1:49 pm, May 22, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 3

  • With no pay increase for feds, hold health insurance rates the same too!
    John Berry, how about having the FEHB carriers hold the cost of health insurance static. We lowly federal employees aren't getting a pay increase in 2012 so why should the health insurance industry? How about some equity in sharing the burden of this financial crissis. If freezing my salary will save the government money and help pay down the deficit, I'm 100% for it. I'm very concerned that Congress spent the exact amount the very next day after announcing a pay freeze for federal employees that they saved with the pay freeze. Congress, if you are goin gto do that, then let everyone share in this and hold the health insurance rates static!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • One way to hold down premium increases
    How about properly negotiating the price of drugs. That might save a large amount of money. If there is a law preventing this, then the law must be repealed.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • OPM Call Letter to FEHB carriers
    Beside the valid concerns expressed by Checkbook's Mr. Francis, the OPM Call Letter wishlist (that's what it is in reality) contains several "head scratchers." For one, the call for carriers to address vaguely stated "racial and ethnic disparities in health status and care .... [as part of a] concrete multi-pronged approach moving to a future we all know is possible," poses the logical question as to just what carriers are being expected to do in this regard. They cannot favor one group of enrollees over another without violating a plethora of laws and regulations; so what exactly does OPM intend to be accomplished by such nonspecific "feel good" language. Also, OPM's encouragement that health care carriers provide affinity coverage to same sex couples states that "[a]ffinity coverage doesn't cost the government any money." Extending such coverage of course would expand the FEHB's covered population, and it is debatable at best whether family coverage premiums would cover the additional costs of including a group which has much higher than average rates of illnesses such as AIDS, which could well be a driver for subsequent higher premium rates for all FEHB enrollees. This issue needs to be studied intensively before giving any consideration to OPM's exhortation that carriers provide such coverage absent any legislative mandate to do so (which mandate is hardly likely to be forthcoming from the 112th Congress, as Mr. Berry should well be aware).
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }