Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (54887)	7/18/2004 2:52:11 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793782

Since the US Taxpayers pay for a good percentage of the premiums for Government workers, I think therefore, the Taxpayers should be considered a Corporation.....Called the US Taxpayers Company. Then EACH taxpayer could have the very same access to EVERY insurance plan out there that the Government employees had access to.... Karen, as a principle, that's just too weird. If taxpayers should have access to government employees' plans, then Chevy owners should have access to GM employee's plans. Both taxpayers and Chevy owners, respectively, pay part of the premiums of those plans. That's just too bizarre. This would not only broaden the choice of plans for the taxpayer, it would broaden the "risk pool" for the insurance companies, and it should keep the amount of the premiums lower, because the risk pool is so large. Even if the principle made sense, the numbers won't work the way you think they will. If you make all taxpayers a pool and offer a collection of plans similar to what federal employees are offered, then you've totally altered the financial dynamics. Employee plans are cheaper for the customer than what you can buy as an individual largely primarily because they are subsidized by the employer be that the government or General Motors. Employees don't pay the full freight--the remainder is part of their indirect compensation. If the employers didn't provide these plans as a benefit, then the subsidy would go directly into salaries instead and they'd have to buy their own individual policies. If you put all taxpayers into a pool, perhaps the gross rates would go down as you say. But then the employer role disappears and there would be nobody to pay the employer subsidy. That would cause net rates would go up dramatically--we'd all be paying full freight. I do not see how you benefit significantly from that. Employees will have to pay full freight on their insurance but will get the subsidy in salary increase. You will have to pay full freight, too, but you won't get that subsidy under your approach any more than you get it now. So you might save a few percent on your premium because the risk pool is bigger and the overhead of writing policies lower. But you're not going to get health insurance for sixty bucks a month like your relative. Unless you are into schadenfreude as a reward, I don't see how you benefit much. Right now we have Medicaid, which is an entitlement for people too poor to breathe, Medicare, which is an entitlement based on prior contributions, employee health plans, which are part of the employer's compensation package, people who buy their own individual insurance, and people who have none. You seem to want to eliminate health insurance as an employee benefit and substitute a universal coverage plan for taxpayers plus a second tier program for non-taxpayers. Other than the separate but unequal character of your two tiers, you could be a Hillary clone. Like I said before, I'm surprised.