It's not a matter of the government crowding out the private market, it's a matter of pointless corporate welfare. The firm has already made it's commitment to the contractor. The government is just taking over the commitment.

It all comes out of our national hide in some way.

In many cases, the costs just shift to another system, including charity, which is, of course, no more free than any other system for addressing costs.

In terms of insurance paid for by an employer, I do not think there is an equivalent to the VA, which is a basic model for what is required to cover the injuries of soldiers, which can be incredibly expensive. So I somewhat doubt the employers of these people can buy a health insurance policy that truly covers the common hazards of a combat theater.

Do you oppose social security as well, as pensions are traditionally the province of work contractors? (Or, more specifically, would you have opposed it at the time if this would amount to “the taxpayer assuming the obligations of private firms”?)

The paragraph in Outside the Beltway's post, immediately below the Broder piece, reads as follows:

“I’m not so sure. People who undertake risky work are owed what they were promised when they signed on. It’s unclear why they should get “a hell of a lot more.””

Or were you calling OTB “just silly”?