Wal-Mart Backs Drive to Make Companies Pay for Health Coverage

[scandal 951]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1246405645...tml#mod=testMod

Wal-Mart Backs Drive to Make Companies Pay for Health Coverage

By JANET ADAMY and ANN ZIMMERMAN

WASHINGTON -- In a major break with most other large companies, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Tuesday told the White House that it supports requiring employers to provide health insurance to workers, a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's effort to provide near-universal coverage to Americans.

The support of Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, could give momentum to one of the most-contentious aspects of legislation taking shape in Congress to fix the health system. To help pay for covering the 46 million uninsured, lawmakers have proposed mandating that all but small employers provide insurance for workers or help pay for it.

Lobbies for large corporations have opposed the idea. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has fought such a mandate, saying it would prompt companies to cut jobs, lower wages and possibly drive them out of business. Wal-Mart -- which provides insurance to employees and wants to level the playing field with companies that don't -- on Tuesday delivered a letter to President Obama taking a different stance.

"We are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage," said the letter, signed by Wal-Mart Chief Executive Mike Duke. Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, also signed the letter, along with John Podesta, who led President Obama's transition team and is chief executive of the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning think tank.

The National Retail Federation, the industry's main lobby, said it was "flabbergasted" by Wal-Mart's move. "We have been one of the foremost opponents to employer mandate," said Neil Trautwein, vice president with the Washington-based trade group. "We are surprised and disappointed by Wal-Mart's choice to embrace an employer mandate in exchange for a promise of cost savings."

Mr. Trautwein said an employer mandate is "the single most destructive thing you could do to the health-care system shy of a single-payer system," under which the government handles health-care administration. The mandate "would quite possibly cut off the economic recovery we all desperately need," he said. The group believes forcing companies to provide insurance will raise costs for its members.

Wal-Mart's Letter

Under the plans being discussed in Congress, small businesses would either be exempt from the mandate or face a less-onerous requirement.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said most of its members oppose an employer mandate, and it doesn't think Wal-Mart's stance will change that. "The kind that the groups in this letter support is the worst incarnation, the most dangerous policy," said James Gelfand, senior manager of health policy for the group, which represents three million businesses.

Wal-Mart's support of a broad-based employer mandate is a shift from its previous stance on health-care overhaul and follows years of tussles with organized labor, which has failed in drives to unionize Wal-Mart's store workers. Two years ago, Wal-Mart joined with the SEIU, the country's largest union, to call for affordable health care for all Americans by 2012. The group called for lowering health-care costs and insuring more Americans.

In recent years, Wal-Mart has improved its health-care benefits, cutting its waiting time for earning benefits in half for both full- and part-time employees and offering more plan choices. About 52% of Wal-Mart's 1.4 million U.S. employees are covered by company-provided insurance, up from 46.2% three years ago. The retail industry average is 45%, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation 2008 study.

Wal-Mart isn't changing its policies. The company says it supports the employer mandate because all businesses should share the burden of fixing the health-care system. Wal-Mart also said the mandate will only work if it is accompanied by a government commitment to rein in health-care costs that is guaranteed.

Wal-Mart's support for a broad mandate also appears to be aimed at beating back an alternative that may be less favorable to the company. The Senate Finance Committee is considering a measure expected to result in a more burdensome health-insurance requirement for companies that have lower-wage workers. The company's letter said: "any alternative to an employer mandate should not create barriers to hiring entry level employees."

As the White House and Congress began floating proposals, Wal-Mart felt it needed to shape the debate, said Leslie Dach, Wal-Mart's executive vice president of corporate affairs and government relations.

"As a company, we believe the present health-care system is unsustainable and making the country's businesses less competitive in the global economy," said Mr. Dach, who delivered the letter Tuesday to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Mr. Dach is a former adviser to Democratic politicians.

In a meeting with officials behind the letter, Mr. Emanuel said, "Cost control and employer mandate are heads and tails of the same coin."

Most Republicans have opposed an employer mandate. "Congress cannot take actions placing burdens on businesses of any size that exacerbate our nation's economic woes," Rep. Roy Blunt (R. Mo.) said in response to Wal-Mart's announcement.

Labor groups such as SEIU not long ago criticized Wal-Mart for what they said were skimpy health benefits the world's largest retailer provided employees.

Nancy-Ann DeParle, head of the White House Office of Health Reform, said it is significant that Wal-Mart and the SEIU had joined on this.

"The rising cost of health care is hurting employers and employees alike, restricting businesses' ability to grow and keeping workers' wages flat," she said.

—Jonathan Weisman contributed to this article.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The mandate "would quite possibly cut off the economic recovery we all desperately need," he said.

*cough* b u l l s h i t *cough*

[jundp 191]

I'll have to see this in action to believe it. Wal Mart isn't exactly known for being employee or labor friendly. This could just be a clever PR move.

[scandal 951]

I'll have to see this in action to believe it. Wal Mart isn't exactly known for being employee or labor friendly. This could just be a clever PR move.

Well, the article mentions some self-interested reasons why Walmart is backing this. They are hardly an altruistic company, nor should they be. They're protecting their bottom line and shareholders' interests, as I would expect them to.

Wal-Mart isn't changing its policies. The company says it supports the employer mandate because all businesses should share the burden of fixing the health-care system.

Right - why should Walmart be voluntarily paying for healthcare, when it has competitors who are not? If we are going to have employer-based coverage, those companies who DON'T offer it should not perversely gain an advantage over those who do! Mandates fix that.

Wal-Mart's support for a broad mandate also appears to be aimed at beating back an alternative that may be less favorable to the company. The Senate Finance Committee is considering a measure expected to result in a more burdensome health-insurance requirement for companies that have lower-wage workers. The company's letter said: "any alternative to an employer mandate should not create barriers to hiring entry level employees."

Fair enough. That is their right, to exercise their First Amendment rights and influence the legislative process to an outcome they find preferable. Nothing wrong with that.

I personally think there's another motive here. Walmart has found that paying for healthcare coverage for employees is just good business. It results in more productive, healthier employees who take fewer sick days. And if they can be part of the bandwagon, they can influence the legislation in their own favor to get the most advantageous terms for themselves. Walmart has discovered what much of corporate America is still in denial about -- having widespread universal coverage is just good business.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The health care insurance Wal Mart provides to its employees is just not very good. I know someone who works there and is covered and she'd be much better off with insurance from Macy's or Wegman's, their insurance is much better as coverage from retail jobs go.

Mandates won't help unless they are accompanied by strict, loophole-free legislation requiring all insurance plans to adhere to the same set of standards.

[scandal 951]

The health care insurance Wal Mart provides to its employees is just not very good. I know someone who works there and is covered and she'd be much better off with insurance from Macy's or Wegman's, their insurance is much better as coverage from retail jobs go.

Mandates won't help unless they are accompanied by strict, loophole-free legislation requiring all insurance plans to adhere to the same set of standards.

I can live with that.

[jundp 191]

Mandates won't help unless they are accompanied by strict, loophole-free legislation requiring all insurance plans to adhere to the same set of standards.

And that's the real bottom line, isn't it? The standards are so different going from company to company. I am very blessed because my employer pays my insurance, and P's employer pays for him and all dependents. But there are so so so many people who don't have that luxury.

[Heracles 417]

The health care insurance Wal Mart provides to its employees is just not very good. I know someone who works there and is covered and she'd be much better off with insurance from Macy's or Wegman's, their insurance is much better as coverage from retail jobs go.

Mandates won't help unless they are accompanied by strict, loophole-free legislation requiring all insurance plans to adhere to the same set of standards.

Wegmans is a great company. Also enjoy shopping there. For anyone who doesn't know wegmans, just think of the total opposite of walmart.

Once I realized walmarts dirty tactics, I am no longer interested in giving them anything. Unfortunately these bastards have a stranglehold on the middle class to poor areas. The initiated a race to the bottom and won. Driving many successful businesses and retailers out of the country. One guess which particular group of immigrants loves to shop there. Excluding Hispanics because that is a given.

Aldi is a discounter I have respect for. They pay their staff well and treat their suppliers well. They don't strong-arm them into submission like walmart.

Looking at the staff of walmart, they certainly don't look like they receive proper health care.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Constellation

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The health care insurance Wal Mart provides to its employees is just not very good. I know someone who works there and is covered and she'd be much better off with insurance from Macy's or Wegman's, their insurance is much better as coverage from retail jobs go.

Mandates won't help unless they are accompanied by strict, loophole-free legislation requiring all insurance plans to adhere to the same set of standards.

Why do you hate WalMart?

[scandal 951]

Why do you hate WalMart?

Their prices are too low.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Everyone knows that I don't think very highly of Wal-Mart ot the way they do business. AJ is making a good point here - providing health insurance coverage to employees can mean a number of things. Unless there's a minimum standard that is to be met, a mandate to offer coverage won't mean all that much.

That said, I think that Wal-Mart's move here is good as it keeps the debate going. And it shows that there are cracks in the front against affording America a health care system - which we currently lack.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Everyone knows that I don't think very highly of Wal-Mart ot the way they do business. AJ is making a good point here - providing health insurance coverage to employees can mean a number of things. Unless there's a minimum standard that is to be met, a mandate to offer coverage won't mean all that much.

Last time I heard the O-man speak to this issue, he made many references to the pre-existing conditions issue. That's a good start, but not nearly enough. An insurance company can still 'cover' you despite your pre-existing conditions and then nickel and dime you every step of the way. There has to be a safeguard against that kind of predatory behavior and I tend to think of a government-run plan as something that can do just that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Everyone knows that I don't think very highly of Wal-Mart ot the way they do business. AJ is making a good point here - providing health insurance coverage to employees can mean a number of things. Unless there's a minimum standard that is to be met, a mandate to offer coverage won't mean all that much.

Last time I heard the O-man speak to this issue, he made many references to the pre-existing conditions issue. That's a good start, but not nearly enough. An insurance company can still 'cover' you despite your pre-existing conditions and then nickel and dime you every step of the way. There has to be a safeguard against that kind of predatory behavior and I tend to think of a government-run plan as something that can do just that.

Exactly!

[Ban Hammer 13,344]

Why do you hate WalMart?

Their prices are too low.

you can always pay more - tip the cashier!