Insurance crunch.

Some companies pay for a substantial share of worker health coverage. Others have shifted more of the cost to their employees. And still other companies do the minimum, or nothing at all. One legislator has proposed requiting companies to spend a set amount on employee health insurance. So the Business Journal asks:

Do you think companies should be required by law to spend a minimum sum on employee health insurance, or should it be left to the market?

Anthony Howak Vice President, Branch Operations Wescom Credit Union 

The rising cost of health care is putting more and more strain on any company's profit. Instead of regulating health insurance, government should try to find a solution that makes more economic sense for businesses. There has to be a better way to determine benefits than have lawmakers step in. Companies definitely have to stay competitive with benefits and compensation packages to get the high caliber employees they need. It's a rising cost but they have to make the decision. The market surely dictates the amount.

Geoffrey Murry Associate Feinberg Mindel Brandt Klein & Kline LLP 

I am an ardent free marketer and generally' suspicious of the government. They should not dictate what businesses should do. The market is a living, breathing extension of human activity and it can deal with setting the correct amount of health insurance. It is about trusting the market more than the government. It is a victim of the interests of certain people who wind up directing legislation and the intent of the law. It is their interest more than the economic standpoint that is served, more than what can bring the greatest good to people. Also, they are not always experts and often don't listen to the experts. They just listen to the loudest voices.

Mike Catalano Senior Vice President and Co-Branch Manager Studley

I think it should be dependent on the market but the government should do something more about offering people good health insurance and companies should support that effort. Companies should definitely be required by governments to set aside a certain amount for health benefits for employees, but anything above and beyond that is up to the companies, if they want to keep qualified employees. Subsidizing health insurance is necessary. Corporate America cannot be responsible for the whole process.

Alison K, Benaderet Director of Marketing Chine Construction Co.

That is a very difficult question to answer. With the consistent rise in health care costs, it is becoming more and more difficult for some companies to cover health for employees. One can argue that if a law is enacted to cover health, many firms may go under. That would mean employees lose not just health insurance but also jobs. But if a company is able to survive financially, an employee may still be able to get insurance through reduced wages. There are just so many tax and government issues involved that it is not easy to pick one way or the other.

Bart Reed Executives Director Transit Coalition

I think companies should be required by law to set aside some money for health insurance, especially for companies like Wal-Mart that make profit at the expense of taxpayers and don't give employees any benefits. All they have to do is charge a quarter more for cat food and give their employees good health insurance. Companies like that might be providing insurance of the equivalent of one dollar an hour but the actual amount needed might be two or three dollars an hour. They should be required by law to set aside a certain minimum. Negligence on the part of these companies cost taxpayers literally $50 million to $100 million each year.