fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Nice try, liberals. You tried to attack and single out Wal-Mart, probably because it does a better job of helping the poor than you do. You tried and failed. :dancefool
January 18, 2007
Appeals Court Rules for Wal-Mart in Maryland Health Care Case
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/business/18walmart.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
By MICHAEL BARBARO
When Maryland legislators passed a first-of-its-kind law in 2006 forcing Wal-Mart Stores to spend more on employee health care, the measure was held up as a model for other states grappling with mounting Medicaid bills.
But yesterday, after a second court found that the Maryland’s fair-share health care rule violated federal labor laws, the concept that states can compel companies to offer more generous health care is suddenly in doubt, experts said.
By a 2-to-1 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Baltimore found that the Maryland requirement — which affected only Wal-Mart — violated a 32-year-old federal labor law known by its shorthand, Erisa.
The law, known to regulators as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, was intended to allow big companies to set up uniform health benefits across the country, rather than navigate state-by-state requirements.
By forcing Wal-Mart to revamp health care plans in Maryland, the court found, the Maryland law directly violated Erisa.
That decision, upholding a lower court decision in July, threatens to derail health care legislation known as fair share that is under consideration in states across the country.
“State level health care reform is still possible, but it’s not going to be the Maryland model,” said Naomi Walker, the director of state legislative programs at the A.F.L.-C.I.O., which lobbied for the Maryland law. “We have to go back to the drawing board.”
Unlike Erisa, the Maryland health care bill was never about making life easier for big companies like Wal-Mart. Rather, it was about shifting the burden for insuring the working poor from state Medicaid plans, with the clear implication that Wal-Mart had shirked its obligations.
Specifically, the Maryland law forced corporations with 10,000 or more workers to spend 8 percent of their payrolls on health insurance, or pay the difference into a state fund. Four companies in the state have more than 10,000 workers, but only Wal-Mart met all the criteria.
The Maryland legislature was never shy about its motives for aiming at Wal-Mart, a company with $12 billion in annual profit.
In the debate that the preceded passage of the law, lawmakers complained that thousands of Wal-Mart’s workers rely on Medicaid in states like Maryland and Georgia.
That narrow focus on a single company, legal experts said, may have also influenced the court’s decision.
Wal-Mart said the bill was politically motivated and would do little to address the cause of America’s health care crisis — spiraling costs. Yesterday, it praised the appeals court decision.
“Not only was this legislation widely viewed as bad public policy, the courts have confirmed that it violates the law,” said Nate Hurst, a spokesman for the chain.
But critics of the company, including Maryland lawmakers, said they could claim credit for improving Wal-Mart’s health care offerings, even if the law did not survive.
In the last 18 months, Wal-Mart has made its insurance available to the children of part-time workers, reduced the waiting time before new employees are eligible for insurance and created a plan with monthly premiums as low as $11.
And the Maryland law may still survive. The state attorney general can appeal yesterday’s decision to a full panel of the Fourth Circuit or to the United States Supreme Court. A spokeswoman for the attorney general, J. Joseph Curran Jr., said he had two weeks to decide.
Maryland lawmakers may also choose to rewrite the law, using an approach upheld in several other states that requires companies with uninsured workers to pay them higher wages that can be used for health care premiums, said Paul Sonn, deputy director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law and an expert on fair share health care legislation.
The Maryland law proved popular among the state’s residents, according to polls, and that sentiment is likely to guide lawmakers.
“The overwhelming majority of the public wants to require large profitable corporations to pay their fair share for health care,” said Paul Blank, the campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com, a union-backed group critical of the giant retailer. “This form may not work, but lawmakers will work on new way to accomplish the same thing.”
The lawsuit that overturned the Maryland law was sponsored by the Retail Industry Leaders Association, a Virginia-based trade group of which Wal-Mart is a member. In an interview, Sandra L. Kennedy, the trade group’s president, said, “The court has a sent a strong message at states looking at similar bills: these violate federal law.”
January 18, 2007
Appeals Court Rules for Wal-Mart in Maryland Health Care Case
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/business/18walmart.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
By MICHAEL BARBARO
When Maryland legislators passed a first-of-its-kind law in 2006 forcing Wal-Mart Stores to spend more on employee health care, the measure was held up as a model for other states grappling with mounting Medicaid bills.
But yesterday, after a second court found that the Maryland’s fair-share health care rule violated federal labor laws, the concept that states can compel companies to offer more generous health care is suddenly in doubt, experts said.
By a 2-to-1 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Baltimore found that the Maryland requirement — which affected only Wal-Mart — violated a 32-year-old federal labor law known by its shorthand, Erisa.
The law, known to regulators as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, was intended to allow big companies to set up uniform health benefits across the country, rather than navigate state-by-state requirements.
By forcing Wal-Mart to revamp health care plans in Maryland, the court found, the Maryland law directly violated Erisa.
That decision, upholding a lower court decision in July, threatens to derail health care legislation known as fair share that is under consideration in states across the country.
“State level health care reform is still possible, but it’s not going to be the Maryland model,” said Naomi Walker, the director of state legislative programs at the A.F.L.-C.I.O., which lobbied for the Maryland law. “We have to go back to the drawing board.”
Unlike Erisa, the Maryland health care bill was never about making life easier for big companies like Wal-Mart. Rather, it was about shifting the burden for insuring the working poor from state Medicaid plans, with the clear implication that Wal-Mart had shirked its obligations.
Specifically, the Maryland law forced corporations with 10,000 or more workers to spend 8 percent of their payrolls on health insurance, or pay the difference into a state fund. Four companies in the state have more than 10,000 workers, but only Wal-Mart met all the criteria.
The Maryland legislature was never shy about its motives for aiming at Wal-Mart, a company with $12 billion in annual profit.
In the debate that the preceded passage of the law, lawmakers complained that thousands of Wal-Mart’s workers rely on Medicaid in states like Maryland and Georgia.
That narrow focus on a single company, legal experts said, may have also influenced the court’s decision.
Wal-Mart said the bill was politically motivated and would do little to address the cause of America’s health care crisis — spiraling costs. Yesterday, it praised the appeals court decision.
“Not only was this legislation widely viewed as bad public policy, the courts have confirmed that it violates the law,” said Nate Hurst, a spokesman for the chain.
But critics of the company, including Maryland lawmakers, said they could claim credit for improving Wal-Mart’s health care offerings, even if the law did not survive.
In the last 18 months, Wal-Mart has made its insurance available to the children of part-time workers, reduced the waiting time before new employees are eligible for insurance and created a plan with monthly premiums as low as $11.
And the Maryland law may still survive. The state attorney general can appeal yesterday’s decision to a full panel of the Fourth Circuit or to the United States Supreme Court. A spokeswoman for the attorney general, J. Joseph Curran Jr., said he had two weeks to decide.
Maryland lawmakers may also choose to rewrite the law, using an approach upheld in several other states that requires companies with uninsured workers to pay them higher wages that can be used for health care premiums, said Paul Sonn, deputy director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law and an expert on fair share health care legislation.
The Maryland law proved popular among the state’s residents, according to polls, and that sentiment is likely to guide lawmakers.
“The overwhelming majority of the public wants to require large profitable corporations to pay their fair share for health care,” said Paul Blank, the campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com, a union-backed group critical of the giant retailer. “This form may not work, but lawmakers will work on new way to accomplish the same thing.”
The lawsuit that overturned the Maryland law was sponsored by the Retail Industry Leaders Association, a Virginia-based trade group of which Wal-Mart is a member. In an interview, Sandra L. Kennedy, the trade group’s president, said, “The court has a sent a strong message at states looking at similar bills: these violate federal law.”