It is not the governments job to provide insurance for every American. Members of the government are employees and one of their benefits is health insurance, I'm not sure what company they go through........
2007-10-10 07:21:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Brian 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
Are you talking about Congress or Federal Employees? Federal Employees have private health care as part of their benefit package, just like many private workers. They have choices which include Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Kaiser, some union plans, and several others. They pay for half their coverage and those hired after the mid 80s pay into Social Security.They can be dropped or denied coverage the same as any private sector employee. Public employees do not pass laws and should not be punished for the failures of Congress and the President. I do not know what kind of coverage members of Congress have.
2007-10-10 07:31:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by wyldfyr 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Government Employees are covered by BCBS or Champus,depending on the branch of Government they work for. They pay no premiums, it is paid for by us. I do not think we should deny them the benefit of insurance, but I do feel that they should pay for it just like we have to do. Most employers split the cost with the employee...so why shouldn't they. As for the 435 members of Congress and the Executive Branch...there are a lot of "perks" that should be discontinued, but health care is not one of them. They, too, should have to split the premium and when they leave office, the benefits stop.
2007-10-10 07:31:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by Becca 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Discontinuing their coverage seems a little much, but I get and accept your point. Why should our employees (members of government) have better coverage than we do?
It's sad that all employees, who work for whatever company, don't have health care coverage.
2007-10-10 07:21:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by Zardoz 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
Actually there are alot of companies providing health insurance to government workers.
Aetna
Blue Cross & Blue Shield
GEHA
Humana
Nope, we shouldn't discontinue their insurance coverage.
Should we make members of government live on the street, untill they figure out a way to stop homelessness?
Should we make members of government go hungry, untill they figure out a way to stop hunger?
2007-10-10 07:26:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by jeeper_peeper321 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
It relies upon on what you do interior the government. militia has their very own wellness care by militia drugs. in addition they have TriCare for themselves and their kin would desire to they be remote from a militia installation. From human beings that I even have spoken too, BlueCross Blue safeguard is the common scientific coverage of selection for many government employers.
2016-10-08 23:28:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not for every member of government, but for Congress, the President and executive political appointees, yes, we should discontinue their coverage until they can offer something to masses of uninsured in our country.
I think you'd see them cut through the political posturing pretty quickly if that were the case.
2007-10-10 07:25:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
Why would you want fewer Americans to have health care? It is just mean of you to think of taking away health care from our government workers...you liberals are so heartless.
2007-10-10 07:20:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
They have a job as part of that job, just like everyone else who is employeed, they get benefits from that job. Why is that so hard for you guys to grasp?
2007-10-10 07:20:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
No, I'm for letting them pay for their own health care. I don't think they are poor.
Don't forget that they gave themselves privatized social security too, while denying it for us.
2007-10-10 07:22:04
·
answer #10
·
answered by Miss Kitty 6
·
3⤊
2⤋