I'm curious, who thinks this is a good idea?

Md. Senate OKs 'Wal-Mart' payroll tax legislation
Senate joins House, OKs bill that would affect only retailer; Veto by governor looms; Low spending on benefits would trigger penalties
By David Nitkin
Sun Staff
Originally published April 5, 2005, 10:55 PM EDT
Maryland would become the first state to tax large companies that failed to meet a mandatory level of employee health-care benefits under a bill approved Tuesday by the state Senate.

The measure would affect one corporation, retailing behemoth Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which sent representatives from its Bentonville, Ark., headquarters to argue against it at committee hearings this year. But other, smaller businesses worried that the measure could be altered to include them in the future.

Under the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act, for-profit companies with 10,000 or more workers would pay a levy to the state if they failed to spend 8 percent of their payroll costs on health care.

Large not-for-profit organizations such as the Johns Hopkins University would face a 6 percent payroll requirement.

The House of Delegates passed a slightly different version of the legislation last month.

The discrepancies are expected to be reconciled, after which bill would head to Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s desk. Ehrlich has indicated that he would veto the measure, and proponents are pledging a veto override attempt next year if necessary.

As a practical matter, four large Maryland employers would be covered by the bill: Wal-Mart; Giant Food Inc.; Johns Hopkins; and defense contractor Northrop-Grumman. But only Wal- Mart would be required to pay the tax because it does not reach the 8 percent threshold.

The legislation was adopted after three days of intense Senate debate during which lawmakers explored whether the responsibility for health care for lower-income hourly wage earners is best borne by government or by the private sector.

Critics said it is wrong for lawmakers to target one company and require operating expenditures when such benefits could be negotiated between management and employees.

By adopting a new mandate, they said, Maryland would cement its reputation as a state unfriendly to business where liberal lawmakers trample on free- market principles.

"What we are doing is something that no other state has ever done," said Sen. E.J. Pipkin, an Eastern Shore Republican who led the fight against the legislation. "This is the most dangerous bill to job creation that the great state of Maryland has seen in 10 years."

Supporters said that because many Wal-Mart workers are not covered by health benefits, its employees and their children disproportionately rely on Medicaid and other government programs. As a result, they said, other tax-paying businesses are subsidizing the chain's profits.

"It's cost-shifting, ladies and gentleman," said Sen. Paul G. Pinsky, a Prince George's County Democrat. "When the state pays employers' health care, it's nothing more than corporate welfare."

With business opposition running high, Ehrlich, through a spokeswoman, has promised a veto. "In a heartbeat," said spokeswoman Shareese N. DeLeaver.

The bill passed by a veto-proof 30-16 majority in the Senate. Three Democrats, Philip C. Jimeno, James E. DeGrange Sr. and John C. Astle, all of Anne Arundel County, joined with Republicans in opposition.

The House vote fell one short of the three-fifth majority needed for an override, but proponents said some supporters missed the vote.

"This bill is going to become law," said Vincent DeMarco, president of the Maryland Citizens' Health Initiative. "We hope it's with the governor's support. His veto will be overridden."

Any override attempt would be made in the early days of next year's Assembly session.

A Wal-Mart spokesman said Tuesday that the company continues to oppose the legislation, although it claims to spend 7 percent to 8 percent of its Maryland payroll on employee health benefits.

"Our nation, including large and small employers, faces a health care crisis, and unfairly targeting individual corporations as this bill clearly does is not the answer," said Nate Hurst, public and government relations manager for Wal-Mart in Arkansas.

Hurst said full- and part-time Wal-Mart employees are offered health care benefits, and that 52 percent of the company's more than 15,000 employees in Maryland are covered by health plans.

Ellen Valentino, director of the National Federation of Independent Business in Maryland, said small businesses also oppose the bill, fearing that it could affect them in the future as lawmakers consider changing the threshold for number of employees.

"The focus on health care needs to be on the search for affordability, not the expansion of government programs and the imposition of new taxes to pay for them," Valentino said.

Legislative debate captured national concern and ambivalence over Wal-Mart.

Sen. Leonard H. Teitelbaum, a Montgomery County Democrat, quoted from a Democratic staff study, prepared for a congressional committee, which concluded that the federal government subsidizes $2,100 in health care and other costs for each Wal-Mart employee annually.

"Each of us is funding this behemoth," Teitelbaum said.

Eastern Shore Sen. J. Lowell Stoltzfus, the minority leader, fretted that Wal-Mart might abandon plans to build a distribution center on the Shore, where the expected $12-an-hour jobs are highly anticipated.

Republican lawmakers noted that the bill is backed by Wal-Mart's competitors in the grocery business, namely Giant.

"No good business goes unpunished by this legislature," said Sen. Andrew P. Harris, the minority whip from Baltimore County. "And that is what this bill does."

What employer doesn't?

Are you serious with that question?

Somewhat. Look, slavery is illegal in the US -- no one forces anyone to work for anyone else. I have negotiated to some degree with every single employer I have ever had, from a farmer I worked for from age 12-16 to my current one. Never got everything I wanted, but if I hadn't reached an acceptable agreement I would not have worked there.

Go to Wal-Mart today and apply and I'll bet there is some wiggle (negotiation) room as to what dept. you work in, your hours/days of work, FT/PT status, what benefits you wanna sign-up for, and even pay (where you fit within certain pay grades).

I just hope the legislators understand that this will merely reduce wages. Companies are not going to change their bottom lines.

Wages/benefits are all in one "pool" (as my employer so eloquently describes it when it's negotiation time). Take a little out of the "pool" to pay increased health benefits and it'll come out of wages, meaning less bring home pay. Each employee will only get X amount of dollars spent on them. Which is fine by me, since a person with no health insurance has to be more of a drain on society than somebody making $7 an hour instead of $8.

Employees can boycott Wal-Mart if they want. Work somewhere else. Liberals...

I agree. I'm just pointing out it's a cause and effect situation.

So let me play devil's advocate since it's no fun to agree. Why just single out large companies? Because they can afford it? It's a "rob from the rich to give to the poor" slippery slope. Would you agree if the mom and pop store on the corner was forced to pay more for insurance?

Wal-mart will continue it's "Global Domination" no matter what happens...

It is an accurate label -- the author and most supporters of the bill are liberals. Why are liberals so ashamed of being called what they are?

If a company of > 10000 employees should be forced to pay 8% of wages for health insurance is it in any way "fair" for companies < 10000 (99.99% of companies in MD) to be required to pay zero?

Is it "fair" that for the most part only Wal-Mart employees will benefit from this law?

The law will only help benefit Marylanders. It only singles out Wal-Mart because it's the only employer who employs that many people, if Kmart or another corporation comes into Maryland who has that many employees they'll have to do the same thing. Wal-Mart's treatment of it's employees is notoriously bad, therefore the gov't has to come in and protect the worker.

From the Washington Post April 7,2005



Interesting to see who is lobbying for this bill...Giant Food LLC and the union that represents their workers.

Yet, the real question is, does Wal-Mart adequately provide the opportunity for effective health care for its employees?

So what incentive does a big business have to move to MD, or a large business to get larger? Even if this law does not affect them MD gets even more of a reputation for being anti-business. Great.

Why can't workers at Wal-Mart "protect" themselves when all other MD workers are able to?

I know nothing about what benefits Wal-Mart offers, but when I worked at the hospital as a part timer, the health insurance was obscene. It would have been half my paycheck. Full timers paid less, I guess because they put in more hours.
Luckily hubby had good benefits through his job.

Ironic that the person who makes less must pay more, but then will usually forgo the insurance because they need the money. Then they get sick, have to pay out of pocket, plus miss work, for which they may not even have sick leave pay. The whole system is messed up. It falls back to healthcare in general, then dominoes down to the businesses and employees.

Because Wal-Mart is the only company in MD to offer such crappy benefits. Why is it that Wal-Mart is the only company that would be affected by this new law? Because Wal-Mart is the only company that treats it's employees like this.

Phish -- You're joking right? The only company to offer such crappy benefits? You're joking or grossly ignorant, which is it?

BTW -- has anyone ever forced anyone to work at Wal-Mart?
_________________________________

Understanding the Wal-Mart Effect

By Max Borders Published 04/11/2005

I'm writing this column in West Virginia, USA having just come back from shopping in Wal-Mart, the extraordinarily successful supermarket chain that makes our own look slow and tiny -- not to mention expensive! I had to keep blinking at the price labels. With my notion of prices tied to British expectations, Wal-Mart's just look as though the staff can't do their sums."

- John Blundell in the New Scotsman



Wal-Mart is rarely the object of such praise. To be the best is usually to be the object of scorn. Wal-Mart knows this well. They are the best, and their critics would have you believe that the mammoth retail chain earned its laurels through unfair competition, civic destruction, even third world exploitation. The stories are familiar: In order to offer such low prices (always), Wal-Mart:



- Puts Mom-n-Pop shops out of business.

- Contributes to the burgeoning of third world sweatshops.

- Degrades communities by introducing a big box aesthetic.

- Makes the Walton family and shareholders even richer.



But it's time we looked a little deeper into what can only be called the "Wal-Mart effect."



Boone, North Carolina (named for the famous Dan'l) is a college town nestled in the rustic mountains of Appalachia. The population is divided roughly among groups of students, locals, and the academic elite. Such a microcosm of American diversity works in its own way. The locals realize how much money the university brings in. The students love the Smoky Mountain amenities and the bluegrass music. Academics find the local folkways charming and complementary to their status as, well, elites. But when Wal-Mart decided to come along in the 90s, locals, students, and academics also had a common purpose to bind them: to keep Wal-Mart out.


As it often does, Wal-Mart won. And since then, Boone has experienced the Wal-Mart effect. First, some Mom-n-Pop shops in Boone may have gone out of business due to the intense competition. But something interesting has happened: many new businesses have sprung up and they're cooler, more interesting, and more highly specialized than most of the old ones were. Mom-n-Pop have decided to move into more boutique-style businesses -- and not even Wal-Mart can compete with that.



For example, Hands Gallery -- formed c. 1998 -- is an interesting fixture for visitors to the downtown King Street area, offering indigenous art and sculpture for more refined tastes. While taking in the spring verdancy or autumn foliage of the high country, visitors can take jaunts through nearby Blowing Rock and Banner Elk for the utterly zoned and picturesque experience (and, of course, denizens of these planned towns take advantage of Boone's big boxes along highway 321).



But big boxes and all, downtown Boone offers its own home-grown order, complete with quirky restaurants and shops one might have found on the corner of Haight and Ashbury. An eclectic mix of businesses line the main thoroughfare. Earth Fare, an organic foods store, has come to King Street. Older fixtures such as the Appalachian Antique Mall and Mast General Store (retail) have enjoyed continued success and remain favorite establishments for shoppers. You'll even find "Josh," a vagrant everyone in Boone knows, selling poetry and beaded jewelry to passers by.



The question becomes: do we really need small, inefficient and expensive shops to supply us with our shaving cream and plastic laundry baskets? How vibrant is a downtown where such items are being hocked? Since Wal-Mart consolidates these kinds of goods into "big boxes," we, like John Blundell, can get them for dirt cheap all in one place. Charming downtown areas can then evolve into gorgeous window-shopping and restaurant-hopping districts for both locals and tourists. In the meantime, everyone knows where to go to get the bare necessities quickly and at a lower cost.



The Wal-Mart effect is happening all over the country, allowing many municipalities to renew their town centers. In fact, residents able to reduce their day-to-day shopping budgets at Wal-Mart have more money left to spend on the things that make life great and towns charming -- whether it's hand-blown glass or delicious roadside produce grown by local farmers. (Take it from me, no big box can do Silver Queen corn like North Carolina farmers on the side of the road.)



Wal-Mart has also made concerted efforts to work with communities to stylize their stores, especially in cases where such is desired by the locals. The result is that the big box look is not always battleship blue corrugated metal with plastic letters. Wal-Marts come in all manner of brick, stone and Mediterranean styles.



The Wal-Mart effect may be destructive from time to time, but it's also profoundly creative. Wal-Mart has inadvertently hastened the pace of specialization and municipal renewal. As consumers, of course, we only benefit from the presence of Wal-Mart and other big box retailers. People in developing countries and at home are being lifted from squalor because Wal-Mart seeks out the great, low-cost products they offer. Wal-Mart is also giving a lot of people opportunities to earn a living -- including retirees who want to stay active as well as immigrants prepared to accept the wages Wal-Mart offers. Don Boudreaux puts it succinctly here:



"And because Wal-Mart indisputably keeps prices to consumers low, by far the most plausible conclusion is that Wal-Mart promotes the economic prosperity of the places it which it operates -- it creates better jobs and increases the availability of goods and services. In short, Wal-Mart makes its workers and its customers (and, yes, its stockholders) wealthier."



The Wal-Mart effect is overwhelmingly beneficial.



As prices continue to fall and quality continues to improve, critics of Wal-Mart will have a tougher time resisting the temptation to shop there. In the meantime, I'll be enjoying shorter lines, lower prices, quality products, and smiley-face stickers.



Max Borders is a writer and Wal-Mart shopper in the Washington, DC area.

Don't be a BMIC, Snoopy. You can do away with your holier-than-thou attitude and still have an affective debate. Or don't you know how to do that without being insulting?

I should have clarified that Wal-Mart certainly isn't the only company to offer crappy benefits. Rather, they're the only company in Maryland who would be affected by this bill because they CAN afford to provide good benefits, but choose not to.

So answer my question Snoopy. Why is it that Wal-Mart would be the only company affected by this?

Regarding your article below, I don't think anybody on this board was disputing that Wal-Mart offers great prices and brings employment to the area. But with such a giant as Wal-Mart, and all the billions of dollars they make every year, why can't they treat their employees better?

Because there are only 4 companies total in MD with over 10,000 employees. Wal-Mart spends around 7 to 8%. The other 3 spend at least 8%.

Answer my question now: What prevents employees from choosing somewhere else to work if they don't like Wal-Mart's offerings? Isn't that capitalism? If you don't like the pay or benefits or kob offered by my company, you're free to go work elsewhere.

BTW -- I guess it is the new insult here, saying someone is like BMIC if you don't like their post. That's quite ironic, coming from someone like you who has used some nasty insults themselves...

and when was the last time you went job hunting, Snoopy? I know, you probably have a good job, with a good company, with good benefits.

But sometimes finding another job is easier said than done.

Many times, Yoss. Took my current job in 2002. And as to my current job -- I wish it were all you say...

Look, I have no Wal-Mart stock, know no one close to me who works there, have no self-interest in the company or the law. But I don't like seeing unfair, anti-business practices in my state. MD is so da#n liberal in so many ways I am seriously considering moving, despite having spent 38 years here.

No, Wal-Mart is spending less than 8%. According to your article: Therefore, Wal-Mart is failing to meet the 8 percent. The other 3 spend at least 8%, why can't Wal-Mart? IMO, they're greedy batards who would rather stiff their employees so they can lower their prices and be on top of the market.

Nobody is forced to work anywhere Snoopy, but sometimes you take what you can get. Maybe you've never been unemployed or laid off, but sometimes people do what they have to in order to provide for their family. Consider yourself lucky if you've never experienced that.

I've posted nasty insults? IF that's true, then I'm sure it was when I was provoked, or in response to someone else's nastiness. But I don't go around calling people on this board names. I didn't say you were like BMIC because I didn't like your post. If anything, that is something you are guilty of - you didn't like my post so you said I was ignorant. BMIC would often times call people names when he didn't like their post (liberal, redneck, transplant, etc.). That's not something I'm guilty of, but maybe you should re-read your response to my post.

Who'd be all for it if they said this law applied to all for-profit companies, regardless of size?

That's idiotic because not all companies can afford to do that, Wal-Mart CAN which is what the Maryland legislature is saying, and what Phish and I are trying desperatly to explain to you.

Why can't all companies afford it? There are small companies with higher profit margins than Wal-Mart. Aren't they "greedy bastards" too if they do not spend 8% of payroll on health insurance?

Look at it another way.. You wanna talk affordability. Okay. By what criteria do you (or the government) consider whether a company "can afford" it? How about if their profits are over a certain level they have to pay the 8% for insurance or else they're "greedy bastards" who can "afford" it and we can't have that? Would you go for that?

Wal-Mart can obviously afford to pay benefits to it's employees being one the top companies in the USA and the world, in fact Wal-Mart is one of China's largest training partner. The mom and pop pharmacy that has ten locations throughout Maryland obviously can't.

You avoided answering my question.

You brought up "affordability" as the reason Wal-Mart should be required to pay 8% of payroll for health benefits.

What if I have a 500 person company with a profit margin 3x that of Wal-Mart. Say I make $10M a year net profit. Can't I "afford" to pay the same 8%? Why not make me do it, too?

I seriously doubt that there is a company in Maryland that has 500 employees, and has higher profits than Wal-Mart, one of the largest companies in the world.

Hey folks -- sorry I've been off the board for awhile. Work's been keeping me busy.

If you're interested here's my take on the Wal-Mart bill, which'll go out on the wire tomorrow:

WVU, you insult my proposals as "idiotic" and complain that you're "trying desperatly to explain" this issue to me as though I'm dense, yet you seem either unable or unwilling to comprehend the rather simple concept of profit margin.

If you have a 1 person company that makes a 30% net profit on whatever it sells (maybe a person selling home-made candles and crafts, for example) that company has a profit margin 3x higher than a company (say Wal-Mart) that has a net profit of 10% (for example) of its sales. So, there are very likely many one-person companies in MD with higher profit margins than Wal-Mart. Okay?

Now, can you answer my question: What if I have a 500 person company with a profit margin 3x that of Wal-Mart. Say I make $10M a year net profit. Can't I "afford" to pay the same 8%? Why not make me do it, too?

Tfirey -- Nice article. Kinda shoots TB's "best effect" argument in the foot, huh?

This is the second reply I've written to this thread. I deleted the first one without posting it because when I reviewed it I sounded like a stark raving lunatic.

I know there are some here who would say that about many of my posts.

But fortunately there are very few topics that really chap my @ss like health insurance costs. When you add the state of Maryland's laws on the subject to the discussion I totally lose it.

My company is in PA and the health insurance cost is roughly 14% of our payroll costs, which we split 50-50 with the employee. They've been increasing at an average of 20% per year for several years. If the company was in MD the same policy would be approximately 30% higher according to the agent who sold us the policy. We have one employee who was not elligible under the rules of the plan, and has a child with a serious medical condition. So we had the agent write an individual family policy for him. It sounded pretty good to me so I asked him to quote one for me. Because of the rules in MD my plan would cost 60% more. We are about the same age, have the same number of kids, and my family is blessed with excellent health.

Do you want to hear one of those "questionable mandates" tfirey mentioned? We have 10 single males on the policy who in MD would be required to add a "pregnancy" rider to their coverage.

I could not care less about Wal-Mart. This law does abosultely nothing to solve the problem of health insurance costs. IMO it's just a political game designed to make us think they are addressing the issue.

TB,

Okay, here is the "simple" part: The proposed law would result in only "lowering the state’s uninsurance rate by, at best, about 0.05 percent". Woo-hoo. Boy, those politicians really helped solve the problem didn't they -- except for 232 out of every 233 Marylanders with no insurance who will see virtually no change as a result of the law. You'd wanna call that getting "the best effect"?? Gimme a break.

Idiot,

You are shameless. You had the nerve to take a vacation to Mexico this year with your company's profits! That just might mean you're on the road to being a "greedy bastard" -- especially if anyone at your company chose not to take health insurance since they could not afford the 50% of the premium! Yes, if you are making more than "a bit of a profit" all your employees "deserve" health insurance. Sound anything like socialism to you?

Great defense of your position.

As a business owner I don't like to see the government dictate what "benefits" a business must offer an employee. Why is the burden of providing health insurance to the citizens of this country an employers responsibility in the first place? Why not life insurance, or auto insurance, or homeowners insurance?

I quit shopping at Sams Club and only use Wal-Mart when I absolutely have to and not for large purchases, so as far as I'm concerned they can leave the state. But as long as they're here they sould be treated like any other business.

The state of MD has more power to help a lot more people have access to good health insurance than WM and they aren't lifting a finger to do it. They have no credibility on this issue to me. NONE!

I do believe that all my employees deserve health insurance. IMO all the citizens of this country "deserve" to have basic medical services. Isn't that what a government is supposed to do? Provide for the basic needs of its citizens?

I ignored the Mexico comment because I didn't want to get off the main topic of insurance and I've had this discussion too many times. But one thing that many people don't realize about owning a business is that your income can change greatly from year to year. You can have a good year or you can have a year when you might not take an income. When you have a bad year and you're worried about losing, not just your job, but your home as well, nobody is telling you what benefits you should be taking away from your employees.

I'm not complaining, I make a good living but I've been around long enough to know that business can change quickly. I make my business decisions the same way I make my political decisions. I use my own conscience and my own power of reasoning about what's right and what's not right, and when's something is not right I say so. It's got me this far so I'm going to stick with it.

I provide more for my employees than government does for my employees. If they want to dictate to someone maybe they should try the insurance industry, or the pharmacuetical companies instead of taking their money and letting them charge whatever they want and writing laws to help them.

And then they're going to turn around and tell me that I have to pay their fees to provide for my employees.

I'm going to stop now because I'm starting to lose it again.

I agree with you to a point. But... What should government "dictate" to the insurance and pharma industries? Limiting their profits maybe? Why should they dictate to these industries and not yours?

Snoopy


They don't have to dictate to them, all they would have to do is offer basic medical coverage for a fair price to anyone who wants it. I don't buy the crap that it's too complicated or cumbersome to do. They want the employer to handle the accounting involved in taking the money in from the employee and paying it to the insurance companies. Why can't they take the money in from individuals, extract their operating costs, which we can't do by the way, and pay it out to the doctors? It can be completely optional for those who choose not to participate.

If they did I gaurantee you that the insurance companies would drop their rates to compete. You can call it socialism or whatever you want, I don't care. I call it common sense.

The government is ours and it should do what we want it to. Put it on the ballot, if you don't like it don't vote for it. If it passes you still don't have to participate. How can you lose?

So Wal-Mart set up a website, which I think is to promote what a great company they think they are. At any rate, one of the questions they address is the following:



Now, that sounds all good and everything, but what they fail to mention is whether this health care coverage is available to ALL Wal-Mart employees, or just a select few. In other words, I want to know if it's true that Wal-Mart will schedule a bunch of employees to work no more than 35 hours a week, just so they aren't required to pay them benefits.

I believe that if the employee will end up suffering in the end (due to a cut in wages, or whatever else), then the Wal-mart bill is a bad idea. Only because the Wal-Mart batards will screw over the employees to ensure they don't lose any money.

UPDATE

I did further research on the site and found my own answer:



What does "once eligible" mean?

PHISH


We have a 6 month waiting period and you must be full-time (40 hrs per week). We only have 3 or 4 part-time people at any one time. Insurance has nothing to do with whether or not a person is part-time or full-time.

BTW, have you ever had Ben and Jerry's PHISH FOOD?

It's incredibly good. I ate an entire pint the other night, I just couldn't stop eating it. If you tell my wife I'll it deny though.

Yes, I have, and it is very good. The ice cream is actually named after the band, hence my screen name. Kinda like Cherry Garcia.

By the way, I understand how/why companies don't offer benefits to full time employees, but how many hours/week do your part-time employees work? I heard somewhere, and I don't know where, nor how reliable the information is, that Wal-Mart schedules most of their employees up to 35 hours/week, but no more because they don't want to have to give them benefits. That's pretty sh*tty, if you ask me, but again, I don't know how true that is.

They are just people and sometimes people do "pretty sh*tty things to other people. WM is the big bully so they get way with it more. I'm sure they also sometimes do some pretty sh*tty things to their suppliers and even their customers. And so do a whole lot of other companies by the way. I still believe in the principle that you reap what you sow even though I'll admit it doesn't always seem like it.

How much employee theft would you estimate WM has? I have 40 employees and probably half of them have keys to the building. Now we don't have all the goodies that WM has to tempt them with but at any one time we can have $1M of inventory on hand including things like motherboards, disk drives, memory sticks, plus thousands of dollars worth of hand tools and such. To my knowledge, and we do a thorough inventory count monthly because a lot of this material belongs to our customers, we've never had anything missing in 8 years of business.

If you treat people right they'll treat you right. I'm not making any judgements against WM's labor relations because I have nothing to base it on. But personally, when I have to start taking advantage of people to make a profit I'll get out of the business. I have to asume there are many executives at WM that feel the same way. The difference is that I make the decisions here, no CEO, no Board of Directors, no stockholders to answer to.

I'l bash WM on many issues but health insurance wouldn't be on the list of things I'd start with.

Pardon the machine gun responses, but:

Phish: As I note in my op-ed above, published reports (BaltSun, WashPost) state that 80% of Wal-Mart's Maryland employees currently qualify for health benefits through the firm.

Trueblue states, The Wal-Mart bill makes no changes in employee qualification for health care. The bill implicitly incentives Wal-mart to get some of its already-qualifying MD employees to take out that insurance.

A lot of people (including Maryland lawmakers) seem to misunderstand (or are ignoring) the real problem underlying MD's health care coverage issue: A lot of people who could have coverage at little cost to themselves are choosing not to have coverage and instead are pocketing the money they would have spent on premiums. A few years ago, I saw some income data on the the typical uninsured person in MD; I don't remember the exact numbers, but I was surprised that a large portion of the uninsured were in the income ranges between $40k and $100k a year.

Concerning the low-wage, Wal-Mart currently offers coverage for $40 a month to 80% of its Maryland workforce, but only about half of those people take that deal. This strikes me as a foolish decision on the uninsured's part, but as a libertarian, I respect other people's choices.

I suspect the real battle over the Wal-Mart bill is a battle over labor, between Wal-Mart, Safeway, and Giant. Most of the employees at all three firms are low-wage, but then most of the jobs are low-skill. Safeway and Giant offer a compensation package that is more weighted to benefits than to wages; Wal-Mart offers a compensation package that's more weighted to wages than to benefits. My guess is that Wal-Mart was able to attract a lot of employees who cared more about the money than the benefits (see my earlier paragraph about people declining coverage), which made labor costs more difficult for Giant and Safeway. So they fought back by backing this measure.

(Remember, contrary to what Bob Ehrlich says, the Maryland legislature has long been "open to the concerns of business" -- especially when those businesses make direct & indirect campaign contributions.)

Idiot points out a great questionable MD health insurance mandate above. I don't know if he knows it, but the MD fertility mandate even includes the requirement that all MD health insurance regulated by the state include coverage of in vitro fertilization (at $10,000 a pop) for each covered person.

Tfirey -- Once again you bring some great info. to the debate. If you can find this stuff and print it, I wonder why the media can't seem to do it?

As an aside, I have in the past asked the HM to do a "pro-con" section where they pick an issue that is "hot" that week (say for example this one) and have one writer on each "side" write an article supporting their side. You put me in mind of someone who would be a good writer for one side. One caveat I would add is that each writer would be held to certain standards, such as citing sources for any "facts" they quote, and no name-calling, etc. I think it would be a well-received feature.

tfirey


I didn't know it but it doesn't surprise me. I wonder if it works the same way as the pregnancy rider does. When the agent told me that all the single males had to buy it I asked him that if one of them had a girl friend who got pregnant what would it cover. His answer was "nothing at all". So I'm guessing the the in-vitro coverage for single men would only cover the costs of providing the sperm. What's the cost of a Playboy magazine these days?

I'd be interested in a link to all the MD mandates. Also, what are some of the "other measures" your article mentioned?

This article from the Tallahasee Democrat written by a member of the Florida House of Representatives sheds some light on this discussion.

This paragraph is a little bit confusing to me.



I sent Ms Bucher an email asking if she meant to say the "Maryland" Republican Party instead of "Florida". I can interpret it both ways. I also asked if she knows how money Ehrlich got from WM in January. Hopefully she will reply.

This is obviously a big problem but I'm still having a hard time blaming WM for it. It's seems a little bit like a case of letting the fox into the chicken coop and then blaming it when it eats the chickens.

I point the finger right back at the government and it starts at the top.

Maryland
Florida
Georgia

Is there a common thread here? Is this only a problem in states with Republican governors?

I'm just asking the question, not making any accusations. I pass 2 WMs on my way to work in PA and I haven't heard anything about this problem here.

It just so happens I was speaking with a good friend last night and she expressed that she absolutely refuses to shop at Wal-Fart. Here are her reasons:

1) Wal-Mart pays men more than women to do the same job, assuming all experience, qualifications, etc. are the same.

2) A friend of hers, who was a Wal-mart employee, was 9 weeks pregnant and on maternity leave under doctors orders. She was picking up some last minute maternity items from Wal-Mart and went to use her employee discount card, but was told she couldn't use it because she was on maternity leave. Her card was disabled as soon as she went on Maternity leave.

I asked her if it was true that part-time employees receive benefits and she said it was true, however, the "health plan" is pro-rated to the part-time basis. In other words, she said that part-time employees receive health benefits, but end up paying about 85% of the bill, and Wal-Mart only covers 15%.

This is why Wal-Mart is a dirty batard.

Phish:

(1) sounds pretty crappy, and I believe Wal-Mart is currently in litigation over that accusation. (In fairness, I suppose we should note that no one has yet proved that WM is paying less to equally-qualified women performing the same job.) (2) certainly sounds pathetically petty. But I've no problem with (3). Here's why:

As several writers in this thread have noted, wages and benefits are just different sides of the same coin: compensation. In essence, an employee who earns $9 an hour and gets benefits equal to $1 for each hour gets a total compensation of $10 an hour -- $9 in cash and $1 in benes.

From what I've seen, a standard health benefits package costs an employer about $2,500 a year per person (Idiot, is that roughly what you're seeing with your firm's health care costs?) and the back-of-the-envelope calculations I did on Wal-Mart suggests that's roughly what they're paying.

Now, suppose all Wal-Mart employees earn $10 an hour in wages and receives the $2,500 in coverage. That means a FT (2,000 hr/year) employee would receive total compensation (ignoring other benefits, perks, and bonuses) of $11.25 an hour ($10 in wages and $1.25 in health care coverage). But if a PT worker, working say 10 hours a week, were given the same health care coverage, he would earn $14.81 an hour in compensation ($10 in wages and $4.81 in benefits).

That's just doesn't seem right. I assume WM prorates its health care benefits for PT workers to keep compensation levels per hour worked in line with FT workers.

Now, some people might say, well, shouldn't the PT worker get the same health care coverage as the FT worker? But if that's the case -- that is, if compensations shouldn't reflect hours worked -- then shouldn't the PT worker receive the same annual income as the FT worker? That is, regardless of whether they work 10 hours a week or 40, shouldn't they both receive $20K a year?

Obviously, I would disagree with that....

Idiot, here's a short paper that one of my employers put out last year, that lists some of the mandates: MPPI Policy Update 2004-01. I bet if we poked around on the insurance commissioner's Web site, we could find a more exhaustive list.

Snoopy: If you're looking for good coverage of MD issues, check out the Gazette and the BaltSun -- both have done a nice job of covering the Wal-Mart bill and other Annapolis goings-on. The Gazette might do the best Annapolis and regional coverage of any area newspaper, and the Gazette's Dennis and the Sun's Nitkin are easily the two best reporters in Annapolis.

If #1 is proven to be true there will be government legal action taken, or at minimum individual lawsuits, and they will be fined heavily. And the NOW people and most media will be screaming it from the headlines.

Many, if not most, companies offer zero health benefits for part-timers. Those batards!

An HMO with middlin coverage in MD is ~ $1000/mo for a family and $375/mo for individuals. If the company pays half, that's $6000 for family and $2250 for individual coverage. This is for health insurance only -- no dental, disability, etc.

Huh?

My Carefirst BC/BS PPO, top of the line coverage is about $450/month for family. Of which I pay 85%, and my "employer" provides 15%.

Includes prescription with a third party provider. Does not include vision and only limited dental with another third party provider.

Where did that $1,000 come from?

We just met with an agent today at my company -- they quoted BC/BS and MAMSI -- the cheapest plan was a MAMSI HMO at the prices I listed -- BC/BS was more. Has $20 OV copay, $15/20/30 script, no deductible. No plan was anywhere near $450 for family.

That's obscene Snoopy. I have $20 office visits, no copay for primary physician referral to specialists, prescription is 20/40/60 (102 day supply, though). Good throughout the country.

I think a lot of the offer has to do with how many employees you want to cover. My "employer" covers in the neighborhood of, I'm guessing, 10,000 people.