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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (11327)	11/16/2009 11:14:54 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

One of the funniest - and least valid - arguments against our impending healthcare reform is that members of Congress should be subject to the same insurance. I understand your point. The main reason it is invalid, though, is that members of Congress, who have the same health insurance options as any other federal employee, are getting their insurance as an employment benefit. It is not logical nor fair to force government employees into a public insurance plan when we still allow other employers and citizens to participate in employer-sponsored group health plans. If members lose their jobs, then they can fall back on a public plan like any other citizen. But as long as they are employed, they get whatever employment benefits their employer offers. I suppose that the voters could insist that federal employment cut back on benefits if they consider them too generous, but it's not valid to mistake an employee benefit for a public benefit.