2-26-06, 9:17 am
Why did a recent opinion poll show that a large majority believes that 'Wal-Mart is bad for America'?
Is it the ongoing lawsuits involving hundreds of current and former employees who charge that Wal-Mart practices gender discrimination?
Is it because Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott apparently threatened a store manager recently on an internal website after the employee raised the idea of retiree medical benefits.
Is it 'bad for America' the company had to be sued into selling 'morning after' birth control pill in its pharmacies?
Maybe it's because the millions in tax breaks the company gets from local governments when it builds stores in their communities would be better used to fund schools, parks, roads, or libraries.
Maybe small business owners are tired of being run out of town when Wal-Mart shows up.
Certainly, working families are tired of seeing labels on items sold at Wal-Mart from everywhere in the world except from the neighborhoods and communities that they live in, especially when the only jobs around are at Wal-Mart, stocking shelves or hauling shopping carts.
Working people are tired of exchanging good union jobs for low prices on toilet paper, socks and bath towels.
But the biggest reason for anti-Wal-Mart sentiments may be the most expensive and anxiety-causing issue today: health care.
With insurance premiums and prescription drug prices spiraling out of control, working people are often forced to choose between paying the rent or purchasing medicine, buying groceries, or making a doctor visit.
Why won't the world's most profitable company – $10 billion in pure profit in 2004 alone – provide adequate health insurance for its employees?
In 2003, Wal-Mart spent $3,100 on healthcare per covered employee, according to an analysis by the Center for a Changing Workforce, compared with a $5,600 in all US industries.
And an astonishing new report by titled 'America Pays, Wal-Mart Saves,' shows that the company is even cutting back. Between 2003 and 2004, according to public tax documents, Wal-Mart cut its health care spending per worker by 3.5 percent, a huge amount for an already meager health care budget.
The cut back came as health care spending by other US corporations increased 7.6 percent in 2004.
According to a memo by Wal-Mart executive Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart understands that most of these folks simply can't afford the plan, admitting that critics of Wal-Mart's health care policies may have a point.
To compensate, many Wal-Mart employees and their children turn to public assistance for help. Wal-Mart documents uncovered in 2003 showed, in fact, that some Wal-Mart managers encouraged employees to apply for Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) benefits, even providing documentation on how to do it.
Wal-Mart has admitted that as many as 5 percent of their workforce use public assistance. WakeUpWalMart.com's report, which brings together new data collected by 19 states that have investigated the number of Wal-Mart employees and family members on public assistance, shows that this figure is substantially higher, however.
As many as 13 percent of Wal-Mart's employees, the report notes, are on some form of public aid, mainly Medicaid or CHIP, about four times higher than the average for all other employers in the country.
The data was collected and disclosed by the states, but is still incomplete. For example, while Florida has said that 12,300 people connected to Wal-Mart receive Medicaid, it has refused to say how many are actual employees and how many are the children of employees. On the other hand, Georgia has admitted that 10,261 children of Wal-Mart employees receive health care benefits from the CHIP program, but it hasn't yet disclosed the number of Wal-Mart employees who receive public benefits.
Other notable states, according to the report, include Tennessee with 9,617 and Arkansas, where the corporate headquarters of the retail giant are located, with 3,971 Wal-Mart employees receiving Medicaid and/or other public aid such as food stamps.
More than 4,300 children in Texas, over 5,100 Massachusetts employees and their children, and in Arizona at least 2,700 Wal-Mart employee families and 450 children receive Medicaid. Thousands of other families and their children in the other 12 states reporting have also been forced to turn to public assistance for help.
According to the report, the total cost in 2005 to US taxpayers to provide health care coverage for the Wal-Mart employees who can't afford the company's benefits package is approximately $1.38 billion. The projected cost over the next five years is estimated at $9.1 billion.
Important programs like Medicaid, CHIP, and food stamps are crucial to prevent the worst effects of poverty, but should they help Wal-Mart fatten its bottom line?
WakeUpWalMart.com, the AFL-CIO, and many health care activists believe that Wal-Mart should be legally required to provide affordable and adequate health care benefits to all of its employees. They have launched a nationwide campaign called Fair Share for Health Care. The campaign lobbies state legislatures to adopt laws mandating that large companies provide health care benefits.
So far, Maryland has passed a Fair Share for Health Care law, and 32 state legislatures are considering such legislation.
Other groups, such as Healthcare-NOW, a coalition of labor unions, physicians, and community activists that support passage of a national Medicare-for-all health care program, opt for a more systemic solution to the health care crisis. Medicare-for-all legislation (H.R. 676) has been introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) in Congress.
While legally requiring corporations to provide affordable benefits may help thousands of people in the short term, in the long run, it won't be able to control the runaway costs of premiums, medical procedures, and prescription drugs. Further, the Fair Share for Health Care laws can't cover all 46 million people currently without health insurance or the 100 million who lack adequate coverage.
Medicare-for-all would control costs without leaving anyone out. Read more about it here.
Interestingly, the passage of the Fair Share for Health Care law in Maryland may have spurred Lee Scott to remark on his website recently that perhaps a greater government role in providing health care is needed.
For now, big companies should be required to provide health care for their employees. A Medicare-for-all system would help everyone, and maybe Fair Share for Health Care laws can help provide the political will necessary to see that a system of universal health care is finally enacted in this country.
--Reach Joel Wendland at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.
