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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (1514)	1/23/2007 1:22:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Leaving the deduction limits unlimited cannot reasonably be called tinkering. Well if by tinkering you mean making changes - Than your right, but I don't see that change is necessarily the issue. Government intervention is more of an issue than changes. Changes are an issue, stability serves some useful function, but they are generally a secondary issue, unless the changes are happening at a crazy rate. Once again, the question to which the answer was "employer sponsored medical insurance" was "how do we differentiate our employment offer when government limits our ability to do so through wages? Yes, I understood that before your first time posting it. If the next question becomes "how do we differentiate our employment offer when government limits our ability to do so through employer sponsored medical insurance?" The Bush plan doesn't limit the ability of companies to pay for any level of insurance they want. Its just (past a certain point) treats such compensation neutrally rather then favoring such compensation. the market driven economy will find a new perk to provide to allow differentiation. I don't have a problem if its a real market driven perk. Having some forms of compensation receive tax benefits relative to others isn't market driven.