Pressure on Wal-Mart sends the wrong message
New study questions basis of Wal-Mart Bill
Published on Friday, January 13, 2006
PRESS RELEASES
GERMANTOWN, MD, January 13, 2006— The debate over extending health insurance coverage to the uninsured is again a major issue in the 2006 session of the Maryland General Assembly. During the 2005 session, the General Assembly passed the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act, which Governor Robert Ehrlich subsequently vetoed. The act was quickly dubbed “the Wal-Mart Bill” because that company is the principle target of the legislation’s sponsors and supporters. On January 12, 2006, Maryland lawmakers voted to override Ehrlich’s veto.
In “Covering the Uninsured in Maryland: Futile Gestures or Real Reforms?” Maryland Public Policy Institute adjunct fellow and Heritage Foundation research fellow Edmund F. Haislmaier looks at the bill's possible effects on Maryland's uninsured population and uncovers the real reasons behind lack of health coverage.
“The Fair Share Act is nothing more than a futile gesture of political symbolism destined to have no meaningful effect on health insurance coverage. This can be seen by comparing published data on the uninsured in Maryland with the legislation’s provisions,” says Haislmaier. For example,
- Many of the so-called uninsured are covered by Medicaid.
- The Fair Share Act would put the onus on workers to shoulder the cost.
- The state’s health insurance system itself should be the target of reform.
The study can be accessed at www.mdpolicy.org. Mr. Haislmaier is available for comment at (240) 686-3510.
