GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Model for Health Coverage

• 53921
  

  To open up FEHB to the public would destroy the plan Federal Employee's work for. It would become a political football..Costs to support the welfare entitlement for the public would soar.I as a retiree would not be able to afford my coverage.. In essence I would have worked for 30 years for nothing. All Federal Employees and Retiree's best contact their congressional Reps, not the Union its in bed with Obama..

  william Liddle Posted July 10, 2008 10:43 PM
• 24322
  

  The Federal employee program has a very high average age in its membership. Including the general population in the plan would help bring the average age down adn could help the plans in the FEHBP significantly.

  By having insurance companies compete in this market, as they do today, would provide the competitive pressures necessary to control costs. This would be a great deal for everyone.

  Doug Posted May 29, 2007 10:43 AM
• 24171
  

  I'm worried that the government would be forced to cut benefits even further in order to control costs on the larger program. I also have another concern. Currently my FEHB coverage is widely accepted by almost all providers. Once the FEHB program is seen as the "Welfare Plan" of insurance coverage and payments to providers are cut to control costs, will federal employees lose access to providers? Think it can't happen? Look how many providers do not accept or limit Medicare and/or Medicaid patients.

  Jack Posted May 25, 2007 9:19 AM
• 24166
  

  In my state the feds are the worst of city and state employees. Any fed whose spouse works for the state or cities skips FEHB. State of CT is no preminum charge for employee and miniscule for spouse --- and their drug co-pays are $10!!!! I am paying $25 to $35 for mine with ConniCare.

  And for the first time a couple of years ago, I got a deductible for an inpatient hospital stay!

  George Sincavage Posted May 25, 2007 8:21 AM
• 24116
  

  For "self and family" high option I pay $347 monthly and the Gov. pays $697!! That's a total of $1044 per month, between me and the Government, for the premiums. This is for just myself and my husband. I can't see that it's "that" great of a deal, either, because the coverage has declined so much in the last 10 years. In fact the coverage is now down to the level that used to be called "standard" option, even though over the last 12 years the cost has more than tripled. This year alone my "wonderful federal insurance" premiums went up 49%!!

  There is no way a low income person could afford this, heck I am a GS-11 and it's almost too costly for me. Nor can most small "mom and pop" businesses afford to pay $697 a month. So if the Gov is going to step in and pay part of that $697 a month, AND on top of it, subsidize the low-wage employee's $347, that is a huge burden on the taxpayers.... not to mention patently unfair to all the federal employees who have been paying their share of their premiums without extra assistance, throughout their careers.

  We have the benefits we have because we actually work for the government. The government needs new employees, so if someone wants the great benefits, let them come to work for the Government, but not sit and whine because they don't have what we have. This is not an entitlement program, we actually work for it. Anyway, State, Local, & public school employees, etc....... in my State, they have far better health coverage and benefits at a lower cost, than Federal employees do.

  Something like Medicaid and Medicare would be a better idea.

  Sandra Posted May 24, 2007 11:59 AM
• 24105
  

  One of the benefits of working for the federal government is the health benefits program. If FEHBP is opened to everyone, why work for the government? Plus, the cost of premiums for the federal employee will rise dramatically. Why don't the "candidates" suggest a Medicare-like program, but with premiums based on family income and size? Leave FEHBP for only the actual federal employees.

  JoAnn Posted May 24, 2007 10:51 AM
• 24088
  

  I agree with Dot. I think the premiums the employees have to pay are too high. Also having to pay for dental/vision is another burden. I'm a single parent and having to dish out almost $100 bi-weekly as a GS4 just doesn't cut it. Another thing I would like to see is an employee with 1 dependent like the dental offers; maybe the premium would be cheaper. Why should I be paying for an entire family when it's just me and my daughter?

  Daryl Posted May 24, 2007 9:29 AM
• 24080
  

  It would be interesting to have a follow-up on the costs of the health plans. The FEHBP is not cheap. Most of the uninsured are so due to cost considerations - the employer cannot afford it, and the individual cannot afford it. What makes anyone think that a plan aimed at those who are employed with high rates of pay (the overwhelming majority of Federal employess and retirees) will serve the needs of those with lower incomes? If the uninsured were employed with high wages they most likely would not be uninsured.

  Laszlo Posted May 24, 2007 9:12 AM
• 24075
  

  Currently the premiums for insurance vary from agency to agency. For instance, Postal workers pay less than DOD employees. I don't know how the cost is determined but couldn't the private sector be rated as a separate agency and not affect the rest of us?

  Susan Arnett Posted May 24, 2007 8:41 AM
• 24064
  

  As a 25+ year CSRS FED, I believe the FEHBP is a great model. The program seeks insurers to particpate, the employer (Uncle Sam) subsidizes the program, participants pick there coverage and pay the premium based on that choice and get to manage their health care self-education and through "Open Season". Coming from 20 years with DOD in the medical care arena, I believed the military beneficiary population should have been added to the FEHBP roles as a business efficiency. I do not believe that the entire population should be added to the roles. The management issues would degrade the program and place undo costs on the Federal participants. Use of the model and more large group, diverse coverage options and employers subsidy (in the form of a hiring benefit) to the plan should be the platform.

  Maribeth Love Posted May 24, 2007 7:49 AM
• 24059
  

  I am a Federal Employee. I have one of the least expensive plans, it costs about $85 per pay (bi-weekly) and the Gov't, my employer, kicks in about $285 per pay. So ... I can see a small business paying $285 and their worker paying $85, but I can't see the working poor or the self employeed coming up with the total $370 every other week, or about $750 per month.

  Or are they suggesting that the Gov't treat everyone like an employee and pay the $285 biweekly for the whole population and tack it onto our taxes?

  Ron Miller Posted May 24, 2007 7:14 AM
• 24048
  

  The FEHB is not the congressional plan. The cost to the employee for this insurance is greater that the cost of most corporate and state government plans, and the benefits from this plan are smaller than most corporate and state government plans. Quite frankly, I don't understand why the federal government doesn't offer its employees at least as good as what state government and corporations offer their employees.

  Dot Posted May 24, 2007 12:28 AM