WAL-MART is the company everyone loves to hate — except when shopping there for inexpensive food, clothing and household goods. Wal-Mart employees and customers have voted with their feet to make the company New Hampshire's biggest employer, despite the rantings of anti-corporate do-gooders. Now those do-gooders are trying to use the law to accomplish what they haven't been able to achieve through persuasion — namely, cripple Wal-Mart. In New Hampshire they would use House Bill 1704.

The bill would force companies with 1,500 or more employees to spend on employee health insurance an amount equal to at least 10.5 percent of their payroll. If they don't, they would have to pay the difference into a state health insurance fund.

Activists previously concentrated on handicapping Wal-Mart by turning local planning and zoning boards against it. The myth of the Wal-Mart employee on Medicaid drives this new strategy. But only 5 percent of Wal-Mart employees are on Medicaid, compared to 4 percent for the average American company.

The legislation really is about three things: 1) hurting the left's favorite bogeyman; 2) moving closer to universal health care; and 3) creating "living" wages.

Activists cannot get the votes for creating universal state health care, so they are trying to use the law to force corporations to provide it themselves.

They also cannot get the votes to pass "living wage" laws, so they are trying to make companies raise employee compensation by paying more for health care.

But as with most misguided corporate mandates, this one would cost jobs and raise prices. It also makes the terrible mistake of substituting the judgment of individuals in the marketplace — corporate executives, employees and customers — for the judgment of lawmakers. That is rarely a good idea, and this bill is no exception.

What's your opinion? E-mail us at letters@unionleader.com.