Return to Article: Administration seeks to trim retiree health subsidies
-
41893
Many aspects of government work are stressful and anyone who has worked for them for 10 years is well aware of this. So far the government has this "give and take" program going. When you hire on they say, "this is what we will give you". When it is time to retire they say, "Sorry but this is what we are taking away, but thanks for working with us". After working for 20 years for the government I would think that someone in OPM would realize that some of us no longer need "family coverage". What ever happened to "self and spouse"? There is no more medium coverage offered. The insurance companies have all of the control. Instead of asking what the insurance companies can offer us, here's a new proposal, how about telling the insurance companies what we want and go from there. There are a lot of government employees,if they would get five (5) major companies (nationwide) to offer us what we want for all of the government employees at a reasonable amount, maybe we could get the coverage we want at a lower amount to both the government and the employee or retiree. Quit letting the insurance companies govern what we pay.
-
35623
Why doesn't the president give an Exec. Order to the Treasury to hold self-directed Health care accounts in special bonds, and then match the contributors 70% on the dollar ( same as they give to the Medical/Pharma Complex ). NOOOOOOO! that would be too easy and practical a solution for ya'll...............
-
30172
Now here is a proposal that should attract the best and the brightest to government service! Guess why the government has trouble recruiting competent people.
-
21084
"20 years", you say "Imagine giving ten years to the government only to learn that your employer lied to you and will steal your hard-earned benefits.", and I think of Enron. You talk of grandfathering "benefits you were promised" and I think about the "medical coverage for life" I was promised for serving a full career as a soldier.
Integrity, like "common courtesy", is no longer so common, particularly on an institutional level. As has been stated in the past, the government is merely a reflection of society; or is it the other way around? I'm not sure any more.
Regardless, I agree while also noting there's a lot of that going around.
Tip off
-
21077
Imagine giving ten years to the government only to learn that your employer lied to you and will steal your hard-earned benefits. If Bush wants to implement new pay and benefit plans, set them up for new hires only. Once hired, the benefits you were promised should be honored.
Why must we pay for Congressional pork and Bush's War?
-
21040
More assaults by the Civil Service Hate group, aka "The Bush Administration."
How many decades was the private sector the envy of Civil Service workers. Oh, but that was OK, uh huh. If you private sector guys want your better days of pensions and health care back, then fight the greedy CEOs with their 200-300 million dollar salaries/bonuses (approximately 100x the avg worker's salary).
Come on, you were protestors and rebels in the 60s, here's your chance to relive those days for a much better cause. Our SES equivalents aren't paid as generously, yet they seem to be able to perform as well. By the way, Boomer Bush, look at your own benefits and make a slice there; you're not earning your wage.
-
21037
Hey, retired Senior Special Agent - good to hear from you, and congratulations on your retirement! You've finally left this mess! Unlike the typical corporate merger that improves with time, ICE has only gotten worse, with no hopeful prospects for anything better on the horizon. No wonder, considering how flawed the merger of Customs and INS was in the first place, and remains, at least to those of us actually working for the legacy agencies, who know the subject best. Good luck to you, and keep writing!
-
21023
First off, if there are cuts they should affect all federal employees with less than 10 years. This would mean it would affect the big boys too (including Bush). Sure he'll be rolling in dough after he leaves office but this is one free ride he wouldn't get. By the way he is mighty lucky to have gotten into politics and had the old Bush name otherwise he'd still be a flunky with only dad's money.
As far as cuts to health care, I've always said let the ones who get the most, pay the most. This means two things:
First, presently no matter how much you make and which plan you select, the government pays say 30%. So if you make more and select the better plan it costs the government more money.
Solution: Have the government pay "X" amount to all employees each year which would save the government money and be fair to all.
Second, the government would limit selection to two plans (standard family and self only) with insurance companies placing bids on three-year contracts. The family plan would be limited to a family of four. Employees who decide to have more children would have to pay the additional cost for added members (government percentage would still apply) rather than all members having to absorb the cost. This would amount to savings to both the government and employees who are enrolled in the "self only" or "standard family plan". By the way, if Bush is so worried about saving money why isn't he pursuing issues e.g. Pension cuts to his buddies who are convicted of felonies?
-
21010
Once again this administration is trying to screw the Federal employee, this time a vulnerable class of Federal retirees.
Shame on you, Mr. President. Are retired members of Congress and Presidents going to face the same reduction in their health benefits too? Oh that's right, most retired members of Congress are millionaires as well as former presidents, even the ones incarcerated for corruption.
Its sad that I voted twice for this President and no doubt the administration needs to feed the Halliburton Contractors in Iraq with the money that should be set aside to supplement retirees with their Insurance Premiums.
That's the thanks we get from this administration for the many years of dedicated service to our country and its national security!
Shameful and disgraceful!
-
21006
Everyone jog your memories. If I am not mistaken, I believe this has come up before, like approximately four or five years ago. (Didn't go anywhere) I also believe that one of the proposals then would have reduced the government matching percentage for anyone who has less than a "full career". What was a "full career"? I believe it was suggested that anyone with less that 30 years of service would be subject to this cut. Somehow, 2% per year sticks in my mind. For instance, if you had 28 years of service the government would cover only 66% of the premium, a 2% per year or, in that example, a 4% reduction, etc. Can anyone verify this, or provide any details? If so, then there is definitely an argument that passing this could be a "foot in the door" and later it could be modified in any manner they choose, raising the years of service to 20. Or even more years of service. It definitely is a disincentive for anyone joining the government in mid-career.
-
21004
While I know that many non-federal jobs have graduated benefits typified by the MRA in civil service, I have to agree with "Michelle". This does seem to be a determent to post-retirement recruitment.
If you plan on recruiting those who just recently retired from one job, it doesn't help to give them abbreviated benefit plans in the one major area that they would be concerned with.
As Robert Heinlein said "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
Tip off
-
21002
I hope this gets squashed as soon as possible! On the surface it looks like a perfectly reasonable thing to propose, but if it gets through, then the next group to be affected will be those with, say, less than 20 years, then maybe, less than 25 years, then, well, we can do away with retirees altogether, then .... You get the picture. If this passes, it will signal the end of health insurance for not just retirees, but eventually everyone (except Congress and the President, of course) that works for the feds.
If they really want people to "select a second career" in government after they retire from private industry, they should look at health insurance as a recruitment tool, not just something they can cut.
-
20999
This is my understanding of the "subsidies" for health insurance paid by the government. The formula for government contribution to the health insurance cost for government workers is based on the cost of the highest plan. The government determines 50 percent of that plan cost and the same dollar amount is then paid toward the health insurance selected by each employee.
In proposing changes it is important to think several steps past the initial goal and what if possible outcomes in the near and long term future. People always react to change in the best way they see to deal with the change. This reaction may not be best for the country or the planned outcome.
-
20987
You cannot trust this guy at all! He lies, cheats and steals at will. Give them a 3 percent salary increase but reduce the health premium paid by government. Thus the overall raise for civil servants is likely to be zero in 2008 and maybe even negative for many! This guy is totally incompetent and sneaky. Get out of Iraq and stop sending them our money to rebuild the country. Pay for our people's pensions and health care. Increase the contribution to social security and Medicare and stop the flow to Iraq. It is no wonder that private industry sent this guy into politics to get rid of him.
-
20982
My initial impression was that this is a bad idea, because any cut in federal health care benefits is a matter of great concern to all federal employees. The only bright spot is that this proposal is limited to annuitants with fewer than 10 years of service, which means it would only affect a relatively small percentage of federal retirees and not those of us who chose to work for the federal government for a full career. If a choice must be made to cut somewhere in order to balance the budget, better here than cutting benefits for all current retirees, or those of us with longer federal service.
Of course, if this is just the first step in reducing benefits for all federal employees, then all bets are off!
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.