Policymakers with plans that single out large employers for health care coverage had better take a long look at what happened in Maryland, because the whole exercise will probably turn out to be a giant waste of time.

That state passed a law aimed at a single employer, Wal-Mart, in an effort to recoup state health care spending. A federal judge crushed this big-box plan last week, ruling that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 pre-empts the Maryland law. ERISA, the judge noted, was designed to ensure a uniform standard for employers to run their health care plans. If the Maryland law had passed muster, Wal-Mart would’ve had to pay at least 8 percent of its payroll costs on health care for employees in only that state.

The Maryland law has inspired similar efforts in other states. Some legislators in Washington state unsuccessfully floated a flawed plan that would have called for 9 percent to be spent on health care for businesses with at least 5,000 employees. Hopefully, the judge’s ERISA ruling will be the death knell for this kind of legislation.

Health care costs are soaring, and government is increasingly on the hook as businesses shed coverage or significantly cut back. But targeting large employers and giving the rest a pass on health care coverage looks more like politics than problem-solving. Even if all the big-box stores suddenly offered wonderful benefits, the problems associated with noncoverage would still be with us.

This gimmicky kind of legislation might feel good in the short term, but it’s ultimately a diversion on the path to universal coverage.