I’m not sure why you are surprised by this. Congressional staffers were getting heavily
subsidized government insurance. Now they have to buy at market rate.
I think it’s a good thing, and it would have been better if every federal employee had to
buy out of the exchanges.
I’m not sure why you think I’m surprised, other than your thinking apparatus has repeatedly been shown to be flawed.
“… it would have been better if every federal employee had to buy out of the exchanges.”
That would be raciss…do you know the percentages of Civil Service employees who are African-American or Hispanic?
If not, call Kathleen Sebelius or Barack Obama, and I’m sure they can tell you those percentages to 4 decimal places, from memory.
This is interesting. One of the criticisms of the ACA exchanges from health care wonks on the right is that by capping the age discrimination ratio at 3 (i.e. requiring the premium for an old person be no more than 3x what it is for a young person, even though their projected expenses might be more than 3x as high), the ACA was sticking it to the young. There have been proposals to lift the ratio limit to 5 or even higher, so as to not have young people subsidizing the old as much.
This article is a reminder that in the group plans that cover most people with private insurance, like the federal employee benefit system, the age discrimination ratio is 1 — you pay the same premium whether you’re 18 or 64. But that huge subsidy from the young to the old went without comment until these senior staffers switched to the exchanges, and lost (part of) a sweet deal they’d been taking for granted.
For all that, however, even a 64 year old smoker like John Boehner can get a good deal on the exchanges.
Just as the true minimum wage is zero. The true ratio of subsidy was zero when the young were not forced to buy or pay a penalty.
You can argue all sorts of things but one fact remains… either we are responsible for our own lives or somebody else is. What would you think if I got the votes for a law making Jim totally responsible for my financial welfare? Regardless of your income Jim, you would be responsible to pay me a minimum wage for not working. I will immediately lobby for overtime pay. Sort of like how some farmers are paid not to grow crops or to pour out milk so it doesn’t reach the marketplace.
I’m not sure why you are surprised by this. Congressional staffers were getting heavily
subsidized government insurance. Now they have to buy at market rate.
I think it’s a good thing, and it would have been better if every federal employee had to
buy out of the exchanges.
I’m not sure why you think I’m surprised, other than your thinking apparatus has repeatedly been shown to be flawed.
“… it would have been better if every federal employee had to buy out of the exchanges.”
That would be raciss…do you know the percentages of Civil Service employees who are African-American or Hispanic?
If not, call Kathleen Sebelius or Barack Obama, and I’m sure they can tell you those percentages to 4 decimal places, from memory.
This is interesting. One of the criticisms of the ACA exchanges from health care wonks on the right is that by capping the age discrimination ratio at 3 (i.e. requiring the premium for an old person be no more than 3x what it is for a young person, even though their projected expenses might be more than 3x as high), the ACA was sticking it to the young. There have been proposals to lift the ratio limit to 5 or even higher, so as to not have young people subsidizing the old as much.
This article is a reminder that in the group plans that cover most people with private insurance, like the federal employee benefit system, the age discrimination ratio is 1 — you pay the same premium whether you’re 18 or 64. But that huge subsidy from the young to the old went without comment until these senior staffers switched to the exchanges, and lost (part of) a sweet deal they’d been taking for granted.
For all that, however, even a 64 year old smoker like John Boehner can get a good deal on the exchanges.
Just as the true minimum wage is zero. The true ratio of subsidy was zero when the young were not forced to buy or pay a penalty.
You can argue all sorts of things but one fact remains… either we are responsible for our own lives or somebody else is. What would you think if I got the votes for a law making Jim totally responsible for my financial welfare? Regardless of your income Jim, you would be responsible to pay me a minimum wage for not working. I will immediately lobby for overtime pay. Sort of like how some farmers are paid not to grow crops or to pour out milk so it doesn’t reach the marketplace.