Benefits Think

Yes, I would rather we help the laid off worker where it counts than give the money to the banks!!!Though I think 18 mos is bit long and would agree to 12 mo.

I find it interesting that insurance is too expensive for individuals to pay, while the push from the other direction has been to have employer required (paid) insurance mandates.

Not only should the government subsidize COBRA, but the law should also be changed to extend the length of time COBRA is available to those whose jobs are eliminated after age 55. It is very difficult to find another job in this economy and at older ages and almost impossible to afford individual coverage...

Be prepared! This will be the first step towards gov't sponsored universal health coverage.

Yes. When you compare the cost of other health care options under consideration as well as the cost to all of us for care for the un or under insured (which is passed on in the form of higher health care costs), the COBRA subsidy idea is worth investigating.

It might not be a bad idea but about the dependant children who will not longer be covered on their parents insurance.It would be nice if the employer would cover dependant children until age 26.

If the government subsidizes COBRA, the subsidy should not exceed 25% of the total cost. We have to come to realize the cost of the benefits we receive, and this in one way to do that.

I have mixed feelings. Having no health insurance coverage is risky enough when employed; it could be catostrophic when coupled with unemployment. Considering the current economic state, I can see the benefit of not letting citizens slip deeper into the financial abyss trying to pay for medical conditions...

It sounds like it would be another bit of help to folks who have lost their jobs.

I offer support only if they subsidize, in the same proportions, the premiums for all payors.