There is a very interesting article by Alan Reynolds about a bill that was passed in Maryland. It was dubbed the "Wal-Mart Bill" because it was really targeted at Wal-Mart. The bill requires Wal-Mart to pay 8% of its payroll expenses to health insurance. Yet, it does not require Wal-Mart to pay more in total compensation.
I agree with the author in his findings related to this bill. The intent of the bill was to get Wal-Mart to spend more on health care for its employees. The problem is that is was founded on weak arguments and it has adverse side effects. Ultimately, this will hurt the workers at Wal-Mart more than anyone else.
This bill mainly hurts those that are part-time workers like students, housewives, and seniors who also receive health insurance. These types of employees are typically covered by other insurance plans-husbands, fathers, or the government. Specifying that 8% of compensation has to be in health insurance just means that these workers will received less in pay. The insurance is not meaningful to them anyway.
There are other adverse side effects mentioned in the article if you want to reference it. This goes to show what happens when governments try to get involved in business. They try to regulate one area and then create problems in other areas.