the state instead of private insurance, I don’t have much of a problem with them addressing it. I won’t be suprised if Wal-Mart soon has 9,999 employees in MD though. Exactamundo!! We need to get past the idea that every job has to come with medical benefits. In fact, employer paid heath insurance is one of the reasons health care costs are so high in this country. If something is “free”, there is no incentive to use that something wisely. Before we go saddling a company with extra costs, we need to ask ourselves if we’d be better off without the company at all-- because that’s the real alternative, especially in a geographically small state like Maryland. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/13 "2006-01-13T17:02:06Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > Fair by human standards, yes, everyone should have basic health care coverage, but shouldn’t we as a nation provide the health care and not create legislation that singles out one company. Also not commenting legally - but the reason it singles out just one company is that only one company has the gall to hire that many people and not pay a damn thing for their health care. This makes me ask “Why am I, a taxpayer, subsidizing Walmart? I won’t even shop there.” I would prefer national health care. But we don’t have that. In the meantime, Walmart benefits greatly from Medicaid - they should (morally, ethically - again, I’m not commenting legally) pay something back. ---
**Author:** ![swissmtndog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@swissmtndog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/swissmtndog)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/14 "2006-01-13T17:43:29Z")
The ironic issue regarding legislation like this is that it may very likely have the opposite effect of its intent, over the long run. Most companies of significant size are generally self-insured for their medical benefits. I’d be very surprised if Wal-Mart was not self-insured. Mandating medical insurance will likely have employers ask more health related questions of applicants than they do know. The net effect of this will be that the less healthy (smokers, this means you) will have more difficultly getting hired, which will move more of the unhealthy group under the support of Medicaid, driving their costs up. Heading toward the day where your typical employment application will involve a scale to help calculate body mass index. ---
**Author:** ![davenportavenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f8ce5/32.png) [@davenportavenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davenportavenger)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/15 "2006-01-13T18:02:53Z")
> [@amarinth](#): > > I would prefer national health care. But we don’t have that. In the meantime, Walmart benefits greatly from Medicaid - they should (morally, ethically - again, I’m not commenting legally) pay something back. Yep. This law does seem unfair in theory, but Walmart is costing MD money. They have the right to foist the costs back onto the corporation. People DO need health care, and I’d rather the company pay for it than the taxpayers, if we are not going to institute universal care for all. If they have to be forced, well, that speaks badly for them. And also, “part time” doesn’t just refer to the workers who work ten hours a week. Walmart has a practice of cutting workers’ hours to thirty-five a week, which is not full time but is way more than what I would consider “part time.” They do this specifically to get around these health care laws. Why should they be allowed to take advantage of technicalities and hand off costs to the state? Walmart employs a huge number of people, and their actions have repercussions for everyone, not just the workers. ---
**Author:** ![mazinger\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mazinger\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mazinger_z)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/16 "2006-01-13T18:32:00Z")
Surprisingly, I’m going to have to agree with what **Evil Captor** said in another thread (the one about firing, paraphrasing: ), why are companies forced to give health insurance? It was originally given as a benefit when a company couldn’t compete on salary, now we are mandating it? Are we going to mandate 401(k) to force people to save for retirement? Are we going to mandate corporate sponsored health programs so that people can stay healthy? Are we going to mandate corporations to have day care services so that its employees can be more productive? I didn’t know Wal-Mart was in the business of health insurance. This issue is only a small part of a much larger issue of universal health care. I would rather only have UHC for those who cannot afford it, even if working (well, I guess then it’s not exactly universal, is it? Wait, isn’t that Medicaid?) The idea should be that UHC should be as economic as possible, which is difficult, i.e. economizing something that is free. Personally, I would like to see corporations give the option to its employees to whether or not take the corporate health insurance or get the equivalent in base pay. UHC for the poor, too (brightline threshold, like in taxes). Insurance premiums should be dependant on the actual person to, so, I should get extra benefit because I watch and maintain my health. Is there a reason why health insurance can’t work like auto insurance? Why isn’t there corporate auto insurance? ---
**Author:** ![davenportavenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f8ce5/32.png) [@davenportavenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davenportavenger)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/17 "2006-01-13T18:50:31Z")
> [@mazinger\_z](#): > > why are companies forced to give health insurance? Because people get sick and it’s more ethical to give them treatment than to let them die in the street? Especially when we live in one of the richest countries in the world? Face it, someone is going to pay. Isn’t it better that a private company pays than taxpayers (if we do not institute universal care, which is a better option IMO than partial or total privatization)? I know that I don’t like paying more taxes for other people’s Medicare (which I do not receive) just because Walmart decides to plop itself down and drive out the higher paying, insurance carrying businesses. Many insurance companies do force people with unhealthy lifestyles to pay more since they get sick more. Also, Walmart’s health insurance policy is terrible. It does not pay for prescriptions, dental care (that’s extra), counseling, or vision. So they are still foisting off costs onto the community. One business should not have that much power. Give everyone an equal plan and let us all pay in, none of this indirect corporate welfare. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/18 "2006-01-13T18:59:35Z")
> [@davenportavenger](#): > > And also, “part time” doesn’t just refer to the workers who work ten hours a week. Walmart has a practice of cutting workers’ hours to thirty-five a week, which is not full time but is way more than what I would consider “part time.” They do this specifically to get around these health care laws. Why should they be allowed to take advantage of technicalities and hand off costs to the state? Walmart employs a huge number of people, and their actions have repercussions for everyone, not just the workers. Then why not close the part-time loophole? Require full-time benefits for anyone work more than _N_ hours, where _N_ is whatever floats your boat. ---
**Author:** ![davenportavenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f8ce5/32.png) [@davenportavenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davenportavenger)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/19 "2006-01-13T19:05:53Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Then why not close the part-time loophole? Require full-time benefits for anyone work more than _N_ hours, where _N_ is whatever floats your boat. Then Walmart will just make workers work just under whatever the new full time threshold is. They love exploiting technicalities. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823/20 "2006-01-13T19:07:40Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Then why not close the part-time loophole? Require full-time benefits for anyone work more than _N_ hours, where _N_ is whatever floats your boat. Or simply say that part-time employees get the benefits of full-time employees pro rata. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-md-law-forces-wal-mart-to-provide-health-coverage-fair-or-not/339823.md?page=2)