7:24 am, April 16, 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.

  • 10
       

  • Save couples money by a forced tax?
    Bill Samuel
    The argument here is a doozy. Causey does not list a single study, but blithely declares that "studies" show premiums for 2-person families would be higher than those for larger families. In all the years this issues has been argued, I've never heard anyone else make such a claim. Causey is not known for objective journalism, but surely FNR should not allow their journalist to make such a claim without providing any evidence. Note that the dental and vision care plans all have 3 categories - single, 2-person family, and family of 3 or more. The reason is very simple. Since there is no government subsidy for these plans, 2-person families would not sign up for them if they used the FEHB 2-category system because they could do better on the private market. All we're asking is that the same principle be applied to FEHB as is applied to the newer federal health care programs. Why should a GS-4 single mother with one child be forced to pay a higher premium to subsidize a couple who are both SES with several children? But this is the kind of unfair result you get with the current FEHB system. There is a hidden tax imposed - a rather large one - with no consideration at all of economic equity. The assumption is made that all 2-person families, but no single people, should be forced to subsidize the health care costs of larger families. I think there is no sound basis for that assumption. And note that family premiums are far more than double single premiums, which casts doubt on Causey's tortured logic.
    Bill Samuel Silver Spring, MD 20906
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • The concept of insurance
    contrarian
    Bill: It's not to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities. My suggestion to the GS-4 (and yes i started as a GS-5) is to get some promotions. Of course, I knew I couldn't afford a family as a GS-5 so postponed marriage and kids. Many people make other choices these days, but if they do, there are govt benefits like EITC (which can be advanced not just annual). I remember when enlisted military families qualified for food stamps, that's not common these days. So Bill, your straw man argument doesn't work with me.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • One's Fairness Is Not Always Another's Farness
    smooth811
    What's fair re the FEHB for a married Fed with a once large brood and now just a he or she and a spouse, is not fair for a married Fed never having a large brood, if any at all. That is why a FEHB offering three options of single, single plus one, and family is much fairer. Also, the Federal dental and vision plans offer three such options.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Fairness
    Moderate
    Using your argument why should a 3 member family pay the same premium as a 12 member family? Of course it is not a good argument. That is why we have single and family. Otherwise, the plans would be too complex. As for me, I once had 5 in the plan, will have 3 shortly, and that will go down to 2. I will subsidize the larger families, just like I was subsidized.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Civility, Please!
    FederalEmployee
    I was quite dismayed upon reading many of the comments submitted yesterday. One individual in particular sniped at anyone whose opinion differed from his/hers. I read the comments in order to see the opinions of my fellow Feds, and to learn or consider something that I would not have otherwise known or considered. When I see nasty, childish comments, I lose interest in participating.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • We should be civil. Debates are great
    Moderate
    Great point. I would not censor that person, but show him (her) up .
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Careful, Dude!
    X-taxman
    Did you consider that your constant 'showing (people) up' may be the lack of civility that Fed is referring to??? It's possible. Prolly not. But maybe.....
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Careful "dude"
    Moderate
    First dude, I am not dude. Second, just because you do not like my political position does not make me not civil. I write as clearly as I can and I put out my arguments as best as I can. I do not try to predict the future without pointing out the past.-----Your lack of substance to your argument here shows where the true problem is. Your position is that either I agree with you or I am not civil. Maybe you could read some other "conservative" comments (some are very reasoned out) you might find me civil. Maybe you will not because you are biased. I did criticize a left of center individual because he presented his arguments in a less than civil way.-------Third, I hope I inspire civil and rational comments from those who oppose my thoughts. That is more interesting than just agreeing with me.------Fourth, I took a certain position regarding FEHB that I thought was the correct position. Someone brought up the medicare issue that which made me partially revise my position. Are you influenced by comments, to the point that you might modify your position, if that position is different from yours?
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Dude(ette)...
    X-taxman
    Whoa there....who wee weed in your wheaties?? I'm just saying that sometimes your posts are a little bitter, a little harsh. You can word them in a much more civil manner and still get your point across. I will say, however, how refreshing it is to read a post from you where you don't blame Bush for everything from the Seven Scourges to Hurricane Katrina and everything in between. You are improving, Grasshopper!! And I am really surprised to discover that you are not a dude! You GO girl!!!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Learn how to write
    Moderate
    Hey nit wit. I am not a female. I just do not think dude is appropriate either. So how about you being a little more civil. And again, my wording is very reasonable. And no, I do not blame Bush for everything. Where on this planet do you get that from, your fantasies? If you do not like the language, then make your comments sensible. If you were a Revenue Agent, you can organize your thoughts much better than you show. Where do you get grasshopper from? Comeon, you can do better than that. However, I do blame Bush and his Republican Cronies for the recent Depression.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }