Alan, Did you mean the two quoted passages below to be equivalent? They seem somewhat different (at least potentially) to me. That is, the cost of having the government rather than employers provide a benefit might outstrip the amount an employer gains by not providing the benefit, might it not? Does that potential “efficiency” discrepancy matter for your analysis?
David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. From: "A.E. Brownstein" <aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu<mailto:aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu>> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Subject: RE: Are large employers really better off dropping health insurance? [snip] 3. that if exempt employers save money as a result of the exemption, they should contribute an equivalent amount [snip] [snip] the costs to government of making sure that the beneficiaries of the statute do not lose out [snip]
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
