Re the WSJ and Mr Bartley's article, THANKS for the find!!! Every American should look closely at the article, and ask themselves why it wouldn't work?
Better yet, we could all voice our opinions on the article and basic idea '(go to the link and respond where it is noted....I just did). Hopefully, we would all write our Senators and Representatives, and tell them what we think!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Thus federal employees and retirees can choose among a dozen or more options. They can strike their own trade-off between coverage and cost, with the government paying part of the premium according to a formula which typically works out at 72% to 75%. Enrollees can change plans once a year, and competition produces innovations in coverage. Prescription drug benefits are already routine, for example.
Competition, not so incidentally, also controls costs. As in other businesses, participating plans have to set premiums that cover their costs, but will lose customers if their price is too high. The GAO found that the costs of FEHBP essentially mirror those of other large purchasers of health care. This means its premiums have increased rapidly in the last three years, but over 28 years its costs have been about the same as Medicare, but its benefits have been richer. The system records high patient satisfaction, and it's accepted by physicians almost universally. Unlike Medicare, the FEHBP is not in crisis. |
