About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Will repeated Wash. Post's misleading Wal-Mart health care defense

January 20, 2006 12:40 pm ET

SUMMARY: Washington Post columnist George F. Will repeated the misleading claim that Wal-Mart workers "are only slightly more likely to collect Medicaid than the average among the nation's large retailers."

3 Comments

In his January 19 column defending Wal-Mart's health insurance program, Washington Post columnist George F. Will repeated the misleading claim that "Wal-Mart employees are only slightly more likely to collect Medicaid than the average among the nation's large retailers." Will made this claim in denouncing a recently passed Maryland law that will require large businesses to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health insurance or pay the difference into Maryland's health care program for the poor. According to Will, "Wal-Mart's enemies" justified the bill by arguing that "the company's pay and medical benefits are insufficient to prevent some employees from being eligible for Medicaid."

An April 6, 2005, Post article noted that in addition to Wal-Mart, only three other employers in the state -- Johns Hopkins University, supermarket chain Giant Food, and defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corp. -- "have enough employees to fall under the bill's requirements. But all meet the 8 percent threshold for for-profit employers or the 6 percent mandated for nonprofits."

While Will stated that "Wal-Mart employees are only slightly more likely to collect Medicaid than the average among the nation's large retailers," a larger gap exists for the children of Wal-Mart employees, as Media Matters for America has previously noted. In an internal memo prepared for Wal-Mart's November 2005 board of directors retreat, Wal-Mart executive vice president for benefits M. Susan Chambers acknowledged that 27 percent of children of Wal-Mart employees are enrolled in Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) -- a figure Chambers called "significant." According to an October 26, 2005, paper by researchers at the University of California-Berkeley's Center for Labor Research and Education, "22% of children of employees of large retailers are enrolled in Medicaid/SCHIP, compared to 27% reported by Wal-Mart for children of their employees." The UC-Berkeley researchers further reported that only 22.7 percent of children of all retail employees are enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP. (As Media Matters has noted, the 22.7 percent figure conflicts with Chambers's memo, which claims that 36 percent of the children of all retail workers are enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP.)

The Berkeley researchers found an even greater difference when they added uninsured children of employees to the comparison: "While 46% of the children of Wal-Mart workers are either uninsured or on Medicaid/SCHIP, the comparable figure for children of all large retail workers is 29%." That difference appears to be directly relevant to the Maryland law; a 2003 Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured study found that "[u]ninsured Americans received about $35 billion in uncompensated health care treatment in 2001, with federal, state and local governments covering potentially as much as 85 percent."

From Will's January 19 column:

Wal-Mart's enemies say Maryland is justified in expropriating some of the company's revenue because the company's pay and medical benefits are insufficient to prevent some employees from being eligible for Medicaid. Well.

Eighty-six percent of Wal-Mart employees have health insurance, more than half through the company, which offers 18 plans, one with $11 monthly premiums and another with $3 co-payments. Wal-Mart employees are only slightly more likely to collect Medicaid than the average among the nation's large retailers, which hire many entry-level and part-time workers.

Will's claim echoes similarly misleading claims made by the Post editorial board and Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby.

In addition, Will's assertion that 86 percent of Wal-Mart employees are insured echoes an old Wal-Mart claim that has been contradicted by more recent Wal-Mart data. According to a June 2, 2005, article in Business NH Magazine, Wal-Mart's website claimed at the time: "Currently, 86 percent of Wal-Mart hourly store associates surveyed have medical insurance -- 56 percent of those with coverage receive health care insurance from WalMart and the remainder receive health care through another source, such as another employer, a family member, the military, or Medicare." Wal-Mart's website no longer makes this claim.

According to the Chambers memo, 19 percent of Wal-Mart employees are uninsured, and 5 percent are insured by Medicaid -- meaning that 76 percent of Wal-Mart employees have non-Medicaid insurance. In a January 2006 press release denouncing the Maryland law, Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark said that "[m]ore than three-fourths of Wal-Mart associates have health insurance."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by rrastro (January 20, 2006 8:28 pm ET)
         

      who forced these people to work for walmart? and arent they better off than earning NOTHING?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by scooter (January 20, 2006 8:35 pm ET)
           

        But would you say the same thing to peasants having to shovel dung for next-to-nothing just to survive? Afterall, the King is providing for his people.

        What is happening is that we are all paying for Walmart's cheapness. Sure it's nice to get cheap crap even cheaper at Walmart, but I pay more in healthcare as a result. We all pay one way or another.

        BTW, our economy forces them to work for peanuts and be told to go find their own healthcare.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by kenwolman (January 21, 2006 10:23 am ET)
         

      WalMart pays crap and handles in personnel the same way. Its claims to health insurance have long since been proven farcical. But who keeps it in business?

      I used to work in Princeton, New Jersey. There is a huge mall there called Nassau Park, and in it is a WalMart. Now, there are no poor people in Princeton or the nearby communities of Plainsboro and West Windsor. None. Where do the employees come from? Most likely, nearby Burlington County, an area reminiscent of Petticoat Junction where cars sit up on orange crates in the yard. Yes, any job is better than no job...until you get there.

      I walked into this WalMart once. I admit it. The time before that was 1996 and I was in Arkansas in need of cigarettes. This time the trip was too depressing: resentful faces in red aprons or tabards or whatever they are. "F--- you, go away." I did.

      Who keeps it in business especially in affluent areas? People with money who are inveterate bargain hunters, even if they are buying crap and even if they are cooperating with the exploitation of other people who do not earn big money. It's just another case of "I'm getting mine, so up yours." It's a lack of conscience, social or personal. If people like my former boss could be turned from the dark side, WalMart could be at the very least crippled and forced to get out of areas where it provides no service whatsoever.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.