On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:02:43 -0500, Martin Baxter
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:43:12 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

You asked the question: "isn't that pretty much a legal
requirement?"

I answered:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
What do you find this unclear? What part of "Nope" do you not understand.

And here I thought the question was "Toyota has no health care plan for
it's workers?"

You need to go back and review the bidding.

That was the question you asked after I told you there is no legal
requirement for an employer to provide for payment of his employee's medical
bills--the answer you seem to have difficulty comprehending.


Now there you go again, you couldn't resist the snide dig, but it
doesn't really matter.

You would agree then that Toyota does in fact participate in a health
care plan for it's workers?

Just a little sanity here, which may not be of interest.
Big 3 legacy costs include health care for retirees.
With a 30 and out policy, providing health care for a 50 year old
until he reaches the medicare age of 65 can be expensive.
I don't know the details, but the costs might go beyond age 65.
There are a lot of weeds to wade through before you find real answers.

--Vic