House panel debates pros, cons of state "Wal-Mart" bills

Republicans and Democrats differ over states' right to force businesses to pay for health insurance.

By Elaine Monaghan, AMNews staff. May 22/29, 2006.

Washington -- A nationwide push to pass state legislation requiring employers to cover their workers' health insurance has grabbed congressional lawmakers' attention.

This legislation, dubbed "fair share" by its main advocate, the AFL-CIO, raised temperatures at a meeting of a House Committee on Education and the Workforce panel. The measures' opponents said health costs already were hurting businesses while mandate defenders said states must act because of the strain uninsured workers put on everyone else.

The legislation, which the labor group is pressing for in 33 states, would force businesses over a certain size to devote a percentage of their payrolls to health care coverage or pay a fine. In 2000, the AMA rescinded an earlier policy of supporting employer mandates.

For the AFL-CIO, businesses that fail to offer health insurance or charge large amounts for it are shifting the cost to workers, other businesses and taxpayers. "Why should a company like Wal-Mart -- which made $10 billion last year alone -- be able to force taxpayers to foot the bill for their health care costs?" AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said in an earlier statement.

But Rep. Sam Johnson (R, Texas), chair of the employer-employee relations subcommittee, criticized the legislation, also called "Wal-Mart" bills because the retail giant often would be affected by the legislation. "Governments who value freedom and free enterprise do not tell businesses how to operate," he said.