Long before the Health Care legislation of 2010 Wal-Mart had a long history of offering the least possible health care benefits to their employees and/or structuring their insurance in such a way that the employee will choose public assistance (
socialism anyone?) or the employer sponsored plan due to high deductibles and limited coverage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Walmart#Health_insuranceHealth insuranceAs of October 2005, Walmart's health insurance covered 44% or approximately 572,000 of its 1.6 million U.S. workers.[67] In comparison, Walmart rival and wholesaler Costco insures approximately 96% of its eligible workers, although Costco has been criticized by investors for its high labor costs.[citation needed] Walmart spends an average of $3,500 per employee for health care, 27% less than the retail-industry average of $4,800.[68]
When asked why so many Walmart workers choose to enroll in state health care plans instead of Walmart's own plan, Walmart CEO Lee Scott acknowledged that some states' benefits may be more generous than Walmart's own plan: "In some of our states, the public program may actually be a better value - with relatively high income limits to qualify, and low premiums."[69] Critics of Walmart argue in Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price that employees are paid so little they cannot afford health insurance.According to a September 2002 survey by the state of Georgia, one in four children of Walmart employees were enrolled in PeachCare for Kids, the state's health-insurance program for uninsured children, compared to the state's second-biggest employer, Publix, which had one child in the program for every 22 employees.[70] A December 2004 nationwide survey commissioned by Walmart showed that the use of public-assistance health-care programs by children of Walmart workers was at a similar rate to other retailers' employees, and at rates similar to the U.S. population as a whole.[71]
On October 26, 2005, a Walmart internal memo sent to the firm's Board of Directors advised trimming over $1 billion in health care expenses by 2011 through measures such as attracting a younger, implicitly healthier work force by offering education benefits.[72] The memo also suggested giving sedentary Walmart staffers, such as cashiers, more physically demanding tasks, such as "cart-gathering," and eliminating full-time positions in favor of hiring part-time employees who would be ineligible for the more expensive health insurance and several policy proposals which may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.[72] The memo also accused Walmart's lower paid employees of abusing emergency room visits, "possibly due to their prior experience with programs such as Medicaid," whereas such visits may actually be due to the reduced ability of uninsured or underinsured people to make timely appointments to see a regular physician.[72] Critics point to this internal memo as evidence that Walmart purports to be generous with its employee benefits, while in reality the company is working to cut such benefits by reducing the number of full-time and long-term employees and discouraging supposedly unhealthy people from working at Walmart.On January 12, 2006, the Maryland legislature enacted a law requiring that all corporations with more than 10,000 employees in the state spend at least eight percent of their payroll on employee benefits, or pay into a state fund for the uninsured.[73] Walmart, with about 17,000 employees in Maryland, was the only known company to not meet this requirement before the bill passed. On July 7, 2006, the Maryland law was overturned in federal court by a U.S. District judge who held that a federal law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), preempted the Maryland law. In his opinion, the judge said that the law would "hurt Walmart by imposing the administrative burden of tracking benefits in Maryland differently than in other states."[74] Similar legislation in Wisconsin days later was defeated in the state legislature.
On April 17, 2006, Walmart announced it was making a health care plan available to part-time workers after one year of service, instead of the prior two-year requirement.[75] One criticism of the new plan is that it provides benefit only after a $1,000 deductible is paid ($3,000 for a family). These deductibles may financially be out of reach for eligible part-time workers. Walmart estimates this change can add 150,000 workers to health coverage plans, if all who are eligible take part. By January 2007, the number of workers enrolled in the company's health care plans increased by 8%, which Walmart attributed to the introduction of less expensive insurance policies.[76] However, even with this increase, less than half of Walmart's employees, or 47.4%, received health insurance through the company, with 10%, or 130,000, receiving no coverage at all.[76]
In October 2001, a class action sexual discrimination lawsuit, Mauldin v. Walmart Stores, Inc., was filed against Walmart challenging the company's denial of health insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives. The lawsuit was certified for class action status, but later dropped by the plaintiffs in 2006 once Walmart agreed to change its health insurance policies.[77]
In March 2008, Walmart sued a former Walmart employee, Deborah Shank, to recover the money it spent for her health care after she was brain-damaged, restricted to a wheelchair, and nursing home-bound after her minivan was hit by a truck. Walmart sued the former employee for $470,000 after she received a settlement from the accident, citing that company policy forbids employees from receiving coverage if they also win a settlement in a lawsuit.[78] After a wave of bad publicity, Walmart dropped its suit.[79]
New, full-time Walmart associates must work at least six months before being eligible to purchase the company's primary health insurance.