Taken from memo from executive vice president for benefits:


(The memo is pointed to from this reliable New York Times page, where if you click on the "Text of Internal Wal-Mart Memo" near the top, it will get you to the full memo (that is here), of which I have taken a piece out of adobe p. 14 of that document. (My excerpt has a different font than the NY Times copy because I copied from an earlier posting at a different site that no longer has the memo posted, but you can verify it has the same text.)

Thus, you see that there is consideration of "dissuading unhealthy people from coming to work at Wal-Mart." (Last paragraph in my excerpt, 3rd-4th line.)

I'm actually going to defend Wal-Mart, (but not our legislators!), here by pointing out the basic economics.

Large companies generally self-insure, which means they define health benefits under little in the way of regulations (due to Federal ERISA law). They define health benefits for there employees, and pay for the cost of claims out of their own pockets. They don't need to use an insurance company (except, sometimes, to "administer" the claims), because for a big company the costs "average out".

Because of the lack of regulation of these employer-provided plans, it is immediately obvious to anyone with a single economics course and decent math/analytical skill that employers have every incentive to avoid employing people who are more likely to be unhealthy (including older, etc.). The fragility of the employer-based self-insured mechanism for insuring the middle class is obvious. A company may try to provide good insurance to all if they are rolling in cash, but when times are bad, or when the stockholders start to get demanding, they are under massive economic pressure to cut-back benefits, cut out health insurance entirely, or avoid the sick and the older people. To some extent age-discrimination laws, and possibly handicap-discrimination laws may create an obstacle to certain ways of avoiding the sick, but pretty much they won't.

Therefore, all large-employer insurance, regardless of state regulations, is under economic pressure to be dropped or evaded. People working for companies that have more higher-socioeconomic-level employees are more secure against loss of health care than the Wal-Mart worker class, of course, because they may be harder to replace if they don't like the loss of benefits. But still, within that higher-level, the only way avoiding giving jobs to the not-so-healthy looking, and the older employees might actually economically harm a company is that maybe some managers might know of the process, get alientated and disgusted, and just leave.

Although Walmart, America's biggest employer, considered but dropped the proposal, it's a good bet that some other self-insured companies already have this kind of employee-cherry-picking-based on health and youth, either explicitly, or implicitly, or based on a youth-appeal or fit-appeal benefits or product strategy. I was at my local Wegman's Supermarket today. I noticed they have a really young and healthy looking set of checkout people. For all I know, this cherry-picking could be part of their business strategy.


Who am I? I am Norm Spier, a mathematical statistician who lives in New York State. Provisions for my own health insurance are quite sound, and actually don't involve the employer-insurance loss risk. However, the job that the legislators have done at the national and especially the state level in many (but not all) states is so poor and incompetent that I now believe it needs to be made essential that anyone running for national or state office needs to release their SAT scores before they start campaigning. (Both parts--verbal and math. GRE and any LSAT as well.)

If you have any comments, or want to point out an error or oversight, please email me at norm@nastechservices.com



Important Legal Disclaimer: I am trying to put useful, helpful information on this page. However, I can not be responsible for any errors above. Therefore, please check with the appropriate state insurance departments, and/or seek legal advice, as appropriate, before relying on the information above.

WAL-MART COUNTER-MARKETING: VISIBLE DISABLED GREETER? Call me paranoid, but in my local Wal-mart of late, I've noticed the frequent presence of at least two different greeters who are both old and disabled. Is this part of an active effort to counter the bad publicity from the above memo? Cynical as the system has made me, I have noted that these 2 greeters look to be over 65, which would mean their health care expense would be covered primarily by the government (Medicare), not Wal-mart. If you note a disabled greeter in your local Wal-mart who is not over 65, I think many disabled actually are eligible for Medicare before they are 65. But don't take my word for it, as I may be wrong. Check with the manager of your local Wal-mart.

RETURN TO PRE-EXISTING CONDITION PAGE.