Judge overturns state law requiring Wal-Mart to spend more on heath care

[Freddie Stubbs]

Updated 7/19/2006 2:48 PM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Subscribe to stories like this



By Brian Witte, Associated Press
BALTIMORE — A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a Maryland law that would have required Wal-Mart Stores (WMT) to spend more on employee health care, arguing the retail giant "faces threatened injury" from the law's spending requirement.
The state law would have required large employers to spend at least 8% of payroll on health care or pay the difference in state taxes. Only Wal-Mart would have been affected by Maryland's law.

U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz concluded that the law would have hurt Wal-Mart by requiring it to track and allocate benefits for its Maryland employees in a different way from how it keeps track of employee benefits in other states. Motz wrote that the law "imposes legally cognizable injury upon Wal-Mart."

The Retail Industry Leaders Association, of which Wal-Mart is a member, filed the lawsuit contesting the legislation. The group contended the law unfairly targeted the world's largest retailer.

more: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2006-07-19-walmart-healthcare_x.htm

[napi21]

1. In a way, I almost agree with this judge. I don't think the Gov't should

be able to tell any business how to spend it's money. HOWEVER, I think there should be regulations inserted into the State funded health care systems that restrict any business from using the State as a subsidy for their lack of will to provide the benefits necessary for people to survive today.

I'm not quite sure how to do that without severly damaging the employees, but I'm sure there's a way.

Just the fact that WM actually gives their employees printed instructions on how to apply for and get State benefits is WRONG! What that does is force all of us who don't shop at WM to subsidize the products they sell.

[DumpDavisHogg]

4. Of course the government should be able to tell them

Because that's part of the government's JOB!!!

The government tells me I can't say the F-word on the radio or buy beer on a Sunday, so why can't the government tell a corporation what it can and can't do???

Corporations are supposed to have no constitutional rights. None. The Constitution is supposed to protect individual rights, not corporate rights.

[napi21]

6. I didn't say it can't regulate, I said I didn't think they should be able

to tell them HOW to spend their money! There''s a big difference!

A regulation tells a business what they CAN'T DO! For instance, they cannot polute, all food establishments MUST comply with sanitation inspections, all must comply with OSHA laws, etc.

It's different for a Gov't org to say to a business, you must provide3 health care (which is effectively what this law was telling WM). I suspect it also might have been a bit different if the law hadn't specifically honed in on ONE BUSINESS! Like it or not, THAT'S discrimination. Different than we are used to, but discrimination none the less.

[DumpDavisHogg]

13. The law didn't mention Wal-Mart by name

The law didn't even mention Wal-Mart by name, so they're really not honing in on just one business.

[CrispyQ]

8. Ahhh, the robber barons of the 1800s took care of that one.

Corporations are persons with Constitutional rights & protections. Actually, because of their power, wealth & persistence, they are better protected & enjoy more rights than We the People do. Revocation of corporate personhood would be a powerful step in the right direction to regaining control of our government.

Welcome to DU, DDH! :hi:

[Sherman A1]

14. Well Said

I just don't understand why corporations are treated like human beings. They are just an entity of the State and the State derives it's being from the will of the people or did I misread the Constitution?

[CrispyQ]

19. Our founding fathers were extremely concerned about corporate power.

Oh geez, don't get me started on the corporate personhood issue! :mad: Honestly, if we don't reign in the multi-national behemoths, their "profit at all cost" mentality will destroy everything good & fine on this planet.

Below is a great page with lots of info & links to other articles about corporate personhood. Three years ago I could not have told you what corporate personhood is. When I came across this website it was some of the most educational reading I've done! And absolutely mind boggling that anyone could possibly argue that corporations should have rights & protections equal to human beings. Holy crap! Jefferson is spinning in his grave.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

snip...

Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations.

But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.

We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal "persons" effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

===

[sandnsea]

17. They make me buy car insurance

A lot of people even support the idea of a law to force parents to carry health insurance on their kids, and in fact, non-custodial parents are required by law to carry health insurance in some states.

It's stunning to me that they've been able to manipulate the public debate so much that people instinctively believe business shouldn't be regulated in spite of the regulation real live people face every single day.

[DumpDavisHogg]

2. Another activist judge speaks

The law "would have hurt Wal-Mart"???

Well, BOO HOO HOO!!!

I haven't read the whole article yet, but this is more proof of how an unelected activist judge can just override the will of the people.

Just another dictator wearing a black robe.

[MindPilot]

3. Not just any "dictator wearing a black robe"

I'll bet *this* one is getting paid off.

Fuck Wal-Mart.

[regnaD kciN]

24. Not sure about being "paid off"...

Which district is this? Since it's in Maryland, I suspect it's the same district as DC and Virginia. That federal judicial district is notorious for having been packed with Bushie conservatives -- including the belief that laws concerning business should be subjected to cost/benefit analysis in deciding whether to uphold or overturn them -- and is known as a place where ideology often trumps legal arguments.

[Paulie]

5. What? California has it's own rules seperate from say Illinois

Benefits ARE different between the states. WTF

[napi21]

7. OH YES! All States make their own rules for their own State benefits!

You might be surprised at some of the differences too!

[spotbird]

9. Judicial activism at its worst

Wouldn't it be nice if judicial activism really did come to an end?

[spotbird]

10. Judicial activism at its worst

Wouldn't it be nice if judicial activism really did come to an end?

[bluestateguy]

11. Activist judges legislating from the bench

Why can't these judges respect elected legislatures, elected by the people, and go with the will of the majority? Majority rule. They should just interpret the law and interpret the Constitution, not make law from the bench. They should respect the will of the majority, because if the majority says so, it must be correct. If these Imperial Judges want to make law then they should run for office.

[cosmicdot]

12. but not impose injury to 'the general Welfare' or to Maryland?

'the rise of corporate dominance and the theft of human rights'

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - preamble to the Constitution

######

The Fair Share Health Care Plan expands coverage by requiring the biggest companies in Maryland (10,000+) to either provide decent health care to employees or reimburse the state for the increases in Medicaid and emergency room costs.

Other big businesses located in Maryland (Johns Hopkins, Giant Food, Northrop Grumman) apparently meet the criteria of the law; and, by doing so, I would guess they pose less of a burden on Maryland, its taxpayers, and its Medicaid system, etc. Are they injured?

It seems the Maryland law is providing for the General Welfare of its citizens in more ways than one.


Of course, Congressman Conyers' bill http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm the United States National Health Insurance Act H.R. 676, is available for passage. Wal-Mart should consider supporting it. Wal-Mart could use its litigation and lobbying budget on pay increases and other employee benefits.


As far as corporate personhood goes, Thom Hartmann's research found it to have been a mistake
RE Unequal Protection http://www.bodhitree.com/lectures/hartmann2.html

[Initech]

15. Yet another example of the human treatment companies get...

Wal-Mart is not, cannot, or will not suffer any injury! This is fucking stupid.

[superconnected]

16. Sounds like the judge is bought. How alito.

[Auntie Bush]

18. Damn those "Liberal" judges! n/t

[MGKrebs]

20. But the big companies can get tax breaks?

Giant corporations get tax breaks, utility breaks, employee training incentives, government assistance in property zoning and condemnation, but we can't ask for anything in return??? Makes me sick.

As a small business owner, I just looked at this, at least partly, as a way to level the field with small businesses. We don't get breaks on our utilities for 20 years.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

26. You got that right...

[Judi Lynn]

21. A classic Republican triumph. Unbridled greed wins again. n/t

[lynne]

22. I agree that the law should be overturned, but for different reasons --

- Why should Walmart be the only employer required to spend at least 8% of payroll on health insurance? There are plenty of employers who provide NO health insurance at all. If Walmart is required to pay a certain percentage towards coverage, shouldn't all Maryland employers be required to do the same?

If the law applies only to Walmart then the law does not protect the majority of employees of the state. All employees should be equally protected by employer health insurance contributions if the state is going to be the one mandating the coverage. This law screws every MD employee who does not work for Walmart and is not afforded health coverage equal to the mandates of this law by their employer.

[MGKrebs]

25. If so, then ALL companies should be equally treated for taxes

and utility rates and other government services too. Wal Mart gets all the benefits based on the promise that they will bring jobs to an area. Now communities are realizing that they lose more jobs than they gain, and the new jobs aren't as good anyway. Time to re-negotiate the deal.

[w4rma]

23. Because they are huge enough to be in multiple states they are too huge to

handle health insurance differently in one of them and that will "cause them 'injury'". This ruling is blatant **bull**. That judge should be investigated for bribes and impeached.