That might be the new slogan for Wal-Mart if legislation forcing it to pay 8 percent of its payroll toward health insurance is allowed to stand.
But let?s hope a lawsuit challenging it argued in federal court in Baltimore last week thwarts the General Assembly?s attempt to punish the giant retailer, which operates on thin, volume-driven margins.
In 2005, Wal-Mart earned a profit of $11.2 billion. That sounds huge, but it represents a profit of less than 4 cents per sales dollar. By comparison, newspaper chains have historically averaged margins in the teens and 20s.
An internal memo leaked last year to a critic of the retailer, Wal-Mart Watch, showed that the company?s health care costs were outpacing its profits. It advocated a number of solutions, including adding physical tasks to certain jobs to shed unhealthy employees. Not very flattering.
But forcing one retailer to change its health care policy will do little to lower Medicaid costs for Maryland, or provide health insurance for the 840,058 people in the state without it ? the purported goal of the legislation. And it could go a long way toward raising prices at the discounter and making our state even less attractive to business.
The law aims to make all employers with 10,000 or more employees follow the 8 percent rule or pay the rest in taxes. Thus far, Wal-Mart is the only one that meets the criteria.
It sets a dangerous precedent. Dictating how Wal-Mart allocates expenses treads close to dictating how it should set prices. Is that the future of American business? It sounds more like the Russian version of capitalism where those favored by government thrive while others suffer lawsuits, threats and massive tax burdens.
The Assistant Attorney General Gary Kuc told the court last week that the law was a legitimate attempt to lower Medicaid costs. Now there?s a stretch.
It?s not. It?s a thinly-veiled attempt to create a national health care system, with Wal-Mart ? and Maryland citizens ? as the guinea pig.
Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, which funds Wal-Mart Watch and helped to push the Maryland law, told The Atlantic as much.
In a June article, Stern said, “My goal is to get Wal-Mart?s leadership out there in traffic and holler, ?We can no longer compete in the global economy when health care is factored into the cost of our products.? If Wal-Mart?s CEO, Lee Scott, were to come out and say, ?We need a national health care system that works foreveryone,? then it?s a whole new ball game.”
If enough of the so-called Fair Share Health Care laws pass throughout the states, he hopes to achieve that goal.
Since pushing national health care, not reducing Medicaid payments, seems to be the main purpose of the Maryland law, U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz should label it a sham, using more precise but strong legal language. And he should grant the injunction sought by the Retail Industry Leaders Association, on behalf of Wal-Mart and other members, so that the law does not take effect in January.
Maybe then legislators will attempt to pass structural health care reform that makes private insurance available and affordable to all citizens in the state.
