Maryland’s state legislative bullies lost round one in their brawl with giant discount retailer Wal-Mart when U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Motz ruled Wednesday that legislation aimed at forcing the company to spend a certain percentage on health care violates federal law.
Maryland Attorney General Joseph Curran vowed to appeal the decision.
But thebetter route would be for Curran to drop the case on behalf of the Fair Share Health Care Law struck down by the federal court.
It’s a bad law and an embarrassment to the state.
Union advocates of the so-called Wal-Mart law say it offered a legitimate means of shrinking Medicaid payments and adding the 15 percent of the population in the state without health benefits to insurance roles.
But that’s like calling professional wrestling a legitimate sport. Both the Fair Share Health Care law and WWE matches are farce.
The law would have made companies with 10,000 or more employees spend 8 percent of their payrolls on employee health insurance or send the difference to Annapolis.
Since Wal-Mart is the only company that matches that description, it’s hard to see how the law serves any purpose, except as the legislature’s self-righteous punishment for a corporate “villain.”
Passing the law speaks poorly of the General Assembly.
First, it says legislators would rather waste time on measures that under the most optimistic scenario would only help about 10,000 of the 840,058 Marylanders without health insurance to get coverage.
And second, the law says Maryland legislators will intervene in business affairs whenever it suits their political fancy. That sets a terrible precedent.
In the name of fairness, the state must not spend time and taxpayer money appealing the case.
Instead, the General Assembly should focus on crafting structural reform that benefits everyone in the state.
State Sen. E.J. Pipkin, a Republican from the Eastern Shore, offered legislation in 2006 that would create a health care exchange like the onepassed earlier this year in Massachusetts.
The Pipkin bill would allow individuals to choose their coverage and take it with them when they switch jobs.
Employers would contribute to the plan, but it would not depend on them.
Since a large number of the 46 million people in the nation without health insurance lose it temporarily when they move to another job, the Pipkin/Massachusetts approach could provide a real pathway to helping those in the state without insurance find and keep it.
Motz said Massachusetts’ plan attempts reform in a way that appears not to affect Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The law allows employers with a presence in multiple states to set national health plans and provide uniform benefits, among other provisions.
He stressed his ruling only applied to the Maryland law but let’s hope that it deters other states from adopting similar plans.
