Fuck its silent in here.......

[Brownie]

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

The health insurance market/companies is/are efficient?

They would be if the end user had more control over choosing to which company his or her money goes.

Frankly, anyone able to get elected to Congress a job should be able to afford their own damn insurance.

Didn't the Congressman-elect offer to pay for any gaps in the length of time it took for the bureaucrats to put him on the rolls? But I see your point. Why not drop the health insurance perk for Congressmen, but give individuals the same tax advantage as their employer to buy their own damn insurance?

[Chuck to Chuck]

Didn't the Congressman-elect offer to pay for any gaps in the length of time it took for the bureaucrats to put him on the rolls? But I see your point. Why not drop the health insurance perk for Congressmen, but give individuals the same tax advantage as their employer to buy their own damn insurance?

I'm in for this.  Let's also drop their pensions, Franking privileged, and a bunch of other perks that volunteers shouldn't need.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

The guy doesn't get sworn in until January.  So he's not on the payroll until then, right?

[Bort]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

The guy doesn't get sworn in until January.  So he's not on the payroll until then, right?

I'm just impressed that he's not even sworn in and he's already trying to spend more government money.

[Brownie]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

The guy doesn't get sworn in until January.  So he's not on the payroll until then, right?

Yes. He's sworn in 1/3 and the health insurance doesn't kick in until Groundhog Day. That's his beef.

[Yeti]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

The guy doesn't get sworn in until January.  So he's not on the payroll until then, right?

Yes. He's sworn in 1/3 and the health insurance doesn't kick in until Groundhog Day. That's his beef.

I have a hard time a politician doesn't have enough money to pay for his healthcare for a month. I may be obtuse (or is that obese) but I dunno

[R-V]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

The guy doesn't get sworn in until January.  So he's not on the payroll until then, right?

Yes. He's sworn in 1/3 and the health insurance doesn't kick in until Groundhog Day. That's his beef.

I have a hard time a politician doesn't have enough money to pay for his healthcare for a month. I may be obtuse (or is that obese) but I dunno

None of this would be an issue if we just started electing politicians who were in it to serve.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

The guy doesn't get sworn in until January.  So he's not on the payroll until then, right?

Yes. He's sworn in 1/3 and the health insurance doesn't kick in until Groundhog Day. That's his beef.

I have a hard time a politician doesn't have enough money to pay for his healthcare for a month. I may be obtuse (or is that obese) but I dunno

The whole time?

[Brownie]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

The guy doesn't get sworn in until January.  So he's not on the payroll until then, right?

Yes. He's sworn in 1/3 and the health insurance doesn't kick in until Groundhog Day. That's his beef.

I have a hard time a politician doesn't have enough money to pay for his healthcare for a month. I may be obtuse (or is that obese) but I dunno

Again, didn't the politician ask to BUY the month of health care from the government, and they said they had no way to do this? And if the government can't even serve a Congressman, how do you think they'll serve you?

[R-V]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

[morpheus]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

All you did there was make an argument for 1) delinking employment and health insurance and 2) getting rid of the stupid state insurance monopolies.

[Gilgamesh]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

I think I have like 10 different options for the state of Illinois, and settled with Humana.  In California, I had 12 or so.

No government run anything.

[Gilgamesh]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

All you did there was make an argument for 1) delinking employment and health insurance and 2) getting rid of the stupid state insurance monopolies.

You mean like some sort of health insurance exchange?  Where people can buy whatever insurance they want?

[morpheus]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

All you did there was make an argument for 1) delinking employment and health insurance and 2) getting rid of the stupid state insurance monopolies.

You mean like some sort of health insurance exchange?  Where people can buy whatever insurance they want?

Why does it have to be an "exchange"?  Is there some sort of life insurance exchange?  A Property & Casualty exchange?  Why can't it just be, say, insurance companies offering a line of products, and customers buying the ones they want?

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

All you did there was make an argument for 1) delinking employment and health insurance and 2) getting rid of the stupid state insurance monopolies.

I don't think RV would argue against either of those...

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg229422#msg229422