2:13 am, July 13, 2014

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.

  • 40
       

  • Health Insurance Enrollee Plus One Option
    nick1010
    I can understand why someone without kids would want another option under FEHB rather than self-only and self and family. But there is a fairness/insurance consideration here. At one time my self and family option covered me, my wife, and our seven children. Now that it's just me and my wife, and we're in our 70's, out health care expenses are about the same as when we had all our kids home. So I think it's only fair that I continue to pay for self and family, even thought seven fewer people are insured.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Selfish plus one
    contrarian
    I can understand that the ME Generation always wants the table slanted their way, and everything has pretty much gone their way cradle to grave. I commend Nick for realizing the concept of insurance as a shared pool and shared risk and not wanting to change the game at this point just to give more to one age group. I keep hearing talk of the "Great Reset" not sure how that will work out or when it will come, but for better or worse I think the status quo will be around for a while.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Me Generation
    Moderate
    I am part of the me generation. I agree with Nick and Contrarian on this issue. You might also add that if there is a self plus one, then those with one child will demand the same rights. Why should they pay the same amount as a familyu with 7 children? And they would be just as correct as those with no children. Keep things they way they are.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Two's a couple, threes a family
    YOURCONSTITUENCY
    I do not understand the logic of Mr. Snell. Sounds like it is "Just To Hard" to make FEHB pricing fair for 2 family customers. If changing prices has been studied, why don't you release the study? Proof of unfairness is the FACT that the pricing of a one person policy times 2 has always been cheaper than than the pricing of a family policy. What is the percentage of participantw who actually procure two single policies to avoid high costs, and what are the pros and cons? I do not believe that repricing the FEHB program to fairly represent costs by participant groups, i.e., for single, two person and famiies would increase costs for ALL these participant groups. You would only be doing what's APPROPRIATE and FAIR. The Mr Snell's argument against changing pricing continues an unfair pricing policy which charges more to those with less income (retirees), and less to those with more income (active employees). Now where is the fairness in this. Why is it that Dental and Vision policies accomplish fair pricing, have a 2 person participant group, but FEHB cannot. Mr. Snell needs a better response to satisfy my concern. If he cannot answer these questions with logic and fairness, it is time to find a civil servant who can.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • See my answer above
    Moderate
    See my answer above.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Your answer above?
    Spanky
    Your answer above is no more valid here than it is there... plus it is riddled with improper structures and comprehension. Did you actually read it yourself? The logic is this... it makes absolutely no sense for a childless couple to pay a family rate while a couple with 7 children pay the same. It is ludicrous and people should be revolting long ago. I agree that Mr. Snell's baseless argument is pathetic and authorities SHOULD be demanding proof, or his career demise now! But let's just say by some weird agrument that it would effect costs, then to be totally fair, there should be new higher rates for those with multiple children, not penalizing the masses! In fact, after revealing some details of this whole operation, I think the both the IG and perhaps the FBI should be takiung a stronger peek at Mr. Snell's whole operation (and especially) what's in this for him? Kick-backs from the insurance industry? I wonder how yachts Mr. Snell and family owns! Something smells awful... besides your tripe!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Please learn how to write clearly. The fed offers courses in this area
    Moderate
    I had a typo, but the structure is fine. Did you read your arguments? I have no clue as to what you are writing about.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • There should be multiple rates/premiums
    harveyinnyc
    OF COURSE a lower rate for couples makes sense - that should be obvious. Additionally, there should be lower rates for families with less children. Why should a family with one or two children pay the same rate as a family with three or four? The fairest way to do it would be an initial, bi-weekly rate for couples, and then an additional fee per child.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • A Mess
    Moderate
    And then why should healthy families pay the same rates as unhealthy families? And why should those in lower experience areas pay the same rates as those in higher experience areas? The answer is you would have a mess if you used your factor and no other factors. And you would have a bigger mess if you used all of the factors.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Moderate...
    Spanky
    Are you an insurance lobbyist? All I see is this article riddled with your baloney responses. First, there is no basis to compare healthy and unhealthy familes PERIOD! It is senseless and meaning less since a family could be healthy one day and not the next... Your responses are stupid and looney. Please go back to your baloney and life on your wealthy yachts! and reveal who you really are!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Spanky
    Moderate
    If you learned how to read and comprehend what you read, you would not make such stupid responses. If you think my responses are stupid and looney, explain it. Your response seems to indicate that your parents spanked you on the head too much. I was comparing other factors in the same light as harvey compared his factors. I could argue that experience factors are used in auto insurance, so why not health insurance. I do not agree with it, but I also do not agree with Harvey's position. No, I am not wealthy, do not own a yacht, and am not an insurance lobbyist.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Two's a couple, three's a family!
    vetdude
    My wife cannot have children for medical reasons. To pay the same health insurance premiums as those with seven kids is ludicrous. I'd compare the number of claims we've submitted for medical care over the last 10 years to those of these families for the same period anyday to prove my point. Then again, 60% of our annual income tax burden 9federal & state) go toward "education" [schools] so this bias is no different.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Family
    Moderate
    Are you and your wife not a family? I hope you consider each other family. See above for more comments
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • TROLL Alert!
    Spanky
    This person is a troll and advocating for the Insurance Industry... perhaps Mr. Snell himself!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • moderate is not a troll.
    Jerry A.
    He's been writing here for a long time. He also makes sense. You, oh the other hand, are just insulting instead of making logical points. The troll is in your mirror, Spanky.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Read and Comprehend Spanky and Thanks Jerry
    Moderate
    Spanky, I think you should continue to read. I can be influenced. An example is below where someone brought up a very logical argument concerning medicare. I think that person made a good point and solicited comments from others.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Another Unfair Health Plan Provision
    LS
    I have had a self-only FEHB plan enrollment for many years. I have also been covered on my spouse's private sector family plan. For next year, my wife's plan is adding a surcharge of over $40 a pay period if I remain covered under her family enrollment. This appears very unfair to me as her plan will always pay secondary to my FEHB plan until I retire. I don't understand how her plan (BC/BS of Minn.) can discriminate against a family member in this way. Because I receive so little in the way of benefits from them as a secondary payor, my wife was forced to drop me from her family enrollment to avoid the surcharge of over $1000 per year.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }