Wal-Mart uniting with the Center for American Progress and SEIU to back employer-mandated health care coverage at first sounds like “cats and dogs living together” – until you get into the details.

In Wal-Mart backs health benefits mandate, The Hill’s Jeffrey Young gets close to the answer, but not close enough.

The letter, signed by Wal-Mart President and CEO Mike Duke, SEIU President Andy Stern and CAP’s JohnPodesta, says any employer mandate should not be one-size-fits-all: “We are for shared responsibility. Not every business can make the same contribution, but everyone must make some contribution.”

Another part of the letter opposes requiring employers to contribute to the Medicaid benefits for their low-wage employees - the bulk of Wal-Mart’s 2-million-strong labor force.

If you follow their logic, which seems it would have prompted further questioning - Wal-Mart seems to be exempting themselves under the “not every business can make the same contribution” clause while attempting to hold smaller employers to the “everyone must make some contribution” part.

Meanwhile, the Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky did ask.

“By embracing an employer mandate now, Wal-Mart raises its profile on the issue — not to mention cleanses its tarnished reputation — and helps mold a likely component of health care reform: a requirement that every large employer provide adequate coverage or pay a certain percentage of its payroll towards financing health care for its workers. ”

Volsky goes on to claim that the ‘free rider’ tax “discourages the hiring of lower income workers or workers with disabilities,” yet doesn’t explain that position.

Leave it to more conservative or libertarian blogs to break down Wal-Mart’s break with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and most other business groups.

In Wal-Mart (!) Backs Key Reform Principle, The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn writes that “many conservatives, not to mention many trade groups, detest the idea–calling it an unconscionable burden on business and overreach of government authority.

“Starting today, those critics are going to have a harder time making their argument stick. And it’s all thanks to Wal-Mart.
…
“Remember, there’s a huge difference between voting for something all businesses oppose and voting for one that includes among its supporters a huge, iconic corporation.

TNR puts a strong emphasis on the letter’s suggestions on reigning in costs– strengthening the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission’s role and a ‘trigger’ mechanism that would forcibly reduce costs or payments at a set if reform fails to control them.

In the conservative blog Reason Hit and Run, Peter Suderman nearly dismisses the letter as a corporate PR move by Wal-Mart, which “has long been the target of complaints that it treats its labor force shabbily.”

“Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest employer, can afford the costs imposed by an employer mandate. Smaller competitors are likely to find it harder.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has taken a hard line on the errant corporation:

“Some businesses make the decision to use the government as a weapon against their competition,” James Gelfand, the Chamber’s senior manager for health policy, said in a statement. “We do not agree with this method — the government is a blunt instrument and taxes have extreme unintended consequences, negatively affecting the economy as a whole. We also recognize that momentum is moving against an employer mandate. The business community will be stepping up our advocacy as necessary, too.”