WUI (Writing under the influence)

America's retailers announced last week that they aren't especially keen to follow the steel, airline and perhaps auto industries into bankruptcy court. If Big Labor really wants a fight over mandated health insurance, it now has one.

The announcement came in the form of two federal lawsuits filed by the Retail Industry Leaders Association against the state of Maryland and Suffolk County, New York. At issue are the "Wal-Mart" laws that both jurisdictions recently passed, which would require a few large companies to pay more for their workers' health care. The lawsuits argue the statutes are "discriminatory," which may be the legal understatement of the year since both target only a few employers.

What were these people who are being "forced" to apply for Medicaid doing before they were employed by Wal-Mart? Are we expected to believe that people leave jobs with health care benefits to go to work for Wal-Mart as part-timers and receive no health care benefits? Just how does the addition of a Wal-Mart to a community cause an increase in Medicaid spending?

Simply put, it doesn't. A study by Michael Hicks -- "Does Wal-Mart Cause an Increase in Anti-Poverty Program Expenditures?" -- found that a 1% increase in Wal-Marts's retail share is associated with a 1.5% increase in Medicaid expenditures per capita. Put another way, "each new Wal-Mart worker is causing the average state to expend just under $900 a year in Medicaid benefits."

posted by Polish Immigrant  # 11:15 PM