Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: KLP who wrote (213506)	7/26/2007 2:51:17 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 794009

Could you show me a link that said that? Our most recent discussion on that was long ago and I don't have advanced search capabilities. I have said that the SAME or BETTER benefits should be available AT THE SAME price as those for which an employee of the US Government pays I recall arguing that very point, that getting into the employee plan wouldn't work but that a group plan modeled after the federal one could be workable. It's more government involvement than I like but it sure beats some of the alternatives. should have to pay whatever the price of that medical care is... That, I don't recall us discussing. Of course, any insurance plan would have rates set by the group one is in. If you dictate an arbitrary rather rather than basing it on the actual costs of that group, then you're leaving the private insurance paradigm behind and more into something more like Medicare. If the non-employee group cost more than the employee group, which it probably would, then the taxpayers would have to pay the difference. I wouldn't think you would support something that is that socialized.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next