Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cirrus who wrote (99)	9/6/2006 12:33:21 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

State and local employees don't receive federal health insurance. They shouldn't be counted in that 40% figure. The state for local government buys insurance from private insurers just like any employer would. I suppose some states might self insure (I'm not aware of any but it wouldn't surprise me) but than large corporations could also set up their own insurance. Even for the federal employees (which again includes the military) you would be making a change from providing compensation for work to providing a universal entitlement. The net effect of that would be to reduce the amount of compensation received specifically for work. If the employees where unemployed or worked somewhere else they would still get the federal health insurance. This would likely, at least over the long run, lead to higher salary/wage demands from federal employees. So even here you have something of a leap. Overall the leap is enormous.