Wal-Mart eyes super savings ... by backing Obama's health care plan
Filed under: Extracurriculars, Health
Wal-Mart is throwing its weight behind health care legislation that increases its own responsibility to provide coverage. It comes as quite a shock to Wal-Mart haters and supporters alike. What's behind the move? First, Wal-Mart issued a statement supporting President Barack Obama's plan to provide broader health care coverage by requiring large employers to do just that. Not only is Wal-Mart publicly supporting this, but claims the Service Employees International Union and Center for American Progress as allies in the effort. Talk about strange bedfellows.
Wal-Mart's support also breaks with partisan lines and the popular belief that big business leans Republican. But corporations pledge allegiance to policy that serves their business, regardless of party. And most, when making donations, give to both parties just in case. There's no such thing as loyalty when it comes to business, except to shareholders. And that means a dedication to making money.
Health care has always been a hot button issue for Wal-Mart. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, and whichever side the company comes down on invites mass amounts of criticism. Here, Wal-Mart's support gets it accused of trying put smaller competitors out of business since they couldn't afford to offer coverage. But the mandate doesn't require small businesses to provide health insurance, so let's move on to what really might be behind Wal-Mart's announcement.
Frankly, it's good marketing. Wal-Mart has officially aligned itself with the forces of good. Partnering with the union, shushes the anti-union crowd for a minute and maybe buys some good will with organized labor, for once. And on some levels, the Obama plan might just be Wal-Mart's best hope for actually providing coverage to the roughly 48% of its employees reportedly NOT covered (subscription required) by the company.
The last two paragraphs of Wal-Mart's statement on the matter are telling. The company supports the plan, yes. But clearly expects it to be accompanied by a fundamental change by insurers, complete with lower costs to Wal-Mart:
"We are entering a critical time where those of us who will be asked to pay for health care reform will have to make a choice on whether to support this legislation. The choice will require employers to consider the trade off of a coverage mandate and higher taxes for the promise of a reduction in health care cost increases. We also believe that a mandate must be accompanied by provisions that will reduce health costs and dramatically improve the value we get for our health care dollar.
"And the promise of savings in the bill must be more than just words. The bill should contain 'trigger' provisions that guarantee that promised savings take place both for the federal government and for employers who provide insurance. Walmart believes that if we support a mandate and are being asked to pay higher taxes, we should be assured in return, that savings will be real."
I've often wondered what would happen if Wal-Mart put its muscle behind health care reform. Could it get the insurance companies to cut costs and streamline operations similar to how it changed the retail industry? We could be about to find out.



Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-06-2009 @ 10:20PM
donna said...
Just another reason why I need to QUIT shopping at Wal Mart............. Now I will!
Reply
7-07-2009 @ 2:18AM
peanutbuttertemp said...
Nationalized healthcare is a bad idea for everyone in America except a small percentage of the poor.
I have no desire to have the government regulate and mandate my healthcare - especially vaccines.
A friend of mine from England says it takes 180 days to get to see a doctor if you have a broken leg. 180 days if you have a hernia. It does not matter your level of pain and suffering, or what you are willing to pay, you must wait just as long as everyone else. He is so glad to be here in America, but is now disappointed that we may end up like Great Britain.
Reply
7-07-2009 @ 7:55AM
charlesrongione said...
WHAT KIND OF HEALTH CARE ??????????????????????????????????????????????
7-07-2009 @ 9:11PM
Robert777 said...
Your statement is completely false. Do some research instead of lazily relying on hearsay.
7-07-2009 @ 9:46PM
Justin said...
its very obbious you have no idea what you are talking about. there would be no regulation and if you have your own coverage, you are fine and will not be effected by this at all so why worry? Your "friend" in england obviously knows nothing as I have family in many socialist countries in europe and have used there hospitals while studying abroad. Wait times are no worse than they are here in the US. Just like here in the US if you need to see a specialist its pay up or wait, its the same way over there.
7-08-2009 @ 1:03AM
George said...
Are you even reading your own words? Do you really believe that people in England walk around for half-a-year with a bone sticking out of their shins? If you're going to go around scare-mongering with made up statistics, at least make them believable.
7-08-2009 @ 10:22AM
Ryan said...
peanutbuttertemp
I have friends who live in the UK. They love the health care system over there. They've told me most of the time they can see their doctor same day and the wait time in the doctors office is about half what it is in the States. Personally I think your full of BS ... or your a troll.
7-08-2009 @ 2:12PM
Phil said...
I know what you mean brother. A second cousin, third removed, of the brother of a friend of mine from England told me that monsters jump out of the Hospitals and eat your babies there. We definitely don't want that here in the US.
I mean...just because statistics show that nations with health care, such as UK and Cuba (for God's sake) have lower child mortality rates than the US, with a lower health care cost, doesn't mean it's true. Think about those monsters!!
How can they have lower child mortality rates if Monsters keep eating their children?! It must be a liberal, big government, comspiracy.
7-07-2009 @ 9:17PM
Tim said...
peanutbuttertemp:
I waited 5 years to see a doctor here in the US. I'm not a bum on the streets. I'm a highly skilled technology worker. Our industry constantly hires employees as temporary contracts to shed their health care costs. I went years without seeing a doctor. That's the system we have here in the US.
Reply
7-07-2009 @ 9:22PM
testing said...
Ms. Heller, your comment about 48% of Walmart employees not covered by their insurance is somewhat misleading in that it implies these folks are uninsured. As the article you cite makes clear, 95% of Walmart's employees are insured. Less than 5% lack insurance. Most families have on insurance plan that covers the entire family--spouses, children, etc. Likewise, people who choose to work two jobs only need to get insurance from one job. The fact that some percentage of Walmart employees choose to get their insurance elsewhere doesn't mean Walmart has a problem providing coverage.
Donna, why does the fact that Walmart supports employer-provided health insurance make you want to stop shopping there?
Reply
7-13-2009 @ 12:01PM
stuartrich said...
It's difficult to guess which way a a monolithic company will swing on hot issues, but it's not so difficult to guess what motivates the decision(s) going either direction.
Reply
8-06-2009 @ 7:45PM
Dan said...
This is how this works:
Walmart supports healthcare resolutions to fine employers $750 per employee for not providing healthcare.
Walmart decides not to provide healthcare to its employees that it previously paid $1,500 per employee.
The government healthcare plan then covers Walmart employees.
Taking $1,500 - $750 equals a savings of $750 per employee.
Walmart saves a billion dollars.
Reply