TOPICS
TOPICS
Proposal would end federal health benefits plan
Several of the more than 500 amendments the Senate Finance Committee is facing as it begins a marathon markup of health care reform legislation would affect public servants' health coverage -- and one would end the federal government's health insurance program.
The provision, offered by ranking member Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, would force civil servants to leave the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and purchase insurance through the state-based health exchanges that are a centerpiece of the health reform bill. Employees would move to the exchanges beginning in 2013.
The idea behind the amendment is "to require that elected officials and federal employees purchase insurance in the same manner proposed in the [bill] for private citizens," according to a summary on the Finance Committee's Web site.
Representatives from Grassley's office did not return calls for comment.
Daniel Adcock, legislative director for the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, said his organization would oppose such an amendment. He noted the proposal could be designed to damage the overall bill's chances of passage. "It may be a way to drive a point home -- if the exchange system is good enough for the public, then it should be good enough for federal employees," Adcock said.
Another proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., would allow some members of the general public to purchase FEHBP benefits. Qualifying citizens would join the same risk pool as federal employees, which could result in increased premiums for current enrollees, Adcock said. He added that NARFE would support the idea only if enrollees from outside the government were placed in a separate risk pool.
The Finance Committee began considering amendments on Tuesday; Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., is aiming to complete the markup by the end of the week.
COMMENTS
- at what point has the health care reform become a vendetta against government workers? Have our elected officials lost sight of the original intent of this bill, to provide affordable health care for those who don't have it? At what point has this become an attack on federal employees and retirees. When I first went to work work the government 38 years ago one of the benefits I was promised was continuation of my federal health care into retirement a major factor of my decision to work for the government. Now, the government is becoming no better than all the business that are reducing employee benefits. What happened to the promise by our President that you will be able to keep the insurance you have if you like it? Why doesn't this proposal extend to all privately held health plans? Why is the federal worker being singled out? This is one more step closer to socialism, the government can now tell us who we have to get our health care from. How did what this bill was originally intended to do: to provide affordable health care for those who don't have it, become an attack on people who have health care? Fran Sams Posted November 18, 2009 6:26 AM
- The Feds screwed up FEPAC,they screwed the Firefighter Pay Bill, they screwed up the FEPHB HSA Plan. For us who worked 20,30+ years at 20% less wages, to earn our Health benefits, JUST how do we get ----- next ? Just make risk pools, get rid of pre existing conditions and mandate to the state DOI, or give vouchers and Tax credits to thoes who need it or put them on Medicare. Leave us allone. Stephen Schooley Posted October 30, 2009 7:44 PM
- “will Posted October 3, 2009 12:26 AM”, just got the word today. Evidently we’re not the only ones getting hikes. For those who compare our benefits to the military please note: “The Defense Department announced it has increased the daily hospital inpatient co-payment by $110 for retired service members, their family members and survivors covered by TRICARE Standard (under age 65) effective immediately. The TRICARE Standard inpatient co-payment for military retirees was $535 a day. The announced increase of $110 (to $645 a day) is more than a 20% jump. Unlike the previous three years, Congress has included no provisions prohibiting TRICARE fee increases in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2010, apparently also believing the Pentagon would follow the President’s lead. Final action on the 2010 NDAA is yet to be completed, so there is still a possibility that Congress could step in.” And y’all know the rest of the Tricare programs are probably not far behind... Tip off Posted October 5, 2009 1:15 PM
