I agree that employer paid healthcare is a relic, but maybe an approach such as the one proposed in California will do less to cement the employer paid model and do more to spur employers on to lobby government to find a different solution.

I don't know if the California proposal does this, but I do think the government ought to discourage employment models that tend to make employees a burden on the public welfare system, including Medicaid.

I'm inclined to agree with Doug here. I'm not sure how one gets from "large, politically powerful employers being forced to take on more healthcare costs" to "employer-based insurance being more cemented". If anything, the opposite seems true. And what about the second half of the "or" -- any affected companies can just pay the money into the state's healthcare programs?

Perhaps a different analysis of the possible implications of this policy is in order, Zach.

In light of this article from today's NY Times, I'm wondering if Zach might have any fessing up to do:

Wal-Mart Enlists Bloggers in P.R. Campaign

By MICHAEL BARBARO
Published: March 7, 2006

"Brian Pickrell, a blogger, recently posted a note on his Web site attacking state
legislation that would force Wal-Mart Stores to spend more on employee health
insurance. "All across the country, newspaper editorial boards â?” no great friends
of business â?” are ripping the bills," he wrote.

It was the kind of pro-Wal-Mart comment the giant retailer might write itself.
And, in fact, it did.

Several sentences in Mr. Pickrell's Jan. 20 posting â?” and others from different
days â?” are identical to those written by an employee at one of Wal-Mart's public
relations firms and distributed by e-mail to bloggers.

Under assault as never before, Wal-Mart is increasingly looking beyond the
mainstream media and working directly with bloggers, feeding them exclusive
nuggets of news, suggesting topics for postings and even inviting them to visit its
corporate headquarters..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/technology/07blog.html?ei=5094&en=4ae93d6a6547651a&hp=&ex=1141707600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

In light of this article from today's NY Times, I'm wondering if Zach might have any fessing up to do:

Wal-Mart Enlists Bloggers in P.R. Campaign

By MICHAEL BARBARO
Published: March 7, 2006

Brian Pickrell, a blogger, recently posted a note on his Web site attacking state legislation that would force Wal-Mart Stores to spend more on employee health insurance. "All across the country, newspaper editorial boards - no great friends of business - are ripping the bills," he wrote.

It was the kind of pro-Wal-Mart comment the giant retailer might write itself. And, in fact, it did.

Several sentences in Mr. Pickrell's Jan. 20 posting - and others from different days - are identical to those written by an employee at one of Wal-Mart's public relations firms and distributed by e-mail to bloggers.

Under assault as never before, Wal-Mart is increasingly looking beyond the mainstream media and working directly with bloggers, feeding them exclusive nuggets of news, suggesting topics for postings and even inviting them to visit its corporate headquarters.

But the strategy raises questions about what bloggers, who pride themselves on independence,should disclose to readers. Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, has been forthright with bloggers about the origins of its communications, and the company and its public relations firm, Edelman, say they do not compensate the bloggers.