Wal-Mart once was seen as a conservative, values-driven
company. Unfortunately, it has become a profiteeering
rent-seeker, backing a federal employer mandate for health
insurance as a means to hobble its competition.
Reports Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner:
The New Republic's health-care blogger, Jonathan Cohn,
came close to Wal-Mart's true motivation: "Wal-Mart has
suddenly found itself ... dealing with unpredictable health
costs and facing new competition from businesses that have
found ways to spend even less on employee health benefits."
The most important part of that analysis can be put more
simply: Wal-Mart sees a way to use government as cudgel with
which to knee-cap smaller opponents.
You see, Wal-Mart already offers health insurance to all
full-time employees and some part-time employees. Many of
Wal-Mart's competitors do not do this, which is why the
National Retail Federation opposes the mandate. An employer
mandate imposes costs on Wal-Mart's competitors, possibly
without imposing costs on Wal-Mart.
Cato health-care expert Michael Cannon
wrote this week of when a Wal-Mart lobbyist explained the
company's support for a federal employer mandate: "Target's
health benefits costs are lower."
A mandate for employer coverage will have some standards, and
if those standards--maximum employee cost, maximum deductible,
minimum coverage--are stricter than what, say, Target offers,
Target suffers, which is Wal-Mart's gain.
There's always good reason to be suspicious of proposals for new
federal regulations. There's especially good reason to be
suspicious when some businesses are supporting those new
regulations!
