Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. recently vetoed legislation — called the Wal-Mart bill — that would have required the world’s largest retailer to spend 8 percent of its Maryland payroll on health care. If the company did not comply, the state would impose a tax to compel it to pay.
Democrats are threatening to override Erlich’s bold veto come January, arguing that taxpayers indirectly subsidize the company's health care costs through government programs and hospital fees used by its employees. It’s the latest outburst of a small but vocal movement that sees Wal-Mart as at the heart of what’s wrong with America.
Do some of Wal-Mart’s workers use public health care? Yes, of course, just as workers for thousands of other companies use public health care.
But if they weren’t employed at Wal-Mart, they might be at a fast-food chain or some other service-sector job that doesn’t offer health insurance either.
Or they might not be employed at all. Many Wal-Mart jobs are lower-end, entry-level jobs for workers with few job skills — the hardest to employ. That’s one reason why you see so many younger people employed there.
What is really at issue is that state lawmakers have loaded health insurance down with restrictions and mandated benefits (i.e., requirements that health cover a smorgasbord of providers and services), making health insurance unaffordable for many low-income workers, and forcing them to fall back on the public system.
What Maryland lawmakers are trying to do is give away health insurance, claim political credit for it but pass the costs on to someone else (i.e., Wal-Mart). Gov. Ehrlich’s courageous action should force a different and more important debate over what lawmakers should be doing to ensure a vibrant, competitive health insurance market that provides Marylanders with choice and access to affordable coverage.