Thirdly, not all teachers who are eligible for a 33-year retirement, if that were to pass, would necessarily take advantage of it. What we view this as is an option for teachers, if they wish to retire with 33 years of service without a penalty, they would be allowed to do so. We don't see it as necessarily opening the floodgates for teachers to retire who otherwise would not have retired. Equally importantly on the positive side, we believe that a favorable retirement system, a less restrictive eligibility requirement, would serve as an enhancement, to attract teachers into teaching in the state of Connecticut. We're already seeing some teachers, leaving the state, to teach, for instance, in New York State, where a much less restrictive retirement eligibility exists.
Salaries are also much higher in some areas of the state of New York.
So as we look at attracting over the long term more teachers into Connecticut, we view the enhanced retirement system as a key to that. Finally it's important to at least appreciate that even if the bill were to pass, it's not necessarily likely that the floodgates would be open, given that the health insurance costs for retirees are so excessive that even if a teacher were eligible after 33 years for an unreduced retirement, often that a teacher would not even be able to afford to retire on that pension once the cost of retiree insurance is factored in. A second concern that we that has been put on the table regarding early reduction in the normal retirement is the impact on the unfunded liability. While we are very much concerned about the status of the funding of the retirement system it's important to make a couple of key issues clear. Number one, the unfunded liability has existed for a number of years even without the reduction in normal retirement that we're seeking.