Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) is insuring more of its workers. It does not seem to want to advertise that fact, but it is true nonetheless. According to The New York Times, "Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, provides insurance to 100,000 more workers than it did just three years ago -- and it is now easier for many to sign up for health care at Wal-Mart than at its rival Target (NYSE:TGT), whose reputation glows in comparison."

The world's largest retailer is still offering less than half of its US workers healthcare benefits. The company plans more improvements with all workers being able to pick from a group of different plans by next year.

The move does not come without some potential risk for shareholders. Wal-Mart's margins in the US are already pinched by slow same-store sales, high fuel costs, and a slowing economy. While insuring more people may be the right thing to do, over time it may not help the firm's share price.

Being a Wal-Mart worker may be getting better than being an investor.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com

Still wondering why almost every candidate for President has his or her own idea of a new health care plan? Obviously the public is ready. They're not crazy about the idea of paying for health insurance themselves, even if their employer gave them money to help pay for it.

That's just one of the none-too-surprising findings in this year's Health Confidence Survey, conducted biennially by the Employee Benefits Research Institute (EBRI).

Three-quarters of those surveyed (76%) valued employer-provided health care so highly that they said they would prefer employer-based health benefits to a $7,500 taxable increase in income. When asked how much income they would want if their employer asked them to give up employer-based coverage, they responded they want $12,000 in taxable income.

China Life Insurance (NYSE: LFC) implied volatility is Elevated as LFC is near a record high. LFC offers products and services, including individual life insurance, accident insurance, and health insurance in China. LFC is recently up $2.97 to $66.21. LFC over all option implied volatility of 46 is above its 26-week average of 39, according to Track Data, suggesting larger price fluctuations.

ICICI Bank (NYSE: IBN) overall implied volatility is Elevated at 47. IBN is India's second largest bank, with total assets of over $79 billion USD as of 3/31/07. IBN over all option implied volatility of 47 is above its 26-week average of 41, according to Track Data, suggesting larger price fluctuations.

Daily options update is provided by Stock Specialist Paul Foster of theflyonthewall.com.

According to an article in today's USA Today, UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH)'s United Healthcare has created a health insurance program that charges overweight smokers up to two grand more per year for health insurance. The sin premium adds a stick component to the wellness program carrot.

This idea seems like one that could be dramatically expanded, too. Tying behavior to insurance costs could be a great way to rein in our burgeoning expenses. How about:

• Doubling collision coverage cost for cell-phone drivers, lipstick appliers, and chicken-nugget dunkers?
• Eliminating coverage of hearing aids for iPod users?
• Reducing the coverage of carpal tunnel surgery for text messagers and video gamers?
• Demanding a higher premium for skin cancer coverage from frequent beach-goers?
• Refusing to cover the cost of treating high blood pressure for golfers?
• Raising the premium for allergy treatments for farmers?
• Extending the copay for dentistry for those found to chew sugar gum, tobacco, or nougat?
• Charging more for dermatology visits for those who choose to depilate "down there"?
• Increasing the cost for hair transplants for those who choose to have multiple children?

Pay to play has become an American obsession, and it's only fair that each person covers the cost of his or her indulgence, right? The concept of accepting one another's imperfections, and willingly pooling our exposures so that we all can receive help when we need it - too 20th century?

From time to time, Google Inc.'s (NASDAQ: GOOG) reminds everyone that despite all of the talk about peace, love and the sharing of information, it is just a company.

A case in point is the idiotic rantings of a low-level executive trying to kowtow to the health care industry. Writing about MIchael Moore's documentary "Sicko," Lauren Hutton Turner laments that "Moore's film portrays the industry as money and marketing driven, and fails to show healthcare's interest in patient well-being and care."

Of course, Hutton, an account planner who works with health care companies, has a solution: buy more advertising on Google. "Whatever the problem, Google can act as a platform for educating the public and promoting your message," she writes. "We help you connect your company's assets while helping users find the information they seek. "

Hutton is being vilified and mocked throughout the Internet. But even though the criticism of her is a little unfair, it raises a bigger issue about the honesty of Google's search results. It's not in Google's interest for someone searching for the term "health care costs" to see a link to Moore's documentary come out on top or even on the first two or three pages.

This reminds me of a bizarre story I heard about the Wall Street Journal and Enron. Soon after the first Enron stories appeared in the newspaper someone in the Journal's advertising department supposedly (I am not sure if it's true or not) sent the company a letter offering to do a branding campaign to combat the negative publicity being created by its own reporters.

Hutton is probably no different than thousands of other Googlers looking to get a bigger slice of the world's advertising spending. She erred in showing publicly how Google values its advertisers over its users just like every other media company. If people get some use out of Google while it makes money for its customers, it's a happy coincidence.

I have insurance today (thanks to my wonderful employer, oh how I adore you), but for three years my family went without. I was laid off, and we did the math: it was far cheaper to pay out-of-pocket for our two boys' well-baby visits to the pediatrician and the occasional prescription than to pay the $400 monthly it would have cost for insurance for our young, healthy, non-smoking family.

And we're not the only ones. Every year, millions more families are going without health insurance. The reason? Health insurance rates are growing at a startling pace double that of inflation. It's not just the unemployed, or workers whose employers don't provide benefits, who are feeling the burn; as employers' rates rise, the contribution paid by the employee inches up, as well -- and the average annual raise won't cover it.

Every year, then, take-home pay goes down for me, for millions like me; for the rank and file at the 61% (in fact) of employers who offer health benefits.

Even so, the DJIA is nearing all-time highs, the market seems to be buoyed by an unknown giddiness. What's going on? Is the fat-and-happiness of the health insurance industry spilling over into consumer confidence? Is it just that we're really happy this is an election year? That doesn't satisfy me, and our Canadian friends can only look on in mystified horror as they watch our paychecks get frittered away into the insurance company's pockets.

As I see it, we have a couple of options: (a) buy insurance stocks and hope that some of the profit will end up in my retirement account instead of in the companies' executive pockets; (b) elect officials who'll effect some real change and democratize healthcare; or (c) move to Canada. Which will it be for you?