NYT: (4th Cir)Court Rules for Wal-Mart in Maryland Suit (required contributions to emp. health care)

A federal appeals court ruled today that Maryland violated federal law when it required Wal-Mart Stores to increase spending on employee health insurance, in a decision that appears likely to end a bitter yearlong legal battle that pitted state legislators, organized labor and health care advocates against the nation’s largest retailer.

The 2-to-1 ruling by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is a major setback — if not a fatal blow — for a nascent campaign, called “fair share,” that sought to move millions of America’s working poor off of state-sponsored insurance programs, like Medicaid, and on to employer-based plans.

Facing ballooning Medicaid costs, the Maryland state legislature last year passed a law forcing major employers to spend the equivalent of 8 percent of their payrolls on health care. But it structured the legislation so that it was aimed at only one company — Wal-Mart, which has many workers rely on Medicaid in states from Maryland to Georgia.

<cut>

But the appeals court, upholding a lower court ruling, found that the Maryland rule violated a federal labor law intended to allow companies to create a uniform system of health benefits across the country, rather than navigate a patchwork of state-by-state requirements. By requiring employers in Maryland to restructure insurance plans, the court found, the law “conflicts” with the intent of the federal labor law, known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA.

NY Times Article

This was the result of trying to include insurance companies in the solution.

Better than the tax is the California Plan that Arnold veto'd.

The Constitution provides corporations with NO rights. None.

Congress needs to open impeachment hearings on these right-wing tyrannical judges at once.

Always Low Benefits! can continue in Md.
Wal-Mart reprieved as health-plan law overturned
Associated Press
Posted Thursday, January 18, 2007

BALTIMORE -- A federal appeals court upheld a ruling invalidating a Maryland law that would have forced Wal-Mart to spend more on employee health care, agreeing Wednesday that the state legislation interferes with federal law.

Maryland's law would have required nongovernmental employers with 10,000 or more workers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or pay the difference in taxes. The lower court ruled that the state law was pre-empted by the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA.

snip...
"Were we to approve Maryland's enactment solely for its noble purpose, we would be leading a charge against the foundational policy of ERISA, and surely other states and local governments would follow," the ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reads. "As sensitive as we are to the right of Maryland and other states to enact laws of their own choosing, we are also bound to enforce ERISA as the 'supreme law of the land.' "

snip...
The Maryland law came amid efforts by legislative leaders to cut the state's $4.6 billion annual Medicaid tab and was seen as a means to encourage employers to keep their employees off public health care rolls. The state's Democratic legislature overrode a veto by Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich to pass the law, which would have taken effect this month.

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070118/NEWS/701180362/1006/NEWS